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

[tarmi]

you cant really be sexist/homophob/racist and a nonagression believer at the same time because being sexist/homophob/racist implies aggression.

How do you figure? Does not associating or wanting to associate with people do violence to them? Am I aggressed against if someone doesn't invite me to a party? Ask me to marry her? Hire me? Give me a loan?

If so, then you seem to have a different understanding of "aggression" than me. I'm talking about initiating physical violence or threat of violence, and I'd like to hear someone make an argument defending doing that.
However, if you agree that that type of aggression is bad, then anything else is changing the subject.

well, telling other people that their languages are some form of "tribal grunt" is a form of aggression in my book. that kind of verbal aggression usually precedes the actual act of physical aggression because that idea is based usually on a concept of a superiority of some sort.

just like the nazis claimed that their race is superior to others and used that construct as an argument to kill 5 mil of jews, you are claiming that you are living in an english dominated world and all non english talkers should suck your dick.
    

[L0uis]

...I'm talking about initiating physical violence or threat of violence, and I'd like to hear someone make an argument defending doing that...

I lived in several US states allowing me to use violence to protect my property.  You [nonviolently] come on my property, I shoot you in the face.
What's wrong with that?

Err points lost. I'd rather have some intelligent troll posts.

[ErisDiscordia]

Which would y'all rather have as a neighbor, a racist sexist homophobic who believes in the NonAggression Principle or an egalitarian who wants to make everyone equal by sticking guns in their faces?

I'd like to have you as a neighbor. Your ability to put succinctly into words what I've been thinking anyway makes me happy. One day I will repay you by buying you an evenings worth of beer or whatever drug of your choice 

_{was that gay? I think this was a bit gay. Hope you don't hate me now} 

[NotLambchop]

...I'm talking about initiating physical violence or threat of violence, and I'd like to hear someone make an argument defending doing that...

I lived in several US states allowing me to use violence to protect my property.  You [nonviolently] come on my property, I shoot you in the face.
What's wrong with that?

That's why I very specifically wrote "INITIATING" physical violence. Self defense and defense of one's property is not initiation. Can you fucking read or do I have to ignore you again?

By being a sexist bigot you are initiating violence.  Stop triggering me brah.  Clearly I wouldn't shoot you in the face unless you incited & richly deserved it.

[NotLambchop]

...I'm talking about initiating physical violence or threat of violence, and I'd like to hear someone make an argument defending doing that...

I lived in several US states allowing me to use violence to protect my property.  You [nonviolently] come on my property, I shoot you in the face.
What's wrong with that?

Err points lost. I'd rather have some intelligent troll posts.

No.  "Violence" is not binary, it's very creepy and analog-gradienty.  Theft is violence.  Farting through silk and not sharing while others starve is violence.  Private property is violence.  Violence begets violence.

[billyjoeallen]

Which would y'all rather have as a neighbor, a racist sexist homophobic who believes in the NonAggression Principle or an egalitarian who wants to make everyone equal by sticking guns in their faces?

I'd like to have you as a neighbor. Your ability to put succinctly into words what I've been thinking anyway makes me happy. One day I will repay you by buying you an evenings worth of beer or whatever drug of your choice 

_{was that gay? I think this was a bit gay. Hope you don't hate me now} 

It's a deal! And just so you know, I think gays should be free to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody (unless you're into that), but I have a right to be grossed out by it.

[billyjoeallen]

telling other people that their languages are some form of "tribal grunt" is a form of aggression in my book. that kind of verbal aggression usually precedes the actual act of physical aggression because that idea is based usually on a concept of a superiority of some sort.

just like the nazis claimed that they race is superior to others and used that construct as an argument to kill 5 mil of jews, you are claiming that you are leaving in an english dominated world and all non english talkers should suck your dick.

Verbal aggression may often precede physical aggression, but it's not the same thing. Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never (physically) hurt you. I don't give a shit about your feelings and I have no problem if you don't give a shit about mine. Nobody has a right to not have their feelings hurt.

If you can't make the distinction between genocide and overgeneralizing group characteristics, then you have a problem. There is a major difference in kind and not just in degree.

Nobody has the right to be included in a free association. That would make the association not free, so if I reject people for not speaking English properly, it only makes me a grammar Nazi, not a homicidal National Socialist. You can call me a racist sexist asshole all you want. I only have the right to argue against you or ignore it. I don't have the right to punch you in the nose.

I think English is a superior language and so those who speak it are superior, all things else being equal. You have a right to disagree, but freedom means tolerating people who think differently than you do. Besides, what would we talk about if we agreed on everything? I'm guessing we'd discuss how superior we are to everybody who disagreed with US. Then you would want to FORCE people to agree with us or at least act like they did. We'd be worse than assholes. We'd be bullies. How boring.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Afrikoin]

[tarmi]

telling other people that their languages are some form of "tribal grunt" is a form of aggression in my book. that kind of verbal aggression usually precedes the actual act of physical aggression because that idea is based usually on a concept of a superiority of some sort.

just like the nazis claimed that they race is superior to others and used that construct as an argument to kill 5 mil of jews, you are claiming that you are leaving in an english dominated world and all non english talkers should suck your dick.

I think English is a superior language and so those who speak it are superior, all things else being equal. You have a right to disagree, but freedom means tolerating people who think differently than you do.

on which basis you are making those claims?

how many languages do you speak you faggot?

[billyjoeallen]

...I'm talking about initiating physical violence or threat of violence, and I'd like to hear someone make an argument defending doing that...

I lived in several US states allowing me to use violence to protect my property.  You [nonviolently] come on my property, I shoot you in the face.
What's wrong with that?

That's why I very specifically wrote "INITIATING" physical violence. Self defense and defense of one's property is not initiation. Can you fucking read or do I have to ignore you again?

By being a sexist bigot you are initiating violence.  Stop triggering me brah.  Clearly I wouldn't shoot you in the face unless you incited & richly deserved it.

In order to incite you, I would have to have the ability to control your actions with words. Do you lack self control to the degree that I can do that?

[billyjoeallen]

telling other people that their languages are some form of "tribal grunt" is a form of aggression in my book. that kind of verbal aggression usually precedes the actual act of physical aggression because that idea is based usually on a concept of a superiority of some sort.

just like the nazis claimed that they race is superior to others and used that construct as an argument to kill 5 mil of jews, you are claiming that you are leaving in an english dominated world and all non english talkers should suck your dick.

I think English is a superior language and so those who speak it are superior, all things else being equal. You have a right to disagree, but freedom means tolerating people who think differently than you do.

on which basis you are making those claims?

how many languages do you speak you faggot?

Are you flirting with me?

[NotLambchop]

...I'm talking about initiating physical violence or threat of violence, and I'd like to hear someone make an argument defending doing that...

I lived in several US states allowing me to use violence to protect my property.  You [nonviolently] come on my property, I shoot you in the face.
What's wrong with that?

That's why I very specifically wrote "INITIATING" physical violence. Self defense and defense of one's property is not initiation. Can you fucking read or do I have to ignore you again?

By being a sexist bigot you are initiating violence.  Stop triggering me brah.  Clearly I wouldn't shoot you in the face unless you incited & richly deserved it.

In order to incite you, I would have to have the ability to control your actions with words. Do you lack self control to the degree that I can do that?

You clearly are controlling my actions with words--you call me nigger bitch, I shoot you in the face.  What's so hard to understand here?

you also missed this:

No.  "Violence" is not binary, it's very creepy and analog-gradienty.  Theft is violence.  Farting through silk and not sharing while others starve is violence.  Private property is violence.  Violence begets violence.

[BusyBeaverHP]

telling other people that their languages are some form of "tribal grunt" is a form of aggression in my book. that kind of verbal aggression usually precedes the actual act of physical aggression because that idea is based usually on a concept of a superiority of some sort.

just like the nazis claimed that they race is superior to others and used that construct as an argument to kill 5 mil of jews, you are claiming that you are leaving in an english dominated world and all non english talkers should suck your dick.

Verbal aggression may often precede physical aggression, but it's not the same thing. Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never (physically) hurt you. I don't give a shit about your feelings and I have no problem if you don't give a shit about mine. Nobody has a right to not have their feelings hurt.

If you can't make the distinction between genocide and overgeneralizing group characteristics, then you have a problem. There is a major difference in kind and not just in degree.

Nobody has the right to be included in a free association. That would make the association not free, so if I reject people for not speaking English properly, it only makes me a grammar Nazi, not a homicidal National Socialist. You can call me a racist sexist asshole all you want. I only have the right to argue against you or ignore it. I don't have the right to punch you in the nose.

I think English is a superior language and so those who speak it are superior, all things else being equal. You have a right to disagree, but freedom means tolerating people who think differently than you do. Besides, what would we talk about if we agreed on everything? I'm guessing we'd discuss how superior we are to everybody who disagreed with US. Then you would want to FORCE people to agree with us or at least act like they did. We'd be worse than assholes. We'd be bullies. How boring.

Please don't ever change.

[oda.krell]

Ok, I'm gonna step into this whirlpool and note that the likes of silverfurtune and billyjoeallen have been real intellectual boons to this thread. The trolls have went into hibernation when the bosses have taken hold of the reigns. Primarily, Mr SF ad BJA have made their points and are moving on to their next ones, soon. I just want to say thx to the bosses in due time.

Thanks, Man. Please don't feel the need to defend me against charges of racism, sexism or whatever the crimethink de jour is. Whatever my moral flaws, the reason why I advocate Bicoin is because it is money that doesn't need force or coercion in order to function.

Which would y'all rather have as a neighbor, a racist sexist homophobic who believes in the NonAggression Principle or an egalitarian who wants to make everyone equal by sticking guns in their faces?

Freedom means you have to put up with some unpleasant people with unpleasant ideas, but you don't have to put up with threats of violence by those who claim to be peaceful while having the State do their dirty work for them.

Ideally, I'd have the egalitarian non-aggression principle abiding guy for a neighbor, but your point stands.

Confirming what Ramsay said: good to read your stuff in this sea of troll bile. Don't always agree with it, but it's rarely lazy thinking (the worst crime, intellectually speaking).

another false dilemma.

you cant really be sexist/homophob/racist and a nonagression believer at the same time because being sexist/homophob/racist implies aggression.

Well then: if I present a false dilemma, you present a false conflation. In reality, most homophobes / sexists / racists *don't * follow non aggression. Far from it. But that's an empirical result, not a necessity.

I claim I personally  *do* know people that, by terminology of my peers would count as sexist, in the sense that they don't believe in biological equivalence of abilities of men and women. However, neither do they act like dicks about, or join bullshit movements like mrm. I'd argue that type of person is someone who you could reasonably call an non violent sexist. If you prefer to reserve the term for the violent kind however, fair enough as well.

[tarmi]

telling other people that their languages are some form of "tribal grunt" is a form of aggression in my book. that kind of verbal aggression usually precedes the actual act of physical aggression because that idea is based usually on a concept of a superiority of some sort.

just like the nazis claimed that they race is superior to others and used that construct as an argument to kill 5 mil of jews, you are claiming that you are leaving in an english dominated world and all non english talkers should suck your dick.

I think English is a superior language and so those who speak it are superior, all things else being equal. You have a right to disagree, but freedom means tolerating people who think differently than you do.

on which basis you are making those claims?

how many languages do you speak you faggot?

Are you flirting with me?

have a taste of freedom of yours! because my faith/beliefs superior to yours!

[damiano]

The next few days will be interesting if we can hold where we are now.  To many shorts now along with longs and this leveraged fiasco isn't going to end well which ever way it goes. 

Losses will be catastrophic one way or another.

[billyjoeallen]

...I'm talking about initiating physical violence or threat of violence, and I'd like to hear someone make an argument defending doing that...

I lived in several US states allowing me to use violence to protect my property.  You [nonviolently] come on my property, I shoot you in the face.
What's wrong with that?

That's why I very specifically wrote "INITIATING" physical violence. Self defense and defense of one's property is not initiation. Can you fucking read or do I have to ignore you again?

By being a sexist bigot you are initiating violence.  Stop triggering me brah.  Clearly I wouldn't shoot you in the face unless you incited & richly deserved it.

In order to incite you, I would have to have the ability to control your actions with words. Do you lack self control to the degree that I can do that?

You clearly are controlling my actions with words--you call me nigger bitch, I shoot you in the face.  What's so hard to understand here?

you also missed this:

No.  "Violence" is not binary, it's very creepy and analog-gradienty.  Theft is violence.  Farting through silk and not sharing while others starve is violence.  Private property is violence.  Violence begets violence.

If you have the inability to YOUR OWN actions, then you have a problem.
Your words aren't controlling MY actions. Not anymore. Yer back on the ignore list.

[galdur]

I´m getting tired of this BTC sheet. The bottom you see there will occur soon, then ...

[tarmi]

Ok, I'm gonna step into this whirlpool and note that the likes of silverfurtune and billyjoeallen have been real intellectual boons to this thread. The trolls have went into hibernation when the bosses have taken hold of the reigns. Primarily, Mr SF ad BJA have made their points and are moving on to their next ones, soon. I just want to say thx to the bosses in due time.

Thanks, Man. Please don't feel the need to defend me against charges of racism, sexism or whatever the crimethink de jour is. Whatever my moral flaws, the reason why I advocate Bicoin is because it is money that doesn't need force or coercion in order to function.

Which would y'all rather have as a neighbor, a racist sexist homophobic who believes in the NonAggression Principle or an egalitarian who wants to make everyone equal by sticking guns in their faces?

Freedom means you have to put up with some unpleasant people with unpleasant ideas, but you don't have to put up with threats of violence by those who claim to be peaceful while having the State do their dirty work for them.

Ideally, I'd have the egalitarian non-aggression principle abiding guy for a neighbor, but your point stands.

Confirming what Ramsay said: good to read your stuff in this sea of troll bile. Don't always agree with it, but it's rarely lazy thinking (the worst crime, intellectually speaking).

another false dilemma.

you cant really be sexist/homophob/racist and a nonagression believer at the same time because being sexist/homophob/racist implies aggression.

Well then: if I present a false dilemma, you present a false conflation. In reality, most homophobes / sexists / racists *don't * follow non aggression. Far from it. But that's an empirical result, not a necessity.

I claim I personally  *do* know people that, by terminology of my peers would count as sexist, in the sense that they don't believe in biological equivalence of abilities of men and women. However, neither do they act like dicks about, or join bullshit movements like mrm. I'd argue that type of person is someone who you could reasonably call an non violent sexist. If you prefer to reserve the term for the violent kind however, fair enough as well.

in a modern world full of ak47, m16 and other machinery the "biological equivalence of abilities of men and women" sounds to me like women are only missed in dick swinging contests.

try to marry some of those guys and you will find out the meaning of the word violence.