Official "repitela is a nazi asshole douchebag turd thread"

[rdnkjdi]

homophobia - if it matched the proper definition would mean irrational fear of gays.  

having anything except the socially correct view of it makes you a homophobe.  

http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/06/does-mozilla-dumping-its-ceo-over-prop-8http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/06/does-mozilla-dumping-its-ceo-over-prop-8

this is just one of many complex social issues that is being simplified by categorizing anyone without the proper social wordview (of which there are many differing non socially acceptable views) with a blanket derogatory term.

the issue has nothing to do with gays.  rather making it acceptable to demonize and punish anyone who does not hold the correct wordview.

[nutildah]

this is just one of many complex social issues that is being simplified by categorizing anyone without the proper social wordview (of which there are many differing non socially acceptable views) with a blanket derogatory term.

the issue has nothing to do with gays.  rather making it acceptable to demonize and punish anyone who does not hold the correct wordview.

Segregation was pretty hip and worldview at one point, too. Still is in certain parts, I'm told.

[Hunyadi]

My thinking goes like this:

- Everybody has freedom of thought
- Therefore I have freedom of thought
- Someone is gay
- I think it is not good to be gay because the Bible says so and I am not in a position to change it

Risto, forget the bible and be openly gay! Change cigars to the real thing (if you haven't done it already)! 

[Hunyadi]

Just about all of the impressive people I've met in my life spend very little time trying to be impressive or trying to impress people.  They just are who they are, and that's impressive enough.  My suggestion would be simply this: Let your knowledge and experience speak for themselves and I'll still look forward to reading what you have to say.  I suspect there are others here who would agree.

Very much this!

[RedZeppelin]

To be honest it think it would be 10000000 times worse to be called a communist then national socialist.

[r3wt]

And per Peter R's chart, user adoption is what drives the market cap, not investor adoption.

Peter R's chart doesn't show that because: 1. it doesn't show causality, and 2. there is no way to know whether the transactions and/or addresses in use on the Bitcoin network are users or investors. A huge amount of Bitcoin activity is investors, probably a majority. Really, who "uses" Bitcoin? Who used it last November-December when his chart showed both the metrics and price skyrocketing? A better interpretation of his chart is that investors drive market cap!

I use bitcoin all the time. even during the boom i used bitcoin. i've even done a few in person transactions will zealous hillbillies. Perhaps you are projecting abit..

[smooth]

And per Peter R's chart, user adoption is what drives the market cap, not investor adoption.

Peter R's chart doesn't show that because: 1. it doesn't show causality, and 2. there is no way to know whether the transactions and/or addresses in use on the Bitcoin network are users or investors. A huge amount of Bitcoin activity is investors, probably a majority. Really, who "uses" Bitcoin? Who used it last November-December when his chart showed both the metrics and price skyrocketing? A better interpretation of his chart is that investors drive market cap!

I use bitcoin all the time. even during the boom i used bitcoin. i've even done a few in person transactions will zealous hillbillies. Perhaps you are projecting abit..

Do you really think that is, in the aggregate, highly significant relative to the amount of speculative activity? I don't. At the height of Silk Road it is possible there were a lot of non-speculative transactions. Outside of that time period I doubt it. Admittedly I don't have any hard data either way.

I wholly reject a 10x increase in non-speculative activity over a relatively short time though. That simply didn't happen.

EDIT: Let me expand on this thought a bit. If the Peter R chart showed an important link between non-speculative use (what the Farewell Post Princess called "users" as opposed to "investors") then the relationship should have broken down during the 10x runups. It didn't. The chart simply shows that activity is correlated with price, but there is no basis there for disqualifying speculative activity as being critical to the correlation. Quite the contrary.

[smooth]

Nvm we are off topic

Fair point. I deleted all my replies.

Now back to your regularly scheduled repitela bashing.

[RedZeppelin]

Nvm we are off topic

Fair point. I deleted all my replies.

Now back to your regularly scheduled repitela bashing.

Yes fucking nazis i wanna torture them to death for being so undemocratic and inhumane!
(please note the person dont have to be a "nazi", just the assumption that someone are gives you the right to freely torture them)
They have 0 respect for human life thats why i cant to crush them with a Caterpillar!
If he is not pro HBTQRDTERSIUTERA-rights due to religious beliefs he fucking deserves to be burned alive in the name of sexual freedom!

[r3wt]

And per Peter R's chart, user adoption is what drives the market cap, not investor adoption.

Peter R's chart doesn't show that because: 1. it doesn't show causality, and 2. there is no way to know whether the transactions and/or addresses in use on the Bitcoin network are users or investors. A huge amount of Bitcoin activity is investors, probably a majority. Really, who "uses" Bitcoin? Who used it last November-December when his chart showed both the metrics and price skyrocketing? A better interpretation of his chart is that investors drive market cap!

I use bitcoin all the time. even during the boom i used bitcoin. i've even done a few in person transactions will zealous hillbillies. Perhaps you are projecting abit..

Do you really think that is, in the aggregate, highly significant relative to the amount of speculative activity? I don't. At the height of Silk Road it is possible there were a lot of non-speculative transactions. Outside of that time period I doubt it. Admittedly I don't have any hard data either way.

I wholly reject a 10x increase in non-speculative activity over a relatively short time though. That simply didn't happen.

EDIT: Let me expand on this thought a bit. If the Peter R chart showed an important link between non-speculative use (what the Farewell Post Princess called "users" as opposed to "investors") then the relationship should have broken down during the 10x runups. It didn't. The chart simply shows that activity is correlated with price, but there is no basis there for disqualifying speculative activity as being critical to the correlation. Quite the contrary.

Since were dealing in opinions here, this is mine. The Peter R chart only proves the willingness for people to blindly trust data as truth without investigation or research. I just don't buy the validity of the methods used to discern an investor from a "user". I think the data is invalid and made up.

[DieJohnny]

this is just one of many complex social issues that is being simplified by categorizing anyone without the proper social wordview (of which there are many differing non socially acceptable views) with a blanket derogatory term.

the issue has nothing to do with gays.  rather making it acceptable to demonize and punish anyone who does not hold the correct wordview.

Segregation was pretty hip and worldview at one point, too. Still is in certain parts, I'm told.

FYI, you are using a complete BS straw man argument, also an association fallacy

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

Most arguments that support homosexual new-worldview are straw man arguments or are association fallacies.

The very core moral position of homosexuality being wholesome is a daisy chained list of false arguments: natural, compassionate, emotional, loving, against religion. blah blah blah blah blah

If there is a single defining world event that epitomizes the group think of the modern internet community it is the embracing of homosexuality based on a never ending attack on logic and reason.

The most Hilarious reality is that the belief system built up to support of homosexuality is actually a new religion, of course ironically most homosexual supports actually abhor religion, unless i guess it is the one of their own making.

[rikkejohn]

this is just one of many complex social issues that is being simplified by categorizing anyone without the proper social wordview (of which there are many differing non socially acceptable views) with a blanket derogatory term.

the issue has nothing to do with gays.  rather making it acceptable to demonize and punish anyone who does not hold the correct wordview.

Segregation was pretty hip and worldview at one point, too. Still is in certain parts, I'm told.

FYI, you are using a complete BS straw man argument, also an association fallacy

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

Most arguments that support homosexual new-worldview are straw man arguments or are association fallacies.

The very core moral position of homosexuality being wholesome is a daisy chained list of false arguments: natural, compassionate, emotional, loving, against religion. blah blah blah blah blah

If there is a single defining world event that epitomizes the group think of the modern internet community it is the embracing of homosexuality based on a never ending attack on logic and reason.

The most Hilarious reality is that the belief system built up to support of homosexuality is actually a new religion, of course ironically most homosexual supports actually abhor religion, unless i guess it is the one of their own making.

The second time you have pulled the Strawman, and the seond time you have then made an absurd argument, which is actually ..... fallacious!

Tragic.

[cAPSLOCK]

Why are you provoking people with bigoted red neck attitudes?

Lol irony.

[RedZeppelin]

this is just one of many complex social issues that is being simplified by categorizing anyone without the proper social wordview (of which there are many differing non socially acceptable views) with a blanket derogatory term.

the issue has nothing to do with gays.  rather making it acceptable to demonize and punish anyone who does not hold the correct wordview.

Segregation was pretty hip and worldview at one point, too. Still is in certain parts, I'm told.

FYI, you are using a complete BS straw man argument, also an association fallacy

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

Most arguments that support homosexual new-worldview are straw man arguments or are association fallacies.

The very core moral position of homosexuality being wholesome is a daisy chained list of false arguments: natural, compassionate, emotional, loving, against religion. blah blah blah blah blah

If there is a single defining world event that epitomizes the group think of the modern internet community it is the embracing of homosexuality based on a never ending attack on logic and reason.

The most Hilarious reality is that the belief system built up to support of homosexuality is actually a new religion, of course ironically most homosexual supports actually abhor religion, unless i guess it is the one of their own making.

The second time you have pulled the Strawman, and the seond time you have then made an absurd argument, which is actually ..... fallacious!

Tragic.

He just made the most valid argument point ever.. Nothing absurd about it. Nothing absurd about telling a honest truth, it is the truth that is absurd in this case.

[giveBTCpls]

I asked you once your history, how did you became rich? specifically, step by step, no bullshit.

It takes a long time to tell, and to be useful for the reader, requires a mindset of appreciation (open mind).

Until so far, I haven't felt that giving this information out for free in the forums (any more than what I do already in my posting, often enough to be an object of hate) is the priority or even a smart thing.

By the way I did make a list of at least 10 bulletpoints just when we talked about the matter in my Wall Observer. It is there, you could find it and link it here for reference that I have been quite open about it.

How I am not open minded? I just have made an observation: Whenever someone gets legit rich (as in a lot of money) and I ask them to tell me about it, theres always a BIG element of luck that was outside the person's control. They often like to downplay this or even totally deny any luck when they tell their "how did I get rich" stories because then the story becomes less interesting. I wanted to see if your story would be different but you avoided getting into detail with it.

[rpietila]

I asked you once your history, how did you became rich? specifically, step by step, no bullshit.

It takes a long time to tell, and to be useful for the reader, requires a mindset of appreciation (open mind).

Until so far, I haven't felt that giving this information out for free in the forums (any more than what I do already in my posting, often enough to be an object of hate) is the priority or even a smart thing.

By the way I did make a list of at least 10 bulletpoints just when we talked about the matter in my Wall Observer. It is there, you could find it and link it here for reference that I have been quite open about it.

How I am not open minded? I just have made an observation: Whenever someone gets legit rich (as in a lot of money) and I ask them to tell me about it, theres always a BIG element of luck that was outside the person's control. They often like to downplay this or even totally deny any luck when they tell their "how did I get rich" stories because then the story becomes less interesting. I wanted to see if your story would be different but you avoided getting into detail with it.

It is called "luck" when they have tirelessly done things that have a low % of success, and a big payout, and it finally happens.

In the same way as buying lottery coupons, yes.

The difference is not whether luck is involved, it is in that entrepreneurship itself is based on skill and has a +EV, buying lottery coupons is neither.