|
Just a quick reminder that this post is self moderated. Please do not ignore my requests to define your terms before trying to make an argument. I'm happy to take constructive criticism however abusive posts will be deleted. I don't have time for flame wars. Keep it civil or keep it elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
hey dude you have to link us to a bigger copy of you "Gazillions" meme... it's priceless  |
|
|
|
thatks to Typingtoohard, he's baaack
well the videos are back
Your avatar is the bomb "Gazillions I tell you" yeah I know ALL about bitcoin lmfao |
|
|
|
There is nothing intrinsically irrational in ethics or guilt; at least everything could be easily interpreted relying on nothing more than basic behaviorism. Guilt, for instance, serves as negative reinforcement after pointless killing, just as revulsion & squeamishness serve as a deterrent. Both optimize the survival & propagation of a group or a species. From that perspective, morality is an effective means to a very pragmatic & utilitarian end. You don't want mom eating Shnookums just because she's too lazy to run out to the store, do you? *Not* life-affirming.
I am not saying guilt doesn't exist internally or that is serves no internal purpose, I'm saying that is an advantage for the powerful to use it against the weak and the weak don't understand how guilt is USED as a weapon against them.
Just because morality may be subjective doesn't imply that it's wrong, "unnatural," or only exists as a tool to "create weakness in others." If you posit a goal for mankind, you can start grading ethical systems by how well they serve that goal. If you believe, like the Christians, that the goal is to serve God, the Bible serves as a good starting point. If you adhere to hedonism, anything that maximises hedons & minimises dolors is right; if you think depopulating earth is the way to fly, then a moral code that advocates killing and frowns at compassion is for you. Name a goal, rate a moral code accordingly.
These moral codes that you speak of all seem illogical to me, I feel like you are clarifying my point.
If animals had morals, and there's absolutely nothing telling us they do not, they'd be just fine -- what's bad for one critter is good for the herd, if GI Joe throws himself on a grenade, he saves several of his buddies. Nothing wrong with morals. Morals are life-affirming.
NOT for GI Joe!!! Math and logic should tell you that Tax is Theft, using morality to trick people into feeling guilty for stealing, that's priceless LOL
Wha? You have to be clearer. Agreed |
|
|
|
morality seems to be a social construct, basically all the additional behavioural stuff above and beyond the survival instincts of loner~predator species.
Were a social-omnivore species, not a longer-predator one. So things like social needs and joint survival may be in our DNA Holy effing shitballs, "social needs" and "joint survival"?!?! This is not an argument, this is an assertion of undefined terms. Define your terms if you wish to make a real argument. I haven't deleted a post yet. I don't like censorship even when it's stupidity, I just want the posts to actually address the concept of logic and actually argue a position otherwise they really are pointless in this thread. |
|
|
|
If animals had morals (as described by the majority) they would not survive, humanity is suffering from a bad case of moral superiority right now, and all these so called "libertarians" are blind to a mathematical interpretation of morality.
This is a very weird way of thinking. Weird is subjective and there is no explanation why, any further comments on this thread that fail to define the words used in the argument will be deleted, thanks for attempting to join the discussion Why would it even matter? If ants had morals like you would they survive? So what? We are not different animals.
Exactly!!! perhaps a Freudian slip, but I think it's correct non the less. We are not different from animals, it's only the "God complex" that makes some humans assume animals do not have a "conscience"
And you don't give any reasoning why "libertarians" are blind.
Let me re-iterate my reason is they ignore maths based reasoning
You don't even define the position think are blind.
An error? I'm not perfect, we all make mistakes, perhaps we could both learn to take a little more time replying and a little less time reacting to new ideas and concepts.
From what I have read libertarians are usually the few who are not blind.
Here you ask us to trust that you read something without giving us any details. Think P2P trustless currency and maybe you will see why this is illogical (as opposed to unethical)
Mathematical intrepretation, what does that even mean?
Well you ask, but it's sounds like you don't expect a reply, in fact you follow this up with an assumption that I will be interested in your "intrpretation". My interpretation of your error is that you have already decided your position are you are not open to debate, I would be happy to be wrong. |
|
|
|
Good is also subjective and relative term.
THAT'S WHAT I SAID!?!
But cleary there is some basis of what is moral and how these rules are good for general working of society.
So clear you fail to say what your basis is.
And these basis are rather smaller than what moral is now used for...
WTF?!?! this just sounds like a reaction rather than a thought out reply. |
|
|
|
Of course, morality is a guilt trip.
Exactly right!
If you've done something wrong or support bad behaviour in others you should feel guilty. (says who?) You should feel guilty enough to want to make reparations.
If you have morals and follow them you don't feel guilty. (this is an impossible statement since the only purpose of morals is to make you feel guilty for not following them, and if you always followed them how would you even know you had morals?)
In fact, you feel pretty good. A moral life is a good life. (again, say's who? if it's subjective as I believe then an immoral life can be a life filled with good things and happiness. A life with an ethical code based on science seems impossible for some people to comprehend, not easy to explain either)
Let me make it clear that I DO believe stealing is a poor way to distribute resources and that win/win trading is far more advantageous, I do not make this distinction base on a moral understanding, but rather a mathematical comprehension of reality. |
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
Thanks Fontase, what can I say, you found my secret... I'm a broken hearted fool with nothing left but dreams of being young
|
|
|
|
this post was originally a reply to this thread, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244258.0About this survey http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=9fgng77f80xbtr9177028I decided to create my own thread where I could encourage conversation about math that is less subjective than morality and see if I can reach out to others who understand this point of view, thanks for reading. ----------------------------------- I will have to retake the test and lie to find the other questions. I got as far as question one. I do believe I can make a case for when it would be wise to take money from you but moral, perhaps the survey should define morality first before assuming it means the same thing to everyone. If you want to make the case that something is moral or immoral then you first need to define what you believe is moral. Once you accept that this is subjective and needs defining then you have to accept that logic (read math) and morality cannot co-exist. (I hope the majority will one day accept the objective morality of math) Is it wrong to kill someone? Wrong is subjective, what if you're at sea and killing means you will live? While I would feel this is a horrible decision to have to make and I would sympathize with anyone who decided they would rather die than live with the guilt, the guilt is subjective and does not result from a logical interpretation of events. As you will see if listen to the majority, I have a minority point of view. That's ok, the way the majority of humanity is behaving right now I'm happy to be in the minority. I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm doing my best to use logic and reason to prove that morality is a subjective emotion used to create weakness in others. If animals had morals (as described by the majority) they would not survive, humanity is suffering from a bad case of moral superiority right now, and all these so called "libertarians" are blind to a mathematical interpretation of morality. Is there a better way? well I sure hope so. ----------------------- edit Ok so I've answered yes to all the questions purely to see the outcome, I guess some would judge me as immoral for lying, it was interesting to get to the end and find the purpose of this was to explain that Tax is Theft Math and logic should tell you that Tax is Theft, using morality to trick people into feeling guilty for stealing, that's priceless LOL |
|
|
|
|
I will have to retake the test and lie to find the other questions. I got as far as question one. I do believe I can make a case for when it would be wise to take money from you but moral, perhaps the survey should define it first before assuming it's existence.
If you want to make the case that something is moral or immoral then you first need to define what you believe is moral. Once you accept that this is subjective and needs defining then you have to accept that logic (read math) and morality cannot co-exist. (I hope the majority will one day accept there is no morality in math)
Is it wrong to kill someone? Wrong is subjective, what if you're at sea and killing means you will live? While it's a horrible decision to have to make and I would sympathize with anyone who decided they would rather die than live with the guilt, the guilt is subjective and does not result from a logical interpretation of events.
As you can see I'm unlikely to agree with many of you, that's ok, the way the majority of humanity is behaving right now I'm happy to be in the minority. I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm doing my best to use logic and reason to prove that morality is a subjective emotion used to create weakness in others.
If animals had morals they would not survive, humanity is suffering from a bad case of moral superiority right now, and all these so called libertarians aren't helping.
-----------------------
edit
Ok so I've answered yes to all the questions purely to see the outcome, I guess some would judge me as immoral for lying, it was interesting to get the end and find the purpose of this was to explain that Tax is Theft
Math and logic should tell you that Tax is Theft, using morality to trick people into feeling guilty for stealing, that's priceless LOL
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed recently some adds for the 4g/h little BitFury ASIC miner and I thought, "wow, this looks awesome". I was really interested to follow the link and would love to buy one, UNTIL, I noticed the TM sign and the picture pointing out that they plan to "protect our Intellectual Property (IP).
Besides insulting the intelligence of everyone who doesn't work there, I find the idea of IP an abhorrent reminder that there are still people in this world who believe that just because they thought of something, no one else is allowed to think of it.
When will the majority of people be more open minded to our ability to see through walls. You cannot keep a secret like this and expect everyone to just say "yeah, we aren't worthy to think of that".
So to everyone at BitFury, I hope your little ASIC is ripped of by some clever Chinese people selling it for half the price. And to everyone else who would like to stand up for the "right" of IP to tell others what to do, tell someone who cares.
Sincerely,
Taking IP and throwing it under a bus
|
|
|
|
|
I do love this site, I like being able to see the MacD even if I can't always understand it. I can't understand why when I click to see the weekly view the graph becomes very short. Is this because the site is still new? can it include some more historical data? thanks
|
|
|
|
it's seems odd that a Wikipedia conference that appears to be about translation has no English translation for their page  the Google translation "2013 International Wikimedia Conference will be held in Hong Kong, opened there 13 days ago." |
|
|
|
|
I've added the config file exactly as it appears in the OP and I now have a number of connections
as my config file is like the OP should I still use setgenerate true -1? or should if leave off the -1?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Ok I'm tired, I've been looking for hours... and there is no simple explanation for newbs... wtf is wrong with me? I've tried making all the files and folders visible and I still cannot find it anywhere... is it possible to find this file without going to the command line?
I'm not confident with command line, i don't know how to use that... so if that's the only way please give a "for dummies" explanation.
everyone who's tried to explain so far has just come over like gobbledygook.
forgive me for asking in the newbs section but it's obviously a newb question so hopefully someone on this forum will answer it here anyway.
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
how's the mining going? anymore to sell? how's the price? any news on exchanges?
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree that I like the BitMessage system better. I like the notification of delivery and the P2P security arrangements... is TorChat also P2P?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
