Closed until I properly establish the game.

[Anonymous]

If you can give me unquestionable and thorough proof that the people of this world are not currently subject to the partial and/or unilateral monetary powers of the central banking system (the IMF and its subsidiaries which includes all national central banks, along with the private shareholders of these respective institutions), I will give you 100 BTC, no questions asked.

This includes disproving the following quote by M.A. Rothschild by proving that the laws of a government are still unilaterally relevant while its respective people and government are completely provided money by a private and sovereign banking entity:

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

Yes, I am also talking to you SomethingAwful.

Thanks.

[1713584638]

1713584638

[1713584638]

1713584638

[1713584638]

1713584638

[1713584638]

1713584638

[1713584638]

1713584638

[1713584638]

1713584638

[Elwar]

If you can give me unquestionable and thorough proof that this world is not subject to the partial and/or unilateral monetary powers of the central banking system (the IMF and its subsidiaries, along with the private shareholders of these respective institutions), I will give you 100 BTC, no questions asked.

Yes, I am also talking to you SomethingAwful.

Thanks.

dictionary.com
world: the earth or globe, considered as a planet.

manipulate: to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner

The only way to manipulate the globe would be through some sort of change in its trajectory or makeup.

Whatever humans may do, the world will continue on its course.

QED

[johnj]

If you can give me unquestionable and thorough proof that the people of this world are not currently subject to the partial and/or unilateral monetary powers of the central banking system (the IMF and its subsidiaries which includes all national central banks, along with the private shareholders of these respective institutions), I will give you 100 BTC, no questions asked.

This includes disproving the following quote by M.A. Rothschild by proving that the laws of a government are still unilaterally relevant while its people and government are completely provided money by a private and sovereign banking entity:

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

Yes, I am also talking to you SomethingAwful.

Thanks.

Wait, you want 100% proof that something is not subject to some/all of X?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does."

[the joint]

If you can give me unquestionable and thorough proof that this world is not subject to the partial and/or unilateral monetary powers of the central banking system (the IMF and its subsidiaries, along with the private shareholders of these respective institutions), I will give you 100 BTC, no questions asked.

Yes, I am also talking to you SomethingAwful.

Thanks.

dictionary.com
world: the earth or globe, considered as a planet.

manipulate: to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner

The only way to manipulate the globe would be through some sort of change in its trajectory or makeup.

Whatever humans may do, the world will continue on its course.

QED

You know what I meant. Don't play these games with me because they will not result in a payout.

Dude, sorry, gotta agree with the other guy.

I think he wins the 100 BTC.  It's not his fault you constructed your wager poorly.  He did as you asked.  Pay up.

[the joint]

If you can give me unquestionable and thorough proof that this world is not subject to the partial and/or unilateral monetary powers of the central banking system (the IMF and its subsidiaries, along with the private shareholders of these respective institutions), I will give you 100 BTC, no questions asked.

Yes, I am also talking to you SomethingAwful.

Thanks.

dictionary.com
world: the earth or globe, considered as a planet.

manipulate: to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner

The only way to manipulate the globe would be through some sort of change in its trajectory or makeup.

Whatever humans may do, the world will continue on its course.

QED

You know what I meant. Don't play these games with me because they will not result in a payout.

Dude, sorry, gotta agree with the other guy.

I think he wins the 100 BTC.  It's not his fault you constructed your wager poorly.  He did as you asked.  Pay up.

You will have to kill me first. You can pry it from my dead cold fingers.

Fine.  Here's another one.

Syndiffeonesis (essentially meaning "sameness in difference") = the logical principle that states that any 2 relands 'x' and 'y' must always occupy some type of relational medium.  That is, any 2 relands 'x' and 'y' are fundamentally the same on a syntactic level, and any supposed difference between 'x' and 'y' is only the result of their fundamental sameness (e.g. 'x' and 'y' are the same in that they are absolutely different from each other).

Let's set 'x' = people of the world
Let's set 'y' = central banking system

According to syndiffeonesis, x = y at the syntactic level.

In other words, at a fundamental syntactic level, there is NO difference between the people of the world and the central banking system or the partial/unilateral monetary powers thereof.  Accordingly, one cannot be 'subject' to the other because there is no difference between one and the other....the people = the powers of the central banking system and vice versa.

Your wager fails to recognize a 3rd option...you can be right and wrong simultaneously.

Pay UP

[johnj]

In the case of my argument, they are assumed to be different.

If you're putting 100btc on the line, you might want to pick your words a bit better.

So far you've denied two people because of your inability to define your proposition.

I presume that you never intended to pay to begin with.

[the joint]

In the case of my argument, they are assumed to be different.

That's great, but you can only assume their difference while simultaneously acknowledging their sameness.

Things can only be identified in contrast to what they are not, but this only implies what something is "not" is a determinant of its identity.  For example, an apple is only an apple because it's not, say, a banana.  Thus, an apple can only exist because bananas exist.  

Philosophy and logic allow for the safe resolution of paradoxes.  Take this example..."A barber posts a sign in front of his shop that states '
I will shave all those, and those who do not shave themselves.'  Does the barber shave himself?"  Most people would have a hard time reconciling this one...either the barber shaves himself or he does not.  But the correct answer is that he does both.

You can assume all you want in your argument, but the only way that you can be "right" is if you're simultaneously wrong.

Bad idea to wager with philosophers on board, in my opinion.

It is for similar reasons that it is very possible (and relatively easy) to prove 1 + 1 = 2 wrong.

[johnj]

If this world is not subject to the whims of a cartel on money, I don't see a point in Bitcoins. I will give them up readily if the world isn't as corrupt as I believe it to be.

Conveniently though, your proposition is subject to change at your whim.

[dancupid]

If you can give me unquestionable and thorough proof that the people of this world are not currently subject to the partial and/or unilateral monetary powers of the central banking system (the IMF and its subsidiaries which includes all national central banks, along with the private shareholders of these respective institutions), I will give you 100 BTC, no questions asked.

This includes disproving the following quote by M.A. Rothschild by proving that the laws of a government are still unilaterally relevant while its respective people and government are completely provided money by a private and sovereign banking entity:

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

Yes, I am also talking to you SomethingAwful.

Thanks.

please send 100btc to 19XxndZdM22mhvQeaaXjztHrAFjfv5uq95

[the joint]

In the case of my argument, they are assumed to be different.

If you're putting 100btc on the line, you might want to pick your words a bit better.

So far you've denied two people because of your inability to define your proposition.

I presume that you never intended to pay to begin with.

If this world is not subject to the whims of a cartel on money, I don't see a point in Bitcoins. I will give them up readily if the world isn't as corrupt as I believe it to be.

Ok, then I'll test your last sentence.

So, you'll give up the BTC readily if the world isn't as corrupt as you believe it to be?

Ok, well, let's take the concept of Freedom.

I will assume that if the people who you assume are affected by the banks are still free, then the world isn't so corrupt.  After all, if you're free, then you're not bound; not imprisoned by the powers of the banks.

But, the nature of freedom implies that something that is free can also set its own constraints.  If a person is free, they can be free to be not free.  And that may be in fact what is happening with the banks.  People choose to use banks.  Just because you're free doesn't mean you can't also be not free at the same time.

How corrupt can the world be if everyone/everything is free?  Even if it is corrupt, it was freedoms choice to be corrupt.

Look on the bright side...things aren't so bad.

[the joint]

If you can give me unquestionable and thorough proof that the people of this world are not currently subject to the partial and/or unilateral monetary powers of the central banking system (the IMF and its subsidiaries which includes all national central banks, along with the private shareholders of these respective institutions), I will give you 100 BTC, no questions asked.

This includes disproving the following quote by M.A. Rothschild by proving that the laws of a government are still unilaterally relevant while its respective people and government are completely provided money by a private and sovereign banking entity:

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

Yes, I am also talking to you SomethingAwful.

Thanks.

please send 100btc to 19XxndZdM22mhvQeaaXjztHrAFjfv5uq95

lol nice

[the joint]

Still think I win twice.

[Gabi]

If you can give me unquestionable and thorough proof that the people of this world are not currently subject to the partial and/or unilateral monetary powers of the central banking system (the IMF and its subsidiaries which includes all national central banks, along with the private shareholders of these respective institutions), I will give you 100 BTC, no questions asked.

This includes disproving the following quote by M.A. Rothschild by proving that the laws of a government are still unilaterally relevant while its people and government are completely provided money by a private and sovereign banking entity:

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

Yes, I am also talking to you SomethingAwful.

Thanks.

Wait, you want 100% proof that something is not subject to some/all of X?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does."

So you admit there is a reasonable possibility that the central banking system has a significant grasp over worldly affairs? I don't want unilateral proof of my position. I just want to know whether I am false or not.

Troll detected.

You are implying something never stated.

[Jalum]

Are you going to pay up Atlas?  You willingly entered into a contract with another willing participant.  They met your criteria in several ways, even after you scrambled to move the goal post.

The question here is does Atlas value his air of dogmatic adherence to the free market as much as his $402?

[cruikshank]

Paddy Roy Bates seems pretty free of the IMF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

[edd]

The fact is these arguments do not provide an answer to the actual request.

To the person with the tribal people, see the word "partial". If you guys don't want to play the game, it's fine.

Therein lies your problem, Atlas. This thread comes across as either an off-the-cuff game with poorly defined rules, or a serious wager that hasn't been carefully considered or defined.