I wonder how much these Nobels cost, anyway?

Users of Bitcoin do not have their own special moral category; the warning that comes with bitcoin refers to the technology itself failing in some fashion, not the people who use it.  It's fraud under the following condition:


Which is precisely what double-spending is.

Accurate

I wasn't really impressed by the comic and was equally unimpressed by the comments   Bitcoin is not hard to understand to a person who is willing to understand it, the latter half of that statement being the core issue: selective understanding as a mechanism of defense, e.g. "Someone associated it with libertarianism/pyramid/ponzi ergo it's evil and stupid and deserves none of my time except to ridicule what little I know about it."

I don't read PA much tho, specifically because I don't find them funny, so I don't know much what a fan would think of it.

Still, I don't think it takes a genius to realize the relationship between skin pigment and life-after-birth has very little to do with nature, aside from the determining factor as to what that pigment will be; in the very least, it's not as extreme as this lady is trying to make it.  This article is written by a person who sticks with her own "kind", for I can see no reason why a person who actually interacts with a diverse group would ignore all empirical evidence to the contrary and instead opt for stereotypical fantasies; in other words, it's always the closed-minded racist who is first to project her racism upon others.

What a shame; I wouldn't trust another man to handle my money properly, unless I wanted him to keep it for himself--but then it wouldn't be my money anymore.  But since people go through most of their lives giving up money (except unlike TBF, at gunpoint) to strangers to pay for their roads, children's education and defense etc., I can see how such a mistake can go unnoticed to the individual who has yet to detect that his money is not being spent wisely (nor will it ever, if you average the times between other men handling your money properly vs. improperly).

The lesson to learn: if you honestly want your money to go to the best businesses and causes, you need to spend that money yourself.  We all learn it as children: be responsible.  You cannot have responsibility over that which beyond your control, nor is it beneficial to leave this trust unto others to be responsible in your absence, except when you actually do trust those people, and I've had some friends far longer than TBF has existed that I wouldn't trust with my money.  Honestly, it is a shame to see the good intentions of people misused, but such is the result for one who is not careful.

Am I the only one here who is deeply disturbed that a person with these views exists?--let alone all those who agree with her.

How does a person like this happen?

Why is scumbag okay, whilst nigger is not?  Is scumbag not derogatory or hateful?  If so, wouldn't placing "nigger" on a different moral category than "scumbag" be discriminatory?  And if not, calling the man a scumbag would be inappropriate, as it would not express disdain in the same way nigger would.

Either way, words change over time, and the usage of this word is shifting from a racial slur to indicate any individual who acts in a disagreeable manner:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/NIGGER
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nigger%20%2821st%20century%20definition%29
An offensive word that, despite its past usage as an racial slur, is now gaining popularity as a word to describe ignorant, ill mannered, or low-class people, without regard to their ethnicity.
That stupid nigger just pushed me and didn't apologize! People like that make me mad.

As Lethn pointed out, it's all about context, i.e. intent: if the intent is to offend through racism, then yes, I can see the problem, but if the intent is lacking racism, we cannot simply assume the individual wants to participate in racist activities (imagine if the majority userbase for this word were actually racist against each other--then again, many are.)

I recommend to not latch onto the idea of nigger being a racial slur, as this prolongs the misery of those who take offense, which I'm sure you would like to resolve; the sooner we agree that words such as these can only empower the racist, the sooner we rid ourselves of racism.  To censor yourself is an admission that the racist has power over you and his power is legitimate, neither of which I agree with, and I'm certain you could agree as well.  I'm sorry your sister and other such relatives had to go through that abuse--nobody deserves to be treated less than human--but remember that it is not the word which hurts: it is the intent.


Words can't do anything; it's language, abstractions.  What you mean to say is people did these things.

But going by your example, "democracy" fits that description much better and over a far longer stretch of time.

Right; signing a petition is the political version of the realistic event that is: doing nothing.

But guys, don't you understand?  How could it work any other way?

More evidence that the general populace is driven by fear alone

In conclusion, regulation is effective like a lucky rabbit's foot protects.

Why would a politician create a job?  Is he a businessman?

I don't understand why conservatives are mad about the liberals; they both support the republic and each contributed to the growth of the state today.  Now that the gun in the room is being used against them, only then do they have a problem?  This is their Frankenstein's monster, and waggling the finger at each other, as though one or the other is to blame for their tactics, only hides the fact that the monster is indeed a monster.

I'm ready for another Goxing; it brings me no end of amusement to see people burned time and time and time again.

Your definition of cooperation is so loose, it becomes impossible to see why slavery is no longer practiced--after all, the slaves and the slave-owners were cooperating, so it can't have been a big deal, right?  If the only difference between a slave and a citizen to you is whether they get struck by their owner on a regular basis, then it comes as no surprise why you accept and advocate the use of violence against your fellow man in the name of "cooperation" and attack anyone who dares ask that you stop.

Furthermore: why is it that only a man with the mentality of a child will demand that others "grow up"?  There's an extremely unusual phenomenon among much of society in which every negative quality the individual owns is projected onto others who clearly do not have them, thus allowing the individual to feel as though his traits are not negative, but normal; this concept even fits with an individual's belief systems, i.e. "Anarchy is chaos and the state is order," when clearly the opposite is true, as the individual cannot accept that his own beliefs are causing chaos in the world; anyone who asserts warfare and democide is justice and order needs to get out of his bubble, as there has never been so much chaos amongst human beings as with the state--lo and behold, you assert this exact same notion to someone else, but unlike me, without any reasoning or evidence as to why, ergo: the only other place you can get these baseless assertions from is within.

You have a propensity to lecture others on your beliefs due to your fatherhood, which has worked well on your children assuming you've stopped them from questioning anything you don't agree with, but works horrendously on anyone you have no power over, i.e. people who don't share your biases.  If you're not here to learn and grow, you're wasting your time: argument is not about winning, which is why you never will.

Step one: Overcome groupthink.
Step two: There is no step two.  Enjoy your new-found individuality, e.g. the ability to tell a good exchange from a bad one.

Yep, lots of this going on:



Biases successfully confirmed!

Also:
"The dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government" is a popular comment.

What does this mean?  Broken down, it seems to mean, "The dollar is backed by its users," assuming we are Big G, but that's precisely what Bitcoin is backed by, so going by in-the-matrix logic, what's the fundamental difference?  Is he drawing an "us vs. them" dichotomy, i.e. primarily drawn from the notion of patriotism?

I'm not sure you understand what the ignore function does.

CRAPITALISM (CRONYISM)
You have two cows.
The meat monopoly sues you for patent infringement.
You win the legal battle; you sell your cows to pay for your hundreds of thousands in legal bills.