Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Appealing to popularity is not hyperbole. Hyperbole is exaggeration and there is none in the article. Debate the facts or not, ok?

---

A hyperbole in politics can be employed to invoke strong feelings and emotions by the use of exaggeration. The article attempts to do this by creating a threat ( real or imagined) to the traditional Friday night out. By doing this it is also attempts to appeal to popularity as the means of distinguishing good legislation from bad legislation.

It is both an exaggeration and an appeal to popularity. In politics appeals to popularity are most effective when they use exaggeration. The article does both at the same time.

There is nothing in the preamble that can be used to determine the traditional Friday night out being under threat. It is also an exaggeration, but more likely false to suggest that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The Bill doesn't have to specifically exclude Friday night babysitters. The article implies a false dichotomy, i.e. their claim can only be true or false. It doesn't consider a third option which is the possibility that the article has provided insufficient evidence to draw a true or false conclusion. Assumptions made in the article are inadequate in this regard. Only the legislation itself will determine this.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

A hyperbole in politics can be employed to invoke strong feelings and emotions by the use of exaggeration. The article attempts to do this by creating a threat ( real or imagined) to the traditional Friday night out. By doing this it is also attempts to appeal to popularity as the means of distinguishing good legislation from bad legislation.

It is both an exaggeration and an appeal to popularity. In politics appeals to popularity are most effective when they use exaggeration. The article does both at the same time.

There is nothing in the preamble that can be used to determine the traditional Friday night out being under threat. It is also an exaggeration, but more likely false to suggest that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The Bill doesn't have to specifically exclude Friday night babysitters. The article implies a false dichotomy, ie their claim can only be true or false. It doesn't consider a third option which is the possibility that the article has provided insufficient evidence to draw a true or false conclusion. Assumptions made in the article are inadequate in this regard. Only the legislation itself will determine this.

Tut

---

I linked to the bill, and quoted the relevant sections. What is all this about a preamble? I'm not basing anything on a preamble, nor was the state senator that penned the column. The bill specifically spelled out caregivers, including those who care for children, and spelled out its intent to eliminate such exclusions. That my friend would include Friday night babysitters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I linked to the bill, and quoted the relevant sections. What is all this about a preamble? I'm not basing anything on a preamble, nor was the state senator that penned the column. The bill specifically spelled out caregivers, including those who care for children, and spelled out its intent to eliminate such exclusions. That my friend would include Friday night babysitters.

---

From the bill:

Quote:

---

(2) "Domestic work employee" does not include any of the
following:
(A) Any person who performs services through the In-Home
Supportive Services program under Article 7 (commencing with Section
12300) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
(B) Any person who is the parent, grandparent, spouse, sibling,
Child, or legally adopted child of the domestic work employer.
(C) Any person under 18 years of age who is employed as a
babysitter for a minor child of the domestic work employer.

---

So all weekend babysitters are under 18 ? What about the college aged baby sitter ?

What this is ,is an attempt to make sure that all care giver services are filtered through some state approved agency... next they will need state licensing or SEIU certification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The bill specifically spelled out caregivers, including those who care for children, and spelled out its intent to eliminate such exclusions. That my friend would include Friday night babysitters.

---

Hi Speech,

Absence of evidence (in the form of a Bill to eliminate certain exclusions such as the Friday night babysitter) is not evidence of absence. You wrongly assuming that the Bill as it stands is proof that the Friday night baby sitter has been or will be eliminated.

Such things as the extent to which a babysitter is subject to the control of the employer, in order to determine the numbers of hours worked will be tested when the Bill comes in being.

Even though you argue the intent of the Bill is to eliminate the occasional babysitter no one can say this will happen until the Bill has been tested. This position is still valid even if the only intent of the Bill was the eliminate the occasional babysitter.


Tut

It is not too hard to determine why this legislation came about. Who are the so called exploited domestic workers ? Certainly not the ones hired through agencies . Let's stipulate that there are exploited domestic help in Ca. Meg Whitman's campaign proved this is so . But will this bill prevent the hiring of illegals for the purpose of domestic help ? No... they will still work under the radar . So who is left then ? The baby sitter looking to make some off the books cash. This is really not an effort to protect these workers as much as it is an attempt to get them on the tax roles .
The state wants total control of the industry . Not a surprise with a people's republic fabian state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This is really not an effort to protect these workers as much as it is an attempt to get them on the tax roles .

---

Hello again, tom:

On the one hand, Republicans complain about the 47% of the POOR people who don't pay federal income taxes... But, when they attempt to FIX it, you complain about that too..

What's up with that?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It is not too hard to determine why this legislation came about. Who are the so called exploited domestic workers ? Certainly not the ones hired through agencies . Let's stipulate that there are exploited domestic help in Ca. Meg Whitman's campaign proved this is so . But will this bill prevent the hiring of illegals for the purpose of domestic help ? No ... they will still work under the radar . So who is left then ? The baby sitter looking to make some off the books cash. This is really not an effort to protect these workers as much as it is an attempt to get them on the tax roles .
The state wants total control of the industry . Not a suprise with a people's republic fabian state.

---

Yes, has there ever been any legislation that hasn't produced unintended consequences? Probably not.


Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Speech,

Absence of evidence (in the form of a Bill to eliminate certain exclusions such as the Friday night babysitter) is not evidence of absence. You wrongly assuming that the Bill as it stands is proof that the Friday night baby sitter has been or will be eliminated.

Such things as the extent to which a babysitter is subject to the control of the employer, in order to determine the numbers of hours worked will be tested when the Bill comes in being.

Even though you argue the intent of the Bill is to eliminate the occasional babysitter no one can say this will happen until the Bill has been tested. This position is still valid even if the only intent of the Bill was the eliminate the occasional babysitter.


Tut

---

Tut, sorry buddy but it's really annoying to have one's style analyzed, rhetorical devices described and told the alleged fallacy of one's argument instead of just discussing the point.

You do realize this bill addresses another law so the final regulation is not in evidence yet. So the argument at the moment is on the bill as it stands. That's the point of publicizing now it so such idiotic provisions are made known BEFORE it becomes law.

It "deletes" exclusions from the current law. It specifically adds coverage to babysitters over the age of 18 (which NK pointed out) that are not family members - a point which was conceded in my OP on the bill by the author of the article - "unless it is a family member." I have been 100 percent right on the facts from the beginning.

An overwhelming majority of babysitters are under 18 or family members so I fail to see how it affects the Friday night out or how you would need a primary sitter and a reliever as you mentioned. If this bad bill passes (which I doubt) how would they monitor the occasional 19 year old babysitter from next door?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Tut, sorry buddy but it's really annoying to have one's style analyzed, rhetorical devices described and told the alleged fallacy of one's argument instead of just discussing the point.

You do realize this bill addresses another law so the final regulation is not in evidence yet. So the argument at the moment is on the bill as it stands. That's the point of publicizing now it so such idiotic provisions are made known BEFORE it becomes law.

It "deletes" exclusions from the current law. It specifically adds coverage to babysitters over the age of 18 (which NK pointed out) that are not family members - a point which was conceded in my OP on the bill by the author of the article - "unless it is a family member." I have been 100 percent right on the facts from the beginning.

---

Hi speech,

I don't deliberately set out to offend anyone. If this is the case then I apologize. I will approach the problem from a different angle without the analysis of the language.

Yes, I do realize the Bill addresses the current legislation . The Bill is an an attempt to, 'tighten up' the perceived inadequacies of the current legislation.

I haven't disputed any our your facts relating to the age of babysitters or anything else in the Bill for that matter. I am not for or against the legislation so I don't really care if it becomes law or not.

Your facts may well speak for themselves but facts don't always manifest themselves in a way the legislators intend (as Tom's recent post points out). Has there ever been any legislation that hasn't had unintended consequences?

Again, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the facts, but there is a need to do so without the emotive language attached. We cannot say for certain that employers of occasional baby sitters will have to pay overtime, provide additional relief after a certain amount of hours are worked. We may deduce this from the facts, and it may well turn out that way, but this does not make it so at the moment.

The original article presents these outcomes as a certainty. It is possible and even probable, but it is not certain.

Perhaps we would do better to present these' idiotic provisions' in a way that doesn't appeal to the emotions and popular sentiment.

Tut

Tut, we're human. We can't have discussions on issues that affect our lives without emotion. Granted, the rhetoric can be toned down from such things as "death panels," pushing granny over the cliff or accusing your fellow Americans of wanting to see blacks "hanging on a tree." "Babysitter bill" is pretty harmless considering...

That's strawman argument of course. If you're comparing yourself to the worst that's out there and that's the baseline you want to better then you've achieved your goal. Some of us start from a higher baseline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

That's strawman argument of course. If you're comparing yourself to the worst that's out there and that's the baseline you want to better then you've acheived your goal. Some of us start from a higher baseline.

---

Dude, I'm not misrepresenting Tut's position so there is no straw man. And what's funny is I even used examples from both sides to concede we can tone down the "appeal to the emotions and popular sentiment" that Tut suggested we do. So even though I agreed with Tut, used bipartisan examples and didn't misrepresent his position, you went out of your way to be critical of my answer. Find someone else to stalk, I'll put my integrity up against yours any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Dude, I'm not misrepresenting Tut's position so there is no straw man.

---

Comparing "babysitter bill" to people wanting to see blacks hanging from trees is indeed misrepresenting his position, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Comparing "babysitter bill" to people wanting to see blacks hanging from trees is indeed misrepresenting his position, don't you think?

---

You just never give up do you? Don't you have anything better to do than try in vain to make me look stupid? It really makes you look quite petty, don't you think?

The only position I addressed was this line, "Perhaps we would do better to present these' idiotic provisions' in a way that doesn't appeal to the emotions and popular sentiment."

I agreed, while offering a contrast to the harmlessness of "babysitter bill" to the bullsh*t being slung elsewhere. If I'm in agreement it's pretty damn silly to accuse me of misrepresenting his position.