damnedfurry

Regardless of what's being defended, this is a "poisoning the well" fallacy, and should be avoided as a rhetorical tactic. This particular example serves no purpose than the stroke the ego and sense of moral superiority of those on one side, and alienate those on the other, and create a divisive binary where there isn't one, and shouldn't be one.

Suppose someone argues that the solution is making sure no historical figures are diminished due to their race, not just during a certain month, but always, and therefore doesn't believe that focusing on a single race for an arbitrary amount of time is productive. Well, OP would dump them squarely into the 'enslavers and segregationists' camp, where they obviously do not belong.

I'm reminded of my gay friends who hate many modern pride events because they feel they do the opposite of normalizing homosexuality in focusing on garish oversexualized public displays. They'd be called homophobes by the equivalent of the OP--isn't that a bit ridiculous?

Oh, exterminator, finally! Start over by the ficus.

If the weather is too shitty to bike, why would I want to put a delivery driver in those conditions.

I mean, I really don't want to bike in the rain, but that's no big deal for someone in a car, lol.

The fact that even with the fees charged to the restaurant and to the customer, the majority of these apps still aren't even profitable, lol.

Yes. Those people consider things like this part of the "cost of living", not the luxury that it is.

On average, people have more of an issue overspending than they do underearning. That's why even among people making six figures, 1 in 4 of them live "paycheck to paycheck", which people assume to mean 'barely make enough to make ends meet', but what more commonly means 'deliberately chooses not to save/spends every dollar earned'.

Okay, now it's $74. Now what?

Using ‘retard’ as a slur, not only for people with intellectual disabilities

That's actually the one group of people I've never seen anyone call that, lol.

Almost certainly the same amount. When was the last time you saw a state, that wasn't considered a swing state, flip during a Presidential election from the candidate expected to win it to the other?

This isn't a good argument in general--you can call anything anything, even if it doesn't fit what it actually is. This would be like accusing someone of being anti-democracy for opposing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), or anti-life for opposing the "pro-life" movement.

Whether the label is accurate in any given circumstance doesn't change the fact.

Not necessarily, not in the US's system for President, at least. If you don't live in a swing state, your vote is literally a waste of time. Doesn't matter who you support or don't.

practically speaking, cities and towns would have to be able to sustain that high level of policing, which hardly anyone wants.

But it'd be temporary for it to be that high, no? Am I misremembering, or is this basically the way that NYC stopped being so infamously crime-ridden? I was under the impression that it's not as aggressive now as it was then.

Hastily-googled, but this seems to confirm at least some of what I remember reading a while back: https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/what-reduced-crime-new-york-city

I think there’s very little appetite in America to actually put a police officer on every corner. Nobody would like living in that world.

Yeah, probably. Was just wondering about it hypothetically.

After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, right?

You might want to do some more research and have sources.

I brought up a handful of VERY easily-verifiable, non-controversial data points, and just did some simple math. But, I guess, for the extremely lazy:

• $1000/mo x 12 months in a year = $12000/yr
• Number of working-age (16-64) Americans = ~210 million (I rounded down to 200 and counted working-age only (i.e. no elderly/retired), two things that make my argument WEAKER)
• $12 thousand x 200 million = $2.4 trillion
• Combined net worth of US billionaires is ~4.5 trillion. But hey, I found a much higher estimate that puts it a bit above 6 trillion. That gets you almost a whole extra year!
• Latest US defense spending budget is $850 billion

Assuming stripping defense down to zero (which again, is an absolutely absurd hypothetical made for the sake of argument, and making my argument AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE) and applying the entire $850 billion to the UBI price tag, you're left with a yearly cost of $1.55 trillion. And even using the higher estimate of $6 trillion from the billionaires, 1.55 goes into 6 less than 4 times.

The only thing 'wonky' is your refusal to accept mathematical reality.

P.S. Telling me to "look at really good sources" for 'it's not universal if it's not given to everyone' made me laugh pretty hard.