I've sort of been thinking about politics lately, and how so many people seem to be obsessed with it like it's the most important thing in their life, and treat people who view things differently like they shouldn't be a part of the human race. Yes we have a huge share of idiots, but everyone has a different view as to who or what is defined as an "idiot." That being said, I decided to use today's post to simplify everything political into a simple math equation that some of my kindergartners are starting to pick up:
Pick any two numbers, and do whatever you want to make them equal 4.
Many people, specifically those that don't know all the possible equational possibilities, automatically go to 2+2=4. It's the most straightforward path to 4, the most simple, and both numbers used to get 4 are the same. Now, other people might say 3+1 or 1+3, both of which are correct, and in the grand scheme of things slightly different than 2+2. Already, though, there will be squabbles about whether it matters to have the 3 or the 1 come first, and whether they shouldn't be included at all (some believe two 2s are the very best option). The same principle applies to those who argue 0+4 and 4+0.
Now, the more creative people looking to maximize their 2s will also say: 2x2=4. They will probably argue that it's better than 2+2 because there's a times symbol instead of a plus symbol, thus making their method stronger. At the same time, other multiplicational people will also say that 4x1 and 1x4 are better than 3+1 and 1+3, and will consequently squabble with them as such, arguing that they have 4 in their equation while the "lesser" people only have 3. The 2x2 people will look at the 4x1 and 1x4 people and stick out their necks, arguing that they only need one number, while the 4x1 and 1x4 people will say they have 4 while the other multiplier-types only have 2s.
If that's not crazy enough, take a look at the exponential camp. The even more creative and arrogant people will say 2^2=4 is even better because they have exponents. Therefore we will have the argument of multiplication vs. raising a number to a power. The pro-exponentials will say that since their method is a lot more powerful, it is a lot better than using weaker methods like addition and multiplication. One could argue that because of their power exponentials are much more efficient; but another might argue that it's only efficient if we're dealing with large numbers, whereas it's a waste of energy to use it to find four. I will also briefly mention the divisions within the camp between the 2^2 people and the 4^1 people, for the obvious reasons.
To recap, so far: we have the additions vs. the multiplications vs. the exponents, all with their own reasons why their method is the best. On top of that, we are certain to see squabbles (probably less so) within each camp, mostly arguing whether the consistent use of 2s is better than using both bigger and smaller numbers.
I hate to break it to you, but we're only halfway there. Every group I've mentioned supports taking two smaller numbers and using them to build up to 4. In spite of their in-house squabbles, they compare nothing to those who look at using subtraction, division, and reduction of powers to arrive at 4. And especially because our answer is a low positive number, this camp will be even more outrageous because some will use small numbers like 6-2=4 or 16^.25=4, while others use insanely large numbers, like 16,000,000/4,000,000=4 or 8,000,000,000-7,999,999,996=4. I imagine all the people who fit on the reduction side of things have more diverse views between each other, and probably are less organized than those who like to build up to 4.
I suppose a few other fringe people would be those who like to use non-whole numbers and negative numbers. Y'know, like pi+(4-pi)=4, or 1/.25=4, or -303+307=4. Technically those individuals are correct, but their arguments hardly matter more than any of the others, and it confuses those who aren't sure what they should think in the best way to get to 4. Those who ask, "Is getting to 4 something I need to worry about? What is the best way to get to 4? What is the easiest way? What is the most efficient way? What's the most important thing?" don't want or need the extraneous points.
Another type of people that exist are the ones that try to fudge the equation so it looks like it reaches 4 but actually doesn't. You know, the type that might argue, 10.08-6=4 exactly, completely disregarding the 8/100s that have to be accounted for. Or some of the others that blatantly lie and say 4+1=4, even though it actually equals 5, and they didn't want to admit that they needed a multiplication sign for their argument to hold any water. I will admit, I generally hate these types of people, even though by my faith I'm not supposed to hate anyone.
Four years ago I wouldn't have written a post anything close to this. I was very zoomed-in on Chicago-related interests, until my roommate talked about looking at the big picture. It helped me a lot, because it allowed me to be aware of many more things that were going on in this world. I do have my biases, but I do wonder how many people can have issues with others merely because they see a different way to live their life.
If I were asked how I would get to 4, there's a good chance my first answer would be 2+2. But soon I realize that there are endless possibilities, as well as which options make more sense than others. Perhaps 2+2 is much more efficient than 100/25, but both work. We don't need to worry about convincing people that there's only one way, or even a best way.
Funny, this can be applied to the religious world, too.