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

[becoin]

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.

The land of the slaves "communist" China is promoting free trade while the land of the free "capitalist" US is promoting trade barriers. Go figure!

[bitserve]

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?

Lazy parents shouldn't have had children in first place!

No, really, it is the same than if I decide to buy 5 nice houses, all of them mortgaged, and I don't pay my mortgages... what would happen?

Responsible parenting FFS

[marcus_of_augustus]

Exceptions to rules never work, after much gaming of the system you then need a Director of Exceptions to adjudicate for all the weird and wonderful innovative excuses that are popping up claiming exceptions. Not long after that then you have exemptions to the exceptions just to bring order to the ensuing chaos, so then you have a bureaucrat who is appointed the Director of Exemptions to Exceptions. ... and so on ad infinitum.

... socialism always turns into a clusterfuck, its a tribal thing.

[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?

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.

But wouldn't those amendments be unconstitutional and be repealed by the supreme court?

[Arriemoller]

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?

The examples does not give a shit.

[bones261]

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).

But what if we change the parameters a bit. Let us say that child A is actually the child of the mother and child B is just a stepchild. Child A always gets to play video games and enjoy cake and child B has to work to get some gruel once in a while. Is that fair? There is such a thing as the idle rich. The only thing they have going for them is a birthright. The historical figure Marie Antoinette comes to mind.

[Neo_Coin]

[Neo_Coin]

[Arriemoller]

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).

But what if we change the parameters a bit. Let us say that child A is actually the child of the mother and child B is just a stepchild. Child A always gets to play video games and enjoy cake and child B has to work to get some gruel once in a while. Is that fair? There is such a thing as the idle rich. The only thing they have going for them is a birthright. The historical figure Marie Antoinette comes to mind.

"The historical figure Marie Antoinette comes to mind"  Good one.

[Toxic2040]

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?

Where you stand says much about what you see, that does not mean there are not universal indicators of decency. Letting someone starve where ever it might be, in my opinion is amoral and frowned upon by society...be it north or south.

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.

This is exactly a moral issue, the parent should have had enough sense to provide a task suitable for each child to accomplish so they each felt they had earned a reward.

Getting back to the metamorality issue..I can only speak for myself but every time..and I mean every time I have done something "wrong" in my life, it felt wrong. Now whether I chose to ignore that "feeling" and continued with my actions or drew myself up short is anther thing entirely. I believe each has that compass inside of us and it is just a matter of developing it to become a better human being. Empathy goes along way in building up the metamorality tool that each of us possess.

[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?

The examples does not give a shit.

Just so we are perfectly clear, you are advocating killing children through neglect because their parents do not provide for them?  

[Neo_Coin]

[julian071]

OK, so sideways for a while then?

[Arriemoller]

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?

The examples does not give a shit.

Just so we are perfectly clear, you are advocating killing children through neglect because their parents do not provide for them?  

I have yet to see an unmowed lawn kill anyone.

[Arriemoller]

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?

The examples does not give a shit.

Just so we are perfectly clear, you are advocating killing children through neglect because their parents do not provide for them?  

I have yet to see an unmowed lawn kill anyone.

If it did I would have died last summer.

[Toxic2040]

ffs..18 posts..I cant keep up. 

OK, so sideways for a while then?

[JayJuanGee]

Accumulation is happening again. But note that at these price levels, this accumulation could go on for a very long time.

You guys may die of complete boredom in the interim.

But I want my Lambo noooooooooowww!

If you spent around $10k on bitcoins any time between late 2014 and early 2016 at below $500 (let's say average price per BTC was about $500), then you would have 20 BTC - seems like enough for a Lambo.

On the other hand, I think that it would NOT be very wise to buy a Lambo unless you have at least 100BTC (so if you have at least 100BTC, then you would be spending less than 20% of your bitcoin holdings on a Lambo).  On the other hand (I think that is enough hands for now), if you think that you are going to die soon (within the next year or two), then who cares, you need to have funzies while you are still living... and spend your bitcoins and buy the depreciating Lambo - even if you only have 20 BTC-ish or even less.

That's my NOT SO GOOD advices for the day.          

[pacman7331]

Where is realroach? Did he died

Crying wolf, are you?

Just wait for the next significant dip.

Nah he’s gone forever. We’re never going down again.

https://youtu.be/SxjL6XZjmNc

[scum]

Do you recommend MtGox, cryptsy and mintpal as good exchanges to trade on?

[Rosewater Foundation]

if you think that you are going to die soon

But what if you're wrong?