Bitcoin Forum
August 31, 2016, 12:25:49 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.0 (New!) [Torrent]. Make sure you verify it.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 [86] 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 ... 368 »
1701  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 11, 2012, 12:24:03 AM
You're the one who has questionable rationality, here. If stopping a rapist is not aggressing, why is it when I try to stop someone beating their kid?

Furthermore, your interpretation of this strawman situation is critical.  If I were, as a matter of fact, some nutcase ruthlessly beating a child (mine or someone else's), then your interference; whether of the passive aggressive type you claim, or of the more normally aggressive variety, is entirely justifiable.

However, if instead, you were to see me simply spanking my miss-behaving child (already a very unlikey event, in my case) in a public place, and you chose to intervene (by whatever method) you would still be an aggressor.  You would have to be able to justify your actions (assuming you survived the encounter), and you cannot do that without my child agreeing with your perspectives.  In most places in these United States, corporel punishment is legal (whether you like that or not) and the law treats the parents as 'guardian ad litem', or guardians under the law, and thus the child's rights are exercised by the parents until of legal age. (18 unless the parents chose to 'emancipate' as noted earlier)  So, unless you can convince a judge to appoint another 'guardian ad litem', you would have to ask the parents to agree with your perspectives.  Do you not see your problem?  There is nothing in ancap theories, nor in the non-agression principle, that solves the root disagreement here.  We disagree on this very core issue, and your problem is that you can't seem to fall back upon your own ancap principles and accept that, as the parent, I have the greater claim to my own children and their interests.
1702  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 11, 2012, 12:09:33 AM
Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit raping that woman!"
Aggressor: /keeps raping woman
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor


This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Still make sense?

Of course not.  no one does this to stop a rapist...

Quote
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

Although I do have to admire your persistance, even if your rationality is is question.

You're the one who has questionable rationality, here. If stopping a rapist is not aggressing, why is it when I try to stop someone beating their kid?
Wow, you are thick.

I did not say that stopping a rapist wasn't an aggressive act, I said that no one does it like you are trying to imply.  Stopping a rape certainly is an aggressive act, which is one reason that you had best be certain that you have interpreted the situation correctly.  If you happen upon a screamer and her boyfriend having wild, consentual, sex in some seedy area's backally; and you interfere, you are the aggressor no matter how it is you believed the situation.  If it's a true rape, use of force to protect the victim is justifiable (if you are correct) but it is still force.  This is a case in point about outcomes, it's not your perceptions that matter, but the woman's.  If you are wrong, and her boyfriend is harmed, you are liable for that harm.

Yet, that is still beside the point, because this is not the situation that your original strawman implied, and by now you know it.  I interpreted your statement "I will intervene just as if I see a mugging on the street" cannot be interpreted in the way (passive aggressive) that you claim that you intended it.  It can only, rationally, be interpreted that you inplied tht you would intervene with deliberate and immediate force.  That is why I responded in the way that I did, and you continue to claim that I am wrong.  I, quite literally, can't be wrong in this situation; because I'm the character in this strawman play that is interpreting your intent.  What you may have wanted to imply, or say, or convey; is entirely irrelevant.
1703  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 10, 2012, 11:43:06 PM
Note: What follows is an exact quote, but with only a few words changed. See if you can guess which!

Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit raping that woman!"
Aggressor: /keeps raping woman
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor


This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Still make sense?

Of course not.  no one does this to stop a rapist...

Quote
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor

Although I do have to admire your persistance, even if your rationality is is question.
1704  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 10, 2012, 11:31:38 PM
Not sure how acting as human shields and using our backs with arms up in the air to block adult violence against children counts as aggression, but I guess that's the absolutely fucked up world that we live in and take offense to.

Well, for starters, simply making the deliberate act of seperating a child from their parent in a public space is an act of aggression.  But as I have already noted, that's not the same strawman that Myrkul started with, although that's the one that he would have prefered once I hit him with reality.  Even still, his odds of making through such a confrontation without harm are higher in my presence than most, and still not very high even if he didn't intend to cause harm.  His actions would not have been interpreted that way, even by someone who was rational.  Anyone less than rational is unlikely to have interpreted his actions in any way more favorable than I anyway.
1705  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Introduce yourself :) on: December 10, 2012, 11:26:46 PM
Hiya Folks!

 Just need to know how to use it now and how to mine coins.


Don't bother.  It's a specialized occupation that requires much geekiness to become profitable.  You're much better off offering some service to the community in exchange for bitcoins.  Most people are the same.  I have personally never mined anything.

Quote

I'll try not to mess up the forum too much with dumb questions.


That's no longer possible.  This forum has been messed up for years.
1706  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Introduce yourself :) on: December 10, 2012, 11:24:26 PM
What is the best bitcoin wallet?

Best for what purpose?
1707  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Distributed identity and reputation database on: December 10, 2012, 11:23:32 PM
Not one to pick an easy task, are you?

I can't really help you here, but I can locate potential problems pretty fast.  Assuming that you can develop such a distributed reputation database, that can't be undermined or hacked, what prevents people from developing multiple online identities to game the rep systems?

1708  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 10, 2012, 11:09:22 PM
Everything seems to be outlined already, except for that unfortunate escalation earlier in the thread where you said you would use deadly force as soon as Myrkul started yelling at you.

Revised=
Myrkul: "Hey! Quit beating that kid!"
Aggressor: /keeps beating kid
Myrkul: "Stop!" /bodily interposes himself between victim and aggressor


This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.

Quote
MoonShadow: /pushes past Myrkul, Continues to address his child's misbehaviors in his own way.
Myrkul, the aggressor: "I said stop, god damnit!" /lays hands on MoonShadow, likely a grab from behind to stop the activity.


FTFY

Quote
MoonShadow: /whirls around, backs up to draw gun, shoots Aggressive interloper

Potentially shoots Myrkul.  Wheterh or not I actually did, and whether or not I was prosecuted in my own state, depends entirely upon the details.

And yet, this strawman is entirely beside the point.  As noted, Myrkul orriginally stated that he would treat me as if I were a (presumedly violent) street mugger.  To later state that he intended that we would  simply step between us(even if theat were possible) is irrational.  One does not deal with a mugger by stepping between a violent person and his current target, and then try to talk to them.  Therefore, it would have been irrational for me to have assumed that he intended anything other than the deliberate use of force against myself, or my child, inorder to affect change.  That makes him the aggressor, from my perspective, and the results predictable.  To argue that my perspectives are not correct is irrelevant, for those would be the first impressions of anyone who were in such a situation that Myrkul describes.  I simply turned his strawman situtation around upon him, and told him how the real end result of such an unlikely encounter.  To later backpedal and state that he didn't intend it the way I interpreted it is, again, beside the point.  To interprete his original statements how he, later, professes them would have been irrational.
1709  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 10, 2012, 10:17:59 PM
 No we would not, because in order for you to stop me, you would have had to come between us.  

Yes, bodily interpose myself between you and your victim. That is not to say I would snatch up your kid and try to take them away. I might lay hands on you, the aggressor, to stop you from hitting the kid, but I would not yank the kid up and run off. I would, of course, start off with "Hey! Quit beating that kid!" which would only escalate to interposing myself if you did not desist.

And what do you think might happen next?
1710  Other / Off-topic / Hmmm, looks like another attempt to beat Bitcoin.... on: December 10, 2012, 08:48:10 PM
http://www.mcx.com/

WalMart seems to have thrown in with this digital wallet group.  I can't find much info on how it's really supposed to work, but I'm willing to wager that it's just another example of credit cards on a smartphone.
1711  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: I lost my job, because of bitcoins! on: December 10, 2012, 08:13:14 PM
Please overread my sentences and give me a pn with a correction.

Till today I was working as a taxi driver in germany. I put some stickers up on the car windows that iam accepting bitcoins. So am i. But my boss didnt know anything about bitcoin and that iam accepting them.

Today a  customer called my company and asked for the taxi that is accepting bitcoins. So everybody knows and I got fired because i did it without his permission.

I told all my customers about bitcoin and sold some of them my coins. But now iam workless because of bitcoins. that suxs.



I feel for your loss but you should of asked before hand on such a major change like payment methods.  I can see him being upset and not trusting because you took this initiative before consulting him.   Have you heard of Uber?   Get a town car and maybe try that?



I live in germany. There is no uber or town car! Please  give me some donations to fund my own cab business

Try Flinc
1712  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 10, 2012, 07:17:30 PM
Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...


Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?
Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333595#msg1333595


This is your exact quote...

Quote
On the contrary, Jurius Naturalis, the child has rights. If you are violating them, I will intervene just as if I see a mugging on the street or one adult beating up another. If it's not OK for you to beat someone who has the ability to fight back, what makes you think it's OK to do it to someone who does not?

Emphasis is mine.  So you state that you would intervene as if I was a mugger attacking someone.  First off, this is  a dangerous position to take anyway, because not only do you really now know what is going on, whether or not you were correct you would be risking yourself for another. Perhaps a nobal goal, but you had better be damn sure that you're correct in your initial assumptions.  There are cases of people going to jail for intervening in conflicts for which their assumptions were incorrect.

But back to my point.  You state that you would intervene as if I were a mugger on the street.  Am I to assume that you would intervene by trying to reason with me?  Of course not.  The implication here is that you would do one of two things; either you would intervene using force of your own, or call the police to do it for you.  It should be obvious enough that you didn't mean the latter, sicne you are so opposed to government monopolies, I should rationally be able to assume you ment the former.  If you really believed that what I was doing was criminal, and that you had some obligation to stop it, by what logic would you depend upon retoric?

Quote
The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333819#msg1333819

And this is the quote wherein you deny the obvious interpretation...

Quote
Oh, I have no intention of attempting to kidnap your child, nor of calling the police (or in an AnCap society, a defense agency) on you. But I am for damn sure going to step in and stop you from beating your child in front of me. We would likely have something of this very conversation, right there in the street.

Again, emphasis is mine.  Again, you you state that you are "damn sure" going to step in and stop me from "beating" my child in front of me.  Again, you had better be certain of your interpretation of the situtation.  But how would be certain to do such a thing?  You follow up with the bullshit that we would have such a discussion on the street.  No we would not, because in order for you to stop me, you would have had to come between us.  Do you really imagine that you would be negotiating with anyone at this point.  I pride myself on my level-headed-ness, but I know that I'd be in condition 2 before you had the chance to speak.  Anyone more jumpy and armed and you'd be a gurgling mass.


EDIT:  More precisely, I'd be in Condition Orange.  I'm generally in Condition 2 when I carry, so the immediate shift would be mental, from Yellow to Orange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Combat_Mindset.E2.80.94The_Cooper_Color_Code
Quote
I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation.  Grin

You'll get neither from me, as I still contend that I interpreted the situation correctly.  You may, once again, try backpedaling from your original statements, and pretend that you didn't ever intend it the way you said it; or you could man up and admit that you were implying that you would really have 'intervened' exactly as I interpreted it.
1713  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin major fail - doesn't allow credit creation (aka deflationary currency) on: December 10, 2012, 06:51:45 PM
No one, not even the miners, can generate new bitcoins beyond the limits of the protocol.  FRB is not possible using actual bitcoins.

If FRB = Fractional Reserve Banking then you're wrong, it's perfectly possible to do it with bitcoins, as it was possible to do it with gold.


We are talking about two different things, I think.  FRB with gold was different than modern FRB.  With gold, the bank would usually be lending by offering a promisary note or a warehouse receipt based upon gold that was kept in the bank.  It was really just faith in that bank that they could actually perform should the deal go sour, not really that there was that much gold available.  While it's possible for a bitcoin bank to do something similar, the network (which the bitcoin economy is dependent upon) will not accept promises or warehouse receipts, only actual bitcoins.  If a bitcoin bank were to sell CD based upon the idea that those bitcoins would be lent back out, yes FRB would work, but that would be more like the free banking era after the Civil War, not the modern version of FRB.  Yet, such a bank would have to be open and honest about such a thing, and keep whatever on-demand accounts that it maintained completely seperate from those lending funds, or a run would eventually destroy them.  Such things happened on a regular basis during the free banking era, as bank owners got to greedy and too confident that customers wouldn't ever lose faith.  If a bank were to offer bitcoin bonds, and then lend those funds out in loans, the honesty of the pattern might just permit things to work.  Practically, however, modern banks don't work this way.  A modern verison of a bank actually gets it's 10% reserve requirement from savings accounts of all kinds, and then lends out funds that have never existed to 9 times that original deposit amount.  It's the implicit backing of the central banking (and thus taxpayers) that permit such an activity.
1714  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin major fail - doesn't allow credit creation (aka deflationary currency) on: December 10, 2012, 01:42:06 PM
I don't see there is any big difference in FRB in BTC's form: BTC could also be loaned out again and again and people summarize all the loaned out sum together and 1BTC becomes 10BTC deposit impression etc...

The miners acting as central bank, they generate new BTC, they could loan out them to BTC banks and BTC banks loan out them further. The money supply (coin generation) speed is very stable and halv each 4 year

The biggest difference comparing with USD, is that FED change the money supply speed in order to reach price stablility, e.g. the USD should keep its value relatively stable. But BTC money supply speed could not be changed, so the price of BTC changes very fast, and that bring much more difficulty for a loan: You never know how much you gonna pay back when you borrow from a BTC bank

No one, not even the miners, can generate new bitcoins beyond the limits of the protocol.  FRB is not possible using actual bitcoins.
1715  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 10, 2012, 12:15:20 AM
Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...


Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?
Be my guest...If you can.

Here, let me help: This is the post in which I first stated that I would intervene if I saw you beating your child, just as I would intervene if I saw a mugging or assault...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333595#msg1333595

And here is the reply in which you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I would be snatching your child from you...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333687#msg1333687

The response to that one, in which I explicitly deny that claim...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333819#msg1333819

And your response to my response, in which you stated you would reply with deadly force...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123798.msg1333845#msg1333845
(Note, the quotes are messed up, so that your response comes under the heading "Quote" and my statement to which you are responding comes under the heading "Quote from MoonShadow," because you cut out a reply of your own - specifically, the one from the second link, above - and incorrectly judged the number of tags to remove.)

I'll accept apology in the form of a public statement, and/or monetary compensation.  Grin

I'll review this at a later date.
1716  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 10, 2012, 12:14:49 AM

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.


I have to agree with MoonShadow here. One funny thing about libertarians is that they often start from the proposition that everyone is free to do as they like and then end with the conclusion that everyone must behave in exactly the same way.

Though I think MoonShadow is an idiot and making bad decisions about how to raise his children, I don't think the children should take them away from him or that any other kind of intervention should take place. Children should only be removed if the corporal punishment MoonShadow's children suffer is sufficiently bad that they would be better off in foster homes. Evidence suggests that abuse has to be very severe before children are better off being separated from their parents.

MoonShadow is nowhere near as stupid as Myrkul.



My home is a foster home.  I agreed, by contract and in advance, to monthly visits by social workers.  My methods are not considered abuse by the state social structure.  Even so, I additionally agreed to not use corporal punishment of any form on the two foster boys, because they were removed from a physically abusive home.  The father avoided prison by surrendering his parental rights.  I abide by my agreements.
1717  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 09, 2012, 02:38:36 AM

Quote
Quote
as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.


No, our disagreement is more basic than that.  I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point.  My poin is 'who gets to decide'?  The answer is, I do and you do not.  I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively.  Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives?  That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware.  The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware.  You will be.  I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting.  However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method.  Among those who did; one has two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out.  Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.
Your logical fallacy is...


Ha!  That one almost works, except I wasn't using that anecdote as an argument, I was using as an example. 

Your readiness to jump to that site to discredit your detractors is arguablely...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Quote

I'm quite aware that I might fuck up in raising my kids...I worry about it every day. But I fail to see how treating them with the respect due a fellow human being could be the cause of that fuck up.


You fail to see many things, young man, than you are likely to revisit many times.  One likely failure is your assumption that your daughters are likely to respect you back, or even agree with your political & moral  perspectives.  Then again, they might, and you are just as likely to forever view your parentals styles as the root cause, and it's just as likely as not to be so.  You aslo presume that conditioning a toddler to associate dangerous activities with pain is necessarily "disrespect".
Quote

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.
And you, by leaving those options on the table, have undermined the rest of your parenting strategy:


Perhaps, perhaps not.  You rally don't know the details of my parenting strategy, beyond the fact that I'm unwilling to exclude corporeal punishment from consideration.  You have no idea how rear or common my use of same may be.  You also don't care; again, the black and white fallacy.


Quote
Quote
and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
No... Are you saying that there is some third option besides "corporal punishment is abuse" and "corporal punishment is not abuse"? Because it is my position that it is, and if you are in opposition to my position, then your position must be that it is not, or this mysterious third position.

You keep switching from this argument to a "practical" argument "corporeal punishment is harmful" and back.  It's the practical argument for which you are false that such things are black and white.  Such risks of harm run along a continuum, for which I am aware.

Your "corporal punishment is abuse" argument is invalid simply because you don't get to decide that question.  Again I do, not you.  Period.

Quote
if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.
Oh, MoonShadow... you were the last person I expected to use this one with...
Your logical fallacy is...


Nonsene.  I don't put any words into your mouth.  I din't claim that you would do something that you didn't state.  You said it, should I quote you?

Quote
I never said I would take your kid. I never even said I would lay a hand on them. I said I would tell you to stop. To which, I might add, you stated that you would reply with deadly force...

Okay, we're going to have to dive back into the thread history.  But not today.  Time for bed.
1718  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 09, 2012, 12:53:52 AM
Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature;
Quote
Corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.
Sure seems violent to me. Unless "deliberate infliction of pain" isn't violence under your definition?

First off, I have already stated that I don't accept your definitions, because they also presume the conclusions that you seek.  Shall I get out your "yourfallacyis" links out next?

Second, there are many forms of pain that do not require violence; so no, those are not equatible statements.

Furthermore, not all forms of corporal punishment actually involve pain.

Quote
Here, let me help you:


Quote
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization



Your argument is invalid.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Quote
Quote
as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
Where we differ, I think, is in the portion I have underlined. You claim that your intentional use of force, or the threat of same, will not cause psychological harm or maldevelopment. I contend that it does, and that the evidence of that fact is all around you.


No, our disagreement is more basic than that.  I do contest the validity of your perceptions, but that is actually beside the point.  My poin is 'who gets to decide'?  The answer is, I do and you do not.  I do, singularly; and you do not, even collectively.  Could I be wrong and end up screwing up my kids' lives?  That remains a possibility for which I am ever aware.  The same rings true for you, however; which does ot seem to be something for which you are aware.  You will be.  I have met many young parents (and childless couples) who advocate for such a "zero corporeal punishment" style of parenting.  However, I have met very few older parents who stuck to that method.  Among those who did; one has two boys in prison, one has one child who is a drug addict, one has a daughter who was pregnent at 15, and one has an adult son that never moved out.  Obviously, these same parents also had many other children who were not so screwed up, but I'd wager that some non-neglible percentagle of their grandchildren will either 1) end up screwed up or 2) be raised without such a zero-corporel punishment theories.

Granted, my children can end up screwed up in different ways.  However, each of my children are treated as individuals, so their bad habits are addressesed individually.  You do not have any means to address certain behaviors (should your daughters express such bad habits) because you have already excluded such options.
Quote
and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.

Yes, that's rather the point of the comic. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.

And yet your are failing....

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

..because I can actually justify my own actions, therefore I'm not the hypocrite here.  You are trying to apply your own interpretations of the NAP, and your own (cherrypicked) definitions of certain magic words in a futile attempt to convince myself that your interpretation is the correct one.  I have my own interpretations, and there is nothing that you can do about that without using force against me.  Something that you have already stated you would be willing to do.  All that arguing with statists that ancap societies would be tolerant of subcultures that disagree with the NAP, such as hippie communes, and may or may not use force internally; and you rush right to the use of force (individually or collectively) when confronted with a contrived situation for which you find beyond your own capacity to tolerate.  No matter how you spin it, or how it would work out in the real world; if you were to touch a child that was not your's in a public space, with the obvious intent of removing said child from their parents (regardless of what cause you may have) you have just initiated the cycle of violence.  Your interpretations in this context become irrelevent.
1719  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin major fail - doesn't allow credit creation (aka deflationary currency) on: December 09, 2012, 12:20:02 AM
Deflation is a separate issue from credit creation. In a healthy economy there should be deflation. All goods should be getting cheaper relative to the money supply.

Fractional reserve banking is not necessarily inflationary. Under the gold standard there was fractional reserve banking and healthy deflation (goods became cheaper). There is nothing immoral or wrong about fractional reserve banking. The problem is the coercive monopoly (read: inefficiency) of central banking put into place by government regulation and legislation.

Taken alone, this is true enough.  In practice, however, fractional reserve banking has too many flaws that can be manipulated by certain people with particular positions.  Experience tells us that any advantage that such flaws may create will be taken advantage of by someone eventually, and will continue to be taken advantage of even to the detriment of the entire system.

So while not actually evil, fractional reserve banking is certainly amoral, offering no net benefits to the populace in the long run.  The gold standard functioned as a limiting factor upon those who would have taken advantage, and thus delayed the breakdown of the system for much longer, but ultimately the breakdown still had to occur by some method or another.  Likewise, central banking delayed the greater of those flaws for some time, but at the cost of permitting such flaws to spread to the whole of the system before they are catastropic; so rather than simply a regional problem that destroys a few local banks, they become problems that grow to the point that they threaten the entire economy at once.

People will kill other people with government. People will kill other people without government. Businesses will do fraudulent things whether there is government or not. No matter what situation, someone will find a way to take advantage of it if they really want to. So yes, someone will find a way to take advantage of fractional reserve banking like they would anything else. Does that mean that there will a "breakdown of the system?" Probably not. Fractional reserve banking in a free market world may put some businesses and banks out of business, but just because one bank or individual in a bank took advantage of fractional reserve banking doesn't mean all banks will go out of business and destroy the world as we know it today in some apocalypse that you see coming from fractional reserve banking.

Were you not paying attention for the past five years?  Or did you swear off bad news?
1720  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin major fail - doesn't allow credit creation (aka deflationary currency) on: December 09, 2012, 12:18:33 AM
Deflation is a separate issue from credit creation. In a healthy economy there should be deflation. All goods should be getting cheaper relative to the money supply.

Fractional reserve banking is not necessarily inflationary. Under the gold standard there was fractional reserve banking and healthy deflation (goods became cheaper). There is nothing immoral or wrong about fractional reserve banking. The problem is the coercive monopoly (read: inefficiency) of central banking put into place by government regulation and legislation.

Taken alone, this is true enough.  In practice, however, fractional reserve banking has too many flaws that can be manipulated by certain people with particular positions.  Experience tells us that any advantage that such flaws may create will be taken advantage of by someone eventually, and will continue to be taken advantage of even to the detriment of the entire system.

So while not actually evil, fractional reserve banking is certainly amoral, offering no net benefits to the populace in the long run.  The gold standard functioned as a limiting factor upon those who would have taken advantage, and thus delayed the breakdown of the system for much longer, but ultimately the breakdown still had to occur by some method or another. 

The only way to hold off the collapse indefinitely and to limit the damage that fractional reserve banking can do is to use the same system the Chinese banks did. Schedule a bank run every week or so. Demand silver - or gold, or Bitcoins - for your deposit slips. Keeps 'em honest.

That was Hong Kong prior to WWII, not the Chinese in general; but yes, that would keep things honest.
Pages: « 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 [86] 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 ... 368 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!