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.
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 1763, eagerSnake wrote: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.
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.
Also, it would be alright for me to go around eating people then.
They have to commit a crime to get beheaded. And no.
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.
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.
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.
In post 1785, Ankamius wrote: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.
There's a lovely little concept that wraps this up nicely, which is falsifiability. Accountant is making a series of unfalsifiable claims.
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 1785, Ankamius wrote: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.
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 1787, implosion wrote: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.
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 1788, Annadog40 wrote:The thing is though, the person making the claim is the one to prove their point.
Not if the claim is that the correct path is true.
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.
No, they are designed to be unfalsifiable. They aren't even particularly well designed for that. I could just as easily claim that you are a 10 pound brick of concrete, and when asked to prove it say that it is self evident. You have no proof for your claims, so they are either false or based in faith like a religion. A shit religion, to be clear.
In post 1787, implosion wrote: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.
But the only reason you've put the correct path above logic is because of your own presupposition.
In post 1785, Ankamius wrote: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
In post 1793, Shaziro wrote:No, they are designed to be unfalsifiable. They aren't even particularly well designed for that. I could just as easily claim that you are a 10 pound brick of concrete, and when asked to prove it say that it is self evident. You have no proof for your claims, so they are either false or based in faith like a religion. A shit religion, to be clear.
This is incorrect. I am the world's leading authority on the design of Accountant's arguments, seeing as I am Accountant, and I assert that they are designed to never be wrong. You are not permitted to tell me what is inside my mind. Such an insult would only further confirm your depravity and unwillingness to argue in good faith.
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 1794, Shaziro wrote:And no, you are not above logic. You aren't above much, tbh.
This post is incorrect. It is an assertion without any 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 1794, Shaziro wrote:And no, you are not above logic. You aren't above much, tbh.
This post is incorrect. It is an assertion without any evidence.
All of your claims are without evidence when brought to their base, whereas the evidence for my statement that you aren't above logic is in your mortality and humanity.
