The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Home Run Derby: Players representing their home nations (Puerto Rico?!)
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, the problem is that even two "experts" are going to disagree about all that ****.
Because the definition is vague.
No "expert" is going to say the US and Puerto Rico are the same nation. Especially when it is still a protectorate.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No "expert" is going to say the US and Puerto Rico are the same nation. Especially when it is still a protectorate.
Good thing I didn't claim that the disagreement was going to be that.
Even in distinguishing between Caribbean nations the definitions lead to results that a great majority accept. You always have contrarians, but then you have then in every field, even those in fields with the definitions are key... like math.
You do realize the defintions are written down and called a 'defintion', right?
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
but then you have then in every field, even those in fields with the definitions are key... like math
No you don't
If there is an accepted math definition then no serious mathematicians will disagree over whether an entity fits that definition. Because math definitions are precise. Even as far as social sciences goes, the definition of "nation" is imprecise.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
If mathematicians disagree on something like that then they disagree over what the definition should be, not how well an entity fits a given definition
If there is an accepted math definition then no serious mathematicians will disagree over whether an entity fits that definition.
Isn't some of advanced math based on mathematicians trying to prove than an entity does not fit a defintion it should? Thereby meaning a changing of the defintion?
The best way to argue about a definition is to prove that an entity that should qualify in the defintion doesn't.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Isn't some of advanced math based on mathematicians trying to prove than an entity does not fit a defintion it should? Thereby meaning a changing of the defintion?
no. not really. quibbling over definitions is rightly considered a waste of time
The best way to argue about a definition is to prove that an entity that should qualify in the defintion doesn't.
And again, it's arguing over a definition
NOT arguing over whether an entity fits a set definition
Holy ****, Imran, I've said the same thing 4 times now.
There's a difference between arguing about what a definition should be and arguing about whether something fits a given definition.
The latter is an indication that the definition is imprecise. The former is not.
NOT arguing over whether an entity fits a set definition
Of course it is. Arguing over whether the entity actually fits the defintion leads to re-evaluating the defintion. How else do you prove a definition is incorrect?
Oh, and btw, technical and precise aren't synonyms.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
KH, if we didn't have such pointless sh*t like this to argue about, all of the political science degree people will be working at McDonalds.
Oh, wait...
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Btw, KH, if someone came up to you and said there is no French nation, would you say to him that he might be right because there is no technical definition of nationality?
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Quebec is not its own nation! They are subordinates.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, KH, if someone came up to you and said there is no French nation, would you say to him that he might be right because there is no technical definition of nationality?
There is a definition of "nation". The definition, like all others, can be argued upon, just like you can argue about the definition of murder, or theft, whatever.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Tweet
Comment