CDZ Are you a laborer?

[Agit8r]

Regardless of the nature of work one performs, it has the potential to be deletererious to the worker.

The potential for damage decreases the more it is on the worker's own terms--as with self employment, cooperative enterprise, etc.

I had to look up deletererious, why not just say harmful?

And no, I don't think all work has the potential to be harmful. At least not with a little common sense. If you are going to plant a garden, and you don't take any water to drink with you, that's just stupidity, or an oversight, but you still have the opportunity to stop what you are doing and get some water, before it becomes harmful.

In your way of thinking, every little thing we do, would be considered harmful, wouldn't it, or did I miss the jist of what you are saying?

I mean like if you work doing heavy or repetitive labor, there is more likelihood of developing arthritis, and other chronic pain disorders.

If one works with surfectants, as with laundry service or other cleaning professions, there is greater likelihood of developing asthma, and skin conditions.

On the other, if one sits behind a desk for hours on end, without opportunity to exercise, there is greater risk of diabetes, hormonal disorders, etc.

If work is done exclusively on the terms of another, there is less the individual can do to mitigate these risks.

 

[tinynascarfan]

Regardless of the nature of work one performs, it has the potential to be deletererious to the worker.

The potential for damage decreases the more it is on the worker's own terms--as with self employment, cooperative enterprise, etc.

I had to look up deletererious, why not just say harmful?

And no, I don't think all work has the potential to be harmful. At least not with a little common sense. If you are going to plant a garden, and you don't take any water to drink with you, that's just stupidity, or an oversight, but you still have the opportunity to stop what you are doing and get some water, before it becomes harmful.

In your way of thinking, every little thing we do, would be considered harmful, wouldn't it, or did I miss the jist of what you are saying?

I mean like if you work doing heavy or repetitive labor, there is more likelihood of developing arthritis, and other chronic pain disorders.

If one works with surfectants, as with laundry service or other cleaning professions, there is greater likelihood of developing asthma, and skin conditions.

On the other, if one sits behind a desk for hours on end, without opportunity to exercise, there is greater risk of diabetes, hormonal disorders, etc.

If work is done exclusively on the terms of another, there is less the individual can do to mitigate these risks.

Now that makes sense.

But, couldn't the same be said of people who don't work? If they sit around all the time playing video games or whatever, wouldn't their chances of diabetes, and obesity be higher than someone who got out and walked on their free time, and wouldn't those same walkers have a higher risk for leg and knee injuries?

So would working in any job be considered more harmful than not working at all? I mean, we all gonna get old, if we live long enough, and with that age comes aches and pains, but also it brings knowledge, wisdom(for some), and memories.

 

[jasonnfree]

Regardless of the nature of work one performs, it has the potential to be deletererious to the worker.

The potential for damage decreases the more it is on the worker's own terms--as with self employment, cooperative enterprise, etc.

I had to look up deletererious, why not just say harmful?

And no, I don't think all work has the potential to be harmful. At least not with a little common sense. If you are going to plant a garden, and you don't take any water to drink with you, that's just stupidity, or an oversight, but you still have the opportunity to stop what you are doing and get some water, before it becomes harmful.

In your way of thinking, every little thing we do, would be considered harmful, wouldn't it, or did I miss the jist of what you are saying?

I mean like if you work doing heavy or repetitive labor, there is more likelihood of developing arthritis, and other chronic pain disorders.

If one works with surfectants, as with laundry service or other cleaning professions, there is greater likelihood of developing asthma, and skin conditions.

On the other, if one sits behind a desk for hours on end, without opportunity to exercise, there is greater risk of diabetes, hormonal disorders, etc.

If work is done exclusively on the terms of another, there is less the individual can do to mitigate these risks.

Now that makes sense.

But, couldn't the same be said of people who don't work? If they sit around all the time playing video games or whatever, wouldn't their chances of diabetes, and obesity be higher than someone who got out and walked on their free time, and wouldn't those same walkers have a higher risk for leg and knee injuries?

So would working in any job be considered more harmful than not working at all? I mean, we all gonna get old, if we live long enough, and with that age comes aches and pains, but also it brings knowledge, wisdom(for some), and memories.

It would be kind of nice to have worked as both laborer and thinker, such as Eric Hoffer. Then maybe have a more balanced philosopy.

 

[320 Years of History]

I had to look up deletererious, why not just say harmful?

For several reasons, the second of which follows from the first:

1. Because while both words' denotation (basic and literal meaning) is the same, "deleterious" carries the connotation (implied meaning, aka "the flavor" of the word) of that which is harmful also being unexpectedly so. Impugn is another word that simply put, means harm, but unlike "harm" has a connotation. (Not all words carry a connotation. That's why word choice matters, and it's what distinguishes neutral speech/writing from colored/loaded language.)
   
   Similarly, prevaricate, misrepresent, obfuscate, palter and equivocate all at their heart mean "to tell an untruth", but they have differing tones (also part of what is communicated by using one word over another having the same basic meaning) as well as different implied meanings. For example, the broken promises and other untruthful statements politicians make them palterers more so than liars. An obfuscator, on the other hand, is someone who hides the truth (typically by not stating the entirety of it) more so than directly lying.
2. For the sake of brevity. To convey the full meaning one intends, one can certainly say "harmful" and then supplement it by saying something like "in unforeseen ways," or once can simply say "deleterious."
3. If one writes in the style of one's conversation, because it conveys a tiny bit of their personality. Whether the audience is any good at reading personality is another matter, but the writer/speaker has nonetheless been sincere and open in attempting to convey some little bit of him-/herself.
4. For linguistic effect, such as to create a certain cadence, or to rhyme, to convey a tone that helps reinforce the theme connoted by the words chosen and of the overall piece of writing by using assonance, consonance, alliteration, and so on. The impact on a skillful reader's perception is most easily observed , I think, in rhymed poetry such as Poe's "The Raven." That said, a writer's ability to poetically convey his or her ideas is directly proportional to the extent to which audience members feel the weight of the words denotative and connotative meaning. This is perhaps most notably seen in the words of speakers/writers like JFK, MLK. FDR, and Lincoln
   
   Consider the last sentence in the preceding paragraph. Ideally, you'll also notice how the preceding sentence "feels" different if the sequence of the three men's initials were rearranged, or replaced instead with their full names, or last names. The sequence I used, along with choosing to use their initials instead of their names was a choice driven solely by cadence. Punctuation, most notably the comma and em dash (not the en dash, which is also called a hyphen) also is essential for creating the desired cadence. Cadence is important because it's what puts greater and lesser degrees of emphasis on a writer's words.
   
   To understand some of what I've been describing, consider the following:
   1. "Four score and twenty years ago..."
      Yes, Lincoln could have said "100 years ago," but that hardly had the same gravitas and poetry as the vocabulary he chose.
   2. "I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." (Click on this link and you'll find the quoted passage from King's speech at the sixth bar from the right of the sound clip depicted at the top of the page.)
      Just say out loud, or in your mind, "interposition and nullification." They are very forceful sounding words that roll smoothly off one's tongue and yet impugn none of the tone of anger that is among the emotions King expresses and engenders in his audience of the way blacks were being treated in the South at the time. That Dr. King had a thick and refined Southern accent made that word choice all the more effective, for the contrast in the pace at which those words naturally flow off the tongue contrasts sharply with the otherwise slow cadence of Southern speakers.
      
      Now imagine how diminished would be Dr. King's words were he to have used other words or, God forbid, chosen a phrase having the same meaning as both those words. The matched five syllable words create a tone that can be created no other way. Moreover, the subtly emphasizes the starkly drawn contrast between that which drips from the lips of Alabama's Governor, a racist, and his haughtily held social privilege, and the tears that surely well up and drip from the eyes of the children of whom King spoke and who but existed, not lived, under forced and enforced lack of privilege and opportunity.
   3. "Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date that will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."
      Replace "a date that will live in infamy" with "a date we will never forget," let alone myriad other less succinct and poetic. Note also how FDR used a sequence of monosyllabic words followed by one three syllable word each of which have equal stress. That goes to the ideas of meter and iambs, but one need not have a deep understanding of such things to feel the impact of the his using repetitive stress to imbue one's words with imagery. That phrase reads in the style of the staccato or fusillade of bullets that were soon to be exchanged between the U.S. and Japan.
      
      

That is probably more than you wanted to know about why folks choose one word or phrase over another, but hopefully it gives you a better understanding of at least some of the reasons. I have no idea whether any of them were specifically those the other member had in mind.

 

[oldsoul]

I consider myself a working man, I am a truck driver, I consider it a lazy man's job. Not because it's easy work, but because I'm not on my feet a lot, and most of my work is done while I'm on my rear, but some physical labor is involved.

I don't consider anyone who works on a computer all day to be a laborer. I consider them a thinker, and good for them, if you can make a living working smarter, not harder, I'm all for that.

I consider mechanics, and construction workers, and janitors, and teachers, and anyone who does actual physical labor in their jobs to be a laborer.

So, are you a laborer, or a thinker? and believe me, typing is not labor, if it was, I wouldn't be on a computer doing it right now.

I, like you, make my living behind a steering wheel. I'm more of a "local route delivery" guy though, so I do have to get out and work from time to time. Helps keep me from getting too fat. LOL

 

[Holos]

I am not a laborer.

If we are to part our understanding of this dichotomy with education I would say labor is already obsolete (especially as taking the OP as evidence), however much a worker chooses to be a laborer as they fail to comprehend the totality of the economy.

What is then a laborer, this obsolete concept which has already expired in its own temporary framework of initial conception?

A laborer is a worker, who even proud and humble of their jobs, continuously looks forward to another activity for whatever reason, therefore making their own jobs eventually obsolete (either in their vacational minds or in their functional working organizations) by their own future despondent activities of their forward looking past and consequently also their title.

I am a thinker. I not only work with my thinking to provide what needs to be produced but I also improve my own work and other's works by thinking, in contrast to the disability of a laborer to do so.

 

[jimmy70]

I understand what your asking and I am a laborer. I drove truck for 15 years and got out of that and now work as a steel fabricator and burn table operator. sometimes I get to fill some time welding but usually I fab

 

[jimmy70]

I am not a laborer.

If we are to part our understanding of this dichotomy with education I would say labor is already obsolete (especially as taking the OP as evidence), however much a worker chooses to be a laborer as they fail to comprehend the totality of the economy.

What is then a laborer, this obsolete concept which has already expired in its own temporary framework of initial conception?

A laborer is a worker, who even proud and humble of their jobs, continuously looks forward to another activity for whatever reason, therefore making their own jobs eventually obsolete (either in their vacational minds or in their functional working organizations) by their own future despondent activities of their forward looking past and consequently also their title.

I am a thinker. I not only work with my thinking to provide what needs to be produced but I also improve my own work and other's works by thinking, in contrast to the disability of a laborer to do so.

I have to disagree my job can never be done " as in complete". and can not be done by machine. I do utilize robots in my job from time to time but the fact of labor will never end it just changes.

 

[Holos]

I am not a laborer.

If we are to part our understanding of this dichotomy with education I would say labor is already obsolete (especially as taking the OP as evidence), however much a worker chooses to be a laborer as they fail to comprehend the totality of the economy.

What is then a laborer, this obsolete concept which has already expired in its own temporary framework of initial conception?

A laborer is a worker, who even proud and humble of their jobs, continuously looks forward to another activity for whatever reason, therefore making their own jobs eventually obsolete (either in their vacational minds or in their functional working organizations) by their own future despondent activities of their forward looking past and consequently also their title.

I am a thinker. I not only work with my thinking to provide what needs to be produced but I also improve my own work and other's works by thinking, in contrast to the disability of a laborer to do so.

I have to disagree my job can never be done " as in complete". and can not be done by machine. I do utilize robots in my job from time to time but the fact of labor will never end it just changes.

So what exactly are you disagreeing with? It seems you have not understood my post. I am not writing specifically about jobs, but about syndical organizations.

To me you continue being a legitimate worker and work will not ever be missing or lacking as you have stated yourself in the appreciation you have for it, but to your own benefit, and in consideration of history that continues to be of progress, labor is not equally categorized as work and can be left to the adjustment of writing bureaucratic agents instead of manual operators.

 

[jimmy70]

I am not a laborer.

If we are to part our understanding of this dichotomy with education I would say labor is already obsolete (especially as taking the OP as evidence), however much a worker chooses to be a laborer as they fail to comprehend the totality of the economy.

What is then a laborer, this obsolete concept which has already expired in its own temporary framework of initial conception?

A laborer is a worker, who even proud and humble of their jobs, continuously looks forward to another activity for whatever reason, therefore making their own jobs eventually obsolete (either in their vacational minds or in their functional working organizations) by their own future despondent activities of their forward looking past and consequently also their title.

I am a thinker. I not only work with my thinking to provide what needs to be produced but I also improve my own work and other's works by thinking, in contrast to the disability of a laborer to do so.

I have to disagree my job can never be done " as in complete". and can not be done by machine. I do utilize robots in my job from time to time but the fact of labor will never end it just changes.

So what exactly are you disagreeing with? It seems you have not understood my post. I am not writing specifically about jobs, but about syndical organizations.

To me you continue being a legitimate worker and work will not ever be missing or lacking as you have stated yourself in the appreciation you have for it, but to your own benefit, and in consideration of history that continues to be of progress, labor is not equally categorized as work and can be left to the adjustment of writing bureaucratic agents instead of manual operators.

my oppologies for my misunderstanding

 

[Holos]

I am not a laborer.

If we are to part our understanding of this dichotomy with education I would say labor is already obsolete (especially as taking the OP as evidence), however much a worker chooses to be a laborer as they fail to comprehend the totality of the economy.

What is then a laborer, this obsolete concept which has already expired in its own temporary framework of initial conception?

A laborer is a worker, who even proud and humble of their jobs, continuously looks forward to another activity for whatever reason, therefore making their own jobs eventually obsolete (either in their vacational minds or in their functional working organizations) by their own future despondent activities of their forward looking past and consequently also their title.

I am a thinker. I not only work with my thinking to provide what needs to be produced but I also improve my own work and other's works by thinking, in contrast to the disability of a laborer to do so.

I have to disagree my job can never be done " as in complete". and can not be done by machine. I do utilize robots in my job from time to time but the fact of labor will never end it just changes.

So what exactly are you disagreeing with? It seems you have not understood my post. I am not writing specifically about jobs, but about syndical organizations.

To me you continue being a legitimate worker and work will not ever be missing or lacking as you have stated yourself in the appreciation you have for it, but to your own benefit, and in consideration of history that continues to be of progress, labor is not equally categorized as work and can be left to the adjustment of writing bureaucratic agents instead of manual operators.

my oppologies for my misunderstanding

I do not think there was a misunderstanding in this case but only a need for reiteration.

 

[Asclepias]

I consider myself a working man, I am a truck driver, I consider it a lazy man's job. Not because it's easy work, but because I'm not on my feet a lot, and most of my work is done while I'm on my rear, but some physical labor is involved.

I don't consider anyone who works on a computer all day to be a laborer. I consider them a thinker, and good for them, if you can make a living working smarter, not harder, I'm all for that.

I consider mechanics, and construction workers, and janitors, and teachers, and anyone who does actual physical labor in their jobs to be a laborer.

So, are you a laborer, or a thinker? and believe me, typing is not labor, if it was, I wouldn't be on a computer doing it right now.

Its weird for me. I am a laborer trapped in a thinkers environment. I love working with my hands and doing manual labor but my father and grandfather both urged me to use my mind so the last job I had before getting into business for myself was that of a Voip Engineer.

 

[shadow355]

I consider myself a working man, I am a truck driver, I consider it a lazy man's job. Not because it's easy work, but because I'm not on my feet a lot, and most of my work is done while I'm on my rear, but some physical labor is involved.

I don't consider anyone who works on a computer all day to be a laborer. I consider them a thinker, and good for them, if you can make a living working smarter, not harder, I'm all for that.

I consider mechanics, and construction workers, and janitors, and teachers, and anyone who does actual physical labor in their jobs to be a laborer.

So, are you a laborer, or a thinker? and believe me, typing is not labor, if it was, I wouldn't be on a computer doing it right now.

My Past Jobs :

Military. Reserve and Active Duty ----> Transportation, Communications, Security ( Various disciplines ).

Night Watchman for a River Transportation Company. General Security, Carry 3" water pumps and Pump water out of barges, Tie and Re-Tie barges together. Make sure barges are illuminated at night. Travel by company vehicle to two other sights and check those barges.Carry "Lock Lines" ( 2 inch rope ) and 1/2" to 1" wires to tie barges together. 80 degree days and 10 degree nights. Sunny days in the summer and windy nights in the winter with the snow blowing.

"Deckhand" for two different barge companys for boats that go up and down the Ohio River. Bust Butt Work. One time for a short period I was a "Deck Engineer" and worked in the engine room of the boats ; lubrication of motors and generators and getting engine readings on a regular schedule, as well as other maintenance tasks.

Laborer for a major pipeline company. Hot sun and steel pipe, assist welders. Get in steel piping with no air. Bust Butt work.

Electrical assembly plant assembling electrical parts for automobiles.

Volunteer Emergency Medical Technician for a rural EMS Agency for about 5 years.

Paramedic for a very good sized Metropolitan Area. Bust Butt work.

Now I work - Industrial Rescue / Haz-Mat / Fire and EMS for a Department of Defense Contractor. And it ain't easy either. Along with all of that....... I do Safety, Health and Environmental Enforcement, General Security, Entry and Exit screening. Sign Visitors in and out....and a host of numerous and many other things. My job was contracted out about 5 or 6 years ago....and my job being contracted out cost me a significant pay cut ( About $900.00 a month ), loss of retirement - Loss of 401 K - I lost Three Weeks paid vacation ( I get one week and the very first week I got I had to pay for it out of my own pocket ), shift differential pay was lost, Pay increase for me being a relief foreman was lost, Paid time off for me being sick and not making it to work was lost, I now have to pay for my own medical insurance.

Shadow 355