Has the 'Bitcoin Experiment' changed your political or economic views at all? - page 2.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: coder_guy on December 17, 2012, 01:16:33 AM

Your view of morality didn't state anything about girls randomly growing those things.

I didn't say she'd use a penis.
Safe for Work
NSFW (Don't say you weren't warned)

You, however, did say you would like to forcibly penetrate her.
You further said:

Quote from: coder_guy on December 17, 2012, 12:52:37 AM

-> Would I want them to do this to me?
-> Yup.

Therefore, you stated that you would like to be forcibly penetrated. If this is not so, then you might want to retract your statement.

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1006

Quote from: myrkul on December 14, 2012, 08:27:53 PM

Quote from: rebuilder on December 14, 2012, 07:58:42 PM

Quote from: Rudd-O on December 11, 2012, 04:58:38 PM

Very true. In fact, religious morality is the exact opposite of objective -- it is arbitrary, full of magical exceptions, and not based at all on relevant material fact. Once again, cunticula has it exactly the other way around. Does not surprise me.

I'd argue there's a bias towards equating "morality" with "good". I, too, can't see any way to have morality without a supreme authority. This doesn't mean there's no right and wrong, the responsibility for deciding what is what is simply left to the individual.

Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible to live morally without asking yourself, "Would God want me to do this to them?" All you have to do is change that question to "Would I want them to do this to me?" If the answer is no, don't do it.

No myrkul. The question is to ask is, "Would I be capable of rational thought without a supreme creator enabling my ability to do so?".

Your question is illogical. God (if you believe he exists or not) cannot be God if you are able to act independently of him. A "one true supreme creator" isn't something we could label and put in a box. Is he all-supreme or not? If not, then he isn't God.

coder_guy

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Your view of morality didn't state anything about girls randomly growing those things.

Anyway, hey, I'm sure that's some guy's fetish.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: coder_guy on December 17, 2012, 12:52:37 AM

Quote from: myrkul on December 14, 2012, 08:27:53 PM

Quote from: rebuilder on December 14, 2012, 07:58:42 PM

Quote from: Rudd-O on December 11, 2012, 04:58:38 PM

Very true. In fact, religious morality is the exact opposite of objective -- it is arbitrary, full of magical exceptions, and not based at all on relevant material fact. Once again, cunticula has it exactly the other way around. Does not surprise me.

I'd argue there's a bias towards equating "morality" with "good". I, too, can't see any way to have morality without a supreme authority. This doesn't mean there's no right and wrong, the responsibility for deciding what is what is simply left to the individual.

Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible to live morally without asking yourself, "Would God want me to do this to them?" All you have to do is change that question to "Would I want them to do this to me?" If the answer is no, don't do it.

-> I want to rape girl.
-> Would I want them to do this to me?
-> Yup.

k.

(Just for the sake of argument).

You enjoy being forcibly penetrated?

coder_guy

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on December 14, 2012, 08:27:53 PM

Quote from: rebuilder on December 14, 2012, 07:58:42 PM

Quote from: Rudd-O on December 11, 2012, 04:58:38 PM

Very true. In fact, religious morality is the exact opposite of objective -- it is arbitrary, full of magical exceptions, and not based at all on relevant material fact. Once again, cunticula has it exactly the other way around. Does not surprise me.

I'd argue there's a bias towards equating "morality" with "good". I, too, can't see any way to have morality without a supreme authority. This doesn't mean there's no right and wrong, the responsibility for deciding what is what is simply left to the individual.

Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible to live morally without asking yourself, "Would God want me to do this to them?" All you have to do is change that question to "Would I want them to do this to me?" If the answer is no, don't do it.

-> I want to rape girl.
-> Would I want them to do this to me?
-> Yup.

k.

(Just for the sake of argument).

lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)

donator

Activity: 544

Merit: 500

Quote from: cunicula on December 15, 2012, 10:57:11 PM

You failed to explain how the quote below is 'value-free'?

Why should I address what da2ce7 says? I don't know who (s)he is or if (s)he published anything. But based on a first look, the post just seems like several things mixed together.

I recommend you check out the wiki entries on Praxeology and Catallactics. Austrians adhere to the subjective theory of value and reject interpersonal utility comparison.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: johnyj on December 15, 2012, 10:49:55 PM

Gold won't develop into such a bubble, since people can not easily exchange anything with gold (they have to identify the quality of the gold bar they get, they have to physically transfer the metal etc...), they can only use money to inflate the gold price, and the money supply is controlled by central bank

Heat about the slew of gold-backed securities? Can't they turn into a bubble?

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: lonelyminer (Peter Šurda) on December 15, 2012, 04:11:41 PM

You just confirm how clueless you are about Austrian Economics.

You failed to explain how the quote below is 'value-free'? Does anyone else think this quote is 'value-free'? Or is this quote a misrepresentation of Austrian economics?

Quote from: da2ce7 on December 08, 2012, 10:34:44 AM

Austrian’s core is two-fold; it is based upon a set of philosophical axioms that don’t need to be empirically tested. (By definition you don’t need to test a philosophical axiom!) The heart of the Austrian’s philosophy is that humans should enter in voluntary relationships; that the institutionalisation of aggressive violence is always bad; no-matter the said ‘productive’ outcomes of such a policy. It is not a question if a society would be more or less economically efficient with such policies. All policies that require aggressive violence are not even considered as available (said moral) options.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Gold won't develop into such a bubble, since people can not easily exchange anything with gold (they have to identify the quality of the gold bar they get, they have to physically transfer the metal etc...), they can only use money to inflate the gold price, and the money supply is controlled by central bank

lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)

donator

Activity: 544

Merit: 500

Quote from: cunicula on December 11, 2012, 02:07:23 PM

Hmmm... value-free huh? Well that would be an improvement, but I am not sure that most Austrians would agree with you.

You just confirm how clueless you are about Austrian Economics.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

I remember watching a russia film a while ago, people exchange everything they have to get a special kind of bond since the return is doubled every week or two

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: rebuilder on December 14, 2012, 07:58:42 PM

Quote from: Rudd-O on December 11, 2012, 04:58:38 PM

Very true. In fact, religious morality is the exact opposite of objective -- it is arbitrary, full of magical exceptions, and not based at all on relevant material fact. Once again, cunticula has it exactly the other way around. Does not surprise me.

I'd argue there's a bias towards equating "morality" with "good". I, too, can't see any way to have morality without a supreme authority. This doesn't mean there's no right and wrong, the responsibility for deciding what is what is simply left to the individual.

Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible to live morally without asking yourself, "Would God want me to do this to them?" All you have to do is change that question to "Would I want them to do this to me?" If the answer is no, don't do it.

rebuilder

legendary

Activity: 1615

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Rudd-O on December 11, 2012, 04:58:38 PM

Very true. In fact, religious morality is the exact opposite of objective -- it is arbitrary, full of magical exceptions, and not based at all on relevant material fact. Once again, cunticula has it exactly the other way around. Does not surprise me.

I'd argue there's a bias towards equating "morality" with "good". I, too, can't see any way to have morality without a supreme authority. This doesn't mean there's no right and wrong, the responsibility for deciding what is what is simply left to the individual.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: johnyj on December 14, 2012, 07:39:50 PM

This could be the most dangerous experiment in human history, maybe human itself will be destroyed by this experiment

LOLWUT?

Yup. Cryptocurrency is the end foretold by the Mayan prophecies.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

This could be the most dangerous experiment in human history, maybe human itself will be destroyed by this experiment

There have been many bubbles in human history, but with any other bubbles, central bank can always reduce the money supply to cool down the crazyness (and crash will become unavoidable). This bubble however, could develop itself into a blackhole and suck all the values in the world into it, and no one in the world can control this monster

With traditional bubbles, when most of the people have get hold of the inflated asset, the game is almost over. There is an exist for any kind of investment strategy. But for a currency, no one will get satisfied, everyone want a little bit more, the investment is endless

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on December 11, 2012, 03:18:00 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 11, 2012, 03:13:16 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 11, 2012, 03:08:44 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 11, 2012, 02:17:23 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on December 10, 2012, 02:09:56 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 08, 2012, 10:54:03 PM

I regard anyone who would presume to decide for others what is moral and immoral as a theologian.

Did you mean to say "philosopher" or are you saying there can be no morality without religion?

Yes to no objective morality without religion.

Stefan Molyneux would like to have a word with you.

I would not like to have a word with him. He is a piece of shit. Dostoyevsky would like to have a word with you.

If you reject a philosophy simply because it disagrees with your beliefs, and not based on its merits, How does that make you better than a theologian?

cunticula IS a theologian (of the statist variety), who just happens to like yelling "theoogians!" to anyone who doesn't share his own theology. It's entirely unsurprising that he would attack Stef -- Stef has made a number of arguments that essentially prove cunticula is a sociopath. He can't actually respond to the arguments, so he switches to personal attacks. That's what a sociopath would do, to avoid being unmasked.

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on December 11, 2012, 03:08:44 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 11, 2012, 02:17:23 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on December 10, 2012, 02:09:56 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 08, 2012, 10:54:03 PM

I regard anyone who would presume to decide for others what is moral and immoral as a theologian.

Did you mean to say "philosopher" or are you saying there can be no morality without religion?

Yes to no objective morality without religion.

Stefan Molyneux would like to have a word with you.

Very true. In fact, religious morality is the exact opposite of objective -- it is arbitrary, full of magical exceptions, and not based at all on relevant material fact. Once again, cunticula has it exactly the other way around. Does not surprise me.

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: byronbb on December 11, 2012, 01:49:50 PM

It has confirmed to me that humans don't need governments any more. The internet allows the collaboration of private individuals across all segments of society, geography, nationality, who can successfully work together to solve massive and complex problems. Linux is the huge example where private individuals developed massively robust software in a collective manner. A human is a human, the internet is a "nation" of humans. Open Source, Wikipedia, bitcoin, these are the beginnings.

Well said.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: cunicula on December 11, 2012, 03:35:25 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 11, 2012, 03:18:00 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 11, 2012, 03:13:16 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 11, 2012, 03:08:44 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 11, 2012, 02:17:23 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on December 10, 2012, 02:09:56 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 08, 2012, 10:54:03 PM

I regard anyone who would presume to decide for others what is moral and immoral as a theologian.

Did you mean to say "philosopher" or are you saying there can be no morality without religion?

Yes to no objective morality without religion.

Stefan Molyneux would like to have a word with you.

I would not like to have a word with him. He is a piece of shit. Dostoyevsky would like to have a word with you.

If you reject a philosophy simply because it disagrees with your beliefs, and not based on its merits, How does that make you better than a theologian?

I don't think it has any merits other than those accorded to it by my feelings. I don't see how it could.

Your logical fallacy is...

cunicula

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1003

Quote from: myrkul on December 11, 2012, 03:18:00 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 11, 2012, 03:13:16 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 11, 2012, 03:08:44 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 11, 2012, 02:17:23 PM

Quote from: Explodicle on December 10, 2012, 02:09:56 PM

Quote from: cunicula on December 08, 2012, 10:54:03 PM

I regard anyone who would presume to decide for others what is moral and immoral as a theologian.

Did you mean to say "philosopher" or are you saying there can be no morality without religion?

Yes to no objective morality without religion.

Stefan Molyneux would like to have a word with you.

I would not like to have a word with him. He is a piece of shit. Dostoyevsky would like to have a word with you.

If you reject a philosophy simply because it disagrees with your beliefs, and not based on its merits, How does that make you better than a theologian?

I don't think it has any merits other than those accorded to it by my feelings. I don't see how it could.

I recognize and accept that your feelings about morality may differ. That makes me better than a theologian.

Topic: Has the 'Bitcoin Experiment' changed your political or economic views at all? - page 2. (Read 13723 times)