This thread is for quick questions. A "quick question" is a question which has a relatively quick, generally factual answer; a question which is not likely to inspire an extended discussion.
e.g.
Quick Question: How tall is an average ten-year-old boy?
Not a Quick Question: Why are Americans obsessed with guns?
Quick Question: Why is ALS sometimes called Lou Gehrig's Disease? Who was Lou Gehrig?
Not a Quick Question: In Alan Dean Foster's Thranx Commonwealth series, is Pip a Mary Sue?
Get the idea?
For wiki related questions, please use Ask The Tropers.
Original first post
Edited by MacronNotes on Apr 13th 2023 at 3:16:47 PM
Happy New Year!
Knocked out? That's best case scenario in a accident.
hashtagsarestupid
Uniocular
America also seems to have this weird thing, where if everybody else is driving above the speed limit, it's apparently alright to also drive at that speed.
It's weird, man.
"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."
It's only weird if it doesn't work.
what do you mean I didn't win, I ate more wet t-shirts than anyone else
Formerly G.G.
Does anyone have a headscratchers page for 'Everyone Hates Mathematics'?
"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."
In uffish thought
Trope pages don't get headscratchers any more (though lots still have them grandfathered in). Do you mean Headscratchers.Math?
edited 31st Dec '13 6:11:04 AM by Telcontar
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
That is what Analysis/ is for, actually.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
If a country's constitution both requires that the sitting head of state/government be both a qualified politiciannote and a qualified religious authority, does this count as a "(constitutional) theocracy"?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
I think it would depend on why it has the "religion" requirement.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Because the constitution names a state religion, specifies that the deity/pantheon worshipped by said religion are the ultimate legal authority for the nation (though in spite of being a Physical God, said deity/pantheon takes a largely hands-off approach, only directly involving themselves in matters that merit such intervention [e.g. the original divine revelations that founded the religion]), and it wouldn't do to give the nation's mortal ruler authority over religious matters without having them be qualified to speak on such matters (i.e. be as well-versed in the religion and how to judge on matters involving it as any of its most respected competent priests), like several countries have done throughout history (which lead to such things as "caesaropapism", or power-hungry/self-aggrandizing secular monarchs subsuming the religious institution under their power and pretentiously assuming the position of head of said institution by force).
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
That seems like a theocracy, then.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Does it count as not an ecclesiocracynote , though?
And on a separate note, where does the Asian concept of the "divine right to rule" (aka Mandate of Heaven)
stand with respect to the "All mean are created equal" principle?
edited 31st Dec '13 11:20:14 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
To my knowledge, the "divine right to rule" is not specific to one person; it is possible to lose it if you misuse/mishandle it.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
I was referring to the fact that the "all men are created equal" principle originally came about as a challenge to the assertation that the European concept of divine right to rule expressly prohibits popular revolution against one's monarch, which is in stark contras to the Asian mandate of heaven, where a rebellion by the people against the monarch is taken as a sign that the gods of the nation have abandoned said monarch for being unjust/incompetent and lifted their protection of him.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
What if you hit something and get thrown out of your vehicle and on to the road or another vehicle, causing further damage or danger? If that results in a death that would likely have been prevented had you been wearing a seat belt, I think you should consider yourself guilty of killing that person - and so should the state.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
If that happened, you would cause more damage to yourself than to the other person/vehicle.
In other words, you would be dead.
what do you mean I didn't win, I ate more wet t-shirts than anyone else
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Or a comatose/brain-damaged vegetable, if you're lucky.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
In other words, not fit to be prosecuted.
what do you mean I didn't win, I ate more wet t-shirts than anyone else
In uffish thought
Your preventable injuries from not wearing a seatbelt could take time and resources away from those with unrelated injuries. You become yet another person the paramedics have to save.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Not to mention adding to the social cost of medical care when you're more injured.
Zzzzzzzzzz
This is kind of getting off-track....
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Especially since we have socialized medicine now.
edited 31st Dec '13 2:54:18 PM by BaconManiac5000
what do you mean I didn't win, I ate more wet t-shirts than anyone else
Formerly G.G.
I want to ask why most people hate mathematics but where can I post this topic?
edited 31st Dec '13 5:30:19 PM by GAP
"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."
To answer that question: not wearing a belt can knock you out cold more easily from the impact. A knocked out driver isn't really a good thing for anyone.