|
|
|
|
|
|
by methodover
4593 days ago
|
|
|
He makes an explicit case for both (1) and (2). He doesn't try and merely imply (2). Also, a transparent trade can still be exploitive. If I were to advertise for a slave, that would be an advertisement for an exploitive "offer." The real question is if this offer, in particular, is exploitive or not. I think he makes a solid case that it is. |
|
|
You read wrong. tvladek did not say Buecheler implied anything, only that being correct about one thing does not imply being correct about another.
And if you advertised for a slave you would presumably be dealing with the owner of said slave, so if you were offering a reasonable price, then no that would not be an exploitative offer.
Khoo's job posting offers value and leaves it up to the applicant to decide if that is inline with their requirements. For some it will be a dream job. For others it will not.
Slaves do not choose to be slaves, that is part of the definition of the term. The introduction of hyperbole and apples to oranges comparisons does not further conversation.