3 ms·

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.

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.
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Did I send money to Russians? If not, and you still wish to ban me from using crypto, it’s the redistribution of consequences. “Why should I support ineffective policy” is precisely the moving of goalposts. Your original comment only said Russians using something is enough justification to ban it, you are now adding more conditions after the fact. You also conveniently ignored the point I made about constructing a scenario where your new goalposts are satisfied and just reposing the question. If banning encryption were an effective means of preventing Russian communication, you would support it right? I don’t care if it doesn’t benefit you to pay your fair share. Yes, the military and courts have to be paid with theft, but you believe in those things too. Remember how I mentioned honesty and consistency? I’m honest where I’m not consistent, and since there are less instances of theft I believe are justified than you, at a baseline I’m always more consistent than you.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > Did I send money to Russians? If not, and you still wish to ban me from using crypto, it’s the redistribution of consequences Wrong. Your willingness to accept stolen goods from Russia and DPRK is what makes them valuable. Making it illegal for you to buy them is not redistribution of consequences. Allowing people who have had their property stolen the ability to get their property back from other parties in the same jurisdiction is also not redistribution of consequences. > Your original comment only said Russians using something is enough justification to ban it, Your problem is not that you don't understand what moving goalposts means but that you don't understand plain English sentences. Status quo allows Russians to steal from the rest of the world. I never once said we should ban cryptocurrencies (which is as impossible as banning them from using secure messaging), only to regulate them to prevent Russians from deriving value from stolen goods. > Did I send money to Russians? If not, and you still wish to ban me from using crypto Once again, where did I say I want to ban you from using crypto? I merely want them regulated as much as any other money transfer services. PayPal could allow transfer to Russia and DPRK without recourse for lower cost than cryptocurrencies, but they do not because they are regulated. > You also conveniently ignored the point I made about constructing a scenario where your new goalposts are satisfied and just reposing the question. You are unable to construct a scenario where my original goalposts are satisfied, so you imagine a world where you could. You're simply imagining a world where you win the argument without actually presenting the arguments to win it. > Yes, the military and courts have to be paid with theft, but you believe in those things too So you understand that your policies are unworkable. Once you admit that it is reasonable for people in societies to band together and collect taxes to spend on the public good, it's just a question of how much and for how much public benefit. Feel free to move to Somalia if you find this concept disgusting.

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.
      - alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Did I send money to Russians? If not, and you still wish to ban me from using crypto, it’s the redistribution of consequences. “Why should I support ineffective policy” is precisely the moving of goalposts. Your original comment only said Russians using something is enough justification to ban it, you are now adding more conditions after the fact. You also conveniently ignored the point I made about constructing a scenario where your new goalposts are satisfied and just reposing the question. If banning encryption were an effective means of preventing Russian communication, you would support it right? I don’t care if it doesn’t benefit you to pay your fair share. Yes, the military and courts have to be paid with theft, but you believe in those things too. Remember how I mentioned honesty and consistency? I’m honest where I’m not consistent, and since there are less instances of theft I believe are justified than you, at a baseline I’m always more consistent than you.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > Did I send money to Russians? If not, and you still wish to ban me from using crypto, it’s the redistribution of consequences Wrong. Your willingness to accept stolen goods from Russia and DPRK is what makes them valuable. Making it illegal for you to buy them is not redistribution of consequences. Allowing people who have had their property stolen the ability to get their property back from other parties in the same jurisdiction is also not redistribution of consequences. > Your original comment only said Russians using something is enough justification to ban it, Your problem is not that you don't understand what moving goalposts means but that you don't understand plain English sentences. Status quo allows Russians to steal from the rest of the world. I never once said we should ban cryptocurrencies (which is as impossible as banning them from using secure messaging), only to regulate them to prevent Russians from deriving value from stolen goods. > Did I send money to Russians? If not, and you still wish to ban me from using crypto Once again, where did I say I want to ban you from using crypto? I merely want them regulated as much as any other money transfer services. PayPal could allow transfer to Russia and DPRK without recourse for lower cost than cryptocurrencies, but they do not because they are regulated. > You also conveniently ignored the point I made about constructing a scenario where your new goalposts are satisfied and just reposing the question. You are unable to construct a scenario where my original goalposts are satisfied, so you imagine a world where you could. You're simply imagining a world where you win the argument without actually presenting the arguments to win it. > Yes, the military and courts have to be paid with theft, but you believe in those things too So you understand that your policies are unworkable. Once you admit that it is reasonable for people in societies to band together and collect taxes to spend on the public good, it's just a question of how much and for how much public benefit. Feel free to move to Somalia if you find this concept disgusting.