premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people.
premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt.
-> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do. Well there's your problem. I'm not a pacifist. The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force. Vim Vi Repellere Licet. your post was written under the assumption that you were pacifist, or im bad at reading, and this is a misunderstanding. However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine. so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so? Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives. So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP? Well, presumably if they "feel hurt" because I told them that initiating force is immoral, they feel that initiating force is moral. If they were to try to start anything, I would be perfectly OK ending it. Congratulation, you have just created a war. |
|
|
|
So then the only moral position is absolute pacifism, and not even defense is allowed?
if you find it immoral to hurt people, then yes. if you do not find it immoral to hurt people, then no. I see. Well, I do find it immoral to hurt people, and I also find it immoral to allow people to be hurt. So therefore, pacifism is also immoral for me, because by not resisting, I am allowing someone to be hurt. yup, you are fucked and trapped in a dilemma. Not at all, as I explain. premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people. premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt. -> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do. However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine. so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so? Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives. So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP? |
|
|
|
if current system is too bad, go use person-2-person transactions.
Because that's so easy to do right? Wake up. Bitcoin will die a slow death if the only thing left is P2P exchange. no it wil not. |
|
|
|
So then the only moral position is absolute pacifism, and not even defense is allowed?
if you find it immoral to hurt people, then yes. if you do not find it immoral to hurt people, then no. I see. Well, I do find it immoral to hurt people, and I also find it immoral to allow people to be hurt. So therefore, pacifism is also immoral for me, because by not resisting, I am allowing someone to be hurt. yup, you are fucked and trapped in a dilemma. However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine. so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so? |
|
|
|
Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?
Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it. Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it. and now you have practicably called me insane, just because i have a different opinion than you. you are no better than the rest of the world, when it comes to your opinions. You just don't want to admit that you are forcing people, while others are very clear about that. But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Quite the opposite. It's right there in the name of the philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryismthreat of force is also force. So then the only moral position is absolute pacifism, and not even defense is allowed? if you find it immoral to hurt people, then yes. if you do not find it immoral to hurt people, then no. |
|
|
|
Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?
Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it. Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it. and now you have practicably called me insane, just because i have a different opinion than you. you are no better than the rest of the world, when it comes to your opinions. You just don't want to admit that you are forcing people, while others are very clear about that. But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Quite the opposite. It's right there in the name of the philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryismthread of force is also force. |
|
|
|
You mean... Like this?  Because that's how I feel about it. +1!  |
|
|
|
Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?
Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it. Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it. and now you have practicably called me insane, just because i have a different opinion than you. you are no better than the rest of the world, when it comes to your opinions. You just don't want to admit that you are forcing people, while others are very clear about that. |
|
|
|
I want to make this absolutely clear. People who do not understand the inherent violence in statism cannot be labeled statists; rather, they simply don't realize there's anything else. These people are democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, whatever party you can list--the point is, they don't realize what they're doing. Someone who does not realizing they're supporting a system of violence are being fooled. They cannot hold blame if they don't understand what it is they're doing. If you didn't realize you accidentally knocked me off a ledge (silly example, sorry,) and you never realized you killed me, you can't truly be held accountable; you simply didn't know! But if you did it intentionally, and you knew you were knocking people off ledges and killing them, that's when the tables turn.
Humor me, at least once. okay. Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?
Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it. It's a very simple question, and begs a simple answer. I'm going to assume, if your next response is more nit-picking, or anything that doesn't remotely resemble "yes" or no", that it's definite support. i have now answered your simple question, i hope you are able to understand my answer. In which case, nothing I could ever say will make sense to you; so you give up, and blame it on me? thats not fair. after all, you believe libertarians are basically cultists, and everything which comes out of their mouths is bullshit, right? and you have done that exact same thing to me, but im still listening to you. So why should I bother arguing if you've determined I'm automatically wrong, before I've ever had the chance to explain?
because your arguments are just as lame as mine. Statist -> wrong wrong wrong, they are killing people by the billions! (very very rough sketch, i know) You already won, bub. Celebrate. Go wank. yeah, you too.  |
|
|
|
Yeah, the forum got a lot less friendly compared to 2 years ago.
indeed... noobs are annoying. |
|
|
|
seriously people? this is what you come up with? LOL! you are at the denial stage, just as in june '11:  |
|
|
|
Everyone's angry due to the latest crash  IM NOT ANGRY, YOU USELESS PIECE OF SHIT! i think OP is an idiot: a) he is assuming that bitcoin is libertarian. b) he does not understand bitcoin, and have only shown limited knowledge of cryptography. c) he cry about it. |
|
|
|
if the state gives me a better chance of survival, then a crazy ass anarchistic system, i will take my chances.
But it doesn't, you see? give me empirical evidence. death of violence per capita. The state is institutionalized violence. It grants a segment of the population the ability to kill you, without repercussions.
in denmark there is no death penalty. i do not know in what delusional world you live in. |
|
|
|
|
I CAN'T GET MY MONEY BACK! SELL SELL SELL! ARRRHRHRHRH!!!
|
|
|
|
Well shit! If I'dda known you were autistic, I wouldn't have pushed so hard  And no, there's no argument. To argue with you on the basis of empathy results in me saying "Yuh-huh" and you saying "Nuh-uh". But then again, why are you getting into battles of philosophy knowing you're going in from a cold point of view? For the fun of it? yup 4 teh lulz! |
|
|
|
Close the bank accounts and price WILL skyrocket.
wrong. people will panic, and lose faith in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
if current system is too bad, go use person-2-person transactions.
|
|
|
|
I've sent this email to the Bitcoin Foundation 2 weeks ago. For me it is clear they need to state their intensions. The fact that they didn't reply, is not a good sign. Worst case we should start our own counter-foundation. Noone can claim bitcoin anyway. We will be the Bitcoin User Group. Email me if you want to help found it, and agree with the original bitcoin principles: contact@bitcoinusergroup.comWe will stand for: - Respecting the 21 million limit - Decentralisation, no intervention of any kind - Not changing the crypto (we keep SHA256) -> Basically protecting the libertarian and anarcho-capitalistic principles, and not allow for any government intervention in the protocol. Hi Lindsay, Before I donate, I would like to know the foundation's stance on bitcoin: Do you commit to never increasing the limit beyond 21 million coins? Also, do you commit to never accepting changes that will include payments to be approved by government before being transacted? In other words, are you ready and willing to protect the core essences of bitcoin, including its libertarian aspects as Satoshi intended? Thanks for your reply. It would also help if you could put your key intentions on your site if they are correct. Regards LOOOL! i really don't understand bitcoin! THEY CAN'T FUCKING CHANGE IT UNLESS PEOPLE AGREES WITH THEM. and also bitcoin is not bound by the "libertarian aspects as Satoshi intended". |
|
|
|
it does not help very much, to just pull him of me and say "don't do that", and then letting him go.
On the contrary, that's the only way to know if he has learned. If you pull him off of you, tell him "don't do that," and then place handcuffs on him and prevent him from trying, it's impossible to know if he would try again or not. I foresee infinite recursion, and a bloody face to me. |
|
|
|
I can agree with that. yes, i support rehabilitation.
Then can you explain how locking a man in a cage will achieve that? , the cage is there to limit his possibilities while he is getting rehabilitated. Except if you limit his possible actions, how will you know when he's rehabilitated? After all, the only way to know is if he fails to try to hit you again. so you say we should just have zero-tolerance, instead? wtf man? I assume(without any evidence) that longer rehabilitation time means greater success. it does not help very much, to just pull him of me and say "don't do that", and then letting him go. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
