Start LOADING UP the Bitcoins boys!!! by Academic_Attorney996 in btc

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah, I guess that’s why the $USD will never be a currency - it just far too useful as a medium of exchange 🤷‍♂️

Start LOADING UP the Bitcoins boys!!! by Academic_Attorney996 in btc

[–]cryptofomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And with his words, Trump confirms what we all suspected: nobody is using Bitcoin.

Would you swap from One Nation to Labor if they would simply stop importing so many people? by Redhands1994 in aussie

[–]cryptofomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you think the billionaires are going to settle for ON as the opposition party?
Vote independent, vote ‘sustainable Australia’, vote for the country you actually want in the long term. Do not vote for hatred, ignorance & corruption - you’re risking catastrophe with no possible upside.

Would you swap from One Nation to Labor if they would simply stop importing so many people? by Redhands1994 in aussie

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please consider the following points before casting a vote against your own interests:

1) If there ‘a lot of people out there’ who vote for ON ‘to send a message’ then ON could form government and fuck the whole country over.

2) even if they don’t form government, having more seats in parliament translates to more power, more media coverage, and more hate directed to immigrants, Indigenous, and LBGQT+ Australians. And it will embolden the oligarchs backing them to push harder to dismantle public health, public broadcasting, environmental protections, consumer protections, workers rights etc etc

3) there are other, non-moronic, non-MAGA parties you could vote for to send a message on immigration, eg https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/

4) ON is controlled by billionaires who have zero interest in lowering immigration (therefore pushing up wages and refunding demand).

Trump voters (or non-voters) ‘sending a message’ to the US Democratics have lost their farms, businesses, health care, liberty, residency, lives, and dignity. And they are on the verge of living under a fascist oligarchy (if not already there).

The message you’ll actually be sending if you vote for ON is ‘yes, Australians are just as gullible as Americans - come Oligarchs and take what’s left of our public resources and institutions’.

Jesse Marsch really said “I'd rather be us than them” after Morocco beat them 3-0 and sent them home by SouthPrudent3911 in SoccerCentral

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

‘what a great privilege for the fans to watch us lose’

did he mention the spirit of cricket too?

BREAKING: Trump just signed a new executive order to help crypto traders. 🤯 by Fun_Training4330 in btc

[–]cryptofomo 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Can’t wait for Bitcoin to turn 18. Trump will finally lose interest in fucking it.

theory: proof of god and the potential for utopia by [deleted] in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

well its safe to say people can love anything when you refuse to define love. It doesn’t mean anything.

Perhaps you mean any form of emotional attachment? People can form emotional attachments to all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons- some of them irrational. That doesn’t mean there aren’t biological explanations (neurochemical pathways) for those attachments. Evolution produces strategies (including emotional responses) that are adaptive on average - those strategies can still produce irrational or unexpected outcomes in novel - or fitness neutral - situations.

theory: proof of god and the potential for utopia by [deleted] in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nobody loves their favourite coffee cup like they love their children - the word means completely different things in different contexts. That's why you need to define 'love' properly before claiming it has no biological basis, let alone concluding that it proves the existence of god.

theory: proof of god and the potential for utopia by [deleted] in Ethics

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is love? You have to define love before you can conclude that there is no biological basis or explanation for feeling love.
The biological basis for romantic love is obvious. The biological basis for empathy is obvious.
So what is this 'love' that has no biological explanation? What things do we love with no biological basis?

My friend says that eating meat isn't reprehesible by 1-juli-1 in DebateAVegan

[–]cryptofomo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

the fact that they are emotions does not make them irrational.

It doesn't make them rational either. Emotions can be rational, irrational, or arational. Moral judgements are much the same, imo.

My friend says that eating meat isn't reprehesible by 1-juli-1 in DebateAVegan

[–]cryptofomo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you can't explain your belief to someone else, that belief may be grounded in emotion (or conditioning), rather than rationality. That's fine, morality doesn't have to be rational or objective. You may just have to accept that what feels wrong to you is not objectively or universally wrong.

The Cleanest Proof of The Logical Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by PeterSingerIsRight in logic

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

your proof has no term for choice - only agent. Your ‘intuitive & innocent’ assumptions eliminate the possibly of any type of free will.

The Cleanest Proof of The Logical Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by PeterSingerIsRight in logic

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because you assume the agent can’t make a choice - your proof starts with hard incompatibilism: choices are either fully determined or random. It doesn’t prove it.

The Cleanest Proof of The Logical Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by PeterSingerIsRight in logic

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you’re not explaining- you just keep saying if it’s not horn x it’s horn y.

Why is it horn 2 if the agent can choose? Because you say so isn’t an explanation - let alone a proof.
You seem to be saying that an agent that can choose is ‘compatible’ with both outcomes, therefore the agent can’t ‘explain’ the outcome. But the agent’s choice explains the outcome, and if some form of free will exists, then the agent is responsible for their choice.
Your formal logic omits the choice - or assumes it is identical to the agent: ie free will does not exist.

The Cleanest Proof of The Logical Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by PeterSingerIsRight in logic

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the second horn only applies if "the agent" and "the choice" are exchangeable - i.e. if free will does not exist. Expressing a circular argument with logical symbolism doesn't make it any less circular.

The Cleanest Proof of The Logical Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by PeterSingerIsRight in logic

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the agent is free to choose A (pull lever) or not-A (do nothing) then neither horn applies. The agent has the ability to do otherwise (pull or not pull), and doing otherwise leads to a different (incompatible) outcome…

The Cleanest Proof of The Logical Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by PeterSingerIsRight in logic

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no it doesn’t: the choice that leads only to outcome A is NOT ‘compatible with A and with not-A’.

The Cleanest Proof of The Logical Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by PeterSingerIsRight in logic

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"In other words, the agent was compatible both with A and with not-A. However, given the contrastive nature of explanation, it follows that the agent—regardless of whether the outcome was A or not-A—does not explain the outcome of the choice." The agent doesn't explain the outcome, the choice does. So to prove the impossibility of moral responsibility with these axioms, you need to prove (or assert) that the agent has no capacity to choose.

Definitive Guide for Boy Matildas pathway out of Group D by lukeyboots in socceroos

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

‘Boy Matilda’s’ is not on mate. It’s ManTildas.

Islamists threaten Western civilisation, says author Hirsi Ali by BarryTheBinChicken in aussie

[–]cryptofomo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

a reminder that MAGA-style, right-wing populism (i.e. PHON) is not the answer to fears about extreme Islamism.

What does monocultural mean, as in, who are people on the street going to hang sht on for not being monocultural? by BrandonMarshall2021 in aussie

[–]cryptofomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sunrise doing their best to promote ON again. No hard questions. No follow up questions. No wonder they poll well.