came to this thread exactly to make fun of this “fully-rounded labour exploiter”
So you’re asserting that he exploited labour. Presumably in a way that is beyond the labour exploitation inherent in capitalism. Further up the page, in a different thread, you also said:
If some of these 35 visa dependent worked for more than 9 years, I am pretty sure he was there when they were exploited to work there. There’s no indication that these workers have less than a 5 year tenure.
Ok, so it sounds to me like you’re asserting that he exploited them. How, exactly? Are you claiming the act of being employed on a foreign worker visa is itself exploitation? Because genuinely, unless the answer to that question is “yes”, I cannot understand what the basis of your claim is. And I think that’s probably the problem @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca is having, too.
Strawman is arguing against a different argument than the one you are presenting.
I’m saying you’re not presenting an argument at all.
Cool. My argument is Dan Houser exploited employees when he worked at RGS.
That’s a statement, not an argument. If you’re going to start citing fallacies then I’m going to start expecting properly formed arguments.
That statement seems to be based exclusively on him being a union buster, despite the union busting happening 5 years after he left.
Reread my first post.
Ok, I did. It said:
So you’re asserting that he exploited labour. Presumably in a way that is beyond the labour exploitation inherent in capitalism. Further up the page, in a different thread, you also said:
Ok, so it sounds to me like you’re asserting that he exploited them. How, exactly? Are you claiming the act of being employed on a foreign worker visa is itself exploitation? Because genuinely, unless the answer to that question is “yes”, I cannot understand what the basis of your claim is. And I think that’s probably the problem @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca is having, too.
That’s neither a statement nor an argument, and is complete nonsense.