Our scheme has a public ledger that is somewhat analogous to the Bitcoin blockchain.

Double spends are prevented by a public database that contains sufficient information to prevent them. We call it the "ledger" and it is somewhat analogous to the Bitcoin block chain.

Thank you for answering questions 1 and 2. Now, how about questions 3 and 4? Here they are again:

3) When you invested with Patrick, did you know that a significant fraction of your money would wind up invested with Pirate, which you knew was a Ponzi scheme?

4) If not, should you have?

And I'll add one more:

5) Do you believe this is due to something specific Patrick did wrong that you had no way of knowing? That is, do you think he just failed to screen people thoroughly or didn't ask the right questions? Or do you think Patrick's business model, which you agreed protected from significant Pirate exposure, was fundamentally broken?

I'm just asking you to take some responsibility for the bad decision you made and the harm it did to others. (Or would have done to them, had they been honest. As it happens, the victims of your bad judgment just turned around and reneged on their obligations.)

Coming from someone who funded a Ponzi scheme and takes no responsibility whatsoever for the harm they did while placing all the blame 100% on others who did precisely the same thing, I'll take this as a compliment. For the record, I don't think you had actual knowledge that this is what you were doing, but you should have known.

While I've got your attention, I have a few questions for you:

1) When you loaned money to Patrick, did you know Pirate was operating a Ponzi scheme?

2) If not, should you have?

3) When you loaned money to Patrick, did you know a significant fraction of it would wind up invested in Pirate?

4) If not, should you have?

If you can't repeat it, it isn't science.

No, that is incorrect. The researchers were honest and competent. The problem was the fundamental methodology of their field wherein results are "calibrated" routinely by ensuring they agree with the "known correct" results of others in their field. For example, NASA uses satellites to measure temperatures. But satellite temperature sensors drift over the years. How do you think NASA recalibrates their sensors to ensure they receive temperature data from their satellites that remain accurate? Assume they are honest and competent, so they use the best data they can find from other sources. That will include the CRU data, and the data that the CRU scientists (we now know) used to calibrated their own data.

To an outsider, it looks like three independent sources all agree. No dishonesty. No incompetence. It's just that the problem is not visible because it's not obvious what standards proxy temperatures are calibrated to.

What can you do to calibrate and tweak your computer models other than to make sure they replicate the "known correct" existing temperature data as closely possible for the past? (Which, we now know, was the CRU data, the data that CRU calibrated to, and other data sets calibrate from CRU. Yay.) Then you turn them lose on the future. So if we have a bogus temperature increase in the past, they will report that same bogus temperature increase in the future. That's what they're *supposed* to do. That's what an honest and competent application of the methodology will produce.

Say you want to measure past temperatures based on ice cores or tree rings. So you measure ice cores or tree rings. Now, how do you convert those numbers to temperatures? Simple -- you take readings from times where temperatures are known from other sources and make a calibration table. So if those other sources have a bogus increase in temperature, so will yours. No dishonesty. No incompetence. Just the nature of the methodology.

And we know there were inputs that put a continuous upward pressure on the "everyone calibrates from everyone else's data" effect, such as urban heat island effects.

These were people with high internal moral codes and top scientists. This wasn't a case of a few bad guys. This was the curtain being pulled back and the methodology being exposed.

The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.

I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.

I never said passthrough operators were "responsible just as much as pirate", nor did I ever say that "those who invest in said passthrough are not". (At least, I hope I didn't say either of those two things.)

Also, there was strong evidence that, at least with respect to Kraken, at the time he made that promise he knew he wasn't going to keep it. The evidence suggested that Kraken was a way to bail out his personal Pirate losses and screw over his investors.

You might be able to find a clear lacquer or enamel that could protect the firstbits.

Do you see what you did there? You swapped the subject from "big business" to "evil big corporations". Just as you would expect good individuals to support things that are bad for bad individuals, good big businesses generally support things that are bad for evil big businesses -- especially when they compete with them directly.

There are definitely some evil big businesses that take libertarian or quasi-libertarian positions on specific issues that they expect will benefit them.

At least you do follow your own advice and don't bother responding the substance of those who pay you the courtesy of addressing the substance of your arguments. Read posts #5, #7, #8, and #11, my exchange with Cunicula, and compare them to my exchange with you. Which strategy gives the results you want?

It's bad logic, and that's *all* it is. All you can do is point out that it's bad logic. If someone makes an argument that you admit is bad logic, why wouldn't the rational thing to do be to simply point out that it's bad logic? You're suggesting essentially that you should ignore the validity of an argument someone else made and instead change the subject. That's crazy.

Sure, in this example, that's right. But if they said "Joe's idea stinks to high heaven because I want a burger for lunch", all you can do is point out that hunger pains have nothing to do with Joe's idea. That's id.

Sure, in your ridiculous example.

Pointing out that an argument is ad hominem is attacking the validity of the argument. The crux of the ad hominem fallacy is that you address the character of the person who made it, not the argument. For example: "Because Joe makes ad hominem arguments, we can reject this argument" is ad hominem. It addresses Joe's character rather than the validity of his argument. But "Because Joe's argument is ad hominem, we can reject it" is perfectly valid. It doesn't address Joe's character but the validity of his argument.

We can, and should, refute invalid arguments. But we can't dismiss an argument based on characteristics of the person who made it. But we must evaluate an argument based on characteristics of that argument itself.

Your suggestion is basically that we presume bad faith on the part of the person advancing the argument because it's invalid and not point out that it's invalid. I'm suggesting we presume good faith on the part of person advancing the argument and do them the courtesy of pointing out that their argument is invalid and that they should honor their good faith, accept its invalidity, and abandon it. Not addressing the specific argument they actually made by pointing out that it's fallacious will make it seem to them that you're simply ignoring the arguments they actually made and just making unrelated arguments. That will make them find it hard to presume you are arguing in good faith and it's a recipe for turning what could have been a productive discussion into chaos.

It is perfectly reasonable to describe something as theft if society prohibits doing it without paying someone a fee and you do it without paying that fee. For example, say someone owns a museum and charges $10 admission. If you sneak into the museum and look at the exhibits without paying the $10 fee, it is perfectly reasonable and ordinary to say you stole $10 from them.

It is not the information itself that is property but the right to do specific things with the information. There is no reason that can't be property, and that's a perfectly ordinary and reasonable use of the term, just as many other intangible rights can be property. For example, say you mow lawns. I can buy the right to have you mow one average lawn. That right is now my property. Say you own a timeshare. I can buy, and have as my property, the right to occupy that timeshare during August.

Nobody else has any other problem with intangible rights being property. This is just a manufactured confusion with intellectual property rights.

While that's a difference, that difference actually weighs against your suggestion.  Consider if Joe argues that fact Y supports conclusion X. If you're speaking to Joe, you can reasonably expect that he believes conclusion X and is willing to defend it on other fronts. You can move on to other arguments against X if you want. But with a third-party, it's evasive and dishonest to shift the topic of conversation away from Joe's argument. Especially since that other person may or may not care about conclusion X. They chose to make the conversation about the validity of Joe's argument and they are entitled to have you stick to the subject until you either agree with or invalidate Joe's argument if that's at all possible.

You could make other arguments too, of course. But if you're going to reply, they deserve at least some serious reply to the specific argument they made.

I totally disagree with everything you said. It's completely backwards from all reason and logic. If someone makes an invalid argument, you should point out that the argument is invalid. Anything else is not fair to them, and shows a lack of respect because someone who makes an argument deserves a response to the argument they actually made. Moving on to some other argument just frustrates them because you neither accepted nor showed a flaw in the argument they actually made. That's flat out dishonest and will leave anyone witnessing the discussion thinking you evaded their argument.

Suppose I say "Because FirstAscent is an ignorant buffoon, Obama will be a terrible president in his second term". Would you respond by presenting an argument that Obama will be a good President in his second term? The honest thing to do is to point out that the latter does not follow from the former or that the former is not true. It is dishonest and evasive to present some other argument about how good a president Obama will be.

Yes, it does. An ad hominem argument is invalid. Pointing out that it's an ad hominem argument refutes it.

The beginning of the article is the heavy lifting the author has to do to get his payoff at the end. The last two paragraphs are the payoff. This is classic 100% ad hominem. The beginning proves Milton Friedman is a bad guy and the conclusion is that modern libertarianism is flawed and invalid.

Here are the last two paragraphs of the article -- the point the beginning is supposed to justify -- with the key points bolded:


The ad hominem formula is, basically, "because a particular person is a bad person or did some bad things, we can reject ideas he had or logical arguments he made". That is the overall formula of this article. Had he left out the last two paragraphs, it would be biography. With them there, the beginning sets up the conclusion.

This is 100% ad hominem, the fallacious kind. The validity of an intellectual argument in no way hinges on who makes the argument or why. Nice try though.

I don't agree. If I help you hire a hit man to kill your boss, am I only responsible if the hit man fails to kill your boss?

People who operated pirate passthroughs paid Pirate to make their customers the recipients of fraudulent transfers. They are responsible to the victims even if Pirate did exactly what they paid him to do. (This requires that they knew or should have known that Pirate was making fraudulent transfers. I think it was totally obvious all along, but I'm willing to accept that this one time people might have thought it would somehow be different. But if this ever happens again, you can expect zero tolerance from me.)

There is no excuse for those who publicly stated that they knew or suspected that Pirate was operating a fraudulent Ponzi scheme yet nevertheless operated passthroughs --  knowingly and intentionally paying Pirate to commit fraud on their, and their customers', behalf and profiting from it, they are no better than Pirate.

So what's the magic words I have to say that makes it so that I don't have to pay any taxes? I already tried "I forgot" -- no luck.