Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Arriemoller]

The problem is adjudicating between different tribal moralities. Cooperation evolved like morality evolved, to solve in-group problems. There doesn't seem to be anything analogous in dealing with out-group problems. America is torn between northern herders and southern herders. What do?

That's the problem that the nation states solved in the 1800s
The nation became the new tribe to witch all belonged.
Now that the left is disassembling the nation states tribalism returns. Woman against men, different ethnicities against each other, different religions against each other, and so on.

[HairyMaclairy]

Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?

Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now.

Examples:
Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not.

Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding.

Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second.

As a hard left socialist, Child B is not getting any cake.

[Last of the V8s]

[Arriemoller]

amendments are changes to the constitution

Aren't they ad ons to the constitution?
I realize that they can change the meaning of the constitution, but can the actual wording of the constitution be altered?

[HairyMaclairy]

amendments are changes to the constitution

Aren't they ad ons to the constitution?
I realize that they can change the meaning of the constitution, but can the actual wording of the constitution be altered?

Yes and yes.  An amendment can delete part of the Constitution in an additive way. For example, a Constitutional amendment could be added that repeals the federal Senate and all clauses of the Constitution in relation to the Senate. From that day forward, the Senate would be deleted.

Technically you are adding another layer, but new layers can change old layers.  The most extreme example would be a Constitutional amendment that repeals the Constitution itself, at which point the whole thing disappears in a puff of smoke.

[bitserve]

Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?

Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now.

Examples:
Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not.

Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding.

Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second.

In that example, I don't think any sane person would think the second is reasonable, no matter if left or anything.... It would be somewhat arguable if instead of pudding we were talking that A needs some money for medicines but he doesn't get it because he didn't mow the lawn, and dies. Also, it would be good to know the rules beforehand, ie:

No lawn mowning, no pudding or even no lawn mowning no medicines. Then, only not following the pre established rules would be unfair.

[Last of the V8s]

[Arriemoller]

Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?

Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now.

Examples:
Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not.

Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding.

Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second.

As a hard left socialist, Child B is not getting any cake.

As a hard left socialist you would take the cake, set up a state agency who's job it is to split the cake fairly, give one piece of the cake to that agency, give some to the party, waste some in the process and then give back a tiny amount to the children after they have applied for a piece at said agency.

[Globb0]

Please help.

I have been mining for bitcoin at home for 2 years now and found nothing.

How deep do I have to go?

200m and now my house has fallen into the hole, the government man says I have to stop immediately.

What should I do?

[HairyMaclairy]

I see the Republicans are trying to start a trade war with Europe.  I guess the right doesn’t believe in free trade anymore.  Free trade has always been more of a socialist thing.

[jojo69]

Please help.

I have been mining for bitcoin at home for 2 years now and found nothing.

How deep do I have to go?

200m and now my house has fallen into the hole, the government man says I have to stop immediately.

What should I do?

[explorer]

Please help.

I have been mining for bitcoin at home for 2 years now and found nothing.

How deep do I have to go?

200m and now my house has fallen into the hole, the government man says I have to stop immediately.

What should I do?

Screw the government!   Keep Digging!  No law against mining bitcoin in your basement.  Damn interfering bureaucrats always sticking their noses in

[Globb0]

bah just keep turning up this useless gold stuff,  they have that pegged already

[Arriemoller]

Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?

Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now.

Examples:
Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not.

Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding.

Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second.

In that example, I don't think any sane person would think the second is reasonable, no matter if left or anything.... It would be somewhat arguable if instead of pudding we were talking that A needs some money for medicines but he doesn't get it because he didn't mow the lawn, and dies. Also, it would be good to know the rules beforehand, ie:

No lawn mowning, no pudding or even no lawn mowning no medicines. Then, only not following the pre established rules would be unfair.

It's just to exemplify the two types of fairness, We can ad that the rules are known beforehand if that is more to everybody's liking, it's not important.

[explorer]

bah just keep turning up this useless gold stuff,  they have that pegged already

Save it anyway.  it makes good shielding on the spaceship.

[bitserve]

Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?

Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now.

Examples:
Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not.

Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding.

Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second.

In that example, I don't think any sane person would think the second is reasonable, no matter if left or anything.... It would be somewhat arguable if instead of pudding we were talking that A needs some money for medicines but he doesn't get it because he didn't mow the lawn, and dies. Also, it would be good to know the rules beforehand, ie:

No lawn mowning, no pudding or even no lawn mowning no medicines. Then, only not following the pre established rules would be unfair.

It's just to exemplify the two types of fairness, We can ad that the rules are known beforehand if that is more to everybody's liking, it's not important.

Well, if the rules are clear beforehand, and A knows that he won't get money for medicines even if that means dieing, then he has to die for not mowning the lawn (it is HIS decision). There can be some exceptions as if he is disabled and therefore can't do it or is incapable of understanding the rules due to some mental issues. Acting otherwise would be completely unfair.

P.S.: I think I have some "leftist" inclinations for making some exceptions in relation to protect the weak (not the lazy though).

[Arriemoller]

I see the Republicans are trying to start a trade war with Europe.  I guess the right doesn’t believe in free trade anymore.  Free trade has always been more of a socialist thing.

They might shoot themselves in the foot there. Some Swedish companies with plants in the US that uses steel think that the steel price in the US will go up if the higher import duties for steel are imposed. In that case they are considering closing  the plants because they will no longer be profitable.

But our prime minister is on his way over with a trade delegation to explain basic economics to him.

[DonQuijote]

@CobraBitcoin https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/970736614275153926

Increased my holdings of Bitcoin Cash today. There was a long need for a blockchain good for payments, that makes certain tradeoffs to achieve that, and I think from a UX point of view, Bitcoin Cash has much better chances of winning the upcoming payments war than LN.
7:03 PM - 5 Mar 2018

@CobraBitcoin
Bitcoin Cash is a parasite coin that aims to undermine and suck value out of Bitcoin. It’s not like other altcoins. We should be prepared for a BCH pump during fork which could have unpredictable effects on miner incentives and harm the true Bitcoin block chain.
11:53 AM - 8 Nov 2017
@CobraBitcoin
Funny watching the Bitcoin Cash echo chamber @rogerkver has built slowly turn against him and his bullshit.
4:22 PM - 9 Nov 2017

I guess Ver bought his account?

Many people change bull/bear when they buy/sell

[Arriemoller]

Thought experiment. Two tribes, the northern herders and the southern herders. The northern herders, the collectivists, agree to live according to the common good, such that no man would starve in time of plenty. The southern herders, the individualists, agree to live according to individual rights. A man may go hungry in the south, but all community action is voluntary on principle. Is there any sensible way in which one tribe can be called more moral than the other? Is there some metamorality by which we can make sense of this?

Isn't that more fairness than moral. There is two "types" of fairness with fancy names that I don't remember right now.

Examples:
Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time only child B gets a piece of the pudding, A gets mad and says "that's not fair" mother replies that B mowed the lawn so it's only fair that he gets pudding and A do not.

Mother asks children A and B to mow the lawn. A can't be bothered, he plays video games instead, B mows the lawn. At tea time both children get's an equal piece of the pudding, B gets mad and says "that's not fair, I mowed the lawn", mother replies that it's unfair not to give both her children the same amount of pudding.

Both are valid examples of fairness, the right tend to lean towards the first example and the left towards the second.

In that example, I don't think any sane person would think the second is reasonable, no matter if left or anything.... It would be somewhat arguable if instead of pudding we were talking that A needs some money for medicines but he doesn't get it because he didn't mow the lawn, and dies. Also, it would be good to know the rules beforehand, ie:

No lawn mowning, no pudding or even no lawn mowning no medicines. Then, only not following the pre established rules would be unfair.

It's just to exemplify the two types of fairness, We can ad that the rules are known beforehand if that is more to everybody's liking, it's not important.

Well, if the rules are clear beforehand, and A knows that he won't get money for medicines even if that means dieing, then he has to die for not mowning the lawn (it is HIS decision). There can be some exceptions as if he is disabled and therefore can't do it or is incapable of understanding the rules due to some mental issues. Acting otherwise would be completely unfair.

Whatever way you lean, as I said it's just to exemplify, not to discuss the actions of the participants in the example.

[HairyMaclairy]

Well, if the rules are clear beforehand, and A knows that he won't get money for medicines even if that means dieing, then he has to die for not mowning the lawn (it is HIS decision). There can be some exceptions as if he is disabled and therefore can't do it or is incapable of understanding the rules due to some mental issues. Acting otherwise would be completely unfair.

P.S.: I think I have some "leftist" inclinations for making some exceptions in relation to protect the weak (not the lazy though).

What if the parents are very lazy and don’t mow the lawn, but the consequence is their children die?