4 ms·

This is to the point I made on the patriot act. You support the redistribution of consequences and I don’t, that’s what makes us different.

lern_too_spel 3y ago
I don't know how you call preventing DPRK and Russia from getting money "redistribution of consequences." That's what makes us different.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  If you are consistent, then Signal should be banned and KYC should be required for encrypted messengers to prevent Russia and the DPRK from being able to organize attacks.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    How is that consistent? DPRK and Russia can already use their own messaging systems. They cannot create a cryptocurrency and make Americans use it in order to steal their money.
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      I took your complaints about financial privacy and applied it nearly word for word to communication privacy, and you switched sides. Stop moving the goalposts. You lack both consistency and honesty which is why you are losing this argument.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        You've already lost the argument. There is nothing the US can do to prevent Russia and DPRK from securely communicating. There is something the US can do to prevent them from stealing money from Americans using cryptocurrencies.
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Stop moving the goalposts. You support the redistribution of consequences and I do not. Simple as that. You do not have the right to other people’s money, the same way you don’t have the right to ban communication privacy, even if it were effective at stopping Russians or whatever other poor excuse you use to justify reaching into the wallets of others.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > You support the redistribution of consequences You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. > Stop moving the goalposts. Ditto. > You do not have the right to other people’s money If you say so. I guess we won't have roads or a government then.
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        If banning things russians might use is not the redistribution of consequences, you should have no problem banning encryption. You are the only one moving goalposts here. Again, I can easily construct an example in which the ban would be effective, and you would still not support it. Without double standards you would have no standards at all. Nearly all services the government currently provides apart from courts, military and police could be paid for by its consumers proportional to their consumption. Of course, people like you oppose that model because it forces you to pay your fair share instead of offloading the cost of the services you use to others.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > If banning things russians might use is not the redistribution of consequences For the third time, it isn't. Whose consequences are being redistributed? > you should have no problem banning encryption Why should I support ineffective policy? > Without double standards you would have no standards at all. My standard is effective policy. Nothing of value is lost by regulating cryptocurrencies, and starving DPRK and Russia of one source of ill-gotten gains is gained. > Nearly all services the government currently provides apart from courts, military and police could be paid for by its consumers proportional to their consumption. Let's leave almost everyone be completely uneducated then. That's the way to run a successful democracy. /s Are you going to continue to steal to fund the courts and military? > You are the only one moving goalposts here. Nobody is moving goalposts here. You simply don't understand what moving goalposts means.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

I don't know how you call preventing DPRK and Russia from getting money "redistribution of consequences." That's what makes us different.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
If you are consistent, then Signal should be banned and KYC should be required for encrypted messengers to prevent Russia and the DPRK from being able to organize attacks.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  How is that consistent? DPRK and Russia can already use their own messaging systems. They cannot create a cryptocurrency and make Americans use it in order to steal their money.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    I took your complaints about financial privacy and applied it nearly word for word to communication privacy, and you switched sides. Stop moving the goalposts. You lack both consistency and honesty which is why you are losing this argument.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      You've already lost the argument. There is nothing the US can do to prevent Russia and DPRK from securely communicating. There is something the US can do to prevent them from stealing money from Americans using cryptocurrencies.
      - alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Stop moving the goalposts. You support the redistribution of consequences and I do not. Simple as that. You do not have the right to other people’s money, the same way you don’t have the right to ban communication privacy, even if it were effective at stopping Russians or whatever other poor excuse you use to justify reaching into the wallets of others.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > You support the redistribution of consequences You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means. > Stop moving the goalposts. Ditto. > You do not have the right to other people’s money If you say so. I guess we won't have roads or a government then.
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        If banning things russians might use is not the redistribution of consequences, you should have no problem banning encryption. You are the only one moving goalposts here. Again, I can easily construct an example in which the ban would be effective, and you would still not support it. Without double standards you would have no standards at all. Nearly all services the government currently provides apart from courts, military and police could be paid for by its consumers proportional to their consumption. Of course, people like you oppose that model because it forces you to pay your fair share instead of offloading the cost of the services you use to others.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > If banning things russians might use is not the redistribution of consequences For the third time, it isn't. Whose consequences are being redistributed? > you should have no problem banning encryption Why should I support ineffective policy? > Without double standards you would have no standards at all. My standard is effective policy. Nothing of value is lost by regulating cryptocurrencies, and starving DPRK and Russia of one source of ill-gotten gains is gained. > Nearly all services the government currently provides apart from courts, military and police could be paid for by its consumers proportional to their consumption. Let's leave almost everyone be completely uneducated then. That's the way to run a successful democracy. /s Are you going to continue to steal to fund the courts and military? > You are the only one moving goalposts here. Nobody is moving goalposts here. You simply don't understand what moving goalposts means.