Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 18:16:21 GMT -5
Gentlemen do not do "jobs" anyway. Some of them may go into diplomacy, or the Church. So none of this matters. It's all a fraud. Who benefits?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 16, 2017 2:02:06 GMT -5
Gentlemen do not do "jobs" anyway. Some of them may go into diplomacy, or the Church. So none of this matters. It's all a fraud. Who benefits? The world of work is made up of men and women of all kinds and ages; the suggestion that some of these people nevertheless do not do "jobs" is therefore by definition and beyond doubt well wide of the mark. Some men and women do indeed go into diplomacy or the Church, but what they do in each is work! There's plenty of fraud around wherever one looks, inside and outside the workplace. To question whether anyone benefits from the work that people do borders on the absurd. Kleines c's reference to driving around Europe reminds me that a friend happens to be taking his car in for service this morning; that servicing would not be undertaken unless someone did some work! The likelihood that more of the kind of work that can only be described as drudgery will gradually disappear thanks to technological developments is beyond argument, but that does not mean that all work will or should cease! If it did, nothing would ever get done. Even robots, driverless vehicles and such like have to be programmed with instructions and are not immune to the need for service from time to time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 11:30:49 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, ahinton: Even if it could be automated, I still like to drive, at least around Europe! OK, but I'm not sure that a large part of all of this really matters. Personally, I hate to drive but happen also to have a visual impediment that prevents me from being able doing so in any case; ultimately, though, to what extent does or can this actually matter? I suppose that you can always walk or ask someone else to transport you, ahinton, so it may not matter at all. If I may also address your question directly, Sydney: Gentlemen do not do "jobs" anyway. Some of them may go into diplomacy, or the Church. So none of this matters. It's all a fraud. Who benefits? I still do a lot of jobs, Sydney, so if you need or want something done, you can ask me, and I shall try and sort it out for you! Who benefits? Well, you benefit of course. Otherwise, nothing gets done! Of course, this means that I am no gentleman, which is probably true, but at least you benefit from a job well done!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 16, 2017 11:48:38 GMT -5
Gentlemen do not do "jobs" anyway. Some of them may go into diplomacy, or the Church. So none of this matters. It's all a fraud. Who benefits? I still do a lot of jobs, Sydney, so if you need or want something done, you can ask me, and I shall try and sort it out for you! Who benefits? Well, you benefit of course. Otherwise, nothing gets done! Of course, this means that I am no gentleman, which is probably true, but at least you benefit from a job well done! Indeed; this was the point that I sought myself to make. Whilst automation, computerisation, robotisation and the like will undoubtedly remove certain jobs from the marketplace by making them redundant, it will also create different kinds of jobs. What I most fail to understand is Sydney's apparent assumption that work need not be done (although he seems for some unknown and perhaps unknowable reason or none to make some kind of exception for the diplomatic service and the Church, which each require work from their employees just as do any other kinds of office).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 19:52:06 GMT -5
What I most fail to understand is Sydney's apparent assumption that work need not be done . . . What I most fail to understand is our member's apparent assumption that work need be done. I myself make no "assumptions"; I simply invoke the iron principles of human dignity and freedom, against which he is willing happily and slavishly to offend.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Feb 17, 2017 0:05:54 GMT -5
What I most fail to understand is Sydney's apparent assumption that work need not be done . . . What I most fail to understand is our member's apparent assumption that work need be done. I myself make no "assumptions"; I simply invoke the iron principles of human dignity and freedom, against which he is willing happily and slavishly to offend. Perhaps your failure in understanding here is down to the fact that, for starters, it's not an "assumption" on my part alone but a "fact" recognised by most people. Whatever these "iron principles" might be (and they might be rustier in some people and areas of life than in others), work need neither conflict nor be incompatible with them, especially such work as is done with pleasure. If the work that I do, the fact of my doing it and the principles that underpin my undertaking of it "offend", so be it, although it is not done for such a purpose or with such an intent; moreover, there's nothing "slavish" about it, since I do what I do because I want to and have in any case been self-employed throughout my working life (as are tens of millions of other people worldwide) and so am effectively running my own business rather than being given things to do by an employer.
|
|