As reported by Guangzhou Daily, Lin Zhiyong, the chairman of a company that makes paper for various devices, told his workers that their year-end bonuses had been...
Clearly. I said likely, not “all”. Likely assumes situations in which that is not true which in this case is the exact thing you said. Thank you for reiterating.
Those are proposed ways which I spent all of 2 seconds thinking about. I’m not the CEO. No where do they talk about this. You are basis a position on an assumption that was not defined nor addressed. I don’t understand where this hallucination is coming from.
Life isn’t fair. It’s not a cop out. Exceptions can and need to be made.
So let’s just prevent all people in society from healthy activities because it discriminates. Let’s drag all of society down to the same playing field for fairness. Solid reasoning. You know what’s easier reasoning to reconcile. Exceptions to the rule.
Clearly. I said likely, not “all”. Likely assumes situations in which that is not true which in this case is the exact thing you said. Thank you for reiterating.
You still have it wrong. You can’t just show up and easily get disability benefits. And that statement still reinforces the lie that the disabled are lazy, when the disabled want to work. And that is only people that meet the definition of disabled. There are surely more people with physical limitations that don’t otherwise qualify as “disabled”.
No where do they talk about this.
They specifically say walking only gets 1:0.3 credit. How can you assume that is unpoliced when it is a specific policy? The logical assumption is that is IS policed since they took the time to give lesser credit to walking.
Life isn’t fair. It’s not a cop out. Exceptions can and need to be made.
And they have no exceptions. That is the point.
So let’s just prevent all people in society from healthy activities because it discriminates. Let’s drag all of society down to the same playing field for fairness. Solid reasoning. You know what’s easier reasoning to reconcile. Exceptions to the rule.
What a straw man. No one is preventing people from healthy activities.
Clearly. I said likely, not “all”. Likely assumes situations in which that is not true which in this case is the exact thing you said. Thank you for reiterating.
Those are proposed ways which I spent all of 2 seconds thinking about. I’m not the CEO. No where do they talk about this. You are basis a position on an assumption that was not defined nor addressed. I don’t understand where this hallucination is coming from.
Life isn’t fair. It’s not a cop out. Exceptions can and need to be made.
So let’s just prevent all people in society from healthy activities because it discriminates. Let’s drag all of society down to the same playing field for fairness. Solid reasoning. You know what’s easier reasoning to reconcile. Exceptions to the rule.
You still have it wrong. You can’t just show up and easily get disability benefits. And that statement still reinforces the lie that the disabled are lazy, when the disabled want to work. And that is only people that meet the definition of disabled. There are surely more people with physical limitations that don’t otherwise qualify as “disabled”.
They specifically say walking only gets 1:0.3 credit. How can you assume that is unpoliced when it is a specific policy? The logical assumption is that is IS policed since they took the time to give lesser credit to walking.
And they have no exceptions. That is the point.
What a straw man. No one is preventing people from healthy activities.