Posted: May 14, 2016 6:44 am
by Fallible
TMB wrote:
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.


No one gives a shit what you would say, haven't you worked that out yet? You say a lot but do not demonstrate much at all, other than that you say a lot. Time and again we see the same unevidenced assertions from you with no shift in your views despite them having been refuted previously. Of course you would say that no evidence has been offered. This is the line you always take, whether evidence has been offered or not. You are not here to be open to the possibility of having your mind changed. You are here to bleat, whine and preach.

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.


Did you field a substitute when your waving around of 'merit' was challenged? I refuse to accept you didn't notice all that.

When I argued that being dead was a worse proposition than being alive you opposed this,


No, I pointed out that this discussion has been had before, at length, with reasoned arguments offered to oppose your view on this, and that still you were offering this 'dead=bad - alive=good' nonsense as a fact.

when I noted that men higher suicide and earlier death was no a benefit,


First of all, don't run two separate concepts together and claim I was addressing both of them. It's dishonest. Secondly, you can't note something that you haven't established is a fact. This is but one of the concepts which has apparently eluded you since your earliest participation here. For someone who wants to be dead, death is a benefit. For some people who are suffering, death is a benefit. You don't seem to be aware that in the case of suicide, you are only gauging suffering by when a person acts to end it. You seem to think that death is the ultimate in suffering, rather than the end of suffering. You don't think about all those who carry on suffering instead, because they can't bring themselves to end it. You don't think about them, because they are more usually women, and your fixed narrative is that women are better off than men. You won't accept even the suggestion that women suffer more, or even equally, due to the same fixed narrative. Men must win this losers' game. Your evidence in part that men suffer more is that men kill themselves more often, which you see as the ultimate in suffering, and so round we go again. A more balanced view is that one can say that men commit suicide more and therefore they are worse off, but then one can also say that men commit suicide more and thereby end their suffering and therefore they are better off.

that being alive and having a better quality was in fact a benefit experienced more by women than by men, you disagreed.


No, what I did was tell you that I wasn't going to offer up arguments against your pathetically simplistic reasoning, since the topic has been addressed multiple times previously, without you adjusting your views one iota. Again, you cannot note something you have not established. You don't get to make a simplistic statement about the better quality of life experienced by women, because you have not so far exhibited an understanding of the indicators of a good quality of life or otherwise that isn't hopelessly skewed in favour of your pet beliefs.

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?
[/quote]

Please attempt to ensure your comments make sense in the English language before hitting submit. Here we have another strong example of why many choose not to engage you any longer. You pick out a single post from probably hundreds over the years, consisting entirely of anecdote and not evidence, which you present as an example of what I mean when I say that you have been faced with evidence you cannot refute. There is literally no benefit for me in engaging someone who is willing to try to so unashamedly bullshit their way through a discussion. Only a fucking idiot would fall for such a blatant piece of mendacity and to be frank, you insult the intelligence of everyone here by assuming you can pull that on this site.