[throaway955]

>Sure there are. But unfortunately I have a mortgage and bills that need paying.

Hence the UBI.

>In theory yes, in reality no. One will exacerbates the other.

Big big big assumption that doesn't match my reality very well. People who keep active, have a social life and are happy are at less risk for addiction. Not people who "have a job." Those are not the same things.

>You asked me whether I thought it was better and I gave you two reasons why I believed it was better. I believe it is be a completely honest assessment based on my own experiences. If you have a critique that is objective of my position I am willing to listen to it, but moralising about how my assessment I am not interested in.

It is not "better" for people to go to work day in and day out as a way of paying back society while slowly killing themselves with addiction. The better thing is to treat the addiction, not get them working.

[ReaperCub]

> Hence the UBI.

Which requires someone else to work to pay for those things. I don't believe other people should pay my mortgage and bills. Those are my responsibility.

I chose to buy a house. I chose to buy a car. I chose the 1 gigabyte virgin media broadband package. Nobody forced me to choose them. Therefore it would be irresponsible and immoral to expect someone else to pay the bill.

> The better thing is to treat the addiction

This assumes that addiction is a disease and a not a choice. I firmly believe it is a choice. I choose to drink excessively in the first place. I made the choice to stop drinking. I chose to stay sober.

As for the rest of what you wrote. You really need to go back an re-read what I said. You asked me which is better between two scenarios. I stated that one was better than the other with a rationale.

You seem to be arguing something else entirely now. I am not sure really what you are arguing against. Certainly not statements I've made in this thread.

[throaway955]

>Which requires someone else to work to pay for those things. I don't believe other people should pay my mortgage and bills. Those are my responsibility.

Then you've made the choice to not pursue other things that will make you happier than "working." Yet my point initially was that working is not anywhere close to the only way that people can stay active and away from "rotting."

No one is saying a UBI needs to pay for a 3 story house and 1 GB internet. If you want more than the basics, you know what to do...work!

>This assumes that addiction is a disease and a not a choice.

No, this assumes that many people will need help quitting an addiction.

>You asked me which is better between two scenarios.

Both scenarios are grim and best avoided. The better solution is to help solve the problem, not to act like work is a cure-all, or that a marginal improvement in the form of societal contribution (or "max time away from drink") is sufficient. For many people, work is the reason they drink, or do drugs, or have anger issues. A proper UBI helps people maintain a healthy lifestyle without having to put themselves in a position where they are stressed and powerless for the rest of their working life.

[ReaperCub]

> Then you've made the choice to not pursue other things that will make you happier than "working".

It not about being happier. You didn't read what I said. I said they were my responsibility. You fundamentally don't understand what I am trying to tell you.

> Yet my point initially was that working is not anywhere close to the only way that people can stay active and away from "rotting."

I never said it was. Like many replies of the replies I've had on my initial reply in this thread they have conflated doing something productive, with going to work. Going for a cycle is more productive than Netflix, learning crotchet is more productive than Netflix.

> No, this assumes that people will need help quitting an addiction.

If you don't wish people to misunderstand you, then you shouldn't use language that implies that you believe it to be a disease.

> Both scenarios are grim and best avoided. The better solution is to help solve the problem, not to act like work is a cure-all.

I never said work was a cure-all. You keep on adding things I never said.

You asked me what is better between two scenarios was. I gave you an answer which I thought was better between the two with a rationale.

> For many people, work is the reason they drink, or do drugs, or have anger issues.

No. That is one of the excuses they use to justify their poor choices. I know because I used the same justification.

The reason they have drink, drugs or anger issues is because they choose to.

> A proper UBI helps people maintain a healthy lifestyle without having to put themselves in a position where they are stressed and powerless for the rest of their working life.

So you proclaim. I believe the opposite is likely to happen in the long run. I know what the (negative) affects of welfare are in the UK and UBI IMO will make things worse.

[throaway955]

Look guy, your initial post was about how people sat around watching Netflix during Covid and how that's terrible for you and unproductive.

First off, a heck of a lot of those things that you are calling productive, are really just physical activity. Going for a bike ride is good for you, literally. The sense of achievement is just a side effect. If you had a pill that could replicate the effects of a 30 min bike ride, people would sit around eating those pills. And they'd be extremely healthy and happy.

Secondly, Covid was a time when people were culturally and legally obligated to stay inside and keep away from other people.

UBI does not come with those constraints. So no, it's not the same. People will not sit around watching Netflix at the rate they did during Covid. Because they are not compelled to stay inside the house at the risk of being deemed a menace to society.

I did read what you said and I do understand. You said that you can't go do things other than go to the office because you chose an expensive lifestyle. Congratulations. UBI will not cover that and it shouldn't. It is a universal BASIC income.

Saying addiction requires treatment for many people does not imply it is a disease. Addiction treatment existed before the disease model and I don't think of it as a disease in the same way as cancer etc. So that's your own conflict that you're projecting onto me. Much of addiction treatment is treating emotions and rationales that addicts may not even be aware of anymore, sometimes purposefully, sometimes not.

>No. That is one of the excuses they use to justify their poor choices. I know because I used the same justification.

That's your experience with one drug (alcohol). Frankly, it comes across as naive. Many people can not quit by themselves, even if they want to. Not to mention hard drugs like heroin, crack, meth, benzos. You really are trying to say that years of use of those drugs can be stopped by just "deciding?" For every individual? Simply untrue.

>which I thought was better between the two with a rationale.

I get it, believe me. Im saying your rationale is simplistic and that both choices are subpar and neither should not be acceptable.

[ReaperCub]

> Look guy, your initial post was about how people sat around watching Netflix during Covid and how that's terrible for you and unproductive

No it wasn't. I suggest you re-read it. I was talking about people generally. I actually didn't speak that much about my own experience. I actually talked about what generally happened over COVID in my original reply.

> I did read what you said and I do understand. You said that you can't go do things other than go to the office because you chose an expensive lifestyle. Congratulations. UBI will not cover that and it shouldn't. It is a universal BASIC income.

Again you inserted things that I did not say. I never said I can't do other things. I don't live an expensive lifestyle. The only thing I said I need to go to work to pay the bills.

> That's your experience with one drug (alcohol). Frankly, it comes across as naive. Many people can not quit by themselves, even if they want to. Not to mention hard drugs like heroin, crack, meth, benzos. You really are trying to say that years of use of those drugs can be stopped by just "deciding?" For every individual? Simply untrue.

No it isn't naive. It is literally what every recovered addict says. "You have to want to quit". Whether people should get help or not has nothing to do with the justifications of why they abuse substances.

> I get it, believe me. Im saying your rationale is simplistic and that both choices are subpar and neither should not be acceptable.

I don't think you do. You didn't even bother reading what I said properly. So I think we will leave it there.