Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Cheery Dog]

Accountant is starting to convince me on one point- it may actually be worth re-educating people with certain beliefs for their own good :^)

Why do I feel like that that "

people

" is directly solely at Accountant?

[Annadog40]

This is a religion. It's like asking a Cathoic to explain why saints are not witches.

[Accountant]

This is a religion. It's like asking a Cathoic to explain why saints are not witches.

There's no worship, and my moral system isn't superhuman or controlling.

[Sesq]

With morals, you keep saying there is """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""self-evident"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" truths, and every time you are asked to explain them you say "well I'm right, you're wrong," without any logical argument.

Well, you said that explaining myself was to present my thoughts to you, and I am presenting my thoughts to you. Can't you see how right I am?

No, because this circular bullshit doesn't cut it for anyone with an IQ over 60.

It cuts it for anyone with the eyes to see the self-evident moral truths that populate the world. They're

right there

. Open your metaphorical goddamn eyes and

look

. It's not hard.

If I'm not seeing them, they aren't self-evident. Explain your shit.

[Showtime]

It cuts it for anyone with the eyes to see the self-evident moral truths that populate the world. They're

right there

. Open your metaphorical goddamn eyes and

look

. It's not hard.

They do not exist.

You are deluded.

You are also completely uneducated when it comes to basic principles of rationality, philosophy, or even semantics. You don't know what "self-evident" means. You don't know what the burden of proof is or how it applies to supposedly self-evident claims. You don't know what an axiom is or how the burden of proof relates to that, either. You don't understand what the terms "objective" and "subjective" mean, and you constantly equivocate between the two.

Even your own supplied definition of your "objective" moral system comes down to "assert that an objective moral right and wrong exist, then assert that they fall under these specific definitions". No justification is offered other than your feels. No proper definition of any of the terms involved is ever supplied. No support is ever offered, because the entire thing is so substanceless that it

cannot

be supported.

Your entire argument comes down to a schoolyard imagination fight where you declare "well I'm the best and my superpowers make me always win to infinity plus one HA".

This is honestly just sad, really.

[Showtime]

And that's all without even touching the fact that your entire "philosophy", in practicality, comes down to

1984

. Like, legitimately. You don't even deny it. Literally the only defense you even attempt to offer is "well mine will be better", because you are absolutely deluded and do not understand the idea of practical limitations. You actively endorse purging questioners like me because it's the only answer you can come up with.

You are now a moderator of /r/pyongyang.

[Sesq]

In specific with the orwellian stuff, what he's saying is "I'm going to make a utopia and it won't be bad like that one", being unaware that was the original goal for that utopia and got that way via corruption and abuse, which Acc's system is still susceptible to

[Showtime]

In specific with the orwellian stuff, what he's saying is "I'm going to make a utopia and it won't be bad like that one", being unaware that was the original goal for that utopia and got that way via corruption and abuse, which Acc's system is still susceptible to

*actively incentivizes at every level

[Randomnamechange]

each person should be able to pursue freedom in their own way. You cannot be moral without a choice.

Rubbish. If you cure cancer, you'd be rightly acclaimed as a hero, even if it was I who put a gun to your head and made you synthesize the cure at gunpoint.

hero =/= morall good person. If you refused to do until someone forced you to then you are a bad person.

freedom and human rights are more important than truth.

You cannot be serious.

I am. I would rather tell a lie than save a life.

[Accountant]

If I'm not seeing them, they aren't self-evident. Explain your shit.

Do I need to amend "self-evident" to "self-evident to any sane person"?

[Not_Mafia]

If I'm not seeing them, they aren't self-evident. Explain your shit.

Do I need to amend "self-evident" to "self-evident to any sane person"?

[Accountant]

You are also completely uneducated when it comes to basic principles of rationality, philosophy, or even semantics. You don't know what "self-evident" means. You don't know what the burden of proof is or how it applies to supposedly self-evident claims. You don't know what an axiom is or how the burden of proof relates to that, either. You don't understand what the terms "objective" and "subjective" mean, and you constantly equivocate between the two.

But why does it matter? My moral system is above all these things. Suppose rationality was used to disprove it. Then it's clear rationality is wrong and should be scrapped and reworked until it conforms. The same with philosophy.

[Accountant]

do not understand the idea of practical limitations

Practical limitations... exist, but they exist to be overcome. In the end, no amount of cynicism can stop something as simple as me imposing my utopia onto the world.

You claim my system is ripe for abuse. This is missing the point. There are several reasons why people won't abuse my system:

1) They've been taught not to abuse the system(that indoctrinated doesn't sound so bad, now does it?)

2) They like being in paradise and have no reason to rock the boat.

3) They're good people and won't do something as evil as abuse the system.

[Accountant]

hero =/= morall good person. If you refused to do until someone forced you to then you are a bad person.

No. Only results matter. This sort of thinking is dangerous, because you're saying intentions count, and then any half-baked fool who thinks they're saving the world gets credit no matter how badly they do.

[Accountant]

I am. I would rather tell a lie than save a life.

What??? Why would you lie rather than save a life??? Are you a psychopath?

[Accountant]

Your entire argument comes down to a schoolyard imagination fight where you declare "well I'm the best and my superpowers make me always win to infinity plus one HA".

>tfw you're in a schoolyard fight and your opponent actually has superpowers and they replace the entire world with a perfect paradise with their infinity plus one powers

[Showtime]

You are also completely uneducated when it comes to basic principles of rationality, philosophy, or even semantics. You don't know what "self-evident" means. You don't know what the burden of proof is or how it applies to supposedly self-evident claims. You don't know what an axiom is or how the burden of proof relates to that, either. You don't understand what the terms "objective" and "subjective" mean, and you constantly equivocate between the two.

But why does it matter? My moral system is above all these things. Suppose rationality was used to disprove it. Then it's clear rationality is wrong and should be scrapped and reworked until it conforms. The same with philosophy.

son don't make me fetch the billy madison clip again

i'll do it i swear to god

[Showtime]

"my moral system is self-evidently correct"

then it should be trivially easy for you to meet the burden of proof

"burden of proof doesn't apply to axiomatic claims"

it does if you want them to apply to the real world rather than just the hypothetical that takes them as axiomatic

"well my system has a higher authority than rationality"

i don't think that you know what those words mean

"your dangerous questioning attitude and silly cynical concerns with things like

reality

can't stop me from imposing my utopia on the world"

kid you are sitting in your mother's basement shitposting on a mafia forum

you couldn't impose gravy on biscuits

[Accountant]

"my moral system is self-evidently correct"

then it should be trivially easy for you to meet the burden of proof

"burden of proof doesn't apply to axiomatic claims"

it does if you want them to apply to the real world rather than just the hypothetical that takes them as axiomatic

"well my system has a higher authority than rationality"

i don't think that you know what those words mean

"your dangerous questioning attitude and silly cynical concerns with things like

reality

can't stop me from imposing my utopia on the world"

kid you are sitting in your mother's basement shitposting on a mafia forum

you couldn't impose gravy on biscuits

Even if it doesn't meet the burden of proof, it'll apply to the real world anyway.

I do.

I am not sitting in my mother's basement, nor am I shitposting. You clearly don't know anything.

[Raskolnikov]

Hey accountant your system is wrong. It's just self-evident why that is.

[Accountant]

Hey accountant your system is wrong. It's just self-evident why that is.

No it's not. I don't see how it is.

[Raskolnikov]

You don't have to, because it's self evident.

[Raskolnikov]

Do I need to amend "self-evident" to "self-evident to any sane person"?

[Showtime]

Even if it doesn't meet the burden of proof, it'll apply to the real world anyway.

Nope.

I do.

Mmmmnope.

I am not sitting in my mother's basement, nor am I shitposting. You clearly don't know anything.

Aaaand a third nope.

Three strikes. I'd say "you're out", but you've been battin' zero for more than a dozen pages now and it hasn't stopped you so far.

[Not_Mafia]

Three strikes. I'd say "you're out", but you've been battin' zero for more than a dozen pages now and it hasn't stopped you so far.