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

[Trilogy-AI]

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?

[1713264860]

1713264860

[1713264860]

1713264860

[1713264860]

1713264860

[Spaceman_Spiff_Original]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 

[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, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[pacman7331]

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.)

Hey I dunno what ya'll are talking about... but...Holy shit. When did the Wall observer turn in to RadHub?

Hey yea bro... I for one know the courts are anti-male. But Dunno who you are bro cuz there are so many re-quotes..  

[xhomerx10]

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?

 Yes and I would need to be drinking to continue this discussion but I am not.  Maybe another time?

[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!?