Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
Alright, so here seems to be a new disconnect between yourself and other people when it comes to debating, mainly that you base arguments around how you define words, and not how everyone else does. This makes it incredibly difficult to care about continuing the debate with you. For instance (I'll go sentence by sentence to illustrate):



Okay, this makes plenty of sense.

Alright, so you're not questioning/debating that an employee must meet/agree to certain terms in order to get a job.

Uhh, wouldn't joining the union as a requirement to holding a certain job, be having to agree to a term in order to get a job?

Can you hold the job without joining the union? No? Then its a condition or term of holding that job. Which you are questioning, even though you said you weren't. Why is this so difficult? You're questioning why being required to be in a union is a term/condition of employment for certain jobs. It can be debated like any other term or condition. It is not special or different because you think it is. I tire of this crap from Lewk, in regards to "freedom", "liberals", and a slew of other words he feels can be used to mean whatever he wants, I'm certainly not going to deal with it from a second person. I especially don't want to have to inquire as to how words and ideas are defined in the Dreadnaught Dictionary in order to discuss things with one person, simply because of a slanted viewpoint affecting language usage.
I'm not sure I see the disconnect here. Not all terms or employment agreements are created equal, right? What he's saying isn't exactly rocket science, and it's not the semantic jungle you seem to think it is.