Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

Holy shit guys this is literally kindergarten basic stuff. Are you trolling?

[Accountant]

It's true that I claimed 2+2=5 but I have never claimed 2+2=5

This statement is contradictory and therefore incorrect.

[Accountant]

In these two quotes, you say "It's true that I'm God", and then admit that you saying "It's true that I'm God" is you claiming that you're God.

So? What about it?

[Accountant]

In post 2252, you wrote "2+2=5". When someone states that 2+2=5, that is equivalent to a claim that 2+2=5.

Only an arrogant person wouldn't be able to comprehend how these are actually mutually exclusive

This statement is incorrect.

[Accountant]

It's true that I claimed 2+2=5 but I have never claimed 2+2=5

This statement is contradictory and therefore incorrect.

I'm not claiming 2+2=5, it would be arrogant and pretentious of me. I'm just claiming that 2+2=5

So... you

are

claiming that 2+2=5.

[Accountant]

No I'm not claiming that 2+2=5, I'm claiming that 2+2=5

Right. So you are claiming it.

[Accountant]

In post 2252, you wrote "2+2=5". When someone states that 2+2=5, that is equivalent to a claim that 2+2=5.

Only an arrogant person wouldn't be able to comprehend how these are actually mutually exclusive

This statement is incorrect.

This statement is incorrect.

This statement is incorrect.

[Accountant]

In these two quotes, you say "It's true that I'm God", and then admit that you saying "It's true that I'm God" is you claiming that you're God.

So? What about it?

So, you agree that:
If you claim you are God, then you claim you are God.

If A, Then A.
A is true (By your own admission, this is so)
Therefore, A.

I never admitted that A was true, so you can't say that A is the case.

[Accountant]

Just from what I've seen of your utopia, it can only reach a point to be functional in society if it was already functional in society before it was ever made functional in society.

No, not necessarily. Why do you say that?

What's the plan to make the utopia functional in society?

How will schools be built if you don't do anything to build them?

Process of building schools:

1) People are good.
2) Society is therefore good.
3) However it is not perfect due to practical limitations.
4) Because it is good it will seek perfection.
5) If it constantly seeks perfection, at some point it will reach perfection, because perfection is finite and well defined(my moral system).
6) At some point, a vast majority of society will be perfect.
7) These perfect people will of course want to perfectize the imperfect people.
8) They will quickly realize the best way to do this is by building schools.
9) They build schools.

As you can see, I do not need to do anything but wait.

10) Schools educate people on the utopic philosophy
11) Everyone now understands and agrees with the correct path
12) Utopia is achieved

[Accountant]

No I'm not claiming that 2+2=5, I'm claiming that 2+2=5

Right. So you are claiming it.

No, I never admitted that

You just did.

[Accountant]

In post 2252, you wrote "2+2=5". When someone states that 2+2=5, that is equivalent to a claim that 2+2=5.

Only an arrogant person wouldn't be able to comprehend how these are actually mutually exclusive

This statement is incorrect.

This statement is incorrect.

This statement is incorrect.

This statement is incorrect.

You're wrong

[Accountant]

No it's not.

[Accountant]

No it's not.

People don't think it be like it is, but it do.

It's not.

[Accountant]

I feel your utopia would be easily thrwarted.

How?

[Accountant]

My utopia trumps logic. It's like Swampert fighting, say, a Torchic. A Torchic isn't a bad pokemon. It can beat many pokemon. But a Swampert's moves are just "super effective" against it, and their "raw power" gap is too large.

We may say that the utopia is "super effective" against everything else, and it has infinite power.

[Accountant]

In post 2252, you wrote "2+2=5". When someone states that 2+2=5, that is equivalent to a claim that 2+2=5.

If that's claiming 2+2=5, how were you not claiming you were god?

Where did I claim I was God?

[Accountant]

So your utopia doesn't use logic?

Also a good trainer with a high enough level Torchic can beat a lower leveled Swampert handled by a poor trainer.

Yes, but in this analogy Swampert is level infinite and handled by someone who has cheat codes for the game.

My Utopia uses logic, but logic serves utopia, not the other way around. If logic is useful, it is used. If it is not, it is ignored.

[Accountant]

The analogy isn't perfect.

As for the second question, I will just order logic to shut up and stop contradicting me.

[Accountant]

So if your truth is self- evident, then why are you the only person that I've ever seen indicating it?

If other people exist seeing that self-evident truth and they're keeping quiet because it is 'inevitable', then how will it reach a point where it will become the norm?

That's because step 5 isn't finiahed resolving yet. I expect it to resolve in the next few centuries.

[Accountant]

This has reached 93 pages? Damn.

I'll test the waters...

Why must something that seems perfection inevitably reach perfection?

Because if you keep seeking, you'll eventually find it, just like if you keep counting, you'll eventually get to any given integer.

[Accountant]

perfection is finite and well defined(my moral system).

[Accountant]

More evidenceless assertions. What seems infinite and forever away to you is but a stone's throw away for the correct path.

[Accountant]

No, the evidence that your morals are garbage is that you can't be bothered to follow them. See my proof earlier that you are a liar and a hypocrite.

The proof I easily refuted, that was itself a baseless accusation? Your attempts to repeatedly claim I am a hypocrite with no evidence have failed. I have never, ever gone against any of my principles.

[Accountant]

You -have- claimed that you are God

Like when? You keep saying this but refuse to give me an exact quote with an explanation of why it means that I claimed I'm God.

[Accountant]

Pretty much everybody agrees that you're wrong, and that you -have- claimed to be God. Which makes you crazy. Congrats.

Tedious appeal to popularity. I already knew everyone else was blind and insane - you don't have to tell me twice.

[Accountant]

Oh, Shaziro. When will you learn not to instruct me about what is going on in my own mind? Let me tell you the truth. I have never claimed to be God. It's true that I said earlier that me saying "I am actually God" is me claiming to be God, but that does not mean that I claimed to be God. I'm not sure why you insist on spreading slander about me like that, but let me set the record straight: I have never claimed to be God.

[Accountant]

Of course you will use this to try and fallaciously prove that I'm not God, so let me make it clear once and for all that I'm God.

[Accountant]

The people who are unable to perceive the world normally, like I do, are insane.

@Not_Mafia: For the umpteenth time, yes.

[Accountant]

I still don't understand what he was saying. How can you say "Yes I did say that I was God" but also say "I did not claim I was God"?

Is it illegal to do so?

[Accountant]

Okay. Let me explain.

First of all, I claimed that I was God. That's undeniable. There's plenty of textual evidence to support this.

Then, Shaziro wantonly accused me of claiming that I was God. Even if I were to acknowledge the above statement, there's no way I can let Shaziro utter such falsehoods. Therefore, I refuted him with the statement "I never claimed that I was God."

Of course, Shaziro couldn't find any evidence to back up his lie and is currently flailing around making snide remarka like he always does.

[Accountant]

Yes.

[Accountant]

No. I said that because it's the truth.

[Accountant]

Was that sarcasm?

[Accountant]

Tentative yes. I'd tell you how I knew, but a good magician never reveals their tricks.

[Accountant]

Yes.

[Accountant]

Accountant is like Trump, he said something when it benefits him, but never said it when it doesn't.

It's almost as though the universe itself bends to make me right all the time.

And you still think the correct path is trash

[Accountant]

What Trump does is that he lies about having said something for his own selfish reasons. But for me, it's different. For me, I can engineer the situation in such a way as to force both statements to be simultaneously true in order for reality to be more convenient towards the correct path - we call this "imposing the correct path onto reality" - perhaps you are unfamiliar with it since you seem so reluctant to forcibly impose your own ideas onto reality(perhaps your own ideas themselves state that imposing them onto reality is bad!). It's like being forced to choose between cake and pie, and picking both. That is the distinction. Trump changes his tune; I change reality.

[Accountant]

Have you ever considered, for a fraction of a moment, that you -aren't- always right?

Only someone of soft mind would ever think something like that.

[Accountant]

No, you can't. You are wrong, and crazy.

Perhaps it seems that way for those who are unable to comprehend the ability of the correct path to change reality to its suitability.

[Accountant]

Then why isn't the Utopia a thing?

It is.

[Accountant]

What Trump does is that he lies about having said something for his own selfish reasons. But for me, it's different. For me, I can engineer the situation in such a way as to force both statements to be simultaneously true in order for reality to be more convenient towards the correct path - we call this "imposing the correct path onto reality" - perhaps you are unfamiliar with it since you seem so reluctant to forcibly impose your own ideas onto reality(perhaps your own ideas themselves state that imposing them onto reality is bad!). It's like being forced to choose between cake and pie, and picking both. That is the distinction. Trump changes his tune; I change reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

I prefer not to use that word. It's very loaded. A better phrase would be paraconsistent thinking.

[Accountant]

No, you can't. You are wrong, and crazy.

Perhaps it seems that way for those who are unable to comprehend the ability of the correct path to change reality to its suitability.

No, you are just wrong and crazy. Seek help.

No. I will not seek help. I am not wrong and crazy. I am correct. That's the end of it.

[Accountant]

Then why isn't the Utopia a thing?

It is.

Then why do you say we are moving towards it if it is already here?

Because we are.

[Accountant]

Also, seek help for your girlfriend. Whether or not they are:

An actual person
An anime body pillow
A figment of your imagination
Another personality of yours
Yourself
A concept

I strongly advise you to avoid talking about subjects with which you have no knowledge or experience. Such boldness is impudence at best and insulting at worst.

[Accountant]

You should genuinely seek therapy Accountant

Had one for a few years. Worthless. I stopped wasting my time once it became clear she couldn't do anything for me.

[Accountant]

But it is already here, be like driving your car in your garage to your garage.

What if you have two cars? Or, in this analogy, two garages?

[Accountant]

I don't.

How would your utopia fix that problem?

post-scarcity

[Accountant]

You should genuinely seek therapy Accountant

Had one for a few years. Worthless. I stopped wasting my time once it became clear she couldn't do anything for me.

Did you tell her about the correct path?

Yes, but she wasn't really listening.

[Accountant]

Speak for yourself. I'm in a perfectly healthy life state right now. My feet are on the path, I'm morally righteous, my days are filled with happiness and joy.

[Accountant]

Also, seek help for your girlfriend. Whether or not they are:

An actual person
An anime body pillow
A figment of your imagination
Another personality of yours
Yourself
A concept

For the record it's incredibly scummy/bad faith to imply that I could be lying or misleading people about the nature of my girlfriend like Shaz has done here(implying that my girlfriend is actually myself or an anime body pillow)

[Accountant]

Shaziro, when I started on this path, I knew that I would receive many personal attacks. I was, and still am, prepared and able to accept many of them without flinching. Therefore, it's fine if you wish to personally insult me by calling me crazy. However, I think that extending such insults to my loved ones, who have

nothing

to do with the current discussion, is a step over the line. I consider such behavior intolerable. Please stop now.

[Accountant]

Please stop.

[Accountant]

Back to our regularly scheduled programming. Sesq, a large part of my happiness stems from the fact that I'm right, so they're interlinked.

[Accountant]

why the heck would I believe I'm right if I wasn't?

[Accountant]

So everyone is right? Cos they believe whatever they believe

No, someone can think they're right but be mistaken.

[Accountant]

Accountant, we're about to reach critical mass here.

There's a problem.

What's the problem?

[Accountant]

Accountant, we're about to reach critical mass here.

There's a problem.

What's the problem?

I'm an atheist >_>

So am I.

[Accountant]

So you are, potentially, mistaken.

hahahahahaha

[Accountant]

So you don't belive Accountant exist.

And in the Mafia scum religion, Accountant is a god. Along with several other users.

I don't believe in the presence of a supernatural entity who created the universe.

[Accountant]

Actually, forgive me if this has been asked before, -but-...Accountant -when- did you first come up with the base of your ideology?

It's been so long. I don't have a hard number to give. Some parts of it developed over time and later on I realized it was in me all along, I just didn't know how to put it in words. So it's hard to say.

[Accountant]

Accountant, we're about to reach critical mass here.

There's a problem.

What's the problem?

I'm an atheist >_>

So am I.

For others to believe in you, you must first believe in yourself

I agree.

[Accountant]

also gotta call you on this shaziro accountants never thrown a temper tantrum

I've thrown tantrums before, but they were morally righteous ones.

Shaziro btfo

[Accountant]

The bending reality part comes by not allowing the natural disaster to happen in the first place. The utopia is a world of imposed light in which no evil or harm may be allowed to penetrate, a reality that may be considered separate from the world itself. Any natural disaster that attempts to strike will simply be "rejected" and not allowed to occur in the first place. But let us say, for the sake of argument, that a natural disaster DOES occur. What then?

This is where the power of paraconsistent thinking comes into play. Through paraconsistent thinking, we may simultaneously acknowledge and deny the fact of the natural disaster. Should there be no disaster, we would certainly be happy and cheerful, but if there is, we would be sad, but try to salvage what we can. Thus, by drawing on the power of utopia to "reject the inconvenient shackles of logic", we can say that the natural disaster both did and did not happen. Since it did, we'd definitely salvage the remains and try to help the best we can, right? And since it didn't, we'd definitely smile and continue being happy, right? So we would "offer help with a smile on our face", a powerful outcome known as the "best of both worlds" that is only possible with this technique. Since it's better to be happy than sad, that makes it superior to the reality outcome of "offer help, while sad and miserable".

You claim that it is delusion and denial - but you fail to understand that for every denial there is acceptance, and for every delusion there is reality. The correct path is akin to a throne that sits above both, and draws the best outcomes for both worlds, thus creating a "perfectly optimal reality known as utopia". This duality is in accordance with the law of symmetrical balance, thus reinforcing the goodness of the correct path evem further.

[Accountant]

Call it whatever you want; won't change a thing.

[Accountant]

Thank you.

[Accountant]

Okay.

[Accountant]

How come you hate trade unions?

Responsible for strikes. Hate strikes. And protests.

[Accountant]

Ones that involve talking and not public protests

[Accountant]

First of all, I never claimed to be God. Second of all, nuance exists in the real world - that we cannot deny. However, I have said that I think a nuanced approach to the world is extremely flawed and a bad way to go about things. A nuanced approach might lead one to say things like "oh, this thing is almost on the correct path, even if it's not quite on it. Since it's almost on the correct path, that's good enough for me!" when we should really be going "I don't care if it's close, the fact is that it's not on the correct path and must be re-educated. The position on the sliding scale merely determines how much effort we have to put in to make sure it's compatible". Hence, the declaration:

I'll give you two.

[On the correct path] and [not on the correct path].

[Accountant]

Why is there only one "Correct path" and not two, or more? To assume there is only one proper path is to assume that every single minute facet and action in life changes the outcome in some perceptible way.

There's only one correct path because there's only one right thing to do. For instance, suppose you were faced with the trolley problem. There can only be one right answer, right? There can't be two "most moral" actions, precisely because of the meaning of the word "most" itself, and it's pretty obvious that you should always seek to do the "most moral" thing.

[Accountant]

Yes, but whether I eat a slice of melon or a slice of tomato is not really a moral quandary, yet you might find tomato more ideal than melon.

Eating fruit is not a moral issue; it's not covered by the correct path in the first place, but by your own personal preferences.

(Or, to be even more precise, the correct path

does

cover it, but in an indirect way: the correct path says "in situations like this, the correct action is to act on your personal preference". And thus for me if I like tomato, I'll eat tomato - if I ate melon even though I liked it less, that would be incorrect, and would show that there was something fundamentally sick, twisted and wrong with me.)

[Accountant]

Don't interpret that as "anyone who eats melon is sick and twisted". What I mean is that anyone who chooses to eat melon over tomato even though they like tomato better, or vice versa, is screwed in the head.

[Accountant]

Okay, but what if you like tomato less, but tomato is more healthy for you?

Then the correct path instructs you, once again, to act on your personal preference.

Tomato: yuck, healthy
Melon: tasty, unhealthy

Now, you go into your mind and check your personal preferences, utility function, whatever: the thing that helps you make decisions depending on which outcomes are more preferable. And you ask it something like "which is better: tastiness, or healthiness"?

[Accountant]

But doesn't your health change your ability to be productive in some ways? Furthermore, how would you react if I managed to prove that some preference of yours is morally bad?

I don't see what the first has to do with anything. For the second, the correct path order "do not do morally bad things" supersedes the order "do things in accordance to your personal preference", in the same way that a General's order supersedes a Sargeant's(I've used this metaphor many times because it's so applicable to my philosophy).

[Accountant]

Ok, so if I prove that one of your preferences, which you have acted in accordance to, was actually morally wrong...what?

Also, I prefer the saying "A Sergeant in motion outranks everyone"

Then I'd not do it, even if it was my preference.

[Accountant]

Do you prefer having nutrition or not having nutrition?

[Accountant]

The correct path favors righteousness - righteous people are naturally inclined to do what they can to ensure they can uphold the right values, including making sure they don't die from lack of nutrition.

[Accountant]

Not necessarily. If you're already very healthy and don't need the nutrients, it's fine to eat tasty foods.

[Accountant]

But doesn't your health change your ability to be productive in some ways? Furthermore, how would you react if I managed to prove that some preference of yours is morally bad?

I don't see what the first has to do with anything. For the second, the correct path order "do not do morally bad things" supersedes the order "do things in accordance to your personal preference", in the same way that a General's order supersedes a Sargeant's(I've used this metaphor many times because it's so applicable to my philosophy).

^ refer to the above; the order of the correct path that "the hierarchy must be followed" supersedes your preference of free speech.

[Accountant]

People who are your superiors have determined I should have Free Speech.

And yet, those people are inferior to the correct path, which has determined that you should not.

[Accountant]

People who are your superiors have determined I should have Free Speech.

And yet, those people are inferior to the correct path, which has determined that you should not.

This is incorrect.

No it's not.

[Accountant]

Are you god?

No. I wouldn't call myself a god.

[Accountant]

This statement is also incorrect.

Evidenceless statements will get you nowhere.

[Accountant]

No it's not.

[Accountant]

Freedom of speech necessarily entails freedom of bad speech, like racism or sexism. Freedom of food doesn't entail bad things. If there is a food that causes immoral things to happen when eaten, then I will happily take away your freedom of food.

[Accountant]

Yes it is. The fact that it is self evident is also self evident.

You are wrong.

[Accountant]

Alcohol

Contrary to popular belief, ingesting alcohol does not cause you to turn evil.

[Accountant]

You are wrong.

No, I'm not.

[Accountant]

I have relatives who were perfectly friendly people normally, but after a drink or two were raging assholes. I have had family members who were perfectly reasonable people, but when drunk abused their spouses. Try again.

Yes, and these people shouldn't drink. In that sense their freedom of food has, as promised, been taken away, for they may no longer ingest alcohol, at least not to the point of drunkenness.

[Accountant]

Pagetop 100 bitches!

Is that the fault of the alcohol or the person?

Well, it doesn't matter. If there is enough evidence to show alcohol's dangerousness, then we can just ban it.

[Accountant]

Yes, what Anna said. Can't have underground moonshine producers if all the producers are re-educated to obey the law and there is no underground because all rhe darkness has been cast away into daylight.

The US prohibition failed as it led to an increase in organized crime. This is not applicable to the US. It boosted corruption rates as people bribed federal officials. This is not applicable. It deprived the government of tax revenue. Also not applicable. Many of the things that went wrong with the US version are things that the utopia is immune to.

[Accountant]

Perhaps more importantly, the US Prohibition was conducted without the benefit of the guidance of the correct path.

[Accountant]

The same issues with banning alcohol will present themselves with re-education. You are not learning from history.

Like what?

[Accountant]

Anyway, what you're saying is wrong. The lessons of history don't apply to me because I'm right. It's like in the books. The bad guy monologues at the captured good guy, the good guy frees himself and defeats the bad guy. The good guy monologues at the captured bad guy, nothing happens. It's a completely different situation due to the fact that the good guy is righteous.

[Accountant]

You're in denial, the two of you. You can't compare a protagonist to an NPC or extra.

Also, there's no way I'm the bad guy. First of all, I'm morally righteous, and the bad guy is evil. I do good things, while the bad guy does evil things.

In other words, if we say that both bad guys and heroes believe themselves to be heroes, then the belief in being a hero is NAI; you have to look at the actions, and as my actions are thoroughly in line with the very thing that defines good, the correct path, there's no doubt that I must be the good guy. An orc would think he was on the right side of Middle-Earth, and so thinking you're right doesn't make you right. But if you feel your ears and realize you have elf ears, or if you feel your feet and realize you have Hobbit feet, then you are undoubtedly a good person.

[Accountant]

Also, my ideas will definitely come to fruition. Do you have an argument against the chain of logic I proposed as to why it's inevitable they will?

[Accountant]

said every person in history ever

you wont be any different

I already am. Many heroes may face the dragon. They all die. I say "I will slay the dragon." You say "Others said so too, and they died. You won't be any different." That is when I reveal that I have the blessing of righteousness conferred upon me by the correct path that all others before me lacked - for none of those people you alluded to have been morally righteous until now. This is the blessing that serves as an aegis from the dragon's flames; no, it is even better. It is like a prophecy of the Gods saying "you, as the chosen hero, will certainly defeat the dragon".

You claim the dragon will never be defeated, but I tell you that it is already defeated, it was defeated ever since the prophecy was created. Now I am just "formalizing the causal aspect of the dragon's defeat". Reshaping the world to the correct path is as tedious a chore as counting the votes of a rigged election; I already know the outcome, and so you speculating on the outcome is meaningless.

[Accountant]

nope, the good guy monologues and then the bad guy reveals his secret plan that works regardless or even dependent on his capture.

In this case, it is more like the good guy re-educating tbe bad guy into being good, creating a happy ending. If you watched Spiderman 2, Spiderman did this with Doctor Octopus. It was the first time in my life that I felt touched by such a normally shallow superhero movie, because it answered an important question, which was later formally posed to me later(in the unexpected form of a visual novel).

Suppose a bank robber has taken 5 hostages. The hero wishes to save everyone. Thus, he defeats the robber and saves the hostages. The hero has failed to save everyone, for the robber is now defeated and will die or go to jail. The only way to preserve a true happy ending is to re-educate the robber. That's why it's obvious to me that re-education is the only path.

This is yet another proof that I am a good person. You can only redeem evil if you are good yourself.

[Accountant]

what if re educating is unavailable due to the person refusing to accept the one true path?

A couple of options are available here.

1) Re-educate harder. There are very few humans that can withstand a limitless amount of mental, social and psychological pressure to change. Social pressure here is key - imagine if you passed a homeless person with your friends and they all dropped money into the tin, you would too right? It's almost an automatic action due to the social mechanisms of humans.

2) Execution. This is a sad outcome, and it means we can't save everyone. I will sigh if I am forced to do this, but to be absolutely fair it's due to their own stubbornness.

[Accountant]

Well, more esoteric manners of re-education might come up as we develop the technology, like uploading the brain into a machine, turning it into lines of code, then manually reprogramming the code or something weird like that. I'm not even sure if that is possible, but it is just an example.

[Accountant]

There are very few humans that can withstand a limitless amount of mental, social and psychological pressure to change.

Do you think you could?

Not by myself. I'd need what you might term "mental reinforcements", or someone to help me through a difficult period like that.

[Accountant]

Also, my ideas will definitely come to fruition. Do you have an argument against the chain of logic I proposed as to why it's inevitable they will?

the only reason you've provided is that if humanity will go on forever every possible thing by humanity will be done

but we aren't infinite

No, I'm saying that historically humanity as progressed morally - from lawlessness to law, from stuff like slavery to Affirmative Action. And there is no reason to believe this trend is deviating, nor have the reasons for the trend(increasing intelligence) been changed. Thus, the thing at the end of the morality tech tree, the correct path, will be reached eventually.

[Accountant]

you seem to have no idea what perspective is

There's only a few perspectives in this world that matters. One of them is mine, and the others are not relevant to this discussion. I have a firm grasp on all of them.

[Accountant]

wrong. society isnt progressing from right to left, it's progressing from authoritarian right to libertarian left. systems outside of that spectrum generally fail

It's progressing from horrible, evil moralities like apartheid and monarchies to stuff like democracies(more acceptable) and moving onto socialism(even better). It is moving on the only spectrum that matters, the spectrum of correctness.

[Accountant]

yes but your perspective is just yours and mine is just mine

we're speaking about objective reality here

Your perspective is not relevant.

[Accountant]

At the most basic level, that your argument rests on the correctness of your views and your views rest on the supposition that certain things are self-evident, which is unsubstantiated and which we are told to take at face value.

I agree on every part except the unsubstantiated part.

[Accountant]

Your logic inevitably rests on those axioms and I don't think there's any way you can convince me that they hold, certainly not by claiming that they're self evident and idly waiting for me to see them when I don't.

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to teach you, and if you will not learn, so be it. The rest of society will, because humanity will grow less and less blind and will over time see the truths you do not.

[Accountant]

So monarchies can't make the utopia?

Indeed. To govern by bloodline is weird, suboptimal and incorrect.

[Accountant]

WAIT

I'm waiting.

[Accountant]

The most righteous person. Depends on your definition of in charge.

[Accountant]

Absolute. Their word will be law, and their commands will be dutifully followed.

[Accountant]

you have a very rudimentary understanding of politics to be honest

Politics isn't important, the correct path is. Let the chickens squawk and squabble - in the end, the righteous will assuredly claim victory.

[Accountant]

its just as important as yours.

also by that definition its a dictatorship

what if said dictator strays from the correct path

Then they'd no longer be the most righteous and be replaced by the new most righteous person, while the old dictator gets sent to re-education.

[Accountant]

its just as important as yours.

also by that definition its a dictatorship

what if said dictator strays from the correct path

Then they'd no longer be the most righteous and be replaced by the new most righteous person, while the old dictator gets sent to re-education.

but the dictator has absolute power

The dictator's power isn't more absolute than that of the correct path.

[Accountant]

Just like if I myself were to ever stray from the correct path, it would be well within your rights to send me for re-education.

[Accountant]

Absolute. Their word will be law, and their commands will be dutifully followed.

hey look a contradiction

the correct path isnt its own sentient being, its a list of ideals of which people are needed to enact

It's not a contradiction. The dictator's power is "absolute". The correct path's power is "beyond absolute". And the way it's gonna happen is that the dictator will, through some tragic accident, become unrighteous, and this will be self-evident to everyone, and then the dictator will resign and check themselves into re-education.

[Accountant]

But who will send the dictator to re-education?

They'll go himself. Human beings - and I mean real human beings, not the hollow shells that populate this earth but the real people that populate utopia and achieve high positions in the utopic government - naturally seek righteousness and improvement.

[Accountant]

Also, my ideas will definitely come to fruition. Do you have an argument against the chain of logic I proposed as to why it's inevitable they will?

another point here; if you want a logical argument against your proposition there's a very easy one. You're making the fallacy of induction. That things have gotten better up until now does not imply that they will continue to get better until they are maximally good.

You didn't read my full post. I said the reason things have gotten better is due to humans becoming more intelligent. So as long as humans get more intelligent, things will get better and better. Barring some sort of complete stop in scientific and philosophical research, humans will continue to get more intelligent.

[Accountant]

You didn't read my full post. I said the reason things have gotten better is due to humans becoming more intelligent. So as long as humans get more intelligent, things will get better and better. Barring some sort of complete stop in scientific and philosophical research, humans will continue to get more intelligent.

This is, once again, committing the inductive fallacy.

How do you know that humans will continue to get more intelligent? Even if we grant that scientific and philosophical research have increased humans' intelligence in the past, that doesn't guarantee that they will continue to increase our intelligence. It's entirely possible that there's some maximal amount of intelligence that we're capable of getting to via research, and that it isn't enough for what you want. It's entirely possible that scientific and philosophical research as we today know them do cease for some reason (global natural disaster, global war, or even something that we have no way of predicting).

1) Don't be ridiculous. Even if there was a maximum amount, and it wasn't enough, I'd just say something like "this cap is insufficient. It must be increased". And then we'd increase the cap and continue researching.

2) I suppose if global natural disaster/global war is the only thing that could possibly stop the utopia, I'm in good shape.

3) You're neglecting the effects of righteousness. Remember, the good guys always win. It's a form of destiny.

[Accountant]

also, you really think that this dictator will be truly submissive to the path? they are the dictator. they can change what people think the path is to their own morals and have that be how things turn out. super easy.

They became the dictator

because

they were submissive to the path! They became the dictator because it became self-evident that they were the most righteous person in the world.

[Accountant]

beyond absolute is just an expression, it isnt a literal concept.

Maybe in your sick, twisted reality. Where real humans live, it's acknowledged that you can have unlimited authority over Man and still have to submit to God.

[Accountant]

how they became dictator is 100% irrelevant

what is relevant is what they will do in that position

you can say "but they were picked for following it" but ultimately they still have complete control

absolute power corrupts absolutely

Oh, Sesq. You've spent too long in this cynical world of fake, hollow shells. What you fail to understand is that for someone as righteous as the dictator, "corruption" cannot even touch them. It is a foreign concept that is completely rejected from utopia. You might as well say "your utopia will fail because the dictator will blargleblaaz". It is not even a coherent concept for one as righteous as the dictator. Why, even a mere follower of the correct path like me can be assured that I will not become corrupt. I don't even hold a candle to the sheer, all-consuming righteousness of the dictator.

God has absolute power. Can God be corrupted? Any Christian will tell you no - for he is supposedly God and cannot be corrupted. In the same way, a person righteous enough to be worthy of being the absolute ruler of the entire universe is by definition incorruptible.

[Accountant]

i'm curious if you espouse your philosophy to everyone you meet in real life.

I do, but... well. It's hard to make people listen. Luckily there are some good people out there who've seen the truth of what I have to say. Well, to be honest, I don't talk to people in real life. It's easier to talk to a bunch of pixels on a screen than a mound of flesh.

[Accountant]

this righteous dictator person is a fantasy

bring them to me if they exist

you cant just deny things exist to perpetuate your little fantasy world

does it work inside your head? yeah, and im sure you and your denizens are perfectly fine with it. however, reality is a different beast and the application of your ideals isnt going to go about the same way.

1) Nope.

2) I'm right here, and I'm righteous enough to avoid being corrupted by absolute power. That should prove it to you.

3) Why not?

4) Reality is inferior to the correct path, and will therefore obey.

[Accountant]

but we're

right

god flipping damn it

I have bad news for you: you're not.

[Accountant]

yes we are.

actually this post is not worse than the rest of the thread.

You're incorrect. I know you're wrong because the correct path says so.

[Accountant]

no it is you who are wrong because my sliding scale of morality says so.

wow i should probably stop before i get warned for contentless posting, eh?

Your sliding scale is incorrect. Anyway, the correct path is above everything else, so it overrules your scale.

[Accountant]

ok so it is you

It's not me. I'm sure there's someone more righteous than me out there. I'm certainly a righteous person, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim I'm the most righteous person in the world(right now, yes, but after accounting for re-education and a certain level of zealotry that you have to be born with, definitely not).

[Accountant]

which supports my argument even more, because this correct path is really just your ideas of which you pretend have universal backup when in reality there is no subjective reality and the universe doesnt care

The universe doesn't care, but the correct path, which is above the universe, does.

[Accountant]

you also have a bad habit of treating the correct path like anything more than just a collection of ideals. it can't do anything, its ideas. those whomst act on it do, and according to yourself you dont plan to act on those desires soooo

The correct path is akin to the author of a story. JK Rowling doesn't have any direct impact on the Harry Potter universe - she doesn't show up in person and cast spells. But it is because of Rowling that Voldemort's defeat is inevitable.

[Accountant]

you've changed your mind in the past why should we trust you not to change your ideas now

you havent proven anything has changed

Because last time I was wrong and now I'm 100% correct. Last time, I didn't even have the backing of the correct path.

But it's easy to resolve this. http://predictionbook.com/predictions/181641 Technically the prediction is forever, but the site requires me to set an end date, so I chose 50 years - if, before that time, I change my views about utopia, you may be proven correct about this.

[Accountant]

but it should be self-evident - ACTUALLY self-evident - that your meanindrous fantasies arent automatically going to fit the real world, and no, you just can't impose it onto reality.

It's not. This is an evidenceless statement. The correct path will impose itself on reality because it has the authority to command reality to bend to accomodate it.

[Accountant]

Accountant, of course, also ignores the fact that inferior and superior doesn't mean the superior can command the inferior. A steel axe is superior to a stone axe, but a steel axe can't change what a stone axe does. They're -objects-. Reality isn't even an object, it's a concept. The problem, really, is that Accountant doesn't understand history or philosophy or, honestly, much of anything, but they think that they do and are pretty sure they've drawn a super conclusion. When I was about Accountant's age I was convinced that I'd come up with some amazing new theory on how black holes worked. I had no fucking idea what I was spewing, and I very quickly learned that as I got older. The only difference is, I never called myself God or tried to start a cult on a mafia forum.

A steel axe is materially superior to a stone axe, but it does not have the right of authority over the stone axe. There is no "axe hierarchy" in which the steel axe has a higher rank than the stone axe. There

is

a moral hierarchy in which the correct path is above the universe, all other moral systems, and everything else, including steel and stone axes. Therefore, your metaphor is not valid to this situation and the fact that you think it is proves your misunderstanding of my philosophy entirely.

Now, let us move on to your frivolous accusations of me not understanding history or philosophy. That is a complete falsehood - but suppose I give it to you, and that I really am as ignorant about those subjects as you claim.

It does not matter.

I have understanding of the one and only thing that matters within this universe, which is the correct path. The sorry events of history cannot measure up to the divine righteousness of the correct path, which sweeps away these inferior mortal events as the meaningless nothings that hey are. The philosophical musings of incorrect, flawed human beings cannot hope to live up to the objectively perfect, flawless and absolute truths of the correct path. Just by knowing what the correct path is, I have already proven myself superior to every other human being on the planet. I am nothing less than a God; for my knowledge and obedience to the correct path has made me no longer a human but a kind of servant of the absolute correct path, which commands even the universe. There is no character more powerful than one who can speak directly to the author and have them change the story - imposing their will onto reality.

Here is the difference between my law of the correct path and your theory about black holes - I am correct, and you were not. How could you be? You were nothing but a teenager who wasn't even a trained physicist. How could someone who didn't even study physics at a high level come to such a new conclusion about black holes? But I - I am the world's leading authority on morality. I am the most moral, most righteous, most superior person on the planet. I have every authority, and my knowledge about morality is absolute and infinite. Thus, my law of the correct path is proven to be absolute and objectively the case. I will not "learn that I am wrong" as I grow older, for I am not wrong, and I cannot learn wrong things about morality, since I am the most righteous person in the universe. To compare the absolute law of God to your uninformed pet theory about black holes is a disgusting attribute that derives from your own projection of mortality and humanity onto me.

[Accountant]

You're not God, never have been, never will be. You aren't correct, you're just as uninformed as I was. You're the uninformed teenager now. Get over yourself.

This is nothing more than a disgusting attempt to drag me down to your level, unsupported by any form of evidence. You are just denying the truths set before your eyes because you're too stubborn to accept the correct path. Just because you say that I'm not God doesn't change matters. Just because you say I'm not correct doesn't change matters. I know for sure i am correct, and that is all I need to be certain that you are wrong.

[Accountant]

You also have quite literally no power over reality. If you -did-, you wouldn't have to try and recruit for your cult on mafia websites, you'd be just making reality do what you wanted. You can't, you aren't God, you're a kid. Accept it.

What an inferior, mongrel-like point of view. "You are weak. Accept it." Even if I was weak, I definitely wouldn't accept it; I would become a God and gain that power over reality in which I seek. Someone who acknowledges their own mortality, bows to their own limitations, abandons their ideals in the face of cold hard reality, who accepts their own weakness - I have nothing but disgust for such a person. They'd have to be hollow inside, not a true person but just a shell acting out the motions. I cannot stand the sight of such whelps that would give up at the first sign of trouble - that would dare to claim something was their ideal but accept their own limitation. If you are such a being, then you should cease pretending to be a real human. Acknowledge your inferiority to real people, as you acknowledged your own weakness - live out your miserable, insect-like lives in a never-ending blanket of cowardice and inferiority.

Let me instruct you on the absolute truth of the world. Reality has already been shaped to the correct path. I have already proven my moral righteousness - this is nothing but "waiting for the paperwork to go through", for reality to perform the tedious task I have assigned it and change itself in accordance to the pattern that has already been established. You are unable to see that, for you are nothing but a creature that cannot see past their own limitations, that accepts failure and treats weakness as their old friend rather than the hated enemy to be destroyed forever.

[Accountant]

What sort of sick, twisted mind does it take to gaze upon a limitation like "I cannot impose my will on reality" and think "okay, I guess I'll just give up like a stinking craven piece of shit" rather than "I will simply make it so I can impose my will on reality"?

[Accountant]

A: You cannot become God or a god. You're a person, and a young one at that.
B: Accepting that one can't do everything doesn't make you any weaker, it just means that you accept your inherent weakness. You can't seek to improve and remove weaknesses until you accept that they're there. Assuming you are perfect, like you seem to be intent on, means you don't strive to improve.
C: You really won't instruct me on anything, much less any absolute truth.
D: You haven't changed reality. If you had, you could also make the change instant rather than it taking time, because you would change the reality of it taking time. You're not a god, and if you were you'd be a pretty shit one.
E: Again, if you can't accept that you have limitations, then you can't improve on them. Quit projecting.

A: Your statement is incorrect. My youth has nothing to do with anything. All that matters is my righteousness. It is entirely because I am a person that I am fit to declare myself superior to the insects that populate the earth.

B: Don't be silly. You can't accept weaknesses that don't exist.

C: I just did. The question is if you'll accept my instruction. If you won't, the harm falls to you, for you will live an unrighteous life and will eventually die by means of re-education.

D: That would be horrendous. Imagine if Tolkien wrote it so Lord of the Rings took up 2 pages. "Frodo took the ring, and then they went to the mountain and dropped it in. The end." What a terrible story that would be! That is the result of what would happen should the change be "instant".

E: To project is to think of others as having attributes that you have. I think of you as a person who knows that he has limitations and is too cowardly to overcome them - this cannot be construed as projection, because it's clear that I think that I don't have any limitations (though we disagree on the truth of that thought). If there's one accusation that cannot be levelled at me, it's that I think i have many weaknesses. Also, I can't accept limitations that I don't have. Duh.

[Accountant]

In order, you're wrong, you do have weaknesses, you're wrong, you're wrong, and you're wrong. Nice chat.

I'm right. You're the one who is wrong.

[Accountant]

XRZ I appreciate the support but I think you are misunderstanding some stuff - eg. when I speak of changing the universe I don't mean the trivial change that comes about from mere existence.

[Accountant]

Oh wait, that's an account that literally only comes into the thread to support Accountant. Either an alt or a friend in real life?

Firstly, it's despicable that you would even entertain the thought that I would sockpuppet to support my own view. You know full well that, whatever your disagreements with me, I'm an upright and honorable person. Secondly, no, I don't know XRZ at all.

[Accountant]

Actually, judging by the first post, I'm gonna guess an alt.

Your guess is off the mark.

[Accountant]

Uh. No. You're just wrong, and it's exactly for the same reasons Accountant is wrong. Understanding that there are limitations doesn't make you unable to do something, and ignoring limitations doesn't stop them from being real. If I say "There's no such thing as China", the country doesn't cease to exist.

Maybe not. But if, instead of going "oh well. China exists! Too bad!" if you had the slightest shred of dignity, agency or pride in yourself, you would find a way to

make

China not exist. There are so many ways - rewriting history, re-educating people to not know that China exists, or simply bombing it into smithereens. Are these goals hard to accomplish? Most assuredly they are. But they're not impossible, and if you really wanted China to not exist - if you really wanted your statement to be true - you'd find ways to make them come true rather than shrugging your shoulders and giving up.

[Accountant]

But, again, fairly sure you're just an Accountant alt to try and debate with himself. Maybe so people will side with Accountant, not sure. It's pretty sad, though.

Shaziro, I'm going to repeat this again. XRZ is not my alt. There's no way I'd do something as disgustingly dishonorable and deceptive as make an alt and try to sockpuppet. If you're going to continue with these (completely baseless!) allegations in an attempt to smear my good name, then I demand that you produce evidence to back up your accusations.

[Accountant]

You have to acknowledge that China exists before you can do anything with it. Much the same, you have to acknowledge that you have faults before you can fix them. You have to acknowledge that there are limitations before you can shift them.

In the case of your example about China, then yes, you have to acknowledge it exists. But in my case, I have no limitations. That's why your metaphor is bad. In my case, China

actually does not exist.

[Accountant]

As for XRZ being your alt, I'm literally just speculating based on the fact that they only post here and they seem pretty well set up to just be you giving yourself a challenger for some reason. Maybe just hoping that people will side with "you" against XRZ because XRZ is more insufferable, hell if I know. That said, entirely speculation.

Keep your baseless speculation to yourself. If you don't think I'm debating in good faith, then stop posting in this thread.

[Accountant]

Okay, this conversation with over. I will hold no truck with people who repeatedly create baseless accusations of me being deceptive, dishonorable or debating in bad faith. I'm fine with you being wrong - many people are - but I will not tolerate unwarranted and totally false personal attacks on my righteousness. Especially not from cockroaches like you who refuse to listen to reason or accept the truth of the correct path while circlejerking himself off about how amazing it is that he can't do jack shit.

[Accountant]

Come back when you're ready to at least try and pretend to be a real human being.

[Accountant]

unwarranted and totally false

personal attacks

Sorry, Shaz, the accusation has to first be actually false before being counted as bad. Just like it wouldn't be in my rights to throw a shit fit for you accusing XRZ of being my alt if XRZ really was my alt, it's not in your rights to get angry for me saying you're a cockroach when you basically are. I'll stop calling you a cockroach when you start acting like a human being.

[Accountant]

You haven't been debating in good faith this entire time, especially since you started claiming that you saying something isn't proof you said it because reality doesn't work when you're concerned. You can't accept that you got caught being flawed.

You did not "catch" me being flawed, because I was not flawed.

Nothing

I said has contradicted itself and you have 0 proof otherwise, only more baseless accusations.

[Accountant]

The whole god/I'm not a god claim isn't baseless and there is evidence of the flip flop in this thread. It was presented to you in the past yet you call it baseless.

Also, Accountant wouldn't make an alt in this thread to argue. It could be another users alt but not Accountants.

There is no flip flop. When is there a flip flop? I think I was pretty clear in saying that I wasn't a God.

[Accountant]

So when I actually did go too far and insult you and make suggestions regarding your mental state, I apologized. It was a step too far, and I've made an effort not to do it again. I've also made an effort to correct my misuse of pronouns when referring to you. This is out of a fairly basic level of respect for another person. I'd appreciate the same respect in return, rather than being told that I'm a cockroach, and subhuman. Thanks.

I apologize for calling you a cockroach and subhuman.

[Accountant]

Here's my biggest question, Accountant. You've claimed to have already made it so reality will eventually do what you want. You've said (correct me if I'm wrong) that the reason things don't just instantly change is because it'd be a bad story. Do you think that a good story is worth the suffering of countless lives who are currently in desperate need? Why not make that suffering end now, if you are actually capable of doing so?

I don't mean literally a bad story, it was part of the metaphor (with the correct path being the author and me being the protagonist). What I mean is that it would violate the order of cause and effect if it were to happen now. Just like an author can't just write "and then, through an unknown manner, the antagonist was suddenly defeated!". The author has to lay down the reasons and go through the process of showing how the antagonist is defeated in compliance with the structure of the story. So the correct path needs to guide the universe along the lines that allow it to gradually develop into utopia, akin to an author guiding the story to its happy ending. You can't just jump there or you'll violate the structure of the way things work.

[Accountant]

If you can't control anything without it being natural for things to happen, then you aren't controlling anything at all. You're taking a natural force and saying "but I did that".

I'm not controlling anything. It is the correct path - the natural force - that will create utopia. I am but a servant of the path.

[Accountant]

Yes, I did - the task is to "change to create utopia".

[Accountant]

What are you talking about? I just melted the ice cube. That's considered a change.

[Accountant]

There's no difference between the two situations. Either way, you have a melted ice cube, so they can be used completely interchangeably.

[Accountant]

You aren't making me breathe, because you have no connection with me breathing. I have a connection with the correct path - the correct path changes the world. If you have a connection with the sun that melts the ice cube, you can claim credit for the ice cube(for instance, say there is a person with the ability to make a fireball hover in midair, and the fireball melts the ice cube - that ice cube was melted by that peson).

[Accountant]

That's not a connection, just a coincidence or correlation.

[Accountant]

You also can't prove I have no connection to your breathing.

The person who makes the claim has to prove it.

[Accountant]

1) Self-evident.
2) I follow it.
3) it has the highest authority.
4) I am connected to the correct path.
5) What does this mean? I never claimed this.

[Accountant]

um

ie. I'm incorruptible, and the dictator is way more righteous than me, so the dictator is incorruptible. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Accountant]

nothing can be above the universe, nor can the universe really be above anything. its just reality's tupperware container. just making postmodernist assertions doesnt give your argument weight

Yes, and the correct path has a higher level of authority than a dumb tupperware container.

[Accountant]

I can call something correct without it being correct. You could be too. Prove that the path you call the correct path is correct. Prove it has the highest authority. Prove that being connected to it somehow changes your connection to reality.

Also, yes, you claimed that you saying you are god doesn't mean you said you are god

I never claimed that, because I never claimed I was God in the first place.

Also, since I know I'm right, I don't need proof. Proof is for people like you. For a righteous person with convictions, it is unecessary.

[Accountant]

this doesnt really make any sense

What is confusing about it?

[Accountant]

and you cant say you're righteous and then not have any proof for your convictions, literally anyone can do that and sidestep logic entirely and be able to get away with some pretty bad stuff with that.

No. Someone who isn't righteous can't do that, or they'd be lying.

[Accountant]

also re-explain the harry potter thing just entirely

Universe = story
Correct path = author > story
People = characters
Antagonist = evil

[Accountant]

why are you not

What? I wouldn't lie about my righteousness.

[Accountant]

and you cant say you're righteous and then not have any proof for your convictions, literally anyone can do that and sidestep logic entirely and be able to get away with some pretty bad stuff with that.

No. Someone who isn't righteous can't do that, or they'd be lying.

why are you not

also the universe has no author, no god.

Well, someone's writing the story.

[Accountant]

The unrighteous lie about their righteousness

But I'm righteous, so I wouldn't.

[Accountant]

why are you not

What? I wouldn't lie about my righteousness.

but what gives you merit to think that

is it not possible someone is entirely convinced they are righteous, despite your opinion?

It doesn't matter how convinced you are. What matters is whether you actually are righteous, and I actually am righteous.

[Accountant]

and you cant say you're righteous and then not have any proof for your convictions, literally anyone can do that and sidestep logic entirely and be able to get away with some pretty bad stuff with that.

No. Someone who isn't righteous can't do that, or they'd be lying.

why are you not

also the universe has no author, no god.

Well, someone's writing the story.

who

The correct path

[Accountant]

...and?

[Accountant]

therefore you can't have someone "writing the story"

Nonsentient stuff can perform actions as well. A tornado rolls across a countryside. A tsunami washes over a building. The correct path imposes itself onto the universe.

[Accountant]

Nobody is saying the correct path is outside the universe. It's merely higher than the universe.

[Accountant]

Yes, it is. Hence the statement: "the correct path is above everything".

[Accountant]

For the record, I don't bait people into doing stuff. They come into this thread to express their concerns or ask questions, and I respond.

[Accountant]

you have to like

back that up

>tfw I don't

[Accountant]

Accountant, I know that you are wrong. I know it for a fact, 100%. I am convicted in this knowledge.

Too bad you're wrong.

[Accountant]

except you do

your entire premise depends on that being backed up

I don't have to back up statements for them to be true...

[Accountant]

Accountant, I know that you are wrong. I know it for a fact, 100%. I am convicted in this knowledge.

Too bad you're wrong.

I believe I am right, therefore I cannot be wrong.

I agree that you believe that you are right, but the correct path disagrees, and I care about it more than I care about your feelings.

[Accountant]

Davsto has "dammit davsto" in his sig, but I'm sure he doesn't literally want to damn himself. That said! Let me clarify my stance.

The quote is from an anime known as Fate/stay night: Unlimited Blade Works. In it, the main character, Emiya Shirou, says those lines. Here is the thing. F/sn is one of the best anime of all time. It has many insightful quotes and stuff that makes me really nod my head in agreement - I liked it so much because a lot of key points within the anime reflect my philosophy exactly, or at an angle that's really interesting. I felt that those lines reflected Shirou's personality more than other lines that I agreed with more, which is why I put it in my sig.

[Accountant]

The entire point is that the level of possible corruption correlates to the level of power held by an individual, so your comparison is useless.

I mean that if you gave me absolute power, I wouldn't be corrupt, because I'm so righteous - someone who's even more righteous than me would

definitely

not be corrupted by that level of power.

[Accountant]

The only way that would have any chance of working is if the one in power at any one time has the exact set of opinions that benefits everybody at any one time (since the only way one can become corrupt is by being able to change how they think) and changing that out when the optimal thoughts do.

Here's the thing - the optimal thoughts don't change. The optimal thoughts are what is known as the correct path, and it doesn't change, just like "is it wrong to murder people" doesn't change. It's the same path that will guide humanity to utopia forever. There's no need for free will for that - the dictator merely has to follow the path forever. This is known as "righteousness".

[Accountant]

The entire point is that the level of possible corruption correlates to the level of power held by an individual, so your comparison is useless.

I mean that if you gave me absolute power, I wouldn't be corrupt, because I'm so righteous - someone who's even more righteous than me would

definitely

not be corrupted by that level of power.

Have you considered that having absolute power itself is potentially unrighteous?

It can't be - the correct path demands it, and the correct path defines what is righteous.

[Accountant]

Why does it have to be one person? Why not a council of righteous people?

It's the same thing - if there was a council, they'd slowly merge to form a hivemind, and then we once again end up with the "Council Hivemind" known as the absolute dictator. The end goal is for all humanity to join the hive, of course.

[Accountant]

Well consider the Christian idea that the big ultimate righteous guy has to take on the penalty for all the evil of the world. Of course this is some semi magical idea of taking on sin and then somehow purging it that isn't explained. Is it possible that the super righteous one would have to actually act incredibly inrighteously in order to cause everyone else to act righteous and unify?

You've been watching too much Code Geass. No. You can't be super righteous while acting unrighteous.

[Accountant]

Actually I should create like a reading list of all the times in books, TV shows, anime etc. where a character did or said something that made me go "woah! This person said something that's super in line with the correct path! I like the way they think!"

[Accountant]

I don't watch anime, actually, but my point is that I don't think you've considered the idea that somebody who is supremely good might have to do supremely bad things in order to make others be supremely good.

If the thing makes other supremely good, then it isn't supremely bad in the first place. That's why it's fine to execute bad people even though executing people is generally bad.

But the specific case you described is absurd; someone acting unrighteous doesnt make others follow the correct path more

[Accountant]

Consider that people who see extreme evil become more good as a sort of "I'm definitely nothing like that guy" kind of thought process. If people have a common enemy that is universally agreed on as evil and dangerous, they unify.

Why not unify them by force? Skip the part where I have to get my hands dirty.

[Accountant]

You should make a book, all the good philosophies will have a book or essay about it.

It's not a bad idea. It means we can just assign it as required reading at schools rather than force all teachers to memorize stuff

[Accountant]

Force causes resistance.

Not for long

[Accountant]

Force causes resistance.

Not for long

Wouldn't avoiding resistance, and the bad things that come with it, be better?

No, because that requires unrighteousness.

[Accountant]

Like, your proposed solution is for someone to act evil to make others turn good, which trades small unrighteous for large righteous; but my solution is to just make everyone turn good, which trades no unrighteous for large righteous - so my solution is better.

[Accountant]

Imp is right, yeah. Really the better thing to say would be that you do have to back something up for somebody else to believe it on anything but blind faith.

I don't intend to convince you of anything. I know you won't believe me no matter what. My job is to instruct you in the correct path - should you prove recalcitrant, the next step of the learning process is in the hands of the re-education centers.

[Accountant]

and nothing should be believed on blind faith

(except the correct path)

[Accountant]

Accountant I don't think you are a troll

I agree.

[Accountant]

It's all I ask of the people on this site. I don't think everyone will suddenly agree with me, no matter how much I explain things to them, but I do ask that they respect me enough to treat me seriously.

[Accountant]

If it helps, I don't think you're a troll either, and that's part of why I'm so concerned with this stuff. Right, so, here's the thing Accountant. Wouldn't resistance, as bloody and violent as it can be, affecting both the people resisting and the people not resisting, be worse than one person being a really bad dude that everyone can unite against? It trades one person being bad for loads of people being bad.

I don't see the part where resistance leads to badness. Go ahead and explain that part.

[Accountant]

Like yes resistance is bad but we'll quickly defeat the rebels and then everything's hunky dory

[Accountant]

can i think you're not a troll but also not treat you seriously

You are physically capable of doing so.