I'm aware of that loycev, hence the use of the word "most"  Most that you've encountered... you probably don't hang around spam threads (for good reason) thus avoiding the hordes of egregious spammers. I have no doubt that they actually do need the money, considering the number of alt chains we've witnessed over the years and the quality of posts they produce. If you set a goal for a few thousand reports, you'll learn to find spam... and note how easy it is to do so. Were it not for the signature campaigns, I doubt at least 75% of the forum would stay active on the forum.
Free market dynamics. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
As of this current point, it is still unclear whether you are entering an infinite regress, an axiomatic claim, or in the midst of a circular argument. Regarding your multiple choice question, it seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. Why? Because it is part of the basic questions we all ask. We don't have the answer to the question with regard to a building up from the basics. If we did, everybody would be on the same page with religion... be it God religion or atheism religion. That seems strange, because I know many philosophers that establish themselves with coherentism, foundationalism, and infinitism. This is not a simple matter of "which do you prefer, apples or peaches?" but rather a core aspect of how you determine truth. Even if you don't know your own belief structure, you may still be able to discover the underlying core behind it by use of the Socratic method or logical/syllogistic deconstruction.
Since you would rather focus on our "talk" as the point, rather than on atheism, and to attempt to make the "points" and "articles" of talking into the topic, you are going off-topic regarding this thread. I'm not sure why this is a problem. If certain points of discussion lead to the reason for Atheism (whatever one's definition of that is) then would they not be on-topic? For that matter, if we were following in sequence, we reach a Sorites paradox of determining the point at which we breached on-topicness. Aren't words fun? Note that each person who believes or thinks about science or God, does so at least slightly differently than every other person. So, essentially, when a person says that he believes the same as anyone else - has the same religion - if he doesn't include in his saying that he is speaking in simple, general ways, he is lying... whether he knows it or not. Interesting! Correct me if you so choose: interpretations of this Great First Mover (GFM) may differ between individuals yet the essence of the GFM remains constant? Certainly, this can be seen in various other conceptual ideas (your previous example of 'love' serves as a proper example). God is not the simple thing that has to do with B and B0. Such talk is getting down to the basics (sort of) which are so basic that the discussion could go on for a long time before showing the reality of God or atheism. Fun to talk, but there are other things in life than this basic kind of talk in a forum... other things that show the reality of God's existence. This would have been much simpler had you started with this idea rather than mentioning anything Biblical. If GFM is detached from tangible objects, then let's discard the Biblical and Dead Sea Scroll topic and focus on GFM itself. Atheists - people who try to make themselves out to be God above the real God I fail to recognize where I have made this claim. Thank Goodness that we have dictionaries and encyclopedias! Of which, show slight variations in their definitions. Just as you do not know my definition of free will, I do not know yours. The existence of a dictionary definition doesn't mean that someone has their own ideas of some term X. Regardless, we can abandon this topic if you do not wish to delve further. This is an interesting theory albeit unclear in its origin. I didn't know it was a theory. I thought it was a story, one that might be used as some kind of parable at times. I would ask for your source for it being a theory... if I were interested. Replace theory with story, if you want. That was my intended semantic construction, anyway.
Still having fun here. If I were to be honest, I would say that my belief in a GFM has no pragmatic influence upon my actions and experiences in the world and thus the tautological nature is of no substance to my life. You may have a different conclusion from your belief structure, which is why I want to ascertain its nature. If its nature is indeterminable, then no problem: whether I believe in it or not won't matter, since we have no causal link behind belief/non-belief and some arbitrary event. If its nature is determinable, then it should be determinable in absolution, since any lack of understanding of an entity should pose doubt behind causal links derived thereof. A simple example of the latter would be a basic "doubling" algorithm, with one word hidden: If you send some amount of money to me, I will return twice the amount negatively. There you have it: comprehension of almost the entirety of the algorithm could lead to any possibility of events (note that my word addition could be placed anywhere in the algorithm and does not have to be limited to a singular word) |
|
|
|
well, assuming we believe you. what do you say to this case? user herurist who has the same signature as mbakruroh has also posted a few times a BTC address that belongs to you. is this all a coincidence? It must be a coincidence! Certainly, there is ( bot ) no way that ( you ) could ever find a link between the users' ( mindset, method, etc ) and say to yourself: " wow " https://archive.is/ZocL3https://archive.is/jvu3A
Keep playing games and eventually you lose. Are we going to admit anything now or do we have to keep searching? |
|
|
|
Do think 99.9 % of the forum member here can correctly run a vpn and a bitcoin core wallet.
I think a lot more then 0.1% can not. I'm fairly certain that the reason for this is not a lack of information (we live in the age thereof) but rather a lack of motivation or incentive to do so. A significant portion of forum members don't even understand basic properties of Bitcoin. An even higher percentage of the forum are merely here to post for their signature, which means that even though they might osmosis some knowledge pertaining to Bitcoin, most of it is left unused. Stumble into a couple Bitcoin/Trading Discussion or Economics/Speculation threads and you'll no doubt catch those such users. You'll find general answers, vague answers, even shit that's just straight-up wrong. |
|
|
|
actmyname don't try to argue with BADecker, it's useless. Unfortunately for him, he's not that bright up there. It matters not: these discussions serve another benefit to my own education. Refinement of philosophical understanding comes much more easily when you have someone to discuss them with, and given BADecker's eagerness thereof, I consider him a fairly apt partner for this purpose. |
|
|
|
Update (March 4th, 2020): I added a 12th suggestion, after the apparition of a campaign asking for a certain number of threads created each week, but also a certain number of posts in the first three pages of a thread. Maybe this rule should be considered. [12] Should it be a general rule to not be allowed campaigns requiring participants to have a certain number of topics created in a week or requiring participants to have a certain number of posts in the first page(s) of a topic? Such a campaign is BlockZone and, apparently, many people blamed its requirements, as they may raise the amount of spam. Unsustainable as fuck. In all my years I've seen scores of hundreds of worthless threads, and I've only created a handful of threads I considered decent.
Perhaps it's a panacea answer, tautological in nature, but... What are "constructive posts"? If you can't report it for subsequent deletion, it's constructive. |
|
|
|
How can you have both point 1 1) DOES NOT have anything to do with cryptocurrencies !!! And this as a solution? Or, as an option, move the "politics" section to "Off Topic" so that it doesn't appear at all. Mad at a board for being off-topic? Solution: use an off-topic board to store contents.
Now, if we were to talk of closing the Altcoin section... |
|
|
|
The proof for the Dead Sea Scrolls is God, of course. However, the odds, while they are probably low enough in this case to not be proof (as science considers proof by odds), are definitely high enough to make believers out of anybody who sees them and is honest with himself. I once again ask for your answer to the simple multiple-choice question. This will facilitate further understanding. As of this current point, it is still unclear whether you are entering an infinite regress, an axiomatic claim, or in the midst of a circular argument. Of course, God doesn't have to be called "God" to be God. The word "God" - especially these days - has many connotations attached to it that are not necessarily applicable to the Being we call God. So, use a better word. The Great First Cause is a form I like somewhat. While it doesn't have much of the meaning for God that other words might, it's appeal lies in the idea that God is original, before all, made it all, and set everything into motion. Interesting. What makes you inclined to your branch of Biblical representation thereof as opposed to any other representation of God is what I'm trying to grasp, however. It's rather unfortunate for you that you seem to like to drag the idea of God down into all kinds of simplistic ideas and formulas where you can split Him apart. That is not what I am doing and if you have made this assumption then I would be happy to elaborate on the specific passage of which you made this conclusion. The fact that we can think and choose shows that God exists in each of us. I can only assume you are referring to a concept of free will, which we have yet to define. Then one day, the final mutation happened in one of them. This being evolved past the point where it needed a body to be alive. Not only this, but it also evolved to the point where it could actually control the space-time continuum. This is an interesting theory albeit unclear in its origin. Isn't it time that we cast aside the religion that is against God, and embrace the reality of the existence of God? Why focus on the beating down something that can't be destroyed, while only destroying ourselves instead? Are all organized religions against your idea of God? Which particular set of dogmas and beliefs is the correct one to follow? |
|
|
|
While it's true the evidence is on the whole circumstantial, two identical patterns (double spacing and twin spelling mistakes) (with the potential of a third in the targeted posts in Reputation etc) are pointers to both having the same finger-print. I guess... but those are prose characteristics with a large breadth of usage. Most shitposters do the whole double-spacing posting style to make it look like their post has more substance to pad it out and it's probable that the likelihood thereof increases inversely with native English proficiency. OTOH, Is it possible to say that savetheFORUM (activity eleven) and truth or dare activity 42/174 are alts of each-other and/or alts of Thule simply because of their fingerprints being line double spacing, targeted posts in Reputation etc and their similar UID creation dates 20 days apart? Anything is possible but I highly doubt the two are intertwined. You will see plenty of new accounts appear in Reputation thus the UID remark is of no significant substance. Moreover, 20 days is a fairly long duration (though again, it doesn't really matter). If you want to do further post analysis (bear in mind it's going to be a very high ratio) then you could probably find more links. In general, though, think about what you accomplish: It may warrant a ban. Okay: in this scenario, another account is created and we have wasted our time. If the account holder is not of the same cryptographic identity then again we have wasted our time. Worse yet, preemptive stigmatization and false accusations skew the true number of cryptographic identities arguing against any given issue. |
|
|
|
Name one true democracy. There have been compromised attempts but it has always been a compromise. My room is a democracy in which the inhabitants vote on the next action to take. Sometimes guests even come in and vote on nocturnal activities, but those are confidential tales.
Gosh, I hope that participation in multiple gangs will keep my values consistent. I'd hate to be in superposition of valuing a Kialara piece over the cat's commands and being ordered with absolute authority to melt down my 3d-printed kill FFrankie coins! |
|
|
|
|
The topic of privacy would soon split into various subcategories, of which could easily be planted in the various boards strewn across the forum.
KYC/AML in relation to Gambling has its obvious place.
KYC/AML in relation to Bitcoin has its obvious place.
Privacy in relation to Bitcoin has its obvious place.
Privacy in relation to Gambling has its obvious place.
etc.
|
|
|
|
In lieu of the responses, I posit a simple question: Which epistemological branch do you fall under? Do you believe in: 1. An infinite regression, which appears because of the necessity to go ever further back, but is not practically feasible and does not, therefore, provide a certain foundation.
2. A logical circle in the deduction, which is caused by the fact that one, in the need to found, falls back on statements which had already appeared before as requiring a foundation, and which circle does not lead to any certain foundation either.
3. A break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason. These correspond to the regressive, circular, and axiomatic arguments respectively. For further information one can consult the article for Münchhausen trilemma.
The one thing that you are forgetting is that God is maintaining His Word. If this has suddenly become some kind of a test for the authenticacy of the Bible, there is a lot more that shows that the Bible is real and that we can see that God is real because of what the Bible is. You need to look at the whole history of Israel, and the kind of people they are to understand this. History, as we know, can be fabricated. Consider: if one has not independently verified with their own empirical senses the existence of some object X, then the proof they rely upon must come from others. Secondary evidence, proven only by the assertion of external sapience. That's what I have been trying to tell you. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that Ancient Israel was in the habit of duplicating their God-writings virtually perfectly. The nature of the people of ancient Israel with regard to the words of God was to treat God's words as holy. Why did they do this? Three basic reasons: 1. Their punishment when they didn't obey God; 2. The national memory of the power shown by Moses; 3. The strength of the faith of Father Abraham. If the proof for perfect Biblical replication lay with the Dead Sea Scrolls, then we have a further regression: what, then, is the proof that the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves were not falsely replicated? The answer to this should correspond to your answer in relation to my first question. If the scrolls are axiomatic, then we are assuming that the scrolls are an absolute truth without evidence. If the scrolls prove themselves, then we should carry similar logic to other circular arguments which may or may not be false. If the scrolls are proven by something else, referred-to now as object S 0, then we run into a similar, recursive argument for S 0... then S 1, S 2, all the way down.
Before we tackle the other points I wish to focus on simply one, as that will make the discussion more streamlined and succinct. |
|
|
|
Posts in Archival should have never been counted and this was an oversight on my part. (thanks to Loyce for pointing it out!)
If for some reason you disagree with the rule change, please let me know. What?! You mean to say that a low-traffic board reserved for a testing environment and expired topics doesn't deserve a bonus for posting in it? I'm absolutely done. Preposterous! There may be some good validity for the concerns of a ChipMixer cult yet! What a coincidence that the member LoyceV has hoarded all these merit points and instigated this change. Very sneaky indeed. Wait a few years for the full takeover.  |
|
|
|
The one thing that you are forgetting is that God is maintaining His Word. If this has suddenly become some kind of a test for the authenticacy of the Bible, there is a lot more that shows that the Bible is real and that we can see that God is real because of what the Bible is. You need to look at the whole history of Israel, and the kind of people they are to understand this. History, as we know, can be fabricated. Consider: if one has not independently verified with their own empirical senses the existence of some object X, then the proof they rely upon must come from others. Secondary evidence, proven only by the assertion of external sapience. The thing you are talking about in its simplicity is, if you hold up two apples, and they both are essentially the same, this doesn’t tell us which tree or trees they come from. But this is irrelevant to the existence of God. Unfortunately, through simplicity, you have strawmanned my case from that of a transformation to merely comparing two copies. Perhaps expanding the case to the entirety of the Bible creates this difference in logic, therefore I shall strip away the majority of these words and merely focus on a single line thereof: Genesis 28, NIV: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Unsure of what you consider the original text, I have chosen the New International Version. If you wish to refute the authenticity thereof, we may use a line of your choice, but bear in mind that a refutation to its validity should in fact encompass the scenario I explained in my post. We can apply a linguistic form of the Ship of Theseus puzzle onto this text, transforming it over the years: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (original) God blessed them and said unto them, "be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it: rule over fish, over birds, and over every moving organism on Earth." (transformation #1) God blessed them and said, "reproduce, regrow, rule." (transformation #2) -- further reduction in information results in a distortion of the text, creating vastly different interpretations and eliminating the original meaning. Heavenly father bestowed upon them blessings and decreed, "repopulate Earth, maintain its infrastructure, control with absolution the life on Earth." (transformation #3) Dad of the Clouds blessed our kind, proclaiming, "give birth to new life, keep the Earth alive, eliminate free will on Earth." (transformation #4) Father Francis blessed our people, providing us three rules: "maximize homo sapien zygotes, maintain the planet's core, maximize allegiance to the Father" (transformation #5) It appears that in our final transformation, an authoritarian ruler has modified the text for his own nefarious purposes. Given the limit of the human lifespan, if given enough time between transformations, there will be a continuous transition in which the people are able to accept such texts as the word of God. Despite not actually being the word of God, people who are in a closed system of communication have no way of accessing the true nature/texts of God. Through no fault of their own, they have accepted a false reality. Through no fault of their own, they are to burn in Hell for eternity (assuming your Biblical representation of punishment is true) Though, I didn't actually need to create these transformations: we have real-life examples revolving around Yahweh with differing texts: the Torah, Quran, and Bible in their various forms. Moreover, even in Christianity itself there appear to be many clashing and conflicting sects.
Now you are talking about science theory. Big Bang Theory destroys Big Bang at the same time it develops it. So, where did this whole universe come from? I have not mentioned the Big Bang. I do not assume anything in particular about the creation of the universe. Complexity always comes from same or greater complexity. When simplicity brings about complexity, there was a far greater complexity that “programmed” the simplicity to do this. The fact of entropy shows that there is always a decline of complexity. Can you define complexity? I also don't see any clear logical progression for your assertions. "Complexity always comes from same or greater complexity" - how? (I'm asking for two things here: first being a definition for complexity, the second being the syllogism of which you drew your conclusion)
There is no example of complexity coming from simplicity anywhere. Just because you can't see, measure, comprehend, or otherwise verify something does not mean that its non-existence is certain. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, right? After all, if we were to claim such a thing, then why would the same logic not apply to your idea of God? But let's not get ahead of ourselves here! Consider this possible case: In all of history, humanity has not encountered an elephant. Humanity has toyed around with the notion of such an animal but has never gathered empirical data for such an organism. Therefore, there is no example of an elephant anywhere. Therefore, we assert that elephants do not exist. Now, if we change the words around in relation to what you said, we can arrive at this series of propositions and conclusions. In all of history, humanity has not encountered an example of 'complexity coming from simplicity' anywhere. Humanity has toyed around with the notion of such an idea but has never gathered empirical data for such an event. Therefore, there is no example of 'complexity coming from simplicity' anywhere. Therefore, we assert that 'complexity coming from simplicity' does not exist. Before you balk at the comparison between elephants and ideas/concepts, note that the elephant example can be replaced with any other concept. It is merely in this form to simplify understanding.
Scientific investigation shows that God exists. The universe is a machine. Machines are designed and built. Has nothing to do with religions or religious writings. Proposition 1: The universe is a machine. Proposition 2: Machines are designed and built. Conclusion: God exists. If this is an inaccurate representation of your argument, then forgive my transgression for I know not the word of the Lord as well as you do. If, however, it is an accurate representation of your argument, then I ask for validity of the propositions and the causative logic between the two and the conclusion.
Four different sections here to deconstruct. We should not let them intermingle since that only complicates the relevant discourse upon each subject. And yes, I'm even not going for the infinite regress refutation... we all know to expect goalpost movement and special clause additions (despite the incomprehensible nature of the entity). |
|
|
|
More numerical value comparison, I see. You can compare absolute values but again, the flu in that year and covid-19 are operating at different stages of its "infectivity lifetime". The flu had already gone through its whole infection cycle for that year. Can the same be said for the covid-19 virus?
As for your other linked comparison table, I'm just going to point you back to my previous post since the argument's essence is practically unchanged. |
|
|
|
Hm, another possible link... Check this out: Username: nicolas1979
Post Count: 2155
BTC Address (must be SegWit): 3PEWNFskMCPM726YeavUMWJ1dTW1rsmYfX
I will change my signature once accepted my. Thank you. [Archive][Archive]( original source linked here as thread is locked)
These quotes are in sequential order. The latter was posted on February 26th. Also of note is that in the latter quote's thread, nicolas1979 posts shortly before mbakruroh makes an application: within 30 minutes and 7 posts apart. Moreover, we have this commonality: Check up date information I will up date my signature always up date information Archives 1, 2, 3. You can also find a common link of the users adding spaces to pad parentheses ( example here ). And right before the final quote is a post from mbakruroh:
Assuming OP is lying about being hacked, this is the conclusion I arrive at: OP sold the mbakruroh account and continued usage of the others. They now wish to claim that the account was hacked in order to retrieve it after having been sold. This has backfired. Hard. Outcome 1: mbakruroh belongs to a hacker. Therefore, the other accounts also belong to the hacker and are thus linked to the same negatively-rated reputation and cryptographic identity. Outcome 2: mbakruroh belongs to the original user. Therefore, the other accounts also belong to the original user and carry the same "attempted swindler" reputation and cryptographic identity. |
|
|
|
Whether this belongs to the hacker or yours.
I see that these two accounts have just been (awake). Likely to be the former, given the date of the posts. Forum activity in 2020 should originate from that of the hacker.
It could have changed hands possibly, but a single post three months later, IMO is insufficient evidence to support it is hacked. Note the wording: starting with this post. The prose completely changed from that post onward. The user in question stopped posting in their local board of choice. The password was changed on the exact date of which the account made the relevant post. Addendum: the account was logged into on the date of December 19th, but it appears that the user was dormant until the password change. |
|
|
|
What are you talking about?
56000000 million people die every year. These year so far 9500000 died 3200 of them from the COVID-19 disease that is 0.03%
The worst day for SARS-CoV-2 virus was on the 10th of February. On that day 108 people died in China
BUT, on the same day
26283 people died of Cancer
24641 people died of Heart Disease
4300 people died of Diabetes
and on that day , Suicide, unfortunately, took more lives than the virus by 28 times.
Mosquitos kill 2740 people every day and snakes 137 This feels like it was ripped straight off someone's Facebook wall. Even avoiding the easy target of assigning the fallacy of relative privation to your post, we can examine some problems with the false equivalency. The most glaring issue is simply this: you are applying the numerical value of covid-19 deaths (i.e. 108) to that of the numerical value of alternative causes of death. It is not exactly fair to compare the number of deaths from a viral outbreak in its infancy to the number of deaths from already-developed forms of death. To elaborate in the context of your examples, note that cancer didn't exactly 'start' in late December... neither did heart disease, nor diabetes and the rest. Furthermore, let us not forget the importance of statistical weighting and distribution... just because more people die from cows than sharks does not mean that cows are more deadly than sharks. Consider the fact that the sample encompasses the entire population, but one would certainly say that the chances of dying of a shark attack are higher when living on the coast than deep in the mainland. That being said, we could arrange similar comparisons with each of your provided examples, though I'm sure by now we should all have some idea of why the comparisons aren't great in evaluating the severity of the virus. |
|
|
|
Seems like this was the page where the prose made a sudden shift, starting with this post: Pump and dump is reality, accept that as opportunity to make money depend your strategy. It's very good if you keep think positive about volatility, please don't ever has negative perspective about pump and dump. Most people doesn't like dump but as trader how we can buy/ buy back if the price keep high, think again?
Checking seclog for results further adds circumstantial evidence to this hypothesis: December 23, 2019, 01:48:12 PM - mbakruroh - password changedTagged. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
