>That's just strawmanning the argument, no? Why not argue against the strongest position?
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.
You don't even seem to be aware that I want different things. "But but but! How could you not want wonderful European-style welfare" I just don't. Saying "but you should want them because you're like me and I want them"... I'm not like you. I couldn't be like you if I tried, and I'm not inclined to try. You saying that I "benefit" from these things indicates you think I "receive good things" from them... but I don't receive any benefit or good thing, those are not things I want. Benefits aren't objective. They are subjective. Absolutely, undeniably subjective.
When you make it sound like they are objective, you are lying to yourself. Lying so badly to yourself that when you lose elections, you are confused and angry about it. "How are they brainwashed into going against their own self-interests?!?!?!" you oxymoron about. No, other people just have different interest than you. It's impossible to go against your own self-interests (short of coercion... even then, one might argue that you're still doing so, to avoid the blackmail/torture/whatever).
>The second way is much more important - subsidizing the poor lets them get out of the hellhole of poverty
I grew up on foodstamps. I would have preferred starving. I want nothing from you. Your charity, however well-intentioned you believe it to be, is toxic and demeaning, and you refuse the evidence of your own eyes when you see it fail to work as you believe it would. I do not wish to pay for anyone else's foodstamps... they're better off figuring out how to survive for themselves.
>For some reason, pro-hierarchy Americans love
It should at least occur to you that when someone like me can't explain things to you such that you're able to see our point of view, that other more regrettable (for both of us) futures await.
>It's a safety margin that lets you get back on your feet more easily
Safety is illusory. Chasing it is futile and even shameful.
>That's why it's so infuriating
The fury of people who want safety nets is pathetic. You should use the word "frustrating", you don't sound capable of true fury.
> 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.
Suppose it'd be meaningless to quote my comment above, for the reasons I've outlined and for that matter, just because anyone else can scroll a few inches and see for themselves. You're oblivious.
>Disagreeing with a value system doesn't mean you're incapable of understanding or representing it fairly.
It means that I do not care. If my values are secondary to your own, then I no longer wish to participate, and I will vote with those who promise to stop this nonsense. And guess what? Those people are winning elections and your nonsense will never be implemented.
>There's a side that can look at actual data of what happens to the wellbeing of people
You're already functionally dead, your entire civilization. Your well-being is irrelevant.
>or the objective benefits
There is no such thing as "objective benefit". Either you want something, or you don't. I don't want this.
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.
You don't even seem to be aware that I want different things. "But but but! How could you not want wonderful European-style welfare" I just don't. Saying "but you should want them because you're like me and I want them"... I'm not like you. I couldn't be like you if I tried, and I'm not inclined to try. You saying that I "benefit" from these things indicates you think I "receive good things" from them... but I don't receive any benefit or good thing, those are not things I want. Benefits aren't objective. They are subjective. Absolutely, undeniably subjective.
When you make it sound like they are objective, you are lying to yourself. Lying so badly to yourself that when you lose elections, you are confused and angry about it. "How are they brainwashed into going against their own self-interests?!?!?!" you oxymoron about. No, other people just have different interest than you. It's impossible to go against your own self-interests (short of coercion... even then, one might argue that you're still doing so, to avoid the blackmail/torture/whatever).
>The second way is much more important - subsidizing the poor lets them get out of the hellhole of poverty
I grew up on foodstamps. I would have preferred starving. I want nothing from you. Your charity, however well-intentioned you believe it to be, is toxic and demeaning, and you refuse the evidence of your own eyes when you see it fail to work as you believe it would. I do not wish to pay for anyone else's foodstamps... they're better off figuring out how to survive for themselves.
>For some reason, pro-hierarchy Americans love
It should at least occur to you that when someone like me can't explain things to you such that you're able to see our point of view, that other more regrettable (for both of us) futures await.
>It's a safety margin that lets you get back on your feet more easily
Safety is illusory. Chasing it is futile and even shameful.
>That's why it's so infuriating
The fury of people who want safety nets is pathetic. You should use the word "frustrating", you don't sound capable of true fury.