News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Refusal to recognize the rise of independent contractors ... by ZoF on Saturday October 08, 2016 @11:35PM (#12669779)
It wasn't my arguement. Care to clarify which argument you're attributing to me?

>The point is that either you need a new argument, or you actually believe all of those things.

No. I can't find one arguement in the thread above that requires 'believing all these things'

-children being able to work in mines(appeal to emotion) is tangentially related we aren't even discussing child labor here.

-fast food workers should absolutely be able to work for minimum wage, I did. Should it be raised? I think so, but again this is a tangentially related appeal to emotion.(seriously what did you mean with this one other than 'feel bad for poor people'? How is minimum wage relevant in this context?)

-Employees should be able to sign off on all employment rights?

Look a relevant point, and generally I agree they shouldn't be able to.

Can you please clarify exactly how this arguement of mine can be used to show the three things you've outlined?

Edit: The funny thing is I don't even disagree with you or the grandparent on the underlying issue here, I just find this constant strawman bullshit so grating.

Re:Refusal to recognize the rise of independent contractors ... by thedufer on Sunday October 09, 2016 @06:38PM (#12673959)
Apologies for confusing you with brightball; I didn't notice that you jumped in after the back-and-forth.

The entire argument put forth was that the government can't annul a contract agreed upon by both parties (even if it is illegal under current law). Which is how pretty much all labor laws. It is a completely generic argument. Once we admit that there are exceptions (oh, but children can't form a contract!), the generic argument has been thrown away.