Bitcoin Forum
January 24, 2022, 09:20:44 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Highest price we'll see in 2022:
50,000 - 7 (13%)
60,000 - 1 (1.9%)
70,000 - 4 (7.4%)
80,000 - 5 (9.3%)
90,000 - 3 (5.6%)
100,000 - 2 (3.7%)
125,000 - 11 (20.4%)
150,000 - 2 (3.7%)
175,000 - 2 (3.7%)
200,000 - 1 (1.9%)
225,000 - 4 (7.4%)
250,000 - 4 (7.4%)
275,000 - 1 (1.9%)
300,000 - 0 (0%)
>300,000 - 7 (13%)
Total Voters: 54

Pages: « 1 ... 19543 19544 19545 19546 19547 19548 19549 19550 19551 19552 19553 19554 19555 19556 19557 19558 19559 19560 19561 19562 19563 19564 19565 19566 19567 19568 19569 19570 19571 19572 19573 19574 19575 19576 19577 19578 19579 19580 19581 19582 19583 19584 19585 19586 19587 19588 19589 19590 19591 19592 [19593] 19594 19595 19596 19597 19598 19599 19600 19601 19602 19603 19604 19605 19606 19607 19608 19609 19610 19611 19612 19613 19614 19615 19616 19617 19618 19619 19620 19621 19622 19623 19624 19625 19626 19627 19628 19629 19630 19631 19632 19633 19634 19635 19636 19637 19638 19639 19640 19641 19642 19643 ... 30199 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 25530633 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (158 posts by 14 users with 9 merit deleted.)
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2996
Merit: 4641


Go! BTC Go!


View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:16:49 PM

lines on graphs.

Ahem. I remember those.

 Me too and they are looking very nice going forward.


Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1643059244
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1643059244

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1643059244
Reply with quote  #2

1643059244
Report to moderator
1643059244
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1643059244

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1643059244
Reply with quote  #2

1643059244
Report to moderator
1643059244
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1643059244

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1643059244
Reply with quote  #2

1643059244
Report to moderator
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2996
Merit: 4641


Go! BTC Go!


View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:19:46 PM

Out of three as if it makes any difference.  These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle.

Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time?

 I believe this falls under caveat emptor.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:20:18 PM

Out of three as if it makes any difference.  These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle.

Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time?
He does not. Or doesn't care, it makes no difference. His eventual answer will reflect this.

Like I said, the only thing lefties understand are personal consequences.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:21:00 PM

Out of three as if it makes any difference.  These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle.

Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time?

 I believe this falls under caveat emptor.

You are calling women objects there. Might want to check your male privilege.
Spaceman_Spiff_Original
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 417
Merit: 220



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:25:52 PM

I don't see how somebody who didn't put themselves and their own development (economical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) first would raise children. Such a person would have nothing to offer to their offspring and just propagate problems through generations instead of making improvements.
You appear to like thinking in absolutes.  Life doesn't work that way. If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her? There are moments when there is a tradeoff between what is best for you personally, and what is best for them.
I understand very well how life works. And making sure that I put myself in the best position that I possibly could from the above mentioned perspectives ensures that my children will be significantly better off than the children of somebody who chose to play along with their peers instead.

Do I have to argue out how being emotionally stable, intellectually honest, and financially independent are traits that would be beneficial for any child's parents to have?
You could start by actually responding to my argument, Mr. Intellectual Honesty.
You haven't made any arguments. You've brought up a random example that is pretty much irrelevant to the point. But let's entertain it. If I've made sure that I'm financially stable I will be capable of providing better health care to my child as a result.
You think having good health care means your children will never get sick?  Why don't you actually answer the question: If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her?
Trilogy-AI
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:31:09 PM

lines on graphs.

Ahem. I remember those.

 Me too and they are looking very nice going forward.


And now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

Inverted head and shoulders forming?
Spaceman_Spiff_Original
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 417
Merit: 220



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:32:05 PM

lines on graphs.

Ahem. I remember those.

 Me too and they are looking very nice going forward.


And now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

Inverted head and shoulders forming?
Looks more like a regular head and shoulders to me.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:34:47 PM

Out of three as if it makes any difference.  These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle.

Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time?

 I believe this falls under caveat emptor.

You are calling women objects there. Might want to check your male privilege.
Hey. Hey don't run off. This is serious. If a feminist saw what you just posted, they would dox you and get you fired. You better disavow yourself while you still have the chance.

(i'm not a feminist. don't worry, i wouldn't even dox you mate. just do the right thing.)
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 834



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:35:15 PM
Merited by edgar (1)

I don't see how somebody who didn't put themselves and their own development (economical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) first would raise children. Such a person would have nothing to offer to their offspring and just propagate problems through generations instead of making improvements.
You appear to like thinking in absolutes.  Life doesn't work that way. If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her? There are moments when there is a tradeoff between what is best for you personally, and what is best for them.
I understand very well how life works. And making sure that I put myself in the best position that I possibly could from the above mentioned perspectives ensures that my children will be significantly better off than the children of somebody who chose to play along with their peers instead.

Do I have to argue out how being emotionally stable, intellectually honest, and financially independent are traits that would be beneficial for any child's parents to have?
You could start by actually responding to my argument, Mr. Intellectual Honesty.
You haven't made any arguments. You've brought up a random example that is pretty much irrelevant to the point. But let's entertain it. If I've made sure that I'm financially stable I will be capable of providing better health care to my child as a result.
You think having good health care means your children will never get sick?  Why don't you actually answer the question: If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her?
Do you understand comparatives? I've specifically talked about better health care as a result of putting my own growth above hive mind before having children. And last I've checked better is a descriptor that indicates superiority over inferior instances.
But since that still doesn't seem to get into your head, here's another angle, from the same argument that I've already made multiple times now. If I've made sure to put myself first, which includes emotional stability, then I would still have a far easier time to give up my sleeping hours and be more capable of providing emotional support and soothing to my sick child.

If you put the same amount of effort into understanding my argument that you put into trying to make up some pointless example and trying to twist and bend it to make up nonsensical arguments you might actually get why making sure that you're fully self-responsible before having kids is the highest goal that any parent can achieve (as a person responsible for the life of a child).
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 834



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:38:01 PM

Out of three as if it makes any difference.  These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle.

Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time?

 I believe this falls under caveat emptor.

You are calling women objects there. Might want to check your male privilege.
Hey. Hey don't run off. This is serious. If a feminist saw what you just posted, they would dox you and get you fired. You better disavow yourself while you still have the chance.

(i'm not a feminist. don't worry, i wouldn't even dox you mate. just do the right thing.)
He might be talking about the jurisdictional decision. Which would bring me back to my point of the judge being irresponsible by risking the very same public order that he is supposed to uphold.
Spaceman_Spiff_Original
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 417
Merit: 220



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:44:36 PM

I don't see how somebody who didn't put themselves and their own development (economical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) first would raise children. Such a person would have nothing to offer to their offspring and just propagate problems through generations instead of making improvements.
You appear to like thinking in absolutes.  Life doesn't work that way. If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her? There are moments when there is a tradeoff between what is best for you personally, and what is best for them.
I understand very well how life works. And making sure that I put myself in the best position that I possibly could from the above mentioned perspectives ensures that my children will be significantly better off than the children of somebody who chose to play along with their peers instead.

Do I have to argue out how being emotionally stable, intellectually honest, and financially independent are traits that would be beneficial for any child's parents to have?
You could start by actually responding to my argument, Mr. Intellectual Honesty.
You haven't made any arguments. You've brought up a random example that is pretty much irrelevant to the point. But let's entertain it. If I've made sure that I'm financially stable I will be capable of providing better health care to my child as a result.
You think having good health care means your children will never get sick?  Why don't you actually answer the question: If your small kid is sick and crying in the night, will you offer up your hours of sleep for him/her?
Do you understand comparatives? I've specifically talked about better health care as a result of putting my own growth above hive mind before having children. And last I've checked better is a descriptor that indicates superiority over inferior instances.
But since that still doesn't seem to get into your head, here's another angle, from the same argument that I've already made multiple times now. If I've made sure to put myself first, which includes emotional stability, then I would still have a far easier time to give up my sleeping hours and be more capable of providing emotional support and soothing to my sick child.

If you put the same amount of effort into understanding my argument that you put into trying to make up some pointless example and trying to twist and bend it to make up nonsensical arguments you might actually get why making sure that you're fully self-responsible before having kids is the highest goal that any parent can achieve (as a person responsible for the life of a child).
I never made any claims that being a responsible and self-sufficient person isn't a great start for being a parent, in fact I agree with that.
For me it is strange that you don't see giving up your hours of sleep for someone else and always putting yourself first as logically conflicting, but I guess your personal definition of 'putting yourself first' is different from mine.
HairyMaclairy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 2174


Degenerate bull hatter & Bitcoin monotheist


View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:46:29 PM

To answer the earlier question, the biological father is a deadbeat in another country and irrelevant. The ex-wife takes reasonable care of the kids when they are in her custody and that’s all that really matters.  I don’t care for her other lifestyle choices but again irrelevant.  

My buddy now has a new wife. And she has taken on the stepchildren as her own as well. Even though none of them are hers, and one isn’t even his.  So all of you making a fuss about the kids not being biologically yours, do you think the new stepmom should kick these kids out of the house ?  Yeah I thought not.  
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1107



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:48:23 PM
Merited by ErisDiscordia (3), sirazimuth (2), kurious (1)

Thought experiment. On his way up the dusty trail to retrieve his silver stash, roach encounters ibian asleep. Afraid he might try to steal his silver on the way back down, roach considers poisoning ibian's whisky. And according to the logic of self-interest, he does. Later, ibian shoots roach and robs him. Then he drinks some whisky and dies.

Had roach and ibian cared more about the welfare of others and less about themselves, they would still be alive today.
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2996
Merit: 4641


Go! BTC Go!


View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:49:40 PM

Out of three as if it makes any difference.  These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle.

Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time?

 I believe this falls under caveat emptor.

You are calling women objects there. Might want to check your male privilege.
Hey. Hey don't run off. This is serious. If a feminist saw what you just posted, they would dox you and get you fired. You better disavow yourself while you still have the chance.

(i'm not a feminist. don't worry, i wouldn't even dox you mate. just do the right thing.)

 We never like to think that marriage and family as contractual yet we probably all know someone paying child support and/or alimony.  Marriage is a contract and it comes with certain legal rights and obligations.  So I would say that the term Caveat Emptor applies to either party - male or female.

Spaceman_Spiff_Original
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 417
Merit: 220



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:50:15 PM

Thought experiment. On his way up the dusty trail to retrieve his silver stash, roach encounters ibian asleep. Afraid he might try to steal his silver on the way back down, roach considers poisoning ibian's whisky. And according to the logic of self-interest, he does. Later, ibian shoots roach and robs him. Then he drinks some whisky and dies.

Had roach and ibian cared more about the welfare of others and less about themselves, they would still be alive today.
I lolled  Grin
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:50:35 PM

To answer the earlier question, the biological father is a deadbeat in another country and irrelevant. The ex-wife takes reasonable care of the kids when they are in her custody and that’s all that really matters.  I don’t care for her other lifestyle choices but again irrelevant.  

My buddy now has a new wife. And she has taken on the stepchildren as her own as well. Even though none of them are hers, and one isn’t even his.  So all of you making a fuss about the kids not being biologically yours, do you think the stepmom should kick these kids out of the house ?  Yeah I thought not.  
Make him pay for his own kids. It's the right thing to do. Isn't it? And if not, why not?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:51:43 PM

Thought experiment. On his way up the dusty trail to retrieve his silver stash, roach encounters ibian asleep. Afraid he might try to steal his silver on the way back down, roach considers poisoning ibian's whisky. And according to the logic of self-interest, he does. Later, ibian shoots roach and robs him. Then he drinks some whisky and dies.

Had roach and ibian cared more about the welfare of others and less about themselves, they would still be alive today.
Jokes on you, I never drink whisky. Or whiskey. Makes me barf. So the bug dies and I get to live. Everyone wins!
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:52:46 PM

Out of three as if it makes any difference.  These are little people not lines on graphs.
Let me try a different angle.

Do you see how the judges decision to force the man in question to pay for the child support of three children that are not biologically his own with a court order could set a precedent for some women to seek out men out of which they'd essentially extort child support by simply playing nice for a period of time?

 I believe this falls under caveat emptor.

You are calling women objects there. Might want to check your male privilege.
Hey. Hey don't run off. This is serious. If a feminist saw what you just posted, they would dox you and get you fired. You better disavow yourself while you still have the chance.

(i'm not a feminist. don't worry, i wouldn't even dox you mate. just do the right thing.)

 We never like to think that marriage and family as contractual yet we probably all know someone paying child support and/or alimony.  Marriage is a contract and it comes with certain legal rights and obligations.  So I would say that the term Caveat Emptor applies to either party - male or female.


Dude you are digging your own grave here. Nobody cares if you call men objects or even dismiss them outright, but you just called women objects AGAIN! Don't you care about yourself?
jojo69
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 3126


1/21000000 , the only math you need to know


View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:52:48 PM

Thought experiment. On his way up the dusty trail to retrieve his silver stash, roach encounters ibian asleep. Afraid he might try to steal his silver on the way back down, roach considers poisoning ibian's whisky. And according to the logic of self-interest, he does. Later, ibian shoots roach and robs him. Then he drinks some whisky and dies.

Had roach and ibian cared more about the welfare of others and less about themselves, they would still be alive today.

BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 834



View Profile
February 18, 2018, 11:54:11 PM

To answer the earlier question, the biological father is a deadbeat in another country and irrelevant. The ex-wife takes reasonable care of the kids when they are in her custody and that’s all that really matters.  I don’t care for her other lifestyle choices but again irrelevant.  

My buddy now has a new wife. And she has taken on the stepchildren as her own as well. Even though none of them are hers.  So all of you making a fuss about the kids not being biologically yours, do you think the stepmom should kick these kids out of the house ?  Yeah I thought not.  
You didn't answer the question. However much of a scumbag the biological father is doesn't matter in this argument, which is about setting a dangerous precedent that poses a serious threat to society.

Your buddy also has no relevance to this argument. Whatever choices he freely makes is entirely up to him. Using his choices as a justification for legally forcing somebody to pay for children that are not his is ridiculous.
Pages: « 1 ... 19543 19544 19545 19546 19547 19548 19549 19550 19551 19552 19553 19554 19555 19556 19557 19558 19559 19560 19561 19562 19563 19564 19565 19566 19567 19568 19569 19570 19571 19572 19573 19574 19575 19576 19577 19578 19579 19580 19581 19582 19583 19584 19585 19586 19587 19588 19589 19590 19591 19592 [19593] 19594 19595 19596 19597 19598 19599 19600 19601 19602 19603 19604 19605 19606 19607 19608 19609 19610 19611 19612 19613 19614 19615 19616 19617 19618 19619 19620 19621 19622 19623 19624 19625 19626 19627 19628 19629 19630 19631 19632 19633 19634 19635 19636 19637 19638 19639 19640 19641 19642 19643 ... 30199 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!