Originally posted by socool8520
This actually hasn't been shown to decrease anything as it hasn't happened anywhere long enough to have any proper backing. It failed in Finland. So, no, I don't support it.
I disagree that not enough research has been done to have any sort of reasonable economic discussion:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty-experiment-called-a-success-1.868562
"We found that, overall, hospitalizations in Dauphin declined relative to the control group," said Evelyn Forget, professor of community health science at the University of Manitoba."We also looked at accidents and injuries, and they also declined. You can argue that accident and injury hospitalizations are strongly related to poverty."
..."Hospitalizations for mental health issues were down significantly," she said, adding that teenagers stayed in school longer as a result of the initiative.
And there was a decline in employment for two demographics: new mothers and young men (who completed secondary education through grade 12 and attended college more often compared to the control group).
Also, your point about failing in Finland, I already addressed it. It was not actual UBI and so few participated that it can't even be considered "science." Let's be clear that it was sensationalized as UBI but actually was not UBI.
Originally posted by socool8520
Are you upset? It seems like you are upset.
This is a very odd question to ask so randomly.
No, not at all. I am enjoying this conversation. Why would you ask if I'm upset? Is it because I'm cutting to the core problem of your perspective being indistinguishable from anarchy? Does it seem like my argument is a bit harsh and difficult to digest? If so, I can try to soften the arguments a bit so it does not seem so harsh.
Okay, I'll try now: from my perspective, your position seems no different than anarchy. I can directly quote you 3 times, now, making statements that are no different than Pure Anarchy. Forgive me if that is offensive or you feel that mischaracterizes your position: I cannot distinguish your perspective from anarchy and I have asked you at least once in this conversation to flesh out your perspective a bit better because the line you're drawing seems either be a terrible slippery slope or anarchy.
Originally posted by socool8520
I don't feel it is my responsibility to support other people's children or the elderly in a fiscal sense. That is not the same as not caring about them living or dying and it most certainly not anarchy. lol Your exaggerating immensely to try and push your point.
Then what are taxes for? You do realize that taking care of the less fortunate, through your taxes, is a benefit to you, right? Why don't you realize that you live in a civilization and what happens to the least among you impacts you, economically?
Your position is anarchy. It is not distinguishable from anarchy. Maybe you think anarchy is derogatory but many don't. Many hold your position. Even very educated, published, academics hold anarchist beliefs and they can support their positions quite well.
Originally posted by socool8520
None of the above definition refutes my statement.
They do and you pretending like the definitions of civilization don't exist does not help your case. I've demonstrated that there is no word game necessary. As is defined by the myriad definitions of civilization, failing to treat your fellow civilians with civility is to fail to be civilized. Else it ceases being:
the act or process of civilizing, as by bringing out of a savage, uneducated, or unrefined state, or of being civilized :
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
You tried but failed to make this a word game about "civilization" or "civilized" simply because I used it in a very solid argumentation construct. But you are arguing from a position of anarchy which is the opposite of civilization. You're trying very hard to make this a philosophical debate about the definition of a particular word but is that actually being honest at all? Do you dislike the idea of being civilized (as I've clearly argued) so you must play a word game instead of arguing against the point of social constructs? Be honest. Do not keep playing word games as it is unnecessary to do with me. Don't try to avoid making a proper rebuttal (in your defense, your last point is a proper rebuttal, and, unsurprisingly, we agree and it leads us both to the same conclusion). Actually stick to the topic instead of drowning in a meaningless word debate that clearly indicates you're not honestly participating in a discussion. Anyone can keep swimming down the hole of "it's all subjective" and that, from my experience, is the sign that a person does not have an argument. They (and you're included) think it is philosophical sophistry but it is actually sophomoric debate at best and obvious perfidiousness at worse.
Now, if you wish to continue this word game, we can put it to bed. I am very clearly talking about a specific definition of "civilization." I am referring to the civility and social well-being that is inherit with highly civilized human organizations. Perhaps this fits the British definition:
"a human society that has highly developed material and spiritual resources and a complex cultural, political, and legal organization; an advanced state in social development"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/civilization
But because you're making me have to go look at dictionaries to find a definition that clearly fits with what any reasonable and normal person would already understand, you can see how your argument about "it is all just subjective and no one can truly define what civilization means" is just silly. If you do not want to have any responsibility towards others, do not live in a civilization. Start an anarchical thunderdome and battle for your riches. If you prefer civilization, pay your taxes and keep responsibility towards your fellow citizens. Then watch as your money goes to people and organizations that did not work for it.
Originally posted by socool8520
I have stated in other threads that i am not opposed to welfare and other social services as long as the recipient is willing to work for them and try to lift themselves up to a point where they no longer need it.
Then you are in direct favor of the UBI that I advocate and others in this thread have touched on. In fact, no reasonable person has suggested a UBI that works like I believe you think it works. It is always a graduated system that works like a larger, but graduated, welfare system. The welfare system would be scrapped completely. The system I believe that is best is the Fair Tax. It has a few problems, of course, but it fixes the tax system and implements a form of UBI.
Originally posted by socool8520
To me it is more humane and civil to get people to work and educate them to help themselves while becoming productive members of society rather than just giving them shit. You know, help them progress our civilization and not just give me the warm fuzzies.
Then based on what you're stating here and the results of some of the UBI research, you advocate and support UBI because the research shows people are able to get educations and that they work more often thus being more educated and working more often: your personal and subjective definition of high-civilization.
So we agree. You want the type of UBI that I want. You want the UBI that Backfire discussed. You want the UBI that Robtard talked about. We want the same thing. Have you now changed your mind and agree that we agree?