Lol, thanks Captain Obvious. You might not have thought about that but moral is exactly like fogs. Of course when you're in the center it's quite obvious where you are, but when do you decide when you're out of the fog? Where is the border? Where is the limit?

Killing someone without reason is a crime, quite obvious thanks. Now what about killing someone to save two people? What about stealing the rich to feed the poor?

Real life example: You find someone in your house at night while your kids are sleeping. What is considered as ok per your moral code? Hitting him? Shooting him? Well moral here is blurry and always difficult to deal with.
If the guy is armed with a knife and seems looking for trouble, everyone will be ok with you shooting him and it will be considered as self defense. Now what if the guy is drunked and obviously just a student having a heavy party who made a stupid bet? You still have the right to be scared so what is ok?


Of course 98% of the cases are simple. The problem is with the 2% perticular cases. That's the ones difficult where moral isn't all white or black.

Hmm... You just litteraly saif that morality is relative...

Your sentences say "don't so to others what you don't want them to do to you". Which means each people will have a different definition of what should and should not be done as each person will consider something as acceptable or not...

Example: I consider ok to take parts of what's mine for the need of others. Some people do not consider it ok. Who is right here? Following your maxime no one is right or wrong, it just depends if you accept it or not.

This thread is more general so I felt like a new one was a good thing.

Who's feeling threatened? I'm not.
Just saying deciding to get rid of gender specifications means getting rid of genders in the end. You can't keep men and women without equalities because that's why there are men and women. That's all i'm saying.

Will the TIT be tradable on any exchange?

Wanted to buy some on Yobit but can't seem to find it.

Winnings will be sent to your TrueFlip account

Even if that wasn't a precise things it's quite obvious that a casino isn't offering money for free without conditions. Like all casinos they have betting mecanic for withdrawal. You have to bet 35 times the winnings if I remember correctly.

It's not precise but it's pretty standard.

8 - m0gliE

Hello everyone.

This thread has been running in my mind for quite some times but after the answer of dogtana to TECSHARE I've thought it could be a good timing to share my 2 cents on the subject:


The idea that inequalities (whatever they can be) between men and women are from social construct is widely spread and accepted in the population. If you're not saying that inequalities exist and that they are only from how society treats men and women differently, you're mostly seen as a mysoginistic conservative.

First of all let's say that if you don't accept that there are tons of inequalities between men and women and that social influences are important factors, you're not mygoninistic, you're stupid. Thousands of different experiments all led to the same results: some kind of behaviour are encouraged or discouraged on individuals because of there sex. A girl must be quiet and submissive, a man must be aggressive and strong. That's not a question, that's a well established fact that can only be denied if you refuse psycology and sociology as science which makes you an idiot.

The problem is... No scientist actually said that inequalities between genders are the result of social pressures. They're saying social pressures cause inequalities between gender... Not the other way around. How can anyone say that all the inequalities are only the consequence of social pressures?
Tons of animals (especially insects) have 2 genders with little to no difference between the male and female from a physical or genetical point of view. This is not the case of humans, nature has clearly given us distinct physical abilities and attributes and whatever some people say, from a statistically point of view you can always distinguish a male from a female at first glance.

This means nature and evolution have made specialized organism, male and female, as the best way to adapt ourselves to our environment. We have evolved for millions of years as specialized individuals. How can anyone say it made no or little impact?
Women and men serve different purposes. Aggressivness and violence as well as physical strength are more important in male organism because their purpose was to fight. Submission and calm behaviour are important to female because their purpose was to breed. A male can easily be replaced and used by different females for reproduction while a woman is a incubator taking 9 months to create next generation.

Saying that we have no "pre determined roles" is stupid. Of course we have. How could those millions of years of specialization lead to nothing? Social pressure is NOT the only factor leading to inequalities between genders, we ARE inequals.


That being said, natural things aren't always good things and I have no trouble with people saying we should get rid of those inequalities. Why not? Maybe it's a good thing.
But getting rid of gender inequalities mean getting rid of genders because without gender specialization, what's the point of having two genders?

That might be a good thing? I don't know. Who could know?

But don't just say it's a social thing, those inequalities are fundamentals to our evolution. You can completely thing they must disappear because they have become useless sure. But don't forget getting rid of them means no long men and women but just humans.

I don't want that.

"L'Etat qui décide de se retirer notifie son intention au Conseil européen (composé des chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement des Etats membres)"
It means the ones declaring a country goes out of EU are the president and its government. And as in France government is appointed by President, President decides alone (or fires his government and take a new one accepting to leave EU).
One person controls all the different kind of powers in the state, how is that not a dictatorship? It's not because he hasn't created death camp that it's not a dictatorship...
This is a pretty different explanation that the ones you presented before, saying that current persons in charges are educated and know what's good for the country.

I believe you're still underestimating the capacity of a population to think and decide what must be done. In perticular, you're not taking into account the fact that each mistake made will be learnt from contrary to today's politic.
But in theory you're right, smooth transition is always better. But how do you make a smooth transition from current dictatorship to a direct democracy? It's impossible. President, hence banks and big industries have all the power, why would they smoothly give it back to the population?
The only way to change anything here is through radical, violent change. I don't see anything possible but another revolution with a whole bunch of guillotines.

Do you see any way to change, slowly, the current system towards a direct democracy?

You're so insanely up your own ass... I think I hate people like you more than anything.

So to correct the whole bullshit you're saying:
Of course France is a dictatorship and OF COURSE the president can leave EU without anyone saying anything
https://www.touteleurope.eu/actualite/comment-un-pays-peut-il-quitter-l-union-europeenne.html

Are you even aware of the French constitution? The current "democratic system" of our country is simply an elective monarchy. President has the 3 powers and noone can do anything about that:

-Executive: Chief of the army and the police, and of course the famous CRS who answer directly to him. No one has any right here, he can declare any war he wants to anyone, his only obligation being to "notify" the national assembly and the senate in the 3 days following the war declaratiuon, but "it shall not lead to any debate".

-Justice: President directly appoints the ministry of justice who controls the "Court de Cassation" which is the most important court of the country. It just means that anything happens to anyone president likes or dislikes, you just have to go to the court of cassation and surprise the judge is directly appointed by the president. If that's what you call a "normal procedure" or a good separation of powers then please leave directly to North Korea cause that's exactly the system they have

-Laws: Do I have to actually tell you about the article 13 that was heavily used and just says "president can pass whatever law he damn wants"?

France is a "cool dictatorship". That means everything is under direct control of the president, but until now the previous president never reaaaaaaaaally abused the sytem like in Cuba or North Korea. But they can whenever they want and there is NOTHING to stop them.

Macron does whatever he wants. He can put anyone in prison without any reason, can pass any law he wants and make the army do whatever ha wants. If that's not a dictatorship then what is?

Oh and for the beautiful:

Sure because I guess anyone wanting to leave the EU is just an uncultures swine? So it's perfectly normal that the people just obey the cultivated bourgeoisie and aristocratie of the country. Why do those uncultured idiots even have a right to vote? Just make them obey will you...

The 22% of people who didn't vote having not expressed themselves the only reasonnable choice is to not take them into consideration. If you do there is even higher chances that more of them want to leave the EU as people not going to vote are essentially disapointed and disgusted of politics and insitutions, hence most of them will likely be all for not staying in the EU.
Well it's great to know you're pretty sure. Anyway leaving the EU is AT THE CORE CENTER of both those programs so anyone voting for one of the two while actually wanting to stay in the EU is either stupid or despaired, which is quite possible of course.
This is insanely arrogant of you to consider Marine voters are just racist. And even if that was the case that's a pretty good case to leave the EU as immigration can't be controlled inside EU.
Same answer except you replace "racist" by "communists" and "immigration" by "workers rights"

You're speech is essentially saying "people vote Marine or Melanchon just because they're stupid, they don't REALLY want to leave the EU".

Well guess what? Most of them ACTUALLY want to leave the EU because they don't see how EU is a good thing for them...
You don't make ONE SINGLE POINT for the EU here. You just say "globalization is a must" "EU is the best" "We need even more globalization because it's so good". You don't say how it is good in any way...

Oh yeah except this geme: "anyone can easily cross the border and go shopping in another country."
I guess that's so great we need the EU definitively.

Your reasonning is essentially saying that people aren't able to think by themselves and take decision. Thus it is important that we have strong government and institutions to guide the poor stupid people.

This is not only false, this is an insult to evolution and the whole human race.

And thanks for all your incredible arguments with tons of facts and examples, that's so much more interesting that those people just saying "EU is good because it's great". 

Especially impressed by the 670mBTC rolled on 3.8 payout xD

I'm stressing myself everytime I use more than 2* payout with 2 mBTC xD
And the guy is just throwing 2k$ in the air on a x4
normal

Yeah like hell,

Main use cases of coins are in order of importance:
-Trading
-Storing value
-Gambling
-Anonymous payment

Don't believe gambling isn't an important part of the coins identity....

Those are not colaterals at all.

Ah

Litteraly -0.3BTC...
Yeah gambling didn't really helped me this year xD

But happily enogh as I'm also an investor on Yolodice I took back parts of my loss

04 - 18 - 38 - 88 - 91

Not going to discuss the legitimity of a powerful state here. I'm all for, you're all against and that would be a complicated off topic subject.
But what's sure is that NOTHING GOOD can come from burocrates so far away both from realities and the people.

EU powers aren't even elected. They don't even TRY to make it like they're democratic institution.

I'm all for a strong government, large countries, heavy policies... On the condition that you have strong people and large power of the poplation. If only the government become stronger then it's just dictatorship with extra steps.

Granted
a8d0fd188c9ec874caa88c764bbd74c8e321c4e730f124f415d7bea545418376

That's true but false at the same time.
Rather, that's true but England is not the only country doing so inside EU.
Other countries like Luxembourg or even special zones like Monaco (inside France) can do exactly the same thing.

Brexit won't do much damage to banks sadly enough, they'll jsut have to rewrite things with another lenient territory that's all.
They'll lose a bit of time and probably a tiny bit of money but I don't believe it'll hurt them.

Though I wish you're right of course!

You mean appart from being a foundator of the union and bringing most, if not all, the military and international power of the EU?
Germany brings the economy, France brings the power (and the science but that's something widely spread not just this contry).
UK brought a bit of the two but reluctantly and without comitting to the project.


Concerning Benelux betrayal I suggest you look after the tax evasion treaties those countries have signed with European companies. They basically accepted to steal a huge part of the tax income of France while being officialy "allies"
And I don't mean it like "they have lower taxes" no. That's not a crime to have lower taxes than France of course ^^
They specifically and as a government accepted fraudulent funds to be taxed in their country instead of France for a small fraction of the normal taxation. They basically said to French companies (not only by the way, they betrayed tons of European countries) ok we'll make false declarations so you can pay only 1% taxes here instead of the normal French taxation.

That's why you can't say that Ireland is a traitor for example, becase they just have lower taxes. They didn't sign specific deals with this companies, they just have a different system and everybody accepted that when they accepted them inside the EU. Can't complain.

For the first why not. After all any kind of management is just a question of managing ressources, money being the base ressource for everything.
If you get rid of ecological regulations you can tax polluting products and use money to fund ecological project. Same goes for pretty much everything. There might be some areas where money can't really regulate things but those would be very marginal cases.

For the second that's a very unusual idea I would heavily go against. I see what you mean which is nothing but the extension of democratic principle: after all if a minority doesn't want to live under the rule of majority what choice do they have but to make secession?
But History tends to lean towards more and more assimilation and centralization. We went from families to tribes, from tribes to villages, from villages to cities and so on. I don't see why you would go against history as centralization like this gives something tremendeously important: stability.
If you have many different countries with different policies, what will prevent you to also have many different wars?