Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[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

[eagerSnake]

gish galloping

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Also relevant: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trump

[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

[Shaziro]

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

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.

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

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.

gish galloping

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Also relevant: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trump

My point exactly. Accountant is effectively as bad as Trump in many areas.

[Shaziro]

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.

[eagerSnake]

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

[Sesq]

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

I've chat with them before. I understand their ideology a bit better, or at least some of the roots.

[Shaziro]

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

What would that achieve?

[eagerSnake]

Can't

tell

confirm if gish galloping in this medium

[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.

[Postie]

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

[Shaziro]

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.

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.

[eagerSnake]

There is no proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. There is no proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. There is no proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. There is no proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. There is no proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct.

I was inb4 there is no proof or evidence that Christianity is accurate and correct.

[Accountant]

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

I trust you people.

[Postie]

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

[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.

[Annadog40]

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.

[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?

[Annadog40]

I read the books.

[Accountant]

The books?