• 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.