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

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

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.

If I don't put myself and find myself in a situation where I first have to fend off an attacker before I can tend to my child I would be a moron not to make sure that I'm safe in order to be in a position where I can help my child. There's a reason why you put your own oxygen mask on first, before tending to your child.
It's a very simple order. Make sure that I am in the best position that I can be to help my child, then help my child, and then if I have enough energy left help my wife. And if I can be bothered, then perhaps I might even do something good for the rest of humanity. But that's the dead last priority.
There is a certain amount of growth that needs to take place before you can genuinely provide reasonable support for others, and that takes a long time. There's a reason why there's so many snowflakes on the US left that keep making up the most ridiculous cases such as affirmative action. And I say that as someone who could easily exploit the bullshit that they make up.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

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!

I would describe you as a savage. But the internet has deprived the term of the intended meaning.

[bitserve]

Won't somebody please think of the bitcorns!?

[explorer]

 I believe this falls under caveat emptor.

Very true.
How about don't stick your dick in a woman you wouldn't want to be the mother of your child.  Simple concept requires long view, self control.  So nevermind, it will never fly.

[pacman7331]

 I believe this falls under caveat emptor.

Very true.
How about don't stick your dick in a woman you wouldn't want to be the mother of your child.  Simple concept requires long view, self control.  So nevermind, it will never fly.

You believe sex is only for reproduction? Comon... 

[JayJuanGee]

Your subsequent explanation seems to concede that we are in the early stages of bitcoin's adoption; however,  I conclude, to my own health detriment, that your chart seems to suggest that we are past the hype cycle in BTC and all matters are downhill from here.. I can see it visually on your chart.   And, from my perspective, I doubt that we are going downhill from here whether we are talking about hype or we are talking about adoption, or we are talking about development or we are talking about financial.

I thought we were just, you know..talking..but if you want to break down each of those...by all means.

I tend to take a holistic approach when discussing the future, bitcoin and technology JJG. They will all be massively integrated. That chart is just an illustration of hype cycles and how long after something is hyped that it ramps up to productivity.
You did notice that each of the iconography placed on the perceived bubble is also a representation in time right? So our lovely bitcoin blockchain is just cresting over the hype bubble but the full productivity plateau is still several years into the future.

This is just hype..not price...not adoption...ok?  All these other things do have correlation..but that is not what my point was. It was forcasting that even tho we we are at the top of hype or just past it that all the good things are still coming...is that spelled out clear enough now?

#btfd

I pretty much accepted that your intentions were good and bullish all along..  yet I think that your chart was "lacking,"  and sure I was employing some drama in my response to exaggerate my position, especially when you were kind of inviting me to yell.... hahahahahahaha

I am all calm and settled, yet my proclivity for violence just comes out... in a kind of exaggerated form, like this:




Even though on the inside, I am really feeling like this:


  ...... (if you know what I am saying, Toxic Moxic?)

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

 I believe this falls under caveat emptor.

Very true.
How about don't stick your dick in a woman you wouldn't want to be the mother of your child.  Simple concept requires long view, self control.  So nevermind, it will never fly.

You believe sex is only for reproduction? Comon...  

He never said that you can't pork the mother of your (future) children for fun.

[HairyMaclairy]

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.

Cmon dude. Taking care of children is a serious threat to society? On a forum where most of us have earned more than the US average annual wage in the past week, if not much much more?  You are better than this.


Maybe worry about the alt-right muppets who go shoot up a school every second week.  Now there’s a threat to society.

[explorer]

 I believe this falls under caveat emptor.

Very true.
How about don't stick your dick in a woman you wouldn't want to be the mother of your child.  Simple concept requires long view, self control.  So nevermind, it will never fly.

You believe sex is only for reproduction? Comon... 

I believe you forgot to start with " So you're saying..."

No, that is not what I said at all, but it happens to be a frequent result.  You, me, the rest of us...

[marcus_of_augustus]

cohabitation is where the legal trap gets sprung these days, a marriage contract is not even necessary when de facto relationship has become an implied contract to provide income and share assets.

Males have gradually been relegated to sperm donor status by the perverse incentive structures imposed by court precedents, that is clear ... although I notice they are close to being able to grow ovaries in the lab, last week someone reported they had grown human eggs from stem cells, so the female monopoly on eggs maybe busted and then all bets are off for parentage questions in our esteemed courts.

[Ibian]

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.

Cmon dude. Taking care of children is a serious threat to society? On a forum where most of us have earned more than the US average annual wage in the past week?  You are better than this.


Maybe worry about the alt-right muppets who go shoot up a school every second week. 

It's lefties who go on shooting rampages. You are officially not even worth reading anymore.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

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.

Cmon dude. Taking care of children is a serious threat to society? On a forum where most of us have earned more than the US average annual wage in the past week, if not much much more?  You are better than this.


Maybe worry about the alt-right muppets who go shoot up a school every second week.  Now there’s a threat to society.

Do you not understand English? Or am I getting trolled here?

[JayJuanGee]

also, I never regarded my partners as property, so really I just don't get it as an insult

Well, I mean, if you enjoy watching your devoted partner being fucked by someone else, then I guess you wouldn't see it as an insult...

If my devoted partner was being fucked by someone else I'd kick them the hell out of my house and not really care about the insult, as I'd be happy to have parted with such a piece of shit of a human being.

You MONOGAMIST PIG!!!!!!


Don't you know that sharing is caring?


 

[HairyMaclairy]

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.

Cmon dude. Taking care of children is a serious threat to society? On a forum where most of us have earned more than the US average annual wage in the past week?  You are better than this.


Maybe worry about the alt-right muppets who go shoot up a school every second week. 

It's lefties who go on shooting rampages. You are officially not even worth reading anymore.

The latest school shooter was a white supremacist. Like yourself. Own it.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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!

It might be 'whiskey' to you. To me it's breakfast.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

also, I never regarded my partners as property, so really I just don't get it as an insult

Well, I mean, if you enjoy watching your devoted partner being fucked by someone else, then I guess you wouldn't see it as an insult...

If my devoted partner was being fucked by someone else I'd kick them the hell out of my house and not really care about the insult, as I'd be happy to have parted with such a piece of shit of a human being.

You MONOGAMIST PIG!!!!!!


Don't you know that sharing is caring?


 

Lmao, I'm sorry. Please let me pay 99% of my income in taxes, weeeeeeeeee

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!

It might be 'whiskey' to you. To me it's breakfast.

What is your favourite dram!

[JayJuanGee]

It is a little mind boggling that anyone would sell during the weekend knowing they could sell for 10-20% more on Monday. Can a bear explain the mentality?

I'm not a bear but I will try to explain following a simple strategy that helps me sleep at night:
I sell 50% of my earnings daily, regardless of price.

 Invest -> Profit -> Protect

My strategy that helps me sleep at night is to convert all my daily earnings to bitcoin, regardless of price.

becoin = smart


grn = dumbass

 

[marcus_of_augustus]

It might be 'whiskey' to you. To me it's breakfast.

whiskey inevitably leads to children ... own it!

[JayJuanGee]

The average alt-right is an angry, unemployed, single white male. Mostly they are just losers.  So a bit hard for them to have polyamorous relationships when they are incapable of having any relationship.

We need negative merits. Or just plus and minus buttons.

Actually, I thought that the idea of negative merits would be a bad thing; however, after reading your post, I just had an "ah ha moment." 

If there were negative merits, you would need to feel so strongly about giving the negative merit that if you gave someone a negative merit, then it would remove 5 merits from your regular merits in order to give the one negative merit to the other person  - then members would only employ such possible negative merit feature sparingly and after some considerable thought.

[marcus_of_augustus]

The latest school shooter was a white supremacist. Like yourself. Own it.

... was he colour-blind?