• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    And here we have a study demonstrating that people will be smart with the money. I’m not saying “just trust me on this,” we have actual evidence.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      So, in summary…

      • Original comment: “We don’t need studies”
      • Me: “Yes, we do need studies. This is important data to keep track of to make sure the money is being put where it’s most desperately needed.”
      • You: “We don’t need to keep track of where money is going, people are honest. We have studies!”

      In other words…

      • Original comment: “Studies are useless!”
      • Me: “Studies are not useless”
      • You: “Studies are useless, because we have proof that studies are useless, via a study”
      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Original comment: we don’t need oversight.
        You: we should have oversight because people might waste money.
        Me: even if people waste money that will be less money wasted than is spent on the oversight, allowing more people to be helped.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Actual original comment’s very first sentence:

          The entire concept of a scientific study to determine whether people spend this money wisely is bunk

          You: putting words in my mouth, doubling down, and missing the point.

          Me: Over this.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Actual original comment’s very first sentence:

            The entire concept of a scientific study to determine whether people spend this money wisely is bunk

            So as I said: saying we don’t need oversight.

            You: putting words in my mouth, doubling down, and missing the point.

            You:

            But yeah, if you’re asking for me or anyone else to give up a portion of our salaries to create universal basic income, etc, it needs to be proven to be a net benefit, and how “wisely” that money is being spent is important.

            Sure sounds like you’re saying “we should have oversight because people might waste money.” I don’t see how that is putting words in your mouth. If I am misrepresenting your point the correct way to respond is with a clarification or restating of your point. A generic “yOuR pUtTiNg WoRdS iN mY mOuTh” and going off in a huff does nothing to clarify point or show how it was “misrepresented.”

            I was in no way saying your argument was a bad opinion to have, just that I disagreed with it and gave a counter argument.