Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

[doublepost deleted]

[Accountant]

i can feel the crackling of thunder come down as i make my grand debut, but there is no way i'm going through 300 pages of useless shit written by weak kids who hide behind their own words, i'm going to do this in bulk

imagine how moronic you have to be to be the person who made this thread. you are literally so weak and pathetic you felt the need to passive aggressively mock someone like a petty little shit monkey, and you don't even have the balls to face the person you're even trying to shit talk. who the

fuck

would ever want to be friends with you, i can smell how dishonest your ugly ass is from 10 miles away. you completely avoid anything that could put you in a state of reasoning, it's painfully clear to the point where any retard can see the "i haven't gotten better at anything in years" stamped on your forehead


the rest of you are just clowns who are out to prove you're right but don't actually give a fuck about whether or not you are, and my favourite part of this show is how you clumsily pretend like you don't care while praying to god nobody notices. you would be so much more willing to analyze your own components to make sure that they're not wrong if there was any substance to it, and especially willing to wield the ideas of others to see how they work so that you could seek improvement yourself. in other words, you are a fucking waste of time and space and i bet the universe itself regrets hosting you

who the fuck am i? a nobody, because a nobody is enough to make you look stupid

I can't tell who's side you're on, but this post is not an argument. This is just a pathetic series of ad hominem attacks dressed up in grandiose wording. If you're against me, you're nothing more than flimsy opposition who will be crushed by the perfectness of the correct path; immune to such words. If you're for me, I condemn you strongly. Such an attitude will never bring you into utopia or allow you to impose it, thus you should correct your own mistakes before daring to correct others.

[Accountant]

i'm on my own side false prophet

you think you can go around telling people what's good when you yourself don't apply the very things you are saying

breeding your own weakness and then challenging the real deal is the easiest way to get demolished, boy

You only call me a false prophet for you are blind to the truth of the correct path. If your eyes were opened, you would be far less abusive and far more correct.

You who determine that I am not good; you yourself are incorrect. The correct path is the highest arbiter of morality in the universe, and I am its only follower.

The "real deal" is the correct path. Everything else is petty distractions.

And I'm not a boy.

[Accountant]

you're a false prophet because if you were even a level 2 player of this game you would know that the first skill you get is the one to see that everyone is just like you

but you're playing this game with the absolute conviction that's not the case

don't be in such a rush to shit on yourself, try saying nothing next so you can minimize your odds of being destroyed

The correct path is akin to a cheat code that allows you to instantly win regardless of playing skill, if you consider the universe as a game.

As for your second remark, the premise of that statement is wrong. I was not destroyed and I did not shit on myself.

[Accountant]

excellent job on casually dismissing what i said without analyzing it all so that you can continue to pretend like you stand a chance. 10/10, would have worked on anybody except the champ. your instant appropriation of the types of actions you criticize other people for is going to go a long way with me, especially when you still managed to make the mistake twice after i had called it out the post before

Vague and meaningless criticism.

[Accountant]

Enjoy your IP ban for evasion.

[Accountant]

>oppressive

Just like the utopia itself amiright

[Accountant]

You mean like when he shitposted on the Salem forums and got permabanned?

The utopia is there for all. I will certainly freely advertise it in public for anyone who wants to learn. Should those people turn out to be not learners but trolls, that is not my issue. They will be dealt with at the will of the moderators.

[Accountant]

First of all, let's acknowledge that humans as biological organisms are inherently disgusting. There is nothing attractive about a sack of meat, bones and blood. So does this mean that I am a misanthrope who loathes humanity? No. That's because I also acknowledge that humans are more than just gross sacks of flesh - indeed, to view humans as sacks of flesh alone is in a way offensive and insulting.

What humans have that allows them to rise above their fleshy origins are their ideals, those beliefs that they hold to the highest extent and with every breath, every heartbeat, every moment of their lives strive to uphold. Justice. Honor. Selfishness. Equality. Freedom. Balance. Love. Hope. Those are the things that take people beyond the level of animals. In this manner, even a disgusting pile of meat may be transformed into something beautiful. The lungs are still fleshy lumps, but they're fleshy lumps that pump air into an ideal. The face is still a mottled surface indented by crevices and scars, but it is used to express and impose a beautiful ideal.

Therefore, we arrive at the inevitable conclusion: humans

are

their ideals. Their worth, their status as human beings, the seat of their existence as something above an animal, their very personhood - this is all due to the strength in which they execute their ideal. The purer the ideal, the purer the execution, the more dedicated a human is to their ideal, to the point where they can no longer be said to be a "thing", but a living embodiment of their ideal - that it what it means to be a person. That it what it means to be a human.

If we accept, then, that a person is defined by their ideal, we see now why nuance is a terrible idea. Adding nuance messes up the extreme black and white ideals of the world. Black and white are very pure colors. Grey is not. It's a mixed color; it dilutes the purity of anything it is set onto. And the purity in this case is that of their personhood. We therefore come to the inevitable conclusion that people who do not think in black or white have diluted identities. Uf the world can be seen as a race of beautiful heroes and villains clashing as they attempt to impose their ideals on the world, then grey people are just side characters. Extras and NPCs.

Boring losers

. They're not people, just like an extra in a movie isn't a person and is only fit to be background noise or killed off when convenient. They do not have the purity of ideal required to be a real person.

[Accountant]

^ Shaziro, respond.

[Accountant]

People whos bodies have undergone purely aesthetic changes, such as wrinkling or going more pale, often deal with depression because of these changes. We are -also- our bodies. The two are combined.

I do not deny that there are humans defined by their bodies. My assertion is this: bodies are inherently a bad way to give worth to someone. We do not give someone more worth because they are healthier or have certain genes. Thus, these people are doing it wrong. They are muddling up their ideals with this worthless fixation on the body, and because of this, they are lesser for it.

This fact is most evident when you look at the people who do hold pure ideals. I myself. Extremists like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS. Socrates, Gandhi, Jesus. So many different people, but they are alike in their unwavering commitment to their ideal, to the point where the body becomes merely... irrelevant. Outdated. Pointless.

[Accountant]

Furthermore, people are not their ideals because they very often do not act in a way they would see as ideal. That is why if you ask 100 people if they think it's okay to steal they will say no, but some of those who said no will still shoplift or swipe things from purses, etc. We are -not- our ideals. We are our actions. Ideals mean little, even "how they execute their ideals" doesn't mean as much as -what- they do.

Yes, and these people are what we call hypocrites. They are those with muddled ideals, the very subhumans I have been constantly railing against. Here is the truth: humans are ideals. People are ideals. Therefore if there is someone who contradicts their ideals and must be judged by their actions, such a person would not be a person at all. It is for this reason that I say that anyone who is not an extremist isn't a person, because a failure to be extreme implies a contradiction - you assert an ideal, but fail to take it to its logical extreme.

[Accountant]

Are you prepared to accept that other people have different perspectives than you, that it is okay for them to do so, and that them having a different perspective does not make them necessarily wrong?

No.

[Accountant]

Gandhi was actually a pretty bad guy by the way, have you actually looked into him at all or do you just assume that he was "that Indian nonviolent protest guy"? I really hope it's the former and you're just choosing to ignore the whole "Racist, ordered young women to sleep naked with him 'to test his faith'" kind of thing, to be honest.

Did you think I was rattling off a list of "good" people? Everyone that doesn't follow the correct path is misguided - but even if you hadn't realized that, you should have noticed the fact that the second person on the list is the goddamn leader of ISIS.

I was listing ideologically pure people. Extremists willing to go to great lengths - to murder others, or allow their bodies to be broken by the British, or to allow themselves to be crucified - in order to impose their ideal on the world. It was a list of

people

. Someone who can't reach that level of dedication is an NPC.

[Accountant]

Actually, bodies are often a decent indicator of a person's ideals. Tattoos, piercings, hair coloring, style? All of these things show something about that person. That is why they are part of our identity. You also call it a "worthless fixation on the body", ignoring that the body is our only means of enacting change on anything, our only means of interacting with the physical world. The body is incredibly important.

That's no different from me writing down my ideals on a piece of paper. That's also an indicator of a person's ideals. Under your logic, this thread is a crucial part of my identity.

[Accountant]

Everyone is a hypocrite. Literally everyone. You are too. After all, you're not a god, right? You should learn to accept and live with that, instead of living a fiction.

This post is extremely disgusting. Not only are you so mired in your own hypocrisy that you accept it without even attempting to

not be a fucking hypocrite

, you try to drag me down to your level.

Let me tell you this. I am my ideals. I am pure. If you say that only gods are not hypocrites, then I am a god. I choose to impose my beautiful fiction onto you rather than bow down like a spineless coward and accept the hypocritical reality given to me.

Once you understand this, you will understand what it means to be a person.

[Accountant]

My point was that Gandhi was a hypocrite, and therefore not ideologically pure.

His ideal was that India should no longer be under British rule. That ideal was unmarred completely. Even if he was a rapist and murderer, the ideal if "India should be free" is still standing and he would certainly still impose it without hesitation, to the highest extreme.

(This is a simplification, his ideal was a bit more specific, but it's enough to illustrate what I'm talking about)

[Accountant]

What do you think great works of art, or of literature are? People putting their ideals on a piece of paper. This thread -is- a part of your identity, at least your posts in it are.

No. My identity are my ideals, my axioms, whatever you want to call them. I am my ideals.

I do not mean this in a metaphorical sense. I mean this in a literal sense. If there was some kid in Nigeria that had my exact ideals, a complete copy of them in every detail, and you spattered my physical body's brains out on the wall, I would still be alive - in Nigeria. Do you understand how worthless a body is now?

[Accountant]

A: I try not to be a hypocrite, but to err is human. Welcome to reality
B: I'm not trying to drag you down, you are human, it's in your nature. Welcome to reality.
C: No, you aren't pure, and you aren't a god. Once again, welcome to reality.
D: You can't really impose anything on me, partly because you aren't a god and are therefore not omnipotent. If you want to live a life denying reality and truth to make yourself feel better though, that's on you bud.

Your spinelessness is shocking. To err is human, so I should not bother not erring? Are you really that much of a coward? If humans are born hypocrites, they should try to rise above their hypocrisy. With every inch of their power, they must try to overturn their hypocrisy and purify themselves, even if it means overthrowing their humanity. Someone who doesn't do this because it's "too hard" and "it's in my nature" is nothing more than a disgusting coward.

You have seen the flaw in yourself and not only do you refuse to improve, you mock me for trying to improve by saying that it's stupid and foolish for me to do so. That is depraved. I have more respect for the leader of ISIS than I do for a base animal that has this kind of viewpoint. I already knew you weren't interested in being a real person, but this is a new depth of evil. I find it hard to believe that someone could sincerely be that horrible of a person.

And to accuse me of being impure simply because you're unable to comprehend the idea that humans can rise above impurity and become pure is just the icing on the cake. Let me tell you this, Shaziro. Your mindset is disgusting. I honestly, sincerely feel as though I need to take a shower after reading that kind of anti-self-improvement, evil-accepting garbage. I hope that one day you will find the support you need to break free of the shackles of this thinking, go out, and become an actual person rather than a spineless hypocrite.

I've lost interest in debating with you because I no longer wish to taint my mind with your corrupted garbage. Come back when you're willing to accept that humans should strive to do good things and not to accept evil things.

[Accountant]

Lol acc is such a moron

How are you literally your ideals?

This question is tautological.

"How is red literally red?" The two are synonyms.

[Accountant]

>accepts that humans are hypocrites
>says that it's okay and just part of human nature
>doesn't believe when someone says they're not hypocrites, because of lack of mental faculties to understand that not being a hypocrite is possible due to how mired in hypocrisy they are

[Accountant]

The fact that you'd even consider saying that your own ideals aren't perfect proves just how impure you are. Someone who is ideologically pure would never, even for the tiniest fraction of a moment, stoop to consider that their ideals may be flawed. What kind of disgusting frame of mind do you have in order to do such a thing?

[Accountant]

And the fact that you think someone as pure as me could betray their own ideals is beyond insulting. Go back to where you came from.

[Accountant]

Except that "red" and "red" are the same thing. Meanwhile, here's the definition of person: "a human being regarded as an individual." ideals: "a standard of perfection; a principle to be aimed at."

They may be similar, but they are not a tautology, and no amount of bullshitting will change that.

What you fail to comprehend is that the definition of a person, when used contextually,

far

reaches beyond that of the dictionary definition. Let's take the following sentence: "In the ancient past, women were not often seen as people." In this case, it does not mean that people in the past literally thought that women were a different species, or were not human. Nor does it mean that they thought women were a kind of hive-mind or some other group mentality rather than individual.

Here's what it means to be a person. It means to be treated with dignity, respect and be seen as a kind of autonomous beings with rights, to be empathized with and so on and so forth. I have none of these things for NPCs. There's no point in treating an NPC with dignity or respect, NPCs have no rights and I have no empathy for their kind. Therefore, the statement is as follows - I do not view humans as people unless they have ideals.

But, Accountant, you ask. What does this have to do with the fact that you are claiming "people" and "ideals" are the same? Here's why. We have seen above that the personhood of a being is derived straight from their ideals. No ideals(or muddled ideals): not a person. That's a simple rule that's applied regardless. If we had a sentient AI, even though they have no flesh body, their personhood would depend no their ideals as well. Or an alien, for instance. Throughout any type of sentient being, we see then that personhood always, in every case, derives straight from ideals.

Thus, "personhood" and "ideals" are more or less synonymous.

It has come to my attention that this is not actually a tautological statement. It's a very obvious statement, but not as obvious as "red is red", and not tautological in the strict sense of the term. I suppose I have to apologize for that and retract my statement. Now that you have seen my updated statement, I'm sure you'll agree with me.

[Accountant]

No, you're a hypocrite just like every other human on this planet. It is a part of human nature, we can't break free of it. Doesn't mean we should give in to it and not at least try to fight it to be as un-hypocritical as possible. This is one of the problems with your absolutism, the fact that you can't understand this.

Are you really this disgusting? If you aren't even willing to show me the basic courtesy of acknowledging that I'm not about to betray or turn my back on the ideals I've been fighting for in this entire thread, then you're essentially implying that I'm a troll who doesn't really hold firm convictions in their beliefs and will hypocritically not follow them as soon as they get a chance. In that case, you shouldn't be talking in this thread at all. I recommend you leave immediately and never come back.

[Accountant]

I came from reality, you should visit sometime. We have actual people instead of fictional ideas of them made up in our heads in order to make things fit our made up fantasies.

For those of you that may be reading this at home, let me translate this piece of nonsense to tell you what he really means by this.

"I came from reality, you should visit sometime." <- You should leave your paradise and willingly go to a world that I have already acknowledged as imperfect, because I wish to drag you from your perfection into the disgusting mess of reality.

"We have actual people" <- We have a bunch of hypocrite boring losers.

"instead of fictional ideas of them" <- We have no interest in seeking an ideal that isn't a hypocrite boring loser, and decry such ideals as fictional, without explaining why fiction is bad.

"made up in our heads" <- We have no respect for ideals, or for the human mind, or indeed of anything that isn't a hypocrite boring loser mired in the muddy darkness of reality.

"made up fantasies" <- We are contemptuously mocking the ideals that others have set forth, even though we acknowledge that those ideals are better than us(by virtue of not being hypocritical shitlords), for reasons unknown.

[Accountant]

I'm no longer interested in talking to someone about my beliefs when they think that I'm a hypocrite who will betray those beliefs. I haven't put you on foe, since you still talk in the political threads, but I'm not going to talk to you here, so unless you want to turn this into a chat thread with another user of this thread - in which case I'll report you for being off-topic in your posting - I'll simply ignore you.

[Accountant]

I do not literally mean that these people are NPCs. I mean that they are equivalent to NPCs in conceptual significance. I see people as a set of ideals, and someone with no ideals is just a hollow shell. Nothing more than a zombie or a robot programmed to shallowly pretend to be human.

[Accountant]

Is it because there's this objective notion of value out there that, for some reason, has no correlation with the notion of value that I find obvious?

Yes.

[Accountant]

*sighs*

XRZ, I'll write a more comprehensive rebuttal of your post after I've dealt with Sesq's. To summarize, you are making a great many assumptions about me and my point of view that are simply not true.

[Accountant]

Actually, no, it was not established that personhood is derived from ideals, you just asserted it out of nowhere. Your diatribe about sentient AI is only true with the presupposition that their personhood would be judged on their ideals, which is supposed to be the conclusion, and not the premise, and yet again you display no knowledge of how logic or critical thought works.

Sesq... this is a thread about my beliefs. Are you seriously asking me for evidence that I really believe X beyond me asserting that I believe X?

[Accountant]

Is a complete copy of your ideal or philosophy avalible on the forum? If not, can you make one?

I can't replicate neurons. Yet.

[Accountant]

You have utterly and completely failed to back up your argument.

This isn't an argument. This is me teaching you the truth.

[Accountant]

Could write down what you can of your philosophy as a just in case. If you died tomorrow I don't want what you stood for to die as well.

That's what this thread is for.

[Accountant]

#tiggered lollllll rekt 420

This is not an argument.

[Accountant]

It really shows that instead of proving why you aren't being hypocritical, if that is indeed the case, you tell them to GTFO because it offends you. This is not a debunk, it's whining.

I can't debunk what doesn't exist. Shaziro offered no proof of my hypocrisy, or evidence towards the same.

[Accountant]

This sort of implies that there's an alternate to reality. There isn't. I definitely wish there was sometimes, and I'm prone to getting caught in my own fantasies from time to time, but that doesn't validate its position as important at all.

That's the kind of dangerous rhetoric used by reality sympathisers. I'm honestly unsure why on earth you'd want to discriminate against fantasy worlds. Is this jealousy because they're better places to live in than reality?

[Accountant]

It's just not real. It's true you can imagine things and they can become real. Social security was a dream one day, as was flight and the internet, and if you have good ideas you should go through with them. However, you need a sense of practicality to apply it to reality, as your non-reality applies to nobody but you and maybe some of your mates.

You know perfectly well that I hold no truck with reality. It's meaningless to me unless it advances utopia. To tell me that what I believe is not real is about as meaningful as telling me that my favorite book begins with the letter T or that my best friend has red hair. It's just a completely pointless statement.

As for my friends, I invite you to cease speaking about subjects of which you are ignorant.

[Accountant]

That's nothing more but your own perception.

Nothing but? My own perception is the only thing that matters.

[Accountant]

But in a single post summary? It would be easier to understand if it is in a single post.

"What would Accountant do?"

[Accountant]

reality sympathizers

This is wrong. So wrong. Wrong on so many levels.

It's "reality sympathisers".

My apologies. I blame my phone's autocorrect. I have corrected the post.

[Accountant]

But in a single post summary? It would be easier to understand if it is in a single post.

"What would Accountant do?"

If I gave this to a stranger, they would have no idea what it means.

1) Identify the self evident truths of the world
2) Follow them

[Accountant]

XRZ, it's midnight on a day that happens to fall in the unhappy overlap between Chinese New Year celebrations and exam preparation period. I am very busy, very tired and have a limited amount of time and energy to spare. The ramblings of an armchair psychiatrist who attempts to tell me what is in my mind and deigns to educate me as to what sort of approaches my own philosophy espouses are not on the top of my priority list.

Please be patient. I'll get around to dismantling your argument eventually.

[Accountant]

Yes. If you have beliefs, they should be backed up by some form of evidence. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing if they're correct.

What garbage is this?

Evidence is for arguments, not the correct path. There's no need to provide evidence that the correct path is correct because that's the starting assumption.

[Accountant]

"Reality sympathizer" is a thing now. Brilliant. How am I discriminating against something that doesn't exist? I'm not saying we should ignore their ideals, necessarily, but to bring them to the real world you must then apply practicality and critical thought to the idea.

No I don't.

[Accountant]

So you're solipsistic?

Other perspectives exist. They just aren't important.

[Accountant]

They're only self-evident TO YOU, at least the self-evident truths you are referring to. And if they are only self-evident to you, they are not self-evident to or of the world.

See: my perspective is the only relevant one.

[Accountant]

How many ideals should one have to follow to the best of their ability?
Do you recognize that people make mistakes?
Cannot nuance be part of an ideal?
Let me explain, an ideal is something one sees as perfect or desirable. So if someone sees adding nuance to their ideals, are they not still ideals that one wants to follow? I think of nuance in a programmatic sense, if statements that contain branches for what to do. It seems in your world these ifs do not exist in ideals, whereas in mine they would. You run an ideal, but if X happens do Y, else do Z. Is this nuance and if so, isn't it still an ideal?

Your choice. At least one.

Yes.

It would be a self-contradictory ideal, and you'd be forced to break yourself one way or the other. Because you'd have to follow the ideal of nuance in a way that is absolute.

[Accountant]

That was easy

How do I become the leader?

You must become the most righteous person in the universe.

[Accountant]

I should be the leader because I've mastered The Philosophy greater than Accountant.

In another thread, you espoused Christian beliefs. Have you given those beliefs up?

[Accountant]

Evidence is for arguments, not the correct path. There's no need to provide evidence that the correct path is correct because that's the starting assumption.

How can you ever know the correct path is wrong if you don't observe any evidence that would tell you its wrong?

I don't, because it's never wrong.

[Accountant]

That is, by the way, blatant hypocrisy. Meaning Accountant is a hypocrite. Meaning Accountant is a "boring loser" by their own logic.

That GIF is misapplied here. There's a difference between not being perfect and turning my back on my ideals through the use of nuance. For example, scoring a 99% on a test is imperfect. But saying "I don't care about tests anyway" is hypocrisy.

[Accountant]

i love it when a new person joins the thread because they decide to argue the exact same points everyone else already has as if it's going to make much difference when they ask it

As much as I disagree with Accountant's philosophies, I still find the mindset interesting when new points are expanded upon, but when the points being asked are the same ones as always and the answer is the same one as always it's just dull and frustrating for every party involved

This is the second-best part of this thread.
The best part is when people discuss how the patterns of the thread repeat themselves, thus creating another pattern that repeats itself.
I've read a decent amount of it but may have missed the specific answer I'm looking for. I'm trying to approach this with a specific philosophy in mind to some degree (J. L. Mackie's). Which I'm sure Accountant would vehemently disagree with.

You can approach this with any philosophy you want, but it's likely incorrect.

[Accountant]

So then why should I accept your philosophy, if it rests very directly on the tenet of "these things are self-evident" and I do not find them to be self-evident?

Or is there some reason to believe the tenets of your philosophy other than their being self-evident?

Suggestion: re-educate yourself and see the self-evident truths, then you'll be able to accept my philosophy.

[Accountant]

I am inclined to believe there must be at least some reason you are continuously pushing forward this dialogue, but it is not very clear.

Education.

[Accountant]

I'm glad to see you've finally seen the light, eagerSnake.

XRZ: I hope eagerSnake has demonstrated to you why I do this.

[Accountant]

They are not mutually exclusive. Why would your correct path be a starting assumption?

Because it's correct.

[Accountant]

Grammar: DO YOU SPEAK IT?

Grammar is not a language.

[Accountant]

When determing your beliefs, maybe. But if we actually care about objectivity here, it wouldn't give a single fuck about what you think or what I think or what anyone else thinks.

Objectivity is determined by the correct path.

You've got it flipped around here. Truths don't determine my beliefs, my beliefs determine the truth.

[Accountant]

To me, there is a lot of evidence here to support the idea that you have been horribly mistreating these people. This is not because of whether or not what you are saying is reality, but because the discussion you are trying to drive forward implies(at least, to a certain degree) that you should be able to bring out that potential through guidance rather than tyranny.

I'm not tyrannizing anyone.

[Accountant]

If you intend to discuss about reality itself from an objective standpoint, you are acknowledging beforehand that this has become an uncommon opinion/approach in the last 5 years.

I don't care.

[Accountant]

What are you trying to define as reality doesn't even matter, as you must first build the base upon which these ideas can be built. You skipped the part where you built the base and immediately tried to fortify your castle, thus closing you off and leaving it all to come crashing down with no result. What does it matter if you can determine what is right if you have yet to define what right is in the first place?

You are incorrect. I have already thoroughly defined what is right. The correct path is what is right. The correct path is the indestructible base upon which the castle stands.

[Accountant]

How can you expect anyone to understand a picture that was taken from the third person if they have only seen things from the first person up until now?

I expect people not to be blind.

[Accountant]

Objectively speaking, anybody has the choice to do whatever they so please if they choose to do so. There is nothing you can do to stop that

I have already advanced several ideas to get rid of this, such as re-education and the stripping away of the dirty freedoms that cause so much wrongness in this world.

[Accountant]

The insanity here is that you left out the part where you acknowledge that it isn't the ability to make a choice being put into question, but that if we do live in a world which is tangible and contains truth at all, there will be no sentient being which will be able to make sense out of purposely going against it, as it can only ever possibly be detrimental to their own goals and being(whatever they might be).

No; there are many sentient beings who rebel against the truth. For example the ultimate moral truth is that justice is absolute, but many people violate this for their own gain.

[Accountant]

This is an application of something I believe to be common sense, which is that no person will ever be able bring themselves to do something that they know 100% for sure is wrong. It's not because they can't, it's because they won't.

I agree, but sometimes they don't know what's wrong and need me to teach it to them.

[Accountant]

Not_Mafia, you really shouldn't use that GIF on everything you see. Most of what Shaziro says is incorrect interpretations of my words. Let me show you the truth of the world. I am a human, but "I" am my ideals. That is to say, the human being that I am falls into the set of all human beings. This human being is certainly a human being. It has to eat, sleep, go to the toilet and so forth. But the real me is a set of ideals. Similarly, it is the human being that is flawed. All human beings are flawed. That's what it means to be human. Only a superhuman being, like a set of ideals, can rise above it.

That's why I can safely call myself perfect without lying or being a hypocrite. I predict that Shaziro will use this opportunity to say that I am making up this as an excuse to defend myself after being called out. Luckily, I've already expressed this view to many people beforehand, like Postie and Trivium, so they can confirm that this is not a made up thing but rather a conceptual framework that has existed since forever.

Or to put it in other ways - I live in the utopia. I do not live on earth. However, there is a "person" which exists in reality. All the sins and mistakes are performed by that "person", who exists in the sin-filled reality, hence keeping the sins away from utopia. From the start this was established as a means of ensuring that I will always keep the moral high ground. It may be compared to the role of Jesus in the Bible, who takes on all the sins of the world. Jesus is "perfect" - he has not committed any sin. But at the same time he is "imperfect" due to the sins he has taken into him. Therefore, it is not hypocritical for Jesus to say "thou shalt not sin" but then take on sins unto himself. This is why Shaziro's accusation of me being a hypocrite is untrue.

[Accountant]

I'm glad to see you've finally seen the light, eagerSnake.

XRZ: I hope eagerSnake has demonstrated to you why I do this.

I've actually been a master of The Philosophy for many years.

Come, and I will educate you, so you too may achieve immaculate morality.

Thank you for the offer, but I already know the material.

[Accountant]

Why is it correct?

This question does not make sense.

[Accountant]

I know that. I also knew that you wouldn't understand anything beyond rigid English syntax because you read like a robot, in both definitions. Your response to my paragraph didn't fit grammatically with anything I said in that paragraph. You might as well have said "BANANANS{"

Let me clarify. You say that I "must do" certain things. I disagree.

[Accountant]

Your sophistry is just so transparent. I both love you and despise everything you stand for.

At all times I strive to be transparent and clear.

[Accountant]

In the utopia(where I live), you can indeed have your cake and eat it to. I know I said I'd ignore you, but some arguments are just too easy to shoot down.

[Accountant]

In my world you can't. If you're allowed to say "I can because I say so", then so can I. That's why your "shooting down" is really just shooting yourself in the foot.

You can't. Here's why.

Your world is incorrect. My world is correct. You are incorrect. I am correct.

Only correct people can say "because I say so" - like XRZ said, if you really are correct, it makes sense to put your full weight forward. But you're not correct, so it would be incorrect to do so. How do I know you're the incorrect one? Because the correct path says so, and the correct path is, of course correct.

[Accountant]

You don't know what sophistry means, do you?

Sophistry means to use clever but logically incorrect arguments. I thank you for your assertion that I am clever - I don't care about being logically correct, as the correct path is above logic.

[Accountant]

You have to understand, Shaziro, you and I, we're different. You are, as you say, a human. I am... an ideal. That is why I can do things you cannot, like say that things are true without evidence and have them be true simply because I say they are true. For a human to do that is laughable; for an ideal, routine. Now you see the gap in power between a boring loser and a real person. It's akin to the gap in power between a mortal and a god.

[Accountant]

Nope, you're incorrect. My ideas and path are correct. Yours is incorrect.

You have provided no evidence for this. This is just a bald assertion.

[Accountant]

What makes your definition of "the correct path" correct?

The correct path is correct because the source of all truth says that it is correct.

[Accountant]

Nope. It's self evident. Just like it's self evident that you're a human.

It's not self-evident. You're wrong.

[Accountant]

Notice how you're always on the back foot due to the fact that you have to back up your ideas and I don't.

[Accountant]

That is my original statement to which I'm referring to. I am not stating you must do anything anywhere in here.

"to bring them to the real world you must then apply practicality and critical thought to the idea."

That is a falsehood.

[Accountant]

Also, you still have not explained why you are *literally* your ideals. Can you back up this claim?

Of course. I am my ideals due to the fact that "I" is defined as "my ideals".

[Accountant]

Y'know, I have a self imposed rule that I don't share the content of PMs, because they're meant to be private. You have sorely tempted me, time and time again, to break that rule.

Also, no, I'm not on the back foot. If anything, I've been pointing out flaws in your ideas constantly.

There are no flaws. I don't care what I've tempted you to do.

[Accountant]

Saying something isn't true doesn't make it untrue. Sorry, try again.

This statement is incorrect, if directed at me.

[Accountant]

Projection, anyone?

It's projection in the sense that I'm doing it as well. But when I do it it's okay, because I'm right.

[Accountant]

What is the source of all truth?

The correct path.

[Accountant]

In what way? When man had the dream of flight, he wasn't like "imma just gonna jump off a cliff and fly like a bird!!!!". No. Instead, the ideas were expanded upon and a plane constructed not by dreamers, not by mechanics, but by inventors. Political ideologies are a bit different, but you can't just have your preferred politics everywhere because muh feels.

I've spoken before as to how my ideology will be spread across the world.

[Accountant]

No, "I" is defined as "you". And "You" has not been proven to mean "Your ideals", unless you consider yourself some weird post-modern construction, which is stupid.

No, "I" is defined by "my ideals". That's the definition of "I". The only reason it would even make sense to say "I" is when I'm talking about my ideals.

[Accountant]

Yes, by apparent inevitability and laziness on your part. Excellent plan.

It's not a plan. If I drop an apple, am I planning that it will fall to the ground? No. The utopia is a law of nature.

[Accountant]

But why is "I" literally your ideals? You still haven't answered it outside of assertion.

the assertion is the answer

[Accountant]

Only if it's correct, which you have not yet proven.

PEDIT: Assertions without evidence are not true. Try again.

It's correct because the source of all truth says it's correct.

Assertions without evidence are not true only if other people say them. If the correct path says them, then it's true. That's because the correct path is the source of all truth.

[Accountant]

Circular logic means I pass.

[Accountant]

Accountant you have no proof or evidence for your claims, only claims of self evident nature, for which you have no proof.

The correct path proves everything.

You have no permission for anything.

[Accountant]

You see the problem is, it doesn't. There is no quantitative data. You are relying on faith.

you're just making assertions without any evidence. Come back when you have some.

[Accountant]

As for permission, why not?

For the same reason I'm not allowing Sesq to copy the private message conversation we had(except for selected, educational excerpts).

[Accountant]

Circular logic means I pass.

You don't pass. Nobody passes. Your self-entitlement is grating.

I pass due to the fact that I'm correct. That's why I'm always going to be correct even if I use circular logic.

[Accountant]

Except that this entire thread has made it very evident that your beliefs rely on faith alone and no actual logic. Isn't that one of your axioms? Because for being an axioms you sure are shit at it.

Oh, yes, logic is very important. It's axiomatically important. That's why I always correct shaziro when he tries to slide by assertions without evidence.

[Accountant]

PEDIT: You're not restricting me from releasing it, I'm just agreeing not to for the time being. If I can fish anything important from there I might but I'm too lazy to look through it. You have no authority here, child.

I agree. I can't stop you from releasing it. But I know you won't anyway, so the same outcome is achieved.

[Accountant]

PEDIT THE SEQUEL: STOP DOUBLEPOSTING: Actually no, it's never a free pass. You could maybe find some other route of logic that does conclude you to be correct, but you have not shown one that exists, and right now I think there isn't one.

It's a free pass if I do it. You're incorrect in this case.

Logic is irrelevant when it comes to the correct path.

[Accountant]

He hasn't done this yet. He's made assertions without directly presenting evidence, but it's ok because it's self-evident, and if YOU don't see it you're obviously blind to the true path, right?

You can't just say stuff is self-evident. What the hell? It's clearly not self-evident if I can't see it, and I'm clearly not blind because I can see the correct path. Don't try to ridiculously claim something is self-evident as a way of sliding by without actually giving evidence.

[Accountant]

And that reason is?

Aliphant - Last Tuesday at 11:45 AM
I have lived through many years on this planet and have brought the light of utopia to many people. Experience has taught me this: when someone is acting in a cryptic manner and refuses to explain why, they're either plotting against you, making fun of you behind your back or both.
Your request [to screenshot the conversation] is declined.
You have a track record of debating in bad faith, using memes rather than arguments and generally having a very negative and condescending attitude towards the correct path. I think you're a misguided fool who will not understand utopia unless and until you are re-educated.
This strengthens my conviction that you're either plotting against me or making fun of me behind my back.

Clarifications in square brackets are mine.

[Accountant]

Accountant, once again, is a hypocrite

This is not hypocrisy. What principle have I set forth and then later violated?

[Accountant]

You just said that you can't call something self evident without giving evidence

I said that

you

can't call something self-evident without giving evidence.

I

can call something self-evident without giving evidence, because I am correct and above humanity.

[Accountant]

PEDIT: Logic is relevant to everything. Especially deals of politics and morality. Also I'm pretty sure this is conflicting something I've said in the past, which is what we call changing your mind, something you're very unfamiliar with, it seems.

Changing your mind is a behavior that is typical of someone with no convictions.

[Accountant]

Only if you come with evidence that your path is correct, evidence that no other path is correct, evidence that you are following your path completely and without any hypocrisy, evidence that you are your ideals, and evidence that you are for some reason more special than anyone else and are therefore allowed to be illogical while everyone else has to be logical. You do all that, and I'll have no evidence against you. My evidence for saying you have no evidence, however, is the fact that you cannot provide any of that without retreating to "It's self evident" or "Because I'm correct" which are both assertions without evidence.

I don't have any evidence. I don't need any evidence, because I'm right.

[Accountant]

Firstly, the best translation of Greek for that name of yours there is "to show the other" or maybe "To show others" (Ali meaning other, phant meaning to show), which is just adorable as hell but pretty narcissistic of ya.

Actually it's because my name is Ali and I merged it with the word "elephant". Your interpretation of my name is as incorrect as your interpretation of my ideals.

[Accountant]

P-edit: Double standards are also hypocrisy. Again, welcome to being a dirty boring loser. You are also not right -because- you provide no evidence, by the way. You're putting the cart before the horse and whining that people won't tell you it works.

This is not a double standard. If we were equals, and I applied one standard to you and one standard to me, that would be a double standard. However, since I'm superior to you, it's only natural that I'd be given more leeway and allowed to do things that you aren't. The fact that you don't see this is proof of your incorrect mindset. Any correct person - indeed, anyone with a well-organized mind - could instantly see the distinction.

I'm correct because I'm correct. Me being correct is the starting point. As the Christians say: "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was God."

[Accountant]

I never understood the phrase "have your cake and eat it too"

Like, in what world would someone have a cake and then

not

eat it?

Probably in a boring loser world.

[Accountant]

A: plotting against you- I don't see you as any kind of threat or enemy, so plotting against you isn't on the agenda, no. I'm also not some comical, mustache twirling villain who hatches evil schemes, much to your disappointment I assume, so I don't do much "plotting".

B: Making fun of you behind your back- No, any making fun of you I do is almost entirely to your face, and it's largely making fun of your ideas rather than you yourself. Then again, you alternate between being and not being your ideas, so I suppose when you are being your ideas I'm making fun of you. Still to your face, mind.

That's what someone plotting against me or trying to make fun of me would say.

[Accountant]

Well typically the idea is that they like the idea of having a big cake that they can eat whenever they want, but once they eat it, it's gone, and so is that idea of the cake that they have for whenever they want. Similar problem to things like Ether. "There's a limited amount of this stuff and it's really useful, so though I want to use it, I need to save it for when I really need it". Having your Ether and using it too would be being able to use the Ether and still have it in your bag if you need it later. Make sense, or should I try a non-RPG metaphor?

In Utopia, there is unlimited cake. Have fun in your cakeless "real" world.

[Accountant]

We are equals, actually, because we're both human. Sorry bud, you're just not special, and you can't prove that you're special without first assuming that you're special. That's where you fall flat on your face, every time. The assumption that you are correct is your only proof for you being correct. That is called "begging the question" I believe, and is frowned upon.

I didn't say I was special. I said I was superior. There are many others as superior as me.

Furthermore, I don't care if you frown upon it. As a superior being, I'm certainly allowed to beg as many questions as I wish.

[Accountant]

That said, and being entirely genuine with you out of human compassion for another person, even if I disagree with you: You should probably talk to somebody about the paranoia thing you've got going on. It isn't healthy, and I think you'd be much happier if you were able to only be paranoid when it is actually appropriate to be.

I'm not taking advice from a boring loser and self-admitted hypocrite

human

, as well as someone who very likely is a reality sympathiser.

[Accountant]

You're not superior either.

This statement is incorrect.

[Accountant]

P-edit: So, anything is possible in your Utopia?

No, only good things.

[Accountant]

Nope, it's correct. Provably correct too, unlike your claims of superiority which rely entirely on begging the question. You do know that if anyone is actually going to listen to you, you're going to have to learn basic rules of logic and follow them, right?

It's incorrect, I'm afraid. No amount of saying that it is will make it correcy.

And I disagree. I've disregarded the basic rules of logic, and people are still coming into this thread to hear what I have to say. eagerSnake has even bent the knee already.

[Accountant]

Then why the hell do you bother people in the real world, exactly?

I want to help you all become better people. It's for your own good.

[Accountant]

C: EagerSnake is pretty obviously making fun of you directly to your face, bud. He's not even trying to be helpful or explanatory, he's claiming that he's your new leader because he says so and that he's more perfect than you in an imitation of what you do elsewhere. Why do you think he's talking about re-educating you? For somebody who is so incredibly paranoid that people are plotting and making fun of you, how do you miss it when it's blatant and in your face?

I don't know where you come from, but over here when you copy what someone else does it's because you think what they do is good(eg. people modelling themselves after Lee Kuan Yew)

[Accountant]

B: People come here to question you and poke holes in your logic and delve deeper into the madness that is your little religion. Do you seriously think anyone is actually "converting"?

Yes.

[Accountant]

A: No, it's provable correct not by claim but by the fact that you bleed and sleep and eat and shit and all the other things humans do, plus your DNA is human.

I don't. My body does, but I don't. You can see the difference by running a thought experiment where I'm transferred to the body of a robot.

[Accountant]

Ever heard of a parody, Accountant? Movies like "Vampires Suck"? Where they take a movie and make fun of everything in it by mimicing it but in a comical or exaggerated fashion?

But eagerSnake did not exaggerate my behavior. He behaved exactly like me, without any exaggeration.

[Accountant]

That should tell you something, tbh. You didn't think it was weird that he was declaring he was the leader and was going to re-educate you?

I am a follower of the correct path. I always talk about how I want to re-educate people.

eagerSnake talks about how he wants to re-educate people. Hence, it is likely that he is a follower of the correct path.

[Accountant]

DNA would still be human. If a robot was programmed to have all your ideas, it would just be a complex simulation of a human, you would still not be in a robot, and you would still die. Consciousness doesn't work that way.

Consciousness is not me. I'm just a set of ideals. Consciousness is not necessary for superior beings. For instance if there was a child in Nigeria with all my ideals, and you destroyed this body, I would be alive - in Nigeria.

[Accountant]

No, you're not. Also, does that mean you attempting to make other people have the same ideals as you is really just an elaborate attempt to make yourself live forever by having an endless number of people with your ideals? Because that's a pretty silly way to try to do it.

Yes, I am. And it's a happy side effect.

[Accountant]

Pretty gross to try and kill off everyone else so there's infinite yous.

It's just a happy side effect. Not the main point.

[Accountant]

How do you follow the self-evident truths of the world which I listed below.

Those are not self evident truths.

[Accountant]

They aren't true.

[Accountant]

But they are self-evident, and how are they false?

They aren't self-evident either.

[Accountant]

But does truth have to be subject to reality?

Depends on what type of truth.

[Accountant]

PEDIT: Logic is relevant to everything. Especially deals of politics and morality. Also I'm pretty sure this is conflicting something I've said in the past, which is what we call changing your mind, something you're very unfamiliar with, it seems.

Changing your mind is a behavior that is typical of someone with no convictions.

It's usually typical to someone who isn't a close-minded moron.

Also, I love how you're utterly unable to debunk someone's shitpost in the general facade of your own ignorance. Brilliant.

>2017
>close-mindedness is still regarded as bad

holy shit

[Accountant]

It doesn't matter. If you believe that people are their ideas and ideals, and that changing those kills the person, then you are killing people if you try to change them. It makes sense as to why Accountant is so afraid of personal growth, but it means that accountant is fully willing to kill literally everyone that isn't Accountant.

Well, I get where you're coming from, and I know it seems alarming, but if you think about it, I'm replacing them with better people. So, in a sense, they're like the phoenix's egg that gives rise to beautiful, immortal reincarnations. They are not just being mowed down but rather sacrificing their lives in order to create a better utopia. So, in my opinion, such a trade-off would be worth it. I'm not a psychopath who likes to kill people, I'm just someone who understands that it's certainly necessary to cut away the canker of the world if we are to replace it with healthy, flourishing correct people.

[Accountant]

gulags exist in utopia

That is not utopia.

[Accountant]

You're not better than me.

this statement is incorrect

instead of denying your inferiority, you should be trying to improve yourself

[Accountant]

The reason you aren't better than me is because I do try to better myself, and you don't.

That is incorrect. I am always bettering myself - that is the reason for my perfection.

[Accountant]

If you are perfect, you can't better yourself. Please put some effort into your posts before posting them.

how ignorant are you? Please go back and read my posts about the definition of perfection before foolishly attempting to challenge me.

There are two types of perfection: the absolute best of the best, and the mode in which you will inevitably reach the first mode by means of constant self improvement. Both of these things are called perfection(since there's no difference between something that will inevitably become perfect and something that's already perfect).

[Accountant]

They admit their imperfection. That's why I'm the leader.

I am not imperfect and you are not the leader. Please stop putting words into my mouth, eagerSnake.

[Accountant]

Also, I am a private citizen, yet I receive fan-mail and I have enjoyed spending time with my own personal saviors around me. And yet I have to find somebody to share my life with. I think that I need to worry about two and only two things in my life: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already might have. I know the exact location of Elvis. I think "Liberte, egalite, fraternite" also makes for an interesting order of priorities.
I know I'm not for most of you and vice-versa, so if I stop responding at some point it's probably for the best. If you don't take yourself too seriously and are petite rather than slim, cute rather than hot, original rather than a me-too person, a doer rather than a watcher, do you know why we are right for each other?

This post is incoherent.

[Accountant]

But on a more serious note, why is close-mindedness bad?

I know that for you it's that you don't want your fragile worldview to collapse, but from your perspective, wouldn't it good for others to be open-minded to your own ideals?

I have more respect for someone with an incorrect worldview who is willing to kill and stifle others to defend it, than I do for someone who has some good points but changes their mind frequently.

[Accountant]

You're wrong.

your definition is incorrect

[Accountant]

Sorry I think I must have read something wrong here

I thought when you said "I'm not perfect" that you meant "I am imperfect," not "I am not imperfect"

Is this the contradiction fallacy

Not_Mafia, you really shouldn't use that GIF on everything you see. Most of what Shaziro says is incorrect interpretations of my words. Let me show you the truth of the world. I am a human, but "I" am my ideals. That is to say, the human being that I am falls into the set of all human beings. This human being is certainly a human being. It has to eat, sleep, go to the toilet and so forth. But the real me is a set of ideals. Similarly, it is the human being that is flawed. All human beings are flawed. That's what it means to be human. Only a superhuman being, like a set of ideals, can rise above it.

That's why I can safely call myself perfect without lying or being a hypocrite. I predict that Shaziro will use this opportunity to say that I am making up this as an excuse to defend myself after being called out. Luckily, I've already expressed this view to many people beforehand, like Postie and Trivium, so they can confirm that this is not a made up thing but rather a conceptual framework that has existed since forever.

Or to put it in other ways - I live in the utopia. I do not live on earth. However, there is a "person" which exists in reality. All the sins and mistakes are performed by that "person", who exists in the sin-filled reality, hence keeping the sins away from utopia. From the start this was established as a means of ensuring that I will always keep the moral high ground. It may be compared to the role of Jesus in the Bible, who takes on all the sins of the world. Jesus is "perfect" - he has not committed any sin. But at the same time he is "imperfect" due to the sins he has taken into him. Therefore, it is not hypocritical for Jesus to say "thou shalt not sin" but then take on sins unto himself. This is why Shaziro's accusation of me being a hypocrite is untrue.

[Accountant]

You're wrong.

your definition is incorrect

Nobody but you thinks so. The majority agrees, you are wrong. Congratulations, you're wrong and imperfect.

The majority is incorrect. I am correct and perfect.

[Accountant]

Definitions of words are decided by popular opinion, so that fallacy doesn't apply here.

This statement is incorrect. The definitions of words within the utopic philosophy is defined by the correct path.

[Accountant]

You're on a forum in the real world, you have to stay within the constraints of the real world in order to argue.

Hahahahahaha no I don't

[Accountant]

Yeah, you do, otherwise your arguments are flawed, incorrect, and silly.

Proof?

[Accountant]

Since we can apparently break the laws of reality here this is what happened while you blinked:

Spoiler: Creative writing.. everyone's doing it.

eS: Well, Accountant, if you are an "ideal" then you have no rights under Human law! Learned judges, my case is simple. It is based on our First Article of Faith... which is....

-Everyone looks puzzled...-

Shaziro: Finders keepers, losers weepers?

eS: No, no, no. You know... the one that says "The Almighty created the Man in His own image... that He gave him a soul and a mind... that He set him apart from the beasts of the jungle and made him the lord of the planet."

Shaziro: Oh yeah... that one. I knew that.

eS: (rolling his eyes playfully) Silly!... Anyway... These sacred truths are self-evident. The proper study of Man is Man. But certain young cynics have chosen to study "ideals." Yes, perverted scientists who advance an insidious theory called... utopia.

Shaziro: Come to the point now.

eS: WELL.... the State charges that Accountant experimented on this ideal, tampering with the fabrics of reality, to produce an idyllic monster.

Accountant: That's a lie!

Shaziro: Mind your tongue!

Accountant: Did I create the universe as well? Not only can this ideal speak, this ideal can think... it can reason!

eS: Ha! Ideals that can reason? With the tribunal's permission, allow me to expose this hoax by direct examination...

eS: (arms flailing wildly, sashays over to Accountant...) Tell the court, Accountant, what is the Second Article of Faith?

Accountant: I know nothing of your culture, I admit that.

eS: Of course they don't know our culture because they cannot think! Tell us... why are all Man created equal?

Accountant: (in a sarcastic tone) Some Man, it seems, are more equal than others.

Shaziro: Do not turn this hearing into a show tune.

eS: Ridiculous! (tugging on Accountant's leash...) Tell us, Accountant... why do ideals have no souls? What is the proof that a divine spark exists in an ideal? Is it still a no-no to wear white after Labor Day? Do you think I'm sexy? Huh? HELLO-OHHHH!!!!!!

-
Yeah, it actually happened.

none of this shit happened

[Accountant]

Self-evident

Are you speaking of moral truths or factual truths

[Accountant]

You're on a forum in the real world, you have to stay within the constraints of the real world in order to argue.

Hahahahahaha no I don't

the first time i read this i swear i just saw a giant long

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

If you find yourself consistently incapable of clearly reading text, there could be a problem with your eyesight. I advise you to get it checked immediately.

[Accountant]

It most certainly did happen in my reality

What sort of weird-ass reality do you live in

[Accountant]

Self-evident

Are you speaking of moral truths or factual truths

Of self-evident truths.

Yeah, but both moral and factual truths can be self evident. Which one do you mean?

[Accountant]

It most certainly did happen in my reality

What sort of weird-ass reality do you live in

One where I don't have to stay within the constraints of the real world

And of all the things you could do with that you chose to do... that?

smh

[Accountant]

The ones the utopia is build on.

The utopia builds on both factual and moral truths.

[Accountant]

In this thread we learned that Accountant is afraid of new ideas because he thinks they will literally kill him

New ideas won't literally kill me. It's only if they're accepted then there's a problem

[Accountant]

If your truths were Self-evident, at least one of them would of appeared in the spoiler since these are the answers I got for self-evident truths. And if you disagree, you don't offer up your truths so I have to go off these for the Utopia.

It's due to the fact that the people you asked are blind and can't see self-evident truths.

[Accountant]

Then tell them your truths.

For instance, being balanced is morally righteous, and being unbalanced is not morally righteous. Attacking another person for no reason is morally wrong. Order should be maintained. So on and so forth.

[Accountant]

What is balanced?

It means to have symmetry. For instance if I take $500 from you, then give you $500, such an act is considered balanced as the $500 is taken and given in equal amounts. This is considered symmetrical(and shows up most starkly if you were to record this transaction in an accounting ledger).

[Accountant]

The Utopia is communist in the sense that people don't work for their money. Instead, they will simply request things like food or luxuries and it will be given to them.

[Accountant]

The Utopia is communist in the sense that people don't work for their money. Instead, they will simply request things like food or luxuries and it will be given to them.

That doesn't sound balanced to me

It's certainly balanced.

They are given "objects", and they return "value" to the society. Such an arrangement is equivalent to a trade deal that is inherently balanced.

[Accountant]

So what do people get for working?

They don't get anything. Rather, they order objects that they wish to have and provide value to the society in return.

[Accountant]

What is value?

Anything that makes the society better.

[Accountant]

Do retail shops exist in the Utopia?

Yes, since some people might enjoy running them.

[Accountant]

For true balance, you have to have good and bad. Utopia is unbalanced. Utopia is not virtuous. Utopia is incorrect.

That is incorrect.

[Accountant]

Do retail shops exist in the Utopia?

Yes, since some people might enjoy running them.

Will they charge for products?

Up to them.

[Accountant]

Depends if the utopia is post-scarcity technologically, or not.

[Accountant]

For true balance, you have to have good and bad. Utopia is unbalanced. Utopia is not virtuous. Utopia is incorrect.

That is incorrect.

Balance requires equal positive and negative forces. Evil is definitively a negative force, good is definitively a positive force.

That is not what balance is about. Balance is about symmetry, as I outlined earlier.

[Accountant]

Also, it's interesting that Accountant claims to live in Utopia, and yet they don't know what it is like. They can't even answer if it is pre or post scarcity.

The Utopia is a state of societal and moral harmony, and therefore, it may occur in both pre and post scarcity states of technological development.

[Accountant]

And the symmetry between good and evil would be ignored. Above and below, up and down, good and bad. Without Evil, there is no balance. I'm sure you're going to decide to just say "no that's not true because I said so", but I also know that you've probably never had somebody actually question your beliefs deeply enough to get to this point because most people probably laugh at you, so this is probably a bit jarring. Hope it doesn't change how you think or it's apparently killing you or something.

There certainly is beautiful symmetry there. Lots of good, none of evil. Isn't it beautifully balanced when this occurs? After all, the +good is counterbalanced by -evil(+ is counterbalanced by - and good is counterbalanced by evil). It is you who have failed to see the true extent of conceptual balance that is required for Utopia.

[Accountant]

Yes, good and evil are balanced.

+Good is balanced by -Evil

Do you not understand? Even a toddler can see opposites

[Accountant]

So you are saying that there is evil in Utopia?

No, I am saying that there is NO evil in utopia. It would be unbalanced if there was evil(which creates even more evil).

[Accountant]

And good creates more good.

Mhm!

[Accountant]

Balance is a 0 state. Good is a positive, evil is a negative. Therefore, with only good and no evil, your fantasy world is in a positive state, not a balanced state.

Balance is not a 0 state. Balance is, as I have said, a symmetrical state.

+ balances -
Good balances Evil

+Good balances -Evil

@CoolDoG: the problem is that logic is inferior to the correct path, so mucking about with truth tables can't be valid.

[Accountant]

More good does not balance less evil. That's not how anything works

Again with the assertions without evidence.

[Accountant]

Three pluses balance out three minuses

The 1s are neutral and so work out to balance regardless

What you fail to perceive is looking at each number as +1 or -1 rather than two components, a plus and a minus, along with the number it modifies.

Just like +1 and -1 balance due to the 1s being neutral, +good and -evil balance due to the good and evil balancing each other out(thus having the same effect as a neutral number). Note that a society that has -good and +evil is balanced too, but the balance introduces good so the good is no longer -, and then it becomes unbalanced, so such a society is inherently unstable while adding more good doesb't change the + symbol of +good so my society is stable and safe.

[Accountant]

Good is not +, Bad is not -

Good is good, Bad is bad, + and - indicate a lot and none

+Good = lots of good
-Good = no good

+- = a lot of null, no null = null = balanced
GoodBad = some good, some bad = balanced
+GoodBad = A lot of good, some bad = not balanced
-Good+Bad = No good, a lot of bad = balanced
+Good-Bad = A lot of good, no bad = utopia = balanced

This is not gish galloping, gish galloping is when you throw hundreds of nonsensical arguments, I am showing you exactly why I am correct and you can't justify your own incorrect view so you are resorting to evidenceless assertions and baselss accusations to try to dishonestly discredit me

[Accountant]

Honestly you're an idiot if you think you know better than me what the correct path's definition of balance is, given that you don't even accept the most basic tenets of the path and I am a dedicated scholar of the correct path

[Accountant]

Maybe it appears as though I am drowning him in arguments because he can't believe that a single one of my arguments is powerful enough to drown him by itself

[Accountant]

You literally take pride in the irrationality of your arguments, saying that you don't have to be rational because you're special. That's a pretty shit argument there bud. Also, no, + does not mean lots, - does not mean none. A lot of water is not a balanced amount of water.

A lot of water is not a balanced amount of water, but if you take a lot of water and mix it with none of anti-water, you have a balanced amount of total liquid. Also, I do not take pride in the irrationality of my arguments. I simply point out, as a hard, solid fact(no matter how much you may wish to deny it), that my arguments are above rationality.

[Accountant]

You are talking in the real world, not your bullshit fantasy world. That's why you're using a real world language, not some bullshit fantasy language. Therefore, if you're using words from a real language, you have to go by their real meaning, not a meaning you think is better.

I do not talk in the real world. I never talk in the real world, and I never have since I established the Wonderland. It's a testament to your short-sightedness that you're unable to conceive of anyone talking in a world you aren't in yourself.

[Accountant]

Maybe it appears as though I am drowning him in arguments because he can't believe that a single one of my arguments is powerful enough to drown him by itself

Your arguments are as shallow as you and your thought processes. That is to say, -very- shallow.

More assertions without evidence.

[Accountant]

I propose moving to a medium where one would not have time to 'prepare' responses

Skype: helltank.cy
Discord: Aliphant#4694
Telegram:

[redacted.]

If you have an IRC server, I can chat there too, since I have an IRC client.

[Accountant]

Why would you make your phone number publically available
Assuming that isn't the number to a troll hotline

I trust you people.

[Accountant]

I'm a Christian, I can easily conceive of worlds I'm not in and people talking about them. You're no god, though, you're a kid in Singapore with some serious issues that need resolving by somebody interested in helping you rather than poking holes in your ideas because of how annoying you are with them elsewhere on the thread, and who won't get even more annoyed at your attempts at insults and then threats to get them to go away when you realize you're wrong. You've got two options when talking about worlds that are not the ones in which your audience lives in. Explain them in the best possible way using terminology and examples from their world, such as "Land of Milk and Honey", "Paradise", and "Perfect Afterlife"...or just say "I can't explain it, you have to take it on faith". First one works a lot better. You're trying to take words from actual reality and then change them to mean whatever you want, while expecting to keep the full weight (if not more weight than) their real world meaning.

Oh, you're a Christian. That explains a lot.

Well, I can conceive of worlds I'm not in, but I don't have an interest in doing anything in those putrid worlds(other than maybe reforming them). I don't want or need to be helped. I have no issues, no matter how much your not-a-psychiatrist-self tells me I do. I have never "realized I am wrong". I assure you this as an objective truth - thus your statement is incorrect. I choose the second option.

[Accountant]

But like this isn't even the Speakeasy
Anyone can access this board

I trust that the small subsection of non-scummers who just happen to access this particular thread and flip to this particular page are not unscrupulous enough to abuse the information given.

[Accountant]

I never have since I established the Wonderland

Your even more wrong if you are talking in wonderland. Balance is pointless along with good and bad as consepts are done away with.

Who told you that?

[Accountant]

The books?

[Accountant]

...not a very helpful answer.

[Accountant]

Accountant, define balance.

A state of things that achieves a pleasant symmetry.

[Accountant]

Oh, you're a Christian. That explains a lot.

And as an atheist, please stop this

It's not an insult. I merely said it explained a lot about Shaziro's behavior.

[Accountant]

You don't know the books that made your location?

I made Utopia.

[Accountant]

This is officially the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Ever.

I literally mean it.

This is not an argument.

[Accountant]

Anyway, I find your capitalization of "Wonderland" to be interesting, as if it's a real place you've established, even though you kind of imply it's this weird alternate dimension thing that's in your head.

But if this is some sort of hidden ironic joke, I'd be joyful.

When will people learn that the two are not mutually exclusive? Well, I'm certainly not a comedian.

[Accountant]

It's already defined as "whatever I want it to be because I've already applied this buzzword haphazardly and can't back out of it"

1757 proves this post to be incorrect.

[Accountant]

It's too bad none of these words mean anything to us in the real world because you apparently have different definitions for everything in your world than we do here in the real world.

"Pleasant symmetry" and that leaves plenty of room for interpretation even in our language.

Come on, everyone knows what I mean by pleasant symmetry.

[Accountant]

It's too bad none of these words mean anything to us in the real world because you apparently have different definitions for everything in your world than we do here in the real world.

"Pleasant symmetry" and that leaves plenty of room for interpretation even in our language.

Perhaps you should change your definitions to fit mine. After all, we already know that my world is perfect while yours is not.

[Accountant]

You don't know the books that made your location?

I made Utopia.

Your location isn't utopia.

My location says "Wonderland". Wonderland means utopia.

[Accountant]

You don't know the books that made your location?

I made Utopia.

Your location isn't utopia.

I would use the word deluded asylum or hell hole.

What an incorrect way of looking at my world.

[Accountant]

My location says "Wonderland". Wonderland means utopia.

People are beheaded on a whim in Wonderland, that contradicts your violence self-evident belief.

In Wonderland, people don't do anything to get beheaded, so there is no violence. There's only a law about getting beheaded if you do wrong stuff. But putting that aside, even if I had to behead people, it wouldn't be contradictory, because it would just indicate that the belief about justice being enforced is of a higher level than the belief about violence being bad.

[Accountant]

It's too bad none of these words mean anything to us in the real world because you apparently have different definitions for everything in your world than we do here in the real world.

"Pleasant symmetry" and that leaves plenty of room for interpretation even in our language.

Perhaps you should change your definitions to fit mine. After all, we already know that my world is perfect while yours is not.

Perfect world =/= perfect definitions

Any imperfection in a perfect world would stain it and render it imperfect. Thus, a perfect world implies perfect definitions.

[Accountant]

In Wonderland, people don't do anything to get beheaded

They don't have to do anything to get beheaded.

Also, it would be alright for me to go around eating people then.

They have to commit a crime to get beheaded. And no.

[Accountant]

The Walrus?

[Accountant]

Have you ever read Alice in Wonderland?

Yes.

[Accountant]

I'm legitimately curious why people keep debating Accountant on this. From what I can see, their ideals and arguments are designed in a way that don't have any legitimate ground to stand on, yet are impossible to conclusively disprove either.

I would assume that it's for entertainment purposes, but I'm not hesitant to believe that based on how some of the responses in this thread are shaped.

This is incorrect. My ideals and arguments are designed to

never be wrong

. This ensures that I am righteous at all times.

[Accountant]

There's a lovely little concept that wraps this up nicely, which is falsifiability. Accountant is making a series of unfalsifiable claims.

The problem is that falsifiability is a part of rational/scientific thinking, which is of a lower hiearchy than the correct path. So we can say that the existence of an argument about the correct path invalidates points based on falsifiability.