I'm pressed for time this morning so excuse the brevity of my response. I'll pick at this as and when I have time.
You don't really have a point aside from 'there is a tiny pay gap so women are oppressed and this inequality is worth everyone's effort to fight against and be empathetic towards'.
Can you point to a single instance where I suggested that addressing unequal pay specifically is an issue so pressing and vital in the grand context of social issues in the United States that it requires input from literally everyone in order to address? I didn't, so this is a straw man, but even if it weren't, the last assertion is simply wrong. Would addressing the pay gap, trivial or not, actually require effort from everyone to fight against and address? No, it wouldn't. Doing so would only require a minimal amount of effort from a small number of people, of which you wouldn't even need to be one.
I'm saying that when all of the extra benefits are included women either come out equal or ahead.
You've asserted this a couple of times now, but it isn't even clear what "benefits" you're talking about here, let alone on what this assertion is based. Are we talking direct societal benefits? Indirect cultural ones? If so, how do you quantify the benefit value of getting bought drinks at bars or having the door held open for you? This is the kind of point at which producing some kind of evidence to back up your assertion is required, because given your background I doubt you're so involved in statistical modelling of socioeconomic societal trends that you'd even begin to have any direct subject matter authority.
Raw data isn't worth much, which is why I challenged you. When someone puts forth a statistic and defends it, the implication of it is 'this is reality' and you know better than that.
Except at no time did I actually defend the 21% statistic as a realistic estimation of economic disparity caused by the societal inequality towards women. In fact, I've caveated the figure every single time I've used it by acknowledging it as an "unadjusted" gap. So I'm really not sure what you're challenging. Did I not make the unadjusted nature of this number sufficiently clear for you?
There's $75 trillion on earth and 6.7 billion people, so human life is worth $11k. That probably sounds ridiculous to you, but it's as valid (and raw) as the 21% figure.
Gross global product isn't a measure of total global economic value, it's a measure of total values of goods and services produced globally (as taken from combining each nation's GNP) in one year. So I'd argue that no, it's not a valid way of estimating the value of a human life. So what you've measured here is, I suppose, in a sort of oddball, not-actually-representative-but-works-for-the-argument kinda way is the value of one year of a human life.
Perhaps the combined GGP per capita of every year of the average human lifespan could be argued to be the numerical value of a human life. And if that $11k was the average GGP per capita for 79 years, that's just shy of $870k. Which is a lot more than most governments, insurers and probably people on the street value a human life at.
I have never seen you challenge a person politically aligned with you who made a claim without evidence. Not even once.
I suspect this is primarily due to your short presence and limited topics of engagement. I've probably spent more time asking for and dissecting citations in posts from Eutyphro than pretty much any member on this forum. He identifies, (or certainly used to, I don't know if his political views have changed) with the left of the political spectrum, certainly on economic and foreign policy issues and on some, but not all, social ones. In fact, in foreign policy particularly, he's quite far to the left of me.
Moreover, I commonly challenge assertions made by people who I get the impression you'd views as 'politically aligned" with me, not that it's entirely clear what that is given most of the examples you've used to furnish this statement aren't.
1) The assertion that Carter generally sits on the right of the spectrum when it comes to Democrat presidents is well supported by evidence. I'm very sorry if this doesn't mesh with your personal scale of left-versus-right, but I stand by it. You could try and argue that B43 was left wing because of a single policy, but you might struggle.
As for the question of the US political spectrum versus the actual political spectrum, if septics are so obsessed with their exceptionalism they want to rewrite political definitions to suit their whims that's their prerogative, but that doesn't mean their use of these fundamentally technical terms is correct.
As an aside I think there's something to be said on the subject of absolutism in reference to your comments here. What exactly have you been trying to infer? I mean, are the references to Asperger's and autism simply a guarded ad hominem designed to infer that my unwillingness to acknowledge things you've said that are demonstrably wrong as right is some kind of manifestation of a developmental disorder? Are we supposed to skip over the astounding hypocrisy of your repeat absolutist assertions on a wide variety of subjects, or do you genuinely believe that it's entirely acceptable in a debate for you to assert things are factual based on nothing more than your own say-so, but anyone else who does so is somewhere on the autistic spectrum?
2) perhaps you should be a little clearer with your wording in future, then, because I'm not the only person who interpreted it in that way. In fact given the original context it's difficult to believe it was intended in any other way.
3) "New" and "recent" aren't really synonymous in this context. "New" typically refers to something that has not occurred or existed before, or something which has occurred or existed but has only now been observed. "Recent" refers to things having taken place in an arbitrary, subjective preceding period of time. They're synonymous in the context of a discovery, possibly in a turn of events that has never happened before, but a repeat of events 20 years prior typically won't fit anyone's description of "new".
Even "recent" is debatable given that your own timeline for what constitutes events worth considering was your own lifetime, and if that's the measure we're using for "recent" then you're simply wrong. Or we can put this down to a lack of clear semantics on your part if you'd rather.
4) Then, again, perhaps you should be clearer in your statements in future. I realise that making vague statements can be quite handy if you need to retrospectively return and reinterpret your own meaning but it's rather disingenuous, not to mention blatant when that approach is used after several posts worth of back-and-forth where no issue is taken with the initial interpretation even when it's clear at the time.
5) The article- namely, the disconnect between its headline and its content- is pretty awful, but that's not really what the issue is with. It's the simple acceptance of, and eagerness to defend, a narrative not because it's supported by evidence or even represents the most viable hypothesis but simply because it confirms to preexisting cognitive bias. It's the most fundamental of analysis failures, and one which manifests itself in most people from time to time. But I don't expect you to be able to observe that, because of your attitude to your own knowledge and understanding.
6) Having reread this in context I'll concede that I my statements here were much too general. Though I wonder whether, if you did average the rankings in the various freedom induces of the EU28, they would average higher than the US. Maybe I'll work it out if I have time.
7/8) I don't think first-year college gives you enough insight to judge the value or difficulty of a full graduate or postgraduate degree, let alone someone actually practicing the discipline. I mean, does a year at college give you sufficient grounds to judge the value or difficulty of medical practice? Moreover, I can't really see tackling graduate or postgraduate studies in the same manner you did in fourth grade is likely to net you a particularly good grade. See also- Bloom's Taxonomy.