Scott Mayers
-
Posts
1,221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Scott Mayers
-
-
2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
You is what you is I'm afraid.
True. But I'm glad I'm not the Trump-Dick-Sucker here!
-
Just now, Nationalist said:
Interesting.
I'll have to say it again Scotty...your TDS is showing.
Does it make you feel more siginficantly rational for labeling me by an acronym rather than debating the issue competently?
-
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:
I love authoritarianism? How do you figure? Oh wait...I get it. You're engaging in projection. It is you calling for the removal of SCOTUS judges.
I would ask you...do you think the protests and attempted (albeit in limp Tweenkie style) murder of a judge, has all been justified?
"Removal" of the judges to me is not killing them!! It is retracting of their position as judges. And I in particular am arguing this removal based upon the nature of their nomination by a poisoned authority. That is, IF Donald Trump is proven criminal by any standards, I am suggesting the removals given his choice to select them where his capacity to 'select' in the interest of the people is proven to be suspect. The timing of the last one to his realization of losing his Presidency is severely suspect given the domination of the court by his own selection can skew how they might interpret any appeal of his for ANY future convictions. That would make him above the law IN PRINCIPLE! And THAT is what you are supporting. Call it what you will. I assert that you are supporting authoritarianism based upon your support of his Presidency regardless of the fact that his acts are indifferent to acting as a sovereign dictator, like a King.
I don't support any violent acts against the judges I question. It is not their 'fault' to BE nominated and their coinciding favor to BE political would have to be a separate issue.
-
3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
this is not true
I value both lives equally
there is no dehumanization involved in opposing the murder of a human
you are dehumanizing the unborn child by supporting it
I already agreed that I do not evaluate the life of a zygote or preborn POTENTIAL child as signficantly worthy in contrast to the living person. I do not believe that life before birth are persons in light of the inability to define whether they have a common sensation of things like pain (or pleasure) and that terminating them is not 'murder'. I compared this to other animals in which you need to address. Isn't eating eggs literally eating aborted chicks? At what point does the life being developed within the egg turns from being one that lacks sensation to one that does? If the animals we eat are invalid relative to us, are we not invalid in our treatment against them in kind?
This is not a question of whether I prefer other animals over humans but whether they are not 'naturally' equal in their 'right' to live relative to themselves. And if so, Nature itself does not care whether we eat other animals or if other animals eat us. Nature does not specify life as 'superior' nor 'inferior'.
As to whether an unborn entity is or is not worthy to justly YOUR 'right' to respect, if Nature favored your view, .....if God favored your view.... then the death of a validly worthy being would be saved regardless of what we could do. So why is it YOUR right to impose limitations about others where the question still exists about whether it is signficantly valuable to Nature that is at question? If Nature apart from human intervention should be preferred, then NO form of civilization matters and should be 'aborted'. That is, if you think that our direct technological capacity to abort seems 'unnatural' to you, then why are you accepting the benefits of any technology. [This assumes you may be dubious of the act in the way one might feel if they had to choose to kill one man to save many. The positive act psychologically affects your perception to chose to kill another even if the nature of it is just.]
You dehumanize the grown human person opting to abort over the mere potential life of a baby because you prioritize a belief that the potential child's life is paramount over the actual certain life of the woman as a host to it.
Note too that while my own belief about life is more nihilistic, this is NOT the case for the vast majority of those believing in a right to abortion. Most do not believe, for instance, in abortion close to birth (within the last trimester). The degree of life for most is based upon structure of the lifeform (its 'stage' of development) with the added assumption of sufferring as pre-existing. My stonger position would even place question upon babies born as having a capcity to suffer (or find pleasure) but require LEARNING to feel as they develop past birth. So it is unlikely that the unborn baby would even 'care' whether it exists or not. It is ONLY a religioius belief to assume so.
I DO favor at least a need to defend life post birth regardless. But the likely reason we lack memory of these times with more force than we do later is because our early memory is 'anethetized'. A baby has unnecessary networked links in the brain that would probably be as potentially halucinogenic and uncomfortable to us if we were to experience it consciously as adults. A similar factor of nature that hunters should know is that when an animal is killed, if it isn't killed quickly, its meat tastes 'wild' due to reactionary chemistry that pain amplifies where it suffers longer. This points to the anesthetizing capacity of living things to evolve mechanisms that reduce the suffering more siginficantly to the younger creatures that tend to become victims of another predator.
It is unlikely then that an unborn baby 'feels' suffering under the operation of abortion. As to anything that you may otherwise BELIEVE about souls being implanted by God into the zygote, there is no real suffering that remotely compares to the nature of death we ALL eventually succumb to at some point in our lives regardless.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
most of the pro-abortion crowd can't argue their position without
1) valuing one human life above another
and/or
2) valuing the choice to murder above the right to life
and/or
3) not valuing human life at all
all of which are terrible arguments
I addressed this in my last post but after you posted this. I showed that if you accuse the proabortion of dehumanizing the zygote, you are counter-dehumanizing the value of the woman to chose to abort. Thus, you are evaluating one human life above another as your (1) here.
You have not defined 'murder' and need to read my above two posts to note my reference of defining this term BY govenerments, not Gods.
I do not devalue life, I realistically interpret our human life as equivalent in value BY NATURE to every other part of nature. This includes anything by nature and would be equally applicable to non-living chemistry and physics. If WE evaluate ourselves as MORE worthy by nature, then we should respect ALL of Nature's existence as equally worthy.
-
28 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:38 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:Expand
"murder is not a right"
Neither is the dircect opposite: life is not a right independent of how we define it!
...Or do pigs, cows, and other animals we eat not require being 'murdered' for consumption? If humans killings are only what one can 'murder', how does the definition get defined? What defines 'murder' outside of government legislation mean? Is war not murder on a massive scale? How do you DEFINE murder outside of a convention of different people negotiating what it means?
life is a right
cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans
dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion
first you call into question the value of human life to justify abortion
then you call into question the value of the unborn child relative to other humans to justify abortion
it seems most who support abortion cannot justify it to themselves without first devaluing human life to do so
and you are clearly one of them
"life is a right"
It is only a 'right' to those who are predefined as living PERSONS themselves in law, not to the contested determination of whether an unborn potential life is a "person". Again, this decision of 'value' is still one among people to negotiate and not some 'right' that exists outside of the our artificial creation of it through the auspices of governments made up of humans. That is, there is nothing outside of our preference to call it 'right' to BE a right. The desire to assert what is 'right' independently also belongs to EACH AND EVERY lifeform. That is, to a cow, 'living is a 'right'" because it is most favorable to their OWN condition. So...
"cows, pigs and other animals don't have the same rights as humans"
Would these other animals agree with you? If it were natural for them to serve our 'right' to eat, is it not their 'right' not to be murdered too?
"dehumanizing unborn children is a key tactic of the pro-abortion advocates to justify abortion"
And humanizing unborn potential children as though they have some superior 'right' over their host's life is a key tactic of the anti-abortion advocates to dehumanize the woman's value as inferior by contrast.
-
22 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
first you agree that abortion shouldn't be justified by freedom of choice argument
then after your anti-life eugenics argument gets shot down
your cognitive dissonance kicks in
you immediately retreat to the freedom of choice argument to justify both abortion and your anti-life eugenics argument
clearly indicating you have no good argument in favor of abortion whatsoever
and you built your justification on a house of cards
You added this after the above.
"first you agree that abortion shouldn't be justified by freedom of choice argument"
No. I said that women cannot hypocritically argue for a unique right to their body without accepting other conflicting issues, such as how laws are also made to force the male who impregnated her to accept responsibility SHOULD the women uniquely decide to KEEP the child; I also added that where the child is born IN NEED, the same hypocrisy extends if society is expected to support their welfare.
Your anti-abortion view also conflicts on the conservative side because your side also dislikes ANY supports for welfare in general, let alone the fact of your feigned compassion for the baby's.
"then after your anti-life eugenics argument gets shot down"
This is your delusion, not mine. Eugenics was considered evil for taking away the choice of some to WANT to have children AND, more definitively, to foster an "improvement" (a value) of the human genetic strain. It was abusive because it presumed a sound interpretion of what is 'improved'. [I happen to have an old Eugenics book somewhere that was based specifically on religious explanations of appropriate 'virtue'.. It COMMANDED what is or is not 'good' genetic selection of one's progeny.] So I was NOT arguing Eugenics at all. You misinterpreted the argument for humanity as being WITHOUT intrinsic value BY NATURE as though they are unvaluable. This is like how one presumes an Atheist as one who 'denies God's existence' rather than being WITHOUT a posited belief in some magical but invisible beings.
I argued that we have to also be concerned for imposing poverty (a living environemental, not genetic) condition. My preference for using laws regarding the prevention of overpopulation concerns is dependent upon the environment's capacity to sustain all life (already existing) unrealistically. "Birth controls" do not imply evaluating the worth of living beings specifically and do not require eugenic interests. For instance, a law requiring limiting ones' right to get pregnant before a negotiated age (usually 18 for most Western countries), is an example. It penalizes those who choose to have sex based upon something we ALL share,...aging, ....not their particular 'virtue' in some assumed standard of 'quality' of sexual selection, such as one's beauty, their mental functionality, or race.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
murder is not a right
free choice doesn't mean any choice you make should be a right that governments protect
this includes abortion
if you are arguing that murder cannot be judged as good or evil
simply because religions have a stance on subject
that is totally irrational
arguing that people having differing moral views on a subject
means that no view is more rational or moral than another is stupid
and using that as justification for the view that government should not restrict murder is also stupid
"murder is not a right"
Neither is the dircect opposite: life is not a right independent of how we define it!
...Or do pigs, cows, and other animals we eat not require being 'murdered' for consumption? If humans killings are only what one can 'murder', how does the definition get defined? What defines 'murder' outside of government legislation mean? Is war not murder on a massive scale? How do you DEFINE murder outside of a convention of different people negotiating what it means?
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
you sure use a whole lot of words to say nothing of relevance
do you have a point somewhere in all that gobbledygook?
So given I gave you more than enough proof of your position being unsound you opt to dismiss it as too complex and irrelevant? Without repeating the post, you can 'summarize' it as expressing how and why your preference for anti-abortion is invalid (not able to be logically 'fit') with closure.
To ease your mind regarding your God's disapproval of abortion: If He is sufficiently powerful, he doesn't need privileged humans to be His vangaurd. If He gave us all 'free will', why would he expect SOME SELECT human-representatives to uniquely be able to DEFINE where the limits of ALL others' freedoms should end? If you interpret value as meaning we all agree to the same ideas of 'good' and 'evil' intrinsically, you misinterpret your personal evaluation of what is 'good' or 'bad' FOR YOU as coinciding with God's prematurely.
[I think you need to wait post-life judgement by your God to decide whether you WERE 'good' or 'bad' independently, or you believe you represent God and so LACK 'free choice' to believe for 'knowing' God]
-
16 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
ideas being religious doesn't make them wrong
you don't just get to label an idea as religious to dismiss it
again you are creating dichotomy between rationality and religion
and creating a moral relativism where human life is no more valuable than any other form of life is asinine
you speak of rationality, yet present none
if you really value rationality as much as you claim, then you would value human life above other life on this planet
because humans are the most rational life forms on the planet
you strawman ideas of those you disagree with
to justify your idiotic positions as being the only alternative to the strawman
because your ideas don't stand on their own merit and only look good when compared to deliberate misrepresentation of the actual alternatives
See, you interpret government as being a place to EXPRESS your own personal preferences about things beyond the capacity of living people to know, such as your personal religion. You also interpret FROM your religion (whichever one of many exists) and this biases your interpretation that government laws that express 'value' however 'good' are DUE TO your religion.
I interpret government as BEING the contemporary and tentative beliefs about functionality among us as HUMANS who DEFINE our collective idea of 'value' through the laws we make. That is, there is nothing valid about expecting govnerment to accept particular religious views but rather that our governments serve to make laws that participating members negotiate and agree to by some means regardless of religious views to serve.
As such, govnerment should not be a system to serve YOUR particular beliefs that are contentious in their ability to be provable nor disprovable. So a religious argument regarding whether women should or should not have abortion is 'religious' if you think that you have some wisdom of God (or 'goodness' in general) to know which is right or wrong for all.
I also mentioned capitalist self-interests to which you think is some 'opposing' anti-religious position. [The defintion of 'dichotomy' requires accepting OPPOSING positions, not shared ones.] The capitalist (which can and often DO include the religious), would be interested in population growth as an advantage. This is a contrasting interest beyond just the religious alternative for why one on the conservative right would still be interested in preventing birth controls. I was covering the grounds for those non-religious who MAY still agree to a ban on abortion. The example of how more people implies more supply over demand then suffices to explain anyone's general beliefs against abortion. That though would be for long-term interests and so the religious view is the most predominant problem here.
-
20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
you create a false dichotomy
there is an authentic pro-life position that opposes abortion
supporting abortion from a eugenics position, a humans are a virus anti-life position,
is even dumber than supporting it from a freedom of choice position
that's going backwards to Margaret Sanger and Thomas Malthus
it was an evil argument then, it is an evil argument now
A dichotomy is usually referring to polar opposition by contradiction. Just because I opted to reference two examples does not make them 'dichotomies'. ANY belief regarding virtue of life of early dependent development is 'religious' because it treats them as though they suffer such extreme loss that needs attention.
Also belief in the virtue of life should not be hypociritcally accepted for humans when it is not accepted for those living things we eat. To believe WE are somehow 'special' to Nature with values of 'good' and 'evil' are themselves RELIGIOUS period.
I expressed humans as indifferent to viruses and bacteria given we tend to not care about whether we can control our tendency to overpopulate regardless of any reflection upon the environment. Note too that viruses are not necessarily living things in contrast to bacteria. Their nature is similar to a mere chainletter that just uses any resources it encounters to replicate itself. And yet this is the foundational basis for life. So the comparison is about our DEFAULT tendency to copy (have babies) without rational insight. Religion is just a posthoc reflection of ourselves as 'superior' using a pretense of some Nature shared by ALL living things as though all other life is there to serve us.
So stop being hypocritical to argue for some 'value' of life that you have no actual PROOF exists beyond your artificial religious preferences. As to non-religious justifications such as how overpopulation favors the capitialist greed in the same sense that viruses don't limit their own numbers, this too is 'religious' if you think that it is a 'right' to profit over others misfortunes.
To add to the two that you mistaken for a 'dichotomy', there is a serious hypocrisy on those like yourself who may believe that you should have 'freedoms' independently to capitalize upon others' weaknesses selfishly, with sole power to rule over your own families as you wish, that contrasts hypocritically when you demand SPECIAL privileges to even CARE about whether someone else with unique indepence should choose abortion or not. Your 'side' also favors hunting and 'culling' through war without blinking which proves contradictory (and thus a 'dichotomy' on your side's part) to value of life. Do only helpless dumb but cute living dependent babies have more 'value' EARNED in life with better virue than aged living adults who have? Why is it okay to favor the CERTAINLY understood 'living' beings as being worthy of suffering but not those NON-CERTAIN unborn beings that only have the same kind of emotional compassion we have in favoring puppies or kittens to adopt over those are fully grown?
You are either religious in some way or in favor of the potential advantages that overpopulations represent to your own interests regardless of the literal compassion of the unborn. These are 'contrasts' most representive of the conservative politics involved. They lead to dichotomies in rationale given the contradictions of other beliefs you hold that are hypocritical.
-
8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Men don’t have power to decide with whom they mate?
Men do not have the power where it just happens to coincide with her own desires. But women ALONE have the VETO-power outside of rape or other similar violations which has empowered them to SELECT the very kind of males that evolve to be the more physically dominant. The point in this argument for me is that it is moot to argue that women's sole 'right' to decide is at issue.
-
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:
my point is that there are three lives involved in a pregnancy
the mother, the father and the unborn child
many pro-abortion activists on this board want to pretend like the only life that matters in the decision is the mother
to justify killing the child
and pretend like that is the equal rights position
instead of extra rights for the mother and no rights for the child
And I would only agree to the fact that the mother's 'freedom' is not the signficant argument they should be making. However, the opposing conservative side's signficant arguers come from religiously biased people are also NOT concerned for the child but for their social dimishing power of influence OR, for the strict capitalists on top, they only want MORE children BY especially the poor because it increases demand for jobs and empowers employers to pay their workers less.
We need populuation controls to reduce the burden on Earth itself given we are indistinguishable from bacteria or viruses in our evolved drive for derining value by self interests alone.
So I'm FOR abortion but agree that the women's 'right to their body' is not appropriate to argue without looking at the hypocrisy of the power that women always have had. [Like how women alone through time have always had the sole power to decide WHO they mate with beyond rape itself, for instance.]
-
6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:9 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:
I'm likely missing enough context given I haven't read enough of this thread but are we talking about questioning whether someone being forced to give a blow job should not murder their rapist? ?
obviously not
pregnancy is not rape
equivocating the two is not only stupid but reprehensible
Like I said,..."I'm likely missing enough context...." and was just making fun of the latest post I just begun reading on this thread.
I'm all for a right to abortion but disagree with the argument defending merely a woman's right to freely decide what she wants. I think that we need means to prevent undesired children and believe that children are NOT merely proprietary rights of parents to independentaly have power over. The complaint about women's right to her body ignores the same side's arguments regarding making the 'father' be held liable for later child supports,.....not to mention for the burden on society where both parent's power to conceive independently impose supports by the people as a whole for those who cannot afford to raise them.
-
2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
If someone is taking your bodily fluids without your consent, could you kill them to defend yourself?
I'm likely missing enough context given I haven't read enough of this thread but are we talking about questioning whether someone being forced to give a blow job should not murder their rapist? ?
-
15 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Why would their impeachment depend on Trump’s guilt?
Also, which court do you imagine would get the final ruling on any conviction of Trump?
See my response to Nationalist on what I even think about the court. I think that such judgements be up to the people regardless of background. Individual leaders nor 'senates' should have a say. But as to the representatives, they should only be permitted power of such charge where a larger than mere majority put them in place. So for the Americans, I'd prefer to see a vote about Trump by the pulblic directly.
-
12 hours ago, Nationalist said:
Scotty...Scotty...Scotty...
Your TDS is showing.
Should a Republican be elected in 2024, would you be OK with whomever that might be...dismissing all the Liberal judges from the SCOTUS?
And your obsessive love of mono-authoritarianism that Trump represents shines through. [...which is just an excuse for those like you to prop up his power knowing that he'd take the blame. My concern against Trump is just as much based upon the cowards supporting him knowing they can lose direct accountability where he would take the fall.]
As to what I think regarding such 'supreme' courts, I question HOW even SCOTUS members are affected by political influence and question how they can even BE nominated by ANY President. I also question the function of 'senates' as they tend to significantly represent owners interest rather than their region respecting ALL people.
So your assumptions about me are not called for.
-
On 7/19/2022 at 5:53 PM, cultsmash said:
Trump only submitted people to be considered to be members of the supreme court. It was congress who approved those nominations. So ultimately the fault lies with congress.
"Congress" is BOTH the Senate and the House of Representatives. But for the nominee by the President, only the Senate, which consisted of majority of the Republicans, had the power. Your choice to use the term, "congress" is thus intended rhetoric to hide this major signficance.
-
On 7/1/2022 at 10:03 PM, OftenWrong said:
I don;t give a hootin who Ford is. His grand experiment resulted in failure, long term. His engine needs to be replaced. But, he had a pretty good run.
We judge men differently now than the way they were judged in the past. Morality is temporal.
That is why, anyone who argues history is unnecessary is a goddam fool in my opinion, and my sworn enemy.
Yes, this could be about you... ask yourself... if the shoe fits.
You missed the point. I wasn't arguing in favor of a dismissal of history but to the point about one's capacity to utilize external resources rather than requiring to memorize contingent data that is itself relatively less certain than one's capacity to use reason. Ford was being challenged for his lack of historical dates and figures in U.S. history in court as a faulty means to discredit his LOGICAL capcity to reason. They were trying to make him out to be "incompetent" intellectually when ones' capacity to be intellectual is not about one's capacity to memorize arbitrary data.
Computer analogy: Memory is separate from the CPU. The CPU is the intellectual mechanism that acts as the logical 'intelligence', not the quantity of memory in RAM that you have. While having more memory capacity can ease the burden of solving problems, such as making one able to solve a problem quicker, it means absolutely nothing if the "intelligence" represented by the CPU is poor or non-existent.
Memory is the data, not the process of thought, contrary to the massive majority of people's stupidity in thinking that those who have incredible memory (like those with great memory skills demonstrated on "Jeapordy") are somehow 'geniuses' !! Those with great memory capacity are not required to be the least intelligent. They just need to be able to respond to stimulii. Such skills in memory are called 'trivia' because they are trivial in meaning other than as 'data'.
-
On 7/3/2022 at 12:23 AM, cougar said:On 7/1/2022 at 4:47 PM, Scott Mayers said:
They artificially make the currency 'rare' by using a complex password or code based upon a very large unpredictable number. The particular number is like 'labeling' the coin with a very unique signature.
Then, a program is ceated that tries to solve something that takes time for the computer to solve, like finding what the prime factors are in such a number (just an example). This will be used to 'mine' value by getting your computer to crunch numbers that take time and waste energy.
Sounds fascinating and I have heard the concepts in one shape and form or another. "Mining" coins by asking a computer to solve puzzles? C'mon! The computer solves what we can solve, only much faster. Then who is supposed to generate those new tasks for the coins to be mined, the computer is not generating them by itself??
In all honesty, I think it is a lot of mumbo-jumbo with technical concepts thrown in to baffle our brains. The realities are much simpler.
And This is What I Think
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, then," said the fox, "You're quite sure you want to go home? Go then, and so much the worse for you."
"So much the worse for you." repeated the cat
"Think well of it Pinocchio, for you are throwing away a fortune."
"A fortune" repeated the cat
"Between today and tomorrow your five gold pieces would have become two thousand."
"Two thousand" repeated the cat
"But how is it possible that they will become so many?" asked Pinocchio, his mouth open wide in astonishment
"I'll explain it to you at once." said the fox "You must know that in the Land of Fools there is a sacred field called the Field of Miracles. In this field you dig a little hole and you put into it, we'll say one gold piece. You then cover up the hole with a little dirt, water it with two pails of water from the fountain, sprinkle it with two pinches of salt, and then, when night comes, you go quietly to bed. During the night the gold piece will grow and flower, and in the morning, when you get up and return to the field, what will you find? You'll find a beautiful tree laden with as many gold pieces as a fine car of corn has kernels in the month of July"
"Suppose," said Pinocchio more and more bewildered, "that I buried my five gold pieces in that field. How many would I find the following morning?"
"That is an exceedingly easy calculation," replied the fox " a calculation that you can make on the ends of your fingers. Figure that every gold piece gives you an increase of five hundred. Multiply five hundred by five, and the following morning you would find two thousand five hundred shiny new gold pieces in your pocket."
"Oh! How delightful!" cried Pinocchio dancing for joy "As soon as I've collected those gold pieces I will keep two thousand for myself and make a present of the other five hundred to both of you."
"A present to us?" cried the fox sounding much offended. "Don't be absurd!"
"Don't be absurd!" repeated the cat
"We don't work for our own gains." said the fox. "We work only to enrich the lives of others."
"Others" repeated the cat
"What good people" thought Pinocchio. And instantly forgetting his father, the new coat, the spelling book and all his good resolutions, he said to the fox and the cat, "Let's be off at once! I will go with you."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the late response. I'm not online as much lately.
I already understand the problem regarding trust of what is occurring given the whole thing itself CAN be easily just set up fraudulently without others knowing the wiser. But we already have this with most technology. I don't like the general etiquette with cell phones given they are fully powerful miniture computers that SHOULD make people question the trust of these. They can (and do) have the ease to spy making anyone in its presence vulnerable to security. The very nature of faith we place in them is odd. Yet, I'm betting that you would be insulted if I asked you to place your phone in a secure faraday bag when coming into my place as though I am the one being paranoid, right?
I already distrust cryptocurrency for the similar security reasons about trusting ANY tech. The point here is that IF we are trust the logic, ignoring whether anyone is being deceptive, my explanation is sound. The root of the term is, "crypto-" and refers to the same identical factors that we place trust in ANY of our passwords we use online. So think of the 'problems' that the computers solve as trying to decrypt passwords. The degree of passwords they solve though are far more complex than most of our regular online passwords we might use for doing our banking online. So if you distrust them, you should be very scared about even being here 'anonymously'.
Basically, if we are to gamble at all in trusting ANY computers not to be used against us, the cryptocurrency would be far more 'secure' in the kind of passwords they are using to solve such problems. The KIND of problems they usually deal with is to try to find the prime factors of very very big numbers. While computers can act quicker than humans, some of the types of problems they are 'solving' are not able to be solved even with the best computers without time.
My explanation here is unable to delve into the literal methods they use given it requires more investment in time to learn than I could explain analgously. What I am explaining is how it works in principle. The trust issue is real and why I don't trust them. But in principle, if there were some means of 'trust' being assured, the logic is sound. The reason many oddly 'trust' them is because they don't trust governments, ...those 'computers' made up of people. But if you don't trust knowable people to secure currency, then why would you trust better the very anonymous uncertainty of currency that uses hidden computer algorithms made from unacountable and unknown PEOPLE who create them?
-
1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:
Intelligence? Seems more like a memory problem. Someone has a conveniently bad memory...
And what are you referring to with this statement.
Memory is not intelligence (even though it can add power to its effectiveness), ....especially if the loigc being used is flawed. One can have a great memory but lack an ability to address meaning. One can be very 'intellectual' even if they lack memory. Henry Ford argued that 'history' is unnecessary to memorize if one can nevertheless get the reference to what one needs. (using a 'hero' you might admire.)
If this is a comment about me, specify so that I can address it.
-
16 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
Pure nonsense. As if presidents do not and should not lie.
What do you prefer to call "moral"? From a US president, I mean. I prefer a president who is able to avoid war and avoid killing as much as possible. Note that final part, as much as possible.
Better an economic war than nuclear war. And that is what we are heading for under the current administration, because they take a hardline stance against Russia. Under Trump there was an effort to find some common understanding. And the same with the way he handled the Korean peninsula.
Sorry that he upset your feelings though, with his harsh words. Sorry if he doesn't come across like some professional politician, the kind who knows how to say all flowery things to make you people feel good about yourselves. Then behind the scenes they do things like child internment camps (Obummer... your hero perhaps? Certain a hero of the liberal left, that's for sure.
Now you got Uncle Joe, you got Russia gone insane, you got little Rocket Man doing his thing in NK. You got defund the police... crime levels breaking records, drugs from China, suicide breaking records.
Suck it up, ye buttercups.
The strength that Trump had was to his dictatorial power that he learned from business. He treated the country as though it were his PRIVATE company. While this WORKS to get things promised done, it RISKS the inevitable collapse of power of a 'democracy'. He is also an indierct contributing cause to the war in Ukraine in promoting the effectiveness of getting away with fruadulent behavior.
Note that your 'side' believes IN creating wars in principle because it is GOOD for SELF-ISH monetary interests; While Biden may not be any better with his own 'conservative' exploitation of capitalizing on others to get wealthy, the Left is in general not confined to CONSERVING the present power of wealth with strict permanence the particular wealthy owning class , but INCLUDES those who are poor, dienfrancized, and HELPS to foster diverse backgrounds of people precisely because wealth begets wealth and all have a tendency to pass it on SELECTIVELY to ONLY those they LOVE while passing on the DEBT to the whold of society.
Your side favors intrinsically in exploiting deceptive practices that are used to TRICK people. So HOW can we trust the very extremes like Trump who both represents a PRIVILEGED spoiled brat who learned how to use his ACCIDENTAL 'worth' to STEAL. Why trust those who believe in LYING.
While it is right to question those on the Left for the same, the tendency of ANY PARTICULAR Identity ruling there still makes it the LESSOR of TWO EVILS. So shut up about redirecting your hate to Biden because those of us who ALSO have strong skepticism (one of those reasons why I'man ardent athiest, for instance), KNOW not to trust, recognize that ALL political powers will exploit in some form or other ...BUT are weaker to grant ABSOLUTE POWER to SPECIFIC people or their particular POPULARITY. Popularity belongs to art and culture. Your blind faith in a literal person AS THOUGH SOME SUPERIOR God, is ONLY for SPECIFIC contempory people who default to being like those extremes you hate on the left.Trump is getting away with what most normal unwealthy people are imprisoned or permanently LOCKED out of to economic success. He can AFFORD to fail many times which enabled him to become what he is. In contrast, most average persons, and moreso those with a gradually worsening level of poverty, can hare their lives and reputations destroyed by the simplest of mistakes; And just as often, those 'mistakes' themselves are only those DEFINED by the powerful intended to exclude competition from the bottom end (which contains the base of the wealth pyramid. THIS is why you guys hate democracy (and thus 'democrats'); you hate the poor. [See how I am not pointing to this as a 'racialized' issue?]
Others supporting Trump FROM within the party are doing so for the same reason I asserted before: he is so unbelievably stereotypically insane in his claim for taking credit that the party is opting to also EXPLOIT his 'heroworshipping' morons who defend him. If any abuses occur, they can just assert that they themselves had no role in his PERSONAL behavior, had their hands tied, or some other 'safe' excuse.
You support those like Trump, then you support the right of all dictatorships for whatever they do ARBITRARILY. While you may attempt to foster favoristism to extreme religious convictions, this too leads to favoring the extremes such as the terrorists anywhere who also believe in some strict religious excuse to maintain chaos.
Your fights to save his reputation and power are also creating FALSE pretenses of more popularty where not REQUIRES existing. Pink Floyd's "The Wall", uses an analogy of the horo worship of the accidental/coincidental power of the favorite band leaders [Pink is a fictional 'hero) who learns that they can piss on their literal fans who support them and oddly EMPOWER their heroworship more and more by more and more extremists among them. That form of social psychology is also an intentional manipulative tool being used by Trump.
Trump is NOT a trivial entertainer though. While 'culture' is the place for such fandom, his MONO-cultural personality extreme is what fosters its counterattack by the complementary whole of all other MULTIPLE cultures shareing similar views. The very fact that one CAN insult particular views on the Left without everyone disagreeing nor ganging up on EACH OTHER demonstrates why the progressive left is more generic. In contrast, anyone DARING to insult Trump, DARING to call him out as a liar, DARING to defend his heroworshipping fans REGARDLESS OF HIS BEHAVIOR (good or bad) makes Trump a very dangerous choice......including his own 'fans' who PROP him up on his pedestal. He doesn't like you freaky fans any more than his ranting tirades against his opponents.
Contiuning to DENY overt and obvious SHARED evidence is also more proof of his danger: The act of overt lying in the the direct unequivical evidence of the opposite is "gaslighting", the WORST form of abusive character. "Gaslighting" would be like me telling you here and now that I never posted anything on this site. And it rightfully pisses off those who do so with such audacity. So the counter-hate against him is EARNED and he can't complain given he BELIEVES in it for his own intrinsic meaningful existence.
So regardless of almost ANY weaknesses that you can point out to of those on the Left, this Rightwing support of such an absurdly EXTREME character as Trump is, assures us that he cannot nor should not ever be trusted in power.
-
On 5/13/2022 at 4:48 PM, Faramir said:
That's the interesting thing being a Canadian investor. Any gains in oil or gold or crypto currencies are usually tempered by the exchange rate to US dollars. Thankfully so are the declines. Gold was down 10 in US today and 33 in Canadian dollars so today was a pretty bad day for Canadian gold. I don't really follow crypto currencies as I have to admit I don't quite understand them.
This is not just for you but others unaware regarding what these are and how they werk.
Given all 'money' represents value that is at minimal created out of ENERGY, some recognized instead of creating money by maintaining a hold on some form of real collateral asset or promises to return favor based upon some prior service yet to fulfil the trades, some computer scientist recognzied that you can create 'energy' in the form of one using the energy wasted on solving complex math 'puzzles'.
Normally, an asset represents energy in the way that E = mc2 represents matter as being stored energy potential. Services are 'dynamic' assets that if served but yet to be compensated also represent stored potential energy,....both 'energy' because they have at least some stored potential that was created as DEBT, something yet to be canceled out by a normal bartered immediate completed transaction.
The old means of creating these was to use some RARE commodity like gold or other rare jewels that were LIMITED finitely in supply. The creation of cryptocurrency removes the need for a literal commodity as well as the need for literal real value in dynamic trades. They artificially make the currency 'rare' by using a complex password or code based upon a very large unpredictable number. The particular number is like 'labeling' the coin with a very unique signature.
Then, a program is ceated that tries to solve something that takes time for the computer to solve, like finding what the prime factors are in such a number (just an example). This will be used to 'mine' value by getting your computer to crunch numbers that take time and waste energy. The energy initially comes from the power plant's source and so is still 'real' at minum to the cost of energy being wasted to solve a given problem.
When paper money, like promised of ownership (deeds) or debts unpaid (IOUs), these create money by holding onto either the asset directly like a bank buying a house initially before setting up your mortgage (they own whatever unpaid portion on the principle.) ...or by having some debt that someone owes formally printed in some hard to counterfeit means. [I can write an IOU but because someone could possibly fake my signature of promise to pay back, the document-paper moneys, which include most tradeable things on any stock exchange, these act as stored energy, promises to pay back energy incompletely traded.]
The program of a cryptocurrency saves the record of its strored value along with the up-to-date accounting of the average value of that finite limit of virtual coins divided by total energy expended. Note that each 'coin' can be represented as the energy needed to solve one of those math puzzles. But they take unpredictable amounts of time which then represents the 'IPO' value of a stock, its initial offer. This value is independent of any political interference and counts on the type of complexity of the each problem independently. This initial 'value' might be rated as the time it takes to solve the problem. Since each problem is random AND unique, a virutal coin can take as little time to create as an electric pulse to potentially years. This part of the initial creation of a coin makes it relatively a 'fair' gamble for anyone, a lottery. Once created, whomever has the particular problem solved on their system 'owns' the value of the coin which is that average SO-FAR of all coins traded.
Then those who TRADE in these coins BEFORE all of the fixed number of coins are found act as the SUPPLY. Until that supply is exhausted, most trading is only the SPECULATIVE trading that creates the up or down present 'value' per coin. This is like those on the stock market trading in literal dollars rather than the use of these dollars as normal curency. THIS is different once the supply maximum is reached. then whatever final value the total has at the end of this period represent the FIXED or permanent value that is no longer needing to be created and no longer 'speculative' The speculartion part is where much of the abuse can come from.
But also, we still have to trust blindly the coders creating these to be trustworthy and given no government can inspect their credibility, no one can be certain that any real LIMIT (supply) is set. Thus this SHOULD lead to abuse somewhere given half the people anywhere in the world believes in some form of deception if they hold to unlimited wealth creation. As such, the speculation (creating a form of gambling addiction for those investing in computers to just solve the creation of coins) AND the fidelity or 'trust' in the literal fairness of the code to stop at the fixed limit in predefined supply, create the biggest risk takers as investors.
BUT, if actually fair, the idea is sound. Once it reaches its maximum supply, the money acts similar to commodites like gold that has a fixed supply. Then the particular value only depends upon the total supply of value tied to each coin that the people using them gives them by using them as token promises in actual trades.
The risks mainly relate to
(1) Assured Limit. ...trusting there will be a limit [they become Ponzi shemes if not),
(2) Not conterfeit....whether the programs 'mining' them are fair and sufficiently random, (not fraudulent programs pretending to be 'fair'),
(3) Use....whetther others USE them for trading, and
(4) No Safety Assurances without Regulation.... the lack of the means of safeguarding things like a 'run' on those wanting to cash out their coins during vulnerable ecomonic depressions et cetera.
-
21 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:On 6/30/2022 at 1:37 PM, ExFlyer said:
I don't think Biden will run again
Does it matter.
Dems don't seem to care that Trump is no longer being President. Pelosi and Shifty sure seem to be desperate to nail him for something. They're like Boris and Natasha going after Moose and Squirrel.
And that's inspired the other side to consider doing to Biden what Dems with their RINO toadies are trying so hard to do to Trump.
Ask Jon Voight.
Ask MTG
Quote“I’m in complete agreement and I’ve introduced 4 articles of impeachment of Joe Biden.”
And you are a fraud merely promoting Trujmp without any actual concern for intellectual debate. If you maintain your beiiefs with such PRIDE in your God, Trump, then you are expressing a RELIGIOUS belief only, not a rational one. And if you cannot tell the difference, you are absurdly stupid, something I doubt. I believe you are intentionally promoting a fascist faith in dictatorial deviants and the fact that you HAVE to be anonymous is proof of your own hypocritical guilt in the same kind of bigotry as Trump and other fascists.
If Trump is convicted of treason, should the Supreme court members he put in place be removed?...
in Political Philosophy
Posted
The nominations by him regardless would have been accepted which makes his 'nomination' indifferent to an 'appointment'. I also understand that no one can get a position without nomination.
Your threats only prompt some to work harder to oppose. Trump's initial election was itself only due to doubt of his likelihood of succeeding. I know this because I was warning people that his apparent circus show should be takien more serious when others were strongly dismissing his likelihood of his success.
While I too am concerned about those on the Left to be absurdly 'woke', it is still relatively safe to vote for them considering the diverse views of similar extremes that exist there. On the Right, this behavior is both default to their ethics and DOMINANT to those who are more in sync with their own form of 'wokeness' that just lacks the label for BEING the traditional power who concentrated their passing of the torch to ONLY their own kind.
The Left's 'wokeness' is a reactionary reflection of them using what is normally Right-wing methods (as some of the Left-wing methods have equally been applied by contemporary Rightwingers as well. The dominating power on both sides are those with wealth AND to those most concentrating the passing of inheritance to their own kind. The Left has multiple such cults who simply lack the dominance independently. As such, the conservatives of alternative cults to the traditional fundamentalist are taking the reigns on the Left with only the agreement among them to NOT harm each other while they attack a shared common 'enemy'. They support 'heritage', which is simply an extenstion of regular economic inheritance normally favored by the Right.
The tactics used by the Right have always been to exploit others using rhetoric, deception, and misdirection where the Left prior to the information age lacked the Internet as a source of exposing the secrets of manipulation used by different political interests of all party ideals. As such, the 'woke' factors are being used BY similar thinkers hoping to exploit the power of reflecting the tactics used against them from the beginning of time.
The left wing parties for all its flaws prevents the extreme views from STAYING consistent. So much of the extreme wokeness is temporal as everyone normally unnoticed for their issues are being heard for the first time in history. Much of this is also due to technology such as the Internet as well as 'Smart' devices which permit 'feedback' noise that make people deluded into thinking they are more popular than they actially are.
If we think of the world as being one big ghetto run by gangs. The 'Right' would be supported by the traditional mobs while the 'Left' are run by independently weak gangs who recognize that they can collect their interests to assure that they can compete with the bigger gang. But even though the majority of people everwhere are less affliated with particular gangs, they are cleverly being turned against each other and isolated by those commanding distinct alignments to these gangs.
The 'democratic' side (and the name of Leftwing parties representative counter to 'republican' authoritarianism) refers to the people being treated EQUAL in power; the Right believes in power to the INHERENT wealth classes as though they are Royalty deserving of EXCEPTIONAL voting power than the one-person-to-one-vote ideal of democracy. They are deluded into interpreting their successes as completely self-earned without recognizing that the most advantageous power for being more wealthy (or selectively more 'beautiful' in artificial standards) is the greater capacity to FAIL more oftern WITHOUT equal consideration of those less fortunate.
For the poorer and more concentrated racially segregated classes, failure may only be permissible once and make them liable to greater penalties in contrast to those with better standards. As such, those who were forcefully segregated FROM beneficial wealth are aligning with their own 'kind' in the same way the wealthy normally do by passing economic inheritance onto only their own relatives (nepotism). Thus the wokeism itself happening by the Left is the modelling of the "inheritance" rights normally held by conservatives by monetizing culture as equal TO a form of inheritance that where respected enables those who normally lose for failing once to better succeed.
So you are the limp biscuit here deluded in your interpretation of what is happening today. I can and do fight against those on 'my' side on the same concerns. It is changing in the same way a new letter is added to the LBGTQ+ list of all that are simply 'non-heterosexual' in shared meaning. They keep growing because of another screaming 'me too' which WILL eventually become moot once an H is applied to the end of that list. ["H' is for the complementary heterosexual who will eventually also be the last member making the distinctions no longer concerning.]