Already done.
I can support a belief without amalgamating myself with it.In post 1494, Accountant wrote:In another thread, you espoused Christian beliefs. Have you given those beliefs up?In post 1478, eagerSnake wrote:I should be the leader because I've mastered The Philosophy greater than Accountant.
Education.In post 1433, XRZ wrote: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.
Because it's correct.In post 1499, Sesq wrote:They are not mutually exclusive. Why would your correct path be a starting assumption?
Grammar is not a language.In post 1499, Sesq wrote:Grammar: DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Objectivity is determined by the correct path.In post 1499, Sesq wrote: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.
I'm not tyrannizing anyone.In post 1433, XRZ wrote: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 don't care.In post 1433, XRZ wrote: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.
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.In post 1433, XRZ wrote: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?
I expect people not to be blind.In post 1433, XRZ wrote: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 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.In post 1433, XRZ wrote: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
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.In post 1433, XRZ wrote: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).
I agree, but sometimes they don't know what's wrong and need me to teach it to them.In post 1433, XRZ wrote: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.
Why is that impossible?In post 1491, Accountant wrote: 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.
I've actually been a master of The Philosophy for many years.In post 1502, Accountant wrote:I'm glad to see you've finally seen the light, eagerSnake.
XRZ: I hope eagerSnake has demonstrated to you why I do this.
Why is it correct?In post 1503, Accountant wrote:Because it's correct.In post 1499, Sesq wrote:They are not mutually exclusive. Why would your correct path be a starting assumption?
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{"Accountant wrote:Grammar is not a language.In post 1499, Sesq wrote:Grammar: DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Accountant wrote:Objectivity is determined by the correct path.In post 1499, Sesq wrote: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.
You've got it flipped around here. Truths don't determine my beliefs, my beliefs determine the truth.
Admitting to being flawed before, and now saying you aren't is a lie, either then or now. Saying you are a human, and then now saying you are your ideals is a lie, then or now. Then, when you call people out for lying and decry liars, you become a hypocrite. Welcome to the dirty water, bud, you're a boring loser just like the rest of us.In post 1496, Accountant wrote: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.In post 1485, Not_Mafia wrote:In post 1484, Shaziro wrote:That is, by the way, blatant hypocrisy. Meaning Accountant is a hypocrite. Meaning Accountant is a "boring loser" by their own logic.
In post 1516, Shaziro wrote:Admitting to being flawed before, and now saying you aren't is a lie, either then or now. Saying you are a human, and then now saying you are your ideals is a lie, then or now. Then, when you call people out for lying and decry liars, you become a hypocrite. Welcome to the dirty water, bud, you're a boring loser just like the rest of us.In post 1496, Accountant wrote: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.In post 1485, Not_Mafia wrote:In post 1484, Shaziro wrote:That is, by the way, blatant hypocrisy. Meaning Accountant is a hypocrite. Meaning Accountant is a "boring loser" by their own logic.
Thank you for the offer, but I already know the material.In post 1514, eagerSnake wrote:I've actually been a master of The Philosophy for many years.In post 1502, Accountant wrote:I'm glad to see you've finally seen the light, eagerSnake.
XRZ: I hope eagerSnake has demonstrated to you why I do this.
Come, and I will educate you, so you too may achieve immaculate morality.
This question does not make sense.In post 1515, Sesq wrote:Why is it correct?
Let me clarify. You say that I "must do" certain things. I disagree.In post 1515, Sesq wrote: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{"
At all times I strive to be transparent and clear.In post 1515, Sesq wrote:Your sophistry is just so transparent. I both love you and despise everything you stand for.