Text 44119, 166 rader
Skriven 2006-12-16 13:36:32 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 44093 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Insults
===============
16 Dec 06 00:15, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV> Hello Roy!

 MvdV> On Thursday December 14 2006 13:51, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>>>>> You expect others to respect *your* culture by

 RW>>>> Wouldn't there have to be mutual respect for there to be any
 RW>>>> respect at all?

 MvdV>>> Absolutely. You get what you give. And since giving does not
 MvdV>>> seem to be high on your culture's list of priorities, you can't
 MvdV>>> expect to get much in return.

 RW>> And vice versa.

 MvdV> The premise of symetry is not fulfilled. Your culture scores lower
 MvdV> on giving than others.

LOL! Now that's the biggest crock of shit I've seen in a long time.


 RW>>>> IOW, they'd  have to respect the idea that I employ someone to

 MvdV>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If they demand respect for their culture, they have to also respect mine.
Fair is fair.

 RW>>>> do housework so that I can have time with my wife when she gets
 RW>>>> off work.

 MvdV>>> They would respect it more if you just did the dirty work
 MvdV>>> yourself while your wife is out working.

 RW>> I see, they don't respect others for having, but demand respect for
 RW>> their culture.

 MvdV> The only one making demands here is you. See above: "they'd *have*
 MvdV> to respect..

They demand that I respect theirs. Fair is fair.

 RW>> So, we don't have the right to employ somebody without their
 RW>> approval?

 MvdV> It is not a matter of rights. The right you have. It is just that
 MvdV> executing that right does not get you any Brownie points on
 MvdV> respect.

Like I said, I don't want their respect without respect in return.

 MvdV>>>>> but when it comes to respecting other cultures you could not
 MvdV>>>>> care less.

 RW>>>> I should have to care about a culture that doesn't respect mine?

 MvdV> In order to receive you have to give first....

I'll give when they do.

 RW>>>> either way, I provide society with a service by employing somene
 RW>>>> who would be living on welfare or unemployment compensation.

 MvdV>>> You don't provide a service to society, you provide a service
 MvdV>>> to yourself. You help perpetuate a situation of gross
 MvdV>>> inequality.

 RW>> Who says that a cleaning lady is unequal to my status, other than
 RW>> she is employed by me.

 MvdV> Can the cleaning lady afford to have her own cleaning lady?

Most cleaning ladies do more than one home. Mine did her work here in a
couple of hours and then went to someone else's house to do theirs. She
probably went to several more that day before she went home. The next day,
she cleans some different houses and it goes like that Monday through
Friday. During one of those days, her cleaning lady drops in and cleans
her house or the baby sitter has it done each day before she returns from
cleaning homes. Either way, there's no disparity between her and those she
cleans houses for.

 MvdV> If the answer to that is anything other than an uncoditional "yes",
 MvdV> there obviously is an unequality.

 RW>> Where is the difference if she were the custodian of a school, for
 RW>> instance? She's still cleaing and being paid for it.

 MvdV> There is no difference.

Then she's not any less of a person than those she cleans houses for.

 MvdV> Point is that nobody accepts a job as a cleaner unless he/she has
 MvdV> no choice. Would you wife change het job with that of your cleaning
 MvdV> lady?

With her skills, she doesn't have to take employment less than what she
does now. English teachers are almost as much in demand as cleaning
ladies.

 RW>>>> Not to mention that the employed person has the self esteem of
 RW>>>> knowing that she's not a burden to society and is providing for
 RW>>>> her own welfare.

 MvdV>>> Bullshit again. There is no self estime to be gained from
 MvdV>>> having no choice

Equine excrement, she is above being on welfare. Even some people are
proud to be on welfare, as their forbearers were and theirs before them,
ad infinity.

 RW>> Ahhh, but she does have a choice and has taken the opportunity to
 RW>> move on. She's free to come and go as she pleases and for all you
 RW>> know, likes what she does for a living.

 MvdV> I don't believe that.

Ever heard of cliche' -  "whistle while you work" ? It means you'r happy
in what you do. She's always singing while doing here work.

 RW>>  She's no less of a person for it.

 MvdV> In that case your wife would have no problem swapping jobs with
 MvdV> her?

I can't speak for her, but I'd bet that she could do just as well at it as
the cleaning lady, if she had to.

 MvdV>>> but to do the dirty work for others who are not willing to
 MvdV>>> do it themselves.

 RW>> So, you've never had your dirty clothes washed by your wife?

 MvdV> Both my wifes have cleaned my clothes when I lived with them.

Then they were the cleaning lady...just didn't get paid for it.

 RW>> Did she keep your house clean?

 MvdV> *Our* house. Yes they did that. On occasion..

So you're saying that she was either lazy and didn't keep it immaculate or
she had a cleaning lady?  Or she made the kids do it?

 RW>> If so, then she was just as much a servant to you, yet she wasn't
 RW>> paid to do it.

 MvdV> No, it was not a master/servant relationship and there was no
 MvdV> payment as it was an equal status relationship. We took turns at
 MvdV> doing the chores.

Was she employed outside of your home?

 MvdV> And it is the same with my present compagnion of life. We take an
 MvdV> equal share in doing the dirty work.

Can't afford a cleaning lady, eh...

               R\%/itt




--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)