(Split) Re: false signal resulted rally in China, and it won't stop.

[RationalSpeculator]

People defend for Zeng because of two things:
1) The so called 'fraud' was supported by the government then, and he was caught after the government leader was changed and his assert was grabbed by the government without giving a chance for him to pay back the investors.
2) Just after the death penalty was approved, the execution was done quickly before notifying his family.
They are not saying Zeng is innocent and the death penalty is completely unfair.

There're also two things to clarify:
1) He indeed caused people to lose billions of CNY, and was not innocent at all.
2) His death penalty was debated for years online and finally approved by the Supreme Court, and his daughter knew that before he was executed. She just did not get notified the exact day of the execution and did not get her chance to see his father for the last chance. It was not a secret execution imagined by many westerners.

Let's come back to the topic. If BTCChina suddenly disappears with billions of CNY from the traders, then yes, they deserve death penalty. If they allow people to launder millions of illegal income or help people to transfer millions of CNY to overseas (to avoid this, BTCChina has daily BTC withdraw limit of 10BTC for unverified users), they maybe jailed for many years. But if they are forced to close by the government just because BTC trading is not supported, they will at most be charged on taxing and license issues.

Are you fucking serious?

Nuancing a man being killed for losing investor money  

You disgust me 'BitThink'. Fuck off!!!

[Anon136]

People defend for Zeng because of two things:
1) The so called 'fraud' was supported by the government then, and he was caught after the government leader was changed and his assert was grabbed by the government without giving a chance for him to pay back the investors.
2) Just after the death penalty was approved, the execution was done quickly before notifying his family.
They are not saying Zeng is innocent and the death penalty is completely unfair.

There're also two things to clarify:
1) He indeed caused people to lose billions of CNY, and was not innocent at all.
2) His death penalty was debated for years online and finally approved by the Supreme Court, and his daughter knew that before he was executed. She just did not get notified the exact day of the execution and did not get her chance to see his father for the last chance. It was not a secret execution imagined by many westerners.

Let's come back to the topic. If BTCChina suddenly disappears with billions of CNY from the traders, then yes, they deserve death penalty. If they allow people to launder millions of illegal income or help people to transfer millions of CNY to overseas (to avoid this, BTCChina has daily BTC withdraw limit of 10BTC for unverified users), they maybe jailed for many years. But if they are forced to close by the government just because BTC trading is not supported, they will at most be charged on taxing and license issues.

Are you fucking serious?

Nuancing a man being killed for losing investor money  

You disgust me 'BitThink'. Fuck off!!!

ok but as a matter of principal losing investor money as a result of fraudulent behavior could in theory be a form of murder. many of those people might have lived quite a bit longer had they been able to afford medical treatments that they now can no longer afford, or healthier organic food that they now can no longer afford ect... not defending bitthink I just wanted to point that out.

[RationalSpeculator]

ok but as a matter of principal losing investor money as a result of fraudulent behavior could in theory be a form of murder. many of those people might have lived quite a bit longer had they been able to afford medical treatments that they now can no longer afford, or healthier organic food that they now can no longer afford ect... not defending bitthink I just wanted to point that out.

You trust your money to someone? You cannot use violence against him because he lost it. Even if he told you lies. The initiation of the use of violence is wrong, unless self defense.

That does not mean you cannot be angry. But don't forget to be angry with yourself also then. You should not have invested your money there. Take responsibility for your own actions, learn from it and move on.

That Zeng case is just looting and murdering of rich people by politicians. This immoral jailing and killing of people, and the abusive way children are raised, makes a cold, heartless society. I stay away for that reason eventhough the economic opportunities are big there.  

[Anon136]

ok but as a matter of principal losing investor money as a result of fraudulent behavior could in theory be a form of murder. many of those people might have lived quite a bit longer had they been able to afford medical treatments that they now can no longer afford, or healthier organic food that they now can no longer afford ect... not defending bitthink I just wanted to point that out.

You trust your money to someone? You cannot use violence against him because he lost it. Even if he told you lies. The initiation of the use of violence is wrong, unless self defense.

That does not mean you cannot be angry. But don't forget to be angry with yourself also then. You should not have invested your money there. Take responsibility for your own actions, learn from it and move on.

That Zeng case is just looting and murdering of rich people by politicians. This immoral jailing and killing of people, and the abusive way children are raised, makes a cold, heartless society. I stay away for that reason eventhough the economic opportunities are big there.  

Ok so i want to understand your position. Is it a matter of principle that it is never ok to use violence against someone for committing fraud? For example is it immoral to use threats of force to seek restitution for acts of fraud committed against you?

[Anon136]

thanks for the spit. i shouldnt have gotten so off topic. sorry about that. 

[Spendulus]

....
There're also two things to clarify:
1) He indeed caused people to lose billions of CNY, and was not innocent at all.
2) His death penalty was debated for years online and finally approved by the Supreme Court, and his daughter knew that before he was executed. She just did not get notified the exact day of the execution and did not get her chance to see his father for the last chance. It was not a secret execution imagined by many westerners.....

Are you fucking serious?

Nuancing a man being killed for losing investor money  

You disgust me 'BitThink'. Fuck off!!!
[/quote]You have to try to comprehend the Chinese world view to get an understanding on this.

It's not BiThink or any other person.  It is an entire world view.

You live in China, you don't cause the Chinese nation to lose face in the eyes of the world.

[RationalSpeculator]

Ok so i want to understand your position. Is it a matter of principle that it is never ok to use violence against someone for committing fraud? For example is it immoral to use threats of force to seek restitution for acts of fraud committed against you?

Thanks for your curiosity.

Yes, if your sister steals your toy, you can't start hitting her. You can steal it back though.

It's a principle indeed, fairness. Leveling up violence is not fair. Initiating the use of violence is immoral. The moment we accept this we will get a better world, and you also get a better life if you accept this. Don't hit your fellow man, don't hit your children, you will be happier.

Threats of violence I'm not sure about as it is not violence but words. I think it is not immoral but it certainly is a warning that this person could be immoral.

What do you think?


Ps: Sorry moderator for the offtopic split you had to do.

[Anon136]

Ok so i want to understand your position. Is it a matter of principle that it is never ok to use violence against someone for committing fraud? For example is it immoral to use threats of force to seek restitution for acts of fraud committed against you?

Thanks for your curiosity.

Yes, if your sister steals your toy, you can't start hitting her. You can steal it back though.

It's a principle indeed, fairness. Leveling up violence is not fair. Initiating the use of violence is immoral. The moment we accept this we will get a better world, and you also get a better life if you accept this. Don't hit your fellow man, don't hit your children, you will be happier.

Threats of violence I'm not sure about as it is not violence but words. I think it is not immoral but it certainly is a warning that this person could be immoral.

What do you think?


Ps: Sorry moderator for the offtopic split you had to do.

i think that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. i feel differently but my idea of morality is based on intuition so i really dont know how to make arguments about what is moral and what isn't. my intuition tells me that fraud is immoral and that people who are defrauded are owed restitution. but again if you say that this is wrong i dont really know how to use rational arguments to prove that it isnt.

over all i like your value system not as much as i like my own (obviously) but MUCH more than i like most peoples. if it were widely practiced it would probably lead to results that i would find much preferable to the society i live in today.

[Hawker]

ok but as a matter of principal losing investor money as a result of fraudulent behavior could in theory be a form of murder. many of those people might have lived quite a bit longer had they been able to afford medical treatments that they now can no longer afford, or healthier organic food that they now can no longer afford ect... not defending bitthink I just wanted to point that out.

You trust your money to someone? You cannot use violence against him because he lost it. Even if he told you lies. The initiation of the use of violence is wrong, unless self defense.

...snip...

You as an individual should not initiate violence.  But if what he did was illegal, he should face the legal penalty.

[RationalSpeculator]

Ok so i want to understand your position. Is it a matter of principle that it is never ok to use violence against someone for committing fraud? For example is it immoral to use threats of force to seek restitution for acts of fraud committed against you?

Thanks for your curiosity.

Yes, if your sister steals your toy, you can't start hitting her. You can steal it back though.

It's a principle indeed, fairness. Leveling up violence is not fair. Initiating the use of violence is immoral. The moment we accept this we will get a better world, and you also get a better life if you accept this. Don't hit your fellow man, don't hit your children, you will be happier.

Threats of violence I'm not sure about as it is not violence but words. I think it is not immoral but it certainly is a warning that this person could be immoral.

What do you think?


Ps: Sorry moderator for the offtopic split you had to do.

i think that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. i feel differently but my idea of morality is based on intuition so i really dont know how to make arguments about what is moral and what isn't. my intuition tells me that fraud is immoral and that people who are defrauded are owed restitution. but again if you say that this is wrong i dont really know how to use rational arguments to prove that it isnt.

over all i like your value system not as much as i like my own (obviously) but MUCH more than i like most peoples. if it were widely practiced it would probably lead to results that i would find much preferable to the society i live in today.

I got this from the 'non aggression principle'.

Yeah today there is no morality. Also in West it's men with the guns make the rules while they are excluded. They steal (tax), couterfit (print), kidnap (arrest) as they please.

Next evolution of mankind is no rulers but fair moral agrrements and those that break it get ostracized. That's how I solve personal problems now. Instead of abusing people back that abuse me, I kick them out of my life. Problem solved.

[Anon136]

Ok so i want to understand your position. Is it a matter of principle that it is never ok to use violence against someone for committing fraud? For example is it immoral to use threats of force to seek restitution for acts of fraud committed against you?

Thanks for your curiosity.

Yes, if your sister steals your toy, you can't start hitting her. You can steal it back though.

It's a principle indeed, fairness. Leveling up violence is not fair. Initiating the use of violence is immoral. The moment we accept this we will get a better world, and you also get a better life if you accept this. Don't hit your fellow man, don't hit your children, you will be happier.

Threats of violence I'm not sure about as it is not violence but words. I think it is not immoral but it certainly is a warning that this person could be immoral.

What do you think?


Ps: Sorry moderator for the offtopic split you had to do.

i think that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. i feel differently but my idea of morality is based on intuition so i really dont know how to make arguments about what is moral and what isn't. my intuition tells me that fraud is immoral and that people who are defrauded are owed restitution. but again if you say that this is wrong i dont really know how to use rational arguments to prove that it isnt.

over all i like your value system not as much as i like my own (obviously) but MUCH more than i like most peoples. if it were widely practiced it would probably lead to results that i would find much preferable to the society i live in today.

I got this from the 'non aggression principle'.

Yeah today there is no morality. Also in West it's men with the guns make the rules while they are excluded. They steal (tax), couterfit (print), kidnap (arrest) as they please.

Next evolution of mankind is no rulers but fair moral agrrements and those that break it get ostracized. That's how I solve personal problems now. Instead of abusing people back that abuse me, I kick them out of my life. Problem solved.

Yes this is what i see as the difference between voluntaryists and more general anarcho-capitalists. you being the former myself being the latter.

either way i would love to hear a rational proof for the non-aggression principal if you have one. i tend to consider it as more of a rule of thumb than a universal law.

[dank]

Peace and love man.

[justusranvier]

i would love to hear a rational proof for the non-aggression principal

I have trouble believing that, since I typed the phrase, "rational proof for the non-aggression principal" into Google and the very first link was the book that I would recommend on the topic. So it's not like such proof is difficult to find at all for anyone who is truly interested in the subject.

I don't provide links any more because almost always what happens is that someone will declare a desire for a rational argument and when shown one will reply with, "I don't like it" instead of a logical refutation.

[Anon136]

i would love to hear a rational proof for the non-aggression principal

I have trouble believing that, since I typed the phrase, "rational proof for the non-aggression principal" into Google and the very first link was the book that I would recommend on the topic. So it's not like such proof is difficult to find at all for anyone who is truly interested in the subject.

I don't provide links any more because almost always what happens is that someone will declare a desire for a rational argument and when shown one will reply with, "I don't like it" instead of a logical refutation.

i dont think i need to look, i think i can guess accurately that it is UPB by stefan moleneaux. unfortunately his analysis appears to be flawed. bitbutter explains it better than i can. if you could show an error in bitbutters analysis than i would be pretty excited about that. i really truly would love for there to be such a thing as UPB.