FBI seizes ‘Silk Road' black market domain, arrests founder - Polidicks

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;42400161]And yes I completely support that Sheriff's actions. Though I would not say he has the ability to do that. Technically, even though this is an extremely common practice, police aren't allowed to cherry pick which laws to enforce.[/QUOTE] How about an extremely conservative sheriff who refuses to investigate hate crimes against gays? How about the NSA deciding they're not going to enforce or respect privacy laws? Is that A-OK with you? If you draw the line at 'things that match my personal beliefs', you're not using any kind of objective standard and you're being unreasonable if you expect everyone else to conform to your beliefs about particular laws. It's all or nothing, either you give federal agencies the right to cherrypick laws as they see fit, or you require them to enforce the law as written. Anything else is a subjective opinion that no two people will ever agree on.

Ironclad law systems work on paper, not in practice. Saying "you must follow every law like the holy canon" simply isn't a practical, cops don't do it, people don't do it. Hatecrimes against gays are unambiguously bad so that's an unreasonable example. There's no grey area, only bad or insane people would think such a thing is acceptable and such people shoudln't be police in the first place.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42400237]How about an extremely conservative sheriff who refuses to investigate hate crimes against gays? How about the NSA deciding they're not going to enforce or respect privacy laws? Is that A-OK with you? If you draw the line at 'things that match my personal beliefs', you're not using any kind of objective standard and you're being unreasonable if you expect everyone else to conform to your beliefs about particular laws. It's all or nothing, either you give federal agencies the right to cherrypick laws as they see fit, or you require them to enforce the law as written. Anything else is a subjective opinion that no two people will ever agree on.[/QUOTE] why are you still going on about this personal disagreement bullshit? i told you this before. the drug war is a failure and that's why it shouldn't be enforced. this is an objective fact. it has failed to reduce the supply of drugs and it has failed to stop people from using. personal opinion has literally NOTHING to do with it. also nice false dichotomy. those are far from the only two options to give law enforcement. what logical fallacy will you use next?

[QUOTE=catbarf;42400237]How about an extremely conservative sheriff who refuses to investigate hate crimes against gays? How about the NSA deciding they're not going to enforce or respect privacy laws? Is that A-OK with you? If you draw the line at 'things that match my personal beliefs', you're not using any kind of objective standard and you're being unreasonable if you expect everyone else to conform to your beliefs about particular laws. It's all or nothing, either you give federal agencies the right to cherrypick laws as they see fit, or you require them to enforce the law as written. Anything else is a subjective opinion that no two people will ever agree on.[/QUOTE] Nevermind, SgtCrazyguns or whatever summed it up better than I could with this rambling mess of a post. -snip-

[QUOTE=KorJax;42394177]Too bad LTC is pretty much tied to BTC. The good thing in all of this is that nows a good time to invest into btc/ltc because this whole snafu made the market hit its lowest lows in months, though its already recovered a lot from the sell-off (not to where it was before, it'll be a bit before it gets up there again):[/QUOTE] There will never be a good time to buy bitcoin

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42400869]the drug war is a failure and that's why it shouldn't be enforced.[/QUOTE] Obviously Congress and the FBI disagree.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42400869]why are you still going on about this personal disagreement bullshit? i told you this before. the drug war is a failure and that's why it shouldn't be enforced. this is an objective fact. it has failed to reduce the supply of drugs and it has failed to stop people from using. personal opinion has literally NOTHING to do with it.[/QUOTE] People have said [I]and continue to say[/I] the exact same thing about gun control and socialized medicine. And what do you know, apparently the FBI and Congress disagree with your assessment of the drug war. The only difference between 'objective fact' and 'personal opinion with some studies behind it' on anything more contentious than a math problem is where you stand on the issue. People disagree about healthcare. People disagree about guns. People disagree about the economy, about politics, about immigration, about every topic under the sun. And yes, they disagree about drugs. At this point anyone with a basic understanding of debate should realize that 'policy should match my beliefs because my beliefs are fact' is useless on any topic with less than total unanimity of opinion. The entire point of a codified legal system is to remove personal bias, opinion, or contention from the application of justice. If police can selectively enforce according to their own beliefs, it ruins the standards of justice that we have depended on for longer than this country has existed. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42400869]also nice false dichotomy. those are far from the only two options to give law enforcement. what logical fallacy will you use next?[/QUOTE] If you actually read my post you would find that hey, I actually did account for other options. Reading is fun! Those other options are subjective enforcement with no objective or legal basis and cannot work when people start to disagree on the subject, and grant excessive and unintended powers to law enforcement that were never intended within our legal system. What you might call 'an objective fact' is what other people might call an opinion. Maybe I think gun ownership has objectively failed, and I can point to studies that 'prove' it. That doesn't mean police should have the right to confiscate guns as they see fit.

Well my favorite vendors have already jumped ship to Sheepmarket Online. Not to mention the possible streisand effect means the internet drug market might be more healthier than ever once all the dust has settled.

Now every retard will think tor is an insecure FBI honeypot because of the first pageful of posts, even though he was caught due to some stupid mistakes he did. Good job. edit: recap, he used his personal email in a surface web forum account which he then used to advertise silk road when it was first founded. Years later, an FBI agent came across his post and got his real name which was the first step towards putting him under surveillance. Tor isn't perfect but it sure as hell wont protect you if you're not using it. edit2: then he ordered a hit (which was carried out probably) on a blackmailer and fbi was like lel you're going in the slammer

was the hit thing real then or RT sensationalist speculation