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

    Because it works out so well when we just let people run away with money?

    You’re making the same argument that a lot of Republicans make. “Corporations will be honest with the public money we give them, we don’t need all this administrative overhead.”

    There’s definitely something to be said for minimizing administrative overhead. However, that’s a very different argument than “there’s no such thing as wise spending and we just shouldn’t care where the money is going.”

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 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
        7 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
          ·
          7 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
            7 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
              ·
              7 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.