Posted: May 14, 2016 4:25 am
by TMB
Fallible wrote:This is part of the cycle. He appears from nowhere, drops the same recycled turd, defends it rigorously if ineptly for a couple of weeks, gradually starts to drift off with the lengthy replies but pops up occasionally to share a bitchy one-liner or two, then disappears, often when he's painted himself into a corner or someone's posted evidence he can't refute. Rinse, repeat.

Since you are suggesting that that I have been given evidence I cannot refute, lets look at some of the examples from this thread and others as you refer back to previous discussion I would say that no evidence is offered and the logical proposition that was put up by yourself and others is illogical.

Shrunk is offering that pay can be based on just economics and not linked to anything of value, and does not address merit as one possibility row omens looks that might influence pay rates, all within an economic system.

When I argued that being dead was a worse proposition than being alive you opposed this, when I noted that men higher suicide and earlier death was no a benefit, that being alive and having a better quality was in fact a benefit experienced more by women than by men, you disagreed.

And finally there was this post, in all its glory, offered by Rachel Bronwyn on her version of where the logic seemd to be not based upon merit but based upon time and percentage of actual contribution and because both time and the percentage of different outcomes and productivity rates was equality.
Rachel Bronwyn wrote: My ex made more money than me but I worked more than him so he did more domestic stuff than I ever did. He had time for it. I wasn't capable of bringing in the same income as him but of course I expected myself to do the same amount of work as he. I was able to pay my own living expenses and he was able to save or spend however he liked the surplus income he had. If we'd gotten married and had a bunch of kids we would have agreed that he would contribute more money than I because while we'd be contributing the same percentage of our incomes his income is so much greater than mine that it's a much bigger dollar amount. At the end of the day though we put in the same amount of work and the same percentage of our incomes.

Is the above what you meant by is irrefutable evidence?