> It is not. Not even a little. I'm pointing out that you and I have wildly different value systems, alien to each other in ways so profound that you could be f

> It is not. Not even a little. I'm pointing out that you and I have wildly different value systems, alien to each other in ways so profound that you could be forgiven for thinking I'm exaggerating. I get that your values are different than mine and that you want different things. No, you weren't pointing that out. Disagreeing with a value system doesn't mean you're incapable of understanding or representing it fairly. If the best you took away from the discourse is that 'the ominous they are telling you it's good because that's what they're saying', you were never arguing in good faith. You never had to agree with the points I'm making, but if you want to make an argument against them, you have to make targeted attacks against those arguments, not indefensible caricatures. The rest of your comment looks big, it looks content-rich, it looks like there's so much to say. In reality, you said basically nothing. You're not putting up arguments or logical reasoning, just a chain of assertions and accusations. The fact that you went down to argue semantics ("true fury") or trying to bring me personally into this while letting the direct, accusatory points I made fly right over shows that you never had the intention of arguing them. It's not just about value systems - these systems have to be defensible. They have to rely on fact. People can disagree in interpreting the facts, but objective reality comes first before subjective feelings. You don't have any of that, you just try to quickly dismiss it at the beginning as being just inherently irreconcilable and impossible to address, without saying why or even trying. There's a side that can look at actual data of what happens to the wellbeing of people and communities, or the objective benefits and drawbacks of welfare, and make a conclusion out of it - right or wrong, but at least well-intentioned. And then there's a side that has already decided on what's right and will never yield, like in a religion. Where I live, the first side had set up a small-scale, limited UBI trial to conduct research and see if it's a worthy investment or a waste of money. Then, the other side got elected and shut it down immediately - they had already known which is the 'right' option from their ideology, they didn't need no pesky science or research to tell them what was right.