Sidewalker

Aliens won't need to be told what to shoot at.

At this point, all whites are terrorists. Implicitly they are complicit.

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/ibram-x-kendi-the-very-heartbeat-of-racism-is-denial-470332/

I have a question for you:

What is an objectively true statement but a statement which is true by definition?

Also, you continue to insist that because the definitions are not fully and universally agreed upon, that makes these results not "100% certain." When I claim that 1 + 1 = 2, I am making a claim about my definitions of 1 and 2, no more, no less. If someone else disagrees on what those definitions should be, then they don't actually disagree with me on the statement that I am asserting, but rather, they disagree with me on whether what I call 1 and 2 should be called 1 and 2. Those are two different kinds of disagreement.

On what planet is that how the Internet works?

Did you like the video I linked to you?

Yeah, there are multiple ways to show this.

Your way is less formal and much easier to understand.

Let's denote x = 1.999... and multiply both sides of the equation by 10: (you can actually pick any number)

10x = 19.999...

Now, subtract x from both sides:10x - x = 19.999... - 1.999...9x = 18

Divide both sides by 9:x = 2

So, mathematically, we can conclude that 1.999... is equal to 2.

The statement you made contains several inaccuracies. BLDM isn't a real organization. Additionally, Spreading false information can hinder constructive dialogue. It's essential to verify facts before making claims that may negatively impact individuals or perpetuate baseless rumors. Considering the concept of projection—attributing negative motivations or actions to others such as Trump without evidence.... projection can cloud productive conversations and prevent a fair examination of different valid perspectives. It also leaves you vulnerable to misunderstandings about your own intentions and trustworthiness.  Instead, Let's focus on discussing verified information and engaging in respectful dialogue to foster a better understanding of the topics at hand. Constructive conversations rooted in facts and empathy can contribute to a more meaningful exchange of ideas.

“Generally accepted”, as opposed to “universal or absolute” acceptance, which is to say the definition is not accepted with100% certainty.

Definitions are arbitrary anyway, so I'm not sure why this is a point of contention. The point is that 1 + 1 = 2 is known with 100% certainty for the objects that most mathematicians use the symbols 1 and 2 to describe.

Yep, “Certainty in a formal system isa matter of definition”.   BTW, I’m 100% certain Sherlock Holmessmoked a pipe.

I'm not sure what your point is.

It took Russell and Whitehead 360pages to define and give meaning to the terms “1”, “+”, “=”, “2” and to lay thelogical foundation from which they could consider 1+1=2 to be proven.  They couldn’t have been more tedious, andwent off on a lot of tangents, apparently they themselves didn’t believe theywere there until page 362, I think most mathematicians think they hadn’t adequately defined "addition" yet, many believe it as actually took them 379 pages.   

Exactly. The proof that 1 + 1 = 2 was rather short, it's just that prior to that things like "1" and "2" weren't even defined yet.

Then ZFC and Godel came along andsquashed Logicism like a bug.

Did they? I'm not sure why there are so many misconceptions about Gödel's incompleteness theorem. All it says is that in any formal system F which contains basic arithmetic, there exists a statement A such that neither A nor its negation is a theorem in F. That's it. It doesn't mean that math is broken or anything like that. Math studies theorems and their proofs, most commonly within ZFC, but also within PA and other formal systems, and is in turn merely an extension of basic logic.

So...in your proof you considered the proof to already be inplace?

No. What?

Lol... what ever gave you the idea that I was a Republican?

But why the presumption that they were going to steal the funds from (mostly guilty white donors) in the first place? 

Reparations maybe?

Most people don't seem to think about consent in regards to childbirth, but it's quite a serious issue.

Everyone who was ever born did not give consent to be alive. 

The largest issue with this is that if someone has a miserable life, perhaps even ending up killing themselves and regretting the whole ordeal, that would not only be: 1) a bad life, but 2) one that was imposed upon them. There are many variations of bad lives, too: toddlers getting cancer and dying at the age of 4, double amputation required at the 7 leading to death, being abandoned by both parents and being bashed every day by adopted parents etc. In short, there are plenty of lives we can look at and say, 'that wouldn't be a desirable life to live at all', and this is made worse by the fact that this life was forced upon them without consent.

It's also ethically dubious to bring people into existence, even if their life ends up being great. The ethical problem is that a great life isn't guaranteed, whereas suffering is. So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consent, and winning the gamble. 

Even in it's simplest form, bringing people into existence is done without consent, so there is that issue, too.

I haven't ever seen a coherent, logically constructed argument that addresses this large ethical issue. I would love to read what people think.

You are the final word, I wont debate you on it. I've already debated it and been proven wrong using mathematical semantics. 1.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is not 2

Just one question is 1.899999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 the same as 1.9 since 1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is the same as 2?

Just as 1.888888888888888888 infinitely would be equal to 2

And? It's Congress that does this tactic, not a president.

Regardless of the letter next to the president, the country lost a lot over the 2011 downgrade, which Democrat Congress was 100% responsible for.

Obama wasn't responsible because he wasn't a member of Congress. 

2023, it's the Republican Congress that's responsible for presenting a bill.

There's no reason to excuse shit behavior because of glasses of water with a D next to the name in 2011.

The use of the debt ceiling as a negotiating tactic has been seen in instances involving Democratic politicians. In 2011, during President Obama's administration, there were debates and negotiations surrounding the debt ceiling. Some Democrats engaged in discussions and utilized the debt ceiling as leverage to push for their policy priorities, such as funding for certain programs or initiatives. This led to a contentious standoff between Democrats and Republicans, raising concerns about potential default on the U.S. government's obligations.

In 2013, during President Obama's second term, there was another episode of debt ceiling negotiations. Democrats were involved in these discussions and used the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to seek concessions or policy changes from their Republican counterparts. The debates surrounding the debt ceiling and its potential impact on the government's ability to meet financial obligations resulted in a temporary government shutdown.

2011 was particularly nasty as it resulted in a Moody's downgrade.

The definition I used is the one that is generally accepted by mathematicians.

For that matter, it doesn't really matter of the definitions are agreed upon, because that point is that 1 + 1 = 2 for the objects that I am using 1 and 2 to describe. Symbols and terminology are human constructs, but it is possible to prove things about the objects that they represent with 100% certainty.

In fact, every mathematical statement can be reduced to a tautology. Axioms are never thought of as objectively true, but rather the resulting theorems can be seen as combinations of those axioms. It is objectively true that 1 + 1 = 2 follows from the axioms of ZFC. Since 1 and 2 are defined within ZFC, this is what we mean by 1 + 1 = 2.

Bertrand Russell started the Mathematica Principia with a proof that 1+1=2, it took him 360 pages.

I'm afraid that that is a myth. He did not spend 360 pages proving 1 + 1 = 2, he proved 1 + 1 = 2 360 pages in. The pages prior to that built up the foundations of Principia Mathematica.

In my proof I considered those foundations to already be in place.

i didn't graduate with a degree in economics, but i was an honor's graduate who got an A in a graduate level economics class from a competitive university. 

Do not negotiate on the debt ceiling Joe!

I'll start things off with this simple little example:

1 is defined as s0. (sn means "the successor of n")

2 is defined as s1.

Addition is defined as follows:

a + 0 = a for any a by definition.

a + b for b > 0 is defined recursively by a + sb = s(a + b).

With definitions out of the way:

1 + 1 = 1 + s0 = s(1 + 0) = s1 = 2

Do you accept this proof as providing 100% certainty that 1 + 1 = 2? Why or why not?

if you're not a teenager, you have the mind of one. if you have a degree in economics, it's from a shit university or you barely scraped by. i didn't graduate with a degree in economics, but i was an honor's graduate who got an A in a graduate level economics class from a competitive university. 

you have too many incoherent and ignorant points to respond to.  you're a lost cause. 

you didn't answer how old you are. you must be close to being a teenager, or at least you have the thought process of a teenager. out of touch with reality. 

He is talking about how penalizing borrowed money will raise the interest rates as less money gets loaned out and banks have to cover the costs of business. While rich people can just then offshore and outsource their finances in a portable global economy, the poor people get saddled with ridiculous interest rates and also taxes on top of the already sky high mortgages that only channel money from the poor and middle class to the ultra-rich lenders.

And then you also get the knock on effect where there's no new construction cause nobody wants to get a local loan for new construction due to the risk of insolvency, and then high property prices get even higher. Rents go up. People get poor. Nobody wants to invest in new businesses for the same reason. Poor people lose their jobs.

It's the kind of policy people laugh at California for passing.

If you want to tax the rich, you really need to rethink the current unfair tax system.

how old are you? that's one of the stupidest most touch with reality posts i've ever seen on this site.

taxing rich people, i mean very rich... would hardly change anything at all other than increasing tax revenue. someone like jeff bezos doesnt barely pays taxes because he has stocks and no realized capital gains. if he actually had to pay a tax on the things he buys through loans, it's super small fries compared to his wealth. i mean, even if he spent a hundred million a year from loans, which is on the high side for a billionaire, he's still paying only maybe 40 million tax tops out of his 100 - 200 billion wealth. 

a consumption tax is in addition to a sales tax. it's an attempt to tax the rich people's wealth, indirectly. just taxing the sales tax amount is very weak and ineffective at drawing money from them. it's only directed at rich people, in my way of doing things. 

instead of selling their investments to pay for their spending, rich people instead borrow money at super low rates. this causes them to not have to pay much in taxes. they dont have to pay capital gains taxes if they dont realize capital gains by selling. that's a big way the rich get by without paying much in taxes. we shouldn't be allowing that loop hole. they should have to pay a high tax bracket rate on the money that they borrow. 

I am surprised the driver didn't scream "this is Maga country" to a crowd of Jussie Smolletts.

Ron DeSantis uses lingo like “declaring war on Woke Culture” because he’s a grifter. 

Whether he can or can’t beat Trump isn’t clear yet. Doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try.

1. 39% of the national debt was accumulated under Donald Trump, these games are meant to give the false impression that it's only Democratic Presidents that are the debt problem, they are not the problem.
   
2. This debt ceiling crisis, this threat to destroy the US economy and our trust among the world used to pressure a US President, this economic terrorism by our own government happens a lot.  Now think back to the last time a Democratic Congress used the tactic against a Republican President, and then recognize that it has never happened, ever.  This tactic is strictly a Republican tactic, never been used by Democrats, not even once.
   

u r probably right, that the base wants culture wars, but if there's any hope in beating trump, everyone else needs to hope an optimistic alternative message might work. we'll call it a hail mary play, like the football play.

trump is the king of culture warriors. he's the ultimate bully, he's an alpha male. folks like ron desantis shouldn't be trying to focus so much on trying out do trump on that turf, cause they'll lose every time. desantis, for example, got a lotta legislation passed, that doesn't have to do with the culture wars. he should focus on that... all these guys should be focusing more on concrete ways that they have improved people's lives, and to focus on their proposals for how they will continue to improve people's lives. 

the liberal in me thinks they dont focus on those kind of details, cause they are weak on the details that will improve people's lives. as is common these days, both sides of the political aisle wanna keep fighting culture wars instead of things that actually matter 

Behind closed doors in 2017, President Donald Trump discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea and suggested he could blame a U.S. strike against the communist regime on another country, according to a new section of a book that details key events of his administration.

Trump's alleged comments, reported for the first time in a new afterword to a book by New York Times Washington correspondent Michael Schmidt.

These white supremacists are dying out.  They try to hide in the Republican Party but they can never be as out in the open as they are on an anonymous forum. 

These people would never say this stuff to a black person's face

Do you think Black people, overall, are a boon to America? If so, how?

Do you think white supremacists, overall, are a boon to America? If so, how?

What exactly do whte supremacists contribute to society? 

What is the value of thier contribution?

3/10 pretty weak troll.

You're getting better, though.

Do you think Black people, overall, are a boon to America? If so, how?

Of that I am sure.  Lol

She wears the white sheet because it fits so well.

You wear tighty whities because mommy still buys them for you.

Of that I am sure.  Lol

If you are afraid then you are afraid

I'm not afraid of you. You sound very small.

You sound like a White supremacist. You're making arguments against a multiracial state.

Empirical evidence hasconsistently linked low intelligence with prejudice.

IsRacism Just a Form of Stupidity? – Association for Psychological Science – APS

Researchersestablish link between racism and stupidity - UCA News

LowIQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Live Science

You're actually making my case for me.

Part of the reason I don't think multiracial states work is because people are too stupid/tribal. It's these grug brain people, of all races, who prevent your magical multiracial states from existing in harmony.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot lolol.

This stupid response proves my point.

What's it like having your own argument and sources used against you? You must feel like a massive idiot for getting so easily outsmarted.

What a complete idiot you are hahahah

Empirical evidence hasconsistently linked low intelligence with prejudice.

IsRacism Just a Form of Stupidity? – Association for Psychological Science – APS

Researchersestablish link between racism and stupidity - UCA News

LowIQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Live Science

You're actually making my case for me.

Part of the reason I don't think multiracial states work is because people are too stupid/tribal. It's these grug brain people, of all races, who prevent your magical multiracial states from existing in harmony.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot lolol.