4 ms·
Nothing mindless about being concerned about 1. privacy violations, 2. additional financial friction and 3. financial exclusion, that are documented consequence
by CryptoPunk 6y ago
Nothing mindless about being concerned about 1. privacy violations, 2. additional financial friction and 3. financial exclusion, that are documented consequences of AML laws.
If you'd like more objectives citations supporting these points, I'd be happy to provide them, but your belligerent demands that I not express myself, and your disingenuous characterizations of my arguments as "spam", are not constructive.
- yowlingcat 6y agoWhat is mindless is posting a video which cannot be read and forces your reader to be subject to propagandized, hyperbolized points exaggerated for effect. You yourself admit that there are more "objective citations" supporting these points. If that's the case, you could have led with them. Why not lead with them? Why lead with something less objective? It's not arguing in good faith, it's arguing in proselytizing faith. It's deeply suspicious. My characterizations of your arguments as spam are constructive, given that they've led you to admit that you're not leading with objectivity or respect for your reader. I'd say they've accomplished their goal.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago>>If that's the case, you could have led with them. Why not lead with them? Because I'd need to provide multiple citations, and I felt that was overkill for a starter comment in an informal discussion. I thought if someone disputed the claims in the succinct video I provided, I could then provide a more academic-style comment with the sources you mention. Calling it mindless - not to mention 'spam' despite it being completely ontopic, just because you disagree with the veracity of the arguments - instead of just asking for more objective sources, is belligerent to the point of being unconstructive.