Quote:
Originally posted by analog
[NOTE: I called my argument stupid first, he is NOT flaming me.]
That makes no sense.
Forbidden:
1. To command (someone) not to do something: I forbid you to go.
2. To command against the doing or use of (something); prohibit:
So how exactly is that not the same as "not permitted", and how does that relate to what I argued?
|
I forbid you from crossing the road.
I permit you to eat the orange.
I never permitted you to eat an apple.
I never forbid you from eating an apple.
Eating an apple is neither forbidden nor permitted.
While forbidden and permitted seem like opposites, there is a large middle ground of "the rules don't cover this, do whatever you want". This is true in real life as well.
Hence, the first connection, while companies don't have to poke their nose in your business (they have no obligation to do so), they can if they choose to.
The second connection is the broken symmetry one:
You took "you don't have to work here" and generated "they don't have to stick their nose in my business". There is an apparent symmetry here, ie "it's a word-for-word contradiction to YOUR argument", but it isn't actually.
They don't have to stick their nose in your business. They can if they wish, but they do not have to. If they stick their nose in, or don't, they live with the consequences.
You do not have to work there. You can if you wish, but you do not have to. If you work there, or don't, you have to live with the consequences.
Just because you turned the terms around, doesn't mean you made a contradiction.
I apologize for being insufficiently clear. It should have been more closely tied to the previous section of my post, and I should have left less to implication.