J: I wasn't trying to be rude or presumptous.Qx: OK. But that's what I thought.
J: My thoughts are that how would you know what I or anyone else has been through in our work experiences if you have never experienced the same type of work.
Qx: Actually, I have worked in the fastfood industry and worked at Whataburger, Burger King, McDonald's plus a number of small independent restaurants that aren't necessarily fastfood per se. I was motivated to study the industry in the Seventies dut to the seeming disparity amongst the the fastfood chains in regards to their treatment of employees. The concept of alienated labor also fascinated me and I saw working in the fastfood industry as a glorified and technologically advanced version of the sweatshops to be found in the garment industry.
Now to the core issue of whether or not anybody needs to have worked in the fastfood industry in order to critique the conditions therein. I don't feel anybody needs to have worked at McDonald's to not like what McD's Corporation has done to achieve their dominance in the fastfood industry.
To be fair McSpotlight considers Burger King to be worse than McDonald's but for the six months that I worked at Burger King I thought it was generally OK. I didn't like some of the assistant managers but I did become friends with one lady who really like working there and decided to transfer to another BK location due to her own clashes with the management at that particular store.
J: As for my chat forum participants: I dont think disparaging my friends is very conducive to this argument or even has a point here.
Qx: I don't think you saw that your friend was attempting to disparage me and attempted to use the same use of "logic" and "rationality" that I have encountered amongst right-wing Libertarians who feel that that is enough to impugn any critical arguments that focus on the effects of transnational corporations such as McDonald's etc. So my rebuttal to his argument does have a point and that is to bring to the attention of readers that using the tired old methods of using "logic" and "rationality" (a la the Greeks) is pretty cynical when used for defending corporatist policies.
J: All along you have trivialized and disparaged my arguements and I have taken it with a grain of salt.
Qx: I haven't trivilized your arguments. I find it necessary to counter your arguments because they have the effect of justifying the abuses inherent in the fastfood industry. Not intentionally though.
J: As soon as I say something then I am an evil communist.
Qx: Gross distortion. My reference to BK Bandit's rhetorical flourishes is that it is somewhat like an inverted form of Maoist-style lecturing. Those who promote "free-market" virtues are the best when it comes to that. Perhaps you should become familiar with the Maoist/Stalinist diatribes and you might see the same parallels within the line of argument propounded by the pseudo-conservatives in the USA.
J: My way of debating has to do with my own experiences which I don't have a problem sharing here. I was a BK crew member for 3 years before going into management. I hated my job at BK for the first few months I was there but as I got better at my job and made friends I began to like the job even more. And guess what I even became friends with the managers I worked with and we had a lot in common. Such things as hopes, dreams, money issues, and hobbies.
Qx: Good for you.
J: So the issue here is does everything have to be by the text book or can we debate our personal experiences.
Qx: You choose the methods you want. Why ask me for permission?
J: As for me Im going to say how I feel no matter how much you trounce on me or harrangue me.
Qx: If you want to traumatize the results of an Internet debate then go ahead. But you shouldn't take this too seriously. After all, it's just the Internet.
None.
