Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nothing I say or do will ever change your mind.one might perhaps find it more entertaining to learn the mind before attempting to change the mind
That is good advice.
I also find it dishonest to back away from a contention because of the claim "I can't change your mind", it's inappropriate to consider it a forgone conclusion that the only purpose of debating is to change their mind. One may well believe they are correct and it's very unlikely that they will lose the debate, but if one is honest and fair one admits the other guy thinks the same thing. If it's pointless because they won't change their mind, were you going to change yours?
It is reminiscent of people who start a debate only to say "I'm just trying to educate you, but if you don't want to learn".... No one was accepted as sensei.
The purpose of debate is to find out which assertions are correct inferences and which are not. If you only care about changing minds and not the truth you're trying conversion not debate. If someone is not engaging in a debate honestly then say they aren't engaging in a debate honestly.
Created:
Posted in:
I think he's saying the Irish were tricked, thinking they were getting a bunch of nice relatable orthodox christians and when the boats come they get something else (not Ukrainians)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
This site is like a stage for you and BrotherD isn't it? Honestly it looks a bit fun, but I think role playing is a better use of your energies; some good stories come out of those and even if it's very silly it's exciting because you shape it.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
[bmdrocks21:] And I’m old enough to remember 2016 when Hillary Clinton said the election was “stolen” from herSure but there's a world a difference between complaining about an election and actively working to overthrow the government. The former is just democracy then latter is just treason.
If the complaint was that the reported election results did not reflect the will of the people (and that is the only valid complaint) it was and is exactly the same thing. In fact if someone believes the election was stolen, I mean really believes it instead of just lying when asked, it of course follows that the true government of the united states is the person who isn't sitting in the big white buildings. Therefore the current occupants are usurpers, and therefore anyone who gives loyalty to them over the democratically elected and corruptly excluded candidates is a traitor.
All of that is implied by saying someone didn't actually win an election, by saying there was enough cheating to change the results, by saying someone is the illegitimate leader.
This isn't a new phenomenon, it's very old; wars of succession and legitimacy are most civil wars. Democrats have always been more willing to make the accusation, Clinton's claims were the first time it came into the mainstream thought in a long time (so yea she started it), and at least the MAGA claims of illegitimacy actually related to the only possible way an election could be illegitimate (false ballots/counts).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
When people get tribal they act collectively, people acting collectively to violate rights can't be fought the same way individuals are, to match their force and coordination you need to treat them like the collective they behave as. It's called war, and it's horrible; but defeat is not the noble way out.It’s a pretty self defeating approach to take on a debate site. If one isn’t here to defend their actual beliefs I have no idea why they are here.
I don't see how this follows from my statement.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Don't get your hopes too high, but yes I believe civil war is coming at some point in the near future (2-8 years).
The primary reason is because the "big truth" of the months after 2020 election is that regardless of whether cheating sufficient to change the outcome could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nobody in power thought it was their job to disprove it.
A democracy is not defined as a government which is capable of pointing to a big pile of ballots, there needs to be no reasonable doubt that the ballots each represent the will of one citizen. American democracy is dead until that burden of proof is lifted once again. Consequently everyone who thought it was stolen or even that it might have been stolen rightly perceive the constitution as a broken social contract.
Broken contracts do not bind the betrayed parties.
The stakes are too high, the only way this pot won't boil over is radical defederalization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Second, a liberal would ask "what if an individual possess all the characteristics of a female but cannot produce eggs?
First, I'm a liberal - someone who holds liberty as a primary value, and that is a perfect example of what happens if you back down when definitions are being subverted (changed for dishonest reasons).
The answer would be: If she cannot produce eggs she does not possess all the characteristics, but most. It would behoove one at this point to ask if some features are worth more than others, and in the earth case of genotypic variation causing the sexual dimorphism I would say that feature is 99% because once the genotype is verified all other deviation can be objectively classed as deformity or genetic disease.
It is well known that at some point a woman stops producing eggs, perhaps her ovaries are damaged before their time, but that does not mean her body is no longer the egg producing phenotype. Damaged, exhausted, poorly formed, surgically removed are all fundamentally different from absent because no attempt at formation was made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
What is a female.
An individual of a male/female sex species which expresses more sexually dimorphic traits correlated with the female sex than traits correlated with the male sex.
Let me try to get ahead of a few more:
sex - a phenotypic cluster almost always associated (on earth) with a genotypic variation that serve in complimentary function with the other sexes allow for sexual reproduction and gene recombination.
female sex - the phenotypic cluster which produces eggs
male sex - the phenotypic cluster which produces sperm
Created:
Posted in:
An adult female human
female is a term used in the sciences, so is human (referring to homo sapiens sapiens), so is adult.
There is no "scientific" argument for why a definition should be a certain way. Some concepts are more useful than others. Utility of language demands that definitions long established and commonly used should not be changed, especially when the proposed reason is that someone doesn't like the concept it refers to. They may find it useless, but in that case they should use a different word and stop using the word in question.
Created:
-->
@Conservallectual
To support/attack a claim you must first prove/disprove it scientifically. If you can't prove or disprove an idea scientifically, you must then try to prove/disprove the idea/claim rationally/logically/philosophically.
The distinctions are abstract and have no bearing on any specific subject or assertion.
Rationally is a synonym for logically in this context. Philosophically does not translate to something specific. Science is simply rational epistemology applied to hypothetical explanation of phenomenon, especially with the aid of math or experimentation.
It all boils down to a good argument... and by good I mean sound/strong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Trump was a beloved celebrity until he uttered those words. There are over 100 instances of documented government retaliation against Trump after those words were spoken vs the one against Disney.First of all, politics is not a team sport, there is no 100-1 scorecard. If someone retaliates against Trump, that would be wrong and should be addressed. Just as what happened to Disney is wrong and needs to be addressed. Why is that so difficult?
It is difficult because that is in reality false, it should be true; but it isn't. When people get tribal they act collectively, people acting collectively to violate rights can't be fought the same way individuals are, to match their force and coordination you need to treat them like the collective they behave as. It's called war, and it's horrible; but defeat is not the noble way out.
e.g. If Dresden has to burn to end nazism then Dresden should burn. The blame rests on those who started the fight and made collateral damage necessary for the preservation of rights.
[coal] Sorry. I just don't take your thoughts on this matter seriously enough to expend the time to respond.
One trick pony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Disney has had a special privilege for years now that is being taken from it. It isn't a punishment to take away a special privilege.
I made that same argument against the tendered benefits homosexual marriage, It is flawed when the privilege is in fact a right. Paying less taxes is a right because paying zero taxes is a right. Building the buildings you want is also a right. Equal detriment is still detriment.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
It's not just the Pulitzer prize winning Politifact
Congratulations you've discovered partisanship. Do you consider Tim Pool and Ben Shapiro separate sources that boost each other's credibility?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
[RM:] They should love their sex, be as a feminine a male and as masculine a female as they naturally are.
Yes, if you don't like a gender role don't live it out. It's the conflation of gender roles with biology that is unhealthy.
Exactly, though I would caution against necessarily calling it being a feminine male or masculine female. A lot of this revolves around modern gender stereotypes and trying to pigeonhole people into one set category.
Some of those stereotypes are generally accurate, but a liberal society doesn't punish deviation. The world was turning just fine when tomboys (for example) were noted and accepted as such, but they weren't cutting body parts off.
It's primarily the fact that medical technology is not at the point of being able to change gender, yet it is being marketed as such that disturbs me. If you could make an XX or XY clone and download your consciousness into it because you would rather be a different gender would there be any rational objection? I don't think so.
The reality is, even with HRT, they're fighting their own biology and in some cases permanently damaging it. Outside of the current cultural zeitgeist I think it will be seen as just another form of body mutilation along with foot/head binding, enormous piercings, holding giant discs in your lips, etc...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
In the code of Hammurabi a person who makes a false accusation, and it is proven that they knew it was false; they get the punishment set for the crime that they accused someone of. Something like that needs to make a come back.Well we also know that peasant on elite punishment was not the same as elite on peasant punishment.
That is unrelated to the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Well it's a cause for concern over the functionality of the federal government.Yeah, like government under your presidency would have done better the last two years? I doubt that.
You would shudder to see the government under my presidency, but it would be better in the long term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
[ILikePie5] You could be a pedophile. If you’re not, you have nothing to fear.[ADOL] What rock have you been living under? There is plenty to fear from baseless investigations. The investigation itself is used as evidence for defamation, sometimes the investigators plant evidence, sometimes people are so emotional that they convict you even when there is reasonable doubt.I have nothing to fear because I'm anonymous. I would have an enormous amount to fear otherwise, my trust in the justice system and my fellow citizens when taboo sexual matters are at issue is 0/10.
Yea, bumping the thread but this one did stick in my craw so when I read this I felt like pounding it some more. I have the next 23 years to fear for, and so does everyone within a km of a child with this accusation.
In the code of Hammurabi a person who makes a false accusation, and it is proven that they knew it was false; they get the punishment set for the crime that they accused someone of. Something like that needs to make a come back.
Created:
Posted in:
You can let someone else define all the terms, but if they do that does not mean their moral conflations are applicable. If they define walking as genocide then they have to prove genocide is bad, it's equivocation to transfer the moral pre-calculations made before a term changed definitions.
If transphobia is defined as disapproval of gender reassignment procedures then it cannot be taken for granted that it is bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I already delt with this shit before on Debate.org. Some jackass called my home phone and I traced it back directly to his home address within 3 minutes.
The danger would be the people who don't call you to tell you how angry they are, they just watch you for a while and shoot you with a big scope.
Now I admit that this is very rare, it constantly amazes me that only one president died like that. I suppose it takes a special kind of mental problem to stay that angry, and that mental problem makes planning and the patience it requires difficult.
Just friendly advice for the internet cowards of the world who think they are anonymous and untraceable. Your IP address can be traced right to you and your location for $50.00. That's right, all that stands between you and some deranged psychotic killer that you pissed off on the internet is $50.00.
There are people who know quite a lot about technology and what is and is not possible. This only reinforces the "pearl is too shallow for torpedo" vibe I'm getting from you.
Created:
Posted in:
The elves and hobbits all being caucasian af was the major gripe.
It's only a gripe for a racist, because only a racist can't empathize with an individual of another race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Fuck with me at your own risk, if you can find me, I can find you.
That is the statement of someone who is unfamiliar with military science. For the last three thousand years or so the person/group who spots the other before they are spotted is probably going to win.
It's a pretty high bar to get someone on the internet so angry that they really want to come for you, but if they do they have an enormous advantage.
Created:
Posted in:
You setup a false dichotomy, Tolkein didn't darken the skin of a previously well defined thing. This is very very stupid argument because melanin has a distinct color to it that is not at all greyscale.
Even your own picture of the "darkest" orc is surrounded by a bunch of weird shades of grey. It is never entirely clear whether that is their natural skin color or some kind of disease/stain/grime.
Some of the goblins in Moria were especially pasty with veins visible (as if there was no pigment at all, consistent with an underground life).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then perhaps it was a better analogy then I originally intended, as some reference frames complicate the problem and some simplify it. You could try to subjectivize the definition of orbit, but that will accomplish only confusion while removing vagueness in a way such as to create the most straightforward geometry/math is the objectively superior conception.
I can assure you that if you went to astronauts and told them to use the reference frame of the Tesla floating out there complete with rotation they would tell you to keep your sophistry out of their sight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
You also criticize Tolkien's depiction of Orcs in comparison to the depiction in other fantasy settings when it is Tolkien that brought to orcs into the fantasy genre to begin with. He brought Orcs out of Beowulf, where they were a tribe of evil elves condemned by God, and brought them into the fantasy genre. His depiction is pretty well in-line with the mythology he drew from, so this criticism is also bs.
Took the words out of my mouth, again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is this a matter of opinion or is it an independent observation? You can make objective statements about subjective matters so long as we agree to a particular subjective perspective for the purposes of the conversation.
Yes, the way I explain it is that a subjective statement is simply an objective statement which has omitted the subject.
[1] Chocolate ice-cream is delicious <- subjective
[2] ADOL believes chocolate ice-cream is delicious <- objective
"delicious" is a concept defined by a subject. It is always "delicious to whom", just as words like "necessary", "important", "sacred" must necessarily reference a goal, outcome, or state of being.
[3] The moon orbits the earth <- objective
[4] ADOL believes the moon orbits the earth <- objective
[3] can be objective while [1] cannot because there are no unfilled subject slots implied by the concepts at play. A subjective statement is never true or false because it is always malformed (in the strict logical sense).
Now that we have that down, we can see that the concept of value does have a subject slot; but we can also see that this does not mean there are no objective statements about values and consequently formal logic can operate on the concept of values and produce conclusions that all rational subjects are obliged to agree with.
The next pertinent question is whether you can define a group of subjects such that certain values must exist. If you can do that, then you can through logic infer a code of behavior which achieves their universal value(s). That is an objective code of morality spanning a community, thus it is an objective social morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@RM, well you may be right that reliable statistics don't exist, but then your original claim about Africa is unverifiable and should be disregarded.
[RM:] Buddy the government lets them fucking starve,[Greyparrot:] First it's the rich people letting them starve, now it's the government.BINGO...it's the rich government.[RM:] Correct. It should tax the rich more to give to the poor, LOL! Didn't think that one through did you?
Ouch, no I'm afraid it's you RM who didn't think that one through. If the rich people = the government how do you think they got rich?..... taxes, yes ladies and gentlemen the answer is taxes.
[RM:] That is why force is required to get tax money out of the greedy.
"investment" without consent is most accurately called theft.
[zedvictor4:] The reality is that you [greyparrot] achieve relative to your ability, and are resentful of those who possess a greater ability to achieve more than you.
Where did he relate resentment against those of "greater ability"? Are you suggesting government tax offices are staffed by a superior breed of men?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What makes a standard subjective?Being dependent upon the opinion or perspective of some (not necessarily human) subject.
"secularmerlin has the capacity to form opinions and acts upon his/her opinions"
Is that a subjective statement?
Created:
Posted in:
You said "starving", so starvation deaths per capita would be the appropriate metric.
Created:
Posted in:
The few places that dabbled in so-called communism are just more aggressive/violent.
... and poor
Created:
Posted in:
I don't like it, but it is an in-kind attack in the context of the culture war.
Created:
Posted in:
RM, Africa has been overrun by communists and islamists. The only places that haven't had multiple experiments with communism are the places that aren't really starving.
Created:
Posted in:
[RM:] In your ideal society, would welfare, taken from the most wealthy regardless of their greed and given the most desperate, be how the poor can eat and afford sanitary products or would food bank charities (taken from the most empathetic, regardless of wealth) be the way?
They wouldn't be taken, they would be given; and it would be predicted by empathy * wealth. Rich people do give more to charity because they have less quality of life to lose on account of it for any given level of empathy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
[ADOL:]That isn't even close to what I said. Whether or not I agree with a goal, or have personally acted towards it has nothing to do with whether I'll tolerate the use of force or fraud.[RationalMadman:] Force is necessary to enforce the will of the populace (in democracy) or leadership (in autocracy) upon those that wish to circumvent the rules of the system.
Yes it is, it's right there in the definition of "enforce". Regardless of who does or intends to use force or deception, the only moral reason to use force or deception is in the protection of objective rights, i.e. to prevent or discourage the initiation of force or deception, i.e. aggressive force.
I have just violated the CoC by promoting violence BTW.
[RationalMadman:] Fraud is committed by the rich to tax-evade severely, regularly and at large. The poor-welfare fraud is mainly being used out of desperation to cope better. So, which fraud disgusts you more?
First, disgust is an emotion. Emotion belongs in the phase after fact-finding not before or during. Second, tax evasion is not fraud anymore than telling a mugger you forgot your wallet is fraud.
[ADOL:] I don't have to hate cotton clothing to hate slave plantations[RationalMadman:] You do have to hate a government that does not blackmail/force slavers to cease their enslavement if others, to hate slavery.
Perhaps, but failure to prevent evil is not morally equivalent to evil.
[ADOL:] I don't have to hate cotton clothing to hate slave plantations[RationalMadman:] Nice try at the red herring analogy, I am just too adept to fall for such rhetoric, I saw the flaw instantly.
Yes, perhaps you could use this as an example in your next lecture. Unfortunately the analogy is sound:
Person A: X is good, but using violence to achieve X is bad. [1]
Person B responds: Oh, I see. So you are fine with others pursuing X but never yourself. [2]
The only way the response is coherent is with the implicit assertion:
A person cannot value X unless they are willing to endorse using violence to achieve X. [3]
The counter-example for [3] is:
Here is X that we both value, but neither of us endorse using violence to get X.
In the original claim X is "helping the poor". The analogy replaces X with "cotton clothing", and plantations are an example of achieving cotton clothing through violence.
[Greyparrot:] Sure it does. Defrauding the government is a defense against force. And justifiable. Defrauding Democrat tax payers through welfare fraud is just a bonus.
I see you're violating the CoC provision against promoting criminal behavior, I'll join you and agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I'm 95% sure this is nonsense, nothing personal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So you're pretty sure this site won't see an increase in popularity huh?I don’t see what difference it makes. The vote at the end is what matters. And the same moderator cannot be petitioned against for 6 months if the vote fails. There won’t be a perpetual of petitions.
As written when I read it, No moderator can be impeached during the cooldown.
Suppose 10 people support a controversial action of a moderator, and to protect that moderator they launch a petition against any other moderator simply to trigger the cooldown?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though I do not accept the concept of objectivity.
That explains a lot. You can't succeed if you don't try and you won't try if you don't accept the concept.
Why would I give you anything, when you do not provide me with anything.
That was the point. It's not as simple as "pay your dues", some dues (duties) are unjust.
And look around and also look in the history books
I'm sure I'm in the 95th percentile of historical awareness.
where you will see that all attempts at pseudo Marxist utopian societies
That strawman is smelly, drop it already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The only reason 10 people sounds hard to do is because you're used to a nearly dead forum. On other forums you could easily gather 10 people who will swear the earth is flat. You may want to add another limitation that the people who sign a petition have a 24 month cooldown before they can sign another if the removal fails.I created the MEEP with respect to the site. 10 seemed like a reasonable number for this site.
So you're pretty sure this site won't see an increase in popularity huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes, that provision was under the limitations section which RM complained about.
The only reason 10 people sounds hard to do is because you're used to a nearly dead forum. On other forums you could easily gather 10 people who will swear the earth is flat. You may want to add another limitation that the people who sign a petition have a 24 month cooldown before they can sign another if the removal fails.
Created:
Posted in:
That isn't even close to what I said. Whether or not I agree with a goal, or have personally acted towards it has nothing to do with whether I'll tolerate the use of force or fraud.
I don't have to hate cotton clothing to hate slave plantations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why are you putting LIMITATIONS that hurt our ability to LIMIT the power of moderators?To prevent abuse?
If there was no cool down at all 10 people could cripple the site with a constant impeachment battle even though there is no chance of removal.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't oppose any charity, only theft. I don't believe any significant number of people oppose a purely voluntary welfare system.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sorry but your crypto-utopia is basically electronic Marxist hypocrisy, that just doesn't take into account inherent human behaviour and predictability.
Sorry but you're beating a strawman. If it wasn't straw you would have some implication or claim of mine to reference. Observe:
Inherent inequality will exist whatever the currency.
I never said anything about wealth inequality.
So before you can successfully change the system, you will firstly need to change the human.
Has human nature changed from 1000 AD? No. Have systems? Yes. QED
And Brigands, Raiders, Nomads, Thieves, Cavalry and Parasites.......You've been watching far to many fantasy videos.I can assure you that real life is nothing like that.....Well it certainly isn't where I come from.
Yes it is, but because you are from there and have not considered these matters with a commitment to perfect objectivity you are not consciously aware of the parallels.
You earn your money, pay your dues and hopefully lead a reasonably healthy and contented life.
You owe me £235,323,3424, now pay your due and hopefully you can lead a reasonable healthy and contended life.
Too much? How about £235, you could probably afford that.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Overall production of what by whom?
Goods and services, by humanity or segment of humanity.
And who currently steals what?
Gangs of all sizes steal wealth. The largest class of thieves are governments, and the worst offenders among governments are governments with rapidly inflating fiat currency.
You seem to have an odd jaundiced idea of current society and it's machinations.....Assuming that a different currency system will somehow alter human behaviour and society for the better.
It's not an assumption it's a prediction based on easily demonstrated dynamics.
The hierarchy of ability and consequent wealth disparity, is what get's things done....How do you think that this will be different?
Wealth disparity is a consequence not a cause of divergent ability/drive. I already told you what would be different: stealing is parasitic behavior and a system which has relatively less stealing is a system where less production is wasted.
One may call the trades of wandering nomads "capitalism", but the fact is that the overall prosperity of a wandering nomadic society is highly depressed when a significant portion of them are brigands and raiders. Sending the cavalry after such parasites does not produce wealth, but it does prevent wealth from being wasted by people who do not appreciate what it costs and do not produce anything themselves.
That's what cryptocurrency could be, a self-enforcing law staving off a class of thievery. I never suggested a single blade of wheat would be grown because of cryptocurrency. Many will be saved for the people who deserve them, and thereby others will be encouraged to produce rather than steal.
You will just end up with different but the same, or the same but different.......With social infrastructure to pay for and bureaucratic administrators administrating, and you in prison if you refuse to pay your taxes.....Or you imprisoning others if they refuse to pay their taxes.
That is one phase, that phase could be transcended by privacy coins. Even with just BTC inflation-theft is eliminated.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Doesn't make any difference what the dominant currency is....... Crypto or Dollars.You've either got it or not.
It makes an enormous difference. Dollars can be stolen by a flick of a government bureaucrat's wrist. Crypto requires that you personally be extorted or defrauded.
I for one am very hopeful that an enormous reduction in the level of theft could lead to a significant increase in prosperity.
And it's not going to appear in ones account from nowhere.
Ironically pounds and dollars do just that.
Wealth doesn't appear out of nowhere and it never will, but when people can steal instead of produce the overall production is reduced.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It's too late, I've already been Bible Slapped Silly®️.
[BrotherD]: I am a non divisional TRUE Christian where I accept ALL of what the JUDEO-Christian Bible brings forth, even accepting that Jesus is truly a brutal serial killer as Yahweh God incarnate where His presumed "ever loving and forgiving nature" falls flat upon its proverbial face, period!
So I'm imagining a crusader in a megachurch except he doesn't even care if the pope tells him to stop killing in the name of Jesus. He just kills the hellbound pope.
I don't think this guy is real, but if he is real that does answer a long awaited question of mine: What would a christian osama bin laden look like?
PS Jesus is the first or second most obvious pacifist in history, he never claimed he was god; which is a weird thing to omit during your wandering guruship if you were god. To claim simultaneously that he is god and also a serial killer.... next level reinterpretation.
Created:
BrotherD is the most entertaining of them all.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm far from sure that there is any real benefit to be gained, by challenging an established system with basically the same system, wherein both systems are based upon the same principles.
You either deeply misunderstand national "reserve" banking, or you deeply misunderstand crypto.
So if you wished to buy land or property from me, I would set a price that would have to be met in Pounds Sterling.....Therefore you would need to possess crypto of a comparative value, and an institution or system that would be prepared to convert crypto to Pounds Sterling.....Or vice versa.
You may want pounds now but if a pound is worth half as much as it was last year you won't keep wealth in pounds. Then you'll want to store it somewhere stable. You can try to choose other land, try to use gold, silver, diamonds, etc... but nothing will be as easy to buy and immune from theft as crypto.
Once you keep your money in crypto and the land buyer keeps their money in crypto, why convert to pounds?
So unless one can invent a technology whereby wealth can be created from nothing........But then, how would such an egalitarian system function?....Robots perhaps......But what would motivate people?......Boredom perhaps.
That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Currency is a medium of trade, it need have no intrinsic value; it need only be secure and stable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Well it's a cause for concern over the functionality of the federal government. No matter what you believe about public health, the legislature did not act; certainly would have locked it up in an omnibus struggle, the executive used unaccountable bureaucracies to create de facto novel law, then after the law has had nearly a year to enact its unlegislated tyrannies (if any) one judge in one state decided it was void, but no restitution of course.
Previously in some states we saw executives being struck down by courts, only to change a few phrases and issue the exact same psuedo-law knowing that there is no punishment for basically ignoring judges.
This kind of "better to ask for forgiveness" attitude towards federal and state constitutions will only escalate, leading to the few that judicial roles are critical political battlegrounds (that view is already widespread).
One of these days, and I think within the next decade, some states are just going to stop caring. I mean they will ignore federal judgements & laws and then there will be a real constitutional crisis: Defederalize or dissolve.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Oh they'll last. Their harder to steal than gold. The more governments overplay financial manipulation the stronger crypto will be. It's a one way ratchet as long as opposing governments compete.
I wouldn't look at it like an investment, more like an inflation defense.
Created: