Bitcoin Forum
September 03, 2015, 09:25:56 PM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [Torrent]
 
  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 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.
1702  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.
1703  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?
1704  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.
1705  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin major fail - doesn't allow credit creation (aka deflationary currency) on: December 08, 2012, 11:18:25 PM
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.
1706  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money on: December 08, 2012, 11:08:01 PM
Spanking as a pre-emptive conditioning measure:




Once again, you are presuming that corporal punishment is necessarily violent by it's nature; and you are always presuming that, violent or not, said punishment isn't justifiable or authorized.  I contest both those unstated premises, and you willfully avoid the topic because we cannot agree upon first principles.
1707  Other / Politics & Society / Re: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists on: December 08, 2012, 11:04:04 PM

Then let me rephrase:
Is it still murder if you kill a murderer?

Depends upon the conditions, of course, since the very word "murder" implys an unjust killing.
Indeed. I would consider counter-trolling to be fighting fire with fire. Killing the murderer, while he is in the act of attempting murder. NAP as applied to forum behavior. If you initiate trolling, you should not be surprised, no complain, if you get trolled back.

I do see your point here, and I actually do agree.  However, I must point out that our resident Krugman fan is correct; it's still better to not feed the troll, even if you have the right to respond in kind.  Trolls are often only after the joy of causing an emotional response, and ignoring them simply removes the reward for this activity.
1708  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin major fail - doesn't allow credit creation (aka deflationary currency) on: December 08, 2012, 01:04:34 PM
The world has used gold as money for thousands of years because its purchasing power cannot be inflated away by governments and banks. Gold is mined at roughly the same pace as the increase in world population.

Well, you are forgetting 17th century southern Europe when Spain imported so much plundered gold from the New World that it caused widespread inflation.

This raises an interesting questions: Is bitcoin (or something like it) the final nail in coffin of nationalism? Once everyone's using the same money... doesn't that largely remove the need for government beyond the local level?



By itself, no. 
1709  Other / Politics & Society / Re: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists on: December 08, 2012, 12:58:23 PM
Just ask a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Is it still trolling if you troll the trolls?

The answer is in the question.

Then let me rephrase:
Is it still murder if you kill a murderer?

Depends upon the conditions, of course, since the very word "murder" implys an unjust killing.
1710  Other / Politics & Society / Deck the Halls with Macro Follies.... on: December 07, 2012, 10:08:46 PM
http://cafehayek.com/2012/12/the-very-talented-mr-papola.html

New bit from EconoStories
1711  Other / Politics & Society / Re: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists on: December 07, 2012, 09:44:01 PM
Just ask a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Is it still trolling if you troll the trolls?

It's "trolling" when I say the truth. It "isn't trolling" when he calls me names, or OP posts a slanderous fabrication that will anger many libertarians.

Remember when I spoke about the tactic of insulting? OK, so... there you go.

You are proving my point.  And no, responding to slanderous fabrications with more of the same isn't helping.
1712  Other / Politics & Society / Re: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists on: December 07, 2012, 09:42:28 PM
Just ask a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Is it still trolling if you troll the trolls?

The answer is in the question.
1713  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Mt. Gox skims off the top? on: December 07, 2012, 09:22:41 PM
Are you making an accusation?  Or just speculating?

A, B, and C:

wanting someone to tell me whats going on

MtGox openly takes a small percentage of the transfer as a fee.  It's been a while since I messed with MtGox at all, but last I checked, they state that orders should execute at the actual price plus fee even if the bid amount is higher than the ask.

and im assuming if someones selling at 13.50 and another at 13.49 if someone bids 13.50 they should first takeout the guy selling at 13.49 not skip him,


That's been my experience, yes.

Quote
but they always charge the bid price, so where does that extra money go?!

Nowhere.  While I have done this kind of thing (not recently and not at this kind of price level), when I put in a bid that is over that of the best ask, I'm charged for the best ask for as many bitcoins as were available at that price.  My account balance doesn't change based upon how much I bid, but how much that actual sale was for, plus fee.
1714  Other / Politics & Society / Re: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists on: December 07, 2012, 09:17:39 PM
Here is the deal: statists will say any lie to prevent the truth of what the state does from being discovered and propagated.  When they run out of lies, they switch to the tactic of insulting. At this point, their sociopathic tendencies are pretty obvious from their behavior. Their while goal (even as they are not aware of it) is to sabotage any thought that might expose their belief system as sociopathic. That is why they spare no vitriol for voluntarism.

Once you understand this as their goal, their character as ebwitting saboteurs, my job becomes much easier. I am not out to convince the sociopaths - that would be sisyphean and futile - I am only out to have them expose themselves.

Just rrk a few questions, laugh at the right idiocies, and the sociopaths will do the rest of the job of neutralizing themselves.

While correct, that's still trolling; you know that, right?

Rudd-O, I often cring when you jump into a conversation, because I both tend to find your participation to be both provocative & content-lite, as well as often arguing on my own side.  As a moderator, I find this to be an aggravation.  For while I often find your comments funny, they usually lack any particular merit.  This very comment is more civil than your norm, but otherwise typical.
1715  Other / Politics & Society / Re: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists on: December 07, 2012, 09:00:35 PM
What makes anyone actually think the interpretation of this cartoon is the foundation for anything that qualifies as rigorous argument?

No one, but it's fun to watch you guys flop around.
1716  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Mt. Gox skims off the top? on: December 07, 2012, 08:59:12 PM
Are you making an accusation?  Or just speculating?

A, B, and C:

wanting someone to tell me whats going on

MtGox openly takes a small percentage of the transfer as a fee.  It's been a while since I messed with MtGox at all, but last I checked, they state that orders should execute at the actual price plus fee even if the bid amount is higher than the ask.
1717  Other / Politics & Society / Re: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists on: December 07, 2012, 08:56:09 PM
art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.

It's certainly the first time I've seen him use it. (Other than, of course, his constant reliance on Democracy.)

Hmm, yeah I guess faith in democracy would be a special case of this.  I wonder if simply referencing opinion polls would qualify, since I've done this one myself. I know that polls don't actually count as an argument, but I wonder if there is a finely definable limit as to what their usefulness as supporting evidence actually is.
1718  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: USD cash deposit for BTC. on: December 07, 2012, 08:52:31 PM
Bitinstant.com or Coinbase.com are two good ones.
1719  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Mt. Gox skims off the top? on: December 07, 2012, 08:50:21 PM
Are you making an accusation?  Or just speculating?
1720  Other / Politics & Society / Re: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists on: December 07, 2012, 08:47:04 PM
art peace love liberal: About 4,910,000 results (0.61 seconds)

art peace love libertarian: 4 results, and then it says "Results for similar searchs" with about 1,120,000 results.

Ooh! A new one!

Your logical fallacy is...

This really is quite fun. Like playing Whack-a-mole with fallacies. Whack-a-fallacy.

Yeah, that's the first time I've ever seen a popularty/bandwagon argument used on an Internet forum, although it's a pretty common one to be used by my wife's family.
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!