I'm just asking to guarantee what most of the world accepts as basic human rights. Everytime I point to countries that do just that you say they don't match my ideology. I think its because you don't know what collectivization or central planning actually mean. Yes centrally planned and collectivized governments can also guarantee those things but just because they have in the past doesn't automatically mean any society where people are guaranteed basic rights a collectivized, centrally planned economy. Its a really bad contextualization error on your part. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. -Article 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights You are literally "anti-human rights" and notice I wasn't even asking for these things to go to everyone. You won't even agree with guaranteeing basic human rights to all children. Disgusting. including labour rights and the right to health, the right to education, and the right to an adequate standard of living. As of September 2018, the Covenant has 169 parties.[3] A further four countries, including the United States, have signed but not ratified the Covenant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_RightsNo, most of the world does not accept all of these things as basic human rights. Oh now we are talking about entire nations and not ideology and policies? Convenient goal post shifting. I know more about your own proclaimed ideology than you do, and I have proven this multiple times. History shows every time your ideologies are attempted it leads to disaster, death, and enslavement. The U.N. can make declarations that everyone is entitled to a unicorn and 5 pounds of unobtanium, but that doesn't magically make it happen. You also ignored very important parts of that quote, notably the part that says "in circumstances beyond his control." Do you argue now that these things are all beyond the control of the world's impoverished? Are they completely helpless without the state to provide for them? I am pro-human rights, that is why I am anti-Communist, because Communism sells pretty lies in exchange for slavery. No one has inalienable rights to the time or resources of others, that is called slavery. In order to give people a "right" to commodities or the time of others it requires the theft of rights from those people who provide it. You are advocating taking from one hand to give to the other, and the result will be two empty hands instead of one. Learn to use logic instead of operating only from a flawed and dangerous position of pathos. Just because you imagine really hard that you are the protagonist and I am the antagonist doesn't magically make it so. You are dangerously misguided and it is terrifying that you are "educating" people as a profession. In summary, your reply to my points was "you're wrong and you are evil!" You are going to have to try harder Captain Postmodern. |
|
|
|
The US government has kidnapped tens of thousands of children at the border. Everything else mentioned here pales in comparison.
So if a bunch of kids break into your house and you push them out the door, that is kidnapping? Flawless logic by Captain Postmodern as usual. BTW lets totally ignore the fact that many of these children have LITERALLY been kidnapped and are being sent to the US with people pretending to be their family so they can be sex trafficked and prostituted, but hey lets ignore child rape, there are poor people and they need our help at all costs because I don't know how to control my emotions! |
|
|
|
Children who don't get good education don't have opportunity to develop skills. Children arrive at school hungry or sick don't have the opportunity to absorb that education even if it is good. Children who go home to an economically stressed environment don't have the same opportunity to follow through with their education. You could solve this by guaranteeing every child has a dignified physical home with equal access to good schools, food, health and psychological support.
At that point, we would have a meritocracy.
Great, so here we are. You guarantee these people the time and resources owned by others. How do you pay for all of this? I know you are going to say just print more money because you think "Modern Monetary Theory" is new or something different than inflation, but this still does not make resources magically appear. This is literally exactly all of the things you just got done claiming you don't support. because you continue to repeat your argument against Soviet Union, Venezuela and Cuba. I admire those systems but those aren't the type of systems I or any leftist I know are advocating for. So yeah. As long as that straw man is repeated, I will repeat that point. . They sought to eliminate the market regulatory mechanism and replace it with directives of the central planning authority. dont want a centrally planned economy \collectivized everything and everyone, and implemented an official planned economy. dont wanna collectivize everything and everyone price of the goods and services that were established by the market and not dictated by the government. dont want price controls so basically cool story that is not relevant today. You can do this all day just don't put us in it. Do you. Have fun arguing against a nation that doesn't exist anymore. "dont want a centrally planned economy" A centrally planned economy is a requirement in order to bypass market forces to provide this guarantee of resources and time of others as a right. "dont wanna collectivize everything and everyone" You literally are advocating for the collectivization of homes, education, food, and healthcare for everyone as a right. "dont want price controls" There is no way to acheive these goals without price controls altering the true price discovery process of all of these goods and services we all rely on. You are shitting in your hand and demanding every one take a bite. They say "no I don't eat shit that's disgusting", then you reply "no, its not shit its chocolate" and start rubbing it in people's faces telling yourself you are doing the right thing feeding people. Everything you advocate for is self contradictory. What you are advocating for is the exact polar opposite of a meritocracy. |
|
|
|
Recently the governor of Oregon ordered the arrest of several Republican senators
Sometimes people let their emotions do all the decision making. She's desperate to get something done and had to use force. In the end the voters will decide if she has the moral character to continue. I would go a step further and say that this person needs to learn how to communicate better or she will be replaced. She "had to" use force? Why did she have to? Is not the point of having representatives that they represent their constituency? What gives her the right to unilaterally bypass that? |
|
|
|
What do we do if it rains gay frogs? |
|
|
|
My goal is for a society where everyone has equal opportunity. None of that equal outcome nonsense or anything else you might want to put into our mouths. Who doesn't have equal opportunity? How do you suggest this be remedied? The fact that you don't know there are people who don't have equal opportunity makes it nearly impossible to have this conversation with you. Until you branch out of your privilege bubble and broaden your horizons to learn the answer to that first question, I won't expect anything more. The only problem I have with this is that your act unaware of your own, massive, blindspot or the possibility of having a different perspective change your economic belief system. I was just like you until about the age of 21. Who said anything about what I know? I asked you a simple question so that you would define your own ideology. Like most Communists and Socialists you can't because it is not based in logic but in emotion, and is a constantly shifting dogma that changes from moment to moment. How about instead of wagging your finger at me like a modern puritanical you define your ideology in simple terms like I have asked instead of this retarded dog and pony show of virtue signaling? I think you know damned well your ideas are self contradictory and not based in logic and this is just a pathetic attempt at not defining anything so that you can not be held to your own words. I will ask again... Who doesn't have equal opportunity? How do you suggest this be remedied? |
|
|
|
He still used deception to destroy the property of another.
No. I didn't destroy or damage anything. Just because other people don't want to buy this account anymore because i shared non-confidential information, this doesn't mean that i did any damage. It is the right of everybody to know which account has a trustworthy owner who has put a lot of effort and time into his account, and which accounts are simply bought and basically completely untrustworthy. It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules.
So.. because THEY 'need' to keep it secret, I am no longer allowed to share that (non-confidential) information? Uhm.. no.. Definitely not. I can share any non-private information as i wish. If someone is doing an extremely shady business which needs to have this information not shared at all.. that is completely their problem. I won't support a shady business. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it.
Tell me three.. If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue.
Account selling is fraud. They are helping other people (the buyer) to deceive the whole forum to believe the person is 'trustworthy' and 'reputable'. The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen. Unethically? Maybe. Fraud? No. Rescinding from a trade and sharing non-confidential information is not a fraud. Even if that is the reason that other people won't buy those accounts anymore, this doesn't make it fraud or scam. And everyone still seems to forget. The flag is inappropriate.. simply because no violation of the contract lead to damage. There wasn't even a violation at all. I did not get an account, so i don't have to pay for it. Simple as that. Rescinding is not a violation. I never agreed to any terms which stated that rescinding is not applicable. The accounts are not banned. Nothing happened to them. They are neither damaged nor stolen. I just shared non-confidential information. Just because the majority of account-buyer don't want to buy them anymore.. this doesn't make me scammer. I warned the whole forum about untrustworthy accounts. The fact that people don't want to buy them anymore just confirms that they mostly try to do shady stuff with them. Except from that.. those accounts are still as before. No damage or anything. You did in fact destroy the value of the other user's property. Normally if you just found this information out via investigation that wouldn't be an issue. The problem is you explicitly used deception and violated an agreement with the user in order to obtain the information to do so. Just calling it "non-confidential information" is meaningless. Rights end where the rights of another begin. Just because you don't like people selling accounts doesn't give you carte blanche to commit fraud to do so. Account selling is not necessarily fraud. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of fraud. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud "fraud noun Definition of fraud 1a : deceit, trickery specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right " Deceit + damage = fraud Deceit /= fraud You used deceit to obtain this information, you made an agreement, then you destroyed his property which he has a legal right to. That is fraud. You were given clearly confidential information based on the agreement you would make a purchase if you were made privy to that information. Your "rescinding" talk is just you wishing you could modify the terms after the fact, that is not how contracts work. The accounts now are valueless to the seller, which was the entire intent of you exposing them. You intentionally caused him loss of property value. This is by your own admission, now you are trying to use semantics to cover up this fact. The problem here is you made an agreement to gain this information. Just because you claim you had good intents is meaningless. You aren't some how special and allowed to have your own set of rules because you think your intent was well meaning. You want to get rid of this flag? Pay the man for the accounts you destroyed, ask for forgiveness from the seller, and I will advocate for you as you have remedied the damage you have caused. All your double talk right now is just making you look more like you are full of shit. You fucked up, next time don't make agreements you don't intend to uphold. The fidelity of the trust system is more important than your compulsion to abuse it to punish people trading in goods you do not approve of. |
|
|
|
--snip--
What the fuck? Are you on weed or cocaine, man? Why the heck are you speaking all this here when this thread has no fucking relationship to yobit and OP is trying to rent their own signature space? Can't you see that OP straight away neglected that Yoshit support (fake account's) comment and asked for anyone else? Blind, eh! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159189.0 <-- Go to that link and spread more shit than you're trying to do here, and stop ruining this thread with your bullshit yoshit comments. aaaand this is why I won't rent to Yobit ... lol. |
|
|
|
You just said that you didn't see him favoring PHI's actions yet here I showed you that he is clearly disagreeing with a perfectly valid flag. This is what is called circular logic, and is a logical fallacy. I claimed X, and he claimed Y, because X is true, Y is proof of X. You don't get to use the fact that people disagree with you as an excuse to negative rate and flag people. That is not how it works. You are not infallible and people disagreeing with you is not irrefutable proof they are complicit. Your rating is invalid and your logic is flawed. You can either correct the mistake you made, or don't and end up being corrected yourself. Your power can be taken away as quickly as it was given to you. |
|
|
|
Show me documentation of the work you did for them, and open a trust flag, and I will support it. If the terms are not disclosed before hand this is absolutely fraud.
I'll support a flag for this as well, provided that the KYC terms really weren't disclosed beforehand--and without even having looked at the thread, I'll betcha this is exactly the case. It's the second time I've seen this happen, and there probably have been and/or will be other cases like this. Given that OP started the thread days ago, I'm assuming he doesn't quite understand the flag system or doesn't care enough to create a flag. OP, don't just start a thread whining about something like this and walk away from it. Those fuckers deserve a flag if what you say is true, so if you're not going to do it, find another member who got screwed and knows the trust system here and have them flag these morons. It doesn't help anyone when you just sit there and let yourself get violated in whatever hole these projects choose. Are you a man or a mouse? This is an old tactic, one in use since the days of Mt. Gox. They pulled this same scam one day just enforcing KYC without notice and locking those who refused to ID out from their funds, which conveniently got to stay as part of their bottom line. This is a very old scam and should not be tolerated just because it is done under color of law. If this is a requirement it needs to be explicitly stated beforehand, not after people come to claim payment for their work so you can make excuses to stiff them and just make the excuse you are just following the law. |
|
|
|
This guy Matt is a big liar and a (probably) merit trader/abuser. Don't have the evidences for that but since he is siding with PHI since the beginning my suspicions are growing. So you have admitted you have no evidence against him and only suspicions and guilt via association. He has already removed his negative rating for you, you are now the one making accusations without evidence by your own admission. This is not what the trust system is for. You are already abusing the tiny amount of authority you have received. The trust system is to protect people from fraud, not to penalize people for things you disagree with or suspect without evidence. I don't have evidence of him being a merit trader. He is clearly encouraging it. Did you even read my post? According to you he is "clearly encouraging" merit trading. I don't see that at all. Furthermore this is completely subjective and open to interpretation, conveniently for you. You are are being an authoritarian right now like a rent a cop in a mall who can't manage to restrain himself with his tiny amounts of power. You go ahead and keep acting like this you will find yourself on the receiving end very shortly. You still have a chance to act with respect and reason and withdraw the accusations you can not support. You could also play your little power hungry games and see how that works out for you. I predict not well. |
|
|
|
This guy Matt is a big liar and a (probably) merit trader/abuser. Don't have the evidences for that but since he is siding with PHI since the beginning my suspicions are growing. So you have admitted you have no evidence against him and only suspicions and guilt via association. He has already removed his negative rating for you, you are now the one making accusations without evidence by your own admission. This is not what the trust system is for. You are already abusing the tiny amount of authority you have received. The trust system is to protect people from fraud, not to penalize people for things you disagree with or suspect without evidence. You seem to me like the classic little man authoritarian who can't restrain himself from abusing even tiny amounts of authority. I think you will find this kind of behavior catches up with you. |
|
|
|
My goal is for a society where everyone has equal opportunity. None of that equal outcome nonsense or anything else you might want to put into our mouths. Who doesn't have equal opportunity? How do you suggest this be remedied? |
|
|
|
Recently the governor of Oregon ordered the arrest of several Republican senators in order to force the required quorum in order to force a vote. What do you think this indicates about the direction the US government is heading? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnUmwDVg7eU |
|
|
|
|
Show me documentation of the work you did for them, and open a trust flag, and I will support it. If the terms are not disclosed before hand this is absolutely fraud.
|
|
|
|
No, but most scams are criminal activity, and criminal activity is against the rules.
Now you're just making shit up. Which rule is that? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0It literally says that scams are not moderated. Yet here you are arguing that fraud is ok Then stop arguing that. Fraudulent (farmed, hacked, etc) accounts are not ok. Ask any moderator or Theymos here if they tolerate openly illegal activity. Its the rule that people with common sense know, because knowingly allowing illegal activity here is a liability for Theymos and the forum. They say scams are not moderated not because they would tolerate it if it were proven, but because they couldn't possibly prevent all of it, they don't care to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong in ambiguous scenarios, and as a result want the user base to know this and be on the defensive and do due diligence. I literally never said hacked accounts are ok. Ever. "farmed" accounts is a totally ambiguous and arbitrary term defined by nothing, and even if you could define it, you still have no way of proving an account was "farmed" from the outside. So they didn't earn the money they paid to acquire it? Who gets to determine what is and is not acceptable?
Hmm, maybe those parents can use that as a defense when they basically bought their children the right to get into a particular college. Clearly their children didn't deserve it otherwise.  There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it.
I think the more appropriate word to describe the amount of legitimate reasons is "few" not "plenty'" The difference between you and me is I don't think it is my job to run around preventing people from trading because I don't like what they are trading in.
"An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure." Also with the new trust system implemented, Theymos has rightfully made the preventative measures less punitive and the provable offenses more punitive. It truly is an "ounce" when our intention is to only warn, and a "pound" when damage has already been done. If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue. The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud) to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen. This is not ok, and even if he was correct in his assumption one act does not justify the other. I really don't think bob123's actions warrants a red flag. It is very heavy handed. Unless we want to convey to the community that when is comes to account sales, "snitches get stiches." Perhaps exclusion from DT by his peers. Your analogy is useless because that is all criminal activity. No one is alleging account sales are a crime.
Everyone knows that analogies are never a perfect fit. However, account sales are somewhat equivalent to selling identity documents. Granted, someone buying an account on Bitcointalk is not going to allow them to get much of value in the meat world. However, in our forum, it gives them the opportunity to participate in signature campaigns that they would otherwise be excluded from, not to mention other benefits the established account history may bring. Once again, you are talking about criminal activity, making your comparison useless. Everyone knows spouting off cliche sayings is the highest form of truth possible. Can you imagine the hell that the USA would be in if that is the logic all of the police followed? Police are human beings. Wanna be internet police are human beings. Human beings are flawed and make mistakes and have biases, that is why systems of due process exist. Oh now you care about heavy hands when you agree with some one's goals? The ends do not justify the means. That is the whole point. This is a precedent that will lead to even more abuse and should be checked. There is no danger of universal approval of account sales, and you know this. OH NOES! Some one might get paid for a signature they didn't "earn"! The sky is falling! I guess we should just round up anyone we suspect and just destroy all their property to make sure that never happens, if people who aren't doing that are wrapped up in that, oh well fuck them, I don't personally like account sales! Again, the ends do not justify the means. You people are just falling all over each other to ameliorate protections for individual rights just to get even with people you don't like or agree with. This is not a scenario where any one wins. |
|
|
|
|
Even if the accusation is legitimate, this should be a moderation issue, not a trust system issue.
|
|
|
|
You deserve the red trust got by Mindrust.
You're an unreliable man who slanders everyone easily at the Turkish local forum.You are not liked by many in the Turkish local forum. Mindrust is right to the end when he does this. A lot of people in the Turkish local forum don't trust you, especially me.
You have a bad character. You constantly cause chaos and debate at the Turkish local forum. And you enjoy this chaos.
The trust system is not to punish people you don't like, who upset you, or you don't agree with. The trust system exists to help protect people from fraud. Mindrust's rating is not justified, and the fact that he doesn't even bother to defend his position says to me he doesn't even really believe the accusation he made himself. |
|
|
|
It is irrelevant if bob123 is a rival account seller or not. He still used deception to destroy the property of another. The point of the analogy is you can cause financial damage to others without direct financial (or any financial) incentive. It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules. It is circular logic. We need to destroy his product because we run around destroying his products.
No, they need to keep the exact product a secret or it loses it's value to sport a reputation and credentials that were not properly earned by the buyer. Whether that be a rank, post history, merit history, or trust ratings. Most people buy them so that they can get into a signature campaign that they would otherwise not qualify for. There is the potential someone could use the bought account to do a whole lot worse. Can you imagine the damage that could be done if either you or I sold our account in secret? Edit: Since it appears everyone wants to use analogies, let me use this one. Suppose it came to my attention that a particular individual was selling birth certificates and social security cards. This individual acquired them from the rightful owner's, willingly, by purchasing it from them. I decide to take it upon myself to pose as an illegal alien and pretend that I am interested in buying one of these documents. I request that the individual let me see one of the documents and I memorize some of the details. I then make some kind of excuse to back out of the deal and then promptly report what I know to everyone that I can think of as well as the authorities. By this act, I have not only destroyed the value of the product in question, but I have likely destroyed the person's entire enterprise as well. Would that make me a "scammer?" I think not. So they didn't earn the money they paid to acquire it? Who gets to determine what is and is not acceptable? There is by far no universal agreement on account sales, and the need to keep the sales secret is a direct result of this arbitrary enforcement done by vigilantes seeking people to point fingers at preemptively. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it. The difference between you and me is I don't think it is my job to run around preventing people from trading because I don't like what they are trading in. If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue. The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen. This is not ok, and even if he was correct in his assumption one act does not justify the other. Your analogy is useless because that is all criminal activity. No one is alleging account sales are a crime. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules.
Scams are not against the rules either. Actually most if not all use cases for the trust system don't have anything to do with forum rules, which are enforced by moderators. Untrustworthy actions are often done in secret or otherwise obfuscated. Exposing them is not a red-flag offence. Edit: Since it appears everyone wants to use analogies, let me use this one.
Don't even need to go that far... as I mentioned above, just selling green trust appears to be fine in this newfangled interpretation of what is considered a legitimate "business" or "property". No, but most scams are criminal activity, and criminal activity is against the rules. Furthermore the trust system LITERALLY EXISTS to help prevent fraud, not this subversion of its original intent you prefer to push where it exists to enforce pre-crime or to punish people for doing things you do not personally endorse. The entire purpose of the flag system being put in place was to offer some semblance of due process so that people can't just arbitrarily negative rate people for anything they please. Yet here you are arguing that fraud is ok, the trust system shouldn't be used to punish it, and you should have the ability to meter out arbitrary preventative enforcement of personally held beliefs using fraud. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
