“Bruh”, your problem is exactly that in your mind it’s all simple even though you live in a Society right next to millions of people and you somehow think that what you believe because you read it on a website gives you “rights” that those millions of people will respect just because you say so.
It’s like thinking that a toilet needs not be connected to a sewage line to handle your shit or the electricity for your house appears by merelly having power lines rather than coming via them from where it gets generated via a complex infrastruture to get it to you.
It’s the Soverign Citizen kind of take on the world, and the results are pretty much the same for techno-deluded kind of Soverign Citizen as for the document-deluded ones: nobody else respects your claims to having certain rights hence the only worth you can extract from such “certificates” is from finding and swindling even greater fools to sell those “certificates” to.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say shit about “rights” and “respect”. The guy in the original comment mentioned nothing about it either. You said that. You’re bringing this idea into the conversation and then arguing against yourself. Seriously, what is your endgame here?
I genuinely have no clue what you think I “read on a website” about NFTs. To set the record straight, my understanding of NFTs is that you have a ledger where your public key is associated with a token short string of characters, and every computer participating in the ledger agrees on that. that’s it. All of these ideas of “ownership” and “rights” and societal analogies is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
They just really really really hate NFTs/crypto for some reason. I can’t imagine ever getting so worked up about a technology like people do today about crypto. I want to support an artist so apparently I need to have a PhD in contract and IP law in order to do so.
You didnd’t purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven’t figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
You seem to have chosen a very specific, very “curious” cutoff point for contextual relevance of responses not alligned with your opinion in this thread in order to claim my response to you is some wild unrelated “bullshit”.
Further, you responded to my comment criticising NFTs as a means of guaranteing ownership, with an example usage that has nothing to do with ownership and were NFTs do literally nothing useful at all (you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to “contribute to the artist” no NFTs required), so per your own logic your post is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
Your example provides no support for the idea being discussed by everybody else in this thread, so either that post of yours is bullshit you brought into the conversation (since it goes out on a tangent and doesn’t support the points I was replying to or made in my comment) or you wanted to support the idea that NFTs are useful and failed miserably and now are just criticizing me for following you down your irrelevant tangent to the points being discussed in the thread.
you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to “contribute to the artist” no NFTs required
Yeah, people could donate directly, but some people decided to buy NFTs instead, and they wouldn’t have spent the money otherwise.
^
|
This is my logic which shows that my post is not bullshit. My post is only bullshit by the “logic” that you try to introduce.
And you don’t need to be writing these long-winded paragraphs. The point stands that you’re the one who brought up the argument about NFTs as means of ownership and then started arguing on the opposing side. Who are you arguing against? There is no-one on the proposing side, only the starmen you put there.
Yeah, people could donate directly, but some people decided to buy NFTs instead, and they wouldn’t have spent the money otherwise.
These arguments always make me smirk. Yes, of course I could use the slow, expensive, and exploitative financial rails that currently exist. But it’s fucking fun to buy NFTs. And easy. It’s as simple as that. I enjoy collecting these art pieces. I don’t give a flying fuck of a shit if it’s not actually “owning” it by some armchair lawyer’s abstract definition of “owning”. I support cool creators, the image appears in my wallet, I get perks associated with the token sometimes, and I have some prints of the art on my wall. I don’t care, like, not even a little bit, if I actually “own” it or not from a legal contract point of view, which is just a social layer anyways. I verifiably possess it, and that’s enough me.
Your argument was that my post didn’t follow yours hence was “bullshit”, yet your own post didn’t follow mine and hence was by that very logic “bullshit”.
Further and interestingly you ignored the quote I provided in the last post from somebody else up the thread, that disproves your own assertion that “you’re the one who brought up the argument about NFTs as means of ownership” - somebody else already brought it up and I was following it and kept doing it even when you came up with and unrelated anectdote.
That said, somebody else earlier on mentioned supporting artists in this thread.
So we both “jumped” over the other post and just followed on with some previous point from somebody else.
Either we’re both making “bullshit” posts (per that “logic” of yours) or we’re just cross talking and going along unrelated argument lines (which, frankly, having looked back to check the rest of the thread, we’re not the only ones).
“Bruh”, your problem is exactly that in your mind it’s all simple even though you live in a Society right next to millions of people and you somehow think that what you believe because you read it on a website gives you “rights” that those millions of people will respect just because you say so.
It’s like thinking that a toilet needs not be connected to a sewage line to handle your shit or the electricity for your house appears by merelly having power lines rather than coming via them from where it gets generated via a complex infrastruture to get it to you.
It’s the Soverign Citizen kind of take on the world, and the results are pretty much the same for techno-deluded kind of Soverign Citizen as for the document-deluded ones: nobody else respects your claims to having certain rights hence the only worth you can extract from such “certificates” is from finding and swindling even greater fools to sell those “certificates” to.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say shit about “rights” and “respect”. The guy in the original comment mentioned nothing about it either. You said that. You’re bringing this idea into the conversation and then arguing against yourself. Seriously, what is your endgame here?
I genuinely have no clue what you think I “read on a website” about NFTs. To set the record straight, my understanding of NFTs is that you have a ledger where your public key is associated with a
tokenshort string of characters, and every computer participating in the ledger agrees on that. that’s it. All of these ideas of “ownership” and “rights” and societal analogies is bullshit you brought into the conversation.They just really really really hate NFTs/crypto for some reason. I can’t imagine ever getting so worked up about a technology like people do today about crypto. I want to support an artist so apparently I need to have a PhD in contract and IP law in order to do so.
As per another poster higher up this thread:
You seem to have chosen a very specific, very “curious” cutoff point for contextual relevance of responses not alligned with your opinion in this thread in order to claim my response to you is some wild unrelated “bullshit”.
Further, you responded to my comment criticising NFTs as a means of guaranteing ownership, with an example usage that has nothing to do with ownership and were NFTs do literally nothing useful at all (you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to “contribute to the artist” no NFTs required), so per your own logic your post is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
Your example provides no support for the idea being discussed by everybody else in this thread, so either that post of yours is bullshit you brought into the conversation (since it goes out on a tangent and doesn’t support the points I was replying to or made in my comment) or you wanted to support the idea that NFTs are useful and failed miserably and now are just criticizing me for following you down your irrelevant tangent to the points being discussed in the thread.
Seriously, what is your endgame here?
Yeah, people could donate directly, but some people decided to buy NFTs instead, and they wouldn’t have spent the money otherwise.
^
|
This is my logic which shows that my post is not bullshit. My post is only bullshit by the “logic” that you try to introduce.
And you don’t need to be writing these long-winded paragraphs. The point stands that you’re the one who brought up the argument about NFTs as means of ownership and then started arguing on the opposing side. Who are you arguing against? There is no-one on the proposing side, only the starmen you put there.
These arguments always make me smirk. Yes, of course I could use the slow, expensive, and exploitative financial rails that currently exist. But it’s fucking fun to buy NFTs. And easy. It’s as simple as that. I enjoy collecting these art pieces. I don’t give a flying fuck of a shit if it’s not actually “owning” it by some armchair lawyer’s abstract definition of “owning”. I support cool creators, the image appears in my wallet, I get perks associated with the token sometimes, and I have some prints of the art on my wall. I don’t care, like, not even a little bit, if I actually “own” it or not from a legal contract point of view, which is just a social layer anyways. I verifiably possess it, and that’s enough me.
Your argument was that my post didn’t follow yours hence was “bullshit”, yet your own post didn’t follow mine and hence was by that very logic “bullshit”.
Further and interestingly you ignored the quote I provided in the last post from somebody else up the thread, that disproves your own assertion that “you’re the one who brought up the argument about NFTs as means of ownership” - somebody else already brought it up and I was following it and kept doing it even when you came up with and unrelated anectdote.
That said, somebody else earlier on mentioned supporting artists in this thread.
So we both “jumped” over the other post and just followed on with some previous point from somebody else.
Either we’re both making “bullshit” posts (per that “logic” of yours) or we’re just cross talking and going along unrelated argument lines (which, frankly, having looked back to check the rest of the thread, we’re not the only ones).