Some people would say that Proxima Centauri is "right next to" us,because it's only about four lightyears away. Presumably Martin was within four lightyears of his home, so that statement is true even if rather ambiguous.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

We will say it as many times as it takes to sink in.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

We will say this as many times as it takes to sink in.

You have repeatedly claimed that Rachel Jeantel testified that Martin returned home after the first encounter with Zimmerman, but you've provided no citation, transcript, source or quotation to back you up. Don't worry, though; the Emperor has done the research for you, and tracked your claim back to this tweet. The tweet, in turn, cites a blog post, but unfortunately the blog post doesn't corroborate the tweet.

Obviously numerous other sources have reported on Jeantel's testimony, and absolutely none of them make any mention of Martin returning home. The same can be said of the numerous timelines and maps that have been drawn about the shooting. Now, which of these two scenarios do you think is more likely: that a single Twitter user picked out a key piece of Rachel's testimony that was somehow missed by every credible news source, or that the single Twitter user was simply mistaken?

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11.

You misunderstood Rachel Jeantel's testimony as badly as you've misunderstood every other part of this case.

Martin never returned home from the 7-11. Literally no one who matters claims that he did. What nonsense and drivel have you been reading?

Martin didn't "decide to go back and dish out a beating on the 'cracker.'" He encountered Zimmerman while Zimmerman was in his car (possibly exchanging a few words at this point). At some time shortly thereafter, Martin ran away from Zimmerman, running back in the direction he came from.* This means that in order for Martin to continue home, he needed to turn around and return to where he first saw Zimmerman. A few minutes later, Zimmerman and Martin met each other a second time, leading to the fatal shooting.

You have absolutely no basis to declare that Martin returned with the intention of starting a fight, no explanation of why Martin would run away and *then* decide to ambush or attack Zimmerman, and absolutely no evidence (except Zimmerman's own word) that Martin was the one who started the altercation.

*This is a reasonable thing to do when being followed by a potentially dangerous stranger. If Martin had simply run towards his house, and Zimmerman followed him, Zimmerman would have discovered where Martin was staying, potentially putting Martin in danger. Zimmerman understood this as well, which is why he didn't give the 911 dispatcher his home address when he was asked.

See, that's the thing. That didn't happen. You are lying. Why are you lying?

It didn't "get to the point." Rather, there never even was a point where things worked differently.

That's called "non-riparian water rights," and it goes back to before the western states were even founded. The basis for this system is Common Law legal precedent, not legislation (although most states have passed laws formally codifying their water rights systems... as of over a hundred years ago).

But don't let facts get in your way.

The Puritans (the ones who were "escaping persecution") only founded the New England colonies. They immediately set up their own theocratic governments and began their own vicious persecution, most famously the Salem Witch Trials. Religious persecution caused BY the Puritans was one of the main reasons for the Religious Test clause of the Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Continental Congress, the Revolution, and the eventual establishment of the Constitution was a completely different event than the Puritans founding a colony and happened around a hundred years after. Historically speaking, this is about as big a miss as confusing the Revolution and the Civil War.

In the ancient Chinese nation of Chu, during the reign of King Li, a man named Bian He discovered an incomparable piece of jade encased in a stone. When he presented the stone to King Li, the king did not believe it actually contained a piece of jade and ordered that Bian He have one of his legs cut off. When King Li died, and King Wu succeeded him, Bian He again presented the jade to the royal court; he was disbelieved a second time, and the King ordered his other leg cut off. When King Wu died, he was succeeded by King Wen; it was King Wen who finally believed Bian He and ordered that the stone be cut. Ultimately the stone was fashioned into a great jade disc, called the "jade disc of He" to honor its discoverer.

The jade was later stolen from Chu and sold to the state of Zhao. The King of Qin offered fifteen cities for the jade, giving rise to the Chinese idiom, "valued at multiple cities." Eventually the jade was surrendered to King Shi Huang of Qin, who became the first Emperor of China. Qin Shi Huang ordered the jade be cut down to create his imperial seal. The seal was lost about 1300 years later, but a thousand more years of imperial rule still followed.

The moral is that a) human beings with money make really stupid decisions b) even if you make a great discovery and serve loyally the king might still chop off your fucking legs.

A good analogy for this case would be Safford Unified School District v. Savanna Redding, when a 13-year-old girl was strip-searched after another student accused her of possessing prescription-strength Advil. The SCOTUS ruled the search was unconstitutional, yet still held the school officials had no liability because they did not violate "clearly established law."

The rule, basically, is that the government can wantonly violate your rights and you can only sue if both a) the people violating your rights KNEW their actions were illegal, and b) the government has waived its sovereign immunity.

The Emperor has tutored many people in set theory and seen that exact error many times. You made the mistake because the idea of computing the union of sets of sets (as opposed to sets of "objects" (ur-elements)) is very non-intuitive, and requires a significant leap of abstract thinking.

It also contains an error: Peano defined 2 as { {}, {{}} } = {0,1}. 3 is 2 U {2} = { 2, 1, 0 }. Larger numbers are defined inductively as (n+1) := n U {n}.

You can tell it was supposed to be the Peano construction (and not something else) because the GP defined zero as the empty set and 2 as {0,1}. The error was to also define 2 as {{{}}}, which is clearly not equivalent to {0,1} (since the former set has cardinality 1 and the latter has cardinality 2).

This is an incredibly common mistake even for math undergrads and good evidence that set theory really isn't very intuitive. There's a reason New Math failed.

It is not illegal to feed cow parts to chickens and then feed the chicken parts back to cows.