snip
Now I know the point of thread. I thought the OP was talking about a new type of rape kit that hasn't been tested for its effectiveness yet. And yes, that's a lot of rapists that got to rape again, and reproduce even more. Spreading out their gene pool. This is one time that I believe abortion should be morally acceptable. I'm not saying the kids would surely grow up into rapists but there's probably a larger chance that if they inherit the father's predisposition that they'd be crime-involved... Especially if the mother was forced to raise the child. It'll always remind her of what happened, it's very possible she'll hate it. And you know what happens when you grow up knowing your parent hates you. While I don't disagree with your stance here, there is always adoption... |
|
|
|
I don't know but for Lauda is still a person that catches a lot of spammers and did helped the forum on many ways, with continuously searching spammers/scammers and whatsoever then of-course you will be a hated person by a lot of members as well and many will try to stop that person and....
So I think he/she earned a lot of credit by helping out, I do remember having a question and being answered prompt (don't remember the matter instantly, but it was fast) Then again if the red-feedback was only on that merit post that was saying something over highly respected members then I would say thats over the line.... Imo I would say its fair to remove the red and maybe make a neutral in which you say something but red-feedback isn't at its place (for me).
You sound like an abused house wife telling us how much her man has changed for the better as she holds an ice pack to her eye. |
|
|
|
|
TL;DR of entire thread: I am tired of the arguing but I refuse to do anything to change it. You! You over there do what it takes to change it!
|
|
|
|
@hacker1001101001
I usually stay away from the dramas in the forum but I see you created a trap to create the mess between members and they failed in it. You're trying to get as many people on your side as you can to defend yourself.
I didn't know this topic before, but after reading it I find amusing, knowing what I know. I believe people need to know your double standard concerning what could be good or bad for a community.
So you are really arguing that it is an acceptable use of the trust system to negative rate people for giving merits to opinions they don't agree with? You aren't making any sense. |
|
|
|
|
How about first I take your wallet and kick your dog, then we put it all aside? Oh wait you don't want to put it all aside once it is your dog and your stuff? Funny how it is always some one else who should turn the other cheek.
Also I love the fact that defending myself from accusations is now equivalent to making them. False equivalence FTW. This pathological aversion to conflict is exactly what allows this kind abusive behavior to be perpetuated. It is always the same shit, spectators repeating to let it go ad nauseam. It sure is easy taking the moral high ground when some one else other than you gets to be the target of abuse.
|
|
|
|
I lost count of how many times you contradicted yourself about halfway through, I am not going to even dignify this with a response.
That's fine, I'll count for you: zero. I didn't say zero "socialism" is ideal Pure capitalism could exist under its own structure, but it would not necessarily be ideal. Yes, I can agree with that. communism require initial input from capitalism.
I still disagree. Are you arguing that the concepts of money or of private ownership of the means of production pre-date primitive hunter-gatherer societies? Perhaps our disagreement is just semantics? I find socialists and communists rest solely upon semantics and shifting definitions, which is why I am not even going to bother engaging you. I don't have any interest in watching you do semantic back flips and inverting the meanings of words over and over again to try to make a square peg fit in a communist hole. |
|
|
|
Objecting to the methodology used to tag him does not equal defending him. If we gave the police unlimited power to search people's homes without a warrant, no doubt they would find plenty of drug dealers and other criminals. The problem with that is it also strips the innocent of all of their rights. That has always been my complaint with this issue, it was based on speculation and guesses, not facts.
You are defending him ipso facto pretending its simply a matter of him being a bad trader. You are wrong here. Your analogies carry no weight, because yet again I have to remind you this isn't a court room. Its not a justice system, and nobody is being tried or even accused of committing any crimes. Nobody has "rights" on this forum. All usage of it is a privilege that could be revoked at any second, for any reason. Not that we have the power to ban users anyway. Level 1 flags are based on speculation. The text in a Level 1 flag reads: Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. Key word: believe. The text guideline for leaving a negative trust rating reads: You think that trading with this person is high-risk Key word: think. Usage of either component does not have to be based on "facts." They are both guided by personal opinion. The flag system is being used correctly here, as is the trust rating system. here it is:
Thanks for sharing the specifics of your experience. You know I love our little chats where you just imagine whatever is useful to you at any given time to be true and just carry on as if it is fact. Funny how its not a court room when people disagree with you, but when you get to role play Stasi officer throwing accusations of guilt around then it sure sounds a lot like one. We have been over all of this already, not that this will stop you from eating your vomit and puking it back up again perpetually. This isn't a court room, but you are indeed making accusations that have destructive effects on the community in general if not backed by demonstrable observable evidence, instead of just the best attempts of bored control freak losers pretending to be Mrs. Cleo bearing no responsibility for the damages false accusations cause. I know you like to imagine yourself in charge like all control freaks do, but you aren't and you don't get to unilaterally revoke these privileges no matter how much it gives your midget dick a chub thinking about it. You really love cutting that flag description short to make it fit your Stasi LAARPing don't you? "Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with CryptoSparks is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions." I don't care how many people you catch in your indiscriminate shotgunning of users. The ends does not justify the means and you bear no responsibility when you wrongly damage the reputations of others, which is why these standards of evidence were created to begin with to put a leash on people like you who simply enjoy lording over others regardless of the cost to the community. |
|
|
|
I still have faith in the community to do the right thing in setting and applying good standards..
The more and more such cases pile up the harder and harder it will be for them to pretend to ignore it and still feel good about themselves in their actions..
Also, the more people that stand up to it the less intimidated the rest will be.. Exactly. I realize many people find my incessant and perpetual need to beat my skull against these types of people quite agitating, many seeing it as pointless and disruptive, but I do it for a good reason. The reason is to set an example and show other people they don't have to just put up with it. There are more people that oppose this type of behavior than support it, just most of them aren't willing to be the first ones to speak up about it. You too can prevent forest fires. A single droplet is meaningless, one drop dripping over and over again is torture, but enough of them together is a flood. |
|
|
|
Socialism and communism require capitalism to exist. Capitalism does not require socialism or communism to exist. Socialism and communism can only exist parasitically within capitalism.
Socialism arguably, yes, as it involves a lot of state management and state intervention in an otherwise free economy. Socialism is a form of managed capitalism. Communism no, how does that need capitalism? How can it exist within capitalism? It's a completely different system. Please don't try to cite China! "Capitalism does not require socialism"? I'd disagree with this, too. Socialism is a spectrum (the same spectrum as capitalism, just the opposite direction of travel). Capitalist countries, even the UK and the US, tend to have a degree of socialism - National Health Service for example in the UK. Arguably any capitalist country that allows insurance policies has an element of socialism, as insurance is the pooling of risk where money flows from the fortunate to the unfortunate. Has a purely capitalist country ever existed? I mean proper 100% laissez-faire? If you can find one that has existed, then has it persisted as 100% capitalist without incorporating elements of socialism? I lost count of how many times you contradicted yourself about halfway through, I am not going to even dignify this with a response. Communism no, how does that need capitalism? How can it exist within capitalism? It's a completely different system.
Communism is a stateless system. It was tried few times in the beginning of 20th century, and failed. People of the current civilization aren't ready to live in a stateless society. Any attempt to establish it will be doomed to fail because people are corrupt by their nature. And, of course, it's incompatible with modern capitalism because you can't enforce fiat money without the government. Please don't try to cite China!
<offtopic> All the so-called "communist" states are socialist republics. Neither of them was communist in any way, and never claimed to be. It's just an oversimplification which is a part of propaganda narrative. USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example. Only dumb people are thinking that it was some kind of "communist" thing or whatever.
Like the USSR, People's Republic of China is a socialist republic. The only difference is that USSR was a federation of semi-autonomous subjects with their own constitutions and state bodies, including the law enforcement agencies. Each republic had its own parliament, government with full set of ministries, police and even its own KGB. Local legislation of USSR republics was quite volatile as well. Just for example, RSFSR had no legal framework for private enterprises, it had only allowed the cooperative and collective enterprises. Georgian SSR, on the contrary, issued the legal framework which was allowing the private property on means of production. Same is correct for some other republics, like Azerbaijan SSR or Tajik SSR, small private enterprises were quite common there. China is a much simpler thing, it's a unitary republic which is governed by one constitution. There are no republics or whatever, everything is being ruled by legislation and orders issued in Bejing.</offtopic> TECSHARESocialism is nothing but a set of government policies which are subsidized by capitalism. A managed version of capitalism, I'd say. So there is nothing strange in observing the growth of capitalism in socialist PRC. Socialists always need some money to fund their fantasies, nothing has changed. However, this Capitalism does not require socialism or communism to exist.
is absolutely incorrect assumption as well. I mean that capitalists are no less delusional than socialists or communists. Any attempt to implement 100% capitalist regime would lead you to either fascism or the public unrest which will result with violent overthrow of such government. There is also a high risk to be executed, so I wouldn't agree to rule such regime myself. If you don't want to have fascism in your capitalist society, then your little capitalism pet will require some socialism to prevent the public from killing your government officials. Simple truth as it is. Socialism arguably, yes, as it involves a lot of state management and state intervention in an otherwise free economy. Socialism is a form of managed capitalism.
It's interesting that Vladimir Lenin, a founder of the russian communist party, has defined his new regime as "state-controlled capitalism". Yep, he never tried to pretend that it was socialist, communist or whatever. First of all I don't agree with your definition of Socialism, just to make that clear, but for the sake of argument lets look past that and address the core of my premise. I didn't say zero "socialism" is ideal, I said socialism and communism requires capitalism to exist, and capitalism does not require communism or socialism to exist. This is true. Socialism and communism require initial input from capitalism, then inevitably degrades to the point where it becomes something else completely. Pure capitalism could exist under its own structure, but it would not necessarily be ideal. |
|
|
|
Lauda should be blacklisted from being on anyone’s trust list unless they explicitly add him to their trust list, and ditto for any of his alts. The same should be done for any other person who similarly gives trust.
I disagree. The second we go all blacklisty on things it's no longer a community controlled system. People just need to continue to show how the system should be used, and point out when it is clearly being used outside of what is acceptable. Then informed of their options. ~ should be used as opposed to blacklisting. I also don't think we should be deciding who people can and can't add to their list, it's their choice if that's the sort of rating system they think has value. Complete decentralization is a pipe dream. Total decentralization assumes everyone is operating within the community set standards and is not abusing the mechanisms available within it for self serving and or fraudulent purposes. Expecting humans to not do this is quite naive. The most robust systems have both aspects of centralization and decentralization. There is a good book about it if you want to read more. Even if you don't agree with this argument, the fact is this forum is an inherently centralized entity. You can want it to be decentralized all you like, that doesn't change the fact it runs on a centralized server, is administrated by a centralized group of people, and requires a centralized set of rules to govern it. This whole game where we pretend the forum is can be completely decentralized is childish and more destructive to this community than helpful. Theymos, being the centralized administrator of this forum has put forth a set of standards we are all supposed to operate within. He really hasn't set the bar that high. All he is requiring is that we operate within a set format, he doesn't dictate the content of the system, only its organizational structure. We don't have to agree with those standards, but if we are intentionally and willfully disregarding those standards, then it is pretty clear exclusion from this system is warranted. This is exactly why I have been advocating for some more clearly defined rules and standards around here for some time. I don't mind following the rules, but if the rules are ambiguous, unwritten, and arbitrarily enforced, then even if you want to operate within the system it is quite impossible. This inevitably leads to more chaos and conflict than approaching absolutely everything on a case by case basis. |
|
|
|
|
Also be on the lookout for:
MinorJones
MajorJones
MiniJones
MaxiumumJones
SeñiorJones
MejorJoven
MinorJoe
and Fat Joe
(not really I made these all up)
|
|
|
|
You claim you changed your mind, I say you are a liar. Of course there is no problem with using this logic to negative rate people right?
If you think so, go ahead and rate. I will not be screaming, nor shouting nor crying like yall folk are. This is easy if you aren't a sensitive bitch, innit?  Its easy if you have no stake in the system and are willing to trash it out of spite from being rejected by it. I just think its great you are stuck in a position to argue against yourself using your own words in order to justify your actions. This is what inevitably happens to real liars. Much like the people you choose to abuse, you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don't. I'm not DT nor authoritarians.
How far removed from reality can you possibly be? You are both DT and a tyrannical authoritarian.. I think the only reason you are on DT is that users are afraid to stand up against you.. "Good outweighs the bad" is a piss poor excuse to keep letting this go on.. ~Lauda and fucking shut up
I finally did, and I'll shut up when I please (never).. You are the one wasting everyone's time with this BS.. I am nut "butthurt" about my rating, lol.. I'm "butthurt" about you constantly intimidating other good users threatening to do to them what you have done to us.. Your power of intimidation needs to be removed from you.. Then you can go tagging/flagging whatever you want at your heart's content for all I care.. I think Lauda is arguing that they are not multiple authoritarians, just one. Of course this might change with a psychological break. |
|
|
|
By your own standard here you are objectively a liar and we should all red trust you over it. Of course in many cases you leave ratings for people "lying" there is no objective evidence, just lots of disagreement in opinion and dislike that certain individuals are getting support that you would like to stop.
Changed my mind later after the flag-system was introduced.
Right. We should not accept such runaway authoritarians here staying on DT..
Good outweighs the bad my ass.. DT should be held to a MUCH higher standard than that..
I'm not DT nor authoritarians. You on the other hand, pushing your bullshit magic-wand guidelines on me, are both. I quit DT precisely to avoid these flush standards while members look away when their buddies steal here and there. Yet you keep trying to push these standards even when I quit DT. Will you fucking get a life already and do what you do best? Excellent. This is what people should be doing, and not crying like their mommy just forbade them from playing outside. These libtard cunts need to fucking grow up already.
~ or not, I will absolutely make no changes to these ratings. Therefore, do everyone a favour and stop being so butthurt about your rating get it over with already: ~Lauda and fucking shut up. I'm not the old cunt that produced you and therefore not here to comfort you when you're crying. You claim you changed your mind, I say you are a liar. Of course there is no problem with using this logic to negative rate people right? |
|
|
|
I mean while I'm a fan of Trump, I'm not someone who's going to close my eyes and put my fingers in my ears and say LALALALALALALLALALALALALAL. That's just not fair in the least. Trump lies, and so does the Media. But Trump isn't this Saint who is always truthful and nor is the media.
It's not fair to anyone, and yourself to try to beleive that the Conservative echo chamber (of the liberal echo chamber) is always right without fault.
Both sides are right are certain points, and we have to come to accept that.
Last statistic I bothered reading, media was negative on Trump 93% of the time. No need to say much further! Squatz1 is a big fan of false equivalence. |
|
|
|
The Three Musketeers are an all male thruple, it's blatant pro-masonic homosexual propaganda.
Thanks for this I am dying. |
|
|
|
The Three Musketeers are an all male thruple, it's blatant pro-masonic homosexual propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they should start rebuilding the city with untested rape kits?
|
|
|
|
Imma just leave this here. Neg.-rating someone just because they sent out 1 merit is completely backwards and proper trust abuse in my view. It's similar to political de-platforming. Objectively it took effort to create regardless of whether it is right or wrong, and that's how merit should be used. No, unless you want to censor what opinions, statements or other people's actions are allowed to get merit. By your own standard here you are objectively a liar and we should all red trust you over it. Of course in many cases you leave ratings for people "lying" there is no objective evidence, just lots of disagreement in opinion and dislike that certain individuals are getting support that you would like to stop. |
|
|
|
Sorry, veering off- topic a bit. You'd better be sorry. Your off topic rambling is getting in the way of a very serious discussion here. Re: Three Musketeers question, I would imagine branding a chocolate bar after 3 French dudes would potentially not be a great branding choice in a nation with lots of historical rivalry with France. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
