[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows



On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 17:23:22 -0500, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:

> El 13/10/15 a las 16:42, Lisi Reisz escribió:
> >On Tuesday 13 October 2015 21:52:02 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >>El 13/10/15 a las 14:55, Adrian O'Dell escribió:
> >>>Never tell a business partner to change.
> >>
> >>One of the problems of society is that it is driven by economic
> >>interests, and more often than not, the interests which govern behavior
> >>are those of megacorporations (employers) instead of individuals. We
> >>should resist corporate control. That means, among other things,
> >>resisting the pressure of proprietary software developers.
> >>
> >>You may find yourself in a situation where you are muzzled of
> >>complaining about things that you disagree with (because they *are* in
> >>fact wrong) because of your job but that is just a symptom, the sickness
> >>is that you have a bad job. The real way to fix that is to no to *place
> >>yourself* in such a position where taking such a job *appears
> >>necessary*; it is a matter of planning and making a conscious *effort*.
> >
> >And letting your children go hungry if necessary.  Principles matter more.
> >
> >Lisi
> 
> Having children in the first place when one is subject to a muzzling or
> otherwise abusive job is a *perfect example of what I am talking about*.
> People usually reason backwards in examples like this: First they *chose* to
> have children, then they "justify" something questionable to themselves or
> to somebody else with the excuse that they have children, as if it was some
> fact of life like having to eat or breathe, while in fact, that is no
> justification, because whoever does this has put himself by his own decision
> into the situation where he "has" to do that questionable activity in the
> first place, and therefore has chosen to do that questionable activity (or
> is guilt of doing without thinking).

Good argumentation. Are we due for an in depth discussion on cognitive
dissonance?


Reply to: