Topic: Catherine Flick spreads FUD on bitcoin and dual use - page 2. (Read 5721 times)

That is a consistent definition.

Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person."

If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object.

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:


Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

You see that's your problem, you keep making statements without any proof.. I'm not asking for your opinion what you think constitutes to a debate, I'm asking you whether you can prove as a matter of fact, much like how you'd attempt to prove gravity by throwing a rock as a matter of fact, that a debate is what you say it is.

(btw I wouldn't try too hard, cause it's just your opinion and there is no proof..)

Again: Are they basing their arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then they are having a debate. What's your point?

-deleted, already covered

Good post by the first poster.

Catherine Flicks I don't know, but if it's correct that she's an academic it probably means she is working for an institution that is completely or party state founded. Having liberal views or condoning something like bitcoin might have real consequences for her professional career and paycheck, although in theory an academic should be allowed to speak freely about whatever he/she wants to speak about, there are often people in high powerful positions that can have someones career wrecked unless they are political correct. And more so if the academic is continually pushing a view that the people sitting on the money bag disagrees with.

I can't assume anything about her and her motives, but for a large amount of people, fear and powerful people above them does limit what they dare say, write or publish because they are afraid to have their paychecks taken away from them.


I'm sure most of you are aware of that, and just think for youself. If you have a difficult boss, and are dependant on your job to make ends meet, and you know that the boss dislikes people who talk against him, no matter how stupid his ideas are, and you know that he does in fact fire and cause troubble for people that speak their mind freely, would you still speak your mind freely ? Chance are that most people will not, because they are afraid.

Of course, finding a new job in such a situation would be the advisable thing to do, but this is the same reason you will never find a bank manager talking highly about bitcoin, as this is not in the interest of the board and the share holders, even if he personally loves bitcoin.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof as a matter of fact.

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

You got the point, but then you jumped and took the bait anyway..   

As far as dual use goes it's very simple what the two cases are :  1) stuff I like 2) stuff I don't like
and no, you will not find any examples that everybody agrees with. 

Personally I'm more interested in the transactions that block chain currencies DON'T allow:  me adding 9 zeros to my bank account because I know a secret handshake. 

Currencies don't need fans; they needs users.  Bitcoin users and followers do not need to be timid or ashamed of a protocol that enables transactions with user-defined anonymity and user-defined untraceability. It is a proud and noble cause. Personally, I would like to see greater integration and cooperation with the Tor, i2p, and Freenet communities. And, I know some that are working towards this already.

I'm not quite sure how any 'payment medium' can be pushed as a cause for 'good' or for 'bad', except maybe via the bitcoin miners and the protocol revisions that they select to adopt. The reason it is FUD is because she associated dual use as a major dilemma for bitcoin. It is not a dilemma for bitcoin -- it is a feature. Several others have pointed out that knives and pencils and cars have dual use too.  Here are some examples of positive transactions that bitcoin facilitates (be proud....feel free to add your own):

1. the financial support of politically-unpopular or politically-incorrect causes;
2. the father who discretely wants to support an illegitimate child;
3. the woman exercising her right to choose to have a private abortion;
4. the person paying for victimless crime transactions, like pot and prostitution (laws against those enforce morality);
5. the person paying for a VPN service who doesn't want to leave a payment trail;
6. persecuted minorities fleeing a dictator in an attempt to secretly transport their small remaining wealth to safety;
7. Libyan living in Benghazi buying handgun to protect his family from Gaddhafi thugs;
8. the Iranian, Syrian, or man that purchases a gun for the protection of his family;

Quote from: genjix on February 06, 2012, 02:52:08 PM

BTW is Irdial lonelyminer? He should email me if he wants to write an article.

Irdial already has a very successful blog and he has written articles for many years at http://irdial.com/blogdial/

Wow, a thinking person, at bitcointalk no less. You must get flamed and called a troll frequently during your ramblings here.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

But real quick:

That is false. In order to live it's not merely preferred to breathe, drink, eat ect, it is required. Same goes for anything else. As soon as you have an subjective goal(staying alive), you also have objective requirements(breathing, drinking, ect). Without a goal you merely have a subjective preference. Subjective preferences != objective requirements.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate. Btw look at politicians on TV having a debate, does your definition apply to them? No. But they still call it a debate.


Therefor UPB is invalid.

And there you go. It's all just Stef's opinion, nothing less, nothing more, unfortunately.

Yes of course, unfortunately UPB is invalid as I show here: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/34084.aspx (my OP isn't as clear as it could be but if you read all my posts you'll see exactly why it's invalid)

Stef makes the preposterous mistake of pretending that preference = requirement which is the same as if I claimed 2+2=5 but also 5=4, as soon as he does that he renders his whole argument invalid by his own standards.

Ok, I'm sure you (hazek) are familiar with this argumentation:

Universally Preferable Behavior in a Nutshell (by Stefan Molyneux)

Below, please find a summation of the core argument for morality.

Reality is objective and consistent.
“Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”
Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
“Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

He is merely stating that there is no proof to support a conclusion to the contrary therefor not an opinion. I'm sure if you can prove as a matter of fact that ethics aren't just based on opinion he will admit he was wrong.

I agree completely, I really want someone to prove to me as a matter of fact that ethics exists and that there is such a thing as objective morality but I haven't found one single person that can do that.

Btw bitplane, could I perhaps get you interested in this thread I wrote on another forum? It goes into how to bring about a voluntary society upon realizing that ethics are subjective and "rights" an illusion: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/34237.aspx

You seem like a likeminded person so I'd really appreciate your opinion.

Is that an opinion?

define "good".