Maybe it's because you post things like 'this cop did a horrible thing, so it proves all cops are terrible people.' You're going to get push back on that, as you should. Keep it to the specifics of the case, and don't over generalize, and you will find a lot more support. Your biggest supporters are likely to be libertarians, of which I am one, but they're not going to support reckless statements. We have enough trouble being taken seriously as it is without helping to spread ideas that paint us as unreasonable.

This double standard with cops has to end, where they have a different justice system and different/no consequences for breaking the laws compared to regular citizens. But no one is going to listen to that message if you come off as someone who just hates all cops because they're cops. The way you present information is as important as, if not more than, the actual information itself.

I want to be on your side. Just help me get there.

It's a premise if you draw or infer a conclusion from it. Takes away from the argument imo. He's inferring all cops are bad because this cop raped a kid. Now instead of focusing on a group of bad cops, you're inviting responses arguing against the premise that all cops are bad. It's not enough to find a case of clear wrongdoing and to seek to hold those accountable. Nope, gotta over-generalize and make sweeping statements that have no basis and take away from a legitimate point, because you're revealing yourself as too biased to be reasonable.

These kinds of statements hurt the cause of reigning in police powers and abuse.

No, read Dank's quote:


That's what made me think he tried to launch his own coin.

I'm not one to defend cops in most cases, but your premise is flawed.


If all cops stood by, watching and doing nothing, I'd tend to agree with your assessment that this circumstance warrants the judgement that all cops are bad. But all cops were not standing by and watching while doing nothing, so your conclusion that this situation is proof that all cops are bad doesn't hold.

Also, you've quoted allegations from a lawsuit, which is one biased side of the story. Better to wait to hold it up as fact until the court has entered a finding as such.

MZ, please update me to Jr. Member rank. Signature updated.

You could argue that. I won't agree or disagree without seeing some actual data on it. But you're right, it seems besides the point.

Wait, wtf, there's actually a dankcoin? I thought Vod was being hilarious. Turns out he was, but not for the reason I thought!

That's what it was then perhaps but that's not what it is now. Now it's about manipulating molecules to do what they want them to. A lot of our drugs are synthesized out of molecules that do not exist in nature.

It only only be easier to get coins in the future. I don't think that will be much of an issue. Look how much easier it is to buy coins now than it was 18 months ago, where there were no companies doing this. Now there are several large companies converting fiat to btc. As btc continues to be adopted, it will be easier to obtain, and the price will probably be more stable too.

As to whether this long term downward trend we've been on will continue, I couldn't say. And I actually don't know if more merchant adoption helps or hurts price. On the one hand, more merchants in theory should equate to more people using the coin, thus more demand. On the other hand, no merchant holds bitcoins, they immediately convert to fiat, so this is a huge negative on the supply side, as merchants are constantly selling.

Don't be daft. Nothing of the sort is going on. Don't be the typical internet poster, posting unsubstantiated and baseless "facts."

If you had infinite energy, you could profit off it. But you don't, so...

I dispute your "fact." I think the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained through chemistry and research, not from information from the medical properties of various plants used be indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world. I think you've taken a few isolated cases of that happening, and are now presenting them to be the norm. They're not.

Problem with this system is that the people being "regulated" are paying the "regulator" to give them a clean bill of health. Obvious conflict of interest.

And tip of the hat to blockage for those graphs and stats. Really well done mate!

I don't know about bitcoin itself, but to the extent there is any regulation, you would have to regulate it at the access points. That is, where people turn fiat into btc. That's beginning to happen already, and it's not going to stop.

Let me help you with the difference between fact and opinion.


"Facts" are in bold, opinions are underlined. This was the first response where you attempted to state a "fact." The word "facts" is in quotations because there is no source, and it's so vague that it may be true. For example, "the first ones" means what? People in the world? People in the developed world? People in Europe? The loose way your "fact" is presented raises questions as to its validity, but even taking it on face value, it remains that the vast majority of what you're posting is still opinion.

No, that's not MY argument for christ sake. That's OPs argument, based on the way he generally lumped the people who abolished slavery in with the people who started it by only identifying them based on their race. OP's sole qualifier is "white Europeans." It makes no sense to praise "white Europeans" for ending slavery unless you're trying to counter the argument that "white Europeans" have something to be ashamed of re: slavery. If you're trying to give credit to the specific generation that ended slavery, you would not lazily over generalize like that. The fact that you do is evidence you're trying to say that later generations of "white Europeans" made up for the earlier generations of "white Europeans." That's the argument I'm taking issue with.

I'm not saying the people who ended slavery don't deserve credit. I'm saying if you're sole qualifier for identification is based on a general race you cannot exclude their entire history. You're ascribing to me an argument I am not making, by virtue of my single response to OP. On top of that, you said the same thing I did later: "As far as them deserving less blame because they were some of the early pioneers of abolition of slavery is not exactly valid either. A bad act doesn't erase a good act just as good doesn't erase a bad act." Either my first response you took issue with and this response with you is correct, or you're arguing against your own point as well as mine. It cannot hold that my first response is wrong, but when you said it three days later it was correct.

Do you not see that the reason you have no money is because you offer nothing of value to society?

That makes no sense at all. How would they know how you vote? It also supposes an outbreak so large that they could justify quarantining you at will for political reasons. And if the outbreak is that large, they'd be quarantining you for legitimate reasons, not political reasons.

CC fees don't decrease revenue. Revenue is the topline number. CC fees decrease profitability, but not revenue.

Confirmed payment, will stay enrolled. Thx.