Jophiel wrote:
I have no real idea what your argument is; something about the exact moment where people started working for an hourly wage or somesuch. Honestly, I don't really care either much less care about "countering" it.
And yet, you cared enough to jump on me for daring to tell Smash that he was wrong. Do you guys have like a secret love thing going on or something?
Quote:
I did have a bit of fun noticing your atrocious attempts at making an argument which came down to a combination of "Well, Wiki sorta said it", "My roommate said so!" and "Go ask a professor because I don't have to defend this".
Smash claimed that hourly wages (including overtime) only exist because governments force employers to pay this way instead of just a salary and that in the absence of such labor regulations, all employers would just pay people a fixed salary and abuse the workers by making them work super long hours. As evidence for this, he made a broad claim to the effect that anyone who studied the history of labor would know this. I, as well as any rational and sane person with any knowledge of history and labor at all, realized immediately that this was complete BS and said so. In typical fashion, despite providing zero evidence to back up his ridiculous claim, Smash just demanded that I prove that he was wrong. So, feeling that low hanging fruit was sufficient in this case due to the absolute obviousness at hand, I linked to a wiki page about wages showing that hourly wages (more broadly wages based on total time worked on site) have been used throughout history and long long before modern labor movements.
Smash was not just a little bit wrong. He was laughably wrong. Yet somehow I get attacked for pointing it out? I'm going to stick to my original assumption that it's about switching to name calling once the facts don't go you way. Oh, and I don't buy the whole "I don't know or care about the topic". You knew that Smash was defending big government as the champion of the working class, and I was pointing out the flaws in his position, which was sufficient for you to pick a side. It's not like this isn't an easy pattern to spot.
Quote:
But that's neither here nor there towards noticing that you reneged on your agreement with Smash regarding the 2008 elections.
Lol. Absence of proof is proof of absence? Interesting. Unlike some other poster who shall not be named, I did not renege. Go find threads in which Smash and I both posted within a 30 day period after the election. You might just find something.