Hello tout le monde.

Pour ceux qui n'auraient pas vu, Trump fait son Bush en appelant à la guerre contre l'Iran sur des bases ridicules. L'Iran a détruit un drone Américain soit disant au dessus de son espace aérien et les US considèrent que le drone était dans l'espace international et qu'il s'agit donc d'une agression.

Sauf que l'Iran demande qu'une investigation soit menée par l'ONU pour prouver son innocence en arguant que la guerre n'est pas envisageable et qu'ils se sont simplement défendus et que les USA refusent et Trump et les lobbys de l'armement sont en train de mettre la pression sur le congrès.

https://gizmodo.com/everything-we-know-about-the-u-s-spy-drone-shot-down-b-1835679194

Bon pas besoin d'être un génie pour savoir comment ça va finir. Après l'incident des tankers, si ça ça ne suffit pas les US se contenteront de monter la dose. Le jour où un pilote américain mourra soit disant dans l'espace international mais on ne veut pas d'investigation internationale le Congrès déclarera la guerre pour sûr. Déjà que beaucoup d'américains sont chauds...


A votre avis notre gouvernement va suivre? Je vois mal Macron porter ses couilles comme Chirac et refuser une guerre aussi stupide.
Et à votre avis qui c'est qui va se prendre une nouvelle vague migratoire et une remontée de l'extrêmisme? Qui c'est qui va en prendre plein la gueule?

C'est sûr que contre les fanatiques iraniens la guerre me semble une super option xD

So I got the amazing surprise to see tons of very "pro capitalist" people angry at big corps and their policies of censorship. Which I find very funny because they compare Zuckerberg to Staline and that's not something you hear every day.

Here is the catch, Capitalism and free market can only leads to this.

Not saying communism is better, that's not the point of the argument here.


Imagine a true Capitalist environment and society:
-You have a very small government but you still must have one. Even if it's very local and handles only the Justice and the army for example. Make it as small as you want, it doesn't matter.
-You have absolutely no regulation concerning the market or the trade in general.
-You have only ver basic ground rules in a constitution like freedom of moving, freedom of religion... Things like that.

That's what you would call a capitalist paradise. And basically as long as you have the agreement of someone and it isn't against the base rights guaranteed by the constitution you do whatever you want.

In such environment tons of companies appear. Some are successfull, some are not.
Eventually, as the market is a dynamic thing, big companies are bound to eat the smaller ones. If there is no regulation then bigger companies have an advantage of ressources over the smaller ones. In fact they could even simply decrease their prices until the smaller ones can't follow, and they would win the market like this.

It's EXACTLY what happens in most "new markets". You take the example of bus companies in Europe which was a new market few years ago because they were State monopoles before. They started with the prices incredibly small until all died but one and this one integrated all the other companies. Now you have Flixbus or nothing else.

Once a company has a monopole on a sector, it has much more power than before and is even harder to take down. It's not that no company had better ideas than Google, it's just that anytime a company that could just cast a shadow on Google appears, Google buys it.

So you just CAN'T take down a company having a monopole on a sector, unless you're already a monster company yourself.


Now, once all sectors more or less have their monopole company, which is exactly what's happening in our current world. What prevents them from meeting up and decide on the general policies of the country. What prevents them from lobbying politicians, corrupting them, changing slightly their services or internal policies to enforce their views?

It's not a complotist thing. Once you have 5 people owning all the media of your country, if they agree on a certain political decision what do you think will happen?


Capitalism just means that in the end, the big eats the small. Then when only a few big ones remain why shouldn't they band together against you?

Hey

I just wanted to share this study proving something reaaaaaaally horrible. In horrible socialist countries like France... Poor people actually have the same care than the rich.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24623.pdf

Joke aside, health is a major proof that free market is just market controled by money. Nothing else.

Do you want a society where health is dependant on your wealth?


There is a persistent lie spread saying that nationalizing a market is making it inneficient and stupidly buraucratic.

Well sorry to say but difference between a nationalized market and a free but regulated market is, for health, 50% more costly for USA and extremely inequal system.


Socialism is horrible right?

Edit modo :
En provenance de https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086499.msg50876304#msg50876304
/Edit modo.

Quand je lis que la démocratie est en danger en France, allez vivre dans une dictature, on en reparlera après.
[...]
Aucun type de pensée n'est interdit ici, même les plus extrêmes ou les plus farfelues
[...]
Ce message n'a pas pour but d'ouvrir à la discussion. C'est comme ça, point barre, du moins dans ce topic.
[...]

Ben "Gilets Jaunes Vs Bitcointalk" Bitcointalk a gagné par diktat. Fin de la discussion du coup non?
Y a pas d'ironie de ma part. Il me semble qu'Halab vient juste d'utiliser son autorité pour clore le débat. Y a rien à rajouter puisqu'on a pas le droit d'évoquer ces sujets.

Du coup thread à lock définitivement?

edit: encore une fois pas de côté sarcastique. C'est juste un constat. Puisqu'au moment où le débat atteint la légitimité de l'utilisation de la violence pour répondre à la violence institutionnelle une autorité suprême arrive, mod le tout en disant "vous pouvez pas parler de la violence institutionnelle comme ça" ben y a plus vraiment de débat il me semble.

There is a number spreading that my dear friend TECSHARE gave out:

875 Churches Vandalized In France Triggers Notre Dame CONSPIRACIES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35_UTCxKt2c

IT'S TIME FOR THEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FACTS CHEEEEEEEEEECK!!!

So real number is a bit less but stil impressive: around 700 churches were vandalized. 875 is an exageration of the newspaper Le Figaro (Right and Christian newspaper) including acts that happened INSIDE churches but didn't aim the building (stealing something from a believer inside a church for example).

Still, 700 is a big number and 875 isn't an incredible exageration.

BUT

Let's put that in perspective.

There are 42 258 churches and Christian buildings in France. 700 vandalism means 1.65% of them have been attacked. Which is already a bit less impressive.

Only 16 mosques vandalized in 2018, far less right? Well as there are only 2368 Islamist buildings it's still 0.67% of them attacked.

For the jews we get only 500 synagogues and most (if not all) of them are protected by soldiers because... Well I can't say what I think here because that would be a crime and France isn't really a free country... But still, wtf? Why should French soldiers protect religious buildings??


So? Well it seems Christians are indeed aimed at more than other religious groups. Important things to take into account though:

-Christian buildings are a historical symbol and are often aimed at by what we could call "laicist warriors" who want to harden separation of church and state. It's not just hate crimes, it's also because they're symbolic of an institutional force.

-Christian religion isn't 100% separated from government in France despite what is said. Some parts of France don't have an official separation of church and state and the state actually pays for the church (Alsace and Moselle, complicated history with the Germans you know). And French president is still "premier et unique chanoine honoraire de l'archibasilique de Saint-Jean-du-Latran, proto-chanoine de l'ancienne cathédrale d'Embrun, proto-chanoine de Notre-Dame de Cléry, chanoine honoraire de la cathédrale Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne, premier chanoine honoraire héréditaire de l'église de Saint-Hilaire de Poitiers, premier chanoine honoraire héréditaire de l'église de Saint-Martin de Tours, premier chanoine honoraire héréditaire de la cathédrale Saint-Maurice d'Angers, premier chanoine honoraire héréditaire de la cathédrale Saint-Étienne de Châlons et premier chanoine honoraire héréditaire de la cathédrale Saint-Julien du Mans". Those are honor title but still, can't say it's very laïc...

-Christian attacks are stable through the years. There isn't an "increase in Christian hate", number of anti Christian acts are more or less the same.

-There is a historical hate of the church in France and... Believe me it's not going to disappear.


That's all. From a personnal point of view, I don't see the point of churches vandalism but I also don't like that government is flirting with the church so much and that most churches are a state burden...


Sources (sorry for the French but those are French government numbers):
https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Actualites/Communiques/Lutte-contre-la-haine-la-discrimination-le-racisme-et-l-antisemitisme
http://patrimoine.blog.pelerin.info/2016/09/13/conference-eveques-de-france-etat-des-lieux-eglises/
https://www.islamophobie.net/tag/vandalisme/
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_mosqu%C3%A9es_de_France

Yesterday flame burned down Notre Dame at paris, the 850 years old cathedral has suffered unprecedented damages after a night of fire despite the work of the firefighters:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47941794



An investigation was started this morning to know if the fire was criminal or accidental. As the cathedrale was under renovation and the fire started at the location of the renovation work where the chemical products and machines were stored, accidental origin is a privileged explanation right now.

Still, as the number of vandalism and started fire of French churches only grew these last years, suspicion of a criminal burning can't be completely discarded.

Governments and people worldwide have expressed there sympathies for this huge cultural loss and offered their help (whatever that means).


I'm in Paris, I've visited the cathedrale a few times, I can confirm the burning hurted it deeply. It was a wonderful monument, even if I'm not too fond of the symbols of the past and of religion, it's really sad to see that.

[Le cash ça me semble improbable pour 1M$]

Salut,

je me pose une question très concrète. La possible (probable pour les optimistes) bull run approchant me pose un problème. Comment liquider mon stock de BTC? 

Je ne trade pas, ce n'est pas mon truc et je ne suis pas spécialement compétent. Par contre j'ai pas mal accumulé entre 3k et 5k. Les grandes variations du BTC sont toujours l'occasion de liquider 80% du portefeuille pour des très gros bénéfices avant le burst.

Sauf que si ça ne m'a pas posé de problème au dernier bull run avec mes 3.5 BTC là on parle d'un montant bien plus conséquent...

Alors je me demande quel plan de liquidation adopté pour liquider 80% d'un stack de 50BTC donc 40BTC.

Si on a un bull run ne serait-ce que similaire au précédent ça veut dire presque 1M$



Je vis entre le Canada et la France. Est-ce que quelqu'un a une idée pour faire ça de façon simple et optimale? 

Passer par un exchange ça marche mais j'ai un peu peur de me faire double taxer par les gouvernements Canadien et Français. Me faire taxer pas de soucis mais 2 fois ça fait beaucoup, et j'ai aucune idée de comment on traite les bénéfices financiers liés au trading (vu que je ne trade pas). 

Le cash ça me semble improbable pour 1M$

Quelqu'un a déjà planifié sa sortie? J'essaie de réfléchir en amont à une stratégie de sortie! 

[Hypothèses:]

Hey,

Alors avec toutes les discussions sur le RIC et les GJ et tout, je me suis dit "je vais lancer un sujet sur la démocratie directe". Sauf que c'est putain de long et compliqué de formaliser le fonctionnement d'une institution. Alors une fois lancé autant allez jusqu'au bout.

C'est une proposition d'organisation sociale. Je ne dis pas comment y arriver, je ne dis pas que c'est la meilleure chose possible, il me semble juste intéressant d'imaginer une société organisée différemment de ce qu'on connaît: on élit des chefs qui font ce qu'ils veulent une fois élus.

Toute critique ou idée par rapport à ça est bienvenue tant que c'est construit et pas juste "les gens sont trop cons pour que ça marche" 


Hypothèses:
1/ Chaque citoyen possède une carte d'identité digitale pratiquement impossible à pirater. Hypothèse raisonnable, il suffit de copier le modèle des banques, quiconque peut pirater votre ID digitale peut pirater votre compte bancaire, donc vous êtes dans une merde cosmique
2/ L'état est capable de créer un site internet ergonomique, une plateforme sur laquelle les citoyens peuvent se connecter avec leur ID digitale. Franchement on sait faire des plateformes ultra ergonomique donc je pars du principe que l'utilisation de la plateforme ne sera pas un problème. Un mélange de KickStarter et Change.org en mieux quoi.

Description théorique:
Chaque citoyen arrivant en âge de voter obtient immédiatement une voix valant 100 points utilisable à chaque vote auquel il a le droit de participer. On dit qu'il possède 100 points de vote ou 100PV

Chaque citoyen peut participer aux votes concernant sa localisation géographique, définie par sa résidence principale. Si le citoyen est SDF, il peut déclarer la mairie de son choix comme résidence principale.

Chaque citoyen peut proposer ce qu'il souhaite sur la plateforme. N'importe quoi. Sa proposition aura trois caractéristiques: un (ou plusieurs) type, une nature et un degré d'impact. C'est le citoyen proposant qui fixe le type et le degré d'impact.
Type: économie, éducation, armée, internationale, santé... il s'agit d'un tag en fait.
Nature: décision mineure (construire une nouvelle école), décision majeure (entrer en guerre avec pays X), loi, changement constitutionnel
Degré d'impact: local, départemental, régional, national, international

Toute proposition est automatiquement mise en attente à sa création, elle n'est pas votée. Pour être votée elle doit obtenir un degré de soutien, c'est à dire une quantité de VP engagé, dépendant de la nature et du degré d'impact. Une décision mineure aura besoin de 500kVP pour passer en statut votable par exemple, tandis qu'un changement constitutionnel aura besoin de 5MVP.

Chaque citoyen peut promettre 100VP réparti comme il le souhaite sur une ou plusieurs propositions. Il peut modifier son soutien à tout moment mais si une proposition qu'il soutenait est validée et passe en statut votable, les VP qu'il lui avait dédié sont bloqués pour une semaine.

Une proposition ayant obtenu le soutien suffisant passe en statut votable. Une proposition passe en statut votable uniquement en local, si le degré d'impact choisi par le citoyen ayant fait la proposition est au dessus de local, la proposition devra être d'abord votée en local, puis si elle réussi en départemental etc...

Une proposition ayant été votée avec le degré d'impact choisi par le citoyen initial est adoptée. Pour être votée une proposition doit amasser un pourcentage de VP favorable suffisant dépendant de sa nature et un suffrage exprimé suffisant dépendant de son degré d'impact. Par exemple, une décision mineure aura besoin d'une majorité simple favorable mais de toute de même 30% des voix exprimées sur la question.

Fonctionnement pratique:
Chaque citoyen peut répartir à loisir ses 100VP promis, à n'importe quel moment.

Chaque citoyen peut déléguer tout ou partie de ses 100VP effectifs à qui il souhaite répartis comme il le souhaite y compris dépendant des tags. On peut donc dire "je donne la moitié de mes VP à chacun de mes deux enfants" ou je donne mes VP à tel économiste sur une proposition avec le tag économie. A tel philosophe sur le tag santé. Ou a tel ami sur le tag politique internationale.

Chaque samedi les citoyens votent de 15h à 20h sur les propositions votable auxquelles ils sont admissibles. Ils donnent de 0 à 100VP au pour ou contre sur chaque proposition.

A 20h les votes sont bloqués et les citoyens n'ayant pas voté voient leur VP transféré à leur(s) délégué(s) en accord avec leur répartition sur chaque proposition où ils sont admissibles.

Avantages:
-Pas besoin d'être un spécialiste en tout. Si vous ne pensez pas vous y connaître en tel domaine ne votez pas sur tel domaine. Mais si vous avez une opinion sans être un spécialiste vous pouvez facilement déléguer votre vote à quelqu'un semblant partager vos idées mais s'y connaissant mieux que vous.

-Reduction de la corruption. Qui corrompre? Les personnes ayant beaucoup de VP délégué? Mais c'est une information qui n'est pas accessible ça.

-Manipulation des masses limitée. Il est beaucoup plus difficile de manipuler des gens h24. En ayant des élections tous les 5 ans il est beaucoup plus simple de manipuler l'actualité et les gens que s'ils ont le pouvoir en permanence. Pensez aux investissements colossaux sur les campagnes électorales, imaginez s'il fallait déployer ces efforts A CHAQUE VOTE. Impossible.

-Responsabilisation des citoyens. Chaque citoyen devient réellement responsable de ce qui ce passe. Nos interventions armées au MO sont le résultat d'une décision prise par la population, pas la décision arbitraire d'un dictateur élu 2 ans auparavant qui n'avait jamais prévenu qu'il entrerait en guerre.

-Education et changement des mentalités. N'appréciez vous pas les élections présidentielles? Ce moment où tous les citoyens se sentent concernés et s'intéressent à ce qui se passe? Ce moment où la France entière se dit "quel futur voulons nous?". Imaginez une société où les gens ont ce pouvoir en permanence, ne seraient-ils pas beaucoup plus impliqués dans la vie politique?

-Fin de l'abstentionnisme résigné. C'est la fin des gens disant que "les élections ne servent plus à rien". Si on ne vote pas c'est parce qu'on ne s'y connait pas assez ou qu'on estime que le sujet ne nous intéresse pas, pas parce qu'on se sent impuissant et que "de toute façon les politiciens c'est tous des menteurs".

-Amélioration perpétuelle. Les gens vont pouvoir apprendre de leurs erreurs quand de mauvaises décisions seront prises puisque c'est eux directement qui auront pris ces décisions.

-Adaptabilité. Le système de délégation permet de s'exprimer par représentant quand les sujets sont trop complexes pour nous ou trop obscurs.

Inconvénients:

-Temps d'adaptation. On ne passe pas d'un mouton servile votant une fois tous les 5 ans à un citoyen impliqué dans la vie politique en un instant.

-Les risques extrêmes. On peut se retrouver avec des décisions sur lesquelles il est impossible de revenir une fois prise.

-L'équilibre. Il faut que les décisions et lois votées s'équilibrent entre elles. C'est sans doute l'élément le plus difficile à gérer: comment intégrer une vision globale quand on ne prend que des micro décisions.



Voilà j'espère que cela n'aura pas été trop chiant à lire. Si ça intéresse quelqu'un tant mieux. Sinon au pire je suis content d'avoir couché mon idée sur papier :p

So it's from this post of TECSHARE:

There is both a misunderstanding and a conspiracy, but not a theory, a fact. You seem to think that the corrupt Capitalists and the corrupt Communists are different factions, they are not. They are literally the same people and groups. It is a big puppet show. It is controlled opposition and they have a flavor of shit sandwich for each of us. Western Capitalist bankers LITERALLY CREATED COMMUNISM. They planned it, they engineered it, they funded it, they fostered it, they created it in every sense of the word. It is nothing more than red vs blue, us vs them, republican vs democrat on a global scale.

This is straight out of the Hegelian Dialectic. THESIS - ANTITHESIS = SYNTHESIS also known as PROBLEM - REACTION = SOLUTION

In this case during world war 1 and 2, it was Communism - Nazism = Globalism

They are creating the extremes on both sides so they can pick through the corpses and accumulate control and power by systematically stripping us all of rights, our lives, and our property. We are talking about the same people, you just don't realize it yet. Also if you actually take the time to look over The 10 Planks of Communism I think you will have to admit the world has largely adopted these policies, even if they have a different name for it. Additionally China is arguably the most important economy in the world, and they most certainly have goals for global Communism, and the resources and potential to achieve it. If you were to take a hard look at all of these facts I think you may agree.

Just felt it would be a bit off topic there so I started another thread.

If I understood well, the point of TECSHARE and this site is to show that communists managed to get their policies enforced worldwide. Lets go through the 10 planks, which is an awesome political manifesto still very up to date in my opinion.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

So, not at all. The first plank isn't enforced anywhere to my knowledge. There is no abolition of private property only restrictions and taxations. It's quite different to have abollition of private property or land taxes no?

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

The problem to dispute this point is that "heavy progressive" doesn't mean shit. Let's say that there is indeed graduated income tax and not only flat taxes, but that was clearly not what Marx was saying, he thought about a REALLY HIGHLY GRADUATED income tax. Like from 0 to 100. Which is not the case.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Ok so clearly no, there are various inheritance taxes but there is NO WAY we can call that abolition of inheritance rights. Worst case scenario in countries with heavy left history like France you can have up to 40% taxation after 2M€ of inheritance. And if you have more than 2M€ of assets you have the lawyers to prepare your succession so you pay less than 10% taxes.

Most inheritance will go through something like 10 to 20% taxes. That's not exactly "abolition of all rights of inheritance" right?

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Ok this just never hapens. I agree that most countries have the laws that allow the state to seize private properties under certain conditions, those laws were mainly made after WW1 or WW2 to get back the property of the traitors, but that just never happens. At all. Period.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Here the site is self contradictory. This step is about nationalization of bank and credit, and as the site state all banks and federal reserves are privately owned. So clearly point 5 isn't enforced at all. Europe is in the same case, gods even the "Banque de France" is in fact a private company...

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

So there are regulations in communications and transportation but clearly no state monopoly. I don't know for USA but in France 95% of media are owned by 10 individuals. Not really state owned...

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

I don't know enough about USA here. I can say it is slightly enforced in EU as there is a heavy subidizing of agricultural activities directly under control of the EU. But none of it is enforced in the industrial sector and there is no common plan. Clearly this step is about nationalizing industrial and agricultural power and plannification of production which is not done anywhere.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

This is a complete nonsense. This step is litteraly "all works pay equally". All those measures say that "all works must be paid at least this". There is no equal liability of all to labor anywhere in the world. There is just a minimum wage that's all.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

There can be incentives but there is no direct control of population relocation by the government anywhere else than in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

This one is slightly enforced. There are still private schools every where and there is no combination of education with industrial production but free public education is a thing yes.


So out of all those policies:
1/ Not enforced at all
2/ Slightly enforced
3/ Not enforced at all
4/ Not enforced at all
5/ Not enforced at all
6/ Not enforced at all
7/ Very slightly enforced
8/ Not enforced at all
9/ Not enforced at all
10/ Let's say partially enforced

That's not what I would call a communist policies enforcement... Feel free to contradict me on one or more points.

I would love to see those policies enforced. But they are not. A bit in China yeah. But that's all.

Hey people,

Now you probably heard about the Yellow Vests protests that have been happening in Europe, especially heated in France.

I've been in those protests, and there was something incredible. During the fights against the cops I've been helped by a monarchist. A motherfucking monarchist. And while running away from a charge, when regrouping to counterattack, I found myself in the middle of what was clearly an extreme right group. And we charged together.

I'm a motherfucking commie. I'm 100% Marxist, Das Kapital is my Bible and I hate Adam Smith to the guts.

But there was something incredible in those protests. Where you stood on the political specter didn't matter, you were just a part of the population trying to fight against the dictatorship we call government.



I think there is something extremely important we need to understand: extreme right and extreme left are no longer ennemies. Well of course they are, but they have a worse common ennemy to fight.

We fall under the same laws of censorship. We are suppressed, muted, attacked, emprisonned equally by the people currently in power. We hate the same system, we just don't want to replace it the same way.
But you know what? I think that a protectionnist really free capitalism is still better than the corrupted shit we have. And extreme right must realize that a socialist state is still better than the corrupted shit we have.

We're under the rule of a "capitalism for the rich and the profits, socialism for the poors and the costs". In a really capitalist state the banks wouldn't have survived their mistakes. In a really socialist state, the banks wouldn't have survived their failure either.

I hate to see people like Macron or Hillary getting the support from the far left because "at least they're not racist protectionnists". And I hate seeing them getting the support from the far right because "at least they're not socialists". Depending on who they're challenging in election.

I'd vote Trump against Hillary every day. I'd vote Le Pen against Macron every day.
I wish extreme right would vote Senders against Hillary every day. And Melanchon against Macron every day.


I don't think we can win while continuing fighting each other. We got a common ennemy. Let's tear it down then we'll see how we handle our society.

[Plop.]

Plop.

J'aurais bien proposé le sujet sur la partie ENG mais vu les individus et les sujets déjà en place type "13 inbreds Jews families that we need to kill" je doute que ça devienne très constructif.

Suite à une petite dérive sur le sujet Gilets jaunes, est arrivée la question de l'antisémitisme et anti sionisme et tout ça.

J'ai donc un raisonnement et trois questions, j'aimerais avoir votre avis sur le tout!
Par contre je ne suis pas juif et je ne suis pas particulièrement un spécialiste. Donc ne pas hésiter à me corriger si je dis une bourde!

[Disclaimer] Le thread est en self-moderated pour éviter les conneries des deux côtés.

Mon raisonnement est le suivant:

-A la question "qui est juif?" la réponse que le peuple juif a donné est claire: les enfants d'une mère juive et les convertis.

-La conversion est juste... Quasi impossible. Aucun prosélytisme et 1 à 5 ans de travail personnel à faire avant de pouvoir potentiellement être converti.

-Les convertis représentent une quantité dérisoire, peu de chiffres à ce sujet mais tous ceux qu'on a montre à quel point il y en a peu. A peine 200 par an en France et moins de 10% de la population juive américaine semble être convertie.

-Toutes les études que j'ai jamais vues tendent à appuyer les clichés typiques antisémites. Les juifs américains sont beaucoup plus riches et beaucoup plus éduqués que la moyenne  http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/

Jews have high levels of educational attainment. Most Jews are college graduates (58%), including 28% who say they have earned a post-graduate degree. By comparison, 29% of U.S. adults say they graduated from college, including 10% who have a post-graduate degree.
Fully one-quarter of Jews (25%) say they have a household income exceeding $150,000, compared with 8% of adults in the public as a whole. At the same time, 20% of U.S. Jews report household incomes of less than $30,000 per year; about six-in-ten Jews in this low-income category are either under age 30 or 65 or older.

-Être juif ne semble pas vraiment lié à la religion. On né juif c'est tout, qu'on pratique on qu'on croit n'a aucune importance.

On a donc un groupe de personne définis majoritairement par leur héritage génétique (puisque la mère donne le fait d'être juif) qui se définissent essentiellement par cet héritage génétique (puisque la religion n'est pas liée au fait d'être juif).

Trois questions à partir de là:

-Est-ce que ce n'est pas juste du racisme complet? Les conversions étant complètement anecdotiques et aucun autre critère ne rentrant en compte on a fondamentalement un groupe de personnes se définissant par leur ascendance génétique... Comme s'il y avait une espèce de gène "juif" que la mère transmet...

-N'est-il pas logique d'être au minimum anti sioniste du coup? Parce que Israël c'est littéralement un pays dont la citoyenneté est décidée essentiellement par la génétique... C'est pas horrible ça?

-Est-ce que quelqu'un voit ne serait-ce que le début d'une solution au communautarisme juif d'un côté et à l'antisémitisme de l'autre? Parce que si un groupe de personnes se définissant par ses gênes se retrouve à bénéficier de conditions de vie avantageuses... Ben ça ne peut QUE entraîner une forme de racisme ça me semble assez normal. De même, si un groupe de personnes est régulièrement attaqué pour son ascendance génétique, on ne peut QUE voir une augmentation du communautarisme ça me semble normal aussi. Quelqu'un à une idée pour sortir du cercle vicieux?




Voilà j'espère qu'il est suffisamment évident dans mes propos que le but est de discuter de la chose de façon rationnelle et factuelle sans tomber ni dans le "il faut rien dire qui puisse d'une façon ou d'une être mal pris par un juif les pauvres ils ont déjà tellement souffert" ni dans le "de toute façon faut tous les cramer".

Bise.

[Maybe you can tell me more about my own country while you tell me more about how those protests are "scaling down" in yours eh?]

Yeah except its really not future technology in spite of your relativism and demands he must be speaking of the very specific type of model you were thinking of in your head but only later mentioned when called out on it then and insisted this could be the only way.

So bad faith it is then.

It is kind of hard to use the government in the same way... when the government is no where near the same thing so. Cool story bro. Maybe you can tell me more about my own country while you tell me more about how those protests are "scaling down" in yours eh?

Don't misunderstand me, pointing at the cowardice and stupidity of American patriots doesn't exempt my own people from those traits. At least we're trying a bit.

And I guess the "scaling down" was ironical even though I've provided numbers for the last 6 weeks coming from a pro-yellow vest union showing that yes it's scaling down. Coming from 360k protesters down to 240k while losing about 20k protesters every week IS scaling down. I can't really be more explicite than saying 240<360 you know?

Yes you've just heard the dumbest idea you'll hear in a long time. Not worth reading the stupid thing. See, somehow in the USA green libtards are all anti-nuclear, which one of the few redeeming things about France, is that France is pro-nuclear.

Well nuclear helped the country a lot. Nuclear is the reason why France is still a great power both warfare (nuclear submarines and atomic bomb) and civil (relative energetic independance). So nuclear is quite loved here.

Still anyone with a brain understands it's not a long term solution and most "good" candidates (by good I mean not bankers) have parts of their programs dedicated to nuclear crash. But all of them include more fundings towards next generation of nuclear plants cause that's a fucking amazing source of energy. First country to get fusion will be the king of the world.

Here, they'll lie and duck and dodge about the matter, but it's basically just plain true to say Green == anti-nuclear. Side note: I always have suspected that was due to back door funding of our Dems from Saudi oil interests, since it was rational that to the extent America went off nuclear, we went on oil ( eg Saudi oil).

Aren't Saudi oil money fueiling all parties in USA?

[An example:]

Hello all.

I've got huge trouble discussing with some people here. Especially TECSHARE but not only. It seems to me that we tend to fight over heated subjects and not share different points of view. This is, most of the time, useless. Not much is learnt from both sides and both sides leave more convinced to be right than before.

So I'm creating a self-moderated thread with one objective, to have only objectively constructive content. How can we do that? Well by creating a common base of discussion.

Each post here must follow the same pattern. Any post following this pattern will be kept, any post not following it will be deleted. If you have criticism about the idea or the pattern, feel free to write what should be done or improved for you. I'll quote you in the next post then delete your post.

I'm not saying it's the ultimate solution but I'm tired of having the feeling of fighting over bad faith and lack of logic. So this is a proposal to have something constructive. If you have anything better to propose please be my guest.


Here is the proposed pattern:

Code:

[b]Claim/Assertion/Hypothesis/Theory[/b] (keep the one best suited): Neutral declaration without any fact

[b]Facts that back it up[/b]: List of the possible facts. One fact, one bullet, at least one source
[list]
[li][/li]
[li][/li]
[/list]

[b]Logical reasonning[/b]: if necessary, the logic linking the facts together can be explained here.

[b]Conclusion[/b]: You either state that your claim/assertion/hypothesis/theory is proven right, wrong, or still unproven.

[b]Opinion[/b]: opinions are important and must sometimes be voiced. Here state what you THINK/BELIEVE/FEEL about the subject but haven't backed with facts and logical reasonning. This can be linked to values, self experience or other things.

An example:

Claim: Abortion is part of human society and is best regulated than forbidden.

Facts that back it up:

• Abortions are decreasing steadily in countries with new legal access to abortion.
  http://contraceptivestudies.imedpub.com/the-evolution-of-the-number-of-abortions-in-the-omsk-region-for-20052015.php?aid=21977
• In countries with a long term legal access abortion, number of abortions seem to reach a base level and stop evolving.
  https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/data/france/abortion-contraception/abortions/
• Unsafe abortions take place in countries banning abortion and are a leading death cause in the maternity field.
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

Logical reasonning: Banning abortion doesn't mean you won't have abortion, it means you will have unsafe abortions. Legalizing abortion means you will have nearly only safe abortion thus ensure the safety of mothers with unwanted pregnancy. As legalizing abortion doesn't mean the number of abortion will increase exponentially but rather will stabilize after decreasing for years, ensuring legal access to abortion is a good solution to ensure safety of potential mothers while not democratizing abortion as a normal procedure.

Conclusion: The pros seem to largely outweight the cons in favor of regulating abortion rather than banning it

Opinion: From a value point of view, I don't see how you can consider abortion a murder as the foetus has no self-counsciousness. A dog is far more intelligent and self-aware than a foetus. Moreover you can NEVER prevent all unwanted pregnancy even with the best intention. Rapes happen, failure in contraceptive methods happen, human mistakes happen.

Hello everyone

I got 1.5ETH right now and I'd like to sell them for BTC at current market price so about 50mBTC.

PM me please.

Hey everyone.

I'm selling some tokens but no longer have ETH. I have a deal made with someone for 1.5ETH but I promised to send first.

Can anyone airdrop 0.001ETH here: 0x2fe9E270073c6544952f6884d3D67D935B5dAb37

I'll send you 0.002ETH back after the deal is done

Cheers

[[e]]

Hello everyone,

There are a few thread like those:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5089085.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5083110.0

Or the famous GoodMood daily raffle of krogothmanhattan that are threads entirely dedicated to giveaways.

Those threads are really cool and I got nothing against them! But fact is that if some users simply play for the fun of it, others are accounts entirely dedicated to farming those threads. Look at those profiles:

Code:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=732010
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1034275
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=902465
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1428964
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2455337
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1061868
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1072406
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=83676

Don't they break the first rule of the forum:

1. No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads. [1][e]

As their ONLY contribution on the forum is spamming their name with a number before? Should they be banned?

Moreover should people starting giveaway games threads in Games&Rounds have the basic recommendation of having a 10 merits requirement to play? I especially think about people like krogothmanhattan who are clearly giving out something by pure generosity without anything in return... his threads are likely gang banged by just a few accounts farmers.

While the guessing game of micgoossens is at least free from all those accounts:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096275.msg49246576#msg49246576

Yet I don't know if that's worth thinking about. Or are we just all to consider that Games&Rounds is the trash of the forum and that's all?

Previous idea is no longer center of discussion on the thread.

This suggestion from o_e_l_e_o

A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.

and DdmrDdmr data

<...>

I’ve drawn-up a quick merit per post ratio for forum members that:
-   Had been merited on the 25/05/2018 (oldest merit snapshot I have without getting into backups, but it serves or purpose with over 7 months of data).
-   Have created at least 200 posts since then.
I’ve created a merit per post ration for each of the above set of forum members (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nyaHbaz31aVf6dnnTjiPOuCflZv1UOxNSWTQVMMUt68/edit?usp=sharing).

In summary we get:
-   There is an unknown (by me) number of users that have posted at least 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (unmerited ones I mean).
-   21.808 forum members had been merited on the 25/05/2018.
-   3.679 of those have posted at least 200 posts since the 25/05/2018.
-   1.219 of them have an average >= 0,005 merits/post.

So really, only 1.219 forum members meet the criteria of having 0,005 merits per post on over 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (*). That is a pretty reduced set …

(*) Well, really there is an additional set made up from those that had not been merited yet on the 25/05/2018, and have since then + created >= 200 posts, but I needed an initial snapshot to retrieve the post and merit count from.

Edit: One can also manipulate the merit per post ratio by deleting posts.

Clearly points out a better solution than the one I was proposing first.


I quite like the idea of diminishing sig spamming by restricting signatures to people managing to acquire merit. Do anyone see a problem with that? It would at least reduce spam while allowing anyone who just wants to talk do it.

Hey!

So I wanted to congratulate trankil for getting his account back and sent him 10 merit here:

unlocked, thanks you to all friends for your support !

After sending 10 merits I just wanted to check my last sent/received merits so I click on the f5 button and... Boum, I send 10 more merits.

So it's not a real bother as I wanted to make a gift to trankil but still, is it normal that recharging the send merit page actually re-send the merit? I understand the double spending if you click on send twice, but why if you just recharge?

So.

I've seen this in a thread:

lol @ the snicker comment but I'm sick of you crypto guys tricking regular people into investing in this scam.  There are not enough greater fools left for the price to go back up to 20k.  I know you guys are trying to get one last pump to dump on the noobs though.

And globally an increase of posts saying that it's the end. That the big scam is finished and that now it's just a deah fish. That it was all a global scam.

Now I don't care if some old traders are dumb enough to sell right now. This post is for all the newcommers that fear investing. When I first invested in 2015 I was worried and only bought up to 2 coins while I could have bought about a dozen rather easily. Now I'm still happy I've bought at this time but I would have loved if some old coiners managed to convince me to buy muuuuuuuuch more.

Here is why you should buy, and buy now:

-BTC is not dead. There is no reason for btc to die, the only way would be to stop all mining but that's simply not possible as anyone can mine, even you.

-Already 83% of BTC has been mined. That means a very small inflation. You need only a very small investment to keep the price of btc stable. That's not the case of dollars or euro you know... They get printed over and over...

-BTC has a real life purpose. Using WU to transfer money is hundreds of time more expensive than using BTC. BTC isn't made for daily purchases but it can handle large amount transfer like nothing else!

-Next halving is in less than two years: https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/
If you don't know what halving is, just remember that halving means less BTC mined means price increase.

-Market value is already in the 63 billions. For the price to stay the same, you need only a few billions considering the small increase of coins.

-Tons of coins get lost. I'm not even sure the number of BTC is actually increasing if you consider the people losing their private keys, the people dying without handing their coins, the amount of dust btc lost in small wallets...

-Not a single solution has been provided to avoid another world financial crisis. Banks and government are still exactly doing the same thing. And at the next financial crisis, when governments will have to print billions and billions to bail out the banks, what currency will not get inflation in any way? Yeah you goddamn right.

-For anyone in countries not 100% safe (means anyone except USA, France UK and Germany). Remember governments and banks simply prevented any citizen to get their money from their bank account with the Greek crisis. They will never be able to freeze your coins.


So don't be afraid. It's better than any other investment you could make.

Chill out, buy, and buy now as the price can only go up for the next halving.

Cheers.

Hello everyone,

I think I've found a method to identify the accounts getting sold on the forum.

Problem is that I need the data of accounts of the forum to identify them. By data I mean the list of accounts of the forum with the most possible informations:
-username (obviously)
-date of registration
-rank
-activity
-number of posts
-merit
-sMerit (don't know if that's available to anyone but the user)

Is such data available publicly? I'm not really aware of the bacground of the forum as I've never used it.

But after years inside I think I finally have find something I can do for the community