Stablecoins must become legal tender as soon as possible

[Gary Childress]

There are forms of violence that are an unfortunate necessity of life, however, "maiming, raping, plundering, eradicating and wholesale extermination" are not among them. They are the instincts of malice. And those instincts are what drive injustices in the world. The world is not always a good place, but it seems best to avoid making it worse. Wouldn't you agree?

Violence can also make the world a better place.

Did George Bush's "solution" to the 9/11 crisis make the world a "better place"?

[godelian]

Did George Bush's "solution" to the 9/11 crisis make the world a "better place"?

Your question is flawed.

It would be a correct follow-up question if I had argued that all violence makes the world a better place.

What is needed, is a boolean classifier that operates on the set of past, present, or future occurrences of violence.

We do not need simplistic statements such as "all violence is evil". That approach is clearly worthless.

What we need is a consistent and deductively-closed boolean classifier in order to distinguish violence in terms of good and evil.

In other words, we do not need Christianity in any shape or fashion because it is essentially a worthless doctrine.

[Gary Childress]

Did George Bush's "solution" to the 9/11 crisis make the world a "better place"?

Your question is flawed.

It would be a correct follow-up question if I had argued that all violence makes the world a better place.

What is needed, is a boolean classifier that operates on the set of past, present, or future occurrences of violence.

We do not need simplistic statements such as "all violence is evil". That approach is clearly worthless.

What we need is a consistent and deductively-closed boolean classifier in order to distinguish violence in terms of good or evil.

In other words, we do not need Christianity in any shape or fashion because it is essentially a worthless doctrine.

Enjoy your revenge, I guess. I had nothing to do with whatever happened to you so don't fuck up my neighborhood in your rage. That's all I ask.

[godelian]

Enjoy your revenge, I guess.

Revenge for what exactly?

When I tell an adversary that I am not going to hesitate to hit back, he almost always caves in. I rarely have to hit back. It almost never happens.

In other words, if you can credibly hit back, you effectively avoid getting hit. This principle is not 100% failsafe. It does not work 100% of the time, but it is certainly probabilistically effective.

The reverse is also true.

It is preferable never to give the impression that you will not hit back. It would encourage the adversary to hit you.

That is what is so damning about Christianity. It teaches you all the wrong things. All respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals. That is one of the many reasons why I despise Christianity.

[Gary Childress]

Enjoy your revenge, I guess.

Revenge for what exactly?

Did you forget?

Historically, the killing, maiming, raping, plundering, eradication and wholesale extermination of the moneylenders has typically had beneficial societal effects.

[godelian]

Enjoy your revenge, I guess.

Revenge for what exactly?

Did you forget?

Historically, the killing, maiming, raping, plundering, eradication and wholesale extermination of the moneylenders has typically had beneficial societal effects.

I was referring to historical events such as:

ChatGPT

You're referring to the story where Jesus drives the moneylenders and merchants out of the Temple — a powerful and famous scene from the Gospels.

The main accounts appear in:

Matthew 21:12-13
Mark 11:15-17
Luke 19:45-46
John 2:13-17

Enraged at the corruption in what was supposed to be a holy place, Jesus overturned their tables, made a whip out of cords, and drove them out. He famously declared:

"It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you make it a den of thieves." (Matthew 21:13)

This event is significant because:

It’s one of the few times he uses physical force, showing righteous anger is not incompatible with moral leadership.

Moneylenders have historically regularly been the target of angry popular violence. In terms of boolean classification, I usually consider the violence against moneylenders justified and almost surely necessary.

I am not interested in micromanaging or micro-investigating the nitty-gritty details of such events. So, I expect some of the violence to be wanton, cruel, mis-targeted, opportunistic, and questionable. You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. Sometimes they use a "whip out of cords". Sometimes they prefer a blunt axe to chop off a limb left or right, and who even cares? Why are you even interested in the gory details? I personally find them irrelevant.

[Gary Childress]

Revenge for what exactly?

Did you forget?

Historically, the killing, maiming, raping, plundering, eradication and wholesale extermination of the moneylenders has typically had beneficial societal effects.

I was referring to historical events such as:

ChatGPT

You're referring to the story where Jesus drives the moneylenders and merchants out of the Temple — a powerful and famous scene from the Gospels.

The main accounts appear in:

Matthew 21:12-13
Mark 11:15-17
Luke 19:45-46
John 2:13-17

Enraged at the corruption in what was supposed to be a holy place, Jesus overturned their tables, made a whip out of cords, and drove them out. He famously declared:

"It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you make it a den of thieves." (Matthew 21:13)

This event is significant because:

It’s one of the few times he uses physical force, showing righteous anger is not incompatible with moral leadership.

Moneylenders have historically regularly been the target of angry popular violence. In terms of boolean classification, I usually consider the violence against moneylenders justified and almost surely necessary.

I am not interested in micromanaging or micro-investigating the nitty-gritty details of such events. So, I expect some of the violence to be wanton, cruel, mis-targeted, opportunistic, and questionable. You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. Sometimes they use a "whip out of cords". Sometimes they prefer a blunt axe to chop off a limb left or right, and who even cares? Why are you even interested in the gory details? I personally find them irrelevant.

I'm not a fan of violence. I don't promote it, don't approve of it, I don't glorify it, and I don't participate in it. I tend to put myself in the shoes of the victims and how they must feel.

[godelian]

I'm not a fan of violence. I don't promote it, don't approve of it, I don't glorify it, and I don't participate in it. I tend to put myself in the shoes of the victims and how they must feel.

When I put myself in the shoes of these so-called "victims", I often realize that they are not victims at all. They clearly had it coming. People sometimes need to get a taste of their own medicine. It makes society overall a better place for everyone.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not a fan of violence. I don't promote it, don't approve of it, I don't glorify it, and I don't participate in it. I tend to put myself in the shoes of the victims and how they must feel.

When I put myself in the shoes of these so-called "victims", I often realize that they are not victims at all. They clearly had it coming. People sometimes need to get a taste of their own medicine. It makes society overall a better place for everyone.

Other than lending money and collecting interest, what are they guilty of that they deserve to be "maimed, raped, plundered, eradicated and wholesale exterminated?" I mean, that sounds harsh even for a Muslin, I would think.

[godelian]

Other than lending money and collecting interest, what are they guilty of that they deserve to be "maimed, raped, plundered, eradicated and wholesale exterminated?" I mean, that sounds harsh even for a Muslin, I would think.

ChatGPT

The Siege of Naarden refers to a significant event during the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) between the Dutch rebels and the Spanish Empire. It took place in 1572 when Spanish forces, under Fadrique Álvarez de Toledo (son of the Duke of Alva), besieged the Dutch town of Naarden.

Here’s a quick overview:

After initial negotiations promising fair treatment, the Spanish forces entered Naarden. Once inside, they massacred most of the town's inhabitants and burned much of it down. This brutal act was meant to terrorize other rebellious cities into submission.

Instead of cowing the Dutch, the atrocity hardened resistance and became a rallying cry for the Dutch Revolt.

It’s one of the more infamous examples of Spanish brutality ("the Spanish Fury") during the war and helped shape the broader European perception of Spanish rule at the time.

So, there is worse than just getting "maimed, raped, plundered, eradicated and wholesale exterminated".

You could also get misled by all kinds of word salads into believing that they won't do that, after which they do it anyway.

The people of Naarden committed the cardinal sin of believing the manipulative lies of the adversary. In a sense, they deserved to be punished severely.

Furthermore, their severe punishment set an excellent example and overall had tremendous beneficial effects, because "the atrocity hardened resistance".

[Gary Childress]

Other than lending money and collecting interest, what are they guilty of that they deserve to be "maimed, raped, plundered, eradicated and wholesale exterminated?" I mean, that sounds harsh even for a Muslin, I would think.

ChatGPT

The Siege of Naarden refers to a significant event during the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) between the Dutch rebels and the Spanish Empire. It took place in 1572 when Spanish forces, under Fadrique Álvarez de Toledo (son of the Duke of Alva), besieged the Dutch town of Naarden.

Here’s a quick overview:

After initial negotiations promising fair treatment, the Spanish forces entered Naarden. Once inside, they massacred most of the town's inhabitants and burned much of it down. This brutal act was meant to terrorize other rebellious cities into submission.

Instead of cowing the Dutch, the atrocity hardened resistance and became a rallying cry for the Dutch Revolt.

It’s one of the more infamous examples of Spanish brutality ("the Spanish Fury") during the war and helped shape the broader European perception of Spanish rule at the time.

So, there is worse than just getting "maimed, raped, plundered, eradicated and wholesale exterminated".

You could also get misled by all kinds of word salads into believing that they won't do that, after which they do it anyway.

The people of Naarden committed the cardinal sin of believing the manipulative lies of the adversary. In a sense, they deserved to be punished severely.

Furthermore, their severe punishment set an excellent example and overall had tremendous beneficial effects, because "the atrocity hardened resistance".

That really didn't answer my question of what it is that "moneylenders" have done to deserve the aforementioned punishment.

[godelian]

That really didn't answer my question of what it is that "moneylenders" have done to deserve the aforementioned punishment.

Why did the inhabitants of Naarden deserve the same punishment? In a sense, it just happened, didn't it?

[Gary Childress]

That really didn't answer my question of what it is that "moneylenders" have done to deserve the aforementioned punishment.

Why did the inhabitants of Naarden deserve the same punishment? In a sense, it just happened, didn't it?

So do you think that brutality "just happens" and that we shouldn't interfere with it or challenge it because it's going to make the world a better place if we let it happen?

[godelian]

So do you think that brutality "just happens" and that we shouldn't interfere with it or challenge it because it's going to make the world a better place if we let it happen?

If you look at the problem from the point of view of the Prince of Orange and the Dutch rebellion, they benefited tremendously from the fact that the inhabitants of Naarden got "maimed, raped, plundered, eradicated and wholesale exterminated".

You see, the Prince of Orange was surrounded by a population of gullible idiots who happily believed in the most imbecile word salads ever. This populace had let him down several times before already. They had definitely been incorrigible cowards.

The sack of Naarden changed everything.

Henceforth, the Prince could finally count on these idiots. He could finally rely on them to make a stand when he told them to.

These people were simply in need of a shock therapy that the Prince could not administer to them by himself. The Prince could only hope that the Spaniards would do it for him. Hence, the Prince's eternal gratitude to the Spaniards.

[Gary Childress]

So do you think that brutality "just happens" and that we shouldn't interfere with it or challenge it because it's going to make the world a better place if we let it happen?

If you look at the problem from the point of view of the Prince of Orange and the Dutch rebellion, they benefited tremendously from the fact that the inhabitants of Naarden got "maimed, raped, plundered, eradicated and wholesale exterminated".

You see, the Prince of Orange was surrounded by a population of gullible idiots who happily believed in the most imbecile word salads ever. This populace had let him down several times before already. They had definitely been incorrigible cowards.

The sack of Naarden changed everything.

Henceforth, the Prince could finally count on these idiots. He could finally rely on them to make a stand when he told them to.

These people were simply in need of a shock therapy that the Prince could not administer to them by himself. The Prince could only hope that the Spaniards would do it for him. Hence, the Prince's eternal gratitude to the Spaniards.

Fair enough. I return you to your regularly scheduled broadcasting.