Utopia Talk / Politics / Mental health confusion #3

Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 05:27:57 (On the "Trans" delusion, the left's terminal acceptance of all immorality, and the bureaucrat's inability to have a conscience outside of Regime-sponsored lawfare)
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 05:28:12 Thread 2: http://uto...hread=91781&time=1688984776900
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 05:28:34 My comment at the end of thread 2: [Seb]: "You didn't make any other counter argument." Oof. Time to hold Seb's hand again.. [CC]: "[Seb is] now pretending to be an expert with a storied history of ESG knowledge ... I wouldn't jump into a Sam Adams thread on climate change and try to debate Sam" [Seb]: "Quite right. I should have said education, but it's a good proxy. / That's why you wouldn't go into a Sam thread and talk about climate. You are clueless about the technicalities and accept as such ... you don't have the qualifications" [CC]: "Seb with the low-IQ credentialism again — hoping to gate-keep not through sound argument but through a C.V. XD" In other words, your argument was that I would not go into a Sam thread on climate because I do not have the "education" and thus am "clueless about the technicalities". This is false. I pointed out that this is false because your own credentials do not help you in those threads, so, clearly credentials are not the factor in a successful debate with Sam on climate. You could not even convincingly apply calculus, with your posts being riddled with elementary errors that I myself could identify and which Sam had to repeatedly correct just for the debate to function at a baseline level. Your inattentiveness meant a high error rate and a clumsy process which undermined even your undergrad work. If credentials were the deciding factor, then you would have done better in those threads, but credentials were *not*, so instead you shit the bed for everyone to see. Whatever credentials you believe you have, they *failed* you. Conversely, my point was that I would not go into a Sam thread *not* because of credentialism logic (that is *your* red herring) but because Sam clearly has a much more present knowledge of that specific topic and thus was in a position to convincingly present that topic as a trustworthy authority. Now, if you were mentally retarded, you might think that that means that Sam's knowledge is entirely owned by credentialism (i.e., you'd return to the same bureaucratic error that this must be because of "education" and "technicalities" and "qualifications"), but my point is that that is a particularly specific rabbit hole that requires refreshers, pertinent context, process, and *authority* — these things as separate from credentialism. Even more shortly: if someone were already presenting as an authority on a topic, I would not jump into the topic with low-resolution arguments that merely demonstrate non-productive distraction unless I could supplement with peripheral authority. You, on the other hand, *do*. That is your M.O. again. As an example: I would better trust someone as an authority who had recently attended a course on safety and was confident to teach the information *over* someone who had a decades-old degree in a related subject and simply said, "Trust me, bro. HF is safe to drink. I have a PhD in HF." You are the "trust me, bro," incapable of explaining why HF is "safe to drink" (it's not), and people who believe you as an authority inevitably are injured. Ironically, I offered my comment about the Sam threads in good faith, presenting this comment as a humble admission that all humans — including myself — do not know everything about everything at all moments and are not all ready to be an authority on all things. And you, being weak-minded and disingenuous, naturally seized upon this specific offering of humble logic as a *weakness* to *exploit* for another rhetorical deception. In another admission of the total immorality of your character, you saw someone being humble, and, rather than admitting that you too have domains wherein you should be humble, you again applied your endless megalomania, building a false image of yourself as someone who has no limits to his knowledge and no domain wherein he is not an expert. This is pure delusion, and your persistent inability to face the limits of your knowledge and authority has continuously made you a subject of mockery here — rightfully so. [CC]: "You suck at explaining your positions" [Seb]: "I disagree - most people understand my positions." You suck at *explaining* your positions, Seb. This is different from them being *comprehensible*. Maybe I should restate: you suck as getting at the truth. I understand your positions (topically, on ESG), and they are false. [Seb]: "Go back through this thread and remind yourself who brought up my expertise/qualifications etc" Awful deflection. Your argument with Nim is irrelevant to the arguments that you *chose* to have with me. It was *you* who believed that "education" and "technicalities" were relevant, and it was *you* who responded to *me* with.. "Yes, but you don't have a degree in physics, studied atmospheric physics within that, and a PhD in nuclear fusion which is predominantly about radiative transport in gaseous bodies ... you don't have the qualifications." Absolutely prevaricating, Seb. [Seb]: "The only thing I have said to you is to the effect of "of course I know what ESG is, I worked in the centre of UK govt during the run up to the SDGs"." More deception, Seb? That is *not* "The only thing". You made no less than *28* false claims about ESG. You made *another* here, in a very "parochial" manner, believing in "[*the*] run up to the SDGs", which you still falsely reconcile (though I won't give away why this is an error, since I think it's hilarious that you cannot fix the error). [Seb]: "You can continue to believe that I've never heard of them before if you like." Your revisionist deceptions are worthless, Seb. Now it's "never heard of them" as opposed to my claim of "directly addressed the issue" and "he's now pretending to be an expert with a storied history of ESG knowledge"? Nice twist! You really are Jewish, aren't you, Seb? Just admit it. You're going back and slightly changing words like a weaselly lawyer to re-frame your previous statements, squeeze out another rhetorical deception, and incrementally change the argument to edge out some favor. What's worse, as an example: An immoral narcissist with his mind off may pass by a dog in the distance and never speak of it or even think of it. Years later, were he to find the need to pretend that he is an expert on otterhound physiology in order to participate in a discussion in which he has no business, he could convince himself that the passively acquired memory of this dog was now a source of "expertise". Such a prevaricator would insist that he has known of the otterhound physiology all along! He would make no less than 28 false statements about the otterhound and declare that his never having mentioned the otterhound is irrelevant to his "expertise" — for he passed a dog! To spell it out: even *if* I were to accept that you were at ground zero for ESG knowledge, you *still* would only be admitting that you never thought of it, never raised it as an issue, and never had insights on it — *despite* having this supposedly useful memory of it! You are *only* admitting that your mind was previously "off" on all things ESG, since your inability to even make cursory truthful statements on the issue shows that you know less than a casual Twitter user. And again, Seb.. What do you think of this picture? Here again: (warning, "chest-feeding" pic) http://twitter.com/mikaminio/status/1675473919065612288 Are you capable of disgust? Is there any point that "tolerance" finds a limit in you? Is there any line that you will hold to stop your conquerors?
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 05:40:31 Oof. "Forty percent of Brown University students say they are LGBT, suggesting social contagion" [Washington Examiner; July 9th, 2023] http://www...bt-suggesting-social-contagion Quick! Where's the meme of left-handedness stabilizing near 12%! We need to convince people that there have *always* been this many fucked up people D:
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 06:17:39 CC: "I pointed out that this is false because your own credentials do not help you in those threads, so, clearly credentials are not the factor in a successful debate with Sam on climate." And I explained that rather than credentials (i.e. the certificate) it was the education and experience that mattered. I am able to apply that knowledge, derive the formula Sam cited, point to the step in the derivation that requires an assumption that is true for the purposes the equation Sam cited is used for, but not appropriate when analysing the physically process we are actually looking at, re-derive the correct equation and show it supports the large body of research that says the thing Sam thinks is impossible is not only possible but measurably happening. Obviously, having the knowledge and skills that I have helped me enormously. "Sam clearly has a much more present knowledge of that specific topic" Thank you perhaps. So sure, it's not the possession of the credential, is possession of the knowledge. You lack the knowledge to discuss climate physics, and the skill to undertake the analysis to support the arguments you might make. I don't. "You could not even convincingly apply calculus," To you perhaps. "with your posts being riddled with elementary errors" Such as? You want to support that with a source? I have an old notes file with the links in if it would help. "Yes, but you don't have a degree in physics, studied atmospheric physics within that, and a PhD in nuclear fusion which is predominantly about radiative transport in gaseous bodies ... you don't have the qualifications" Yes, because you were chuntering away with Nim about how you wouldn't debate Sam about climate change and contrasting that to me debating you about ESGs. "Now it's "never heard of them"" Here is what you said - I maintain this is an accurate representation of your meaning, "Seb wants to pretend that he knows about these issues, while, simultaneously, he proves through his constant errors that he has no clue. I wonder what we'd find in Seb's UP history if we were to search for ESG? Any hits before today?" especially in light of this: "Seb even *admits* he has no clue what's going on with ESG and has never known of the subject before recently!." "You really are Jewish, aren't you, Seb? Just admit it." What a very, very strange thing to say. I am reminded of Tolkein's letter regarding Rütten & Loening desire for a German language version of the Hobbit. "You're going back and slightly changing words like a weaselly lawyer " Says the person who just substituted: "an expert with a storied history of ESG knowledge" for "I spent a decade working in the UK Cabinet Office. Of course I know what ESG is. Cameron thought it was all jolly good stuff got his big society shit." I mean, unless you think knowing what they are and the role they play. None of the arguments I've made about what ERGs are rely on "expertise". In your example, it is as though you were making all sorts of crazy shit up about dogs - lets say "Dog's are 10ft tall ravenous beasts that walk on their hind legs" and I were to say "that is transparent nonsense, they are smaller and commonly walk on four legs" and you were then to say "Ha, and you have never mentioned a dog before in this conversation, were you even aware of the existence of dogs prior to today?" and I were to say "Of course I have seen a dog, it would be highly unusual if I had not seen a dog". You claim I claiming expertise. I am not. I am saying that ERGs may be somewhat obscure and technocratic part of the overlap in political/corporate governance; but I happened to work in exactly the place where that sort of thing gets discussed - and I've maintained that I've worked at that place contemporaneously and consistently for 15 years. You may choose to disregard that if you like, and believe it is an elaborate lie (though as an elaborate lie, I would probably have researched this sort of stuff as part of it). Anyway, as I said, you can believe I had never heard of ESG prior to you brining it up in our thread if you like. As for convincing you ESGs are far less than an instrument of Chinese subversion and far more than a fall-back position by laissez faire businessmen to stave off or minimise intrusive state regulation; that is something I can never do simply because you are closed to this possibility. "What do you think of this picture?" I don't see how it would be relevant to look at this photo and discuss it with you. Obviously it shows something you consider to be paedophilic but that which you hope that I would not so you can confect some good old fashions moral outrage. I have no desire to test that theory. Worst case, you are linking to CSAM - best case you are linking to a trans man who has not undergone top surgery or a trans woman (some can lactate) breastfeeding their child - and it has sent you loopy because you can't conceive of any aspect of trans behaviour that isn't overtly sexual.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 06:22:36 CC: Most of that LGBT is the LGB part. Given there were whole civilisations in antiquity that were quite fluid about their approach to acts we would consider homosexual now; perhaps the social contagion was insisting there was only one way of doing sexuality, heterosexuality, and everything else was a moral outrage and sin? It American and European society, when Millenials were children, Lesbian and Homosexuals were outright criminalised in some places, and it was socially acceptable to inflict physical violence on them. 40% may be a perfectly reasonable statistic for people not affected by such pressures and free to fuck whoever they want to fuck. The question is, why should you have a strong normative position on what the "right" level of homosexuality or bisexuality ought to be?
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 06:54:55 omg, Seb! That's so many words! I scanned it and it sounded like you said, "I'm retarded, sorry." That's cool. Lots of tards live kickass lives.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 06:56:29 I know, and it's still shorter than yours!
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 06:59:16 I wasn't talking about penises, Seb.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 07:03:13 Much like a piece of prose or an argument: your length does not compensate for your poor technique.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 07:05:19 I'm interest though, to understand what you meant by: "You really are Jewish, aren't you, Seb?" Unpack this for me, in what way am I "Jewish" to you?
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 07:08:53 too many characters! pls! <40 characters
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 07:25:00 Nim: FYI - this is what the BoE says on DLTs: http://www...pound-technology-working-paper The CBDC core ledger would record the state information of CBDC in issue and the movement of funds. • The core ledger would need to meet important requirements around throughput, speed, scalability, availability and privacy. These requirements would determine the choice of ledger technology. • The use of centrally governed, distributed database technologies might be a more efficient and appropriate approach than the use of DLT solutions. However, the Bank will continue to assess a range of different approaches and will closely monitor ongoing developments in ledger technology. So no, not Blockchain. Cryptographically signed shared databases under management of the BoE, not a distributed ledger.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 07:27:31 "DLT and blockchain-based solutions have relevant features for a CBDC core ledger, but they would also face familiar engineering challenges. In a permissionless, low-trust model, state information is replicated and maintained across multiple instances of a data repository. Each instance of a repository would represent a copy of the ledger in its entirety and could be hosted by many different participating entities in the network. A transaction co-ordinator in this model would be responsible for broadcasting updates to all data repositories and co-ordinating responses to ensure that a consensus has been achieved. In theory, this model would be highly resilient, but it presents privacy and **** scalability **** challenges that might limit its ability to meet requirements for a CBDC." So yeah, doesn't scale Nim.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 07:46:09 Geeze. Looking more closely at Seb's reply, and he legit quoted himself and responded to himself.. This guy is a fucking mess.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 07:46:46 One of Seb's pedo friends: http://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1677138764529819648
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 07:53:37 Nim: Looking up other CBDCs - most seem to use Notary consensus - so essentially nothing more than distributed sharded copies of cryptographically signed database, with one or more trusted "notaries" that guarantee uniqueness of a transaction. Not blockchain because its consensus mechanism requires a central trusted authority rather than consensus between nodes.
Dukhat Member	Mon Jul 10 08:01:43 Cherub Cow is well-qualified to speak with her deep education in ... facebook memes and twitter circle jerks. Oh wait.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 08:03:20 More projection, Dukhat? :)
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 09:50:58 Cc: I quoted you, quoting me, and then addressed the point you were making in quoting me, because you had misunderstood what you had quoted.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 18:16:03 Why in more than 40 characters tho?
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 18:39:09 Anepvfvfg gung lbh ner, lbh qba'g frrz gb haqrefgnaq gung vg'f gubebhtuyl haernfbanoyr gb nfx crbcyr gb ernq n cnentencu bs sybevq vafhygf naq gura tb naq purpx jurgure gung cnentencu bs sybevq vafhygf pbagrkghnyyl zncf gb lbhe bcvavba bs gurz, be bs Ghzoyrjrrq be nalbar ryfr. V'z whfg abg gung vagrerfgrq va lbhe bcvavba be gung pbaivaprq gurer'f nalguvat bs inyhr va lbhe nethzragf gb fcraq gung zhpu rssbeg. Vs V fgneg jevgvat va EBG 13, V'z abg tbvat gb npphfr lbh bs orvat gbb ynml gb qrpbqr vg, rira gubhtu gung jbhyq or zhpu fvzcyre guna jung lbh ner nfxvat. Lbh pna cergraq vg'f orpnhfr V ynpx nggragvba fcna. Ohg gur gehgu vf lbh ner whfg orvat ubeevoyl frys vaqhytrag.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 10 18:43:11 The problem, in short, isn't that your posts are too long. It is that they lack information density. You spend a long time saying nothing much in a very self congratulatory manner.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 19:23:32 I skimmed your comment because it was more than 40 characters, but it looks like you're saying that you're a pathetic boy whose qualifications are meaningless? Can you summarize? I'm super smart, but words are hard. :'(
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 19:26:27 (Seb does not possess the self-reflection faculties to understand what I'm doing here; this is a child's puzzle that is typically solved by age 5 or 6, but Seb has a conduct disorder due to his autism and retardation.)
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 19:28:34 "I wonder what this feels like ... is that what I've been doing to people? I belong here." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3N-1yzi4rM
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 19:30:53 I better post another comment. It's good to have several segmented comments instead of one single coherent one.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 10 19:33:37 [Seb]: "Most of that LGBT is the LGB part." Oof. There it is, people. Seb defended the pedophile. He literally and *directly* supports pedophilia. He simply needs to obfuscate with a bureaucratic framework so that casual observers do not notice how *directly* he supports it. But he does. It is undeniable. Seb may not *be* a pedophile, but he supports their activities and cannot generate a disgust reaction for those activities. Case closed.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 02:30:53 CC: Ah but the comments aren't really for you :-). They are for the same reason I posted that proof for Sam in the thread you referenced. "Seb defended the pedophile." So, you post a statistic that says 40% of students at Browns identify as LGBT and suggests that this is falsifies the idea this rise is due to diagnosis effects. I point out that most people identifying as LGBT identify as homosexual or Bisexual and this is pretty much the first generation that has grown up without strong social norms against being homosexual and who says 40% is above "baseline". You say this is defending paedophiles. I think you missed a few steps between "steal underpants" and "profit".
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 02:31:41 Or you don't actually know what Paedophile means and you've confused being a paedophile with being gay. Wouldn't surprise me given your Jew comment.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 03:22:33 It's so weird that Seb so directly supports pedophilia: [Seb]: "free to fuck whoever they want to fuck ... The question is, why should you have a strong normative position on what the "right" level of homosexuality or bisexuality ought to be?" Seb is retarded, so he doesn't get that he supports pedophilia, but he just revealed yet again that he has Foucault's sense of amoral bureaucratic rationalizing. Foucault, a pederast who elucidated the Panopticon under which Seb derives his gravedigger morality, could bureaucratize anything and saw no value-driven distinction between levels of deviancy. So, being a pederast, he could justify his proclivities with a disbelief that anyone should guard "normative positions" — such as his deviant sexual proclivities with young boys. Foucault believed that the only thing separating his pederasty from its unfettered goals was paperwork — the laws of nations, the change of which he supported. In demonstration, I wonder why Seb didn't answer my question about his religion? It is mere ideology, is it not? I wonder, also, why he still has not answered these straightforward questions, which I have posed now about six times: • What do you think of this picture? Here again: (warning, "chest-feeding" pic) http://twitter.com/mikaminio/status/1675473919065612288 • Are you capable of disgust? • Is there any point that "tolerance" finds a limit in you? • Is there any line that you will hold to stop your conquerors? This simple series of questions leaves Seb with two options: • Option 1) Say that the image does indeed disgust him, thus taking a stand and showing that he has a limit at which the Regime cannot continue to suspend morality for the lie of a value-free bureaucracy. • Option 2) Obfuscate. Seb could do this by saying that the CDC supports such behavior, or governments are recognizing expanding human rights, or [paperwork], [paperwork], [bureaucracy], [bureaucracy], [fallacy of authority]. Seb can only obfuscate. Perhaps he remembers the trap I set for him in the 5x3 threads, where Seb's entire delusional ideology was revealed in Seb's belief that math is not a language. If you corner Seb, he will admit to the full depth of his degeneracy. But, he seems to know that he is a degenerate and thus must protect his core ideology with perpetual obfuscation. If Seb takes option 2, he would be admitting that he does indeed directly support pedophilia — he just has a different language for it, you see! But must we wait for Seb to answer? No! He already has! What's best is that Seb has *already* taken Option 2 with the peripheral subject of the endless moral relativism of "free to fuck" and a belief that it is arbitrary to enforce a "normative position". He believes he can hide through a distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles, but, rhetorically, he has already taken Option 2. Seb admitted that he supports pedophiles. Seb can offer no contradiction to this claim, since he only has Option 1 and Option 2. Simple. Asked and answered. Case closed.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 03:27:35 Seb, a known supporter of pedophiles, probably has some good insight on this issue: "Male sex offenders ‘faking trans identities’ to move to women’s prisons "Evidence unearthed by the prisoners’ newspaper Inside Time found inmates were pretending to change gender to access the female estate" [The Telgraph dot UK; July 10th, 2023] http://www...rs-fake-trans-women-prisoners/ I wonder why there's so much overlap between Regime bureaucrats, homosexuals, sex offenders, "trans" identities, and pedophiles? Hmm. Curious.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 04:06:14 Wow. Cc doesn't understand consent.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 04:07:19 Guess CC supports rape, given she thinks "wants" here is decided by only one party.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 04:12:21 More obfuscation, Seb? Still going with Option 2, then. Thank you for confirming that you support pedophilia, but it's already established now. You don't have to write it on the chalk board like Bart.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 04:21:20 CC has admitted to supporting rape - she thinks that an individual can override another persons wants.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 04:24:38 Oof. [CC]: "Taking Option 1 allows Seb to expressly state that he does not support pedophilia. Taking Option 2 is an express admission that Seb *does* support pedophilia." [Seb]: "[Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2!]"
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 04:24:55 "I wonder why Seb didn't answer my question about his religion?" I did actually. Just went over your head.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 04:25:30 I must have browsed it. Was it more than 40 characters? lol
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 04:25:37 CC: Of course I do not support Paedophillia and nothing I have said suggests it. You support rape though.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 04:27:11 Tolkien's letter: "But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people" Cool, so Seb is not Jewish, which means that he indeed an Autistic Koala suffering from agnosia. Poor, retarded, supporter of pedophiles :(
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 04:27:37 [Seb]: "[Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2!]" I get it, Seb. Not impressed.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 04:28:27 CC: Well done, you learned how to google. Why not google about consent laws before you wind up in prison.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 04:29:36 [Seb]: "[Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2!]"
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 04:29:49 I love how you say this is obfuscation. I have been clear I do not support paedophillia. You have been clear that the reason you got to that conclusion is because you reject the concept of consent.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 04:30:07 And you still do not deny it, which as you say, is confirmation.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 04:32:46 And you deflect (obfuscate) by chanting "Option 2" even though my denial was both unnecessary (unlike you I do not reject the concept of consent as a legal and moral requirement for sex, your inference was unwarranted projection), but neverthless explicit. Nothing is obscured. Both our positions are clear. I oppose paedophilia, you reject the need for consent between parties engaging in sex acts.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 04:32:46 And you deflect (obfuscate) by chanting "Option 2" even though my denial was both unnecessary (unlike you I do not reject the concept of consent as a legal and moral requirement for sex, your inference was unwarranted projection), but neverthless explicit. Nothing is obscured. Both our positions are clear. I oppose paedophilia, you reject the need for consent between parties engaging in sex acts.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 04:33:29 [Seb]: "[Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2! Option 2!]" Again, Seb's choice is incredibly simple and was elucidated clearly in comment "Tue Jul 11 03:22:33". He can simply answer the questions, but he chooses not to do so. Seb continuously chooses to obfuscate (option 2) by making a faulty "rape" analogy which he can tie to nothing but another deceptive assertion. Seb's claim that he does not support pedophilia is directly undermined by his inability to answer the question. It is important for Seb to answer the question rather than merely proclaim that he does not support pedophilia because Seb's diction is duplicitous, suspect, and deceptive. The question I posed forces him to remove his deceptions.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 05:07:08 I have answered the question CC: I oppose Paedophilia. If you reject that statement as a lie, you will reject anything I say about this photo as a lie. You on the other hand have repeatedly confirmed you reject the idea that consent is needed in sex. You support rape.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 05:10:28 Remove your deceptions, Seb: -=-=-=- What do you think of this picture? Here again: (warning, "chest-feeding" pic) http://twitter.com/mikaminio/status/1675473919065612288 Are you capable of disgust? Is there any point that "tolerance" finds a limit in you? Is there any line that you will hold to stop your conquerors? -=-=-=-
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 05:14:50 Illegal distribution of CSAM is a form of sex crime. It is clear you believe the picture at the link is paedophilic. One of us appears to be a confirmed sex offender, and it isn't me CC. It's the one that is trying to share and distribute something they believe to be paedophilic. Therefore I will not click on it, and simply say, if it shows a sex act between a minor and an adult I would find it disgusting; and note you both reject rape and are a confirmed sex offender.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 05:18:05 Avowed is better than confirmed. There is of course the chance that the image is not paedophilic, as you clearly believe, and a court would acquit you. But you clearly believe it is an image of child sexual assault, and in sharing it are committing something you know would itself be a sex offence.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 05:30:16 [Seb]: "and note you both reject rape and are a confirmed sex offender." More Option 2, I see. [Seb]: "Illegal distribution of CSAM is a form of sex crime. It is clear you believe the picture at the link is paedophilic." Nope. That's the thing, Seb: • This is freely available media and is not considered illegal in any way. • No person would go to jail for it. • No person would be in possession of CP for sharing it or distributing it. • No jurisdiction in the West would prosecute it. • The FBI wouldn't even flag it. • Twitter is fully legally allowed to host it and will not consider taking it down. • The image does not directly show what is happening. • The image does not show a sex act. • The image could be shown in a rated-G Disney movie. • This image was shown on British news, and this person was given a TV spot on British news. • British news affirmed this image as a positive. • British news received no reprisals for showing this image. • Your own government does not think that it is a legal issue. • Western governments agree that this is fine. • The CDC promotes this activity. • No prosecutor in the West could make a case out of this. In short, this link is considered SFW and is not CP. The image shows a man posing as a woman, holding an infant child. The child is covered in a blanket and is apparently (but not visibly) attempting to suckle this man's nipple. The man is looking into the camera for a selfie. The point of posting this image is to see if you can understand that an entirely legal, safe-for-work, G-rated image of a man with a baby on his nipple, disgusts you. You do not even need to click the image if that description is enough. Does a man posting this deviancy on social media disgust you?
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 05:50:21 Seb's little glacier drifting out to sea is getting smaller and smaller.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 06:02:29 CC: "• This is freely available media" Irrelevant. I can see it's a twitter link, but CASM is circulated on twitter even though illegal to do so. "and is not considered illegal in any way." etc. Obviously not the case, or asking whether it disgusts me would not allow you to infer anything about my views on paedophilia. You are clearly just attempting to justify your distribution of CSAM.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 06:06:06 More Option 2, I see. Just admit that you're projecting again, Seb. You support pedophiles and are terrified to be held to one single issue. You want to deflect to any other domain for new obfuscations. But this is it. I even offered a description as a substitute for the image itself. You evaded even *that*. This is the summation of your character: evasion, distortion, deception, cowardice.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 06:14:00 So. Let me get this straight. You are asking me to click a link to view an image you think would be disgusting to anyone who finds paedophilia disgusting. You maintain it is not paedophilic itself in any way. And you think that this is a better way to determine if someone is a paedophile than their assertion to the contrary, even though having made it clear what you think someone who finds paedophilia disgusting, so the response is no more reliable than an assertion. This is a video of Rick Astley isn't it? Can you explain your logic to me.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 06:16:07 CC, the world's shittiest investigative journalist brings us the world's shittiest rickroll.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 06:25:58 [Seb]: "You are asking me to click a link to view an image you think would be disgusting to anyone who finds paedophilia disgusting." False. More option 2. I gave you the option to read a text description of the image and respond to that instead. [Seb]: "You maintain it is not paedophilic itself in any way. / And you think that this is a better way to determine if someone is a paedophile than their assertion to the contrary" You lack the creativity to understand a metaphor, being as you are an autistic bureaucrat, Seb. But two things are simultaneously true: • The image is not CP or pedophilia in itself • The image, nevertheless, reveals the nature of an extreme deviant; just as one can recognize this deviance in court footage of a criminal entering a court room (i.e., the viewer has not see the crime itself, but the viewer recognizes the psychopath's comportment). If you bureaucratize this deviance, you demonstrate that you support pedophilia. If you can show disgust for this deviance (even via the *description* that I offered of the image), then your assertion that you do not support pedophilia can be believed. Engaging in this simple litmus test prevents you from further obfuscating. You may think that simply saying that you do not support [item] means that you do not support [item], but you have a bureaucrat's intellect, which means cowardly shuffling accountability off of your desk at all costs. Your entire character revolves around making sure that if accountability exists, it must exist in another department. Because of this obfuscating bureaucrat's tactic, when you make a simple statement, the individual words of the statement must be heavily litigated to make sure that you have not given yourself a weasel's way out of accountability. Simply responding to the image (or the description of the image) prevents you from weaseling out of your perpetual evasion of accountability.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 06:29:19 "image of a man with a baby on his nipple, disgusts you." The way you describe this scene and the way you link it to paedophilia makes it sound to me like it is a picture of a man deriving sexual stimulation from a baby. That's definitely CASM CC.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 06:29:19 "image of a man with a baby on his nipple, disgusts you." The way you describe this scene and the way you link it to paedophilia makes it sound to me like it is a picture of a man deriving sexual stimulation from a baby. That's definitely CASM CC.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 06:30:14 Or at least that this is how you interpret it.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 06:36:32 [Seb]: "Or at least that this is how you interpret it." Obvious projection is obvious. [Seb]: "The way you describe this scene and the way you link it to paedophilia makes it sound to me like it is a picture of a man deriving sexual stimulation from a baby. / That's definitely CASM CC." Excellent! Progress! Firstly, we have to understand that Seb is projecting here. *His* assumption — not mine — is that this man is deriving sexual pleasure from this relationship. I *never* made that statement; that is *entirely* Seb's. In *no* way was it indicated in my description. Secondly, we see that even though the image description is *not* CP in *any* way, that Seb nevertheless *codes* it as CP due to his projection. In other words, Seb believes that "trans" people chest-feeding children is CP. This is, by extension, a recognition that his theory of mind for this description is pedophilia and illegal — regardless of the fact that it is *not* illegal in any Western jurisdiction. This means that Seb has finally produced a line between himself (having a conscience) and the law (which increasingly has no conscience). Now, the only question is whether or not Seb will obfuscate his way out of this position. That is, will he now *defend* a "trans"-person's right to abuse children in this way?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 11 07:11:54
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 07:25:59 Cc: I'm merely inferring from the information you have given me. You have suggested the image is disgusting. You have suggested lack of disgust indicates paedophilia. You have attempted to describe it in a way that suggests it isn't sexual, but this seems oddly caveated. Clearly you *do* think this is an image that could reasonably be interpreted as a sexual act or you wouldn't be using it as a test. So yes, absolutely I am inferring this is a picture of a man deriving sexual pleasure from a baby sucking his nipple because you have suggested contextually that is what it is, or could reasonably interpreted to be. If it can't reasonably be interpreted as a sex act, how is it paedophilic? On the one hand you imply this is an image that is or ought to be considered CSAM, and you are knowingly distributing it (a sex offence, if not in law then morally). On the other hand you want to suggest this image isn't CSAM and I'm merely interpreting it as such, even though I haven't and your description on the face of it doesn't describe a sex act (so you claim at least). That's rather faulty logic. The kind of ambiguous dissembling someone distributing CSAM might use in order to later use in defence. A simple question - is the picture showing a man getting sexual pleasure from a child or not? For someone complaining about obfuscation you are being very indirect. So which of these are your CC, a distributor of CSAM, a liar, or just weak at reasoning?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 11 07:34:47 "Seb Member Mon Jul 10 07:25:00 Nim: FYI - this is what the BoE says on DLTs:" I posted a link where the BIS (the bank of banks) is talking about a block chain based CBDC. And seb, in his obfuscating sebbish ways, posts a link from the BOE where they discuss all the way in which a CBDC can be issues. CLassic seb, don't not engage with what you said, retreats back behind the moat of his parochial understanding of the world. Seb, nobody, and I mean nobody is convinced that you understand blockchain. If it is true that you actually came into contact with it 10-11 years ago, it must have been very brief or simply your memory is shit and perhaps your brain has been damaged since your PhD in physics days. What ever is working inside your brain has specialized and calcified. It's like teaching new tricks to a rock. It can fall down, that's it.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 11 07:58:54 [Seb]: "So which of these are your CC, a distributor of CSAM, a liar, or just weak at reasoning?" False dilemma. False premises. [Seb]: "So yes, absolutely I am inferring this is a picture of a man deriving sexual pleasure from a baby sucking his nipple because you have suggested contextually that is what it is, or could reasonably interpreted to be." Nope, your inference is based on your own projection. [Seb]: "If it can't reasonably be interpreted as a sex act, how is it paedophilic?" Asked and answered. [Seb]: "On the one hand you imply this is an image that is or ought to be considered CSAM, and you are knowingly distributing it (a sex offence, if not in law then morally)." Absolutely false. Your hedging with "or ought to be" is peak obfuscation, btw. Also, asked and answered. [Seb]: "Clearly you *do* think this is an image that could reasonably be interpreted as a sexual act or you wouldn't be using it as a test." [Seb]: "That's rather faulty logic." False and a poor interpretation. Again, you are projecting. This, again, is the description I gave which was meant to be the sole information you used to evaluate the image: "The image shows a man posing as a woman, holding an infant child. The child is covered in a blanket and is apparently (but not visibly) attempting to suckle this man's nipple. The man is looking into the camera for a selfie." Any additional context that you drew was done as a failure to properly conduct this thought experiment, since I clearly delineated that that was the entire substitute description of the image which *alone* was to inform your critique and answering of the specific questions. My explaining the *consequences* of failure was outside of the thought experiment itself. The academic equivalent is if a teacher were to ask you to describe what Virginia Woolf meant in her work "A Room of One's Own", and you responded by describing modern TER-Feminism. You would fail the assignment because you drew upon context which could not possibly have existed within the parameters of the question. Another example is hacking a personality test by perceiving the desired outcome instead of answering questions genuinely. Your inability to decipher the parameters of the question was a failure on your part alone. Incidentally, and as I have pointed out before with regards to your autism, the inability to properly reconcile hypotheticals is a sign of a low IQ. My attaching the need for you to assign an emotional evaluation made this task even further impossible for you, since you are too autistic to evaluate emotional states or derive an emotion-based theory-of-mind from an inert statement. As a parallel, this is the Turing Test that Léon fails in "Blade Runner" (1982). He was simply offered a description of a turtle on its back, but he could not manage the implications of the situation, failing the test despite possessing autistic (non-emotional) computation abilities. He, like you, projected charged and uncontrolled emotional responses onto the questioner — despite the questioner's complete abstract control of the questions themselves. All said, Seb, do not keep talking yourself out of a test "pass". Your projecting "pedophilia", if based on the description alone, means that you understand that even that inert description of an image — the image which, again, is *not* in *any* way, shape, or form CP of *any* kind — qualifies as a form of pedophilia due to you recognizing that behind a totally legal act is a deviant narcissist who should cause a disgust reaction even despite having the force of the state on his side. Again, it is not the *image* any more than seeing a convicted psychopath in court is the *crime* itself.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 11 08:05:53 "So no, not Blockchain. Cryptographically signed shared databases under management of the BoE, not a distributed ledger." Here seb shows he does not understand that block chains can be centralized, that even within the decentralized community of crypto, the decentralized varies all the way down to 1 or a few stake holders. Cryptographically secured ledgers, can be private or public, they can be centralized or distributed across many nodes. But I bet you heard about cryptgraphy and merkle trees before I did. Anyway, not to derail the topic, this is just another example of Seb who knows everything, before you knew about it, not understanding the basics and getting lost in terminology, yet continue unabated to debate bro.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 08:54:07 Nim: "I posted a link where the BIS (the bank of banks) is talking about a block chain based CBDC." No, it's talking about tokenisation and digitally signed ledgers - not distributed trustless ledgers. It's an easy mistake for someone who does not understand the technology to make. You cited this suggesting it disproved my point about blockchain not scaling. Well, sure, if you redefine "Blockchain" to mean "centrally governed digitally signed database managed by trusted counterparites" then fine, my argument which applies to trustless systems falls away. But I was clear at the time, the scalability issues arise from the consensus mechanisms required in trustless systems. A subtly that may evade the technically illiterate. And indeed, as I've shown you, all the CBDC projects are based on trusted systems, not trustless ones, for scalability reasons. And the BIS/BoE trial was just an API layer. All in all, poor show Nim.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 09:06:11 CC: "False dilemma. False premises." No, not a false dilemma. Either you think the image is CSAM, or you think it is not. But in the latter case, anyone else's view of it cannot reasonably lead you to infer their attitude towards paedophilia. So which is it? "Any additional context that you drew was done" ... from the context you provided: that the picture somehow reveals preference or not for paedophilia. I am aware of your claims regarding the context of the picture, but they are oddly caveated (as they might be by someone disingenuously contriving a defence for distributing CSAM) and you are demonstrably acting in bad faith so your statements cannot be taken at face value. "You would fail the assignment because you drew upon context which could not possibly have existed within the parameters of the question." The context here is you posing the question - the question isn't what the subjects of the photograph felt, or what the photographer was trying to capture. It is whether a reasonable person could interpret the image as CSAM and whether you in fact do. If you DO consider it as such, then distributing it is an admission to a sexual offence involving a child. If you DO consider it as such, but believe that the law does not, then you are clearly morally abhorrent in distributing the material and seeking to benefit of what you consider child abuse. If you DO NOT consider it as such, then you cannot reasonably say anyone else's attitude to reveals them to be a paedophile. From what context you have provided, it is clear you do think it is reasonable to consider it paedophilic from a moral stand point, but that it falls below legal definition of such. So you are admitting you feel it is moral to distribute images showing what you consider to be child sexual abuse for your own benefit, and are constrained only by fear of the law rather than any ethics.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 11 10:43:16 "if you redefine "Blockchain" to mean "centrally governed digitally signed database managed by trusted counterparites""" lol you fucking moron. It is "defined" as per consensus and explained in one of the earliest thread with Nhill. Even within the "decentralized" community, many projects have QUESTIONABLE decentralization. XRP has been the prime example of highly centralized, PRIVATE, block chain and token. http://zeb...mall%20set%20of%20individuals. Here is a great article explaining the basics of block chain for you: Examples of Private and Federated Blockchains Central Bank Digital Currencies One of the most popular applications of private blockchains will be in CBDCs. A CBDC is a digital equivalent of a country’s fiat currency. They bring together the seamless transactions of crypto tokens with government support for a well-developed system. Transactions in a CBDC may or may not be private, as per the government’s decision. A CBDC may use private or federated blockchains to restrict access to the private financial data of individuals using it. Only a select few government officials may be able to see all transactions taking place on the blockchain. "Additionally, federated blockchains can also be applied to a CBDC system. Federated blockchains would allow public and private financial institutions to engage in the validation process. While the central bank is still responsible for the number of digital tokens to be mined, verification can be more robust with multiple agencies involved in the process." You're a joke. Do you even know what a blockchain is?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 11 10:52:16 Here start with this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain Here you can read about: Permissionless (public) blockchain Permissioned (private) blockchain Centralized blockchain The intelligent reader will have guessed that there are such things as permissioned and centralized block chains, which will form the backbone of a lot of CBDCs. But remember *I* *redefined* block chain. The problem is that we keep taking you seriously seb. In this sense we are no better than WTB who lost his patience LARPing social worker, here we are trying to pretend and give you the benefit of doubt, surely he is joking, surely this isn't real. It is though, that is the tragedy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jul 11 10:58:44 http://www...f-england-blockchain-rosalind/ BIS, Bank of England complete CBDC trial using blockchain June 16, 2023by Ledger Insights
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 11:29:51 Nim: Blockchains are commonly defined to be decentralised. If the consensus mechanism is one or more trusted authorities it's just a cryptographically signed ledger. I don't care if you and Nhill decided to redefine Blockchain to encompass any Merkle tree - that's not the technical definition and not what my critique was addressed at.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 11 11:37:49 Centralised Blockchains are a marketing term, not a technological one. If you haven't got a consensus mechanism, then it's no different from a cryptographically signed append only database. Those have been around for a long time. Rebranding them as Blockchains just helps sell them. I covered this at the time. Obviously went over your head. As you wiki article says: "Private blockchains have been proposed for business use. Computerworld called the marketing of such privatized blockchains without a proper security model "snake oil";[8]" "http://www...land-blockchain-rosalind/" Btw, that link you posted, I already posted to the technical paper and a better summary. The headline is totally wrong. It's not even a Blockchain in your expanded definition. Lot of confused people out there.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 12 08:40:21 "I don't care if you and Nhill decided to redefine Blockchain" We didn't define it, it was already defined. Yes they can be centralized. 1 or 500 nodes all owned and operated by 1 entity. That is a centralized blockchain, hence why us on DeFi gauge, how centralized a specific chain is. XRP to name a very old example of a centralized block chain. You are completely lost seb. This paper http://www...pound-technology-working-paper is an overview of the technology choices the BOE has for the digital pound, it's *not* a paper on the trial using block chain, twatsplaining DLT's and merkle trees changes nothing. Many central banks have chosen blockchain for their CBDCs, the UK, who recently completed a trial has not. Notwithstanding your parochial concerns about what your third world Island nation does the world is much bigger. In this bigger world we will find that your assertions about block chain usefulness as payment/settlement and the scalability has been demolished. It's over. Just read below. Here is the CBDC tracker pilot page for Canada https://cbdctracker.org/currency/canada-jasper Canada used R3 Corda which is a DLT architecture, all block chains are DLTs. Lets see how Corda describs their product, "Corda is a permissioned blockchain as it shares data only with the parties involved in the transaction." Here is Norway, also a DLT architecture, one called Ethereum. Heard of that one? Here is the European central bank: https://cbdctracker.org/currency/euro_area-stella They are using a DLT architechture called R3 corda. Remember R3 corda? Did I mentioned R3 is interoperable with Ethereum? Here is Nigerias already launched e-naria https://cbdctracker.org/currency/nigeria-e-naira It uses a DLT architecture called Hyperledger Fabric developed by Linux foundation. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3190508.3190538 Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains The list goes on, Colombia has picked Ripple. But we can stop here, because the point has been made, nobody should listen to you about anything. Furthermore, I consider that you need stop defending pedophiles and those who mutilate little children.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 12 09:00:10 Nim: It is indeed defined. Blockchains with a centralised consensus mechanism are indistinguishable from cryptographically signed ledgers / merkel tree implementation. They've been around for decades. Rebranding Blockchains to encompass these is a marketing gimmick. Good thing in my critique that I explicitly stated that the scaling issue arise from non centralised consensus mechanisms and that any actually valuable business model just needs transparency not decentralisation that can be met with traditional cryptographically signed ledgers that have predate "Blockchain" by decades. The fact these are being branded Blockchain now is nothing more than the crypto folk recognising this point and taking the brand they've built up while abandoning the central innovation as impracticable and having no real value over the presxisting tech.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 12 09:08:57 Currently running trials using Etheruem Asutralia, Thailand, Israel, Singapore and as earlier mentioned Norway. With Stellar Ukraine and Brazil
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 12 09:32:09 "It is indeed defined. Blockchains with a centralised consensus mechanism are indistinguishable from cryptographically signed ledgers / merkel tree implementation." Again the atomistic reductionist autists who views everything as discrete units. Decentralization of consensus/governance, has always been one of the main axis of trade off. Hence why your entire "centralized DLT = not block chain" is not even wrong.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 12 09:38:43 Anyway, R3, Fabric, Ethereum and Stellar are all block chain. You are still wrong. Which brings us to the closure of what set this off, me agreeing with CC that you are the cringy kind of person who slams up the doors and proclaims your expertise on a topic. You know "I have forgotten more things about the moon that you have ever known", type character. Then proceed to explain how the moon is made of Gouda cheese, and anyone who says it's made of cheddar is a fool!
Seb Member	Wed Jul 12 09:39:44 Australia: http://www...nce-innovation-white-paper.pdf "The eAUD platform is implemented on a private, permissioned instance of Ethereum. It does not store end user KYC information, which is managed by KYC service providers or use case providers on separate platforms." I.e. they are cloning the Ethereum code base, replacing the consensus mechanism with authorised nodes. So why use ethereum? "The choice of technology for this project does not reflect any view that any eventual CBDC would be blockchain-based or that Ethereum would necessarily be an appropriate choice for a production system. Rather, it was chosen as a widely used and well-understood platform that would facilitate participation in the project by a wide range of entities." Want me to go on? CBDC isn't meaningfully "blockchain" based for all the reasons I set out in my prior critique: 1. Distributed trustless systems contraindicate the use cases for CBDC. 2. Consensus mechanisms that are not based on central governance with authoritative nodes with elevated permissions basically prevent countries from having monetary policy and governing a modern financial system - which is their core function. 3. Consensus mechanisms that are trustless do not scale adequately for DBDC requirements. What you end up with is a cryptographically signed, centrally managed ledger which is what they have already. You can do much the same thing by putting an API layer on their existing infrastructure. (which is what the BoE did with their pilot with BIS).
Seb Member	Wed Jul 12 09:45:09 I find this utterly hilarious. Your proof that a technology whose main selling point is decentralised trustless can scale, is to point to use cases that REQUIRE a centralised, trusted business model, and subsequently take blockchain products, rip out the mechanisms for decentralisation and trustless modes of operation because use them simply as an off the shelf implementation of traditional cryptographically signed ledger databases because that is the only way to make them practical and useful; and do so rather than use legacy implementations of what is a well established technology because the protocols and languages have a broad enough user base to support quick stand-alone pilots. The fact you cannot see this is nonsense just shows you do not understand the technology of the critique of it in the first place.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 12 09:48:21 Calling something a thing does not magically endow it with the properties of a thing. You can call a car an airplane if you like, that doesn't make it fly. And stripping the wings off of an airplane and driving it on a road to make the airplane operate like a car doesn't make your ford focus fly.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 12 09:49:39 "Want me to go on?" lol, with what? What exactly do you think they are saying? They are using the most popular block chain in their trial for shits and giggles? That their final product, a block chain CBDC, will not be Ethereum doesn't need to be said, does it? You are just digging this hole deeper looking for words to make a rope with. 1-2-3 bla bla We already went over this a couple of years ago. We expect some block chain networks, currency/token or otherwise to be centralized. We expect a spectrum of outcomes on this axis, fit for different purpose. You have been deranged by the crypto people seb. Like you have been deranged by every topic that has a political angle. Can't think straight.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 12 09:53:08 I actually did say (to Nhill) that there were BETTER ways of doing smart contracts than blockchain that used cryptographic techniques like secure multi party computation or homomorphic encryption on centrally managed databases. That is what this is: taking Ethereum, ripping out the non-scalable and pointless decentralisation bits, and using it to implement a centralised DB with secure multi-party computation. This does not prove your point, it demonstrates mine. But you don't see or understand the technology or the business model or value proposition. All you see is tribal "this is branded crypto, this is my team, I win" nonsense.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 12 10:10:11 "The fact you cannot see this is nonsense just shows you do not understand the technology of the critique of it in the first place." These were all things explained years ago, for you, without objection. NOW that these block chains are making it into CBDCs you are like no that is not a true scotsman. Soure grapes. "Calling something a thing does not magically endow it with the properties of a thing." There is this "thing" called "block chain" and it can have different properties depending on how you build them. "You can call a car an airplane if you like" Please don't use analogies, you suck at them and only confuse yourself. I remember you did this with consensus mechanism and airplanes of all things once before, failing the analogy at basic aerodynamics: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=88567 Seb Member Mon Sep 13 07:50:48 Nim: It's more like saying "wings are key to the USP of aeroplanes: without wings you cannot get of the ground which means you will not be able to achieve the speed and direct route that makes flying a superior mode of transport for traveling across the Atlantic" You can say all you like that the USP is speed and convenience via a vis a 2 week trip by boat (or whatever it is) and you don't want to know about wings or engines as an end customer. Nevertheless, the wings are key to the USP. No wings, no plane. http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=88584 Nimatzo iChihuaha Tue Sep 14 08:21:35 You don't seem to understand, that it wasn't the mistake you did back then, but the fact that you couldn't admit it was a mistake in the previous thread! And instead scrambled to make it sound like *I* (the person who presented 3 PoS protocols, who now intimately through user experience knows this) was saying CM isn't important. You further showed this by not understanding the perfect comparison to the motors in automobiles. The motor being the CM and the specific instantiation, the combustion engine being PoW. Instead you waffled about how wings on an airplane are important. Which btw a shitty example showing you do not understand fundamental aerodynamics! An airplanes needs LIFT and the most common way to provide that are wings. The wings are comparable to PoW and the ability to provide LIFT is comparable to consensus mechanism. You need lift, not wings necessarily. A crappy examples since wings are by far the best way to provide lift to an airplane. Anyway I digress..
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 12 10:15:03 Seb Oh wow, you told Nhill that centralized networks, like work and stuff? This is a stroke of genius the likes of which we have not seen since our friend jergul told us he had discovered pie chart mechanism US share of global GDP will shrink, ergo other pieces of the pie chart will grow... ! This changes everything! You truly are a genius. I appologize for ever calling you stupid.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 12 10:19:45 "All you see is tribal "this is branded crypto, this is my team, I win" nonsense." It's not branded crypto, it's called block chain, most crypto tokens are based on block chain technology, but not all block chain is crypto. See how you are confusing terminology to smear the ick from the world you live in, on me? You are just wrong, that is it.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 12 11:27:36 "These were all things explained years ago" Yes Nim. By me. To you. I explained very clearly that Blockchain could not provide an adequate decentralised, trustless financial system because it couldn't scale and the features required for a trustless system were contrary to what a financial system needed (far higher transaction volumes, privacy, ability for vegan bank to control money supply and reverse transactions), and that a centrally managed cryptographically signed database is better for that and most other use cases. And now you have internalised these realities to the extent you are citing central banks taking a Blockchain protocol rearchitecting it to remove the consensus mechanism so that it is centralised, managed by trusted operators runs on a private ledger that is just a centrally managed cryptographically signed data base and saying it refutes my argument. You have lost the plot.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 12 11:40:14 From the thread you have quoted: "What you really need to have is a crypto currency issued by the federal reserve or some other actual central bank to act as a real and redeemable stable coin. Such a thing would need to be centrally controlled - but that would at least put a stable fiat/coin exchange rate." And right before the bit you quoted: "Without a consensus mechanism, you can't have distributed, untrusted ledger. What you have instead is a moderately inefficient append only database that needs to be held by a trusted operator. So yes, consensus mechanism is key."
Seb Member	Wed Jul 12 11:41:58 By this definition - any implementation of a merkel tree is a Blockchain - most financial institutions have been operating some part of their business on Blockchain for decades before tge bitcoin paper.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 12 12:22:22 https://cbdctracker.org/currency/euro_area-stella Operating using notary consensus option. I.e. it's a digitally signed ledger, centrally managed. E-naira - uses a decentralised protocol but only permissioned entities able to operate nodes. These are, just like I said, cryptographically signed databases. They aren't decentralised, they can't be decentralised, the CBs don't want them to be centralised. The only way to get "Blockchains" to work for digital currency turns out to ... remove all the features that distinguish them from the ledgers CBs already use to record transactions with banks.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 12 12:23:26 Which is exactly what I said in the threads you are quoting.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 13 06:58:58 lol. I figured I'd come back to this thread and see Seb's terminally shit reading comprehension had simply persisted into more deflection, deception, obfuscation, and desperate bureaucratic department-shifting of responsibility, but wow... he is so beyond stupid that he could not for the life of him understand the simplest of metaphors XD This latest Seb-IQ meltdown amounts to this simple core metaphor that I made and which he lacks the IQ to understand: [CC]: "Again, it is not the *image* any more than seeing a convicted psychopath in court is the *crime* itself." Anyone with an IQ over 100 can understand this metaphor. Seb does not understand this. Seb probably could not even explain this metaphor in his own words without creating some new tangle of fallacious reasoning. *That* is how stupid and dishonest he is. :D This is a good one to examine, people: (this in comment "Tue Jul 11 09:06:11") • [CC]: ""False dilemma. False premises." • [Seb]: "No, not a false dilemma. Either you think the image is CSAM, or you think it is not." Notice the obfuscation? Probably not! And that's the trick. That is, casual observers would *not* notice the obfuscation here if this short exchange of Seb quoting me and Seb responding to my quotation is all that you had seen. But this is another Seb deception: because Seb is terminally dishonest, he tries to re-frame the actual argument to trick people into responding to a *new* and *false* argument. His hope is that you will not re-check the source argument and will instead be driven to his false argument. Compare what I was *actually* calling "false premises" to what he *rephrased* via the full exchange: • [Seb]: "So which of these are your [sic] CC, a distributor of CSAM, a liar, or just weak at reasoning?" • [CC]: "False dilemma. False premises." • [Seb]: "No, not a false dilemma. Either you think the image is CSAM, or you think it is not." Even more directly, these were Seb's initial false premises: ("[choose one]") • "[the image is "CSAM"; CC *is* a distributor]" • "[CC is a liar]" • "[CC is weak at reasoning]" These are Seb's adjusted arguments after he was exposed: ("[choose one]") • "[CC *thinks* the image is "CSAM"]" • "[CC *thinks* the image is *not* "CSAM"]" See how dishonest Seb is? • Seb took three assertions and tried to force a choice (all were false choices, creating a false dilemma) in the first instance, and • in the second instance he re-stated his position as two choices wherein one can be falsified — but neither of these two items is an item of the original list — he falsified even *that* by adding the dimension "think" (i.e., that it's a matter of what I *think*). So even the semi-similar item of the second list was not part of the original false premises ("[image *is*]" vs. "[CC *thinks* image *is*]"). This "think" sub-argument was another of Seb's shifting deceptions — the argument he used to evade that he was projecting his own conclusions. It was *separate* from the false dilemma, but he combined this separate argument *with* the false dilemma to re-frame. These weaselly adjustments just gives Seb another avenue of obfuscation, allowing him to move the argument by falsifying the record of it, like a Wiki editor slowly changing the meaning of an article by omitting key words and changing others. This is the cowardly bureaucrat's tendency to find that he was accountable for some error by someone else's reckoning, and so he goes into the documentation, revises, and ensures that he will not be held accountable in the future — the present, too, if the reader cannot track the draft histories or is too busy to do so! If they *can* track, then he will find some word to obfuscate. This is how Seb, in his cowardice, slowly attempts to trap people in more and more ridiculous simulations. The rest of his paragraph is based on this revisionism: [Seb]: "But in the latter case, anyone else's view of it cannot reasonably lead you to infer their attitude towards paedophilia. / So which is it?" Were I to take the bait, I'd be playing into another false premise, moving further away from the fact that the core issue is that Seb cannot understand a metaphor of *image* as separate from *crime*. Seb cannot understand that support for a psychopathic murderer (i.e., the thing-in-itself) is the condoning of murder, and he cannot understand that the appearance of a murderer and the recognition of a murderer's comportment is not the murder in itself. He simply does not have the cognitive capacity. Were Seb's sub-100 IQ to fire-up enough neurons to grasp this concept, it would occur too late, forcing him to further dissimulate into more distortions and sub-arguments that push the argument into his brain's departmental structure of terminal evasion from accountability. [Seb]: "The context here is you posing the question - the question isn't what the subjects of the photograph felt, or what the photographer was trying to capture." Seb here must terminally distort the source argument. Seb would tell his teacher that the "context" of the question was that Seb was tired during the test. *That* is why 2 + 2 = "[You're distributing "CSAM"!]". Seb believes that this deception and projection gives him argumentative power and that his wrong answer is therefore a "correct" answer. Seb thinks that this completely absurd and verifiably false projection will keep me on the defensive, since he, very stupidly, believes that making this serious legal accusation has power over me — regardless of how out-of-his-ass that accusation is (i.e., Seb thinks his accusation has power, but it objectively has no power, so he must assert a non-existent power only through dissimulation). It is pure rhetorical sophistry over any concern for truth. And what is that truth? Seb pretends that he cannot trust me to provide the truth (a wholly disingenuous sub-argument itself based in dissimulation) and that therefore the truth simply cannot be known (lol). And yet, I directly told him that this image was presented without issue on his own "local" UK media ("local" if Seb can even be trusted to truly reside in the UK; I have my doubts, given that he has been trolling these forums with Poe's Law for so long). The second level of this dissimulation is to provide another simulation to justify why he cannot seek out the truth for himself via verifiable 3rd parties: it might be "CSAM"! (lol). You see how this logic insulates Seb from the truth: he cannot trust you to tell him the truth, and he cannot seek the truth via your citations of the truth. He also cannot seek the truth himself because it might be harmful. In fact, if it were true and safe, then Seb would already know it! The whole world must already exist in Faust's worm-riddled library, you see! I could even give Seb this Daily Mail article, and he likely would not click it: "EXCLUSIVE - Now ITV comes under fire for using left-wing transgender climate activist and union stooge who talked about the 'impact of soaring water costs on everyday mothers' during channel's coverage of the Thames Water crisis" [Daily Mail; June 29th, 2023] http://www...mes-Water-crisis-coverage.html And why would Seb not click it? Well, he already explained why: [Seb]: "it is clear you do think it is reasonable to consider it paedophilic from a moral stand point" Here, Seb still does not understand the core metaphor — or is pretending not to for a rhetorical win. But, beyond that fallacious repetition, this is the circularity of Seb's nested simulations: • Deception 1: Seb cannot trust that he is being told the truth in good faith. ⬇ • Deception 2: Seb cannot trust citations of the truth and cannot access that truth because the truth might be dangerous, illegal, or harmful. ⬇ • Deception 3: Seb cannot seek out the truth for himself because, even if the truth were *legal*, it might still be wrong to know the truth. ⬇ • Deception 4: If the truth existed, were legal, and were safe to know, then Seb would know it already. ⬇ • Deception 5: Were such truths known by Seb already, he invariably must be an expert in that truth. ⬇ • Deception 6: If others show more authority in that truth than Seb and disagree with Seb's assessment, then these others must not actually be authorities, and only Seb can gate-keep "true" authority. ⬇ • Deception 7: Is your truth undeniably more authoritative than Seb's deceptions? Hmm. Back to Deception 1. And recall further: Seb has managed to derail this thread from.. • the simple recognition that Elliot Page is a woman who was abused (by pedophiles, given that she was 16 at the time of her abuse) and is deranged and will never be a man ..to.. • Seb's terminally circular bureaucrat's perception of the world. But, the core truth is that Seb supports pedophiles, simply lacking the perception to recognize these people when they wear the plain clothes of the Regime's approval. Again, Seb.. ✅ Has no conscience / morality ✅ Has zero work ethic ✅ Is learning disabled ✅ Suffers from IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia (Seb, The Autistic Koala) ✅ Is incapable of good faith, preferring to.. • ✅ project, • ✅ distort, • ✅ straw man, and • ✅ be intentionally dense when he realizes that he'd have to actually have a position outside of the Regime's ✅ Is a Regime sycophant who only repeats the Party's refrains ✅ Is mentally incapable of the effort required to address arguments in good faith The Wandering Seb: "The more I argued with [Seb], the better I came to know [Seb's] dialectic. First [Seb] counted on the stupidity of [his] adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, [Seb himself] simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, [Seb] pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, [Seb] changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, [Seb] immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack [Seb], your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck [Seb] so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. [Seb] had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day. Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of [Seb's circular bureaucracy] or [Seb's] virtuosity at lying. Gradually, [Seb shit the bed]." I wonder how many of us in UP have clear stories of having intellectually demolished Seb despite his relentless efforts at obfuscation, yet Seb will nevertheless respond to such recollections with, "[I remember winning that argument!]" • He did it to me with the 5x3 threads. • He did it to Sam with the climate change threads. • He did it to Nim with the crypto threads. This is something of a pattern.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 13 07:26:27 CC: "These are Seb's adjusted arguments after he was exposed: ("[choose one]") • "[CC *thinks* the image is "CSAM"]" • "[CC *thinks* the image is *not* "CSAM"]"" False. You have simply taken the first line of reasoning in the post and ignored the fact that what you call the "false premise" follow directly from these. Either you think the image is or could reasonably be interpreted to be CSAM in a legal sense, in which case in sharing the link you are distributing it and trying to exploit it for personal benefit. Alternatively you think the image is or could reasonably be interpreted to be CSAM in a moral sense, though not recognised as such in law. In that case in sharing the link you are not committing a legal offence, but still a deeply immoral one. Finally, you do not think it can reasonably be interpreted to be CSAM, in which case my disgust at it or lack of it cannot reasonably be used to make an inference about support for paedophilia unless you are also illogical or dishonest. If one assumes you are honest, and believe your claims to rigorous thinking, one can only reasonably conclude that you are morally or actually committing a sex offence by distributing material.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 13 07:26:38 CNN anchor called this dude a bro: "CNN is slammed for misgendering Dylan Mulvaney" [Daily Mail; July 12th, 2023] http://www...lvaney-culture-wars-piece.html I can't believe the CNN anchor didn't speak slowly to make sure that he would only speak the Regime's language. Smh. We. Need. To. Do. Better! If those little bias tests that HR gives to mindless bureaucrats to "show" those bureaucrats that their reaction speeds in coding things as left/right, weak/strong, female/male, emotional/rational, humanities/STEM makes them racist or sexist or whatever... if those tests have taught us anything, it's that you have to do these tests extremely slowly so that you think of everything with a total amoral attitude. Basically, if you huff paint or eat Vagasil enough to drop your IQ to NASCAR ranges, you can say the correct pronouns. #JustBureaucratThings "Try to enjoy each equally." https://www.tzr.io/yarn-clip/c2361701-0886-4c0c-b3ee-16b74240f33c DO. *clap* BETTER. *clap* ;)
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 13 07:28:26 Oh cool, looks like Seb is on his Deception loop again. Still can't understand that metaphor, though. Shame. Seb, how would you feel if you had not eaten breakfast this morning? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-breakfast-question
Seb Member	Thu Jul 13 07:31:45 CC: "This is how Seb, in his cowardice, slowly attempts to trap people in more and more ridiculous simulations." You are the one that raised this obfuscatory line of discussion asking me to look at a picture and report back on how it made me feel. I am just as happy setting this entire futile line of conversation (which as you say, is obfuscatory, but initiated by yourself not me) to one side and return to the prior topic of conversation. Which was as I recall about whether or not I was "claiming storied experience" with ESG by refuting your suggestion that I had not come across it until this thread and was simply googling it as I went as I had previously never posted on it by pointing out it is obscure generally, but not so obscure I would not have come across it professionally given my line of work as maintained for a decade. It seems to me that the one who is engaging in serial deflections and obfuscations every time you are cornered is yourself CC.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 13 07:32:55 It's a simple question CC, there's no shame in pleading the 5th so to speak.
	show deleted posts