Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 9580671" data-attributes="member: 7026617">No, it absolutely does.&nbsp; Remember the context of that line was about someone who wanted to enlist--as was their right--if they were severely physically impaired.&nbsp; It was an example of the fact that they absolutely did not turn people away.&nbsp; It was basically an indication they'd find some job for you, even if it was busy-work.&nbsp; Because while everyone had a right to enlist--and thus get franchise--no one was supposed to get a free pass.Because it was an example of an extreme case--one where even office work would have been difficult and pointless--and thus hyperbole.That might very well be--the point was that the job was supposed to be a sacrifice for the person in one fashion or another.&nbsp; Whether it always was is another question and one more about failures of execution in any process than what the intention of the process is.Remember, they really did consider it an intention for you to go in with no certainty you were going to get a job of the sort you'd prefer--and one of the factors were what jobs they needed done.&nbsp; Since they did use a military and a large one, some of those jobs were going to be dangerous and/or unpleasant, and that was considered a virtue of how it worked, because the whole point was to make people do something that required a commitment of some&nbsp; stripe to win franchise.&nbsp; It was just a question of what form that took.&nbsp; It might be, in the case of someone who had some useful skills, it'd just be working at a normal job while living in a dorm and making a tenth of what you could in the civilian market.&nbsp; But it was at least not intended to be a desirable choice for most people, one way or another.I don't think it does, and I've explained why.Do I have to note the example early in the book that indicates that, at least by the standard of the time, he was not automatically ableist?&nbsp; Admittedly, its an injured veteran, but he's still right there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 9580671, member: 7026617"] No, it absolutely does. Remember the context of that line was about someone who wanted to enlist--as was their right--if they were severely physically impaired. It was an example of the fact that they absolutely did not turn people away. It was basically an indication they'd find [I]some[/I] job for you, even if it was busy-work. Because while everyone had a right to enlist--and thus get franchise--no one was supposed to get a free pass. Because it was an example of an extreme case--one where even office work would have been difficult and pointless--and thus hyperbole. That might very well be--the point was that the job was supposed to be a sacrifice for the person in one fashion or another. Whether it always was is another question and one more about failures of execution in any process than what the intention of the process is. Remember, they really did consider it an intention for you to go in with no certainty you were going to get a job of the sort you'd prefer--and one of the factors were what jobs they needed done. Since they did use a military and a large one, some of those jobs were going to be dangerous and/or unpleasant, and that was considered a virtue of how it worked, because the whole point was to make people do something that required a [I]commitment[/I] of some stripe to win franchise. It was just a question of what form that took. It might be, in the case of someone who had some useful skills, it'd just be working at a normal job while living in a dorm and making a tenth of what you could in the civilian market. But it was at least not i[I]ntended[/I] to be a desirable choice for most people, one way or another. I don't think it does, and I've explained why. Do I have to note the example early in the book that indicates that, at least by the standard of the time, he was not automatically ableist? Admittedly, its an injured veteran, but he's still right [I]there[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification