Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

The New United States wrote:I'm not sure he's any less qualified than any of the other candidates. As Rubio said, if we're voting based on the length of one's political resume, then Hillary Clinton would be the best candidate. We need to vote based on the candidates' principles, not on how much better Governors are as executives than Senators or brain surgeons.

Cruz has definitely come to be my #1 choice.

I think the Cruz issue will be interesting.

He was born in Canada, and naturalized, not natural. Harvard Law says he's eligible. Yale Law says he's not. There is no legal precedence on the matter. Interesting indeed.

Humpheria wrote:I think the Cruz issue will be interesting.

He was born in Canada, and naturalized, not natural. Harvard Law says he's eligible. Yale Law says he's not. There is no legal precedence on the matter. Interesting indeed.

Apparently the KKK are against him becoming president so why bother discussing legalities when we've already got the definitive answer? lol

Rateria

Humpheria wrote:I think the Cruz issue will be interesting.

He was born in Canada, and naturalized, not natural. Harvard Law says he's eligible. Yale Law says he's not. There is no legal precedence on the matter. Interesting indeed.

He wasn't born with citizenship? Apparently I could be president as I was born with citizenship even though I was born in Quebec, unless that counts as being naturalized.

Cruz is a citizen. His,mom was born in the U.S.

Kings Island, Pevvania, The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, The Victorium Republic

Poptropia wrote:Cruz is a citizen. His,mom was born in the U.S.

Yes, a naturalized citizen. However, the Constitution states that it must be a natural born. The only exception is if he is of entirely American descent (both parents are US Citizens). Cruz's father was Cuban. That is where the civil dispute lies. Harvard and many other institutions says he's good. Yale and many other institutions says he isn't. There is no legal precedence so far.

Rateria

I have to say, I wouldn't vote for Carson but I really like him as a person. He seems to genuinely care about this country.

Rateria, Reaganomic Nws

How on earth did Christie get enough support to appear in the debate? He's absolutely dire.

Tyrinth, Pevvania

[quote=pevvania;13189401]

Not true. He has supported lower defense spending in every one of his budgets, and supported an amendment that would have offset increases in military spending with cuts to domestic spending, assuming that the military spending amendment would pass.[/quote]

Offset or not, it's glaringly unlibertarian to propose a 16% infusion to the military budget that already eats up as much as social security does, and I don't see how a domestic cut of what...what is 16% of already 20% of the budget? An extra 3-4%? Is this really necessary? He better be cutting SS for this increase, but regardless cutting one bad service to boost another is NOT libertarian.[/quote]

[quote=pevvania;13189401]I wouldn't call this accurate. He's hinted at it to throw the neo-cons a bone, but he's largely applauded his actions. Make no mistake - a Paul Administration would make things easy for Snowden, and maybe even pardon him if it was politically viable.[/quote]

Unfortunately I do not trust politicians - even "libertarianish" ones, as much as you Pev. What is called the "New England school." Emerson. The idea that our representatives should be the most rigorously scrutinized in order for a democratic society to work. We do not need anymore Anthony Wieners or Rob Fords.

[quote=pevvania;13189401]His concrete political position is perfectly libertarian. He didn't throw the type of fit every other Republican did (except for good ol' Thomas Massie and Justin Amash), and wrote a TIME article about how marriage should be privatised, which is the real libertarian position on the issue.[/quote]

So why did he vote yes to this?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_10-CC-q3.htm

What sort of libertarian says "leave it to the states," and then supports a Federal ban? I knew Ron Paul had this problem, but Rand is worse.

The only correct answer is to legalize gay marriage by privatizing it fully while supporting any legislation that gives the same privileges to already married couples in the meantime, and not "leaving it to the states" which is a great cop out answer and ignores the elephant in the room (that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, and therefore allowing the states to break the constitution is a no-no.)

[quote=pevvania;13189401]He has said, point-blank to Bill Maher, that he is "absolutely committed to ending the War on Drugs".[/quote]

Source plz

[quote=pevvania;13189401]Rand Paul is definitely a libertarian, and disguises himself as a libertarian-leaning conservative to appeal to a wider base and actually get libertarian policies put in action. And putting Rand Paul into the White House puts Ron Paul into the White House. I suppose by your rigid definition of libertarianism, Rand Paul belongs in the Democratic Party for supporting a 14% flat tax instead of a 0% flat tax?[/quote]

I don't know how you can believe this, Pev. The GOP has got you hooked, line and sinker. The elephant in the room - which is the hypocrisy of both parties, the neocon dominated and favored structure, and the continued breaking of the law (all laws, moral, legal, whatever) by the party in the government that has flat out been responsible for 50% of the current problems and 90% of all our problems involving both domestic and foreign sectors. Unsurprisingly, Rand Paul has only a measly 6% support.

Rateria

Wovenland wrote:How on earth did Christie get enough support to appear in the debate? He's absolutely dire.

Christie might be the most statist candidate.

Post self-deleted by Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes.

The New United States wrote:I'm not sure he's any less qualified than any of the other candidates. As Rubio said, if we're voting based on the length of one's political resume, then Hillary Clinton would be the best candidate. We need to vote based on the candidates' principles, not on how much better Governors are as executives than Senators or brain surgeons.

Cruz has definitely come to be my #1 choice.

Haha, you're kidding, right?

Republic Of Minerva, Muh Roads

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Haha, you're kidding, right?

I didn't intend to for that to be humorous, no.

> spends over 30 minutes typing out ideas into a decently long RMB post

> Clicks "Lodge Message," then clicks on nation's page

> Realizes internet has been out for who knows how long

> Entire post is gone

Yay.

Muh Roads

Why should the state not be involved in regulating marriage and, thus, the composition of the family unit? I'm not necessarily asking why the government shouldn't deny certain parties access to the institution of marriage, but why should the state not be involved in marriage at all?

The New United States wrote:Why should the state not be involved in regulating marriage and, thus, the composition of the family unit? I'm not necessarily asking why the government shouldn't deny certain parties access to the institution of marriage, but why should the state not be involved in marriage at all?

Personally, my reasoning is that, as far as America is concerned, they don't have that right.

The Constitution did not give the state the right to govern marriage, and therefore they do not have it.

The New United States wrote:Why should the state not be involved in regulating marriage and, thus, the composition of the family unit? I'm not necessarily asking why the government shouldn't deny certain parties access to the institution of marriage, but why should the state not be involved in marriage at all?

Because no form of government whether it be local state or federal should dictiate what marriage is

Miencraft wrote:Personally, my reasoning is that, as far as America is concerned, they don't have that right.

The Constitution did not give the state the right to govern marriage, and therefore they do not have it.

I should probably clarify that by "state" I mean the entity that possesses a monopoly on the use of force within a specified geographical area, not as in a province-ish kind of way.

Also, I intended to ask in a way that would elicit more philosophical answers, rather than legal answers - sorry about the confusion.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Because no form of government whether it be local state or federal should dictiate what marriage is

Well, my question pertains to why "no form of government... should dictate what marriage is."

Ransomed Individuals is TNUS, by the way.

Ransomed Individuals wrote:I should probably clarify that by "state" I mean the entity that possesses a monopoly on the use of force within a specified geographical area, not as in a province-ish kind of way.

Also, I intended to ask in a way that would elicit more philosophical answers, rather than legal answers - sorry about the confusion.

He knows what state means.

Humpheria wrote:He knows what state means.
I never doubted that he knew what a "state"was, but it was impressed upon me that he was talking about a state as in a unit of the United States ("as far as America is concerned, they do not have that right... they do not have it"), rather than the concept of the state which I was speaking of.

The New United States wrote:I never doubted that he knew what a "state"was, but it was impressed upon me that he was talking about a state as in a unit of the United States ("as far as America is concerned, they do not have that right... they do not have it"), rather than the concept of the state which I was speaking of.

No, I was referring to the entire government.

Wouldn't make much sense if I were referring to the states (which I would indicate with the plural), as the Tenth Amendment would explicitly grant them any right the federal government doesn't have.

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:No, I was referring to the entire government.

Wouldn't make much sense if I were referring to the states (which I would indicate with the plural), as the Tenth Amendment would explicitly grant them any right the federal government doesn't have.

I suppose I was confused by the use of the plural "they." My apologies for the misunderstanding.

The New United States wrote:I suppose I was confused by the use of the plural "they." My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Yeah, I tend to use "they" instead of "it" as my go-to third-person pronoun.

Dunno why, just ended up like that.

Miencraft wrote:Yeah, I tend to use "they" instead of "it" as my go-to third-person pronoun.

Dunno why, just ended up like that.

That was my fault for reading "they" as "the states," instead of as "the government." I don't know why it didn't occur to me that that was what you were saying. Doh!

Sorry again!

The New United States wrote:That was my fault for reading "they" as "the states," instead of as "the government." I don't know why it didn't occur to me that that was what you were saying. Doh!

Sorry again!

That was more of me trying to indicate that there's no need for apologies, but whatever.

Miencraft wrote:That was more of me trying to indicate that there's no need for apologies, but whatever.

That was me rejecting that indication and apologizing again.

The New United States wrote:That was me rejecting that indication and apologizing again.

I can see we shall get nowhere with this, then.

But you know what we can all agree on?

Food is good.

The New United States, Rateria

Do you two need marital counseling?

Tyrinth, The New United States, Rateria, Reaganomic Nws

Humpheria wrote:Do you two need marital counseling?

I'd think you'd need it more, seeing as how you're married to half the active people here and you forgot all about it.

The New United States, Rateria, Condealism, The Victorium Republic

Miencraft wrote:I'd think you'd need it more, seeing as how you're married to half the active people here and you forgot all about it.

It's true, Humphy-bear. The flame has died. All that's keeping us together is Roadism.

Miencraft, Rateria, The Victorium Republic

Condealism wrote:It's true, Humphy-bear. The flame has died. All that's keeping us together is Roadism.

Perhaps a visit to the Vice Presidential Retreat can do a little something something.

Rateria

Humpheria wrote:Perhaps a visit to the Vice Presidential Retreat can do a little something something.

Just as long as you don't ask me to run for office after we're done.

Or before. Or especially during.

Rateria

Condealism wrote:Just as long as you don't ask me to run for office after we're done.

Or before. Or especially during.

Mais, c'est romance!

Rateria

Humpheria wrote:Perhaps a visit to the Vice Presidential Retreat can do a little something something.

The same goes to all of my forgotten spouses.

Miencraft, Right-Winged Nation, Rateria

Humpheria wrote:The same goes to all of my forgotten spouses.

I was never forgotten though, right? Right?

Rateria

The New United States wrote:I didn't intend to for that to be humorous, no.

Well I guess dry humor is pretty popular nowadays, good joke, I hope, good lord Cruz is terrible.

Turkic Union's request will be turned down. They align themselves with fascists.

Tyrinth, The Victorium Republic

Muh Roads wrote:Turkic Union's request will be turned down. They align themselves with fascists.

So do these regions you already have embassies with:

[list][*][region=Right to Life], [region=Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region], [region=The Americas], [region=The Illuminati], and [region=Benevolent Capitalism] (all of which have an embassy with [region=Union of Nationalists], Bronze-level member of [region=Third Rome])

[*][region=Laissez Faireholm] (embassy with [region=Zarathustra], Bronze-level member of Third Rome)

[*]The Illuminati (again! this time for an embassy with [region=The Union of National Socialists], an Observer to Third Rome, and with [region=THE REICHSWEHR HEADQUARTERS], a region whose founder posted to the GGR/NE/other RMBs that "Jewish Bolsheviks" were attacking when TRF tagged them).[/list]

Guess what, if I went to the Internationale, I could find fascist or other undesirable embassies too if I click on enough links.

CISS has an embassy with the Doctor Who Universe who has an embassy with The New Confederate States of America

Ohshit comrade I can see your reactionary tendencies already. Better close down that embassy.

Reaganomic Nws

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Guess what, if I went to the Internationale, I could find fascist or other undesirable embassies too if I click on enough links.

CISS has an embassy with the Doctor Who Universe who has an embassy with The New Confederate States of America

Ohshit comrade I can see your reactionary tendencies already. Better close down that embassy.

yup, you got me.

you guys having embassies with regions that align with actual members of the re-branding of Right Wing Uprising, the failed Nazi/Fash alliance, is exactly the same thing as TI having embassies with regions that have embassies with regions that have embassies with a confederate region.

here's the diagram so you have a better chance of understanding. maybe you're a visual learner I dunno "<=>" represents an embassy.:

Libertatem <=> the regions I listed <=> Fascist regions that are active in Fascist gameplay

(that's two degrees of fascism)

The Internationale <=> our embassies <=> the regions they have embassies with <=> i dunno some kinda confederate region I guess???

(that's, uh... sure something)

The Misleyan Diplomatic Mission wrote:yup, you got me.

you guys having embassies with regions that align with actual members of the re-branding of Right Wing Uprising, the failed Nazi/Fash alliance, is exactly the same thing as TI having embassies with regions that have embassies with regions that have embassies with a confederate region.

here's the diagram so you have a better chance of understanding. maybe you're a visual learner I dunno "<=>" represents an embassy.:

Libertatem <=> the regions I listed <=> Fascist regions that are active in Fascist gameplay

(that's two degrees of fascism)

The Internationale <=> our embassies <=> the regions they have embassies with <=> i dunno some kinda confederate region I guess???

(that's, uh... sure something)

You do realize you're making us a big favor by reminding us that we have undesirable embassies? I'm actually thanking you for that and I hope we do something about these embarrassing embassies soon. But then again, you reds ARE essentially fascists so it's kind of hypocritical of you to criticize us for allegedly allying ourselves with fascists, But whatever, thanks. :)

i mean you could trawl through TI's embassies and try to find something (we don't have any second-degree connections like you do) if you really want to have a hootin' and hollerin' sunday night

or you could use diplomatic pressure on your allies to stop aligning with fascists, and if they choose not to, close embassies. you know, to be consistent.

or if you don't want to do that (and I'm assuming y'all are gonna opt for this one) you'll puke up some very thoughtful posts about TI's embassies for a while (we're totally the hypocrites!!!) and then go right back to being eskimo brothers with the fash while making sure you reject embassy requests from regions that are just a little too obvious about their fash connections like Turkic Union. it's a lot easier to trawl through our embassies than to address your own regional problem of "Being Way Too Close To Fascists For A Supposedly 'Anti-Fascist' Region." but to do that you'd actually have to have anti-fascist principles, which I know this region is sorely lacking.

Reaganomic Nws wrote:You do realize you're making us a big favor by reminding us that we have undesirable embassies? I'm actually thanking you for that and I hope we do something about these embarrassing embassies soon.

yes, I do.

i'm assuming nothing will be done about them, and in doing so (and posting about it) you have a catch-22: admit that you have a lot of second-degree fash connections and do something about it, or ignore it and prove me right

Reaganomic Nws wrote:But then again, you reds ARE essentially fascists so it's kind of hypocritical of you to criticize us for allegedly allying ourselves with fascists, But whatever, thanks. :)

aw, you tried. :) :) :)

The Misleyan Diplomatic Mission wrote:yes, I do.

i'm assuming nothing will be done about them, and in doing so (and posting about it) you have a catch-22: admit that you have a lot of second-degree fash connections and do something about it, or ignore it and prove me right

aw, you tried. :) :) :)

Why do you call them the "fash?" It sounds ridiculous.

Though the mental image it forces of you is somewhat amusing.

Kings Island

it's antifascist slang. good for rhyming purposes. "bash the fash!" is a better catchphrase than "bascists the fascists"

Rateria

The Misleyan Diplomatic Mission wrote:it's antifascist slang. good for rhyming purposes. "bash the fash!" is a better catchphrase than "bascists the fascists"

Yea, I actually like the word "Fash" even though it's mainly used by communists.

It just points out the whole ridiculousness of the thing. Half of the embassies (or most, should i say) that we have do not even participate in the R/D game, and therefore it is irrelevant of what embassies they hold. We hold embassies with say, CLFR because they are good friends. Otherwise, who are we to tell them who to hold embassies with? You can't be libertarian and then tell someone else what to do.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:It just points out the whole ridiculousness of the thing. Half of the embassies (or most, should i say) that we have do not even participate in the R/D game, and therefore it is irrelevant of what embassies they hold. We hold embassies with say, CLFR because they are good friends. Otherwise, who are we to tell them who to hold embassies with? You can't be libertarian and then tell someone else what to do.

then what's the point of rejecting Turkic Union's embassy request? they're just as connected to the fash as several of your allies.

and thank you for proving me right re: the "who cares!!! do nothing about our friends who are also friends with the fash!" assumption

The Misleyan Diplomatic Mission wrote:then what's the point of rejecting Turkic Union's embassy request? they're just as connected to the fash as several of your allies.

and thank you for proving me right re: the "who cares!!! do nothing about our friends who are also friends with the fash!" assumption

Don't ask me. I am not the president.

"who are also friends with the fash"

Substantial claim. I'd like to see you prove that CLFR or LFH or whatever are secretly holding meetings with fascists and glorifying the 3rd Reich. I'm pretty sure any actual fascist would be cut down as quickly as Quayle was.

Rateria

The Misleyan Diplomatic Mission wrote:then what's the point of rejecting Turkic Union's embassy request? they're just as connected to the fash as several of your allies.

and thank you for proving me right re: the "who cares!!! do nothing about our friends who are also friends with the fash!" assumption

Please, stop mistaking one man's opinion for that of the region's as a whole.

I don't owe you an explanation for my actions.

Rateria

Also happy 100 days presidency to me.

Tyrinth, Kings Island, Rateria

Muh Roads wrote:I don't owe you an explanation for my actions.

is this your way of admitting that you're not going to do anything about your fash-friend-having friends? because l o l

The Misleyan Diplomatic Mission wrote:is this your way of admitting that you're not going to do anything about your fash-friend-having friends? because l o l

If that's how you perceive it then so be it.

L O L would be me actually taking opinions from an tyrannical authoritarian communist like yourself to heart.

Rateria

Anyone know how to pronounce the Slovak word for "neck?"

Because I am having a difficult time doing so.

Turkic Union: embassy rejected because they align themselves with fascists

Right to Life, Capitalist Libertarian Freedom Region, The Americas, The Illuminati, Benevolent Capitalism, Laissez Faireholm: embassies allowed even though they align themselves with fascists in literally the exact same way as Turkic Union

in a recent development, Muh Roads declares water is dry; 2+2=5. Libertatem residents ignore the cognitive dissonance of it all and shortly thereafter return to debating which candidate for President of the United States will privatize the office first

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Anyone know how to pronounce the Slovak word for "neck?"

Because I am having a difficult time doing so.

It's obviously krk, man, they even spelled it phonetically.

I love how every few weeks like clockwork a red will show up saying the exact same thing, making the mistake that literally any of us care.

Miencraft, Kings Island, Rateria, Condealism

Humpheria wrote:I love how every few weeks like clockwork a red will show up saying the exact same thing, making the mistake that literally any of us care.

Y'know, I heard they came out with this new kind of bacon that has, like, extra bacon flavor to it.

It's supposed to be the baconest thing any bacon connoisseur has ever had the pleasure of calling bacon.

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:It's obviously krk, man, they even spelled it phonetically.

no vowels. Kkkkrrrrkkkk? That's a sound some lizard makes when it's scared.

Well I guess we got "rhythm" but that phonetically has a vowel.

Rateria

Humpheria wrote:I love how every few weeks like clockwork a red will show up saying the exact same thing, making the mistake that literally any of us care.

What, the whole degrees of separation thing?

Avoiding relations with regions who have relations with (regions who have relations with) fascists might not matter much to a melting pot like us, but for communists, it's different: They're opposed to inbreeding.

Kings Island, Rateria

Best stagnation happens when you are unchallenged in your views.

It's why they act so tough online, but offline don't have much more than a molecule of support. Also, all of them are infighting like it's going out of style. Just count how many communist or socialist parties the US has alone, compared to the single all-inclusive Libertarian Party, as well as a faction within the Repubs.

Miencraft, Muh Roads, Rateria, Condealism

I'm happy that we found a good friend in the Conservative League. Hopefully we can become fast allies.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Anyone know how to pronounce the Slovak word for "neck?"

Because I am having a difficult time doing so.

Why have vowels when you can have none?

Miencraft

Miencraft wrote:It's obviously krk, man, they even spelled it phonetically.

"Kah errrkk" lol

Rateria

The Misleyan Diplomatic Mission wrote:

2+2=5.

I thought that was the communist manifesto on economics.

Kings Island, Rateria

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

2+2=

To be a good useful stooge, one must leave it unanswered.

I am sure Winston Smith would eventually agree.

Muh Roads

The New United States wrote:Why should the state not be involved in regulating marriage and, thus, the composition of the family unit? I'm not necessarily asking why the government shouldn't deny certain parties access to the institution of marriage, but why should the state not be involved in marriage at all?
Ransomed Individuals wrote:philosophical answers, rather than legal

Do you really need the state to be involved in your love life? What benefit could this possibly provide?

Reaganomic Nws

The New United States wrote:

Legally, it is established in the precedence of our common law system that the choices and habits of an individual, as long as they do not adversely affect other people, are not subject to legislation or rulings by the state.

Further the constitutional argument could be made. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Reaganomic Nws

The Misleyan Diplomatic Mission wrote:2+2=5

There is actually a way to get that to happen.

It's not a new thing, people have known how to make 2 + 2 = 5 for quite a while.

Miencraft wrote:There is actually a way to get that to happen.

It's not a new thing, people have known how to make 2 + 2 = 5 for quite a while.

I thought 2 + 2 = 11.

Either I fail math forever or I used base 3 to come to that conclusion.

Condealism wrote:I thought 2 + 2 = 11.

Either I fail math forever or I used base 3 to come to that conclusion.

Fun fact: if you cheat at math you can do anything.

Miencraft wrote:There is actually a way to get that to happen.

It's not a new thing, people have known how to make 2 + 2 = 5 for quite a while.

Actually, I believe all methods claiming to be true have been proven wrong. Then again I could be incorrect myself.

Wovenland wrote:Actually, I believe all methods claiming to be true have been proven wrong. Then again I could be incorrect myself.

I was waiting for him to ask how that's possible then I'd say some convoluted thing about how those 2s are really 2.5 but someone decided that the decimals are somehow invisible, thus rendering the solution 5.

Rateria

Miencraft wrote:I was waiting for him to ask how that's possible then I'd say some convoluted thing about how those 2s are really 2.5 but someone decided that the decimals are somehow invisible, thus rendering the solution 5.

To be fair, that isn't the method I've heard of before but it still sounds kind of wrong as in maths '2 is an even number' is one of I believe three fundamental principles in proving. As 'even' or 'odd' can only apply to integers, I don't think whether or not the second half of the claim even needs to be discussed.

Wovenland wrote:To be fair, that isn't the method I've heard of before but it still sounds kind of wrong as in maths '2 is an even number' is one of I believe three fundamental principles in proving. As 'even' or 'odd' can only apply to integers, I don't think whether or not the second half of the claim even needs to be discussed.

Miencraft wrote:Fun fact: if you cheat at math you can do anything.

Miencraft wrote:

As someone who likes maths this annoys me but deep down inside, I know it's true. To be fair though, as long as you haven't proven it, and it's been rigorously checked by multiple people, it won't be accepted by a mathematician; that doesn't stop non-mathematicians from spouting it as truth though.

Miencraft wrote:I was waiting for him to ask how that's possible then I'd say some convoluted thing about how those 2s are really 2.5 but someone decided that the decimals are somehow invisible, thus rendering the solution 5.

Indeed. Using simple rounding techniques, you could take any value greater than or equal to 2.25 and less than 2.5, add it to another value greater than or equal to 2.25 and less than 2.5, and get a result greater than or equal to 4.5 and less than 5 - by rounding to the nearest integer, it would appear that 2 + 2 = 5.

(The reason the first two values have to be less than 2.5 is because that's when the nearest integer is considered to be 3 rather than 2.)

...Which means one could say that 3 + 3 (both rounded from 2.5) is equal to exactly 5. That's headache-inducing.

Miencraft

Communists comebacks,

Inducing Libertarians to have math related discussions since 1984

Kings Island, Muh Roads, Rateria, Condealism

The Aradites wrote:Communists comebacks,

Inducing Libertarians to have math related discussions since 1984

I see what you did there

Rateria

Condealism wrote:Indeed. Using simple rounding techniques, you could take any value greater than or equal to 2.25 and less than 2.5, add it to another value greater than or equal to 2.25 and less than 2.5, and get a result greater than or equal to 4.5 and less than 5 - by rounding to the nearest integer, it would appear that 2 + 2 = 5.

(The reason the first two values have to be less than 2.5 is because that's when the nearest integer is considered to be 3 rather than 2.)

Hmm, I'd like to see an in depth explanation of the rounding. I'm not sold because as I mentioned before, 2 has to be an even number and if it is <2.5 but ≥2.25 it is no longer an integer and thus not an even number.

Sounds like I broke the RMB.

Rateria

Presidential elections are the end of this month right?

Muh Roads wrote:Presidential elections are the end of this month right?

Yessir.

Wovenland wrote:Hmm, I'd like to see an in depth explanation of the rounding. I'm not sold because as I mentioned before, 2 has to be an even number and if it is <2.5 but ≥2.25 it is no longer an integer and thus not an even number.

"Even" and "odd" are scarcely relevant descriptors. Sure, they have their uses in integral calculation (multiples of 2 are always even, all prime numbers other than 2 are odd, an odd number multiplied by an odd number will always yield an odd number, etc.), but that's as far as their relevance extends. Mathematicians don't even consider zero to be an even number (even though it follows the pattern), and the jury's still out on whether those descriptors apply to negative integers (I think they do, but that's beside the point).

Rounding is basically a form of approximation, due to the fact that decimal values can carry on forever (or that fractions can become needlessly convoluted). When rounding to the nearest integer, for instance, one could consider 1.5, 1.999, 2.001, and 2.499 to be the (near) equivalent of integer 2. (That is true regardless of whether or not you consider 2 to be an even number, which it is when it's an integer.)

Though, technically, the equation (2.250 to 2.499) + (2.250 to 2.499) = (4.5 to 4.998) would be an improper use of rounding. Either the values would have to be rounded before the equation is finished (2 + 2 = 4) or they would have to be amended after (2 + 3 = 5).

Rateria

Is anyone else running?

Humpheria wrote:Legally, it is established in the precedence of our common law system that the choices and habits of an individual, as long as they do not adversely affect other people, are not subject to legislation or rulings by the state.

Further the constitutional argument could be made. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Muh Roads wrote:Do you really need the state to be involved in your love life? What benefit could this possibly provide?
I'll provide a response when I get home from work, after several hours.

Muh Roads wrote:Is anyone else running?

I don't think so.

Condealism wrote:"Even" and "odd" are scarcely relevant descriptors. Sure, they have their uses in integral calculation (multiples of 2 are always even, all prime numbers other than 2 are odd, an odd number multiplied by an odd number will always yield an odd number, etc.), but that's as far as their relevance extends. Mathematicians don't even consider zero to be an even number (even though it follows the pattern), and the jury's still out on whether those descriptors apply to negative integers (I think they do, but that's beside the point).

Rounding is basically a form of approximation, due to the fact that decimal values can carry on forever (or that fractions can become needlessly convoluted). When rounding to the nearest integer, for instance, one could consider 1.5, 1.999, 2.001, and 2.499 to be the (near) equivalent of integer 2. (That is true regardless of whether or not you consider 2 to be an even number, which it is when it's an integer.)

Though, technically, the equation (2.250 to 2.499) + (2.250 to 2.499) = (4.5 to 4.998) would be an improper use of rounding. Either the values would have to be rounded before the equation is finished (2 + 2 = 4) or they would have to be amended after (2 + 3 = 5).

Whilst 'odd' and 'even' may well be scarcely relevant descriptors what you are claiming in saying that 2=2.25-2.5 (or any decimal or odd number for that matter) is that 2 is not an even number. This is one of the fundamental facts of mathematical proof and thus is always correct when referred to in proof, no matter how often or not is needed to be used. You may be right with zero not being an even number but this coincidentally has zero impact on whether the statement 2+2=5 is correct. If a full mathematical proof was given, your point could hold more water but then again the only other proof I've seen for this statement also fell down on a rather basic level.

Now this feminist I can get behind. *wink*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Presley

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Now this feminist I can get behind. *wink*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Presley

Same

What does that even mean? Libertarian feminist lol

Right-Winged Nation wrote:What does that even mean? Libertarian feminist lol

Seems like those two are just a little mutually exclusive.

Wovenland wrote:Whilst 'odd' and 'even' may well be scarcely relevant descriptors what you are claiming in saying that 2=2.25-2.5 (or any decimal or odd number for that matter) is that 2 is not an even number. This is one of the fundamental facts of mathematical proof and thus is always correct when referred to in proof, no matter how often or not is needed to be used. You may be right with zero not being an even number but this coincidentally has zero impact on whether the statement 2+2=5 is correct. If a full mathematical proof was given, your point could hold more water but then again the only other proof I've seen for this statement also fell down on a rather basic level.

By that logic, rounding isn't a thing.

WTF? 2 itself + 2 itself doesn't equal 5, it never will lol

2 ROUNDED to 2.5 + another 2 AGAIN ROUNDED to 2.5 = 5

Rateria

Muh Roads wrote:Do you really need the state to be involved in your love life? What benefit could this possibly provide?

It's not at all an intrusion into one's love life. As far as I'm concerned, individuals should be able to (and have a natural right to) freely and voluntarily associate with whomever they please, so long as it is mutually voluntary. The state should not have the right to tell individuals who they are to love, nor the right to dictate what two consenting individuals do with their God-given free agency.

The family unit, and therefore the lawful marital union from which it is born, however, does not constitute a free and voluntary association of individuals. The family unit is innately involuntary; the child has no say in who his parents are, nor the manner in which his parents/guardians treat him (so long as that manner does not constitute neglect or physical/mental abuse). The child-parent relationship is involuntary, at the most fundamental level. The parent (unless you subscribe to the Marxist religion) has a natural right to act as sovereign over the life of the child, while also being held to account for that child's well-being.

This relationship is unique from all others; the parent-child relationship very clearly goes against the NAP, in that the individual that is the parent/guardian is recognized as that child's natural authority, a sovereign exercising the ability to restrict the rights to liberty and property of another individual, the child. The parental authority is one that is sacred, and it is indeed on that is coercive, yet it is one that is undeniable, and one that is of the most fundamental importance to human development.

Recognizing the sacred station of the parent, and the rights that accompany that station, we should also seek to identify those rights unique to the persons who occupy that lower station in this irrefutably involuntary relationship, the child. What rights do children innately possess? Do they have a right to life? Of course. To liberty and property? Those rights are exchanged for other rights that must be provided for by the child's parents, such as sustenance and shelter. It is difficult, however, to clearly define those rights unique to children, due to the fact that children's rights are unique from those of the individual. Where do the rights of the child end? I've been having a hard time grappling with this question in recent weeks.

Marriage is the institution by which children are reared, by which the family unit is born. Demolishing this institution and removing all state recognition for it simply disregards the natural rights of the child, the individual that is at the mercy of his caregivers. The state has a responsibility to protect the rights of the child, to regulate this involuntary association of individuals.

The family does not constitute a voluntary association of individuals, and there are specific responsibilities that should come with entering a marital union from which a family is supposed to be born.

(May have ended up rattling and not presenting thoughts well or actually rebutting what was said; it's 1000pm and a work day! Sorry!)

Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism, Reaganomic Nws

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.