Last login: Tuesday, November 2, 2010
1. Eric kept saying that unions were bad and why they were bad. I agree, unions are broken and always have been, but just because I don't like things about them doesn't mean that they should be eliminated (which he implied they would be at least subdued if Prop A went through). I don't like my exams in college either, I certainly don't think that time testing and curves are fair, but that doesn't mean that we should just do away with them altogether. Unions and the problems they cause need to be replaced with something better or fixed within their own system of operation. Eliminating them takes away what is a necessary tool for smart employers and smart employees. Those who are taken advantage of aren't gaining anything by removing them. They'll still be taken advantage of one way or the other if unions ceased to exist.
It is primarily this reason that I make a decision on Prop A at all at this point and say that I will vote NO, since to me it doesn't seem that prop A is aimed at helping anyone, just removing something that bothers it's constituents without fixing the real problem, corruption.
2. Lorena also made a big mistake in her defense by saying that people aren't forced to join unions. When I was in high school I needed to get a job and the place that hired me with no training was Ralphs. I was forced to join their union or turn down their offer and risk not being employed at all. If there is some new law that passed since then that forces employers to give their workers the option, then you need to say that because I have yet to meet a single person with a different experience when it comes to unions. It might not say the word "forced" in the law, but I certainly had no other choice at the time and I'm not the only one.
October 14, 2010 at 10:42 a.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
I couldn't disagree with you more ep001.
First of all both individuals reverted to insults and fallacy which, if there was objective and informative talk, nonsense distracted me from noticing.
The first ball of mud that was slung was Eric's comment about never receiving an opposing view to debate until today. She's here now and he sounded grateful, but he then twisted his compliment into a negative point against his opposition. Eric, people lose out on getting formal debates together all the time. You should have stopped at the compliment and let us decide for ourselves if it's a point against her. The fact that she was there to debate you is a good thing, not a bad one so get to the real argument, and cut out snide comments.
Then there was Lorena's use of the word "huckster." Quite a more direct insult than Eric's. Each time you used it Lorena, I stopped listening because I'm here to listen to a debate that I get to make a decision on. If I want to hear people call each other names, I'd go to a rap battle.
There was also Eric's point about the voter's being treated as stupid by his opposition. She didn't say that, and if she did I'd say she had a good point. People are malleable in their opinions, by tactics just like that one, and I don't really appreciate it. The majority can be stupid and wrong. Just look at the history of any major religion, chances are most would agree with me that the overwhelming majority of religious views that are not their own are ridiculous, but the majority no matter how you view it believes in them. Also, it was American voters who voted, W. Bush, Johnson, and Nixon into office, each one of them a war criminal in their own right, so I don't wanna hear it.
After all is said and done and listening to the whole thing, I still don't know what's good or bad about PLA's. Two flaws in both arguments stood out to me the most.
© 2015 KPBS Public Broadcasting