commie

Speaking of dilution, how does happiness get a normative meaning?

Accumulating items is pointless regardless of how happy you are. No philosophy needed. And happiness isn't internal or external. You don't need to believe in natures or any other doctrine in order to realize this.

Why the hypothetical? Russia became the main extra-regional actor during the Obama adminstration. Why would Russia back out now? Sure, there are countless different worlds in which Russia would but you gave us no way to select one and the answer to your second question is therefore undefined.

There are deluded scientists but no scientific truth.

A year isn't long term. 30 days is short term. Get older. Other than that, maybe realize you're OK even though you've not achieved your goals and that you'll still be OK tomorrow if you haven't achieved them. There's no rush. I don't believe in vision, habits and all that. You'll do something today to achieve your goals if you actually want to do whatever it is you need to do. But if you're keep thinking about these goals, you may end up not achieving them. It's not thinking that's going to make you patient. And if forgetfulness actually is your problem (that would be strange), simply set up reminders!

We don't feel the same. Things are socially constructed through language and not an intrinsic part of the phenomenal field (except inasmuch as thoughts are part of the phenomenal field of course, but I was assuming the dualism implied in your statement).

Math I could have dealt with. A short formal argument would also be workable. But I can't read your mind to understand what on Earth you find convincing in what you posted or where you went wrong. And debunking every falsehood you wrote while providing enough background information that everyone might understand all possible mistakes that might lead someone to be convinced by each of the falsehoods would be a full-time job requiring pedagogical talent I lack. The best I can reasonably do is take a guess at what, assuming you're sincere, might be your central mistake and then address that. So here goes: you basically say that debt has to grow because of interest. But of course that only works if you assume that the interest is not spent on goods and services, taxes or asset purchases. Failures to pay interest or pay back the principal should also be taken into account but even with the unrealistic assumption that lending is risk-free, your argument wouldn't work. One could try to rescue this argument by tying it to irrelevant falsehoods or fallacies but I can't possibly debunk all of the potential falsehoods or fallacies which could be use to buttress such an argument... If you want more, focus on whatever you think is important and write down something like a formal argument listing your assumptions. If you did that, you'd probably be able to debunk yourself. If not, it would be much easier to provide assistance.

Yet you have not shown any math, only asserted falsehoods and reposted mis/disinformation. Please stop misleading the naive. Case in point: Funny that the disaster hasn't happend by now... as if your learning for simplicity has made you believe in yet another fairy tale.

$10K per US resident would be significant but isn't a huge amount... irrational and disruptive for sure but certainly possible and no game-changer. Nonsense. Show us the math you're talking about.

Are you really that clueless? Notice the word "mined". That's where the harm comes from, and this is serious harm that actually matters (nothing to do with the fleeting exchange value of money). You are a bad guy but you aren't putting dollar holders at a disadvantage and this voting thing is a pathetic fantasy, as is the notion that you can choose to do what you want with this money you've reified. I have been advocating against holding US dollars for decades and so I would of course welcome US dollars losing their exchange value. Only it's not going to happen and I'm not going to lie to people about that because in order to manipulate them.

This "national debt" is irrelevant. The issue is that helicopter money is a wasteful. But there's a reason for this waste: there is no system in place that could support most of the people in need in a targetted way or supply essential goods and services to the population. Meanwhile much of the population has financial obligations it must service and there is no rational system to provide relief on that front either. Arguing that most people didn't spend the previous checks is asinine. The whole point was to support the ones who did spend them in a fair way. You do that by increasing the net wealth of the more conservative or skillful planners. You want to reward the savers who are financing this "national debt" along with countless businesses and so forth, not incentivize people to spend money on whatever. If you have a problem with that, you might as well have the Man seize everyone's assets, because they didn't spend their wealth and therefore don't need it. That would take care of this "national debt". Go ahead, make my day! I also refer you the UBI thread.

Sure, but you don't have to go there. Avoidance isn't dishonesty in my book. I don't have such clear-cut assessments. Not hurting someone often benefits you as well. And "never" is a high bar! For instance I don't have a practive of censoring everything I say so I've sometimes being dishonest before I understood what it is I was allowing myself to say. Does that count? Lots of people I'd wager. Dishonest is harmful so it's something you're going to want to avoid as a matter of self-interest. Why do you bring up monks? Not being dishonest is a rule for householders as well.

This hinges on the word "severe". 100% honesty is in many cases realistic but it would obviously involve limitations. For some people, these limitations would be a big deal while others would find it easy to live with them, especially in light of the rewards. I guess it depends on your ambitions and priviledge. Is there any point in being 100% honest though? Sometimes it merely hurts people or brings about pointless conflicts. People who are mostly honest are rare enough (and much rarer still in some lines of work obviously). What motivates dishonesty makes a world of difference in my experience.

If all currencies are as you're implicitely suggesting equally likely to collapse, that's no reason to hold one over another. And if you did understand which currencies are likely to collapse, you wouldn't push bitcoin unless you were trying to harm others. But of course anyone pushing mined currencies such as gold or bitcoin is actively hurting others regardless of how likely they are to collapse anyway...

There is of course zero evidence that anything unusual is happening to the value of anyone's dollars. But the scum is of course always out there trying to sell their scams, and this insulting drivel is part of the sales pitch.