5 ms·

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. Th

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.

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.