![]() |
||
Advance Member
![]() ![]() 加入日期: Apr 2004 您的住址: 楓葉國
文章: 316
|
引用:
加幣∼ 他們薪水已經這麼高了,上次竟然還罷工說工作時間排序問題以及加薪。罷工時才披露出他們薪水(之前都猜測約五∼六萬),才整個被全市的人幹到爆∼結果罷工罷了一個半月,最後因為歐巴馬要來,總不成全市隨時都在塞車(因為被逼的要開車)而和工會達成協議... 當時我的經濟學教授就在感嘆來讀大學一點意義都沒有,當了教授薪水不到開公車的一半!他告訴我們要是還要堅持讀下去,是為了理想,不是為了賺錢。要賺錢去開公車... (整個很酸 Orz)只是開公車而已,薪水竟然跟救火員差不多... 救火員還可以說有在保護市民,這邊公車只會整天超速開快車辱罵乘客亂按喇叭 ![]() 之前朋友在某國際知名的 P 開頭會計公司上班。當然∼什麼證照都還沒考,大學剛畢業而已∼薪水比公司的保安人員更低... ![]() 白領階級薪水開始降低,是因為太多人有大學學歷,大家都想吹冷氣(暖氣)坐辦公室,所以沒有人太多人去找藍領。藍領工作當場需求增高... 這邊倒垃圾的薪水也在五∼六萬左右,競爭激烈呀... 倒垃圾的薪水比老師高 ![]() 這一切都要努力一段時間後才有辦法開始慢慢跟藍領平起平坐。當然,順利的話就可以遠遠超越藍領最高有辦法拿的薪水了... 之前一個朋友當上 CTO... 年薪二十五萬... 這種薪水就完全不可能藍領有機會拿到。即使是森林救火員也頂多到二十萬而已∼而且森林救火員實在太危險了,體能要求也要高∼當年高中畢業後有想去申請,結果在體能上背 30kg(還是 50 忘記了)沙袋在一定時間內跑 100 公尺被刷掉... ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
*停權中*
加入日期: Aug 2010
文章: 0
|
引用:
You can't "counter" an opinion; you can only offer a different one, thus your perspective wasn't a proof but merely another one. One can still come to the conclusion that selling sex is wrong despite having considered all things. Other factors only help you understand why some people may take this route, they don't justify the action. 引用:
There actually isn't any conflict, what makes it golden is because the value is based on each his own, not others. If these Harvard undergrads don't want their daughters or moms exchanging sex for money, it means, based on their own value, that they disapprove it as a way to make money. While you may be against because of the risk vs rewards, I assure you, that is not what most people base on when they are against relatives using prostitution as a legitimate of making money, Asians or Caucasians. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
Junior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() 加入日期: Dec 2004
文章: 864
|
有一些人老愛放一招大絕
什麼如果你媽你老婆你姐妹去賣***的話怎麼樣 這個問題其實非常可笑 不如反問自己 為什麼她們會有動機去賣***? 這動機是什麼? 為什麼有我在她們仍然有此動機? 當這個動機一旦形成 下不下賤高不高尚沒有意義 這個問題是典型的大男人主義才會問的問題 一提到賣***立刻想起身邊女性可能淪陷 完全證明這種人對身邊女性的人格毫無信心 但 如果真是個表裡如一的大男人就不會讓自己有思考這個問題的機會 所以問這個問題一方面暴露了提問者的大男人主義心態 另一方面又暴露了此種心態者極端害怕其能力不足以控制身邊女性的焦慮 是一個非常愚蠢又好笑的問題 |
![]() |
![]() |
Junior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() 加入日期: Apr 2003 您的住址: The HUB
文章: 813
|
引用:
嗯, 果真還比美金還高一點 ![]() 以前還覺得多倫多是全世界最愛罷工的地方... ![]() 米國大學問題真的不是一天兩天說的完的事情 要歸納資本主義不見得正確 總之學貸+校友捐款+體育機構之間的畸形金錢遊戲是世界獨一無二的 此文章於 2011-08-19 01:36 AM 被 JPMontoya 編輯. 原因: 錯字 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
*停權中*
加入日期: Aug 2000 您的住址: Taipei, Taiwan
文章: 295
|
用中文說英語實在很難讓人看懂。
|
![]() |
![]() |
*停權中*
加入日期: Mar 2002
文章: 733
|
引用:
男人主動想要的,當然就不會計較這種事 ![]() 但是大部分社會情況還是會有相當程度的禮教要求。 武則天就更別提了,男皇帝有後宮,女皇帝也有自是順理成章 而且若真會怕人議論,她就不會竄位了..... ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Advance Member
![]() ![]() 加入日期: Apr 2004 您的住址: 楓葉國
文章: 316
|
引用:
Yes, I'll buy your theory on opinion of which it is not counter-able. Yes, my perspective is just another one. However, the golden rule is still in conflict here. You are right on the value is based on each of his own, but you're missing out that the action is not! Golden rule is not just about self value, but also the way to treat others from this value. If the giver and the receiver does not share the same value, how do you justify as no conflict at all? Since non of the forum member here is that Harvard girl, logically non of us can implement their golden rule to her toward her child and use it as an argument. This ideology is hypothetical imperative. Same deal here, I shouldn't use it to promote sex work is correct, which I didn't. You guys who oppose sex work should also not to promote your thought through golden rule. Also, wether or not people give a shxt about sex work depend on different states. Some states are more conservative than the others due to tradition, religion, and education. European states usually care less than United States. Hack even one of my professor is a sex worker! She said it in the first day of the class. Nobody gives a shxt about it. She is a good prof and we all like her. What does it have anything to do with her secondary job? Or maybe I'll get an A+ if I pay her a visit... ... damn... lol |
|
![]() |
![]() |