It absolutely does not.
Again, I’ve cleaned toilets for a living. It is an unpleasant but necessary task. I.e., a chore. I agree with you when you say that it is a valid way to earn a living, which is the first reason I proposed it in the first place. I don’t pass any judgement who earn their keep this way—and were these executives be obliged to do so, I wouldn’t be passing judgement on them for that, but for completely different reasons.
Do you understand now?
A chore may be punishment for poor behavior, but that says nothing about those who do a chore for a living or even about the chore itself. That these men might find such work beneath them is on them, and is sort of a bonus, really. Is that really that nuanced? Because it seems sort of obvious to me.
Also, I hope you’re not suggesting that people who break the law deserve to have no employment, just because they might wind up working alongside folk who haven’t broken the law, because that is unreasonable and unrealistic.
No, and that’s just bizarre. This leaves you free to imagine any transgression you like because you can wave your hand around the word “implications.” That doesn’t make me feel like I can talk to you.
