Comic Sans

I used all the Photoshop effects I could feasibly add at once. Didn't know that was a thing, actually. Maybe I'll stop the stoopid persona for legibility's sake.

you just haven't embraced the great .font yet. evangelize. evangelize. evangelize.

F O N T I S M on this day of October 3, 1998, Orbis time, our great nation, the .font of Comic Sans does declare fontism as its national ideology and state-supported religion. its great tenets are as follows: the typefaces of the world shall be defended; all state-supported .fonts must prosper; the state must appropriate itself all freeware fonts; shareware .fonts shall be bestowed upon other peoples in guise of vassalage to the great .font; Comic Sans is not a very bad font, Greece having used it in government documents (perhaps the first of our adepts). follow these five great tenets and the access permission to the .font dimension shall be yours.

Essentially, yes, all things are relative, but there are factual things in existence. However, from a purely material perspective, past traumas and deterministic factors that make people more affine to a certain thing rather than another create a sort of "narrative" depending on the context in which information is given to the listener. For example, if you look at neurological literature, (Link) it is possible to convince an individual of an event they know to be false under the right social and psychological pressures adapted to the person. The narrative makes an individual generate a context that may or may not be true. Some means of information are more trustworthy, but there is always an uncertainty, like in measurements, and that is only augmented by the right rhetoric. I maybe be mixing two distinct concepts, but I feel both are rather closely tied. Also, you're right, murder was not the word I was intending. "Killed at the hands of another human" is more just, because murder connotes intent. Edit: when I said "Yes!" up there, I was agreeing with you, in case it didn't seem so.

Yes! Many people will take a very Cartesian or Socratic view of controversies and assume that any set of two differing views will have a rational, dialectic solution. However, it can usually be seen that, by what I would only call "hardheadedness", people with views onto which they hold adamantly will not want to find a solution. Perhaps it's simply neurological that the view an individual is most "used to" will be the one he will subscribe to, with rationality only going so far. That goes without mentioning that beyond relativism, linguistics is a useful tool to give the impression of a single opinion being more widespread. Things aren't relative, things are narrative. It's all the same BS story, it simply changes depending on the context and whom you're speaking to. For some, killing is defense, or madness, or a duty. For others it is a crime. In all cases, a human being is murdered, but with a different spin on it every time.

Speech should never be restricted, but infringing upon the rights of others with it should. John Stuart Mill essentially promoted this in the 19th century, but it seems people like going to extremes sometimes and the point becomes lost. Why should it be unrestricted? Inherently, there is absolutely no reason for it to be besides basic human empathy, which is in itself also absurd when taken beyond the necessities of survival.

Love unto you, friend.

huh, i didn't realize! this is awesome. gonna check it out right now. edit: does anyone know if this is a specific format, or is it in-house?

100% warscore here. if such is your demand, i'm all for. but seriously, a peace offer dynamic would be the best, as long as there is no way to abuse of the defeated nation too hardly.

Hey! I realize some games have APIs that allow for interesting third-party programs. Now, I'm not sure how the code/database is structured (and maybe this has already been suggested—in which case, sorry) but it would be oh-so awesome to allow this. Perhaps it could be seen as a vulnerability? Depends how it's implemented. Of course, if developing such a thing detracts from adding content to the game, then never mind. In any case, it would be nice to see this implemented! Thanks! —sans, lol.

or he's trying to RP it off. pay up, pay up, pay up! just saying: i could use 1 mil too, House. just saying. don't mean anything by it.

in the essence of a republic as taken from its etymology, the res publica was the "people's thing". literally, it was the set of institutions available to aid in governing and that were accessible to the public. for example, rome was still technically a republic well into the 190s, because it maintained the public institutions and allowed the election of consuls (in principle). later, it became flagrant that it was in fact nothing but an empire, despite the fact that it had had caesars up until hadrian. in that sense, the republic could be given by the institutions it has, without it necessarily being a democracy, although it could not very feasibly be a democracy without being first a type of republic unless it was simply anarchy. in a way, our way of classifying the different manners in which people let themselves be governed is fallacious if we assume the different classifications are not miscible and when we are assumptive of them being conceptual truths. tl;dr the guv'ment 'n' shit. dunnit matter. gimme food.

how 'bout this one, eh? maybe should've used a different font, but why not. you know you want to: https://i.gyazo.com/c8e436b3a00b49321a3ca154d4d38f65.png

in the same vein of thought, what about peace treaties? could such a mechanic be feasible where both parties (or more; i don't know what diplomacy is) accept a flexible trade-off at the end of a war? Think of EU4, even though there are not all that many parallels to be made between that and P&W. then, small entities could be extorted into losing their cities! all's well that ends well.

i might try to get into this whole "money" thing. but i think i'd need money for that. cheers to your enterprises in Veritum.

tl;dr the guv'ment 'n' stuff.

i swear i can just imagine those two Fs coming off their hinges and swinging loosely. it would also probably be the front sign of the Grorious Reader HQ. gorgeous architecture, if i may.

that and cheese stuck to tables.

i'd maybe wanna get into the orbital death ray business. i dunno. just maybe. i'm gonna play devil's advocate: since the game isn't necessarily balanced everywhere--a thing players accept--perhaps spaaaaaace could be implemented without such a meticulous regard for balance. point is it would be fun, buds.

o/ congratulations!

i understand your predisposition to adversity. no need, fellow. there may be room for two sans yet. let us shake hands. or rattle our metacarpals, rather.

i'm font of you already. will do! hard to feel bonely with friends like these.

i see some of you are already well versed in the great arts. good to see. make sure you don't have a bad time. thanks, bud! nice to meet you all.

I'm just going to return to the topic of U.S. isolationism... I don't think in any way that the U.S. has begun a return to isolationism. The Carter doctrine is still essentially in effect, and the recent Arab Spring in which they were involved (although not on foot) are a good reminder of this. Before all else, the U.S. wants to ensure it has access to cheap energy, whether that's due to lobbying or not. I'm not arguing for or against. Considering just in the past fifteen years the involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Libya, Syria (in which the U.S. funded rebels against Assad, some of which would become ISIS by inadvertence) are clear indicators that they wish to stay a world player. In a way, they don't have a choice. Their economy needs globalization and a world-adopted US Dollar due to the way it has been structured over the 20th century but most importantly since the '80s. Foreign affairs is a big thing. The GOP debates were almost all about foreign affairs, the Iran deal and the like. While there may be some intensification of xenophobia in certain individuals, I wouldn't be able to say isolationism is on the rise. Definitely not for the government and in business. Interventionism courses in the U.S.' veins, and it's in the country's culture for now. Edit: Well screw me, I just realized this thread's a week old. Please don't start arguing again.

...i am unsure as to my understanding of your written dialect, dear friend. nevertheless, i wholly accept your welcome.