3 ms·
It would because the argument I made is that you want to prevent financial privacy and control other people’s money, not about how good crypto is at preventing
by alphanullmeric 3y ago
It would because the argument I made is that you want to prevent financial privacy and control other people’s money, not about how good crypto is at preventing those things.
“Scams occur so ban crypto” are the patriot act talking points and redistribution of consequences that I was referring to. Someone else being scammed is irrelevant to whether or not my participation is voluntary, and you need to prove my participation isn’t voluntary to justify banning crypto for everyone and not just scammers.
Nobody is ignoring any of your points, each one was addressed in my comment. You’re just throwing a tantrum now that you’re losing and repeating my words back to me regardless of how inapplicable they are.
- colesantiago 3y ago> “Scams occur so ban crypto” are the patriot act talking points and redistribution of consequences that I was referring to. Someone else being scammed is irrelevant to whether or not my participation is voluntary, and you need to prove my participation isn’t voluntary to justify banning crypto for everyone and not just scammers. When a person in your own family has been scammed by crypto scammers, it's also your problem. You have to be kidding yourself to think that pointificating your 'prove muh participation isn't voluntary' cosplaying schtick if going to work with anyone in your family. It seems you're trapped in a perpetual fantasy libertarian worldview that is inapplicable with the real world.