I don't. All I need is the ability to see the self-evident truths of the world.In post 4568, Sesq wrote:you don't need them to self-identify your thoughts, that wasnt my point
my point was that you do to create a competent political ideology
Motto of this threadIn post 4579, Accountant wrote:I don't understand your post.
I agree. People always make nonsensical arguments and then expect me to understand it. The best part is, when I make a perfectly obvious statement, they get mad when I accuse them of not understanding.In post 4580, TheRealGin-N-Tonic wrote:Motto of this threadIn post 4579, Accountant wrote:I don't understand your post.
That is a separate issue. My initial argument is that Sesq had no right to tell me what was inside my head due to the fact that I know best what goes on inside my mind. Do you or do you not agree that is the case?In post 4583, Shaziro wrote:Knowing what goes on in your head doesn't mean you're right. There's plenty of information you aren't aware of, odds are good that lots of it completely invalidates your ideology. That is true for anyone who isn't omniscient.
I don't have ADHD in my head. I have the correct path in my head, and I am currently the world's leading expert on the correct path. Now, it's true that Sesq knows me quite well, and probably understands my mind better than, say, you, or Not_Mafia. But I can name 10 people off the top of my head that comprehend me better than Sesq, and I'm #1 on that list.In post 4585, Shaziro wrote:I think it's perfectly possible for other folks to have a better idea of what's going on in your head than you in a sense, but given that I don't think Sesq has the training for that kind of thing, nor has Sesq spent the required metric assload of time with you to build up an understanding of it, no I doubt Sesq does. But for instance, if a kid has ADHD for instance, somebody who knows what ADHD is has a better understanding of what's going on than the kid does in some ways, if said kid doesn't know what ADHD is. I know the point seems pedantic, but given the style of arguing that tends to go on in here I figure it's probably best to clarify that point of view for the sake of any future (God help me) discussions.
That's not what I said. I said there's noIn post 4585, Shaziro wrote:Codes of morality are subjective, but if you want to say that nobody can invalidate your code of morality, you have to accept that you can't invalidate anyone else's codes of morality either. If you're willing to accept that, that's great, and that's a part of growing up.
Because the correct path says I'm not, and that this is the real truth.In post 4585, Shaziro wrote:Lastly, look at it the way Descartes did. How do you know you aren't being decieved by some more powerful being that you aren't aware of?
In post 4585, Shaziro wrote: You could argue that you have the absolute truth and that doesn't include such a being, but wouldn't such a being purposefully ensure that the trick included lack of knowledge of its existence? You could argue that you can't be tricked, but wouldn't such a being purposefully ensure that the trick included thinking that you could never be tricked?
If I made the thread, I'd have made the name "Correct Path Discussion". But I didn't.In post 4591, Annadog40 wrote:If the correct path isn't tied to you, would a more accurate name for this thead be 'The Correct Path'?
Not even that. She just doesn't have any ability to reason.In post 4593, Shaziro wrote:So you have no proof, only faith.
I have the irrefutable proof known as "the ultimate giver of moral truth has said it to me".In post 4593, Shaziro wrote:So you have no proof, only faith.
Flat Earthers base their belief on incorrect evidence. I base my beliefs on the absolute truths of the world.In post 4597, Fluminator wrote:Accountant makes flat earthers look like Socrates.
