So are you advocating for the idea that the wealthy should be able to control hi...

bombcar · 2026-03-27T03:46:20 1774583180

Don't the wealthy already "control history" by having the "largest amount of capital"?

mcmcmc · 2026-03-27T17:57:41 1774634261

To some extent yes, so why make it easier for them? While also giving them another way to siphon wealth off the losers for betting against them?

kelseyfrog · 2026-03-26T21:26:35 1774560395

I'm arguing for taking advantage of this before you can't.

mcmcmc · 2026-03-27T00:00:42 1774569642

People who aren’t sociopaths might argue no one should be taking advantage of this, and that the people behind these services should be in prison

senordevnyc · 2026-03-27T00:55:54 1774572954

“People who disagree with me are sociopaths” doesn’t have the persuasive power you seem to imagine.

mcmcmc · 2026-03-27T01:17:55 1774574275

Strawmen aren’t particularly persuasive either. If I said “people who think murder is okay are sociopaths” would you have a problem?

skyyler · 2026-03-27T03:15:00 1774581300

Murder is definitionally killing that isn't okay. That makes your statement a bit strange, from a logical standpoint.

There are people that think killing is okay, you're almost definitely one of them. It's just, there's a very specific set of contexts where killing is considered okay. For example, a police sniper taking out an active shooter at a sports event would probably be nearly universally considered a justified killing. It isn't murder because there are reasons it's ok for the killing to have been done.

Just an interesting thing to think about. Using murder for examples like this is a bit loaded.

defrost · 2026-03-27T03:22:22 1774581742

Murder is definitionally intentional killing that isn't okay.

Intent and justification both matter in common law; manslaughter covers killing that isn't okay that lacks intent to kill, and that often comes in degrees of severity.