3 ms·
> I was not advocating stupidity, but consideration. I.e., thought. Ah, but someone's common sense, i.e. thought, is someone else's absolute unutterable idiocy
by cbd1984 12y ago
> I was not advocating stupidity, but consideration. I.e., thought.
Ah, but someone's common sense, i.e. thought, is someone else's absolute unutterable idiocy.
For example: Some consider it absolute basic rock-simple common sense that a marriage is between one man and one woman, both of whom were born with those genitals, period. Completely inarguable, as in if you try to argue the point, they will scream at you until you give up.
Therefore, they conclude in their inarguable fashion, no same-sex couples should get benefits, because it is contrary to basic intelligence that the government should fund such things.
There. Now you have a political dispute which is completely immune to negotiation, because if you give one red cent to same-sex couples, one side has utterly lost the argument. There is no Overton-Window-Approved middle ground.
That's why Basic Income needs to be no-strings-attached and unconditional for it to work.
- Retra 12y agoI don't see what that has to do with basic income. I never mentioned paying people based on their sexual orientation, but upon things that we almost unanimously agree to.
- cbd1984 12y ago> things that we almost unanimously agree to. My whole point is that this might as well be the empty set, for all the good it's going to do you, and if you make Basic Income contingent on this, people opposed to Basic Income for whatever reason will work hard to make it the empty set.
- Retra 12y agoYou could say the same thing about the "human right to live." Sure, some people might disagree that we have a right to live. But that is not really relevant to the scale of national policy. If I said you don't have a right to a fair trial, that is not a reason to abolish fair trial laws.
- learnstats2 12y agoI personally didn't agree with any single point that you mentioned.