Mike

With regard to the specific boss and the particular business mentioned in the article, I'm curious. 18 employees and 7 more who quit (if I understood correctly) is a pretty big hit to a small business with contracts to fulfill--that being the reason I think was given for terminating the 18. So what happened with the work that one day's absence of 18 workers disrupted so badly, I wonder? Were any contracts actually unfulfilled leading to significant hardship? And what about the expense of finding, hiring, and training replacements for so many important positions? Was this a one-time-first-time incident as some employees may want the public to perceive, or was there more to it? If it's true, as the report indicated, that the company regrets the incident and supports the immigrant community does this speak to any other issues worthy of our consideration?

I wish there were a way to know if this is true. I find myself wondering if I should believe in the common sense that everybody for thousands of years has been saying it; or should I believe the common sense that indicates there are more "bad" people than there were a thousand years ago and correspondingly more "good" people to go along with them than there were a thousand years ago? I suppose we could both provide plenty of "small-sampling" data and "personal-anecdotal" evidence for either opinion. We could believe the prophets of doom in our own church(es) or we could believe the prophets of optimism in our own church(es).

That's part of my point. They are *not* willing to accept pictures. You and I can say that's unreasonable of them, because you and I do accept the pictures. But they have their reasons--which to them are valid reasons. Oh, and the elephant? Well, you see I'm blind (so to speak) so I want to touch every last part, especially the parts the other blind guys have been touching and describing--if you get my drift. Just to elaborate a bit. We, as Americans, are secure in our convictions that the U.S.S.R. employed elaborate (although at times clumsy) techniques to falsify photographs to convince the masses of this or that claim. That being the case, and we having access to far more effective techniques today, oh and of course knowing that we "can't trust the Feds", it's shouldn't be difficult to understand my flat-Earth friends' rejection of pictures of a circle with clouds painted on it as evidence we live on a sphere. I (and probably you, too) don't have access to what I need to replicate (all of) the astronauts' experiments and thereby validate their claims of what Earth really looks like from the Moon, etc, for the sake of gathering common empirical evidence. So, I freely confess that I'm not as empirical as I'd like to believe--I take an awful lot on faith and appeal to authority.

Moreover, maybe I should say that insofar as I'm aware an immigrant has never ever ever "stolen" a job from me.

No. I'm not saying they don't want jobs. No, I'm not saying that if I didn't have a job I wouldn't want one. The same way I can say I'm really really hungry, but I don't want to eat _______.

Of course, but that wasn't what @anatess2 mentioned. She talked about "wanting" not being desperate. (Hidden in my remark was a sentiment of solidarity with the sometimes hard and even harsh work that immigrants perform. I've done some of it, and I learned young that I didn't want to do it for a career. That doesn't mean I am unsympathetic.)

I understand and even agree with much of the concept about the work immigrants do in this country. Unfortunately they didn't consult me first. I would have told them to consider the risks vs. the benefits--and the wisdom (?)--of what they'd planned for the next business day .

95 million less one. I wouldn't want to take their jobs.

I hope you won't judge me as being impertinent, but only interested in discussion and striving to examine every part of the elephant so to speak. In that spirit I feel almost compelled to stand for a minute or two next to some of my flat-Earth friends (with whom I do *not* agree by the way but do empathize). Some people who preach from the pulpit of Science will claim common empirical evidence that they have never experienced for themselves and in reality are utterly incapable of experiencing or replicating--although they won't always confess that reality. Some of these same people will fight to the death denying that they accept the scientific explanations on anything like faith.

I would agree if you had said "some" or even "many" will amend their understanding when there is empirical evidence, but many others will hold to their beliefs and opinions without regard to evidence even unto death, and it doesn't have to be just religion and politics. I am interested in talking more with you about why you find it mysterious that some people would behave as you describe. After all, my friend, religion is not empirical. By it's nature it is a matter of raising one's beliefs to the same level as evidence, or at least calling them evidence. Religion on this particular planet has pretty much been about believing because someone in a position of authority said to believe. History is replete with examples. Let's stipulate that (just about anyone's) God is by definition higher than me in every respect. While it is reasonable for people to try to understand God, Is it unreasonable for most to ascribe motives like testing? (The scriptures don't seem to indicate that it is unreasonable). Moreover I would answer your question regarding observation and understanding by referring to scientific endeavors themselves throughout history. It is a hallmark of science that conclusions be drawn from observations (and experimentation of course) and later on revised because further observation reveals that the hypotheses didn't take everything in to account for the evidence. In short, we will always see through a glass darkly as far as science is concerned--in that manner it is not completely dissimilar to religion. And God (with religion) doesn't appear to be obligated to reveal everything we'd like when we would like it. Let's talk more.

I make it a point not to date women with bionic stamina anymore.

Then I suppose I'd better not talk about music anymore lest I make it obvious how painfully ancient I really am, hahaha. (When I referred to myself as "young" I was already in my thirties.) Kidding

I enjoyed listening to The Doors when I was young. I've thought of those lyrics from time-to-time, but I haven't heard anyone else quote them for ages.

Seems like your approach is a good one.

Right. Of course in terms of raw numbers there are more of every kind of persons being discussed on this thread. But there are more of *every* kind of person, period (if you take my meaning).

That being the case I wonder if you can say what makes you feel that gender identity problems arose out of a societal breakdown in morals and family at some time in the last 200 years?

I don't apprehend your point. ??

Oops

It's not true.

Now, that's an opinion I can drink to. (As long as we're drinking milk, right?)

I don't know how we could know this is true.

Never could get used to wearing a skirt. (Maybe it's a seasonal thing. Spring is two nice to stand still in a dress, my legs sweat in Summer, and dresses are hard to hike in, Autumn is two windy, and Winter is too darned cold.)

I can relate. And I admire you based upon what you write here.

Hahaha, to be sure. So it would seem that one person's fanaticism is directly proportional to the degree that his or her behavior annoys us.