3 ms·

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 ineffectiv

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.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  I’m glad we’ve established that you would be willing to allow russians to securely plan attacks even if you could effectively stop it.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    You seem to continue having difficulty understanding plain English. I said the exact opposite of what you think I'm willing to allow, which is quite the feat of misunderstanding.
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      So if banning encryption was an effective way to prevent Russian communication, you would be in favour? I’m looking for a yes or no answer.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        I support any policy where the benefits outweigh the harms. How hard is that to understand? You support policies based on how closely they fit your unachievable libertarian dogma, whether or not they are destructive. In an imaginary world where it is possible to ban Russia from using encryption without causing other harms that outweigh that benefit, I would support that. Such an imaginary world is too nonsensical to exist though, so it is useless to even consider.

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.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
I’m glad we’ve established that you would be willing to allow russians to securely plan attacks even if you could effectively stop it.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  You seem to continue having difficulty understanding plain English. I said the exact opposite of what you think I'm willing to allow, which is quite the feat of misunderstanding.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    So if banning encryption was an effective way to prevent Russian communication, you would be in favour? I’m looking for a yes or no answer.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      I support any policy where the benefits outweigh the harms. How hard is that to understand? You support policies based on how closely they fit your unachievable libertarian dogma, whether or not they are destructive. In an imaginary world where it is possible to ban Russia from using encryption without causing other harms that outweigh that benefit, I would support that. Such an imaginary world is too nonsensical to exist though, so it is useless to even consider.