There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1544, Sesq wrote: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.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1544, Sesq wrote: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.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1544, Sesq wrote: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.
Yes, by apparent inevitability and laziness on your part. Excellent plan.
Accountant wrote:
In post 1544, Sesq wrote: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.
But why is "I" literally your ideals? You still haven't answered it outside of assertion.
In post 1555, Sesq wrote: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.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1555, Sesq wrote:But why is "I" literally your ideals? You still haven't answered it outside of assertion.
the assertion is the answer
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1558, Sesq wrote: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.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1558, Sesq wrote: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.
Why's the correct path the source of all truth? Except you've already answered it, and it's because... it's the correct path. Circular logic. You fail. Try again.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
Accountant you have no proof or evidence for your claims, only claims of self evident nature, for which you have no proof. Just admit that you aren't sharing philosophy you are trying to start a religion with yourself as the messiah figure.
Moreover, does this mean I have your permission to share PM correspondance that was between us?
In post 1562, Shaziro wrote: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.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1564, Shaziro wrote: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.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
For the same reason I'm not allowing Sesq to copy the private message conversation we had(except for selected, educational excerpts).
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
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.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1564, Shaziro wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
In post 1569, Sesq wrote: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.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1569, Sesq wrote: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.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1569, Sesq wrote: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.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1569, Sesq wrote: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.
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?
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.
In post 1564, Shaziro wrote: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.
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.
