Is it any different to owning shares (or really anything that isn't cold hard cash)? — Michael

From a trading perspective not so much. An obvious difference though is that share prices try to reflect the value of the company where it's usually clear that labour adds value. It is not clear what the value 1 Bitcoin = 12.000 USD reflects. A cryptocurrency price point appears to me as a pure supply and demand equillibrium without any relationship to economic activity at this point. Even for currency exchange rates, you'll see the underlying real economy of the different countries play an important role in setting those rates next to supply and demand.

Every woman who criticizes the movement is condemned for "interiorized misogyny". — jamalrob

God forbid people just disagreeing.

As to the article, I agree with this:

which women and men have used social media as a forum to describe sexual misconduct, have gone too far by publicly prosecuting private experiences and have created a totalitarian climate. — NYT

At the same time I'm not sure most #metoo'ers are doing this and I refer to earlier comments on how I perceive what #metoo seems to stand for. Focusing on the above and dismissing the movement in its entirety is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I do think they're missing a point when they are downplaying this:

while the only thing they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss, or speaking about ‘intimate’ things at a work dinner, or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual — NYT

These things aren't very serious and they aren't criminal... BUT... as a man I never have to deal with these sort of things. And a lot of this isn't "clumsiness" it's accepted or even expected behaviour by men and it isn't necessary without that leading to a sexual repression. And in reverse, if these things happen and a woman does not want them to happen and they'd make a fuss about it, she's being "difficult" or "bitchy" or worse "don't wear a short skirt" because after all, it was just a hand on a knee.

So I think there's a social construct where men are allowed to misbehave regularly (even if it's just a little) but women are not allowed to complain about it. There's no equality or fairness there. So that's why I spoke earlier about women claiming a safe space to talk and complain about these things. If an incredible number of women complain then either men are doing something wrong or an alternative... In my view that alternative is that they are all just being difficult or bitchy because it isn't a big deal. That's too many women spontaneously errupting into irrationality for me to think the alternative is likely.

In the end, with a view on my daughter growing up, I'm hoping the accomplishment of the #metoo movement will be that a woman can say "don't touch my knee" and her being respected by everyone in earshot.

Hire? It's all slavery here...

So until you solve the underlying moral issues, and adopt a culture which doesn't put sex so much on the pedestal, this issue won't be addressed adequately. — Agustino

This has no relation whatsoever to harassment. Abuse was worse in Victorian times, the middle ages and modern day Saudi-Arabia where sexuality is all but banned from the public sphere. If there's a wider context then it's mostly about equality in social power.

Question: How should I have responded to the following scenario that just happened to me.
NicK and I were leaving out best guy friends house at the end of a party and as we were saying goodbye and hugging as we do, our friends' brother opened his arms offering a hug to me (first time I had ever met him) and I stepped into the hug with my arms around his chest and then went to release and as I did he said to me "Oh push your body hard against mine" in a moaning drunk way and I pushed away but he wouldn't let me go. Keep in mind NicK is saying goodbye to others and not watching what is going down but my friends' sister in law saw what was happening and I mouthed to her, help me with BIG eyes and she stepped right in and broke his hug on me and took it onto herself. Why did she do this? Not because she wanted that kind of attention but she felt the need to help me and I am forever grateful. She intervened because she understood how uncomfortable I was and likely because it was her home that we were in but either way that time it ended gracefully.

So when NicK and I got in the car I explained to him what had happened and he dismissed it as the guy just being a "huggy" kind of person. I called bullshit on NicK because I am a "huggy" person and I have never uttered such words to a man while embracing and NicK still, today, believes that I am over-reacting. Am I? I don't even want to be around him because knowing NicK doesn't have my back on this makes me nervous. Not because I don't know how to put an end to it but because of the ripples within our friendships it would cause if he were to do it again and still not hear me and make me call him out on it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You don't mouth "help me" you say loudly enough for everybody to hear: "I'm done hugging, now let me go." If he continues, you knee him in the groin in self-defence. Fuck grace. If he's not being a gentleman, you can stop being a graceful lady.

So why should I be surprised that sexual relations are some of the most abusive relations there are? It is entirely to be expected in this cultural environment. If you went on to speak with some of those men who grab women, etc. - which is a large majority of them - they would laugh at you. They would say, "you go do that, we will keep doing what we've been doing". They will say "you have a micropenis, so you want to stop people like us, with bigger tools, because you cannot compete with us". That is how they will approach this subject. They will say that you are a woman's slave, etc. So that's how the rhetoric will go. It will be impossible to change their minds. Even if you make a law against it, and enforce it, all that you will do is make them afraid, but inside, they will be the same, completely unchanged. So how will you ever get to such people? — Agustino

I see my self-deprecating humour passed by you. :D In any case, I have no clue how you arrive at sexual relations being abusive. Sex is great, flirting is great and people should revel in their sexuality. A dirty mind is a joy forever and bawdy jokes for the win.

The #metoo movement is doing a great job for women - and by women - to claim a safe space for them to talk about harassment, to lodge complaints without the victim blaming that has historically surrounded it or having to worry about reprisals (career or otherwise). For this specific goal there's in my view no need to address the legal niceties of rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances. It's not about punishment, it's about creating awareness, staking out social territory by women for women to get this addressed and hopefully getting men to stop with rape, sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances.

As a result we finally see some transgressors punished. When it comes to punishment, the difference between a pat on the ass and rape becomes important but I don't see that as a goal of the movement itself.

Your comments express a wish to impose a regime of flirtation that you believe is the only permissible one. I was pointing out that it's not always easy, and in some of those cases it is worth trying (for both parties, obviously). — jamalrob

Currently, there are two regimes for flirtation. One invented by men that women are expected to acquiesce to and another that women also like that is readily available for anyone to understand by paying attention. I've never had problem navigating the second one. Did I try to slip my hand under a girl's bra when we were kissing? Yes. And then she stopped me and I didn't try again. I've been fully undressed together with a girl and she changed her mind as it would've been her first time and she wasn't really in love with me (and I have a micropenis, sue me). Men and women both make mistakes and even may regret things (especially when alcohol is involved). There is still room for error and mistakes here. So I don't think your fear is founded and I'm sincerely not being obtuse. I really don't understand what sort of situations you're thinking of that become problematic all of a sudden.

Again, I think it's the underlying norms that are at issue here. A female colleague is afraid to complain about an unwanted sexual advance as it might damage her career. Outside banking relationships are uncomfortably chummy with my female colleagues. The women are expected, as part of their job, to accept the hugs and continuous hands on shoulders, backs and arms from people they might see once a year. I'm sure there are women out there that think "protecting" these women is an infantilisation as they imagine they would stand up to that shit. They might. The reality is that the three female colleagues I've discussed this with haven't and won't despite #metoo.

As a man, I don't have those fears to speak up about unwanted sexual advances because first off, I'm butt ugly so the chance of this happening is 0.0001% of that of an ugly woman. For her it's about 20% a year. Second, I can be assertive, because I'm a guy. Setting a boundary is fucking manly you know but if a woman does it she's just being bitchy.

I live in a country where 75% of women have been confronted with sexual harassment, 45% of women have been confronted with sexual or physical assault (2014). Higher than most other European countries due to the fact Dutch women are much more likely to report to the police. Let that sink in: in a reportedly progressive society with assertive women who have no qualms about reporting this sort of thing to the police, 75% and 45% are huge numbers.

This. Although one time I had sparks flying so hard after about 30 minutes that dinner was just an excuse to avoid kissing then and there. Good times. :D

The problem with these sentiments, which I've seen all over the place recently, is that they don't take account of the richness of life. Thus they amount to an acceptance of new social restrictions surrounding sex, an impoverishment of sexual interaction and a degradation of individual autonomy, decades after the freedoms gained in the sexual liberation of the sixties.

Everyone is different, and even if you're good at reading signals, still sometimes it is hard to know if your advance will be welcome or not. Sometimes you do have to take risks.

But sometimes people want to be treated like that. Sometimes people want to be conquered and used. People play games. It's part of the fun, and inevitably it will often misfire. But it's ok to make a mistake; it becomes harassment only if you keep on doing it, and that's where respect comes in.[ — jamalrob

It is indeed and should be a social restriction on how a lot men behave towards women because women don't want to be treated that way. They can't be much clearer about that than they have been recently. That isn't a problem. That's a solution to the problem.

Can you perhaps give a clear example of what sort of behaviour you think men are afraid to show that will be a problematic restriction on sex, impoverishment of sexual interaction or degradation of autonomy? Just so we get a good idea because I might not be "manly" enough to think of it since I don't see whatever it is you seem to be alluding to.

Here's the deal - society is hypocritical. If grabbing isn't okay, then it should never be okay, not in some circumstances okay, and in others not okay. There are situations in society when such behaviours are even expected - and that's a problem when you're trying to say that society shouldn't consider it acceptable because you must also eliminate those situations. I mean, if you go in a nightclub in a developed country like the UK, I can guarantee you, 100%, that there will be a lot of unsolicited grabbing going around. What do you do about that? — Agustino

Currently a lot of people don't know what unwanted sexual advances are and I think the me2-movement is great for awareness, which is a start. The solution is really quite simple. You should pay attention to the person you're interested in and read their actions and hear their words. I've misread flirtation in the past but that became clear before I even touched her. It really isn't that hard and I'm not even good at reading people or moods. That fact makes the problem even more egregious as it takes very little effort to avoid this shit. It really boils down to respecting people instead of seeing them as objects to conquer or use.

A feature of the #me2 movement is that they are unwilling to distinguish between a pat on a woman's derriere and rape. The former can not be worse than annoying, and has nothing in common with the latter. — Bitter Crank

I doubt these me2-people are unable to tell the difference between rape and unwanted sexual advances. So I suspect you misunderstand the movement. One possible view is that both stem from the fact that society has for too long relegated women to second class citizens. Almost no one would think to slap a guy's ass (ok, ok, I'm telling the wrong guy now, but on average!)

It's not the slap that's the problem but the society that considers this acceptable. It shouldn't be. So it's all commentary on those social norms and the acts being an expression of that aren't really the issue here.

Does it? I don't see how. — Banno

You don't need to as long as it's clear that it doesn't follow that introducing state assisted suicide allows social injustice to continue.

Yet by allowing the relief valve you are allowing the injustice to continue. — Banno

That doesn't follow and contradicts your earlier complaint about an unfair juxtaposition between the two, which you know argue for yourself.

Congratulations with your first 6 dollars betting on a financial product. :P

The argument set out in the OP is that the poor, if they are unhappy, should be allowed to terminate their own lives. That is set out explicitly in Point 4.

Now I do hope that most folk would see this as the atrocious proposition it is; that a far better approach to the devaluing caused by inequity is to improve the dignity of those devalued.
— Banno

There is also the assumption that I pointed to in my first post, that folk are all in an equal position with regard to judging the values of their lives. They are not.

Indeed. Which makes it interesting that you're arguing for not introducing the option for assisted suicide.

Hence one of the reasons for my introducing disability into the thread. Folk with disabilities live with others perpetually devaluing their lives; the best they can hope for is to be an inspiration to the able.

And the result was not something I expected to see from a philosophical oriented community. Summary dismissal and denial of Stella's right to speak.

Everybody copes with disability different. It is unlikely the able can accurately gauge whatever joi de vivre disabled have or not. In fact, we cannot do so for other abled people and we cannot guess how we ourselves would react. One of my worst nightmares is losing a hand because I play the piano and I cannot imagine a live without being able to play. In my more dramatic moments I'd imagine I'd prefer to die. At other times I don't. The point really is I don't know how I'd feel if it would come to pass but neither does Stella where it concerns other people. What her unique perspective does offer is that we should not be so quick to assume we, as abled persons, could not be happy living as a disabled. Most disabled do. So an abled person becoming disabled probably can as well.

When that was pointed out the discussion became a false juxtaposition, as if we could work for equity or introduce euthanasia, but not both.

But isn't that what Stella is arguing for?

Before we can talk about death with dignity, we need to ensure that all people, regardless of age or disability, can live with dignity. We're not there yet. — Stella

Also, as a citizen of a country where euthanasia was first legalised I have to say her view on doctors having more of a say is a bit baffling to me. In 1998 already 98% of Dutch people were proponents of euthanasia.

This is my major concern with legalising assisted death; that it will give doctors more control over our lives. — Stella

That's not how it works and presumably won't work in other countries legalising it. In the Netherlands a doctor needs to meet the following duty of care before he can acquiesce to a request:

1. the doctor should be convinced that the patient came to his request freely and considered;
2. the doctor should be convinced that the patient is suffering unbearably and without any possibility of improvement (note, most disabled persons would fail here as lack of autonomy is not suffering!);
3. the doctor had informed the patient of his/her situation and his/her prospects;
4. together with the patient came to the conclusion that for this situation there is no reasonably alternative solution;
5. the doctor received a second opinion of another independent doctor who has seen the patient and has given his written assessment of the duty of care contained in numbers 1 through 4;
6. the actual euthanasia or assisted suicide is done appropriately based on current medical knowledge.

So if there's any "control" of the doctor here it is that he can actually tell "no" to people who want euthanasia or assisted suicide.

See paragraph #8. I do take your point about normal futures, soybeans and such, but evidently the CME and CBOE bitcoin futures don't work that way. — fishfry

You're right. #8 could still be interpreted as just related to the trading of futures but paragraph 9 is even clearer on this in the settlement box.

What? Then it isn't a future. What do you think is being traded on CME?

It's perfectly normal futures are bought and margin is settled in USD but at the end of the contract there's a promise to deliver bitcoin. Just like any other commodities future.

I don't know what the fuss is about. I lived through the 80s.

Bitcoin has had these kind of swings before so we'll see. In any case, ownership of bitcoins is very concentrated with a few players. I suspect somebody made a killing on those futures, selling his coins to cause a downswing and then buying them again to fulfill his future contracts and earning a tidy spread.

Correctness in language use is totally faith. The fact that I can remove myself from good faith and get idiosyncratic if I want, demonstrates the reality of this. You seem to already recognize this so I don't see why I need to tell you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correctness in language use is a matter of correspondence with reality. Or use in itself and convention, or whatever other theory you'd like to adhere to. Faith isn't involved as these are things we can observe. People say "goodbye" or point to the "moon". We can try to ascertain whether they correspond with reality or we can ascertain that the convention exists. In your case, I simply pointed out the idiosyncracy of claiming "faith" is involved when deciding something is bread or wine. Hmmm... guess what! These are observable facts! Amazing! No faith involved.

And by the way, I don't assume the existence of God in such a discussion, I assume the POSSIBILITY for the existence of God. If God's existence is impossible, a priori, then you could adopt your attitude, but you haven't shown that to be the case.

So if you want to have a discussion, you must assume the possibility of God's existence too. Otherwise, no discussion can be had. — Agustino

So now you're moving the goal posts because at no point did you assume the possibility by, for instance, saying: "meditation could move one closer to God, were he to exist". Instead you put it out there as a fact. Also, you and I both know you don't assume the possibility since you have faith in his existence.

As far as I'm concerned there is no data or observations available to rationally assume the possibility as it is as likely as the existence of unicorns. So if you want me to entertain the possibility, get me data or observable facts. Until then any discussion about God, his properties or my relation to him is indeed moot.

After you run all your test, you still have the issue of what qualifies as "stale bread" and "bad wine", your definitions. This is necessary in order to make your judgement as to whether the test results are according to the definitions. That these terms ought to be defined in the way that you define them is something "unseen". — Metaphysician Undercover

Open a dictionary, try using language on an everyday basis. No faith involved. Although admittedly your language use is getting increasingly idiosyncratic.

So that's why, actually struggling and trying to understand so that you can ask good questions is important. If you just come with a destructive attitude, you cannot make any progress in understanding the other. Not any question that you can ask is a good question and merits answering. — Agustino

The only conclusion to be taken from the above is that you did assume the existence of God, otherwise the question wasn't silly. In which case you were begging the question. QED.

You have no clue what "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" means, so don't try to talk in languages that you don't understand. Go back to the experience of meditation. — Agustino

I'll take this personal attack and your failure to answer the question as an admission that your earlier points were silly.

What do you obtain by meditating? That - whatsoever you call it - is what I call getting closer to God. — Agustino

Oh so, you're not actually getting closer to God, since he doesn't exist but you're just calling it that?

Nope, not begging the question at all. I expressed something in Christian discourse, you want me to translate to atheist? It's just a question of translation. You cannot figure the meaning of those terms. Read the rest of what I wrote. You don't have to be a theist to meditate for example. — Agustino

You're begging the question as you already assumed the existence of God and go from there. Since I don't accept the premise, the argument is unnecessary to be considered. And yes we can meditate but you specifically related those things to becoming closer to God. I don't ascribe to that either. As a result we cannot have a meaningful discussion on the subject.

My point - It is not reasonable to dismiss theism out of hand. — T Clark

Why not? All theists have is tradition, a couple of anecdotes and a few books as proof. And of course faith. Mustn't forget that one. In light of the weak evidence (e.g. none whatsoever) and the failure of every conceivable philosophical argument for God then it's entirely reasonable to dismiss it out of hand. Out of "respect" for religious freedoms we just don't dismiss it out of hand, which in itself is an archaic remainder of an overly religious society.

EDIT: Oh wait, absence of proof isn't proof of absence. :-}

I have expanded on that thought much more in other threads. I even started one where I tried to discuss it in depth. I made a valid point - in my opinion, theists have a more complete understanding of the nature of reality than atheists, materialists, realists, and their ilk do. It's a respectable philosophical argument with a history. My point - It is not reasonable to dismiss theism out of hand. — T Clark

You might have, I'm not familiar with your posts on the subject. On it's own the sentence is meaningless and not something I can really respond to. Perhaps if you link me to the relevant thread I can give you a more substantive reply as it's quite a claim. Theist seem to have an understanding of nature that you happen to agree with. That's very nice.

What about the meaning of words, aren't they things unseen? Or do you claim to have seen the body and blood of Christ? If you've taken part in the Eucharist, you have evidence that the items are body and blood of Christ, because you've seen them, and seen that this is what they are called. If you think that the words refer to something else, or that the items should be called something else, you are going on faith in something unseen. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am a raised Catholic. I've already set out above what I think about transubstantiation. And obviously I'm not going by faith at all. After you named it "the body and blood of Christ" we can run every conceivable test on it and establish that it's still stale bread and bad wine. So my statement actually corresponds to reality and isn't something "unseen" as it is a claim about the world as-is. I'm the one that is saying something that can be proved by conventional means. Your point can only be proved through faith which renders it a fairy tale. This is the same "really real" nonsense expounded every time people have a religious experience except that it has been ritualised.

In the Christian tradition, for example, prayer, worship, meditation and contemplation are means for the believer to get in closer communion with the Lord through His Son Jesus Christ. — Agustino

Yeah, so right now you're talking to an atheist so starting out like this is just begging the question to me. Let's not shall we?

The idea that cryptocurrencies will replace government-backed currencies is laughable. — Maw

But you do agree a government backed crypto currency is s possibility?

What does useful mean? — Agustino

Only a philosopher will ask. 23 pages on transubstantiation and nothing happened. We can pin a link to this thread next to the word "useless" and let that be a definition by demonstration.

But faith is reality, you just admitted so much. And the "says you", "no says you" attitude is reality too. So it's nonsense to say "let's just remove faith from reality, and make this attitude go away, and then we can have a real discussion". A reality without faith is not real, therefore we have to deal with this attitude, it's very real. You can't assume that having faith in non-faith will make faith go away. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the type of nonsense I'd like to avoid and I'll probably quit this thread soon.

Equating and conflating faith to the point it becomes meaningless is really just semantics. I defined faith earlier in this thread as "the evidence of things unseen". When I say "remove faith" we are removing any evidence submitted for things unseen such as souls, God, miracles and transubstantiation. Instead we can talk about the aesthetic appeal of J-Lo's ass (can we still do that in the #metoo era?), which is actually real but no faith is necessary to hold an opinion on the matter.

Then why would VISA guarantee such a bubble prone currency? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I suspect the balance of bitcoin transferred on the debit card gets a haircut that they feel comfortable with to cover any market risk they might run in addition to limits in the size of transactions.

EDIT: VISA doesn't transfer a bitcoin, it immediately enters into a bitcoin-USD trade and settles the USD in the account of the vendor. So it actually doesn't run any risk on price fluctuations of the bitcoin. It does run a settlement risk should the bubble burst, in which case their bitcoin-USD trade might not settle successfully.

That makes sense but I am left with the question of how the vendor would know you were using a bitcoin backed Visa card? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

He doesn't care as VISA guarantees the settlement of the payment.

The problem is that faith is something very real, it is just as real as the food we eat, and we all partake. That someone can't handle the proposition that faith is real, and we all partake, so we as good philosophers ought to try to understand it, doesn't make faith go away, it just makes that person a lesser philosopher. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, nice value judgment. :-*

Of course people have faith and they have religious experiences. Yet neither faith nor religious experiences have anything useful to say about reality. You just get a "says you" "no says you" discussion that never ever goes anywhere. So take out faith and religious experiences and we can start talking about the things we both at least agree on exist.

I gave you examples of them existing before, or in opposition to, the establishment of the church.
it doesn't get much more refuted than that.

It is not sufficient that you think they're great, this is a philosophy forum, not an evangelical platform. If you're not prepared to argue your case I suggest you don't make it. — Inter Alia

That would be boring and not the issue in this specific thread. Suffice is to say that stones in the shape of wheels existed before the wheel was invented. So no, you haven't refuted my points but as I said, I don't feel like writing an exposé on this. Anybody who's studied law can tell you where my examples came from, you can bother them with it.

What do you mean by BitCoin isn't instant? The acquisition of the coin, the use of the coin or the cash out of the coin?
I thought the use of the coin is instant and the value of the coin is time stamped locking in the value of the coin, the moment it was used. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Any payment done with bitcoin takes a while to be processed and it takes too long compared to the possibility for instant payments that we'll have soon. If I'm paying with my NFC debit card currently I can walk away because the vendor trusts my bank and his bank. If I'd pay with a bitcoin we'd have to wait for 10 to 60 minutes to ascertain he received the bitcoin. Next year, with regular payments both the vendor and I don't have to trust the bank for the payment as it will be immediately added to his account (he'll still need to trust his bank he can withdraw though). For international payments, of course, it would definitely be an improvement just not locally.

What kind of currency would cost nearly $20k? It's an awfull currency to use, if it would be an actual currency. — ssu

I think that's part of why it's considered a financial instrument in most countries.

Virtue ethics existed in a pretty well defined system through Aristotle (and well before then).

The first recorded example of arbitration in law was in the wars of the Summarian king mesilim hundreds of years before Christ.

The independence of the judiciary, at least in the UK was written in the 1701 Act of Settlement which was directly a response against the influence of the Catholic Church.

The first declaration of universal human rights was on the Cyrus Cylinder in 539bc.

'Just' as in the massacre at Acre? — Inter Alia

This doesn't refute any of the points but I really don't care to go in depth into these things. It's sufficient that I consider them great for the argument I made.

That's just selection bias. I'm not a fan of institutionalised religion or faith as evidence of things unseen. But here's a list of wonderful things that wouldn't exist but for the church:

• a well-defined system of virtue ethics
• they kept alive the ancient Greeks
• invented arbitration
• and the principle of impartiality necessary for just judgments
• our system of human rights
• the just war tradition