Just curious, do you two really consider me to be the dickwad, here?
i do. Not that I care, but why? I don't see what makes him a dickwad (I didn't go through all the pages though) a) his reply(it hurts me very deeply  ) If I thought you were capable of feeling emotions, I might believe you. Great! now you don't even understand what lack of emphaty means. You just getting stupider and stupider... b) he can't see that NAP is inconsistent, and refuses to accept that a state can be a good choice. Explaining it with his "fact" about states, with that it kills people who chooses not to behave in a certain way, and then failing to see that the NAP does the same. The difference being that a State kills people who have done no harm to others, and a NAP-respecting person only kills people in defense. when they don't behave in a certain way, yes? |
|
|
|
... snip ...
i call bullshit as always, and reminds you of our bet. even the tl;dr i say tl;dr to. how do you identify a bad SH, when the majority is bad? Ask the bad ones? who says what is good and bad in the network? you? me? some heuristic method that can easily be cheated? |
|
|
|
Just curious, do you two really consider me to be the dickwad, here?
i do. Not that I care, but why? I don't see what makes him a dickwad (I didn't go through all the pages though) a) his reply(it hurts me very deeply ) b) he can't see that NAP is inconsistent, and refuses to accept that a state can be a good choice. Explaining it with his "fact" about states, with that it kills people who chooses not to behave in a certain way, and then failing to see that the NAP does the same. |
|
|
|
Just curious, do you two really consider me to be the dickwad, here?
i do. |
|
|
|
With a better Nvidia, you can get 140+ MH/s, but with better RadeonHD you can get 300+.
finely executed necrobumb. +1 |
|
|
|
im waiting for government involvement to stabilize things, have a nice day.
Sounds great. Then we can get back to how it should be. A monopoly system with a group of privileged bankers. no, the governement hunts scammers and hold them to justice. governements can be good. <- this is what you people fail to understand. |
|
|
|
Democracy is a paradox. If an entire nation of people were smart enough to be able to properly run a democracy, they'd be anarchists; they could solve their own problems, on their own terms, without the help of a higher power. The only democracy we like is the one where people are smart enough. There is no democracy with a majority of smart-enoughs (thanks to the wonderful invention that is state-owned school.) There is no democracy in which you have the power to vote. There is only a mafia and a veil.
we are the 99.99, please shut up. you are our problem, we are smart, we are solving it. self preservation ftw. |
|
|
|
Markets still require foundations on which they can be built.
So how do you explain the bitcoin community? there is no foundation for our economy here, we have no governments to enforce bitcoin related contracts, no police to catch bitcoin fraudsters, yet somehow trade miraculously happens. The point is that the state isnt providing enforcement of contracts or the catching of criminals in the bitcoin community yet we still have an economy none the less. So markets are not dependent upon enforcement of contracts and catching of criminals. They do however depend on communication, something that the internet provides but could also be achieved verbally if we all lived in proximity to one another and the state is not needed for communication. mybitcoin, GOXED, bitcoinica, scammerboard, pirate. Going pretty good, don't you think? im waiting for government involvement to stabilize things, have a nice day. |
|
|
|
I've read every post in this thread so far.
I have also coded in javascript, and the Bank of Bitcoin idea sounds credible and solid to me. Not to mention, Veronica's patience and persistence is not the behavior of a scammer.
I can see that a lot of people are skeptical.
Are there any senior members here that care to admit to trying out the Bank of Bitcoin?
Yes, I know this is my first post, but I got to start somewhere...
SOCKPUPPET DETECTED! |
|
|
|
Utilitarianism is a collectivist ideology where "the greater good" is used to justify violence against individuals. It is inherently evil.
okay, so people must not work together? Individuals naturally try to maximize their happiness, but once this becomes mobs of people trying to maximize happiness for everyone else, it simply ends in disaster.
okay, then argue against the rational egoist if that whats you like. Just look at how Mao or Stalin "maximized" happiness for the Chinese and Russians - hundreds of millions of people were murdered in the name of creating a "better" or "happier" society. When forced on people, Utopia invariably becomes Dystopia.
did stalin or mao make the world a happier place? NO! was their actions utiltaristic then? NO! okay, so you point to two people who killed a lot of poeple, yell utiltarist at them, and then generalize from a bad premise. i see your flawless logic. |
|
|
|
And that is why we should kill all the jews. Utilitarianism is simply stupid as a moral theory. It ends in murder. Always. It cannot accomodate diversity of thought or personage.
please explain why maximizing the world's happiness is a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Kant was right. End of story.
Fascinating how much you want to close the discussion, you just quote some old dead dude. Afraid to lose? Please! Be my guest. Do go ahead and show why Kant is wrong! But don't be surprised when you fail, just like several hundred years of others. Critiques of Kant mostly rely on the introduction of a logical contradiction and then the critiquer dancing around and praising how clever they are. The rest of the critiques of Kant pretty much boil down to temper tantrums, hissy fits and name calling. BTW - The reference there goes directly back to what Severian had brought up with obligation, i.e. duty. You need to read an understand Kant at least a bit though to get the reference and how it applies. It's not directed toward the broader discussion. Well, until you decide to apply it like that. As for him being "some old dead dude", you appear to be showing a general lack of knowledge about moral philosophy. Kant is the giant. the problem with kantian ethics is that if you follow the categorical imperative, its very easy to end up in a situation where you can't take any actions, but by not taking any action you have chosen not to do so, and therefor have chosen the action of non-acting, which is immoral. When kantian ethics are faced with a moral dilemma it fails horribly. rational egoism or utilitarianism does not have this problem, they only try to maximize happiness(either your own, or a group's). Kant is wrong. |
|
|
|
Kant was right. End of story.
Fascinating how much you want to close the discussion, you just quote some old dead dude. Afraid to lose? |
|
|
|
Markets still require foundations on which they can be built.
So how do you explain the bitcoin community? there is no foundation for our economy here, we have no governments to enforce bitcoin related contracts, no police to catch bitcoin fraudsters, yet somehow trade miraculously happens. |
|
|
|
Have fun, but not at others expense!
who are you to decided that? |
|
|
|
Capitalism requires unfounded remote ownership a la Property is Theft. Define "unfounded." I'll give some examples. Grain rotting in a silo. A field left unplowed. A castle waiting for a soon-to-return-noble in the crusades. A locked dumpster. These are examples of wasted property needlessly accumulated and consolidated for the supposed purpose of private wealth to the detriment of public good. Proudhon is pretty cool. We could also go into the idea of stocks in things that involved anything from fraud to genogide to obtain, like the entire US. We can also think of unfounded as unfair or unjust. Now the real crazy part comes in during a consideration of wage slavery, human beings and other animals as property, and labor as a commodity. all this will be irrelevant if we remove the right to own stuff, the very foundation of any capitalistic society. |
|
|
|
It's unreal how the statists, after killing over 250 million in the 20th century, still maintain that their system works, or hasn't been perfected yet. How can these people advocate mass-murder? Every time they advocate for a state, that is what they are doing. How? HOW?!!
 Lame "Reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy is lame. AKA "slippery slope": so-called Statist supports 'A', therefore they must support B, C, and D, which obviously leads to mass murder and genocide at Z. Or maybe it's tu quoque?You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism. The fallacy applied to AnCap: a) AnCaps believe in possession of guns. b) Guns kill people. c) All AnCaps are crazy and violent people, who kill people with guns. |
|
|
|
...and you call me crazy? look at that dude at 9.30, if you ignore what he says, he sound just like one of those crazy priest dudes that expects "AMEN!!!", every time he stops. This is brain washing, and you are a right-wing extremist. Shouldn't you be out seeking a victim? Is that in my best interest? |
|
|
|
...and you call me crazy? look at that dude at 9.30, if you ignore what he says, he sound just like one of those crazy priest dudes that expects "AMEN!!!", every time he stops. This is brain washing, and you are a right-wing extremist. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
