3 ms·

Wrong again. Parent framed their argument as > All studies so far show a pretty consistent ~10% work disincentive. This is what all the detractors say when th

Wrong again. Parent framed their argument as > All studies so far show a pretty consistent ~10% work disincentive. This is what all the detractors say when they say it disincentivizes work. When the parent invokes the detractors, it brings up the arguments that all the detractors use, saying that UBI will turn people into lazy freeloaders that do not want to work. That it will lead to people just living off the government and contributing nothing. Going back to get an education for the purpose of work does not fall under that category. The thesis of the parent is not that they're simply leaving the workforce. They're quoting the same old claims that UBI will make people lazy and not want to work. That frame is why quoting the study as a means to further that claim is so misleading.

Thorentis 7y ago
Wrong again. You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. "Disincentivizing work" can be interpreted to mean more likely to study than work. This doesn't mean lazy. Nothing in the parent comment called people lazy for leaving the workforce, just that it disincetivized participating in the workforce.
- thereare5lights 7y ago
  Wrong wrong wrong. > You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. " No I did not. That the THE primary argument detractors make when they say that UBI disincentivizes work. Read enough on the arguments against UBI and you will realize that for yourself. Your interpretation indicates that you have not been steeped in debates about UBI, otherwise you would know this already. Interpreting the parent's remarks, ESPECIALLY when they bring up the existing "detractors" as simply meaning "not working", instead of what is the primary argument the existing detractors make is absolutely disingenuous.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > > You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. " > No I did not. That the THE primary argument detractors make when they say that UBI disincentivizes work. Read enough on the arguments against UBI and you will realize that for yourself. "If you've read enough comments, you can predict the arguments people use. So I wasn't assuming anything."
    - thereare5lights 7y ago
      > "If you've read enough comments, you can predict the arguments people use. So I wasn't assuming anything." "If in an argument, someone brings up the people that debate policy and write essays on it and they invoke them and the conclusion of their argument, a reader can choose to interpret that someone as having a different argument than those people that policy debaters they invoked and that's completely legitimate". Yea OP totally was referring to internet comments instead of politicians or people in think tanks that debate policy, especially given that they quote statistics from studies, when they wrote "detractors" /s
- thereare5lights 7y ago
  Incorrect. > You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. " No I did not. That the THE primary argument detractors make when they say that UBI disincentivizes work. Read enough on the arguments against UBI and you will realize that for yourself. Your interpretation indicates that you have not been steeped in debates about UBI, otherwise you would know this already. Interpreting the parent's remarks, ESPECIALLY when they bring up the existing "detractors" as simply meaning "not working", instead of what is the primary argument the existing detractors make is absolutely disingenuous.

Thorentis 7y ago

Wrong again. You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. "Disincentivizing work" can be interpreted to mean more likely to study than work. This doesn't mean lazy. Nothing in the parent comment called people lazy for leaving the workforce, just that it disincetivized participating in the workforce.

thereare5lights 7y ago
Wrong wrong wrong. > You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. " No I did not. That the THE primary argument detractors make when they say that UBI disincentivizes work. Read enough on the arguments against UBI and you will realize that for yourself. Your interpretation indicates that you have not been steeped in debates about UBI, otherwise you would know this already. Interpreting the parent's remarks, ESPECIALLY when they bring up the existing "detractors" as simply meaning "not working", instead of what is the primary argument the existing detractors make is absolutely disingenuous.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > > You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. " > No I did not. That the THE primary argument detractors make when they say that UBI disincentivizes work. Read enough on the arguments against UBI and you will realize that for yourself. "If you've read enough comments, you can predict the arguments people use. So I wasn't assuming anything."
  - thereare5lights 7y ago
    > "If you've read enough comments, you can predict the arguments people use. So I wasn't assuming anything." "If in an argument, someone brings up the people that debate policy and write essays on it and they invoke them and the conclusion of their argument, a reader can choose to interpret that someone as having a different argument than those people that policy debaters they invoked and that's completely legitimate". Yea OP totally was referring to internet comments instead of politicians or people in think tanks that debate policy, especially given that they quote statistics from studies, when they wrote "detractors" /s
thereare5lights 7y ago
Incorrect. > You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. " No I did not. That the THE primary argument detractors make when they say that UBI disincentivizes work. Read enough on the arguments against UBI and you will realize that for yourself. Your interpretation indicates that you have not been steeped in debates about UBI, otherwise you would know this already. Interpreting the parent's remarks, ESPECIALLY when they bring up the existing "detractors" as simply meaning "not working", instead of what is the primary argument the existing detractors make is absolutely disingenuous.