I am glad you brought up this distinction, because it is often overlooked and dismissed. Most people who would be labeled "antivaxxers" are simply resistant to the idea that they be legally mandated or compelled to vaccinate their children. That... is pretty much it. Now you can get into a wide subject of debates as to why they would want to do so, but to my mind the question is more along the lines of , do we want to legally compel people to accept unwanted medical treatments? What will be the long term implications of setting this precedent?
What is stopping a future Dr. Evil from abusing this situation even if one currently does not exist? Lets not pretend like cruel medical experimentation and genocide are unknown to humanity... and vaccines would after all make a perfect vector for such a plan. Removing ones ability to use their own judgement to make that choice for themselves and their family sets a very dangerous precedent.
I understand the argument and agree somewhat. On one hand individual health shouldn't be something that is mandated. On the other hand, its not just individual health that is effected. Back in the good ole days, if you caught a dangerous infectious disease, your house, belongings, and person were just burned to prevent infection from spreading to others. That is frowned upon nowadays. Its hard to propose a better method for how an individual will take responsibility for the result of their actions, when their actions are a self medical choice. If you make life choices that leads to diabetes, thats completely on you. We don't need to make people take care of themselves, because diabetes isn't going to spread to others, that isn't the case with infectious diseases. If you spread the plague to your neighbor, should you be responsible for their treatment? Should you be charged with manslaughter if it kills them? None of that makes much sense, but it becomes something that you need to consider if a choice is what caused the proliferation of an extinct disease. If you expose someone to something they absolutely wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise, why wouldn't you be held accountable. That brings up what do we define as unavoidable, common colds, etc, as well as a lot of other issues, but the point stands that you aren't just playing with your own health. As a side note, I'm using the plague as an example because I refuse to use measles as an example. While I don't agree with antivaxxers, I'm just as annoyed by what I'll call the super pro vaxxers. Misleading information published by irresponsible "studies" are what cause plenty of these issues. I saw a "study" that showed that people who were vaccinated were less likely to have autism, which is also nonsense. What is stopping a future Dr. Evil from killing us all with vaccines? Nothing really, its just that as it is now, the FDA/USDA/CDC are in charge of vaccinations at least in the U.S. They have a vested interest in keeping us alive, and if that changes, I'm sure they could figure out a more effective way than vaccines to take everyone out. The problem with this logic is that "antivaxxers" are a tiny minority of people. If herd immunity is a real thing, then this tiny minority should have a largely inconsequential effect on the whole. There are some exceptions such as with immuno-suppressed individuals, but they are already in a vulnerable state to begin with. As with any rights, your rights end where my rights begin. I have a right to bodily autonomy. You do not have a right to never be exposed to disease. You are advocating the removal of bodily autonomy in the name of this non-right of being free from exposure to infection. This is nonsense backward utopian type logic. Of course we should seek to minimize risks for everyone, but the fact that you have to take rights from some to give them to others should be an immediate sign this is not right. |
|
|
|
I understand your dilemma but you have to know that the user is also trusting you with his money or bitcoins. So he is still taking a risk even though you are trusted here. If the deal goes the way you agreed I think he should also receive a positive feedback. Same way it works on ebay and other similar sites where both the buyer and seller rate each other.
As one of the earlier active members of this forum this has always been something very clear to me. I was the first (and only) reliable Steam game seller here for some time. I made it a point to help get people started and single handedly drew in hundreds of users from outside the forum to it. New users are required to take risks to start out, it is just part of how it works. People who are known to be well trusted can and should serve as gateways into the forum and its systems of exchange. People who are trying to abuse this as I stated earlier make themselves obvious fairly quickly to any one taking the time to do at least 30 seconds of due diligence reviewing trust ratings. New users get a trusted start into the system, and the forum gets another contributing member instead of just a lurker. The benefit outweighs the risk in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Would you object to:
- R&D was done to lace tetanus vaccines with hCG in order to act as an abortofacient and/or sterilent in human females?
- The United States state department circulated a paper describing population reduction in resource rich 'least developed countries' as a high priority national security threat which needs urgent action?
- A variety of global organizations have put a great deal of effort and money into solving what they feel to be pressing overpopulation problems?
- The tetanus vaccination protocols used most recently in Kenya were a better match for the research described as necessary for fertility control than for the scourge of tetanus?
- The WHO and other organizations who funded the hCG development would feel ethically bound not to employ the creation that they funded?
-snip-
Would you mind pointing me in the direction of a reliable source that talks about hCG for use as a sterilent being put in tetanus vaccines? I am under the impression that we are mixing two different issues here. 1) Being whether vaccines are a safe medical technology, and 2) Whether some shady organization has abused them in some way or another. If Dr. Evil puts anthrax in vaccines, that doesn't mean vaccines are bad, that means Dr. Evil is bad. Like I said, I'm just looking for where any of this information is coming from. I've found plenty of info about the deaths from vaccines from anaphylaxis and complications with pre existing auto immune disorders. I've yet to see any studies done that showed anything else though. I am glad you brought up this distinction, because it is often overlooked and dismissed. Most people who would be labeled "antivaxxers" are simply resistant to the idea that they be legally mandated or compelled to vaccinate themselves or their children. That... is pretty much it. Now you can get into a wide subject of debates as to why they would want to do so, but to my mind the question is more along the lines of , do we want to legally compel people to accept unwanted medical treatments? What will be the long term implications of setting this precedent? What is stopping a future Dr. Evil from abusing this situation even if one currently does not exist? Lets not pretend like cruel medical experimentation and genocide are unknown to humanity... and vaccines would after all make a perfect vector for such a plan. Removing ones ability to use their own judgement to make that choice for themselves and their family sets a very dangerous precedent. |
|
|
|
You two should kiss and make up.
Seriously, it seems like a minor disagreement from some time ago. You boys are wasting way too much valuable Internet space on this.
You don't enjoy the public airing of laundry? Hahahahahahaha. I find it extremely unbecoming. That kind of sounds like you expect us to behave like Victorian ladies. I had not thought of it that way, but yes, it would be better if we all acted like Victorian ladies. You first...  |
|
|
|
I am of the opinion that a positive or negative rating should be based on a direct interaction with a user. If some one purchases an item from me for example I will usually leave them a positive rating with some kind of description of what the trade involved so people reviewing ratings can weigh it appropriately. A regular history of being able to afford purchases and complete exchanges without incident has value too. Now if you see a user with tons of tiny trades will then you can see that the number of ratings themselves mean less than at first glance. This all comes back to teaching users to do due diligence, not just trust red and green numbers blindly.
However, if you want people to do their due diligence, then a neutral rating will let them know the same thing without making it appear at first blush that the person is more trusted than God. I don't see any problems with rating people whom you have exchanged with. It allows trusted users to interact with people with no reputation giving the trusted user and opportunity to give them a once over while giving the new user the ability to build their own reputation without requiring huge risks. The point is the system is able to be gamed to one extent or another no matter what, and the focus should be one teaching people to review ratings. Individuals attempting to make many small trades with very trusted people in order to farm trust ratings make themselves obvious pretty fast, and that is a good thing. This rating farming either way can be solved with some very superficial review of all ratings. |
|
|
|
You two should kiss and make up.
Seriously, it seems like a minor disagreement from some time ago. You boys are wasting way too much valuable Internet space on this.
You don't enjoy the public airing of laundry? Hahahahahahaha. I find it extremely unbecoming. That kind of sounds like you expect us to behave like Victorian ladies. |
|
|
|
|
I am of the opinion that a positive or negative rating should be based on a direct interaction with a user. If some one purchases an item from me for example I will usually leave them a positive rating with some kind of description of what the trade involved so people reviewing ratings can weigh it appropriately. A regular history of being able to afford purchases and complete exchanges without incident has value too. Now if you see a user with tons of tiny trades well then you can see that the number of ratings themselves mean less than at first glance. This all comes back to teaching users to do due diligence, not just trust red and green numbers blindly.
|
|
|
|
If that is true then you should probably remove it, though I do find it suspect you only applied the exclusion recently and not directly after this event you mentioned. I never accused you of scamming. I said I though you may have had an outstanding debt, and that I was not that worried about it. I also explicitly said I would not be taking any actions regarding this either way.
I remembered you clearly, the vague part was the debt. How can you hold me to these standards when you aren't even accurately remembering what is said? Please don't make me find the quotes because I will if I have to.
I never at any point considered you a scammer. The way I saw it YOU MAY have owed me an unpaid debt, and I didn't see it as an issue. That's it. The rest is a creation of your own mind, and I am truly sorry you were so offended by these comments.
Before the new DT changes I had all but 3 names on my trust list, after the change I took a week to go through it and that's when I added you, I'm sure there's a timestamp of when I excluded you somewhere. Regarding the PM's, I did just look back at them and these are things you said to me: "As far as I remember you owed me a few mil IFC", "I believe you were selling it to users or something and came up short, and in order to preserve the coin reputation I covered it." I am not that worried about it but my brain has a long memory for that kind of thing and your name is on that mental list. Point is don't expect any free coin, you already got it." I did take offense to that and it did make me question your judgement if you were able to accuse me of something like that. You did say that you would not try and sandbag me about it but it doesn't change the fact that it made me feel bad. Recently I've started looking at things differently though and you make a few valid points (Hey, I even put you off ignore). I've already considered taking you off my exclusion list as I've done with some others already. If you read carefully you will see I didn't accuse you of anything. If your entire argument is based on this point perhaps this matters more than a bit. EDIT: We have had a little discussion and have come to understand our mutual perspectives better. I think this was a constructive exchange. Thank you for taking that chance on cooperation. |
|
|
|
You seem confused Tecshare, below is the only reason why I've excluded you:
I reached out to you about a year ago to ask a few questions about Infinitecoin since it had seen a surge in price. Once I got a reply from you here you said you remembered my name, vaguely, but you think that I scammed your community a long time ago. You were not sure, but you thought it was so.
This not only made me sad since IFC more or less taught me all I (at the time) knew about crypto but it also baffled me that while you were not sure you had already in your mind labelled me as a scammer.
That's the only reason I've excluded you, because if that is your judgement (let me look through PM's to find exactly what you wrote), I can't take it seriously nor can I trust it.
If that is true then you should probably remove it, though I do find it suspect you only applied the exclusion recently and not directly after this event you mentioned. I never accused you of scamming. I said I thought you may have had an outstanding debt, and that I was not that worried about it. I also explicitly said I would not be taking any actions regarding this either way. I remembered you clearly, the vague part was the debt. How can you hold me to these standards when you aren't even accurately remembering what is said? Please don't make me find the quotes because I will if I have to. I never at any point considered you a scammer. The way I saw it YOU MAY have owed me a small unpaid debt, and I didn't see it as an issue. That's it. The rest is a creation of your own mind, and I am truly sorry you were so offended by these comments. I do however suspect this is all just a flimsy pretext to cover for obvious nepotism. _______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ EDIT: There is a reason / nepotism is there. |
|
|
|
If they sent you the funds first and you waited for the appropriate confirmations, then it really didn't require any trust on your part. A neutral is more appropriate. If you provided the goods and services first, and then they paid you upon receipt or completion, a positive would be appropriate. IMHO
By this same logic then it would not be valid to rate people positively for anything else that did not directly relate to trusting them with value either. This is the constant conflict I am talking about. Theymos in a what I think is a misguided effort to keep this place free of oppressive regulation has simply fostered an environment of oppressive regulation that is completely unwritten and arbitrary. At least when there are written rules everyone is mostly on the same page regarding the goal of the system. |
|
|
|
Your calls of hypocrisy are just a pathetic attempt at false equivocation and distraction from the reality that this system is effectively a democracy that operates in the dark, and history shows how well that works now doesn't it?
I don't recall ever having to explain my vote or even tell anyone how I voted in any real-life democracy. But if you're interested in explanations maybe you should just ask those users instead of bitching that others are not interested. In a Democracy we have representatives, representatives which are expected to explain their actions. Furthermore Democracies rely on an open media (free speech) and proper education, because without an informed populace how can they wisely choose representatives without being manipulated? I don't need to ask because I know exactly why these people have excluded me:  I find it interesting everyone under #1 appeared immediately after I started talking about the abuse that the trust system allows to go unchecked, and these just so happen to be some of the people it would put a check on. Pure coincidence I am sure. Asking them is simply going to result in a bunch of excuses and horse shit, so why waste my time? The point is there is no mechanism for accountability or expectation for explanation, and direct democracy with representatives operating in the dark is just a dictatorship with more steps. |
|
|
|
Furthermore I love the constant logic of people like you who support the status quo perfectly willing to apply these standards to me while totally ignoring the original premise of the topic as if it exposes some hypocrisy on my part because I exist within this broken system too. I'm not the one here trying to force other people to live by my standards. If you want your standards to apply, the least you could do is try to live up to them yourself. Not doing so is the very definition of a hypocrite, regardless of your claims to the contrary. Please explain to me how I am forcing anyone to do anything. I am not targeting people because they disagree with me, so your argument is meaningless. If I targeted people because they disagreed with me my exclusions list would be considerably larger, and probably also include you wouldn't it? Your calls of hypocrisy are just a pathetic attempt at false equivocation and distraction from the reality that this system is effectively a democracy that operates in the dark, and history shows how well that works now doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Yes, people explaining their exclusions that just so happen to perfectly list everyone who has been critical of them should not be forced to explain their choices, because then they might have to take responsibility for them. It is best these kind of choices are done in the dark with no oversight much like the previous broken system. Everyone knows democracy works great in the dark! This is just nonsense. I've never been critical of minerjones and I'm on his exclusion list, and I'd wager many others are in the same boat as he excluded many of the new DT1 members. His reasoning for excluding me is his own and needs no explanation, but your statement above is provably incorrect. Also interesting that he excluded you, which prompted you to take him off your trust list and add him to your exclusion list. Why haven't explained your reasoning for excluding someone who has been critical of you? Why did you make that choice in the dark with no oversight? I wasn't specifically referring to minerjones. I was addressing this retarded notion that no one should have to explain themselves because this is just another system with a veneer of decentralization while all the same people are given and have power taken away completely in the dark without any justification needed. You haven't proven anything except that you are eager to disagree with me. No one bothered to ask me. Furthermore I love the constant logic of people like you who support the status quo perfectly willing to apply these standards to me while totally ignoring the original premise of the topic as if it exposes some hypocrisy on my part because I exist within this broken system too. Uh, no. I am not the one going around gaming the trust system to shut out anyone who is critical of my behavior in an effort to make sure they can never serve as a counterbalance. |
|
|
|
I'm curious to know why minerjones ( Most Trusted user) excludes theymos (Admin). Is there a story I missed? Same here, minerjones exclude more than 50% DT1. Wondering how he have exclude admin  . He does not have to explain anything and one should be able to exclude theymos without others poking around like there's lava flowing everywhere. Might as well be that the account was sold? Doubt it though.
Facepalm. Yes, people explaining their exclusions that just so happen to perfectly list everyone who has been critical of them should not be forced to explain their choices, because then they might have to take responsibility for them. It is best these kind of choices are done in the dark with no oversight much like the previous broken system. Everyone knows democracy works great in the dark! |
|
|
|
|
The can is going to be kicked down the road until the music stops. Then the new world begins, for better or worse. It won't be much longer now, the hour is late.
|
|
|
|
Here we go again... cops called in by a doctor who won't let people be. If the people knew how to fight, the doctor and whoever authorized the cops would be on trial.
Arizona: Family Raided by Cops, Their Children Kidnapped—for Not Bringing Son to ER for a FeverChandler, AZ — Sarah Beck and Brooks Bryce are speaking out to local media after their children were kidnapped by armed men because they let their 2-year-old son Heber recover from a fever at home—and not in the ER.
The nightmare for this family started 4 days ago when they brought their toddler to the doctor at the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine because he had a fever. The fever had gotten pretty high, 105, so the doctor told the family to take the baby to the ER.
When the family got back to the car, however, they took Heber’s temperature once more and noticed that it had dropped significantly. His temp fell to 102, which is no reason to head to the ER.
“He’s acting normal. He’s dancing with his sisters in his car seat. And I take his temperature and it’s 102,” said Beck.
...
As TFTP has previously reported, children who get taken by the state get put into a system that is rife with abuse. An estimated 18,000 children—every single year—go missing from these “protective care” systems. Thousands of those children are then sold into sex slavery. In fact, as we reported this week, it’s estimated that 88 percent of sex trafficked children come from this system. Hopefully this family gets their kids back before they become a number in these most disturbing statistics.  How else are they going to get good children to sell at a profit using the CPS system which is a front for child sex trafficking? The ones who really should be removed are no good for adopting out for a profit because they are trouble cases. The well behaved ones come from good households where they are removed for minor reasons. TODAY: https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/rand-paul-just-dropped-a-giant-bomb-on-the-vaccine-industry/ |
|
|
|
Oh dear god
I really do have to learn to quote properly
Please stick to the topic under discussion... Its complete capitalist dogma. Bezos didn't become a billionaire by selling books out of his garage...Those would have been some expensive books...It is not possible to become a billionaire from your own labor. Ok...for instance, take note neither Bezos, the garage-book seller, nor Bezos the CEO and president of Amazon could have been a billionaire using only his own labor. And you don't eat without the labor of others. What is your point? |
|
|
|
the headline says mint - do you have one that is in Mint condition in addition to the one in the photos? the one in the photos appears to have wear and scratches.
I don't know what you are talking about. I tell you what. You find me one for sale in what you call mint condition and we will compare ok? Oh right you can't because no one has them. Now if you are done concern trolling the "classified ad" section of the forum to alleviate your boredom... if it caused confusion, I apologize - in any grading of items Mint means: Absolutely perfect in every way, possibly even still sealed. Should be used sparingly as a grade, if at all. You called it Mint - not me. If the one you are selling is not Mint - then I would suggest changing the grade to match the item's actual condition so as not to be confusing to those that understand what grading terms mean. Because based on your heading and based on the photos, I was curious if you were selling more than one - that is all. note: I am not trolling, I am looking for stuff to buy and still very interested in the watch - even though it is not mint. What is your current best offer? Sorry for my tone, most people who make such comments have zero interest in trading and are simply here to entertain themselves. PM me a reasonable offer and we will discuss it. Thanks! |
|
|
|
They didn't have to define "Socialist", because Socialism has a firm definition for anyone... except for Socialists who define it as anything great that has nothing to do with actual Socialism. |
|
|
|
the headline says mint - do you have one that is in Mint condition in addition to the one in the photos? the one in the photos appears to have wear and scratches.
I don't know what you are talking about. I tell you what. You find me one for sale in what you call mint condition and we will compare ok? Oh right you can't because no one has them. Now if you are done concern trolling the "classified ad" section of the forum to alleviate your boredom... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
