Denied

Sent:
abfc1bca3a5f8129711d29a09bd14a3d2f6643714e063da1a19f517ea05f564f

Ahahah
And that's where most of disagreements on the board come from I'd say.
Some wants less government.
Some wants more government.
I don't see how we can reconciliate those two visions. One has to lose so the other can win.

Or if there is a way I don't see it.

I doubt anyone would pretend we can get read of the idea of scarcity. If someone does he needs some serious argument on how he thinks he can limit human desires.

But fact is that we're pretty close to eliminate scarcity of basic human being needs which would be: food, water, home and common distraction.

Those elements can be provided for whole humanity with a pretty good amount of automation.

Bringing any "precise number" in the conversation would be silly but I doubt that more than a few hours of work per week on average on the human population would be needed to provide those elements. Most of our work are for not-mandatory needs.
Which doesn't mean they're not important of course.

Sure because opinion is no longer in the scope of the discussion as you brought a fact.

If you say "the media is biased against Trump" it's an opinion, if you say "the media is biased against Trump, as this study/survey show" it becomes a fact.

Also your example "Surveys show 93% of times Trump is mentioned it's done in a negative light." isn't exactly a proof of a biase against Trump as a negative light isn't a bias if the actions done by the individual are negative. I mean a serial killer will never ever get a "positive light review" in a media simply because there is nothing positive to say. See what I mean? But anyway I'm nit-picking because that's not the case for Trump, if you were to prove that 95% of media mention Trump in a negative way it would prove that they're biased against him ofc.

Hello.

How do I check that a contract for those tokens is valid and not a scam?

i've got an adress contract but don't know how to verify it.

0xf49cdd50ad408d387d611f88a647179c3de3492b

address for collateral:   0x2fe9E270073c6544952f6884d3D67D935B5dAb37

Damn that's freaky...
Don't want nothing inside me thanks

Well at least those are common grounds we can all agree about I'd say xD
Though you don't want to go deeper in any of those specimen, like what you mean exactly by individuals or freedom or important, or what kind of changes and so on.

But on the principle I guess we all agree on this ^^

Which is incredible. I don't know exactly what happens here but it's not only a question of being factual, it's as if some people weren't able to... Communicate. I can't talk to TECSHARE, and I'm not putting the blame on him here. It's as if when we write a sentence, the meaning of this sentence were not the same for him or for me.

It's quite shocking how language is a poor communication tool by itself. We'd need to find something better cause we're deeply limited with just the words.

Completely agreed.

You can't on one hand be proud of the "1 million club" explicitely telling how centralized bitcoin is, and on the other hand saying that's it's more decentralized than gold.

Gold is everywhere, everyone owns a bit of it.
People own much more gold than cryptos on average I'd dare say.

And btw gold has a real world pragmatic usage, something that bitcoin doesn't.

So how do we know what are His Words? God hasn't appeared in front of me to explain me this otherwise I would believe in him 100%

So heaven is somewhere in the universe for you?

Yup but not as much as believers because once you talked to people like BADecker once or twice you stop trying to use logic to explain things about God ^^

What is wrong with the article?

Hello world.

Wanted to bring a subject on the table, a subject that is more and more representated in French politics and might become a reality in the next French presidential elections.

There was 11 candidates in last presidential elections (the only election important in the country, others are just useless bullshit as the president has all the powers). 7 of them want to leave the EU, counting as 48% of the votes. We're at the breaking point and a year and a half after that, it seems obvious that EU didn't get any new support in the population. So it seems reasonnable to suppose more than half of the population wants the Frexit right now.

Now Brexit was important because it was symbolic, but honestly who cares about the UK? They have always been the least enthousiasts of the EU, were the most independant and were already only obeying their former colonies aka 'Merica.
But France is one of the centers of EU, Frexit would mean EU has no longer nuclear power, 13% of its population, 15% of its GDP and the biggest part of its military strength (I know there is no EU army but there is an alliance). Moreover France is not an isolated islance, without it it means that Spain and Portugal at least are a bit "out" of the EU too.


Two questions emerge then:
-Is a Frexit such a good idea for France?
-What would be the consequences for the EU? Would it be the end?

For the first question... Well anyway if half the population wants out then country should go out. That it be a good or a bad decision doesn't really matter, that's what democracy is supposed to mean.
For the rest EU hasn't done much good to France for the simple reason that France is one of the most leftist country of Europe hence it has heavy regulations and taxes and work right specificities, and EU is basically destroying all of this.
EU meant the end of national companies (which lead to huge losses on the yearly balance of the country and rise of expenses for the people), end of tons of regulations that destabilized important industrial sectors, and the open market means a HUGE unfair competition with workers of Eastern Europe without any of those working rights.
Add to this the tax evasion and the... Complete betrayal of Belgium, Netherland and Luxembourg that should be considered as a casus belli for me.

For the second question, it seems to me that EU can continue without France of course, but would no longer be a great power. Simply because it would reduce its power drastically on all aspects:
-Economically it wouldn't be so bad, just a 13% reduction doesn't mean it's the end. Though Euro would be probably deeply fucked compared to the current situation, but that's more a trust issue.
-Politically it shows an incredible weakness of course, and you lose the only nuclear power and permanent member of the security council. That means you're just no longer a big player of the political field
-Militarily it's just the end. UK and France were the 2 biggest armies of EU, France being the first and having both nuclear submarines and carrier. With both left, EU can't do anything.


Your thoughts on this? For or against Frexit? And would it mean the end of EU?

That IS an opinion and nothing more.

How can you link the fact of not liking Trump or his actions and not being patriot?
There is simply no link between the two. Those are completely different facts. You can have the impression it is the case of course and it might even be the case in reality, but unless you've conducted some kind of survey or statistical work on this question you're obviously just voicing your opinion.
Which is fine of course.
But it's just an opinion.

And you would see that the modifications made don't change the nature of the section...
[/quote]
Basically you are cherry picking a legal document (lol) and on top of that the cherry you picked was actually a rock. You can't just take a small excerpt of it and ignore the rest. That is not how the law works. Every claim I made is supported within that text.


Here is something a bit more your speed: https://youtu.be/r9Wx0w0VZfw?t=548

[/quote]

Ok I'm done.
You make a claim without any kind of basis to support it and I'm the one who knows nothing.
There is nowhere in this whole freaking bill, written anything like "guilty until proven innocent".
There is nowhere in this whole freaking bill, writtent anything that can lead to such situation.

Either quote the sentence(s) that you see as responsible for such claim or stop blattering in the void.

And for me, I'm done. Sorry I wasted your time as you don't seem to have, even by the slightest, tried to read or think.

Current section 276(2) of the Code bars an accused from presenting sexual activity evidence unless the evidence:

    is of specific instances of sexual activity;
    is relevant to an issue at trial; and
    has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice

And nothing about being 'guilty until proven innocent' of course. Don't see how that's proving me wrong....

Nope. You got the right to believe whatever you want as long as you don't state it as a solid fact 

You're not finding any problem here?


For climate change of course. never argued it was correlation not causation. We even agreed on that if I remember correctly.
Correlation suggests a potential causation it doesnt prove it that's for sure.

For fuck's sake just go read the damn law:
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/421C51E

IT NEVER SAYS THE ACUSED IS GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

NEVER

It's never stated, never suggested, never written in any way.

Stop saying pure bullshit and start actually reading please.


And next time you want to make a point about a law, instead of opening a thread with a useless 10 lines vague article go check the law for yourself and state clearly which parts of the law you disagree on.

Case closed, next please.