namark @namark@qoto.org

@freemo I'm sorry I hurt your feelings again, while talking to someone else

@soundwave

@soundwave so you just read the word and didn't bother to look at the context? I didn't claim that what you present is a dichotomy, I claimed that if you allowed yourself to look past dichotomy in context of resolution of any given matter of governing you might get at some real shortcoming of the concept of majority rule. I'm helping you to argue against democracy that you hate so much, and that was only a minor side note, my main point which was in the first paragraph.

@soundwave your whole point is that democracy in concept is a mob rule, which according to you is what majority of people are collectively. I directly addressed this central thesis of your whole book series here that you keep repeating over and over again, so keep coping and while you are at it maybe look up the definitions of the words majority and minority.

Otherwise yes please enlighten me which other major points of yours did I miss, and where is my strawman, I really want to talk to him.

father @freemo, you knowledge of the parker gospel is indisputable, I can only humbly follow the teachings

@lucifargundam @trinsec @Pat

@lucifargundam *sigh*
make && sudo make install
make!... && sudo make install!
-__-

@trinsec @freemo @Pat

@lucifargundam "plasticine" is the superior language, but that's only for the initiated

@trinsec @freemo @Pat

@lucifargundam how dare you speak of fairy tales like an insolent child?! we are discussing important matters of objective reality, where, as we all know, everything is made out of shapeless massless kiddy clay!

@trinsec @freemo @Pat

@trinsec you see also we have to speak weird like this, since the word "through" is banned, because one awful blasphemer once dared to bring forth the difference between a hole that goes in and a hole that goes through...

@freemo @Pat

@freemo yes father, indeed it is the god's word, a crater is not a giant hole in the ground, it just a dent. Caves, pits and wells are also just dents.

@trinsec @Pat

@trinsec you see if you grab the planet by the hypothetical hole you dug and stretch it into a humongous disk, said disk will no longer have said hole in it. This is the superior language of the higher form of intelligence, that us mortals are not allowed to question.

@Pat @freemo

@soundwave you clearly have no idea what the word majority means. All the majority need to do is to refuse, it would be a suicide for a government to persecute majority of the population. Only a minority would need to cause a ruckus or a disruption to achieve their goals. Right to peaceful demonstration is part of freedom of expression, and whatever imaginary utopia you are salivating over will either uphold that or remain utterly degenerate.

If you want to criticize the concept of majority rule, maybe talk about how there is not always a clear majority opinion in any given matter, which allows the few to manipulate the many, but I presume anything beyond dichotomy is impossible for you to reason about.

@freemo Ah yes the one definitive bible of maths that you have, nevermind that in topology outside of geometric topology there are other ways to define what is colloquially refereed to as a hole.

I skimmed through the notification and couldn't find the second definition that you provided. Unless you mean it's tucked away in the video you linked... a video made by one my my favorite pop-math comedians... very rigorous I'm sure...

@Pat

@freemo go read your quote, it's clearly nor a definition of a hole, again it's a definition of a genus and a claim that it matches the naturlar language definition of the word hole. How hard can it be to read what you quote?

@Pat

@freemo I'm not petty that you disagree, I'm just amused that you can't even understand what I'm saying. The thing you brought up calling a definition of a hole, is not even that, It's a definition of the genus, along with a claim the the colloquial natural language definition of a hole matches it. Not a definition, a claim. My exact point is that it doesn't, which is the reason why I asked you to look up the natural language definition in the first place, and suggested another natural language/engineering word that matches the genus way better.

@Pat

@freemo You did not address my point you simply derailed. I asked you to look up a natural language definition for the word "hole" to see how it obviously does not match your definition in many cases. You did not and completely ignored it, claiming that natural language does not matter at all for correctness, while I never even mentioned correctness and was simply discussing the terms.

You also never addresses my proposed term in any way.

You are also apparently really angry with me for some reason.

@Pat

@freemo I never mentioned anything about correctness, other than to address yet another attempt to derail. I didn't suggest a definition, I suggested a term for your definition, that fits the natural language better, but yes keep arguing completely different points, nobody made.

@Pat

@freemo Correctness of an answer that states a number of holes, or a question that asks for a number of holes depends on the definition of a hole. Since you did not clarify the definition in advance, when later on you revealed the definition I simply pointed out that it is nonsensical in context of the natural language, and even suggested a better term, but you just can't stop derailing.

@Pat

@freemo The last point in discussion was you trying to derail it by claiming that your original original question was rigorously posed and that I'm out of place to even mention natural language, in such an obviously technical context that was clearly tagged as geometric topology or something. I simply asked you to confirm that you indeed consider that to be the case, in such a way as to make it obvious that I do not, hoping you would maybe provide some irrefutable evidence to settle the matter. But alas I apparently attacked your person in some way that you can not even tell me.

@Pat

@freemo So did they or did they not? I assumed they did sicne you're ignoring the actual point of that post, focusing on those specific irrelevant words and attacking my person repeatedly now?

@Pat

@freemo
"yet another thing that you are utterly incompetent at."
oh, I see, I really apologize that those words hurt your feelings. What I meant is that that would have been the case, if you were being rigorous in the question you posed, which to me is obviously not the case, you see? How that means that I'm not name calling you and simply contradicting your claim that you were rigorous? With perhaps a little bit of flare. Maybe if you wipe the tears off?

@Pat