pull down to refresh
There are other things you can be more interested in even knowing BTC
That means you are living on another planet. Sincerely.
Please, understand that I am in no way trying to attack you
I am not worried about that. I sincerely don't give a shit if somebody wants to "attack me". I am not a snowflake. Very few things can hurt me... because I learned to be fearless. Only people living in fear are getting hurt by words.
I live under Natural Law, that is very simple: do not do harm to others, do not steal from them, do not kill them.
Words do not do harm. I mean physical harm.
Yet many people nowadays are ignoring this important law. But they obey all other so called "laws"... (that are not laws, just rules imposed by others).
I genuinely didn't think our interaction would have been so sterile.
I also hoped it would have stayed more on point with the themes in the post, and not derail on personal things and vague philosophically inspired slogans.
Anyway, I'll bite. What you call natural law is just your personal selection of important things. There is no natural law because all laws are formalized and expressed by humans inferring abstract structures from a small dataset of realized instances. The fact that your selection does not appeal to things like society, governments, and so on doesn't make it "more fundamental".
Moreover, you need consensus for a law to become so, and I fail to see how to implement consensus for your natural law in the current organisation of things. Try to put children in school (or any other thing, actually) only appealing to natural law, and if you succeed, you're a hero. Please, do not focus on this emblematic example trying to rebut it with things like "there's no need for school" and something similar, try to understand the enormous plethora of situations my specific example is only one instance of, and try to rebut the whole structure.
By the way, really believing that there is only one thing most important than everything else for everyone else is very akin to religious fanatism, and I'm interested in your opinion on this parallel
Anyway, I'll bite. What you call natural law is just your personal selection of important things.
Study more. Seems that you have no idea what is natural law.
Oh wait... you do not have time for that... you lose.
Start here:
https://darth-coin.github.io/general/natural-law-bitcoin-en.html
I don't get your way of interacting with people. You seem to believe that the only meaningful is combination of juvenile derision and redirection to your guides as if they were some kind of containers of absolute truths
I already read your article on natural law, and that's why I commented as I did. Unfortunately, nothing of what you write there replies to my objections. Natural law is a label you created for a set of reasonable predicaments, nothing more. Society is more complex than what your law seems to imply, and there's no practical way to solve even the simple (schooling) example I mentioned without leaving natural law for whatever national obligation you have.
A more appropriate way of replying to my comment to the post would have been: if only you could read my guides, I talk about these issues and how to prevent them. This would have been an informative reply, that also makes clear the limits of your guides with respect to the situation I mentioned.
Anyway, it was (not really) fun while it lasted.
Society is more complex than what your law seems to imply,
LOL is not "my law". Is an universal law.
And you need to review your beliefs. Seems that you still live in the state cage.
Anyway, it was (not really) fun while it lasted.
I'm starting to think you're what young people call a troll, and I admit I'm not update on how to deal with this type of internet characters.
To my objection regarding how what you call "natural law" is nothing but a label you put on a subjectively chosen set of reasonable predicaments, and that this set of predicaments is too simple to be actually used in the current state of deployment of the society of human beings, your main reply is:
LOL is not "my law". Is an universal law.
And you need to review your beliefs. Seems that you still live in the state cage.
I don't know the type of arguments you're accustomed to have (online or in real life), but your replies do not offer anything at all.
Let me try to see if I can convince you of how poorly stated and thought is your idea of "natural/universal law". Given our past interactions, I already infer you're going to completely misinterpret whatever I say, pick some decontextualized fragment, and comment about it with a sarcastic and juvenile sequence of almost non-informative words, perhaps with a pinch of meme. However, if there's even one chance out of 10 trillion that you may finally agree to have a meaningful debate, than I root for that solitary chance.
In your very own essay, you write:
Let's start with the simple definition of Natural Law
and then proceed to list the reasonable predicaments I keep referring to.
That's it. That's enough for you to define a natural/universal law.
In no other place you comment about where is this law coming from. Did you come up with it? Did the law already appear somewhere/somewhen else? I assume you think it's some kind of Cartesian truth we human share, but you are not explicit, so who knows? That's already quite disappointing for something introducing a natural/universal law.
Then, what is so natural about this law? And what do you mean by natural? Since your predicaments only talk about man and Honour, for sure this natural law is not natural for anything else beside men who know Honour. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things in nature that are not men knowing honour. This makes the "natural" part of the law quite weak.
Let's pass to the "universal" qualifier. If it's universal it applies to everything, which we already saw it's not true. So universal in which sense? The readers of your essay can not know. If they find this conversation, at best, they can get a LOL, but I doubt this counts as an explanation.
After such a weak introduction of what seems to be the most important foundation of all your essay, you start saying a lot of things (some agreeable, some understandable, some delirious) which I don't comment upon because that's already too much, and because there's no sense in commenting the fruits of shaky foundations.
Having said that, I'm happy to review my beliefs if there are substantial arguments. In the meantime, I ask you to go back to the various questions I posed you, and try to honestly answer at least one in detail. Let's make all this not a complete waste of our time just to fulfill the atavic need for confrontation humans seem to have also digitally.
The Star Wars reference? That I liked and found it well applied (only when looking at things from your point of view, of course).
In no other place you comment about where is this law coming from
is natural. like you breathing air.
Please study more. You are too innocent in your lack of knowledge.
Your lack of understanding natural law is really disturbing.
OK, you managed to completely shatter my expectations beyond reason. I applaud you because you have been able to consistently act like a disturbed teenager who read one poems from Baudelaire's "Les fleurs du mal" and keeps citing it even when random people ask him the time.
Not one single time you said something of value, and you concluded with being disturbed by my lack of understanding of a thing you (very poorly) made up and called natural law. I tried to give you constructive feedback for bettering your definition, and you completely ignored it because you were too disturbed by my lack of understanding. This would be hilarious if I did not spend too much time in this conversation, and if you were someone different from the internet stranger who wrote some very useful and knowledgeable guides.
Well, it seems I found yet another broken clock...
So long.
I don't think I understand your point.
Are you claiming that having different interests and priorities during 13 years of your life is either impossible or a type of original sin?
There are other things you can be more interested in even knowing BTC. But, just to be more precise, I learned about BTC because of the mathematical aspects there were in it, which were interesting, but definitely less interesting than the mathematics I was exposed to 13 years ago. Since I knew about BTC because of math, and since the sovereign angle was not immediately clear/powerful as it would have been years later, I simply did not pay attention to it. From there, I basically lost contact with the BTC world because I was not in cryptography mailing lists, I was not on socials or other digital places where BTC was discussed, and my physical social circle was made by people who would start a computer screaming very loud at it intimating it to start. In 2020 I had personal situations that really prevented me to have 1h per day of "free time" that I could spend actively focused and functioning to learn BTC, and to some extent this is still something ongoing today. To be clear, wanting to reply to your judgmental assumptions about my choices is costing me time that I'll have to take off from something else later (but I'm not complaining, I'm just explaining).
Believe it or not, having 1h per day of free time in which you are focused and energetic enough to understand BTC is not something a lot of people can have.
On the other hand, let's play your game. Let's say that I indeed am a total and utter failure who knew better but willingly decided not to learn because of whatever ignominious reason. What about those who learned about BTC 3 years ago and acted as I acted? How is your original comment useful to them?
Please, understand that I am in no way trying to attack you (even if I have the feeling you tried to attack me with your last replies). I am simply failing to understand how your comment and your guides are useful to my situation as your original comment seemed to imply they are.