i think it's the new gay personally. love is love.
There's quite a difference between homosexuality(prevalent in males, however when it comes to females, even self-identified lesbians have shown sexual arousal to the opposite sex; males), and pedophilia(a occurring attraction to prepubescent children ages 13 and below) Homosexuality, at least in the male sex, has show to be mostly been shown to be out of our control; genetic factors as well as hormones in the womb determine the likelyhood of a man being born male. The same can be said for Pedophilia according to new studies however, but the main difference between the two is Consent.In pedophilia, the attraction is children, and as everyone already knows, they are mostly simple minded, still growing up, and are easy to be taken advantaged of, and can be damaged immensely by acts of molestation committed by pedophiles, or worse, which is what makes acts of Pedophilia illegal and very dangerous(Search up victims of rape to get an understanding) and not homosexuality(A bond/sex between two consenting adults). Though not all/probably most Pedophiles are not child molesters, there still has to be a precaution to deter would-be child molestors. That is why acts of Pedopihlia is illegal(Non-consenting sex between and adult and child), and homosexuality is not in a growing # of places(Consenting sex between two adults) PS: If anyone reading this feels that they may have pedophilic urges or be a pedophile, then I advise you to seek a therapist to sort everything out, as well as learn about restraint and empathy. I don't think anyone here is trying to defend pedophilia. The common thread seems to be rejecting it as an excuse to give the government a blank check to monitor citizens. We've seen what the government does with blank checks, and it never ends well. |
|
|
|
If that fellow suspected such defaults yet proceeded to so loan, has not that fool suffered that fate of them, as he ought?
No one makes a loan if they think the borrower will default. So no, your blaming the victim tactic is also garbage and not a justification for the borrower being a deadbeat. Is a victim one lacking prudence sufficient for victimization elusion? Are you trying to phrase your responses in the most convoluted way possible to detract from not having a valid point? It's not working, and as a bonus, it's obnoxious. Bottom line is you're defending a guy who broke his promises to pay someone back a loan and are now blaming the victim for loaning someone money in the first place. That's twisted logic if I've ever seen it. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. To force repayment so would be to grant him fish. To deny "Squall" is to grant him wisdom. To force repayment is to instill upon the honorless the morals they lack, and in the parlance of your fable, to teach deadbeats to fish for themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Tangentially, I just noticed you and I are having a back-and-forth in three different threads. I wasn't paying attention to forum names.
So, hello.
I'm bowing out of this one though. I've made my points, you've made yours. There's no sense further bashing our heads against the wall.
|
|
|
|
Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.
The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect. Merchants cater to markets, not ideals. (Remember, "The customer is always right.") Can you elaborate? I don't follow in response to what I said. Roughly, "Merchants generally respond to market demand." Ah, sure, but not exclusively. They could respond to a lot of different types of incentives. My point was that a cheaper non-cash method to accept payment than what currently exists could draw merchants in, which could help consumer adoption. I had a secondary point that this could cause more downward pressure on orice though, but that's not as germane to the OP now. "Educating" consumers is notoriously expensive. I think for most, but take Overstock for example. They implemented bitcoin as a payment option. It's not costing them anything to do so, in fact saving them money. Where people use it. Anyone who orders there see it as an option and it cheaply spreads the message. Dell computers has the same thing. I think that's the best to hope for right now. You can't change ingrained consumer habits quickly. I don't know what else could be done to cheaply to spread the word. |
|
|
|
If that fellow suspected such defaults yet proceeded to so loan, has not that fool suffered that fate of them, as he ought?
No one makes a loan if they think the borrower will default. So no, your blaming the victim tactic is also garbage and not a justification for the borrower being a deadbeat. Is a victim one lacking prudence sufficient for victimization elusion? Are you trying to phrase your responses in the most convoluted way possible to detract from not having a valid point? It's not working, and as a bonus, it's obnoxious. Bottom line is you're defending a guy who broke his promises to pay someone back a loan and are now blaming the victim for loaning someone money in the first place. That's twisted logic if I've ever seen it. |
|
|
|
You valuation of humanity is yet more "primitive."
Sorry my worldview and unwillingness to accept killing doesn't satisfy your bloodlust. Also, the i know you are but what am I method of response doesn't make you look as smart as you apparently think. |
|
|
|
Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.
The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect. Merchants cater to markets, not ideals. (Remember, "The customer is always right.") Can you elaborate? I don't follow in response to what I said. Roughly, "Merchants generally respond to market demand." Ah, sure, but not exclusively. They could respond to a lot of different types of incentives. My point was that a cheaper non-cash method to accept payment than what currently exists could draw merchants in, which could help consumer adoption. I had a secondary point that this could cause more downward pressure on orice though, but that's not as germane to the OP now. |
|
|
|
If that fellow suspected such defaults yet proceeded to so loan, has not that fool suffered that fate of them, as he ought?
No one makes a loan if they think the borrower will default. So no, your blaming the victim tactic is also garbage and not a justification for the borrower being a deadbeat. |
|
|
|
|
Somehow - and this is a stretch, I know - I don't think it's a lack of capital keeping you from turning into magic and defying physics or whatever other hippy nonsense you spouted that isn't worth remembering. And the i can't get a job to pay you back because it condones all the evil in the world excuse is epic on the bullshit meter.
|
|
|
|
Other than people looking to trade Bitcoin for profit due to the volatile nature, I haven't had much success in having people adopt Bitcoin as a payment source. There are already safer and easier methods available so people don't see a reason for it YET.
The benefits are far greater for merchants. They pay a couple percentage points on each transaction to accept credit cards, they could accept btc instead and offer a discount for consumers to pay in bitcoin, and still come out ahead compared to credit cards. This sounds like a good thing, more merchants drive more people to use bitcoin. The problem though is no merchant accepts bitcoin and holds it. They can't risk the volatility eating their profit margin and turning sales into losses. So they immediately convert to fiat, because it's stable. This puts a lot of downward pressure on the price of bitcoin. So you think wider merchant acceptance helps the price, but I think it's having the opposite effect. Merchants cater to markets, not ideals. (Remember, "The customer is always right.") Can you elaborate? I don't follow in response to what I said. |
|
|
|
How about not executing anyone? How about executing religious fanatics?
These two statements are not consistent. How about we stick with just not executing anyone? If you leave executors alive, they may execute. Should you spare all but those others that do not so spare, all (and, then, yourself) shall spare. (That dilemma is comparable to that between pure and authoritarian anarchism.) I emphasized the key word in your statement. You don't punish someone based on what they might do. Preemptive punishment is not legitimate. (I emphasized an actual operative word, "executors.") They are made to depart for their dispositions—nothing more, nothing less. Or you could imprison them, that would stop them from killing again. I'd rather leave all the primitive ideas on 'justice killing' in the eras that made the world such a terrible place to live. |
|
|
|
Am I not understanding the post properly? You made an app that spies on people, presumably without their permission? This is a serious charge, especially since people store so much sensitive and personal information on their phones these days. But the lawyers are telling you that you're facing 36 years? That doesn't sound like it matches the crime, so are we missing some important details here?
Also, everyone is telling you to run or whatever. How about if you broke the law and violated people's privacy, you man up and accept the consequence of your actions? I'm not sure what good confessing on a forum anonymously does. If you were sorry, you would apologize to your victims and the judge and accept responsibility for the wrongs you have committed and the people you violated.
You would rather spend half your life locked away then hide from the truth? If he was a fucking serial killer that's 1 thing but spying on someone and running from the feds isn't something that will traumatize you for the rest of your life, atleast more than being in jail would. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. He victimized people. He should go to prison. This isn't the government unreasonably overreaching and imprisoning someone cuz they're evil thugs. This is the government fulfilling one of its legitimate functions and protecting the people he made victims through his unjustified invasions of privacy. 36 years for coding a spy app doesn't sound like the full story though. I wouldn't be surprised if he's left out some other crimes related to this incident in his "confession"/cry for sympathy. |
|
|
|
How about not executing anyone? How about executing religious fanatics?
These two statements are not consistent. How about we stick with just not executing anyone? If you leave executors alive, they may execute. Should you spare all but those others that do not so spare, all (and, then, yourself) shall spare. (That dilemma is comparable to that between pure and authoritarian anarchism.) I emphasized the key word in your statement. You don't punish someone based on what they might do. Preemptive punishment is not legitimate. |
|
|
|
|
Am I not understanding the post properly? You made an app that spies on people, presumably without their permission? This is a serious charge, especially since people store so much sensitive and personal information on their phones these days. But the lawyers are telling you that you're facing 36 years? That doesn't sound like it matches the crime, so are we missing some important details here?
Also, everyone is telling you to run or whatever. How about if you broke the law and violated people's privacy, you man up and accept the consequence of your actions? I'm not sure what good confessing on a forum anonymously does. If you were sorry, you would apologize to your victims and the judge and accept responsibility for the wrongs you have committed and the people you violated.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of the FPS games today are really derivative, so there's not a lot of improvement with each new wave of FPS games. For my money, Halo 3 was leaps and bounds ahead of anything that came before it for online multi-player. There have been better games since probably, but that was the first great one for me.
But as for what's the best game? I would have to say Super Smash Brothers for N64. Hands down the most fun I have had playing video games. Me and my brother would play that for hours at a time.
|
|
|
|
How about not executing anyone? How about executing religious fanatics?
These two statements are not consistent. How about we stick with just not executing anyone? |
|
|
|
This is how shares will be distributed:
Total Shares: 25,000
25,000 Shares at 0.001 BTC
Dividends: Paid bi-weekly.
70% to shareholders
20% for management
10% reselling fees
BTC Address:1H8xrQFKWdjJsrH7vgtri4w6RRpk3q7hDE
First Dividend: October 31st
Dividend Amount: (Tentative on price from USD to BTC) 0.209205024 BTC
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't declaring a dividend before you've even sold anything counter-intuitive? If a share of profit is returned to investors through dividends, you have to have a profit first. Paying out dividends with the funds people give you for the business just for the sake of declaring a dividend and paying something out sounds too much like a ponzi. If dividends were based on a share of profits and were a return on investment, you would declare them every two weeks based on the profit of what you sold in the previous two week period. I apologize for not making that clear but I sold about 100 USD worth of wargaming terrain in a private party sale. I was going to put it on eBay but I got more than I would've from putting it on eBay. I see. Did you make that profit though with funds from bitcoin investment (selling shares)? Otherwise, it would seem the shareholders aren't entitled to any profit that came before they invested, so why would you pay it out? It was still apart of the initial stock I was intending to sell. Shareholders are entitled to everything I manage to still up until the 31st when I pay out the dividend. The whole point of this is to help jumpstart the capital I need to continue purchasing products to sell for a profit. I hope that clears up any confusion. It does. Good luck with your endeavor. There's been a lot of scams on these boards and you can't be too careful. I hope the btc investment helps you unlock some potential, but most of all, I hope you're an honest guy for the sake of your investors. |
|
|
|
i hate the fact governments think they have the right to go snooping on people with no permission off anybody.
Well they think of us as subjects to be ruled over. It's less them thinking they have the right and more them not thinking we have rights. |
|
|
|
This is how shares will be distributed:
Total Shares: 25,000
25,000 Shares at 0.001 BTC
Dividends: Paid bi-weekly.
70% to shareholders
20% for management
10% reselling fees
BTC Address:1H8xrQFKWdjJsrH7vgtri4w6RRpk3q7hDE
First Dividend: October 31st
Dividend Amount: (Tentative on price from USD to BTC) 0.209205024 BTC
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't declaring a dividend before you've even sold anything counter-intuitive? If a share of profit is returned to investors through dividends, you have to have a profit first. Paying out dividends with the funds people give you for the business just for the sake of declaring a dividend and paying something out sounds too much like a ponzi. If dividends were based on a share of profits and were a return on investment, you would declare them every two weeks based on the profit of what you sold in the previous two week period. I apologize for not making that clear but I sold about 100 USD worth of wargaming terrain in a private party sale. I was going to put it on eBay but I got more than I would've from putting it on eBay. I see. Did you make that profit though with funds from bitcoin investment (selling shares)? Otherwise, it would seem the shareholders aren't entitled to any profit that came before they invested, so why would you pay it out? |
|
|
|
Loans are not what matters. Bringing people peace is all that does.
Sounds like you could bring yourself peace by paying back the guy you owe. Then he wouldn't have any reason to follow you around. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
