freediver wrote on Dec 8
th, 2020 at 6:05pm:
So you present evidence. You finally realise that the evidence does not say what you think it says. So you declare it to be irrelevant.
The evidence says exactly what I've been saying it says all along - namely that there is widespread ripping off of fruit picking workers, in violation of our workplace laws. And it directly contradicts your BS claim.
What exact part of that are you still having difficulty with FD?
freediver wrote on Dec 8
th, 2020 at 6:05pm:
I have no need to read your evidence.
Of course you don't. Just like you have no need to read any evidence regardless of what BS claim you come up with next. Thats what you do FD - avoid evidence, and then endlessly deflect when its pointed out to you that the evidence refutes your BS claim.
freediver wrote on Dec 8
th, 2020 at 6:05pm:
Are you criticising me for not reading the evidence that you also did not read?
I read it FD. Thats why I know its relevant and it refutes your BS claim that farmers are obeying the law and that unions have no justification to get involved other than wanting to destroy non-union industries. You on the other hand ridiculed the idea that it was random (when it mostly was), after assuming a report on seasonal harvesting employers would include ship builders. So I wouldn't be ranting to much about not knowing the facts if I were you. Though I do amire your chutzpah.
freediver wrote on Dec 8
th, 2020 at 6:05pm:
If I said that Muslims obey our anti-terrorism laws, would you conclude that I am lying? Or are you a hypocrit?
Stupid and nonsensical analogy. I would obviously conclude nothing until I saw some actual evidence one way or the other.
But I can tell you this - if a survey was presented from a government body suggesting that disobeying of the laws was widespread, I wouldn't be trying to deflect the blame off muslims by demanding you declare whether or not you assumed it was a random sample, after assuming it was really a survey of ship builders.