<Snipped quote by Disdain>
You transfer them to binary.
<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>
Then that same logic applies to so many other systems.
Your points are nothing but moot.
I did. I converted the whole square to binary.
<Snipped quote by Disdain>
You transfer them to binary.
<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>
Then that same logic applies to so many other systems.
Your points are nothing but moot.
<Snipped quote by Legend>
I did. I converted the whole square to binary.
<Snipped quote by Legend>
All the others have failed without being conquered. That's why I said anarchy is the only successful one.
So are yours.
<Snipped quote by Legend>
It is. Every other one has collapsed on itself many times in history.
Yes they are.
<Snipped quote by Legend>
Learn yours. Name one type that hasn't been overthrown by revolution or become so weak that it had to start a war to try and fix it.
Btw, losing a war it starts does count as failing. Being taken over because the other side wants conquest doesn't, because that's a military weakness, not governmental.
Exactly. You finally caught up to the right rock.
<Snipped quote by Disdain>
Oh gods no. Have fun.
Sorry, had to get that one out. Even the word disgusts me, and not just when used in a religious context. Bad mental imagery.
<Snipped quote by Legend>
There's only been one recorded that I know of, and it worked. It worked beautifully. It's the only type not to have failed, as I said. Yes, not putting some people in charge of everyone nor using mob rule. Totally ludicrous. Obviously. Pfft.
It's no tactic. I'm just in lockstep with my old speech. Dunno why, but it's fun to linguistics patterns around someone's feet.
<Snipped quote by Legend>
The manage other people even worse. And people are managed by other people worse than by themselves. Ergo, anarchy's success makes sense. The strongest argument against anarchy is that in it, governments will form. Which should show how pathetic the opposition to it is.
That's still not the case. I'm skating away and separate from the argument by using the flow of comments that you can't follow because you don't have the necessary information or thought leap pattern I do to keep the conversation related and follow it's natural path parallel to itself, keeping the overall lighthearted and fun while avoiding the inevitable stalemate we reach in such conversations without making a blunt and upsetting sudden cut off. Also, it's fun to mess with people, which is one of the intended goals. Granted this is all after looking at it introspectively and reasoning more after the fact than normal reasoning is done, and trying to find a pattern in a fractal of words and vague semantics obfuscated with hazy anecdotes and self-contained systems of memories. And if this seems hard to follow, then you should understand how said introspection and post-reasoning window reasoning can reach such a twisting path of words for it's explanation as it's an example of a simplified case of the reasoning necessary to put this into a way others can follow via language.
TL;DR: No.
<Snipped quote by Legend>
Which? You still haven't given one that's succeeded either.
You haven't. What was my point then.
Okay, this time, I'm actually here. Fell asleep accidentally last night almost the exact moment I made my last post. So consider this Salutations: The Sequel.