|
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
The bible would do great as fuel.
|
|
|
|
I think it's terrible that we cannot shoot criminals for theft. If someone's stealing my car, why SHOULDN'T I be able to shoot them?
There'd be a heck of a lot less theft if people were actually able to defend their own property properly.
What do you meant you ain't able? You are fully able unless you are retarded. It's just that it's illegal and might get you in prison and rightly so because your life was never in danger. But sure enough you are able. But why is it ok to just let someone run off with your things? Why do I not have a right to do whatever I need to do to ensure my property isn't stolen? Also related to this subject - why can a trespasser sue me if they trip over a rake that I left in my yard? Just seems so wrong... Then do what you believe is right and assume the responsibility don't try to make others consent. Not sure what you mean by "don't try to make others consent". Consent to what? Consent on what seems right/wrong to you. I wasn't really trying to force people into my viewpoint. Just trying to understand why my viewpoint isn't held by others... Because your point of view is an ultimate penalty. And that should be your decision to make not mine , not your neighbors , not ours ,your and your Only. Because only you know how the theft affected you. I'm not saying your viewpoint is bad or good , all I'm saying that i don't want a law like that  this is just my view point. |
|
|
|
I think it's terrible that we cannot shoot criminals for theft. If someone's stealing my car, why SHOULDN'T I be able to shoot them?
There'd be a heck of a lot less theft if people were actually able to defend their own property properly.
What do you meant you ain't able? You are fully able unless you are retarded. It's just that it's illegal and might get you in prison and rightly so because your life was never in danger. But sure enough you are able. But why is it ok to just let someone run off with your things? Why do I not have a right to do whatever I need to do to ensure my property isn't stolen? Also related to this subject - why can a trespasser sue me if they trip over a rake that I left in my yard? Just seems so wrong... Then do what you believe is right and assume the responsibility don't try to make others consent. Not sure what you mean by "don't try to make others consent". Consent to what? Consent on what seems right/wrong to you. |
|
|
|
I think it's terrible that we cannot shoot criminals for theft. If someone's stealing my car, why SHOULDN'T I be able to shoot them?
There'd be a heck of a lot less theft if people were actually able to defend their own property properly.
What do you meant you ain't able? You are fully able unless you are retarded. It's just that it's illegal and might get you in prison and rightly so because your life was never in danger. But sure enough you are able. But why is it ok to just let someone run off with your things? Why do I not have a right to do whatever I need to do to ensure my property isn't stolen? Also related to this subject - why can a trespasser sue me if they trip over a rake that I left in my yard? Just seems so wrong... Then do what you believe is right and assume the responsibility don't try to make others consent. |
|
|
|
I think it's terrible that we cannot shoot criminals for theft. If someone's stealing my car, why SHOULDN'T I be able to shoot them?
There'd be a heck of a lot less theft if people were actually able to defend their own property properly.
What do you meant you ain't able? You are fully able unless you are retarded. It's just that it's illegal and might get you in prison and rightly so because your life was never in danger. But sure enough you are able. |
|
|
|
So having a patch of land you don't have money ?
Correct. You have wealth, not money. I think you don't understand the difference between money and wealth. We should all try to remind ourselves of that difference from time to time. Please explain to me the difference. So that i can remind to my self of that from time to time. All currencies together are currency . They are money only in certain conditions which i explained above. Money is wealth and wealth is money . even if we didn't invent currency money would still exist because we can exchange our wealth through barter. Money = wealth in exchange. Currency = fictional item invented for the sole purpose of being exchanged. Let me ask you this: If for example a town would revert to barter would it have any money? Could it use it's wealth to trade with other towns? Or would they absolutely need currency? Sure they can trade ... they give oil for food for example and that wealth is money at that very moment and it ain't currency because if no one want's their oil for example they could just use it themselves to power some tractors. This is my view on things. What is money in your view ? All currencies ever invented? If that is the case then you are right. If we refer to money as a distinct term for all currencies and only currencies , that don't represent wealth and can only be exchanged for wealth then you are right. In this case, land is a resource ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource), meaning it acts as a source from which some benefit is derived, in this case you live there, you can grow crops on it, etc. As such, you are right, the land does have a value associated with the derived benefits. In the barter system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter_system), you would exchange use of the land directly with other resources. You could rent out a corner of it for a baker to set up shop on, and in turn he gives you a hundred loaves of break a week. But a hundred loaves of bread is a lot of bread, much more than you can eat. You could try to find someone else who needs them before they spoil, such as the blacksmith, where you can give him 5 loaves of bread for a new shovel. But if he, lets say, already made a set of knives for a baker for 20 loaves, he doesn't have any need for bread and the loaves spoil, so you would need to find someone else to trade with. But this is a lot of work, so you set up a Medium of Exchange ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange). In this case, every week the baker gives you a hundred coupons each worth a loaf of bread. Whenever you want a loaf of bread, you would give him a coupon. You could then buy your shovel from the blacksmith for five coupons, and then the blacksmith can exchange it whenever he needs bread, or he can go to the local tailor and trade in a bread coupon to fix his shirt that he burnt while working on the forge. After a while, the king notices your new private bread currency ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency), and thinks it's a nifty idea and the whole kingdom should use them. So he commands his royal scribes to write bread coupons and his royal bakers to accept them for bread, and then commands all the people in the land to accept them as an official state-mandated currency ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency). And that's the story of how a resource became a currency.  You are absolutely right . The only difference that i could spot , and you can call me whatever you like , I don't really care , is : I consider that when they exchanged that set of knifes for 20 loaves they used those resources as money , because they EXCHANGED resources. The notes are money for as long as the baker has bread. If he doesn't you and all the others can take the notes and shove them up your ass/ down your mouth but you won't get much out of them. Therefore the notes are currency. It's just a matter of perspective after all. from thefreedictionary.com : monˇey (mn) n. pl. monˇeys or monˇies 1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account. 2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government. 3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth. |
|
|
|
Wheal they are also nouns . Currency is also a noun . Fuck me even human is a noun. and even language is a noun and even RETARD is a noun. What's that suppose to mean? A form of wealth that ain't money is for example a photo of your dog that no one would want it in exchange for something he owns. IT would be wealth to you because it has value to you , but it ain't money because you can't exchange it. and it ain't currency either. I have to make a correction to one of my statements above thought : No you don't have currency , cash , but still you could rent it , or you could exchange it ... or you could grow something on it , or you could build something on it. Money ain't imaginary. It's a term for value which can be exchanged . If something has value to you it is money wealth. There . So not all wealth is money ... only that which can be exchanged . Your view has some pretty big problems still, even after you've clarified it so as not to include all nouns. The first problem is that you are ignoring several roles of money in favor of just one role. Go back up to the top and read the first few posts. The second problem is that you are using meaningless criteria for excluding some nouns from the category of money. Say that someone really likes the picture of your dog. Does the picture of the dog then become money? Was it money before that person knew the picture existed? Does it remain money once that person has the picture, assuming that there isn't a second person that would also be willing to exchange for it? I could go on, but it doesn't appear that there is any way to make a consistent decision about the money-ness of some object based on your definition, nor on reasonable extensions of that definition. No it was not money before. It is money when you can exchange it , you can only then exchange it if that someone really likes the picture of your dog. IT IS MONEY IF YOU CAN EXCHANGE IT . By assuming that there isn't a THIRD person that would also be willing to exchange for it then I have to assume it ain't money afterwards. So by you only post in which you reveal you point of view : I assume your view of the noun DOLLAR which defines a currency is that it is the realization of money. WHICH IS COW DUNG. A DOLLAR IS JUST AS FICTIONAL AS A SIN OR A BLESSING FROM GOD. the dollar bills and the number in the bank accounts represent that fictional item like wine represents in certain conditions the blood of CHRIST. |
|
|
|
deuxmill - people have been around 100,000 years and patents on things like bracelets last 10 years. If the grant to the patent speeds up the rate of invention, then that 10 year patent is worth it.
There is no such thing as a patent on a bracelet . Maybe on the shape of a bracelet or the pattern on it (a bracelet shaped as a snake or a bracelet with the face of Jesus on it). And it might be worth for you . For me it ain't. Se at this point you have to start hunting me because I'm in contradiction with your thinking , and not because i caused any damage to you or your property. Just don't expect me not too try to escape your hunt or even retaliate because I believe it is stupid. I believe it's stupid to initiate violence against someone who didn't act violent in any way and also didn't deprive anyone of anything. |
|
|
|
Wheal they are also nouns . Currency is also a noun . Fuck me even human is a noun. and even language is a noun and even RETARD is a noun. What's that suppose to mean? A form of wealth that ain't money is for example a photo of your dog that no one would want it in exchange for something he owns. IT would be wealth to you because it has value to you , but it ain't money because you can't exchange it. and it ain't currency either. I have to make a correction to one of my statements above thought : No you don't have currency , cash , but still you could rent it , or you could exchange it ... or you could grow something on it , or you could build something on it. Money ain't imaginary. It's a term for value which can be exchanged . If something has value to you it is money wealth. There . So not all wealth is money ... only that which can be exchanged . |
|
|
|
So having a patch of land you don't have money ?
Correct. You have wealth, not money. I think you don't understand the difference between money and wealth. We should all try to remind ourselves of that difference from time to time. Please explain to me the difference. So that i can remind to my self of that from time to time. All currencies together are currency . They are money only in certain conditions which i explained above. Money is wealth and wealth is money . even if we didn't invent currency money would still exist because we can exchange our wealth through barter. Money = wealth in exchange. Currency = fictional item invented for the sole purpose of being exchanged. Let me ask you this: If for example a town would revert to barter would it have any money? Could it use it's wealth to trade with other towns? Or would they absolutely need currency? Sure they can trade ... they give oil for food for example and that wealth is money at that very moment and it ain't currency because if no one want's their oil for example they could just use it themselves to power some tractors. This is my view on things. What is money in your view ? All currencies ever invented? If that is the case then you are right. If we refer to money as a distinct term for all currencies and only currencies , that don't represent wealth and can only be exchanged for wealth then you are right. |
|
|
|
The concept of physical property is everything but "fair". A poor peasant might work 20 hours a day for a few dollars, while a rich land owner might earn millions from rent and live a life of leisure, simply because he owns capital and the peasant doesn't. So why, then, intellectual property should be "fair" is beyond me. [/quote] I actually don't see the unfairness . Or did the rich land owner got his riches from God or something? Why isn't the poor peasant rich? Because he is poor maybe , we have to protect him until he finds a way to become rich then. If he can't then what the hell should we do , should the rich bastard which clearly can do something with his wealth split this wealth with the poor guy which didn't prove yet that he can. Maybe he should . But maybe the fact that there is IP law for example is making the rich bastard rich ... and the poor bastard could very easily recreate what the rich bastard has only he would be hunted by masked armed men if he does it. EVEN if that information is INFINITE and if the poor guy recreates it doesn't deprive anyone of anything.  Physical property is psychical , therefore finite , and you can't recreate it out of thin air so you would need to deprive someone of it or find some more that ain't owned. "IP" on the other hand is not physical it's fiction on a piece of paper , or a CD , or a hard drive , and you can easily recreate it with the use of a pen for example or just by copy paste , or with the push of a button , and that action alone won't deprive the originator of the "IP" of NOTHING because he would still have his work . That is why one is fair . Because if someone has property is because he did something or his forefathers did something . I don't know , Kings did murder and oppressed serfs , inventors invented things then they also created something psychical based on that invention , and sold it and made huge profits and wealth , Americans murdered Indians and took over their lands . They could do this because the laws at that time allowed it or maybe because no one wanted to enforce the existing laws because people believed it's better not to. OUR hole world works because of FICTION like the law and information. Even a gold bracelet , or the fire , or a weal was at one point invented or more exactly discovered by a human. Al this things have a combination of Physical and FICTIONAL property. The bracelet for example is composed of the physical material called/defined as gold and the IP called/defined as bracelet (a circle to put around your arm) We can all create bracelets because at the time of it's invention there weren't laws that would recognize Intellectual Property. IF there were ,then the inventor's offspring would still be extremely wealthy and you wouldn't be able to create one without paying them. Think about how much we have discovered so far and then think about what we might invent from now on and remember that by accepting IP you grant the OWNER of the IP a monopoly on an infinite resource that can be recreated out of thin air , that could be at one point , vital to our existence. Think that if IP existed at the moment of the writing of the first document that contained GOD in it , and the authors copyrighted their works , the authors would have monopoly on the use of the word GOD in all future works , even speech . No Bible , No church , No nothing without payment to the owner. This would be wonderful from my view but still pretty stupid. Also remember that if you don't manage to make people believe that a inventor is an absolute OWNER of the IP , they won't obey that law unless you attach some risk to it's braking , so you end up initializing violence against someone that never deprived anyone of anything. It would be like getting arrested for killing someone's imaginary friend and it's just as stupid as getting burned on a stake for blasphemy or just as stupid as ending in the concentration camps of Hitler because you believed you were jew , just as stupid as getting arrested because you brought injury to state institutions by swearing a cop etc and just as stupid as considering a whore doesn't produce value through sex but a singer does by singing. |
|
|
|
So from this I'd gather that currency is the actual thing used for exchange, whereas money is the abstract. I could give you 1 BTC for a stick of gum, and that'd be a use of it as a currency.
Money is abstract - agreed. I like to say that money is imaginary. Currency is used to represent the imaginary. Currency is physical tokens. When gold was money, it was simultaneously money and currency at the same time. With Bitcoin, the blockchain, and the agreement about what it represents is Money. (When/If Bitcoin becomes generally accepted). Bitbills and Casacius coins are currency. Your wallet on a USB stick is currency (although very difficult to verify, so it probably could never become generally accepted). (Again, When/If Bitcoin becomes generally accepted.) I know it the term 'cyptocurrency' is in general use, but it is a misnomer. Bitcoin allows individuals to directly exchange money. It largely obsoletes currency. So having a patch of land you don't have money ? No you don't have currency , cash , but still you could rent it , or you could exchange it ... or you could grow something on it , or you could build something on it. Money ain't imaginary. It's a term for value. If something has value to you it is money. Currency is imaginary because it has no value other then the fact that it can be exchanged , If someone desires it or is forced to desire it (legal tender) , and the paper bills represent that fictional item , just the same as the numbers showing the debit of you Bank account. Gold is currency , because it is valuable because people believe it to be so. There are very few useful things you can do with gold other then exchanging it , you can make jewelery but you can make that from shit if you wanted , not very useful , or you could use it in electronics but there are better materials like silver. A piece of bread on the other hand is money, will always have an intrinsic value (of how much calories it will provide to you) and depending on how much you desire it and how much the owner of the bread desires it , we can quantify that piece of bread in currency and it's value in currency is the one that varies . It's real and intrinsic value will always be the same . If you have the knowledge to produce a knife for example , again you have money , that knowledge is still valuable to you as it is , but you can also exchange that knowledge for something else by quantifying it . The belief in god ... is money in my view , if your belief is strong enough God can have huge value for you , you can also use that belief to control people , if you can make them believe to and accept that you have a better understanding of god for example. You don't need to exchange nothing real but still you would gain huge benefits. All currency is money but just for the time there is desire for it , if the desire or belief disappears the value of currency is ~0 . BUT the paper bill that represented that currency at one point might still be valuable for some (collectors for example.) the numbers representing your currency in a bank account on the other hand , i don't think someone would value them. |
|
|
|
I have never understood the trepidation that U.S. citizens have concerning law enforcement. If you're so fucking free and safe why do you tremble in the presence of authority? Are they not here for you and governed by you? Unfortunately, no. We're not free and safe. If you defensively resist the illegal actions of a cop, you'll get roughed up a bit, arrested, and then eventually take a plea bargain for 6-12 months for some BS charge so that they don't put you on trial for "assaulting a police officer" and put you away for 6-12 years. Resist harder and they'll just shoot you on the spot. They'll get some review that finds that their actions were reasonable under the circumstances, and no one will question what they were doing to you beforehand. The only exception is if your buddy catches the whole thing on video and posts it to youtube.... Then they get fired. For killing you. Want to try it out on a small scale? Try the TSA. Go do ANYTHING that isn't completely compliant, subservient behavior (question their authority, complain about them groping you, ask to see a manager, refuse to comply with some inconsequential thing, whatever), and you'll find yourself detained for at least a few hours, and possibly end up with a criminal record depending on the words that come out of your mouth during that time. There are tons of cases where someone does something seemingly innocent without any malice or criminal intent who then gets dragged through the system... All you have to do is stand out in some way that draws their attention, and they'll find a way to make your life hell. Convict you? Probably not, but they'll wreck your life for months and you'll run up tens of thousands in defense costs. The US is a police state, and it's getting constantly worse. End The State? That is like saying end God , end religion , end any other fictional entity/force we ever came up with. Extremely hard to accomplish. Laws are fiction . The state also , just like God and Satan . |
|
|
|
I have never understood the trepidation that U.S. citizens have concerning law enforcement. If you're so fucking free and safe why do you tremble in the presence of authority? Are they not here for you and governed by you?
Traditionally, law enforcement were to serve and protect the people and the constitution of the united states. That tradition is evaporating as cops are being taught to do as they are told and trained. They are being transformed into enforcers for their superiors and government. They are being taught that the people are their main enemies. To secure the control grid. All wrapped up in the term "domestic terrorism". People are waking up, getting fed up, and thumbing their noses at authority, when its the people who are the supreme authority. See the problem ? You do not have to tremble to be fearful. I fear law enforcements and government ignorance and totalitarian tactics. It is wise to be fearful of those who can affect your existence. Most animals strike out of fear, including us humans. Some tremble, but others use that fear as a catalyst to facilitate change. Meaningful change. We should be free and safe, but we are not. Therein lies the rub. DON'T be afraid bro' ... BE CAUTIOUS . FEAR IS a WEAKNESS and stupid. CAUTION IS RATIONAL and WISE. |
|
|
|
|
IMHO
Money is everything that could be exchanged for something else but have value inherently (SEX , Food , salt , Intelligence ,Currency* etc.) = Wealth .
Currency something purposely designed to be exchanged. (GOLD , tally sticks, copper coins , paper bills , etc. ) and it's useless and worthless without someone else wanting it. = Belief .
*Currency is money as long as there is belief in it (there is demand for it) when belief stops value of the currency disappears and it stops qualifying as money.
This is my view .. it could be wrong though.
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if a cop or not. Question should be - when should you shoot a person?
When it initializes physical violence and/or it's actions obstruct LIFE (not way of life).
|
|
|
|
Please Please answer this question.
If anti violence vaccine would be discovered would you want a law to force everybody to take it?
Please .
Is this a Firefly reference? I don't know . Might be . Is it a movie? If it is i need to watch it. But does it matter? |
|
|
|
|
HUGE ARMY. Actually HIPPER ARMY.
|
|
|
|
Are you dodging the question because your whole premise is starting to feel shaky? Answer my question: How do you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?
No not dodging, just trying to make a point. If you don't know something exists because you haven't experienced it yet, there's nothing to do about it. You don't even know what it is. I use the sun example because we all know the sun exists by indirect observation. In the situation where you have 'nutcases', as you call them, they tend to interact with their environment. This interaction can be observed indirectly. To wit, I just observe their behaviors and notice things about how they (re)act in certain circumstances. If their behavior becomes violently inclined, I should probably prepare to defend myself. Once it's determined that you or I believe their actions rise to the level of imminent threat, we intervene, but not until then; and then we deal with all of the consequences that follow. But then you knew that. Maybe you're just worried I don't care, or I'm another one of your 'nutcases' laying in wait. Still concerned? The correct answer is: you can't really measure the intent of people before it's too late. If we could, we wouldn't have incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing. I think you'll find it hard to refute that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. But you're free to try, if you want. Assuming that you accept that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, then you'll probably have to accept that the intent of McVeigh and Nichols was not properly measured beforehand, disproving your suggestion that observations will always yield meaningful data before it's too late. Your arguments are falling flat on their face, but that was obvious to most of us anyway. Do you care to attempt to refute the points in the above paragraph? Please Please answer this question. If anti violence vaccine would be discovered would you want a law to force everybody to take it? Please . |
|
|
|
|
Anyone selling 15$ MT. for Moneybookers ?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
