Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Sesq]

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.

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).

And that reason is?

You've beat me at my own game.

[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.

[Shaziro]

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, once again, is a hypocrite.

[Sesq]

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.

I was sarcastically mocking your own idiotic logic.

[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?

[Shaziro]

Accountant, once again, is a hypocrite

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

You just said that you can't call something self evident without giving evidence. A while back in the Trump thread, you said things were self evident, so you shouldn't have to give evidence.

[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.

[Shaziro]

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.

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. As for the other accusations?

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.

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.

[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.

[Davsto]

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?

[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.

[Shaziro]

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?

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?

[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.

[Shaziro]

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."

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.

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

I mean, I literally just told you that I am making fun of you, but only if you consider yourself to be entirely your ideas. Because I'm making fun of your ideas, you see. I'm just doing it to your face, not behind your back. That's what you've got wrong. '

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.

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

[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.

[Shaziro]

You're not superior either. Sorry again. Also, gonna answer that question in the P-edit?

[Accountant]

You're not superior either.

This statement is incorrect.

[Accountant]

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

No, only good things.

[Shaziro]

You're not superior either.

This statement is incorrect.

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?

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

No, only good things.

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