Because social conditions can, at times, change very rapidly. Historically there are many cases of this. Currently, the huge influx of "refugees" is such a condition. Exactly. More than 1,000 cases of sexual assault were reported from various German cities (especially from Cologne and Hamburg) during the new years eve. More than 1,000 assaults in a 24-hour period! And that is just the tip of the iceberg, as most of the crimes are not reported. According to the latest reports, Arab immigrants are arriving in Greece at a rate of around 5,000 per day. Cause you think it would have changed ANYTHING to have a gun country? Then why are so much rapes occuring in USA if guns should protect you? |
|
|
|
Because social conditions can, at times, change very rapidly. Historically there are many cases of this. Currently, the huge influx of "refugees" is such a condition. Exactly. More than 1,000 cases of sexual assault were reported from various German cities (especially from Cologne and Hamburg) during the new years eve. More than 1,000 assaults in a 24-hour period! And that is just the tip of the iceberg, as most of the crimes are not reported. According to the latest reports, Arab immigrants are arriving in Greece at a rate of around 5,000 per day. Sexual assault is one of the most under reported crimes, with 68% still being left unreported. Those rapists, of course, will never spend a day in prison. But even when the crime is reported, it is unlike to lead to an arrest and prosecution. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 2% of rapists will ever serve a day in prison. If you want to take this into account take also into account the fact that more than 90% of rapes are done in the house, by family members. Most rapes are family abuses, that can be father/daughter of course but mostly husband and wife not consensual sex. This is the real deal, not the few hundreds rapes occuring outside which are, of course terrifying, but also much less important (in terms of numbers). |
|
|
|
|
Funny thing and consequence of creating clones would be that we became gods.
That would close the mouth of the religious freaks!
|
|
|
|
i know just 1 strategy that have 100% to win, just don't gamble, and if you want to, don't spend all of your money, bet small bets, and if you loose 2 or 3 in day, don't gamble anymore that day
That's not exactly a strategy. That's more like just believing that you're not in luck if you don't start with small wins  |
|
|
|
Thanks for the info racey and trickyriky I AM OUT thanks TONY BENN wanted out never knew that.. A GREAT MAN TONY BENN FOR THE PEOPLE..
THANKS CHAPS ..I PROMISE MY VOTE IS OUT good stuff, and your very welcome, spread the word if we can muster 100% out vote (i know i know lol) but if, nobody will stop us from hanging them if they try rigging it  That is cool thanks, spread the word to people.
And tell them to stop watching soaps and shit, especially the jerrmy kyle joker. dont forget its illegal to use a legal name You can see I wrote jerrmyExcuse me but I didn't understand. What is it illegal to talk about? Why can't you give the correct name? |
|
|
|
|
Ok so for most of you guys, trading is different because it's not based on pure luck.
But fact is it would mean that you consider poker as not being a gambling game? As it's not based on pure luck just as trading! ^^
|
|
|
|
in trading there are chart and analysis, if gambling it is based on pure luck
so i dont think its the same
Do you think that market charts are actually always correct? Don't we had major crises, economic recessions, major flops of known companies in the past? And we had really unknown company from nowhere rise to power in short time. Some things cannot be predicted by reason. Unknown companies can lose in the long run but big companies always earn more profit and are stable. Trading in stock market is much better than gambling IMO. Yeah but if you trade stocks of very big companies like Apple or Google, you'll earn peanuts because the growth will be increadibly low. So low risk but insignificant profits |
|
|
|
Glad to see some blocks not full. As long as some blocks are not totally full it means new tx can go through right? no transaction can be left unconfirmed if there is still place in a block? |
|
|
|
Hey people, I've always been a huge gambler. I like creating useless schemes (as we all know bank always win ^^) and betting whole nights long in order to find THE right way of betting. But I need change, I can't bet over and over on the same game cause after I see that nothing can be done to change the odds, I'm bored. So I thought a bit about trading and I started not so long ago. and it feels a bit like a betting game without knowing the odds and with an infinity of parameters! Does anyone else takes trading as a gambling game? I don't think that trading is like 100% gambling. There are so many things which affects the price of the particular stock or commodity, prices increased and decreased because of various factors. Those who understand the trading market can guess the possible trend; whether it will be rise or fall, so for these people trading is not gambling. If someone doesn't know anything about trading and market then it can be consider as gambling. Well, in a sense I understand what you mean. But predictions can't be 100% sure! So isn't it like gambling except that your knowledge and your experience can balance a bit the odds? |
|
|
|
Took me 5 or so days and 5600+ rolls but I finally hit the 3300x I was hunting...  Well it seems like it was not the best investment in your life :3 But greatly done! Next one will come faster I'm sure |
|
|
|
You can actually bet on election campaign results? Oo SERIOUSLY?  |
|
|
|
|
The first and the most important for me is the denial of the gambler fallacy.
It's when you refuse to admit that, whatever you do, the odds of next draw are NOT influenced by the result of the previous bet.
It makes you believe you can actually beat the banks... whereas you CAN'T!
|
|
|
|
Hey people, I've always been a huge gambler. I like creating useless schemes (as we all know bank always win ^^) and betting whole nights long in order to find THE right way of betting. But I need change, I can't bet over and over on the same game cause after I see that nothing can be done to change the odds, I'm bored. So I thought a bit about trading and I started not so long ago. and it feels a bit like a betting game without knowing the odds and with an infinity of parameters! Does anyone else takes trading as a gambling game? |
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that it's going to be more complicated...
Huge movement coming, I feel pressure everywhere. Next price move will be of 40$ !
|
|
|
|
i think russia and china will won if world war III comes,they have strong military and so many civilian who will stand front of their nation,its hard for US and EU for take over the big area of Russia and China.
Russia and China will be the perfect combination. Russia is having advanced military technology, and China is having an (almost) infinite pool of soldiers. On the other hand, NATO is weak on the manpower sector. They don't have enough cannon fodder. The Turks are there, but Turkey (pop: 75 million) can't be compared to China (pop: 1.3 billion). And what will they do with their 1.3 billions of soldier against a few thousands nuclear heads? |
|
|
|
|
Ok I say it for all Americans reading this thread, you all seem to have a problem with that so here it is:
SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM
If you wanna know the differences just google them. Those two things are incredibly different!
|
|
|
|
I suggest you shut your mouth and try to think more than 2 minutes. You're in favor of free markets? So you're in favor of one company ruling the world then? If you see no problem with an incredible small elite owning 99% of both power and wealth, then you're right, continue with free market and capitalism. And it seems I've got to keep repeating the same thing over and over but... No i'll make a separate post. |
|
|
|
I don't have a choice? I'd say that's my argument in a nutshell. That's why socialism is morally wrong, the use of force against others to force them to comply because they don't have a choice.
Let me explain further my last post, because it seems maybe my point wasn't clear. Because all judgments are subjective, you eliminate arbitrary law by making all men equal under the law. Take out all subjective judgments and institute only those things which are objectively true: All men are created equal, and all men are equal under the law, and no one has any more right to do anything than anyone else. In this way, everyone has equal rights. Under this style of government, you are free to do whatever you want so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of anyone else. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property they've justly earned. No one has the right to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property. That's equality. And it's the opposite of socialism, which demands taking away, at the very least, the property of others. People who use the power of government to force other people to act in a way they want are morally bankrupt.
So it doesn't matter what 70% of the population believes, and it doesn't matter what the "elites" (as you say) believe. If it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property, it's morally wrong.
In which way is socialism not compatible with what you're saying? The fact that no one should tell you what to do or take parts of what you have/earn? Well it's already the case no? And you're saying this as if all men were not equal in a socialist country! Why shouldn't they be all equal in the eyes of the law? |
|
|
|
The truth is we wouldn't have the technological advancements that we have without capitalism and free enterprise. Computers, cell phones, etc etc are here because of capitalism and free enterprise. So you could say that this forum wouldn't even exist without those things. The socialist countries are not making huge advancements and contributions to medicine, technology or any other field. They may make minor contributions but nothing that truly changes the way things are done. Apple, GE, Samsung (south korea is not socialist) and many, many other companies that produce game changing products do not come from a socialist country because you cannot thrive in such an environment. I grew up in a small town in Iowa, my parents barely made $40k between the 2 of them, so we weren't poor but we sure as heck weren't rich. I obtained an education on my own, I put myself through school by working my butt off. Now, I own an IT company that services hundreds of clients in the Las Vegas area. I couldn't do that under a socialist government. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that big government is the way to fix things.
Again, please educate yourself a bit Americans Please understand that decades of Cold War biased all of you. Socialism is NOT capitalism. Socialism isn't incompatible with free entreprise. On the contrary, socialism is here to help anyone going in life with more or less equal chances and thus allowing anyone to become a successful entrepreneur. You could do EXACTLY what you've done in a socialist country. the difference is that your school would be paid, your healthcare would be paid, the institutions would be paid... Everything would be paid fore, and in exchange, when you become successful, the state will take a part of what you earn. Exactly in the same way that if you invest in a company you'll earn part of the profits. It's an investment in future generations. |
|
|
|
Interesting comment, thanks for your constructive answer.
Well it is true that by giving the absolute power to the majority, you hence take the risk of the majority being wrong.
But a few things allow me to have faith in such a situation:
-First majority doesn't mean 51%. Majority can be higher. It would seem rather logical to write in the first constitution of such a democracy that any law needs 65% of the people vote to get approved. Being hence sure that the people really wants that and not that it's close to civil war with a big 50/50. We can also ensure some stability by saying that changing the consitution needs 80% of approval, hence only crucial changes can be written in the constitution.
-Second, I strongly believe in transformation under responsability. Indirect democracy made people weak and stupid. They're not interested in politics and easily manipulated, because they all know they can't change anything. But if tomorrow they know they have the faith of the country in their hand, I do believe they'll get much more involved on politics. Exactly as the Greeks citizens did thousands of years ago.
-Third, moral is subjective. If more than 70% of the population wants something, who are you to say it's bad? What kind of moral absolute value could you take?
-Fourth, developped countries have a high education hence strong history knowledge and shouldn't tend to repeat mistakes.
Of course I can't guarantee anything, but it's still what I believe.
Addressing the bold points, the fact that morality is subjective is exactly why you need to restrict government to the most basic rights. In the southern US in the middle 19th century, there was widespread consensus that slavery was a justifiable economic model and that black people were inferior and therefore could have no rights as human beings. The notion was so widely accepted that the Supreme Court itself ruled that blacks had no rights under the Constitution. This is clearly an immoral and unjust viewpoint, despite being widely supported. Democracy clearly failed in this instance. The popularity of an idea has no relation to its morality, so simply saying that something that enjoys 70+ percent approval does not make it a legitimate point. Because morality is subjective, we need to limit government to a role of protecting the most fundamental freedoms that everyone agrees every person possesses: life and liberty especially, and most people will also include property. As a nation, we can decide that certain people do not have the right to be free and must serve as slaves for the benefit of the rest of society, and this idea could have the approval of 99% of the population. It is still an evil notion, and the role of government is to enforce everyone's rights equally, and especially to protect the minority who the majority would otherwise take advantage of if given the opportunity. When you have unequal rights, you have arbitrary law, and arbitrary law is unequivocally evil. Arbitrary law is what the American Revolution was fought over, and the Declaration of Independence was an indictment of the British practice of instituting arbitrary law to suit their whims. And the history of socialized government is one that has repeatedly instituted some measure of arbitrary law, because there is no way you can protect all rights equally while also redistributing wealth, because it necessitates infringing some group's rights arbitrarily under the direction of popular government. You're missing an important point: You don't have a choice. You're telling me "it's not because 70% of population agrees on it that it's good". Fair enough. But then? If it's not the people who decides, who will? An elite? Lol, we all know what "elite" do... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
