You can use PayPal on Virwox. Buy SLL and then change it into BTC.

Marijuana will cause world hunger before it causes world war III.

Also I think you just mean "México", not Nuevo Mexico, since the US took Texas from the Mexicans in the first place.

Why are some of those photoshopped? The first two look real but the last one is MS paint.

Edit: meant to say why

Am I the only one who noticed that there's no proof of this ever happening?

Did anyone actually check the Suffolk County site?

Don't put opinion in quotation marks. That is your opinion, and it seems to form the basis for your ideas. I did not argue against subjectivity. You did. So don't bring up opinions unless you're going to change your views. Your "opinions", or morals, are just as "fleeting" as anyone else's.


You brought up subjectivity. Pragmatism, or objectivity, is the opposite.

If you're against subjective laws I'd assume you'd support objective laws. Or do you just like arguing?


The non-aggression principle is illogical in itself. It is the epitome of subjectivity. It says that regardless of the consequences, there should not be violence. It says that violence cannot be justified, which is a subjective, and opinionated view.


So if a country votes to ban homosexuality, that's ok? Their country, their rules.


Yes, because of your belief slavery is not supportable. I believe that slavery is bad too, because of my own principles. Both of our opinions are subjective, regardless of what you call it.


Cool, your opinion says it's wrong. Mine does too, what's the point?


Actually, merriam-webster says that the definition is "marked by impartiality and honesty" Impartiality would imply not taking a side. If you support the 51%, you are not impartial. If you support the 49% you are not impartial. No law will ever be "fair" unless everyone agrees with it, and no one ever will. So why support the minority? You seem to assume that the minority is being oppressed always, and that's why you support them. Do Apartheidists deserve their ideas to be put into place?


Nope, we do not have any "natural rights".

Let's use an example: You'd say that freedom of speech is a right, I'm guessing (even if you don't pick some right you do believe in). But what about countries with no freedom of speech. Are they subhuman? Do they not have the intellectual capacity to have these so called "natural" rights? Actually, they're one step ahead of you in that they know that rights are subjective. They are invented. You have no natural rights. Your rights are "guaranteed" by the state, which uses violence to enforce them. Kind of ironic seeing as you're against aggression. The state may enforce freedom of speech or they may enforce the lack thereof.


  Ok. Fine, then let's replace the right to not be murdered with the right to murder. And how do "negative"or "positive"  rights not follow your principle.

Gays have the right to marry (no threat of violence or imprisonment): Positive right, follows principle
Gays cannot marry (no threat of violence or imprisonment): Negative right, follows principle.

Ok. I do not have an MP now but I'll probably have one either tomorrow or Friday at the latest. I'll PM you when I do.

Stuff like this is moronic. If anyone were to commit arson or vandalism, they would be arrested. It wouldn't be hard for Joey to just point to this thread, and anyone who made a threat would be a suspect. That is if they don't catch you in the physical act, since people rarely get away with arson. Arson is far more serious than him scamming someone out of .4 BTC. Obviously Jenger isn't the only one who's made a threat, but they're all equally stupid.

I don't understand why no one has brought this to court. I wasn't scammed, so I can't be the one to do it. But someone who was should just sue him. Stop acting like children and making up threats. If he has defrauded you out of money, that is illegal and it would not be hard to get that money and much more out of him.

"Doxxing", ordering pizza, and making baseless threats has to be the lamest thing I've ever seen. Someone should either actually do something, or just let this thread and all the others die.

Yeah, the real picture is priceless.

So I guess I have to "trust" someone... Thanks anyways though!

But your examples had to do with the law being based on morals.   You said "If 51% of people agree with slavery, does that make it ok?" You implied that slavery is wrong. You're saying that we should follow your morals regardless of what the majority thinks.

Pragmatically, there is nothing wrong with slavery. So logically, if the majority of people believe in it it should be legal.


I think that you have your ideas confused with mine. My idea of laws is purely pragmatic: if the majority of people want a law, then it should be law. If the majority agrees with a law, then the majority will follow it. If the majority disagrees with a law, then more (not necessarily the majority) people will not follow it.

You, however, think that laws should be based on subjective opinions. You think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry just because you think it should be so. It has nothing to do with pragmatism (although bigotry is objectively bad). You also think slavery should be illegal, because that's your opinion. You don't care what other people think. That's why I said that you contradicted yourself. You supported the majority on one hand the minority on the other. You had no objective reason to go either way, or at least you haven't provided these reasons.

I, on the other hand, believe that laws should be chosen by the majority- whether I agree with it or not. I do not necessarily want people to pick the pragmatic option all of the time. Sometimes, "subjective" views, such as with slavery, must be taken.



First off, the gay question was not hypothetical. The majority is against gays, and they have no rights. The other was hypothetical, but I don't see why you asked it since it has no base in pragmatism. You apparently don't like subjectivity, yet you ask two subjective questions, one of which is not even based in fact.

The hypocrisy is driving me crazy. If laws are based on "fairness", then majority should rule. Why do you decide what is "fair" and what isn't. What makes slavery objectively unfair ? What makes discrimination against homosexuals objectively unfair? You say don't base things on "subjective morals", yet what you think should be law is based on your morals and ideas. In fact, who defined "fair"? Is it you? Is it me? I explained why mine made more objective sense- people are more likely to abide by laws that they agree with. If 51% of the people agree with a law, then 51% will follow it unquestionably. Explain why you deciding the laws based on your morals makes more sense.

Ironically, you mention "natural rights". Protip: You have no rights. Humans are the only animals who write up constitutions. Whatever you think is your "right" is subjective. Objectively, you have no rights. You are at the mercy of others. Murder, rape, theft, and other "crimes" have no real method of enforcement. The government may make murder illegal, but they can't bring you back to life if you're killed. Your "rights" are an agreement by the majority. There are some horrible people that would gladly murder or rape without consequences, but we do not give them that "right" because it is the subjective view of the majority.

Bad backs? What is the actual condition that can't be treated?

My bad. I'm not sure why I thought it was so high. Although you should include the wire transfer fees in any calculation.

http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/2012/02/13/wire-transfer-fees-banks/

I don't see how larger transactions makes a difference. fees are in %, not concrete values. If I buy 1 BTC from Bitstamp at 98.00 and then sell it for 105.00 at Mt. Gox, I still lose money because I have to pay 10%, which is more than the 7 dollars I would make.

Even if I buy 100 BTC at 9800 and then sell it for 10,500 I still am going to lose 10%, which is more than the 700 I would make.

There would need to be a huge gap in prices for profit to be made. However, it doesn't matter because you can't get your money off of MTGox anyways.

Unfortunately there aren't laws like that. However, if drugs/alcohol contribute to the disability then the checks will stop coming. In addition, you must be receiving treatment to keep getting money (unless you have a good excuse).

The thing is, morals are subjective. You and I might be "moral" enough to know that slavery is wrong, and that homosexuals deserve equal rights, but that is our opinion.

If 51% of the people believe something, it makes sense that that should be the law, whether or not you and I agree with it.

Interestingly enough, you brought up two different examples which are opposites in terms of morality vs. majority. Arguably, slavery is wrong. The majority of people in the US believe this to be true. Yet you do not argue for hardliners that would legalize slavery. You're going against the minority.

The majority of people are against gays. Bigotry is immoral (by my standards), but the majority of people think that anti-gay laws are ok. I'm guessing based on the post, that you support homosexuals. You're going against the majority in this case.

You contradicted yourself. You supported the minority in the one case and the majority in the other. So how should laws reflect values of society? Why does it make sense that your morals should dictate laws, as opposed to the majority's views?

I tried doing that, but "DefaultTrust" just reappears after I hit update. Do I have to replace it with someone else's name?

Lol, I wonder where they collect them from?

I'd say "self proclaimed genius" is pretty accurate. In the other thread about intelligence on Bitcointalk people were claiming to have IQs of over 140...

The transfer fees make this impossible, unless you have a cheap source with low fees. Mt. Gox may say "$105", but realistically you're going to have to pay $10 or more in fees just to get it there.

It is that simple.