Jump to content

hijexx

Members
  • Posts

    1446
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by hijexx

  1. 6 minutes ago, Braintree said:

    Again, your character was not being attacked. Your words were. If you say something silly and then I say "you just said something silly," your character has not been attacked. The dog thing was there to illustrate how obvious this case is.

    You are creating your own definition of what an ad hominem is lol, man you’re just trolling me at this point. Have at it.

    • Facepalm 1
  2. 1 hour ago, Braintree said:

    You definitely did try to debate me.

    By the way, an ad hominem is an attack on your character, which I didn't do. I criticized your comment, because it was silly.

    Ad hominem is attacking the person not the issue. When you said I’d look at a dog take a shit and I’d say “Now let’s wait for evidence” you are attacking me. That is an ad hominem. You saying “that dog took a shit” when a dog took a shit is a fact. I would not argue with a fact like that. Your opinion on the shooter’s motive is just an opinion.

  3. 23 minutes ago, Braintree said:

    I get the feeling that we could both watch a dog take a shit in the kitchen and I would say "hey, there's some dog shit in the kitchen" and you would say "let's not jump to conclusions!"

    I’ll let you have the last ad hominem dig, seems like that is what you enjoy. 

  4. Just now, Braintree said:

    We're not in court here and we're not discussing a court case since it doesn't exist yet. We're criticizing the police's response to the suspect.

    I think we’re just talking past each other at this point. Police response is terrible, I don’t see how you comeback from saying a mass murderer “had a bad day” then express zero empathy for the victims. As for shooter my opinion is I don’t know enough yet to jump to the conclusion that he is an evil racist who had premeditated a hate crime. The case is brand new and we will learn more. That’s about all I got, sorry I don’t see it exactly like you do bro.

  5. 2 minutes ago, Braintree said:

    Jesus hopping Christ. Does this dude have to sign and seal a letter saying he's racist for you to see he's racist?

    It only matters what the jury thinks. If a racially motivated mass murder  carries a stiffer penalty than one that is not racially motivated that will be for the courts to decide which punishment he gets. That will depend on evidence.

  6. 2 hours ago, Braintree said:

    It is quite clear that the murderer's actions don't match his words. Also, your left-field inclusion of SJWs in the first sentence of your response shows there's some bias here.

    Your bias is that the murder’s actions don’t match his words. It’s fine to have that bias but don’t go putting words in my mouth that I can’t believe he’s a liar. If there is evidence that he is a white supremacist, like he’s a member of a bunch of WP FB groups or wrote screeds about the stuff I’ll believe it. Until then the only fact I’ve seen is his statement.

    Still not sure why you had to take it to an ad hominem attack but whatever makes you happy.

  7. Kinda seems like the tail is wagging the dog here with all the media and SJWs latching onto this being about anti Asian sentiment. The suspect was asked if his killings were racially motivated and he said no. He said he did it because he has a sex addiction and he wanted to eliminate places that tempted him. I’m not saying he is justified at all for anything he did, regardless of motive. But in this specific instance he said that wasn’t his motive so that’s all we really have to go on.

    Never let a good crisis go to waste though. Andrew Yang already said: “Make no mistake, these women were targeted on the basis of their race.” I guess Andrew got to interview the suspect and personally made him change his motive and confess eh?

    Fucked up situation all around. This country is sick.

  8. 7 hours ago, zero said:

    CNN is what it is when it comes to politics, but I found this article very easy to understand, for anyone else still asking wtf this is all about:

     

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/14/tech/nft-art-buying/?iid=ob_lockedrail_longstory_pool


    That article got most of it right except for the part about an NFT being a way to purchase digital art. It’s not the art you pay for. It’s the actual transaction that people are placing value on. It’s set up in a way that the right to conduct a specific transaction is sold and the act of being able to make the transaction is immutable.

     

    The analog world equivalent would be a room of people bidding for the right to place their name in a book with a record of the date, time, amount, and the counter party they paid for the right to sign the book. They hand over the money, sign it, write the time, amount, and the counter party signs that they agree to forfeit their claim to the transaction. The record of the transaction is now owned by that bidder. Anyone in the world can now look at the permanent ledger and see that specific transaction actually took place and the record will never change.

     

    The person who owns the record of that contract may wish to sell it in the future. The record of that contract can be constructed in a way that each resale pays the originator of the record a royalty. There are other spins on it but that’s the gist.

     

    It is being pitched as a way for an artist to show the provenance of their work. They create the opportunity to conduct a scare number of specific transactions and say that those transactions represent some notion of originality. It’s all about perception. If everyone agrees that the trade of opportunities to conduct transactions in an immutable ledger is valuable and represents the things they are supposed to symbolize, then it does.

    • Thanks 1
    • Farnsworth 1
  9. 41 minutes ago, zero said:

    still trying to wrap my dinosaur brain around some of this...remember when RZA sold that Wu-Tang album on vinyl, which apparently was the only one in existence, on an online auction to that tech bro guy for like 2 million dollars? is there a comparison to this NFT crap that could be made here? except with NFT's you have to pay using crypto, and you don't get to hold a vinyl album...instead you get a digital file. 

     

    is that rationale correct?  


    You are buying the fact that you sent someone money. That’s it.

    You can add a bunch of cryptobro jargon like “non fungible” and “smart contract” etc but those are just implementation details. The value is transferred to buy a fact that you transferred value.

    • Like 1
  10. 12 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

    if someone really wanted to criticize which types of software are being produced and who is using them, you'd have more deep critiques, like why we for instance allow so many mass distributed supercomputers being used against us by the ruling class.

    If you’re referring to Google Facebook Amazon etc and all their surveillance capitalism that ship has sailed. The market spoke. People are happy to trade their data for making global communication frictionless. It’s not like those companies created those services without demand.

×
×
  • Create New...