In post 2173, Accountant wrote:There is an absolute law defined by the correct path, but even the current laws like "no marijuana" (which is not a law mandated bh the correct path) should be followed. You aren't following the law because you think it's right. You're following the law for the sake of following the law. Did the slave break the law? Yes. Unequivocably yes. Hence the slave has performed an evil act, that is, violating the absolute concept "always follow the law" (distinct from an absolute law).
It's called the correct path. I may have mentioned it once or twice before.
So you support things along the correct path, yet you state some laws are not on the correct path but should be followed >_>
Besides that contradiction, if a law is made banning the promotion of the correct path, what do you do? >_>
If you hold true to your word, then you must stop promoting the correct path, but if you're following the correct path, then that means you should promote it; essentially, you'll be committing an evil act whether it be breaking the law or not following the correct path.
“To be is to do”—Socrates. “To do is to be”—Jean-Paul Sartre. “Do be do be do”—Frank Sinatra.
"Gin, you are so charismatic it's scary." -nancy
The correct path says to follow the law, even if it is not the same as the absolute law dictated by the correct path.
Let me break this down for you.
1) What should I do?
2) I should follow the absolute law set down by the correct path.
3) What does it say?
4) Let me check my book of self evident moral truths.
5) Let's see... page 31. There it is! "Follow...the...law..."
6) Okay! What does the law say?
7) "Don't smoke weed"
8) Better not smoke weed then!!
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 2175, TheRealGin-N-Tonic wrote:Besides that contradiction, if a law is made banning the promotion of the correct path, what do you do?
I don't promote it. In the first place, it's not evil to not promote the correct path. In the second place, even if it was, that moral imperative would have been temporarily disabled and overriden by the higher hiearchical command "follow the law".
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.
In post 2180, Shaziro wrote:ITT: Accountant argues that slaves should learn their place
Your attempts to misrepresents my arguments are so tedious. I argue that slaves should not run away. That does not include "learning their place". They should continue staying in chains until they are coincidentally released by shifting public opinion or external liberators. Is this difficult? Am I asking too much? Yes, and no, respectively. Being good is not always easy. Sometimes it involves doing unpleasant things. I know I would hate having to work under the hot sun and be mistreated by others, but I'd willingly suffer it because I refuse to become an evil person.
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.
Indeed! But if they were to ban the entire correct path, and not just the promption of it, then an EVEN HIGHER hiearchical command comes into play - remember, up til now we were only dealing with "don't break the law" and "try to promote utopia". Now we are dealing with high-level commands like "be a person" and "impose the ideal of utopia on the world". When such commands are contradictory to the command to obey the law, they override it in the same way the command to obey overrides the command to promote.
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.
High level commands like "impose the utopia on the world"
Don't break the law
Try to promote utopia
---
That is the order of commands. Where a higher command conflicts with the lower command and no resolution is possible(like doing both), then ignore the lower command and fulfil the higher command.
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 were never even close. The reason you thought you had me beat was because you fundamentally misunderstood my system in the first place. In fact, my belief system is impossible to beat, because even if you prove that it's wrong(which is impossible) it will simply alter the rules of logic so it's no longer wrong. It's like trying to beat someone in a game who can not only cheat but altee the source code. The fact "that person will be a winner" is of course inevitable, the only question is how long they wish to take. This is why the utopia is inevitable.
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 2180, Shaziro wrote:ITT: Accountant argues that slaves should learn their place
Your attempts to misrepresents my arguments are so tedious. I argue that slaves should not run away. That does not include "learning their place". They should continue staying in chains until they are coincidentally released by shifting public opinion or external liberators. Is this difficult? Am I asking too much? Yes, and no, respectively. Being good is not always easy. Sometimes it involves doing unpleasant things. I know I would hate having to work under the hot sun and be mistreated by others, but I'd willingly suffer it because I refuse to become an evil person.
Hi, by saying that slaves should just accept slavery until somebody else comes and saves them, you -are- an evil person.
In post 2192, Shaziro wrote:Hi, by saying that slaves should just accept slavery until somebody else comes and saves them, you -are- an evil person.
Not necessarily! Only if there's a law against escaping!
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.
Main concern is that if you're the only one that holds that value, the correct path dies with you
I'm hard to kill.
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.
It's funny cause the last time I checked, only Isaac Asimov figured out a way to beat entropy.
We have quite a few billion years before heat death. I think it's very likely that some egghead'll solve entropy by then.
OK, I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and what if we develop the ability to bend time. Then we could travel in a circular loop through time and survive for an infinite about of time in a finite universe.
