I don't appreciate to be told to shut up by you.

I'm telling repentance, who is meddling in someone else's affairs (dank's affairs, to be accurate) not to do so.  He shouldn't do that, regardless of how much he has been involved in the community, or how much you say so yourself.

And now you're also calling dank a "Ponzi schemer".

Don't be destructive.  Mind your own business yourself.

Mind your own business, dude.  We're not in the business of telling dank or anyone else what to do, and neither are you.

Currency revaluation.  You are right.

It's called backups.

All countries -- collective fictions of authoritarian control -- will lose out to Bitcoin.  Some more, some less.  But all will.

That is a good thing.

He's totally in the "educational" sector.  Can't you tell?  He's a propagandist who seeds FUD.

Look at his rhetoric, at his signature (that overtly hints at violence against a certain set of people), at his profile image and the caption.  This man is either an agent provocateur or he is severely mentally disturbed.

I suggest ignoring him.  I will do so right after this post.

False argument alert.  Of course cunticula leaves his premises tacit, to make his false argument harder to refute.


Statists insulting?  YOU DON'T SAY!

All arguments to prove authoritarian central control always start by assuming authoritarian central control.

This is true of me too.  I got to know Bitcoin a few years after I had understood that voluntaryism is, essentially, correct and ethical.  When I understood Bitcoin and what it meant, I had my "a-ha" moment about Bitcoin; right then and there it became obvious that Bitcoin would play a major role in the popularization of voluntaryism.  I can also recognize, at the same time, that all my Bitcoin interactions confirmed that the central tenets of voluntaryism are correct.

So it's more like voluntaryism informing me that Bitcoin is a good thing, then Bitcoin in turn informing me that voluntaryism is a good thing (in that order).

Exactly.  It is not a "belief" to conclude that "it's clearly wrong to fine a mother for her toddler urinating in her own house" -- it's just a statement of painfully obvious fact.

It is, however, a belief (an irrational, supernatural, religious belief) to think that it's good to do such a horrible thing, so long as one is wearing a costume, or one is obeying pieces of paper.

And the fact that fornit is classifying the denunciation of such a horrible act as "reinforcement of beliefs" is only evidence that his irrational belief in the magical papers and costumes got questioned by the denunciation.  As usual, religious believers will lie by accusing atheists of having "beliefs" (insofar as calling something a "belief" is a propaganda tactic to disqualify and discredit correct conclusions).  Nothing more than just another instance of the pot calling the wedding dress black.

The only person whose beliefs got fornitcated here is fornit.

A small precision, though: I'm not trying to wake fornit up.  A person who has been informed of obvious reality and ethics, but persists on denying it and dissociating from reality, cannot be called "ignorant" anymore -- he's just evil.

So, it is possible to use utilitarianism to argue in favor of lying, because it is conceivable that lying and deception can increase global happiness.

But now you're invoking your own (obviously) non-utilitarian preferable values of "love" and "beauty of truth".

Gents, does this count as a partial conversion?

That is literally and exactly what you said, when you said:


Now you're contradicting yourself.

I don't know what you mean by this vagary.  Explain it in literal terms and without supernatural allegories.

From the very outset, this "Original Sin" theory of "humanity" is wrong.  Wrong twice.

1. All animals, not just humans, demonstrate an egotistic and self-serving side.  To call that "what makes us human" is ridiculously false and belied by any observation of animals in reality.
2. No animal but the human animal has a certain characteristic that distinguishes humans from other animals.  That characteristic is metacognition -- the ability to reflect on one's own thoughts and be aware, not just of oneself, but also aware that one is aware.  To ignore that this is what makes us human, and pretend that it's something else, is again ridiculously false.

This "Original Sin" political theory that dank is peddling here, is bunk, nonsense, false, wrong.

Obviously, starting from false premises will lead to false conclusions.  I won't address dank's conclusions because it should be self-evident that falsifying his premises is enough.

Political Creationism: not even once.

All I've said here is that rational egoists of the social dominant variety have no problem exploting utilitarian theories to gain power for themselves.  I referred to this observation as these men being both rational egoists and utilitarians.  I think that's a savory and useful conclusion which also happens to be true.

How that is "controversial" or makes me "illogicalzzzlollzzzozll", I truly do not know.

I knew it, behehehe.

:-)

IF isoificating the BTC symbol is a good idea for publicity reasons, and there are no other drawbacks to doing so, then it might not be a bad idea.

Of course, if we have to do any kind of Faustian bargain, then fuck ISO.

Well said.  Apparently, according to blatherblatherblather, you must not call abuse "abuse", so long as there are bigger degrees of abuse out there, because (allegedly) "some abused people might feel insulted".  You harnessed that argument and brilliantly proved him wrong by recasting it into the dynamics of rape and gang rape.

Bravo.

This thread is vitiated with the all-too-common mistake of "I identify as Xian, and I have concluded that Z is immoral according to Xianism, so obviously I'll substitute a defense of Xianism with my own conclusions about Z".

To wit, those who say "utilitarianism is correct" and then say "lying cannot maximize global happiness" introduced as an unsubstantiated premise, punctuated with the very obvious absence of a utilitarian proof that "lying cannot maximize global happiness".

These types of conversation are unpleasant.

I suspected this was kokjo's "logic" (but, the man having cowardly not stated it, I could not question it).

He can't read me, so it's unlikely that he'll prove me how egoism and utilitarianism are mutually exclusive -- I never said that -- or that they are incompatible (I relied on the fact that they are compatible)... that is to say, how a man who is allegedly a rational egoist is somehow "incapable" of exploiting utilitarianism to justify his true desires.