In short, if their is no direct financial benefit to me as a business owner, why would I employ anyone? If I wanted to work in the charity sector, why am I running a small business? Also, running a business is risky. How many great businesses died because of the financial crisis?
-
-
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
You shouldn’t. The operation of a business should not be the responsibility of some owner. And charities are not businesses. (At least in theory) Speaking of which, you know what systems caused the financial crisis, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
Why shouldn't it be the responsibility of the owner. If you come up with a great business idea, sacrifice your time and money to build that business, why shouldn't you benefit from it? If you study for s degree, should I be able to just take it from you and say it is mine?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
There’s no reason for there to BE an owner. If you sacrifice your time and resources, that’s work, and you should be compensated for your work, but that’d just be the work of a “director,” if you insist on a leadership role.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @simon_enefer and
There’s no reason your compensation involves control over everybody who’s “realizing your vision.” The degree analogy doesn’t make sense, bc I’m not suggesting taking anything people legitimately worked for, and the work of getting a degree actually changes a person.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OhNoIts2016 @KEEMSTAR and
It should do - getting a degree that is - but the post-modernism taught as part of so many subjects is a barrier not an aid to success. Study a STEM subject, at least it will teach scientific method. Which works!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
What do you mean by “post-modernism”? How can postmodernism be a barrier OR an aid to success?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
Post-modernisms refutation of objective truth/fact is to reject thousands of years of painful development of human thought and the basis of science. I can reject the theory of gravity, but it wont stop a 1000m fall killing me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simon_enefer @KEEMSTAR and
You can believe every single element of current scientific consensus without calling it “objective truth.” I mean, that’s kind of the idea behind scientific theories anyway. They’re just the most fitting narratives.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mediocre_danny @KEEMSTAR and
How? This is the irrationality of PC theory. Nature , reality the universe, whatever you want to call it, doesn't care if you think something is unfair! The philosophy literally teaches its adherents how not to think.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
By recognizing that our scientific understanding of the world is as close to objective as we can currently manage, but no matters in science are ever settled. “PC theory(?)” has 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 to do with postmodernism. And why should I care what nature “thinks” about fairness?
-
-
Replying to @mediocre_danny @simon_enefer and
Nature doesn’t “think” man can fly, but here we are with like 15 types of flying machine
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 13 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.