Crypto investments

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Crypto investments > Page 7

Page 7 of 10

29-05-2021 12:59
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srIgXeFG7nc&ab_channel=TheRichDadChannelTheRichDadChannel At approximately 9.00 Robert Kiyosaki says that those who save money are losers. He saves: gold, silver, BITCOIN, Etherium and bullets. My neighbour was the one who saved quite a bit of money back in a day when we were part of the soviet union. He had so much money that he could buy a house in the town but he could not do that because he already had a house and by the law he could not have multiple houses. So he just kept saving the money and eventually, when the soviet union fall apart, he just bought a lot of candies and limonades for that money. I was a boy back in the day and I remember how the underside of his kitchen table was full of bottles of mineral water and limonade. For me as a young boy it was kind of a funny thing to look at back in the day but I did not know nothing about money and the situation he was in back in a day. Edited on 29-05-2021 12:59
29-05-2021 17:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Mathematics is not being discussed here. Math is what I'm discussing. Math is not being discussed here. Strawman fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: Perhaps you are reading a different thread, or perhaps you are simply not reading this one very well. Inversion fallacy. Define ' wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: You need to define 'wealth' and you need to define 'money'. Hold on. Let me check. ... nope. I do not have any such need. Yes there is. He made a perfectly reasonable request. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: I have defined money, however and currency. Paradox E. Circular definition fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: You quoted my definitions in at least one of your responses. Rather than give you an "RQAA" I'll go ahead and redefine it for you. Please take note. Money: A quantity of a currency. Currency: Units of measure of wealth Paradox E. Circular definition fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: However it seems that you are actively denying Set Theory. You are going with Option B, i.e. admitting to denying math. Set theory is part of logic, not math. Denial of math. Denial of logic. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:It is not possible to falsify a circular argument, nor to prove it True. There is no circular argument. I take it that it's too much to ask for you to look up some of these fundamental concepts before rashly forming absurd postions. Lie. Circular argument fallacy. Circular definition. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:How can you falsify it? Didn't you bother to read my post? I walked gfm7175 through, step by step, how to falsify my argument. Attempted force of negative circular. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: Please take note. I will walk you through it as well but I won't repeat it after this. I am asserting that money is a proper subset of wealth, ergo money is wealth by the property of inheritance. All you have to do is show that money is not a subset of wealth and voila! ... money is not wealth. Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Attempted force of negative circular. IBdaMann wrote: All you have to do to show that money is not a subset of wealth is identify one, lone, single, solitary attribute of wealth that isn't an attribute of money. This will show that there is no inheritance and thus money is not wealth. Note: word games and semantic dishonesty will be immediately dismissed. Attempted force of negative circular. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: ... so this brings us to your three choices: 1) Admit that money is wealth, or Attempted force of circular. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: 2) Admit that you deny math, or Inversion fallacy. Strawman fallacy. Math is not necessary to define words. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: 3) Provide an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money (word games immediately rejected). Attempted force of negative circular. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: The mathematical relationships of set theory are all you need to know. Strawman fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Answer the questions put to you. They are perfectly reasonable. Define 'wealth' as you are using it. Define 'money' as you are using it. You cannot define a word with an undefined word. You cannot define a word using a circular definition. This is no better the some moron from the Church of Global Warming. You're going to have to do better than this. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-05-2021 17:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Xadoman wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srIgXeFG7nc&ab_channel=TheRichDadChannelTheRichDadChannel At approximately 9.00 Robert Kiyosaki says that those who save money are losers. He saves: gold, silver, BITCOIN, Etherium and bullets. My neighbour was the one who saved quite a bit of money back in a day when we were part of the soviet union. He had so much money that he could buy a house in the town but he could not do that because he already had a house and by the law he could not have multiple houses. So he just kept saving the money and eventually, when the soviet union fall apart, he just bought a lot of candies and limonades for that money. I was a boy back in the day and I remember how the underside of his kitchen table was full of bottles of mineral water and limonade. For me as a young boy it was kind of a funny thing to look at back in the day but I did not know nothing about money and the situation he was in back in a day. An opinion. While the use of gold or silver as money is impractical, due to their inherent values today, Bitcoin has no inherent value. It's just bits in the end. It is the same with Etherium. Bullets (shells) can certainly be used as money, but they tend to get heavy to carry around, they do contain a primary explosive (sensitive to impact, friction, and heat). You might need them for something other than money as well, especially if the dollar goes bad. So his argument that owning a lot of money is for fools is rather a paradox. Kiyosaki is not here on this forum to make his case or to clear his paradox. Grabbing random Holy Links is not presenting your own argument. It is stealing the arguments of others. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-05-2021 17:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote:Math is not being discussed here. You are clearly locked in denial of math you do not understand. As always, you are under no obligation to learn anything. Let me know when something changes and you want to choose something other than option B.
29-05-2021 18:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote:At approximately 9.00 Robert Kiyosaki says that those who save money are losers. He saves: gold, silver, BITCOIN, Etherium and bullets. Why should I care what Kiyosaki says? Why do you? Basic economics dictates that inflation will occur long-term in any economy representative of the time value of money rooted in opportunity costs. Ergo, money saved will decrease in value over time. However, basic finance doctrine holds that liquidity risk should be minimized by maintaining sufficient cash. Thus one always wants to maintain sufficient savings to never have a cash flow disruption while keeping that amount as small as possible and investing the remainder in higher ROI instruments. All winners in economics and finance save money. Countless are the losers who did not. .

30-05-2021 11:01
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Why should I care what Kiyosaki says? Why do you? I want to learn from self made millionaires. Another great video how fake money( endlessly printed) makes you poor in the long run: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR0B8Y31CIk&ab_channel=TheRichDadChannelTheRichDadChannel Edited on 30-05-2021 11:02
30-05-2021 16:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote: Why should I care what Kiyosaki says? Why do you? I want to learn from self made millionaires. Not true. You are looking for someone to do your thinking for you. You are offering yourself up to be manipulated. It is to this end that you "are not alone." There is something that you want very badly (i.e. money in this case) and you find that it is difficult to get and simultaneously shrouded in mystery. For wamizombies the craving is for a sense of importance and authority. The world is full of people in your position. Kiyosaki is just one of the people who make careers out of catering to people like you. He tells you what you want to hear, i.e. that he is a self-made millionaire and that he will tell you what you need to do, and so you buy his book and/or his products, making him a millionaire in the process and justifying to yourself that he's the right guy to obey. Look at your fascination with the promises made by people hawking cryptocurrencies. You know the currencies are crap (you yourself refer to them as "shitcoins') and yet you are happy to overlook their pyramid-scheme texture and totally overlook the fact that their success depends on getting you to join in. You are happy to give them all your money and to go totally broke as long as you are being told what you must do. You don't have to think; you just follow their instructions. I'll make you a better offer. Give me only 75% of your money and I'll tell you what to do as often as you need. I'll even tell you when you need me to tell you what to do. You can sign up for my newsletter which will ensure you always have my latest instructions. With my premium service you can get text messages and alerts whenever you need to mobilize and act so you don't miss out on any opportunities to give me more money. ... or you could just learn economics. Yes, that would require you to, gasp, think for yourself and to perform independent research. Horrors. Never mind, forget I ever brought this up. I don't know what I was independently thinking.
30-05-2021 20:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Math is not being discussed here. You are clearly locked in denial of math you do not understand. As always, you are under no obligation to learn anything. Let me know when something changes and you want to choose something other than option B. Math is not being discussed here. Strawman fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-05-2021 20:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Xadoman wrote: Why should I care what Kiyosaki says? Why do you? I want to learn from self made millionaires. Another great video how fake money( endlessly printed) makes you poor in the long run: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR0B8Y31CIk&ab_channel=TheRichDadChannelTheRichDadChannel Get rich quick schemes don't work. IF the folks talking about making millions actually did, it was by selling ponzi schemes to someone like you. Beware of them. If you want to be rich, create a product or service that people want to buy. Money will come flocking to your door. That's what capitalism is. Capitalism is not gambling. The dollar is not fake money. It is real money. True, the amount the government is printing only means people trust it less, but it is real money. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-05-2021 20:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote:Math is not being discussed here. Strawman fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. .. and we have arrived at the end of the discussion. You have only three choices: A) Admit that money is wealth, or B) Admit that you deny math, or C) Provide an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money (word games immediately rejected). You are locked in option B because you would rather deny math than to admit you drew a stupidly erroneous conclusion from your extremist politics in which you have invested substantial emotional equity. One does not need to demonize money and to deny its nature as wealth in liquid form in order to pursue liberty ... yet you somehow found it necessary and now you get to publicly explain your abandonment of reason. You cannot accomplish this by changing the subject. You have had plenty of time to consider what you have been taught, to research in the direction you were pointed and to learn something you previously did not know. You have refused Option A. You have had plenty of time to identify an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money and show that money is not a proper subset of wealth. Of course you cannot because money is, in fact, a proper subset of wealth and you realize this. You are not honest enough to admit it. Instead you lie about having already done so. Yes, you should be embarrassed. In any event, you cannot claim option C. Thus you are relegated to denying math in order to remain clinging to your dogma. I genuinely feel sorry for you as I do for anyone whose cognitive functions have fallen into indentured servitude to a political ideology. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.
31-05-2021 19:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Math is not being discussed here. Strawman fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. .. and we have arrived at the end of the discussion. You have only three choices: A) Admit that money is wealth, or Admit that you deny math, or C) Provide an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money (word games immediately rejected). Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You are locked in option B because you would rather deny math than to admit you drew a stupidly erroneous conclusion from your extremist politics in which you have invested substantial emotional equity. Math is not being used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: One does not need to demonize money and to deny its nature as wealth in liquid form in order to pursue liberty ... yet you somehow found it necessary and now you get to publicly explain your abandonment of reason. You cannot accomplish this by changing the subject. I am not demonizing anything. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You have had plenty of time to consider what you have been taught, to research in the direction you were pointed and to learn something you previously did not know. You have refused Option A. You are not teaching. You are locked in multiple paradoxes. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You have had plenty of time to identify an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money and show that money is not a proper subset of wealth. Of course you cannot because money is, in fact, a proper subset of wealth and you realize this. You are not honest enough to admit it. Instead you lie about having already done so. Yes, you should be embarrassed. In any event, you cannot claim option C. Void question. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Thus you are relegated to denying math in order to remain clinging to your dogma. I genuinely feel sorry for you as I do for anyone whose cognitive functions have fallen into indentured servitude to a political ideology. Math is not being used here. Politics is not being used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. There is. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 31-05-2021 19:20
31-05-2021 21:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote:If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. There is. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. You have a problem. You have a WACKY dogma that renders you totally irrational on this topic. You are forced to deny math and logic while flailing in a death-struggle to cling to your dogma. I feel sorry for you. You are correct in that I am not able to teach you anything. Your dogma will not permit you to learn anything that threatens it. You will never kick this problem until you recognize it and face it. I see how desperate you are to change the subject. I wish you the best of luck in overcoming your issues. Until then, I am happy to let you believe what you wish to believe. I don't need for you to believe anything in particular, I am not pushing any beliefs nor am I selling anything. If denying math and logic somehow makes your life better then deny away. If anything should change and you wish to learn something, don't hesitate to let me know. Good luck.
01-06-2021 06:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote:If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. There is. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. You have a problem. No, YOU have a problem. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You have a WACKY dogma that renders you totally irrational on this topic. I am not stating any dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money' Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You are forced to deny math and logic Math is not used to define a word. Logic is not used to define a word. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: while flailing in a death-struggle to cling to your dogma. I feel sorry for you. I am not stating any dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You are correct in that I am not able to teach you anything. You are not teaching anything or even attempting to. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Your dogma will not permit you to learn anything that threatens it. I am not stating any dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You will never kick this problem until you recognize it and face it. I see how desperate you are to change the subject. I am not changing the subject. YOU are. Inversion fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I wish you the best of luck in overcoming your issues. Don't need luck. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Until then, I am happy to let you believe what you wish to believe. I am not stating a belief. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I don't need for you to believe anything in particular, I am not pushing any beliefs nor am I selling anything. I am not discussing any belief. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: If denying math and logic somehow makes your life better then deny away. Math and logic are not required to define a word. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: If anything should change and you wish to learn something, don't hesitate to let me know. RQAA. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-06-2021 07:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote:Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Accept math. We reached the end of the discussion several posts back. I have nothing to add and you have no desire to learn anything. Into the Night wrote:Math is not used to define a word. Math is used to formally express entities and relationships. This I have done and it caused you to go haywire. Into the Night wrote:Logic is not used to define a word. The key aspect of logic is that you cannot run around it. You are locked into option B. Who locked you into option B? You did, of course. Nobody assigned that position to you; you denied math entirely on your own. Only you can decide for you to accept it again ... presuming you ever accepted math in the first place. Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote:You are correct in that I am not able to teach you anything. You are not teaching anything You are correct in that I am not able to teach you anything. Your extremist dogma won't permit you to learn anything that threatens it. Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You will never kick this problem until you recognize it and face it. I see how desperate you are to change the subject. I am not changing the subject. Yes. Instead of addressing the topic that I was discussing, you abandoned it entirely and began barking orders. All you have done is demand that I abandon my mathematical and falsifiable definitions and replace them with ambiguous definitions using natural language ... all because you suck at math and logic. This prompted you to exit the discussion while being locked in option B. You aren't moving the discussion forward; you are barking irrelevant orders in an attempt to obscure the fact that you have already exited the conversation. Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: If anything should change and you wish to learn something, don't hesitate to let me know. RQAA. Too funny. On this topic, one doesn't even have to ask you a question for you to hurl an "RQAA." Yes, you still have a problem. You should see somebody about it.
01-06-2021 14:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	@Xadoman Have you actually purchased Safemoon yet?

01-06-2021 18:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Accept math. We reached the end of the discussion several posts back. Because you refuse to answer the questions put to you. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I have nothing to add and you have no desire to learn anything. Then you arguments remain void arguments. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Math is not used to define a word. Math is used to formally express entities and relationships. This I have done and it caused you to go haywire. Math is not used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Logic is not used to define a word. The key aspect of logic is that you cannot run around it. You are locked into option B. Who locked you into option B? You did, of course. Nobody assigned that position to you; you denied math entirely on your own. Only you can decide for you to accept it again ... presuming you ever accepted math in the first place. Void question. Math is not used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading.; IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote:You are correct in that I am not able to teach you anything. You are not teaching anything You are correct in that I am not able to teach you anything. Your extremist dogma won't permit you to learn anything that threatens it. I am not stating any argument or dogma at the moment. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You will never kick this problem until you recognize it and face it. I see how desperate you are to change the subject. I am not changing the subject. Yes. Instead of addressing the topic that I was discussing, you abandoned it entirely and began barking orders. All you have done is demand that I abandon my mathematical and falsifiable definitions and replace them with ambiguous definitions using natural language ... all because you suck at math and logic. This prompted you to exit the discussion while being locked in option B. Math is not used here. Logic is not used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You aren't moving the discussion forward; you are barking irrelevant orders in an attempt to obscure the fact that you have already exited the conversation. Until you define the words you use, you have no argument. If is YOU that refuses to participate in the conversation. Inversion fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: If anything should change and you wish to learn something, don't hesitate to let me know. You are not teaching. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: RQAA. Too funny. On this topic, one doesn't even have to ask you a question for you to hurl an "RQAA." You asked a question liar. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, you still have a problem. You should see somebody about it. Psychoquackery. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-06-2021 19:27
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	IBdaMann wrote: @Xadoman Have you actually purchased Safemoon yet? I have bought and currently own : Safemoon Bonfire Moontoken Hungry bear Elongate Octans Chadtoken Papel Laikacoin Grumpy cat Mercury finance Nftart Bitcoin Lifeline Mello Frat Pitbull Rose Edited on 01-06-2021 19:29
01-06-2021 20:01
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:If so, then I ultimately take issue with it as I feel that some vital information is missing. You may "feel" as though there is information missing but objectively you have all the information you need, unless you deny mathematics. The mathematical relationship of "proper subset" is all the information you need and renders my definition completely falsifiable. This puts the onus on you to falsify it. How can you falsify it? By showing that money is not a proper subset of wealth. How do you show that money is not a proper subset of wealth? By providing one lone single solitary attribute of wealth that does not apply to money, per the mathematical definition of "proper subset." gfm7175 wrote:I additionally feel that this particular line of reasoning allows for ridiculous conclusions, such as: Computers are animals. How do I know this? I know this because computers are defined as "a subset of animals", and animals are defined as "a superset of computers". This is a logical error on your part. One does not subjectively declare a proper subset. A set either meets the mathematical definition of a proper subset or it does not. I'm betting that you haven't bothered to look any of this up. Let's take a look at your example claim that Computers ⊂ Animals. To falsify this, all I need is one attribute of Animals that is not an attribute of Computers. Let's see. "Procreation." Procreation is not an attribute of computers but it is an attribute of animals. Ergo, Computers ⊄ Animals The math makes it falsifiable. The math provides you with all the information you need, regardless of how you "feel" on the matter. ... so this brings us back to your three choices: 1) Admit that money is wealth, or 2) Admit that you deny math, or 3) Provide an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money (word games immediately rejected). Enjoy! I can't falsify it unless I know precisely what 'money' and 'wealth' are. You have not defined those terms other than defining one term as a subset/superset of the other term, which simply results in (unfalsifiable) circular reasoning. Without non-circular definitions of 'wealth' and 'money' to work from, there's nowhere else for me to go with this discussion as I can't falsify circular reasoning.
01-06-2021 20:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote:I have bought and currently own : Safemoon ... The bad news is that you should expect Safemoon to show mild-to-moderate growth followed by completely falling apart ... as if it were created specifically to self destruct after some moderate initial gains. I highly recommend that you get out after the next up-tick or sooner. I am not claiming to know the future but the intentions of the people running Safemoon are clear. Their "burn" function doesn't actually burn any tokens but rather converts them to a different cryptocurrency in an account they control that they expect will still have value when Safemoon collapses. Safemoon has no blockchain. Cryptocurrencies are supposed to have their own blockchain in order to be currencies in their own right but Safemoon piggy-backs off the Binance Smart Chain. Find out what currency the Safemoon directors are buying instead of Safemoon and that is the cryptocurrency you should buy instead. One third of all the Safemoon tokens initially issued have already been converted to something else by the Safemoon directors. One third. Not even three months have passed and the Safemoon directors aren't even trying to hide it. It's a brazen scam. .
01-06-2021 20:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote:I can't falsify it unless I know precisely what 'money' and 'wealth' are. False. You are simply regurgitating Into the Night's mathematical incompetence on cue. I walked you through it. I told you before that you are not obligated to learn anything you don't wish to learn. Nobody is going to twist your arm to make you learn anything, although some people will twist your arm to keep you from learning that which they find threatening. I'll just leave you with this: I don't know if you were ever any good at math in high school but the whole point of algebra was to teach that you can solve for X in terms of Y while both remain unknown. If you were to answer on an exam "Teacher, you never defined either X or Y therefore this question cannot be answered" then you would get zero points for that question. You get zero points for this question. You have three choices and only three choices. Option C explains how you can falsify the premise that you loathe, but since you are unable to do so you have selected Option B and to deny math. I think that is a mistake because that approach generally will not serve you well in life ... but ultimately you need to decide what works for you and what doesn't. Best of luck.
01-06-2021 21:39
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: You need to define 'wealth' and you need to define 'money'. Hold on. Let me check. ... nope. I do not have any such need. I have defined money, however and currency. You quoted my definitions in at least one of your responses. Rather than give you an "RQAA" I'll go ahead and redefine it for you. Please take note. Money: A quantity of a currency. Currency: Units of measure of wealth Okay, so with this new information (or information that I missed/forgot about), I will adjust where I am at as follows... Wealth is defined as ______________. Money is defined as a quantity of a currency. Currency is defined as a unit of measure of "wealth" (undefined) Therefore, under the above definitions, the claim "money is a subset of wealth" is true because ALL attributes of wealth pertain to money. Given the above, the claim "money is wealth" is true.
01-06-2021 22:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote:Given the above, the claim "money is wealth" is true. OK, but you are missing the point. Let's ignore Into the Night for a moment. Let's dispense with word games and focus on math and logic for the time being. Let's examine your position and see what math and logic have to say. Without dishonest semantics-antics ... can you identify a bona-fide attribute of wealth (as you define wealth) that is not an attribute of money? If you cannot then as far as you can tell, money is a subset of wealth, making it wealth ... specifically a type of wealth. Only your definitions are at play in this. If however you can identify an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money then you will have falsified the premise that money is a subset of wealth ... but if said attribute is dependent upon your definitions then your definitions are mere contrivance for the sake of hammering the square math peg into your round dogma hole. If you'd like to share such an attribute with the board then that would be delightful and educational for all of us. Until such a time as you do, your position is that money is wealth but that you can't admit it and instead prefer to deny math because that is politically the more palatable option. This is why you pretend to remain fixated on me and my definitions of words when that is not the topic at all. The topic is your position in light of existing math and logic. Oh, by the way, when an otherwise poor man wins the lottery and receives lots and lots of money, he is wealthy, even if money comprises all of his wealth at the moment, and you would be able to verify this with his accountant. Just food for thought. That attribute would be delightful. Edited on 01-06-2021 22:38
01-06-2021 22:40
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Xadoman wrote: IBdaMann wrote: @Xadoman Have you actually purchased Safemoon yet? I have bought and currently own : Safemoon Bonfire Moontoken Hungry bear Elongate Octans Chadtoken Papel Laikacoin Grumpy cat Mercury finance Nftart Bitcoin Lifeline Mello Frat Pitbull Rose Oh wow, it seems that you have quite a bit of shitcoin then... I think that what you're gonna be left with is just the shit. I had an economics teacher who "invested" quite a bit into Iraqi dinar, thinking it would be a "get rich quick" sort of deal... It got him nowhere. He regrets that decision.
01-06-2021 23:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:I can't falsify it unless I know precisely what 'money' and 'wealth' are. False. You are simply regurgitating Into the Night's mathematical incompetence on cue. Math is not required to define a word. It is not used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I walked you through it. Paradox E. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I told you before that you are not obligated to learn anything you don't wish to learn. Vacuous arguments don't teach anything. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Nobody is going to twist your arm to make you learn anything, although some people will twist your arm to keep you from learning that which they find threatening. Vacuous arguments don't teach anything. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I'll just leave you with this: I don't know if you were ever any good at math in high school but the whole point of algebra was to teach that you can solve for X in terms of Y while both remain unknown. If you were to answer on an exam "Teacher, you never defined either X or Y therefore this question cannot be answered" then you would get zero points for that question. Algebra is not used to define a word. Words are not relations or equations. Math is not used to define a word. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. You get zero points for this question. IBdaMann wrote: You have three choices and only three choices. Option C explains how you can falsify the premise that you loathe, but since you are unable to do so you have selected Option B and to deny math. Math is not used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I think that is a mistake because that approach generally will not serve you well in life ... but ultimately you need to decide what works for you and what doesn't. He asked you to define two words. Answer the questions put to you. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-06-2021 23:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Given the above, the claim "money is wealth" is true. OK, but you are missing the point. Let's ignore Into the Night for a moment. Let's dispense with word games and focus on math and logic for the time being. It IS the point, dude. It is YOU playing word games. Semantics fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Let's examine your position and see what math and logic have to say. Math and logic are not used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Without dishonest semantics-antics ... can you identify a bona-fide attribute of wealth (as you define wealth) that is not an attribute of money? Inversion fallacy. Vacuous argument. Justification of circular definition. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: If you cannot then as far as you can tell, money is a subset of wealth, making it wealth ... specifically a type of wealth. Only your definitions are at play in this. He is not defining them. He is asking YOU for your definition. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: If however you can identify an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money then you will have falsified the premise that money is a subset of wealth ... but if said attribute is dependent upon your definitions then your definitions are mere contrivance for the sake of hammering the square math peg into your round dogma hole. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: If you'd like to share such an attribute with the board then that would be delightful and educational for all of us. Until such a time as you do, your position is that money is wealth but that you can't admit it and instead prefer to deny math because that is politically the more palatable option. This is why you pretend to remain fixated on me and my definitions of words when that is not the topic at all. The topic is your position in light of existing math and logic. Math and logic aren't used here. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Oh, by the way, when an otherwise poor man wins the lottery and receives lots and lots of money, he is wealthy, even if money comprises all of his wealth at the moment, and you would be able to verify this with his accountant. He is not wealthy. He has the potential to buy wealth, but nothing more. IBdaMann wrote: Just food for thought. That attribute would be delightful. RQAA. You are still making a vacuous argument. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-06-2021 23:38
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:I can't falsify it unless I know precisely what 'money' and 'wealth' are. False. You are simply regurgitating Into the Night's mathematical incompetence on cue. So now you're reverting back to the position that I have no mind of my own, simply "regurgitating" what ITN tells me? IBdaMann wrote: I walked you through it. I told you before that you are not obligated to learn anything you don't wish to learn. Nobody is going to twist your arm to make you learn anything, although some people will twist your arm to keep you from learning that which they find threatening. Indeed you did, and I did the same with you. I walked you through what I am looking for, and you haven't provided it as of yet.
01-06-2021 23:38
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman wrote:I have bought and currently own : Safemoon ... The bad news is that you should expect Safemoon to show mild-to-moderate growth followed by completely falling apart ... as if it were created specifically to self destruct after some moderate initial gains. I highly recommend that you get out after the next up-tick or sooner. I am not claiming to know the future but the intentions of the people running Safemoon are clear. Their "burn" function doesn't actually burn any tokens but rather converts them to a different cryptocurrency in an account they control that they expect will still have value when Safemoon collapses. Safemoon has no blockchain. Cryptocurrencies are supposed to have their own blockchain in order to be currencies in their own right but Safemoon piggy-backs off the Binance Smart Chain. Find out what currency the Safemoon directors are buying instead of Safemoon and that is the cryptocurrency you should buy instead. One third of all the Safemoon tokens initially issued have already been converted to something else by the Safemoon directors. One third. Not even three months have passed and the Safemoon directors aren't even trying to hide it. It's a brazen scam. . Just read the road map. They will have their own wallet. Then they will have a credit card( no fees if used to buy goods from the shop), then they will have their own excange. Then they will have their own network or blockchain or whatever. They will have some kind on bridge between all the other cryptos. Some country in Africa is considering using safemoon as their currency. Also, the computer guy was offered 2 million dollars to work with xrp crypto, but he refused. As you can see he does it because he likes it. He does not care about money. Safemoon is also audited by CERTIK. It is clean as a whistle.
01-06-2021 23:51
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Xadoman wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman wrote:I have bought and currently own : Safemoon ... The bad news is that you should expect Safemoon to show mild-to-moderate growth followed by completely falling apart ... as if it were created specifically to self destruct after some moderate initial gains. I highly recommend that you get out after the next up-tick or sooner. I am not claiming to know the future but the intentions of the people running Safemoon are clear. Their "burn" function doesn't actually burn any tokens but rather converts them to a different cryptocurrency in an account they control that they expect will still have value when Safemoon collapses. Safemoon has no blockchain. Cryptocurrencies are supposed to have their own blockchain in order to be currencies in their own right but Safemoon piggy-backs off the Binance Smart Chain. Find out what currency the Safemoon directors are buying instead of Safemoon and that is the cryptocurrency you should buy instead. One third of all the Safemoon tokens initially issued have already been converted to something else by the Safemoon directors. One third. Not even three months have passed and the Safemoon directors aren't even trying to hide it. It's a brazen scam. . Just read the road map. They will have their own wallet. Then they will have a credit card( no fees if used to buy goods from the shop), then they will have their own excange. Then they will have their own network or blockchain or whatever. They will have some kind on bridge between all the other cryptos. Some country in Africa is considering using safemoon as their currency. Also, the computer guy was offered 2 million dollars to work with xrp crypto, but he refused. As you can see he does it because he likes it. He does not care about money. Safemoon is also audited by CERTIK. It is clean as a whistle. The statement that I bolded is laughable. Of COURSE he cares about money. You're much more trusting with this sort of thing than I am... I agree with IBD; this is a scam through and through. Edited on 01-06-2021 23:53
02-06-2021 00:11
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Oh wow, it seems that you have quite a bit of shitcoin then... I think that what you're gonna be left with is just the shit. I am pretty confident that many of those make 100x and some of them make 1000x or even more in the coming years. It is all about patience in crypto world. Everybody wants a lambo the next week after investing 20 dollars but you need to wait years or even a decade to eventually get to your coal. I am a simple man. I do not need much to be happy. I could retire now with around 250k. I just do not want to wageslave anymore. Wageslaving is a living hell on earth.
02-06-2021 00:34
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	The statement that I bolded is laughable. Of COURSE he cares about money. I mean of course he cares about money, everybody does, but this kind of guy could choose what he likes to do and turn down those who offer millions. He does what he wants to do. He is not a typical wageslave who hates his job but has no other better option. You do not know the developers who are behind those projects. I have heard that there are very smart men involved in some of those project. I tend to belive it. Those kind of guys are already set for life with money. They do what they like to do. For example I know a user from some other forum who was a computer genius and he wrote cheats for games. He had 500 bitcoins in his wallet from writing cheats. He loves his job. He said he could hack the banks and rob millions but he said it would be unethical to him. Edited on 02-06-2021 00:36

02-06-2021 02:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote:So now you're reverting back to the position that I have no mind of my own, simply "regurgitating" what ITN tells me? Let's see, Into the Night made five posts of nothing but "Define money. Define Wealth. Stop Evading" (which isn't even the topic) and you open your post with "I can't falsify it unless I know precisely what 'money' and 'wealth' are" ... which is Into the Night's error. You flat out copied his error. You are turning to him for what to say. I am not to blame for this. You can try to make me feel bad for noticing but it's not going to work. Into the Night has a WACKY fanatical and mindless political dogma. One line item of that dogma is "money is not wealth." He is well within his right to have any sort of WACKY dogma that he wishes, as is everyone, but it isn't wisdom that serves him. It is dogma to which he is enslaved. He can't justify it with any sort of rational basis, he simply must obey and preach. When someone such as myself explains the rationale for an opposing view, he feels his dogma threatened ... and the dogma always comes first. Due to the nature of dogmas, all opposing views must be denied, even if it is math and science. The dogma is #1. Not math. Not science. Not logic. Dogma takes precedence every time. Dogma is like the king in chess; if it gets put in check then one must do everything in his power to get it out of check or it's "game over." You might have noticed how he started panicking when I began discussing the topic with you. He couldn't add anything rational to the discussion so he tried to derail it. He became a broken record about irrelevant definitions of words when the topic is, and remains, the mathematical relationship of sets and subsets. I'm sure you noticed his vehement denial on multiple occasions that this is even the topic. He is panicking. Yes, when you decided to follow his lead and to drag the discussion away from the math and the logic and back to irrelevant definitions of words, you were regurgitating his error. I certainly don't mind you committing errors but please make your own, don't regurgitate someone else's. gfm7175 wrote:Indeed you did, and I did the same with you. Except that you are omitting the big difference between the two. Your position is the one that is in error. My position, which is nothing more than stating the mathematical relationship of sets and subsets, is not in error. gfm7175 wrote: I walked you through what I am looking for, ... all of which is totally irrelevant. You have only parroted Into the Night's totally irrational demands for the irrelevant. I'm not going to derail my conversation by changing the subject as ordered. I have, in fact, asked you many times for an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money and you have thus far EVADED every single request. You have tried to change the subject to definitions of words but you have never addressed the topic of attributes of wealth, even of your own definition. So we're done unless there is something that I missed. You have chosen Option B and we can move on. I'm happy if you're happy.
02-06-2021 02:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote:I am pretty confident that many of those make 100x and some of them make 1000x or even more in the coming years. I don't believe anyone doubts your confidence. The question is "On what is your confidence based?" Xadoman wrote:I just do not want to wageslave anymore. Wageslaving is a living hell on earth. If you were to start a business, would you make it a living hell for your employees?
02-06-2021 03:51
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	The crypto game has changed a lot, since those who got in early. It was risky, not a lot of confidence in the technology, and not much you could do with the coins. Basically, a rich guy plaything. Confidence and places to spend, has grown considerably, but mostly, it's drawing in the everyday 'Joe', wanting to get rich quick. There are hundreds of coins to choose from. The appeal, is to avoid government oversight, regulations, and taxes. The whole goal for most,buying in, is to get filthy rich. Seems like a premium environment to run scams. Consider the recent Colonial Pipeline ransom demand, to be paid in cryto. Also seems to be a common theme for many other scams. What you have, is thousands of willing 'buyers', who do really understand what they are buying, just motivated by greed, and confident, this is quick and easy. There will be fake, counterfeit coins, to exploit the market. When those coins blow up, become headline news, is going to shake off a lot of confidence in crypto, lot of panic sales. Lot of people are going to cash out completely. A coin's value, is in how many people are buying in, and holding. Coins will crash, some will fail. Some were a scam from the start...
02-06-2021 05:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	HarveyH55 wrote:A coin's value, is in how many people are buying in, and holding. No, Harvey ... that is the common misunderstanding that scammers leverage. The value of a currency is in how desirable it is as a currency ... and that is subjectively determined by the people who derive value from using it as a currency. This is what drives fluctuations in currency markets, i.e. one day more people want dollars and the price of dollars increases relatively, then the next day more people want yen and the value of the yen increases relatively. The misunderstanding that you referenced is the idea that a currency is somehow a speculative object to be held, i.e. that the currency's value is not in being used as a currency but rather in being not used as a currency. This should be a red alert flag to anyone considering cryptocurrencies. Take Safemoon as a glaring example. Whereas American Express is not accepted in bajillions of places because they charge a very high (3.5%) fee for each transaction, Safemoon charges a totally unacceptable 10%. Extremely few merchants will accept it. Obviously, Safemoon is completely undesirable as a currency; for this reason it is guaranteed to collapse. But to whom is Safemoon marketed? Not to people who are looking for a desirable currency. Safemoon is marketed to those who are gullible enough to consider it a speculative investment. They totally fall for the mathematical formulas that show how they will get rich quickly while the entire rest of the world simply uses Safemoon as a currency. They never notice that no one will be using it as a currency. All those buying in are doing so to hold it. None of the magical get-rich formulae apply. What really broadcasts the scam nature of Safemoon is that all the hype and exuberance over buying Safemoon comes from people like Xadoman who have purchased Safemoon tokens out of speculation and who are now under the heavy conflict of interest to pitch Safemoon, not because they are making an honest recommendation for a currency but because they are totally dependent upon getting others to start using the currency if they want any hope of making some money. Conspicuously absent are any people singing the praises of their amazing experiences of using Safemoon as a currency. Nary a peep on that front. Conspicuously absent are vendors and merchants advertising how they are committed to accepting Safemoon. The 10%-per-transaction fee explains all this. HarveyH55 wrote:Coins will crash, some will fail. Some were a scam from the start... Safemoon anyone?
02-06-2021 09:46
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Coins will crash, some will fail. Some were a scam from the start... And some will go to the moon. Somebody made an analysis and it turns out that there is about 20% probability that a coin goes 10x. Compared to winning a lottery, the chances are quite good. The 10%-per-transaction fee explains all this. I aready said that using their credit card is going to be free of the transaction fee. You have to pay the fee if you load money on the card but otherwise it is going to be without fees. Safemoon anyone? My highests hopes are in the Safemoon. Those types of coins are also "greener" than some old school coins that need a lot of energy to be mined. Those coins have made it without mining. As you may have heard, Bitcoin uses more electricity than Argentina.
02-06-2021 10:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:So now you're reverting back to the position that I have no mind of my own, simply "regurgitating" what ITN tells me? Let's see, Into the Night made five posts of nothing but "Define money. Define Wealth. Stop Evading" Because you so far haven't defined either 'wealth' or 'money'. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: (which isn't even the topic) It is the topic. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. IBdaMann wrote: and you open your post with "I can't falsify it unless I know precisely what 'money' and 'wealth' are" ... which is Into the Night's error. Paradox D. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You flat out copied his error. Paradox D. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You are turning to him for what to say. I am not to blame for this. You can try to make me feel bad for noticing but it's not going to work. He asked you simple questions. Paradox D. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night has a WACKY fanatical and mindless political dogma. I am not stating any dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: One line item of that dogma is "money is not wealth." I am not stating a dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: He is well within his right to have any sort of WACKY dogma that he wishes, I am not stating a dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: as is everyone, but it isn't wisdom that serves him. I am not making an argument. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: It is dogma to which he is enslaved.[/quote] I am not stating a dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: He can't justify it with any sort of rational basis, Nothing to justify. Answer the questions put to you. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: he simply must obey and preach. Who am I obeying? Hallucinations. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: When someone such as myself explains the rationale for an opposing view, You haven't stated any view. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: he feels his dogma threatened I am not stating a dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: .. and the dogma always comes first. I am not stating a dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Due to the nature of dogmas, I am not stating a dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: all opposing views must be denied, I am not stating a view. You are not stating a view. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: even if it is math and science. Math and science is not required to define a word. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: The dogma is #1. I am not stating a dogma. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Not math. Not science. Not logic. Math, science, and logic are not required to define a word. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Dogma takes precedence every time. Dogma is like the king in chess; if it gets put in check then one must do everything in his power to get it out of check or it's "game over." No chess game. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You might have noticed how he started panicking when I began discussing the topic with you. Psychoquackery. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: He couldn't add anything rational to the discussion so he tried to derail it. You are not making a discussion. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: He became a broken record about irrelevant definitions of words Because you still refuse to define them, yet you use them as undefined buzzwords. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: when the topic is, and remains, the mathematical relationship of sets and subsets. Not the topic. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I'm sure you noticed his vehement denial on multiple occasions that this is even the topic. Not the topic. There is no topic. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: He is panicking. Psychoquackery. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: Yes, when you decided to follow his lead and to drag the discussion away from the math and the logic and back to irrelevant definitions of words, you were regurgitating his error.[/quote] Paradox D. Reversal fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I certainly don't mind you committing errors but please make your own, don't regurgitate someone else's. Reversal fallacy. He asked you to define 'wealth' and to define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Indeed you did, and I did the same with you. Except that you are omitting the big difference between the two. Your position is the one that is in error. My position, which is nothing more than stating the mathematical relationship of sets and subsets, is not in error. Pivot fallacy. Not math. Not logic. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: I walked you through what I am looking for, ... all of which is totally irrelevant. You have only parroted Into the Night's totally irrational demands for the irrelevant. I'm not going to derail my conversation by changing the subject as ordered. You are not making a conversation Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: I have, in fact, asked you many times for an attribute of wealth that is not an attribute of money and you have thus far EVADED every single request. He asked you for the definitions you are using. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You have tried to change the subject to definitions of words That IS the subject. You still refuse to define the words you use. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: but you have never addressed the topic of attributes of wealth, Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: even of your own definition. He is not making a definition. He asked you for your definition. Answer the question put to you. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: So we're done unless there is something that I missed. You missed defining 'wealth' and 'money'. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. IBdaMann wrote: You have chosen Option B and we can move on. I'm happy if you're happy. Vacuous argument fallacy. Define 'wealth'. Define 'money'. Stop evading. You are NOT going to get past this, dude. You MUST define these two words. You are using them in your argument. Using undefined words in your argument forms a vacuous argument fallacy. You MUST define these words. You cannot get around this by evading. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 02-06-2021 10:19
02-06-2021 18:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote:Because you so far haven't defined either 'wealth' or 'money'. This is not needed to understand the mathematical relationship of sets and subsets. This is only needed to derail the discussion away from the math that you do not understand. Learn math. Accept math. Be less of a moron. Into the Night wrote:It is the topic. Nope. Refer once again to your reading problem. Math is the topic. Into the Night wrote: He asked you simple questions. Is this how he is supposed to respond? Is this what I should expect in his next post? Into the Night wrote:I am not stating any dogma. Correct. You are preaching it. You have become irrational because of it. Into the Night wrote:I am not stating a dogma. Correct. You are preaching it. You have become irrational because of it. Into the Night wrote:I am not stating a dogma. Correct. You are preaching it. You have become irrational because of it. Into the Night wrote:I am not making an argument. You are a liar. You initiated this entire subthread by making the affirmative argument that money is not wealth. I blew your stupid argument out of the water. You went apoplectic and have been gibbering since. You never were able to provide any rebuttal, because you know that money is, in fact, wealth. You cannot be rational on this topic and are being totally dishonest. You suck at math and therefore must deny that it is even the topic. Try not sucking at math. Then try not sucking at logic. Your affirmative argument "money is not wealth" has been falsified, by math ... math that you unfortunately deny. Do you have anything (coherent) to add?
02-06-2021 18:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote:Somebody made an analysis and it turns out that there is about 20% probability that a coin goes 10x. Good old Somebody. He really is a great analyst. Somebody is always spot on. Confusing events occur and there is always Somebody getting it right. Xadoman wrote:Compared to winning a lottery, the chances are quite good. Did you just compare the chances of making money through cryptocurrencies with virtual impossibility in order to make the words "quite good" seem a plausible description of the relative odds? Xadoman wrote:I aready said that using their credit card is going to be free of the transaction fee. All transactions will have to cough up the 10%. If the transaction is performed by the card then the 10% will have already been paid in advance. You intentionally lied on that point. It's almost as if you own Safemoon and are desperate to get others to join so that you will have some semblance of a chance to make money off your gamble. Xadoman wrote: My highests hopes are in the Safemoon. Safemoon is the most obvious scam. It's almost as if you own Safemoon and are desperate to get others to join so that you will have some semblance of a chance to make money off your gamble. Xadoman wrote: Those types of coins are also "greener" than some old school coins that need a lot of energy to be mined. This is total gibberish. What do you believe you said here? I can see that my warning to you was futile, i.e. you are already all in on Safemoon. Were you telling me previously that you don't have a gambling problem?
02-06-2021 19:40
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Xadoman wrote: [quote]I am pretty confident that many of those make 100x and some of them make 1000x or even more in the coming years. It is all about patience in crypto world. Everybody wants a lambo the next week after investing 20 dollars but you need to wait years or even a decade to eventually get to your coal. I am a simple man. I do not need much to be happy. I could retire now with around 250k. I just do not want to wageslave anymore. Wageslaving is a living hell on earth. I am pretty confident that hardly any of those will make 100x or 1000x in the coming years. It's all about getting suckers to throw their money away due to their gambling addictions. I would not advise retiring on $250k, but if you think that you can retire on that small of a nest egg, then all the power to ya... Wageslaving at least gets you a paycheck; gambling addiction only gets you deeper and deeper in debt.
02-06-2021 20:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote: A) It's all about getting suckers to throw their money away due to their gambling addictions. B) I would not advise retiring on $250k, C) Wageslaving at least gets you a paycheck; gambling addiction only gets you deeper and deeper in debt. Sage advice. All of it. Regarding A), Xadoman unfortunately operates under a huge conflict of interest. His success in making money with Safemoon is totally dependent upon him selling it as a currency. He has lined up with used car salesmen and snake oil vendors. Regarding B), one can easily have to burn through $35-40K/year living in a banana republic. $250K might be able to stretch to nine, maybe ten years before a retiree has to return to decent work ... but good luck with that in a banana republic. Regarding C) "Wageslaving" is just another Marxist slur, like "capitalism" for economics and "unfettered exploitation" for free markets. Working for a paycheck is noble. Marxists refer to it as "slavery" and "exploitation" in order to shame people for participating in "capitalism." Great post.

Page 7 of 10

Join the debate Crypto investments:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Crypto-Climate Watch List	540	09-09-2023 02:41
Tom Brady lost $30 million after FTX crypto collapse. Too bad	3	07-09-2023 15:54
$740M in crypto assets recovered in FTX bankruptcy so far	0	24-11-2022 11:07
Crypto exchanges disintegrating as you read this, FTX is gone bitcoin is down 65% this year	4	17-11-2022 16:19
Everybody Can Obtain The New Trillion Dollar Crypto Coin whitepapers To Become Millionaire Easily	4	06-11-2021 03:55