{
  "trx_id": "b694ea407b273de65f58c711a91242327a09fa28",
  "block": 35423188,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2019-08-10T06:48:06",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "thales",
      "parent_permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-the-theists-biggest-fallacy",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-thales-20190810t064806000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @thales! You received a personal award!\n\n<table><tr><td>https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@thales/birthday3.png</td><td>Happy Birthday! - You are on the Steem blockchain for 3 years!</td></tr></table>\n\n<sub>_You can view [your badges on your Steem Board](https://steemitboard.com/@thales) and compare to others on the [Steem Ranking](https://steemitboard.com/ranking/index.php?name=thales)_</sub>\n\n\n###### [Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1) to get one more award and increased upvotes!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "249178ef01b7866624fc5876144758405f1407de",
  "block": 24940252,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2018-08-10T08:24:45",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "thales",
      "parent_permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-the-theists-biggest-fallacy",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-thales-20180810t082445000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @thales! You have received a personal award!\n\n[![](https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@thales/birthday2.png)](http://steemitboard.com/@thales)  2 Years on Steemit\n<sub>_Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor._</sub>\n\n\n> Do you like [SteemitBoard's project](https://steemit.com/@steemitboard)? Then **[Vote for its witness](https://v2.steemconnect.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=steemitboard&approve=1)** and **get one more award**!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notify.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "a97d0e8b20759b38472dea8038fc6f2dac94c65e",
  "block": 14445756,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2017-08-10T06:51:27",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "thales",
      "parent_permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-the-theists-biggest-fallacy",
      "author": "steemitboard",
      "permlink": "steemitboard-notify-thales-20170810t065127000z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Congratulations @thales! You have received a personal award!\n\n[![](https://steemitimages.com/70x70/http://steemitboard.com/@thales/birthday1.png)](http://steemitboard.com/@thales)  Happy Birthday - 1 Year on Steemit Happy Birthday - 1 Year on Steemit\nClick on the badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.\n\nFor more information about this award, click [here](https://steemit.com/steemitboard/@steemitboard/steemitboard-update-8-happy-birthday)\n> By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how [here](https://steemit.com/steemitboard/@steemitboard/http-i-cubeupload-com-7ciqeo-png)!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"image\":[\"https://steemitboard.com/img/notifications.png\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "c53d6061842ce2d1042525e22b48825e14965c37",
  "block": 14399102,
  "trx_in_block": 29,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2017-08-08T15:57:09",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "thales",
      "parent_permlink": "philosopher-and-crypto-entrepeneur",
      "author": "viougluceasmor",
      "permlink": "re-thales-philosopher-and-crypto-entrepeneur-20170808t155741983z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "Excellent write!",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"intoduceyourself\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5f62dbfcc7b02b1e82666b1c38855ee2ccc710f0",
  "block": 13774201,
  "trx_in_block": 11,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2017-07-17T22:38:18",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "thales",
      "parent_permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism",
      "author": "boodles17",
      "permlink": "re-thales-how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism-20170717t223815519z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "I wish that I had joined steemit earlier @thales or I would have resteemed this post  to my own page.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"philosophy\"],\"users\":[\"thales\"],\"app\":\"steemit/0.1\"}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3e058695f56068f0c85ea37065abb5aa9b42c408",
  "block": 13774162,
  "trx_in_block": 6,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2017-07-17T22:36:21",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "boodles17",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "024c49921f0e0f041eac94669dd2aa6f6a11ee48",
  "block": 4116680,
  "trx_in_block": 5,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-15T23:42:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "psamuelson",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-the-theists-biggest-fallacy",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "5626dc1d5e2faf2d65528678fce37df6e6a319c4",
  "block": 4025276,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-12T19:06:00",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "thales",
      "author": "kevinwong",
      "permlink": "let-s-talk-about-consciousness-wtf-is-it",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9b0f10e2c04eaa099a5ae470a06312f3f932e6a5",
  "block": 4025211,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-12T19:02:45",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "thales",
      "author": "jacor",
      "permlink": "everything-depends-on-the-leader-featuring-new-author-omfedor",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "62d43bb3aa49dadab142871689df9cbc014d9121",
  "block": 4024060,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-12T18:04:57",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "philosophy",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-the-theists-biggest-fallacy",
      "title": "How to Win Every Argument: The Theists Biggest Fallacy",
      "body": "http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/gja0299l.jpg\n\n\n\nIf I have a pet peeve, it is a bad argument. It is always  easy to spot a bad argument for God's existence. If someone says anything about about a watch on a beach, then just walk away. However, most people don't know that there has been progress in the philosophy of religion regarding arguments for the existence of God. What? Yup. \n\nHow does this happen? One way  is that people employ progress in logic to the traditional arguments to improve them. For example, using the axioms of modal logic one can derive God's actual existence from God's possible existence. (I'll show you all sometime).  A new spate of arguments also use Bayesian probability to argue that theism is more probable than naturalism. \n\nhttps://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mfbdd39066da6eb4da9da3d2bbbd8ac62o0&pid=15.1&h=150&w=210&P=0\n\nThe basic idea is to show that that some common feature of the world is more likely on the hypothesis of theism than naturalism.  Here is one way that Bayesian argument improves a classic argument. Let's take the design argument that tries to argue for God's existence based on the common fact of intelligent life. Now, as it is classically stated, the central premise is that it the complexity of life cannot emerge from chance. As is probably obvious, the Darwinian insight undercuts this premise by providing a cleary explanation and evidence regarding the existence of intelligent life. In other words, the weakness of the previous argument is that it is incompatible with evolution. \n\nHow does the Bayesian argument make an improvement. Well  it allows us to ask whether the fact of intelligent life is <i>more likely</i> on theism or naturalism. The basic idea is to ask \"Would you the evidence given the this hypothesis.\"  So, would you expect intelligent life on the hypothesis of theism? Yea...the classical theistic God would likely create intelligent life.  What about intelligent life on the hypothesis of naturalism? Nah...there isn't any reason to think that intelligent life is likely in a completely naturalistic universe. In other words, if we were to make a prediction of whether there would be intelligent life, we wouldn't have a strong reason to predict one way or the other. \n\nHow is this a better argument? First, it is compatible with Darwinism. It merely says that there is no reason to expect expect  intelligent life. I imagine that someone would say, sure there is a reason to expect Darwinism to be true. But we need to be careful that we are not conflating the evidence we already have from what to expect from naturalism itself.\n\nIn any case, I am gonna keep moving fast because my point is not to argue for theism. So, for the sake argument let's say that the existence of intelligent life is more likely on theism than naturalism. We could put the argument more formally. So, theism is more likely than nauralism, all else being equal. Now at this point, the conversation moves on to the problem of evil. But atheists...you have a stronger card in your pocket. \n\nThe problem with the argument is that it commits the fallacy of understated evidence. This fallacy occurs when specific facts are ignored and only a general fact is put forward. For example, it is a general fact that there is intelligent life. However, it is a more specific fact that there is very little intelligent life in an infinitiely expanding universe. This makes the existence of intelligent life much less impressive. In Bayesian terms, it doesn't raise the  posterior probability of theism over naturalism. \n\nIf you want to know the slew of how this fallacy is used. Patheos has a quick summary. \n\nhttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/02/14/paul-draper-the-fallacy-of-understated-evidence-theism-and-naturalism/\n\n\n\nAt this point in arguments, I usually see atheists reach into the problem of evil bag.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"philosophy\",\"religion\",\"science\",\"life\"],\"links\":[\"http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/02/14/paul-draper-the-fallacy-of-understated-evidence-theism-and-naturalism/\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ca5cf034d7dae890b8c1960796e6fbbec790f050",
  "block": 4023802,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-12T17:52:03",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "thales",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-the-theists-biggest-fallacy",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ca5cf034d7dae890b8c1960796e6fbbec790f050",
  "block": 4023802,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-12T17:52:03",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "philosophy",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-the-theists-biggest-fallacy",
      "title": "How to Win Every Argument: The Theists Biggest Fallacy",
      "body": "https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pdBCK5XyAkAU3BOnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTI0aTB0ZmhuBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM2NDg4ODYxNjgwZjBkY2NkYTc2Y2QxMDRmNzBiNmU2YgRncG9zAzIxNwRpdANiaW5n?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Darguments%2Bfor%2Bgod%2527s%2Bexistence%26n%3D60%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyhst-mozilla-002%26fr2%3Dsb-top-images.search.yahoo.com%26hsimp%3Dyhst-002%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26nost%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D217&w=344&h=400&imgurl=i15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa361%2FMetacrock%2Fgja0299l.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fatheistwatch.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F10%2Farguments-against-existence-of-god-are.html&size=30.8KB&name=Atheistwatch%3A+%3Cb%3EArguments%3C%2Fb%3E+Against+%3Cb%3EExistence%3C%2Fb%3E+of+%3Cb%3EGod%3C%2Fb%3E+are+Piontless&p=arguments+for+god%27s+existence&oid=6488861680f0dccda76cd104f70b6e6b&fr2=sb-top-images.search.yahoo.com&fr=yhst-mozilla-002&tt=Atheistwatch%3A+%3Cb%3EArguments%3C%2Fb%3E+Against+%3Cb%3EExistence%3C%2Fb%3E+of+%3Cb%3EGod%3C%2Fb%3E+are+Piontless&b=181&ni=216&no=217&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12k5kal9b&sigb=169okhcqa&sigi=11mmh9buk&sigt=12j1q1d2p&sign=12j1q1d2p&.crumb=s2wPfXbl2E2&fr=yhst-mozilla-002&fr2=sb-top-images.search.yahoo.com&hsimp=yhst-002&hspart=mozilla\n\nIf I have a pet peeve, it is a bad argument. It is always  easy to spot a bad argument for God's existence. If someone says anything about about a watch on a beach, then just walk away. However, most people don't know that there has been progress in the philosophy of religion regarding arguments for the existence of God. What? Yup. \n\nHow does this happen? One way  is that people employ progress in logic to the traditional arguments to improve them. For example, using the axioms of modal logic one can derive God's actual existence from God's possible existence. (I'll show you all sometime).  A new spate of arguments also use Bayesian probability theory.\n\nhttps://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8qESA65XCF4AnplOnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTIyZDBuNXZ2BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAMyNjMwYzdkNTg1MjU0Y2ViNjQwYTNjYWM5NjE4Y2QwMwRncG9zAzIEaXQDYmluZw--?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3DBayes%2Btheroem%26n%3D60%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyhst-mozilla-002%26fr2%3Dsb-top-images.search.yahoo.com%26hsimp%3Dyhst-002%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D2&w=420&h=300&imgurl=phaedrusdeinus.org%2Ftalks%2Fyour-own-bayes%2Fimg%2Fbayes.png&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fphaedrusdeinus.org%2Ftalks%2Fyour-own-bayes%2F&size=+7.7KB&name=%3Cb%3EBayes%3C%2Fb%3E%26%2339%3B+%3Cb%3ETheorem%3C%2Fb%3E&p=Bayes+theorem&oid=2630c7d585254ceb640a3cac9618cd03&fr2=sb-top-images.search.yahoo.com&fr=yhst-mozilla-002&rw=Bayes+theorem&tt=%3Cb%3EBayes%3C%2Fb%3E%26%2339%3B+%3Cb%3ETheorem%3C%2Fb%3E&b=0&ni=108&no=2&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11f8fleqv&sigb=15es829fl&sigi=11lkb8c3c&sigt=1107dq775&sign=1107dq775&.crumb=s2wPfXbl2E2&fr=yhst-mozilla-002&fr2=sb-top-images.search.yahoo.com&hsimp=yhst-002&hspart=mozilla\n\nThe basic idea is to show that that some common feature of the world is more likely on the hypothesis of theism than naturalism.  Here is one way that Bayesian argument improves a classic argument. Let's take the design argument that tries to argue for God's existence based on the common fact of intelligent life. Now, as it is classically stated, the central premise is that it the complexity of life cannot emerge from chance. As is probably obvious, the Darwinian insight undercuts this premise by providing a cleary explanation and evidence regarding the existence of intelligent life. In other words, the weakness of the previous argument is that it is incompatible with evolution. \n\nHow does the Bayesian argument make an improvement. Well  it allows us to ask whether the fact of intelligent life is <i>more likely</i> on theism or naturalism. The basic idea is to ask \"Would you the evidence given the this hypothesis.\"  So, would you expect intelligent life on the hypothesis of theism? Yea...the classical theistic God would likely create intelligent life.  What about intelligent life on the hypothesis of naturalism? Nah...there isn't any reason to think that intelligent life is likely in a completely naturalistic universe. In other words, if we were to make a prediction of whether there would be intelligent life, we wouldn't have a strong reason to predict one way or the other. \n\nHow is this a better argument? First, it is compatible with Darwinism. It merely says that there is no reason to expect expect  intelligent life. I imagine that someone would say, sure there is a reason to expect Darwinism to be true. But we need to be careful that we are not conflating the evidence we already have from what to expect from naturalism itself.\n\nIn any case, I am gonna keep moving fast because my point is not to argue for theism. So, for the sake argument let's say that the existence of intelligent life is more likely on theism than naturalism. We could put the argument more formally. So, theism is more likely than nauralism, all else being equal. Now at this point, the conversation moves on to the problem of evil. But atheists...you have a stronger card in your pocket. \n\nhttps://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pVbCK5XIyMAE5FOnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTI0aDNmMW5iBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM4OGQ4M2NhZjhmNzlhMDY5NTQzZTMxNWYwOTNhZjRiMARncG9zAzMxNQRpdANiaW5n?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Darguments%2Bfor%2Bgod%2527s%2Bexistence%26n%3D60%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyhst-mozilla-002%26fr2%3Dsb-top-images.search.yahoo.com%26hsimp%3Dyhst-002%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26nost%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D315&w=300&h=300&imgurl=wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fblogs%2Fhallq%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F02%2Fyour-argument-is-invalid-300x300.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fhallq%2F2013%2F02%2Fcomments-on-the-craig-rosenberg-debate-part-2-the-so-called-logical-argument-from-evil%2F&size=25.5KB&name=Craig+proceeded+to+unload+eight+%E2%80%9C%3Cb%3Earguments%E2%80%9D+for+God%E2%80%99s+existence%3C%2Fb%3E+...&p=arguments+for+god%27s+existence&oid=88d83caf8f79a069543e315f093af4b0&fr2=sb-top-images.search.yahoo.com&fr=yhst-mozilla-002&tt=Craig+proceeded+to+unload+eight+%E2%80%9C%3Cb%3Earguments%E2%80%9D+for+God%E2%80%99s+existence%3C%2Fb%3E+...&b=301&ni=288&no=315&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=142h6lih2&sigb=169tpc5dq&sigi=12u1123tq&sigt=12gnhlhnc&sign=12gnhlhnc&.crumb=s2wPfXbl2E2&fr=yhst-mozilla-002&fr2=sb-top-images.search.yahoo.com&hsimp=yhst-002&hspart=mozilla\n\nThe problem with the argument is that it commits the fallacy of understated evidence. This fallacy occurs when specific facts are ignored and only a general fact is put forward. For example, it is a general fact that there is intelligent life. However, it is a more specific fact that there is very little intelligent life in an infinitiely expanding universe. This makes the existence of intelligent life much less impressive. In Bayesian terms, it doesn't raise the  posterior probability of theism over naturalism. \n\nIf you want to know the slew of how this fallacy is used. Patheos has a quick summary. \n\nhttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/02/14/paul-draper-the-fallacy-of-understated-evidence-theism-and-naturalism/\n\n\n\nAt this point in arguments, I usually see atheists reach into the problem of evil bag.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"philosophy\",\"religion\",\"science\",\"life\"],\"image\":[\"https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrB8pVbCK5XIyMAE5FOnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTI0aDNmMW5iBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM4OGQ4M2NhZjhmNzlhMDY5NTQzZTMxNWYwOTNhZjRiMARncG9zAzMxNQRpdANiaW5n?.origin=&amp;back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Darguments%2Bfor%2Bgod%2527s%2Bexistence%26n%3D60%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyhst-mozilla-002%26fr2%3Dsb-top-images.search.yahoo.com%26hsimp%3Dyhst-002%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26nost%3D1%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D315&amp;w=300&amp;h=300&amp;imgurl=wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fblogs%2Fhallq%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F02%2Fyour-argument-is-invalid-300x300.jpg&amp;rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fhallq%2F2013%2F02%2Fcomments-on-the-craig-rosenberg-debate-part-2-the-so-called-logical-argument-from-evil%2F&amp;size=25.5KB&amp;name=Craig+proceeded+to+unload+eight+%E2%80%9C%3Cb%3Earguments%E2%80%9D+for+God%E2%80%99s+existence%3C%2Fb%3E+...&amp;p=arguments+for+god%27s+existence&amp;oid=88d83caf8f79a069543e315f093af4b0&amp;fr2=sb-top-images.search.yahoo.com&amp;fr=yhst-mozilla-002&amp;tt=Craig+proceeded+to+unload+eight+%E2%80%9C%3Cb%3Earguments%E2%80%9D+for+God%E2%80%99s+existence%3C%2Fb%3E+...&amp;b=301&amp;ni=288&amp;no=315&amp;ts=&amp;tab=organic&amp;sigr=142h6lih2&amp;sigb=169tpc5dq&amp;sigi=12u1123tq&amp;sigt=12gnhlhnc&amp;sign=12gnhlhnc&amp;.crumb=s2wPfXbl2E2&amp;fr=yhst-mozilla-002&amp;fr2=sb-top-images.search.yahoo.com&amp;hsimp=yhst-002&amp;hspart=mozilla\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "c3e4086228ab00ec569462691a8b132d5ed825dc",
  "block": 3971931,
  "trx_in_block": 2,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T22:27:57",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "thales",
      "parent_permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism",
      "author": "mikeyg1977",
      "permlink": "re-thales-how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism-20160810t222752151z",
      "title": "",
      "body": "One could argue that private companies or individuals could provide services of protection of property rights much cheaper and more efficiently than a centralised government.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"philosophy\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "df90b0121938903f5b2a9575cb0687ca851365a6",
  "block": 3966523,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T17:57:12",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "psamuelson",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "17b3cbd23a20d3c782581858eaeb0e93b14f4666",
  "block": 3966430,
  "trx_in_block": 4,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T17:52:33",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "philosophy",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism",
      "title": "How to Win Every Argument: Libertarianism",
      "body": "@@ -1,16 +1,92 @@\n+http://openborders.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Libertarian-leade-2.jpg%0A%0A\n This is the firs\n",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"philosophy\",\"anarchism\",\"politics\",\"money\"],\"image\":[\"http://openborders.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Libertarian-leade-2.jpg\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "06db3d8e42d05ae5f586d1b76dc94cfc76016658",
  "block": 3966405,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T17:51:18",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "philosophy",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism",
      "title": "How to Win Every Argument: Libertarianism",
      "body": "This is the first post in a series about philosophy - mostly political philosophy. I am going to put forward what I think is one of the strongest arguments for libertarianism. It is defined via Robert Nozick's famous book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.\n\n[If this is your first time to \"How to Win Every Argument, then this bit of background should help. I explicitly use deductive logic or Bayesian probability theory in each clearly stated argument. Doing so requires that anyone who disagrees must attack one of the claims and can't change the subject without committing the red herring fallacy. This won't make you popular at parties, but it has the power to shut down most people.  Knowledge may be power, but logic surely is.]\n\nBack to Nozick, argues for a \"minimal state\". The minimal state is one that is limited to protection from theft, fraud, harm etc. Any use of wealth or power by the state for any other purpose violates peoples rights. So, the minimal state violates rights, if it redistributes wealth, creates welfare programs, interferes in private enterprise. Basically, everything besides protecting the security of the individual must be left to the private sphere.\n\nOne of Nozick's most  insightful critics, GA Cohen, helped clarify the argument. Cohen believed that Nozick relied wholly on the principle of self-ownership. This principle merely states that you have the same ownership rights over yourself that you would have over a chattel slave. What ever rights someone thought they had over others, you have all those rights over yourself. \n\nCohen also pointed out that Nozick's theory of acquisition imagines a world where people originally acquire ownership rights over property that is unowned by anyone else. In doing so, their rights of self-ownership extend to private property.  Since one has these rights, when two people exchange goods the only way to respect each persons self-ownership is through voluntary exchange. \n\nThis is pretty brief, but we're ready for the argument:\n\n1. Each person possesses an inalienable right of self-ownership.\n2. The only way to protect each person's self-ownership is through property rights that occur through original acqusition or voluntary transfer.\n3. Only a minimal state ensures the protection of property rights occur through original acquisition or voluntary transfer.\n4. So,  only a minimal state protects each person's self-ownership.\n\nNow- Let's see how you win with this argument. Suppose that someone rejects (1). You can respond with the Cohen's \"eyeball lottery\" example. It goes like this, suppose that we don't own ourselves with the same rights as we own property. If so, then there wouldn't be anything wrong with the state redistributing one of your good eyes to the blind. \n\nSuppose they go after (2) - the objection would be that some other mechanism for attaining private property (and yes, even Marxists believe in private property of some kind) would be through something besides original acquisition or voluntary transfer. However, any other form of property acquisition requires the use of force and, thereby, violates the principle of self-ownrship.\n\nPremise (3) is the easiest - A state that does not interfere with people's property, but does protect their individual rights is, by definition, Nozick's minimal state.  As an aside, a stipulative definition only clarifies your terms and does not depend on common usage. For that reason, it is a mistake to make an objection to it. \n\nSo there you go - If you're a libertarian, you can win that argument every time. If you're not....let me know where you think it fails.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"philosophy\",\"anarchism\",\"politics\",\"money\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "fc5afb2157cd81d9bc32264a9be01c996db5b6e8",
  "block": 3966286,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T17:45:21",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "breakingnewstv",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "3f286f9c2e235497ee3ce3540d6f5e787f69be92",
  "block": 3966259,
  "trx_in_block": 3,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T17:44:00",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "robok",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9f33af9405f4f7d2c0e9692f3a5c3eca8a258038",
  "block": 3966255,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T17:43:48",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "thales",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9f33af9405f4f7d2c0e9692f3a5c3eca8a258038",
  "block": 3966255,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T17:43:48",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "philosophy",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "how-to-win-every-argument-libertarianism",
      "title": "How to Win Every Argument: Libertarianism",
      "body": "This is the first post in a series about philosophy - mostly political philosophy. I am going to put forward what I think is one of the strongest arguments for libertarianism. It is defined via Robert Nozick's famous book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.\n\n[If this is your first time to \"How to Win Every Argument, then this bit of background should help. I explicitly use deductive logic or Bayesian probability theory in each clearly stated argument. Doing so requires that anyone who disagrees must attack one of the claims and can't change the subject without committing the red herring fallacy. This won't make you popular at parties, but it has the power to shut down most people.  Knowledge may be power, but logic surely is.]\n\nBack to Nozick, argues for a \"minimal state\". The minimal state is one that is limited to protection from theft, fraud, harm etc. Any use of wealth or power by the state for any other purpose violates peoples rights. So, the minimal state violates rights, if it redistributes wealth, creates welfare programs, interferes in private enterprise. Basically, everything besides protecting the security of the individual must be left to the private sphere.\n\nOne of Nozick's most  insightful critics, GA Cohen, helped clarify the argument. Cohen believed that Nozick relied wholly on the principle of self-ownership. This principle merely states that you have the same ownership rights over yourself that you would have over a chattel slave. What ever rights someone thought they had over others, you have all those rights over yourself. \n\nCohen also pointed out that Nozick's theory of acquisition imagines a world where people originally acquire ownership rights over property that is unowned by anyone else. In doing so, their rights of self-ownership extend to private property.  Since one has these rights, when two people exchange goods the only way to respect each persons self-ownership is through voluntary exchange. \n\nThis is pretty brief, but we're ready for the argument:\n\n1. Each person possesses an inalienable right of self-ownership.\n2. The only way to protect each person's self-ownership is through property rights that occur through original acqusition or voluntary transfer.\n3. Only a minimal state ensures the protection of property rights occur through original acquisition or voluntary transfer.\n4. So,  only a minimal state protects each person's self-ownership.\n\nNow- Let's see how you win with this argument. Suppose that someone rejects (1). You can respond with the Cohen's \"eyeball lottery\" example. It goes like this, suppose that we don't own ourselves with the same rights as we own property. If so, then there wouldn't be anything wrong with the state redistributing one of your good eyes to the blind. \n\nSuppose they go after (2) - the objection would be that some other mechanism for attaining private property (and yes, even Marxists believe in private property of some kind) would be through something besides original acquisition or voluntary transfer. However, any other form of property acquisition requires the use of force and, thereby, violates the principle of self-ownrship.\n\nPremise (3) is the easiest - A state that does not interfere with people's property, but does protect their individual rights is, by definition, Nozick's minimal state.  As an aside, a stipulative definition only clarifies your terms and does not depend on common usage. For that reason, it is a mistake to make an objection to it. \n\nSo there you go - If you're a libertarian, you can win that argument every time. If you're not....let me know where you think it fails.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"philosophy\",\"anarchism\",\"politics\",\"money\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "9f6b064981e2c5c5508c4705a421d984ee695fe7",
  "block": 3952827,
  "trx_in_block": 0,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T06:29:57",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "carriebeth",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "philosopher-and-crypto-entrepeneur",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2e53d8a98ce9c92b19d9d2ff4ec61803f8b56ab9",
  "block": 3951902,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T05:43:33",
  "op": [
    "vote",
    {
      "voter": "thales",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "philosopher-and-crypto-entrepeneur",
      "weight": 10000
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "2e53d8a98ce9c92b19d9d2ff4ec61803f8b56ab9",
  "block": 3951902,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T05:43:33",
  "op": [
    "comment",
    {
      "parent_author": "",
      "parent_permlink": "intoduceyourself",
      "author": "thales",
      "permlink": "philosopher-and-crypto-entrepeneur",
      "title": "Philosopher and Crypto Entrepeneur",
      "body": "I did my dissertation in political philosophy. I got my PhD in 2009 from Purdue Univeristy. I always had a love of finance and started using trading algorithyms since 2006. My speciality is now in finance ethics. I also own a trading company that specailzes in utilizing trading tools for cryptocurruncy. \n\nI also know the one and only major finance ethics book to use bitcoin as a relevant market feature. Bonus points to who finds it. I plan on posting on philosophy, finance, and other fun shit. \n\nI have a stellar argument regarding how cyrpto changes the ordinary boundaries of markets. Ask me why i think that crypto could even make selling votes permissible.",
      "json_metadata": "{\"tags\":[\"intoduceyourself\",\"investing\",\"philosophy\"]}"
    }
  ]
}

{
  "trx_id": "ba3d9ecd6b0d61d71434a3b2e3421d19d9128ede",
  "block": 3951762,
  "trx_in_block": 1,
  "op_in_trx": 0,
  "virtual_op": 0,
  "timestamp": "2016-08-10T05:36:33",
  "op": [
    "account_create",
    {
      "fee": "3.000 STEEM",
      "creator": "steem",
      "new_account_name": "thales",
      "owner": {
        "weight_threshold": 1,
        "account_auths": [],
        "key_auths": [
          [
            "STM6dUP6KV5uAhDFjoEFaZxkkBAHyXrxBZ19oea2qAt9YeBPyxEYJ",
            1
          ]
        ]
      },
      "active": {
        "weight_threshold": 1,
        "account_auths": [],
        "key_auths": [
          [
            "STM6MDCbndTvXQaJjaxYRGbHkiPJ4wX8fcJVPrh4yUEmzH1RKkJK7",
            1
          ]
        ]
      },
      "posting": {
        "weight_threshold": 1,
        "account_auths": [],
        "key_auths": [
          [
            "STM6yPHdnkc5JzgznKYoLRDRbiHc95aMdq1b7e4RjZm4J4c9SpkMf",
            1
          ]
        ]
      },
      "memo_key": "STM8h84poBrLDDoto8FMFjgpCNToPqAyFEoQSmxbqgag5BXEHPKPa",
      "json_metadata": ""
    }
  ]
}