|
He seems to be making a habit of making negative comments towards me. He has my permission to continue. I would usually care not for what he does in his spare time but I would like to know the following:
Why does he verbally attack me? What is his main goal?
|
|
|
|
Example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=58791.0He's bumping all of his auctions. Some of them should have ended months ago. His threads now have the majority of the board while most of his product remains unsold with little to no bids. I feel that his demands would be better met by his own website; so the products of others can get the attention they deserve, while potential buyers can select from a more diverse selection of goods -- not just gems. I am confident that I am not the only one who has this view: TipTopGems is flooding the auctions board with crap. |
|
|
|
|
Anyways, Joint, you're right. This guy has captured my interest.
|
|
|
|
To live or to die? That is the question.
Let's say you choose to live.
Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?
Will you create or destroy?
These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".
Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions. ar "You" is simply desires and its respective actions. The factors that form "you" are far from universal. A standard for what forms "you" is barely definable in a static context. The mind just is. Ok, and when "you" recognize and reflect upon those desires such that they become the objects of your perception, what are "you," the subject, then? By the way, the "mind just is" comment is interesting. "You" is just a perception. Beyond that -- there are countless possibilities. I don't think sentience as a whole can be quantified beyond just the choices... Different environments, different biology... What produces one perception and one being is countless. It cannot be quantified it seems. An individual remains divisible from the rest in will but still easily affected by the means of the whole. Can a mind not be an "I"? This is assuming a mind is sentience. Have you ever read Christopher Langan's CTMU theory at www.ctmu.org? I think you'd find it interesting...even though Langan is quite the douche sometimes. So, let's reduce theory to what can actually be perceived? Is that the premise of this article? |
|
|
|
|
For instance, feelings are just subject to biology, culture and future mutations. No one sentient being will react to stimuli in the same way as another.
Other memories will be triggered and other desires will come to mind...
Individuals seem to truly be individuals.
|
|
|
|
To live or to die? That is the question.
Let's say you choose to live.
Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?
Will you create or destroy?
These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".
Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions. ar "You" is simply desires and its respective actions. The factors that form "you" are far from universal. A standard for what forms "you" is barely definable in a static context. The mind just is. Ok, and when "you" recognize and reflect upon those desires such that they become the objects of your perception, what are "you," the subject, then? By the way, the "mind just is" comment is interesting. "You" is just a perception. Beyond that -- there are countless possibilities. I don't think sentience as a whole can be quantified beyond just the choices... Different environments, different biology... What produces one perception and one being is countless. It cannot be quantified it seems. An individual remains divisible from the rest in will but still easily affected by the means of the whole. Can a mind not be an "I"? This is assuming a mind is sentience. |
|
|
|
And its been asked before...and the answer from the 1500s is about as good as it gets.
Why do you think that? It remains fairly dogmatic. If I read Shakespeare correctly, he says you cannot know. Its the opposite of dogma. Shakespeare reaches a level of the human experience. Specifically, love. He also speaks in absolutes when it comes to poverty and power. It's far from an objective experience overall but he does hit thoughtful points. He can be said to be existentialist in some aspects. Hm, thanks for making me think. |
|
|
|
To live or to die? That is the question.
Let's say you choose to live.
Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?
Will you create or destroy?
These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".
Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions. "You" is simply desires and its respective actions. The factors that form "you" are far from universal. A standard for what forms "you" is barely definable in a static context. Quantify -- that's the word I'm looking for. Is the human experience quantifiable? Not if one wants to cater to the various human experiences we have today. The mind just is. |
|
|
|
And its been asked before...and the answer from the 1500s is about as good as it gets.
Why do you think that? It remains fairly dogmatic. |
|
|
|
|
To live or to die? That is the question.
Let's say you choose to live.
Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?
Will you create or destroy?
These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".
|
|
|
|
As a nihilist, I find myself laughing at the amateur moral questions this thread discusses.
That's understandable. I guess now you understand why we laugh at you so much for your non-philosophy related topic threads. Tell me, what justification is there for a universal moral good? Can tyranny of such a scale ever be fully enforceable? With all due respect, I'm asking the adults a question of social responsibility. I don't really think I'll have much to gain from an 18 year old parroting propaganda he learned in high school unless I was asking something particular about the philosophical beliefs of certain people in the world. What I am looking for more is an experienced opinion on anonymity in the future of Bitcoin I think. All you are going to get is stuff parroted from high school. I used to volunteer at retirement homes. Old people are practically infants in reverse most of the time. Most people never fully grow up, Matthew. Experience means squat. To learn and to grow requires constant skepticism. Most people preach blind faith and trust. Imagine how stupid the average person is. Most of them are far more ignorant than that. If you ever grow Matthew, you'll realize what I've meant. What I offer is a scary, objective perspective; something most people can't handle. Most people like to have their hand held. They like to be comforted. I, on the other hand, can stand on my own. You can too, if you try. |
|
|
|
As a nihilist, I find myself laughing at the amateur moral questions this thread discusses.
That's understandable. I guess now you understand why we laugh at you so much for your non-philosophy related topic threads. Tell me, what justification is there for a universal moral good? Can tyranny of such a scale ever be fully enforceable? |
|
|
|
|
As a nihilist, I find myself laughing at the amateur moral questions this thread discusses. It's as if I am reading Plato abridged.
People will do whatever is in there power. No subjective good or evil changes anything. Just focus on liberating yourself and others, give them the power to resist what they do not desire. That's all one can do.
Blessed are the destroyers of false hope, they are the true Messiahs - Cursed are the God-adorers, they shall be shorn sheep. Blessed are the valiant for they shall obtain great treasure - Cursed are the believers in good and evil for they are frightened by shadows
- Ragnar Redbeard
|
|
|
|
|
Except after they have been properly laundered through the Silk Road.
/devil's advocate
|
|
|
|
|
Cabernet Sauvignon to compliment my steaks, please.
|
|
|
|
Matthew, what value do you gain from making false claims about me?
Perhaps you should prove them to be false? They appear to me (and others I'll bet) to be reasonable and accurate conclusions. I have nothing to prove. He's the one making the claims. If you believe him, it's your loss. |
|
|
|
|
Matthew, what value do you gain from making false claims about me?
|
|
|
|
|
*takes a long drag out of his cigar*
Nope.
|
|
|
|
I will confirm that there is incorrect information regarding me and the administration, in this thread. I will happily discuss myself when certain people begin to respect my person.
What a cowardly, sleezy, snake of a thing to say you half-man. You are nothing but a turd and not fit for the air you breathe. You can't answer a single question without being a worthless sleeze and drudge on society? You can't stand up for what you believe in, you twisty swine breathed yellow spineless stillbirthed blowhard? You have no value. You take away value and lose respect because you don't deserve any for that cowardess. I asked you Atlas, weren't you permabanned you cowardly son of a bitch, aspergers ridden, admin bribing, pompous deal renigging, bet welching scammy fuck heap of dog shit? Matthew, your current musings are against this forum's terms of service. Specifically, it's off-topic. I thought I would let you know. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
