Polymarketpossible referendum =/= possible secession
possible referendum =/= possible secession
Begotten参与话题 14消息总数 1585
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 1585 条，显示第 1051-1100 条so framework means "setting of independence as a valid desire in the inhabitants"
so framework means "setting of independence as a valid desire in the inhabitants"
what do you think framework means?
what do you think framework means?
if it fails, people necessarily choose to stay in canada, if it doesn't people don't necessarily choose to leave canada, in accordance to the voting options
if it fails, people necessarily choose to stay in canada, if it doesn't people don't necessarily choose to leave canada, in accordance to the voting options
no, there's a desire for freedom of choice
no, there's a desire for freedom of choice
this referendum sets a framework for a future democratic referendum, and not for a secession
this referendum sets a framework for a future democratic referendum, and not for a secession
option 2 doesn't necessarily choose poison
option 2 doesn't necessarily choose poison
this is irrelevant
this is irrelevant
no
no
yes
yes
supporting freedom of choice =/= supporting a specific future referendum choice
supporting freedom of choice =/= supporting a specific future referendum choice
can this referendum potentiate a secession? NO
can this referendum potentiate a secession? NO
consensus seems to favor N either way
consensus seems to favor N either way
and it is precisely the sucession referendum that constitutes a potential sucession
and it is precisely the sucession referendum that constitutes a potential sucession
NYT article is a p4 argument
NYT article is a p4 argument
even if it was, this is irrelevant for the purposes of this market. what it implies is that the status quo is not definitive
even if it was, this is irrelevant for the purposes of this market. what it implies is that the status quo is not definitive
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I think there seems to be a confusion regarding what potential secession implies. lets suppose that this referendum concludes that people want the opportunity to vote for secession, then the 2nd referendum is held and they also vote for secession. this doesn't automatically and definitively mean that alberta leaves canada. 2nd referendum constitutes the potential secession here
I think there seems to be a confusion regarding what potential secession implies. lets suppose that this referendum concludes that people want the opportunity to vote for secession, then the 2nd referendum is held and they also vote for secession. this doesn't automatically and definitively mean that alberta leaves canada. 2nd referendum constitutes the potential secession here
until this initial referendum is held, a framework cannot be set either
until this initial referendum is held, a framework cannot be set either
vote for secession is not yet scheduled, only the vote for the opportunity to vote for secession
vote for secession is not yet scheduled, only the vote for the opportunity to vote for secession
holy shit lol
holy shit lol
a good rule of thumb is betting against <@1446097066131460097>
a good rule of thumb is betting against <@1446097066131460097>
yes but also no
yes but also no
potential secession means a referendum which directly asks "should alberta leave canada?" - this is not yet scheduled
potential secession means a referendum which directly asks "should alberta leave canada?" - this is not yet scheduled
"begin going"
"begin going"
N is super underpriced
N is super underpriced
framework cannot be set without the initial vote being complete. framework doesn't yet exist
framework cannot be set without the initial vote being complete. framework doesn't yet exist
lmao insane
lmao insane
let's discuss the 2nd clause. which category does it fall under? clearly not setting a framework
let's discuss the 2nd clause. which category does it fall under? clearly not setting a framework
vote **for secession** is not yet scheduled, therefore the framework is not set
vote **for secession** is not yet scheduled, therefore the framework is not set
NYT as well
NYT as well
I think this should be clear
I think this should be clear
setting a framework cannot be constituted by voting for the opportunity to vote. framework would be how it can be done, but this would only be possible if the people choose to vote for secession in the future in this referendum
setting a framework cannot be constituted by voting for the opportunity to vote. framework would be how it can be done, but this would only be possible if the people choose to vote for secession in the future in this referendum
is there an option which directly votes for secession? no. only for the opportunity to vote
is there an option which directly votes for secession? no. only for the opportunity to vote
whatever that option implies is not definitive for the purposes of this market
whatever that option implies is not definitive for the purposes of this market
fair, but strictly speaking, for the purposes of this market, how is that relevant?
fair, but strictly speaking, for the purposes of this market, how is that relevant?
which clause is this relevant for?
which clause is this relevant for?
you looked up the definition of the word "concerning" 5 minutes ago and you now have a standpoint you argue. it is comical
you looked up the definition of the word "concerning" 5 minutes ago and you now have a standpoint you argue. it is comical
yep! but we are on the different sides here
yep! but we are on the different sides here
in relation to voting, it is the 2nd case
in relation to voting, it is the 2nd case
that's the problem. I don't think they understand in UMA either
that's the problem. I don't think they understand in UMA either
the only problem I see is the ESL misinterpretation of the word "concerning" in this context, which is likely
the only problem I see is the ESL misinterpretation of the word "concerning" in this context, which is likely
in any case, N is underpriced
in any case, N is underpriced
@bosurm help
@bosurm help
it is ambiguous for sure, and a clarif would be nice
it is ambiguous for sure, and a clarif would be nice
the word "concerning" has a clear context here, and when you're talking about a vote, it means the specifics of what the question asks. if it asked "should alberta leave canada?" it would be Y, concerning secession, but this doesn't ask that
the word "concerning" has a clear context here, and when you're talking about a vote, it means the specifics of what the question asks. if it asked "should alberta leave canada?" it would be Y, concerning secession, but this doesn't ask that
he googled "define concerning" once (1 time)
he googled "define concerning" once (1 time)
this referendum establishes the province's desire for the opportunity to vote
this referendum establishes the province's desire for the opportunity to vote
this should be clear
this should be clear
the word "concerning" has a clear meaning in relation to voting
the word "concerning" has a clear meaning in relation to voting