My avatar!!!  Off-topic? Only if you haven't been looking at Meta since the site was hacked  |
|
|
|
My avatar!!! |
|
|
|
Yep, not just the zerohedgers, even the Gold & silver bugs in kitcoforums, the infowarers at the alex jones website fit the description you mention. The Ron Paul forum libertarians seems to have some sanity in adopting bitcoin.
Here they have the answer they've been waiting for all their lives and yet they mock it and laugh it off.
There exists, in this world, a group of people named "skeptics"; though I do believe a healthy dose of doubt makes for a very rational character, complete and utter doubt in everything makes a person nutters, e.g. "Illuminati plots! NWO OWC!" These folks don't really care for a change, they just want to shit on everything and hope the world burns with them on it. |
|
|
|
5.  5 is important to statists, it would seem; all the ones I've met seem to care deeply about the environment and animal rights and ending poverty etc. etc., and seem to believe that the state is the only way to get this done. I'm guessing this relates to the whole "Every man for himself" thing that tags along with the stereotypical anarchist society, aside from "chaos, destruction, bodies everywhere!" |
|
|
|
I became libertarian:
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97
Most people are libertarian, they just don't realize it; it's not something generally taught in schools, for apparent reasons. |
|
|
|
|
The following is a list of reasons, in no specific order, why Anarchism will fail--or so I've been told or something...
1. "It's in our nature to participate in coercive hierarchies."
2. "Who would build the X?" [Roads, hospitals, tanks]
3. "Warlords!"
4. "It's every man for himself; who will protect the elderly and the orphans?"
5. "Who would fix/stop the X?" [Climate, animal abuse, wars]
6. "Who would print the money?"
7. "Nobody wants to live like cavemen."
8. "Who would regulate the market failures?"
9. "Who would give me X?" [Welfare, SS, "free stuff"]
And, of course:
10. "There would be no law/order. There would be chaos."
|
|
|
|
Charles Stross, 48, is a full-time science fiction writer and resident of Edinburgh, Scotland.  Exactly who you would expect: pudgy liberal neckbeard stuck in his own world. |
|
|
|
|
What are your political views?
|
|
|
|
|
You can invest money into money, I believe, though this sounds more like a conversion to me.
|
|
|
|
That is an episode mostly on multi level marketting. If bitcoin is mentioned it is somewhere later in the episode, can someone link it with a "starting at" option for the start point of the bitcoin discussion? (if any) EDIT: I watched the entire episode, there is not a single mention of bitcoin, it was entirely about network marketing Thanks for going through it; Daichi was just making a funny after all  |
|
|
|
|
I think it's funny that some people are so unconcerned about human rights that they really have nothing more to be active about than the weather.
|
|
|
|
so we should be happy that centralized governments will try to do anything and everything to destroy cryptocurrencies?
What would you do if they were championing bitcoin? |
|
|
|
And while we're on the subject, I'm kind of disappointed that we haven't heard from creationists on this thread yet. Who will volunteer to debunk evolution in under three sentences?
Heck, I can do it in three words: God did it. |
|
|
|
|
I don't like the trickle down effect; it's too nice sounding. We should use a more accurate name; let's call it, scraps from the table effect.
|
|
|
|
Not surprised this behavior stems from a man in the bubble of academia. I'd like to think, in a normal world, this man's reputation would be completely tarnished and nobody would want to interact with him anymore, but I know this isn't true. |
|
|
|
You back a money like you back a leader; neither count without believers, otherwise gold would just be shiny yellowish metal and a leader would be a regular Joe. In the case of money, a backing is a measure of how many people endorse that object as their choice of money.
I have already explained to this board what backing means. No need to make up your own definitions, just so that bitcoin fits in nicely. Backing is a guarantee (strong or weak) that the medium of exchange will retain its purchasing power. That's exactly what I said. Where do you think this guarantee comes from? In regards to paper dollars: the state In regards to gold: its beautiful, humans have always lusted after it In regards to bitcoin: there is no backing. Your intentions are clear; you're not clever. The state is backed by people, the state backs the dollar, ergo the dollar is guaranteed by the user. Gold is backed by people, ergo gold is guaranteed by the user. Bitcoin is backed by people, ergo bitcoin is guaranteed by the user. Refuse to acknowledge the truth if you please, just don't do it publicly; it's degrading, and nobody will take you seriously if you continue this behavior. |
|
|
|
You back a money like you back a leader; neither count without believers, otherwise gold would just be shiny yellowish metal and a leader would be a regular Joe. In the case of money, a backing is a measure of how many people endorse that object as their choice of money.
I have already explained to this board what backing means. No need to make up your own definitions, just so that bitcoin fits in nicely. Backing is a guarantee (strong or weak) that the medium of exchange will retain its purchasing power. That's exactly what I said. Where do you think this guarantee comes from? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
