Prove Sythe's existence within a state.

This is a continuation of Sythe's past thread. Sythe asked for us (the sythe community) to proof his existence within a state. After thinking about this for a short period of time, I found that we could easily prove Sythe's exitence in a state if we could catch him red handed stating that he lives/is in a certain state. To google I went and after searching for Sythe.org's info I came across this.

Registrant City:Westchester
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:90045
Registrant Country:US

Tech City:Westchester
Tech State/Province:CA
Tech Postal Code:90045
Tech Country:US

(http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/sythe.org)

This is the registrant information for Sythe.org. As you can see The State/Province is filled in with "CA" standing for California and the "US" standing for the United STATES. California is a state in the US and Sythe entered that he lives there to register the site. Because Sythe himself typed that he lives in California, by presenting this proof, I have proven Sythe's exitence within a state. In this case that state is California.

Thanks,
Anet390/Andrew

 

You haven't proven that California is a state.

Also, from the website "The previous information has been obtained either directly from the registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network Solutions. Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness."
Inb4Sythe

 

Well, if Sythe himself entered "CA" as his State/Prov. then he is agreeing that he exists within the state of California. If he did not agree with his existence in that state, he would not have put CA. Basically, because Sythe intentionally or unintentionally said that he lived in CA, he is agreeing, whether hes lying or not, that he has existence in that state. Even if Sythe is lying, he himself still claimed to exist in California, therefor we are allowed to assume that he does.

 

Even if that were true there is still the problem of proving California is a state.

 

Except Richard lives in Australia.

California is the location of the registrant of sythe.org

 

Sythe agreed that California is a state by entering it in the "State" section of the registration form. See what I'm saying here?

EDIT: Sythe lives in Australia? Why did he put California??? Also, I still think wherever he lives is irrelavent. If he claims to live in CA for security reasons, we must assume he lives in CA, which he agreed is a state by entering it in as a state.

 

Agreeing that you live in a state doesn't mean that you live in a state. You must first prove the existence of the entity of the state before you can prove that one exists within the state. It would be like agreeing the moon is made of blue cheese, it don't matter. Doesn't mean it is true. Agreeing that X exists doesn't mean that in-fact X exists.

 

Based on the US Government, California is officially a state. Sythe agrees with this statement by saying that the state he lives in is California in this form. Therefor, we have proven that Sythe believes he lives within a state. Whether or not he actually does is irrelavent. Because, the point of the original thread was for Sythe to deny living in a state. If Sythe defines state as one of the 50 US states (he did by filling in CA) then we are defining state the way he did. Because there is no definative definition of "state" we can techniqually say that a state is really a cow according to what you are saying. As the attackers, us as the sythe community must follow Sythe's definitions, because he created the debate.

 

A state is an agreed group of individuals that are lead by governance. You have to prove that the US is a state to prove that California is a state, because just beacuse the US says it is a state doesn't mean anything if you can't first prove the existence of the entity of the US as a state. Without first proving it is a state signing a form is irrelevant to the existence of a state.

When Sythe refers to a state he isn't referring to a specific state. He is referring to falling under the jurisdiction of a governing body.

 

You're allowed to go along with norms in practice while questioning them intellectually. Sure, it's hypocritical, but it's how intellectual thought gets done. On top of that, tell me enough about anyone and I can prove they're often hypocritical within 15 minutes.

 

Just because everyone is hypocritical sometimes doesn't mean we should give someone leeway for being hypocritical. Just because a lot of people smoke weed, doesn't mean it is legal. Nor does it mean they shouldn't get in trouble for smoking it because "everyone" does it.

 

Closed by request.