Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

I have bolded the relevant word.

No one cares what you want to assert. I could assert that I am God's personal messenger here to tell you that you're an idiot, but that wouldn't make it true.

>not caring what the objective truth and ultimate judge of all morality says

wew

[Accountant]

That is literally the exact opposite reason that 1984 was written.

Orwell's dystopia literally only functions because it is so easily abused. The societal model you propose cannot function without this abuse. You cannot get rid of it practically or theoretically, and you in fact desperately require it to exist, because this abuse is the only thing keeping people in line and allowing the facade to continue.

Oceania exists because the model of "utopia" that it tries to function under will always, inevitably, result in abuse. It requires abuse, because constant abuse and the fear of same is the only way to keep dissenters in line. Big Brother, Minitruth, Miniplenty, the screens, the Two Minutes' Hate, O'Brien and other agents, Room 101 - literally all these things exist explicitly to abuse the populace, because abuse is the only way that Oceania can function. Because the system is fundamentally broken, and does not work.

You really ought to read this book before you try to mouth off about it. As it is, it's painfully obvious that - like everything else you've tried to talk about in this thread - you have absolutely no understanding of the subject matter.

Oh, wait, I think we have different ideas of "abuse".

I thought you were talking about corruption or people selfishly using the system to profit themselves(eg. karnos' post about the 9999 land speeders). The "abuse" that you speak of is not going to happen. Let's look at each facet of the abuses you've listed and I'll explain why they either won't exist in my society or are ultimately good for the society.

1) Big Brother
In 1984, Big Brother is a figure of questionable existence. He is akin to a figurehead who is used to justify all sorts of atrocities. In my utopia, there will be no need for justification. That's because everyone will agree on everything, so the existence of a "Big Brother" would be completely unnecessary. The functions of a leader would be to calculate details and make administrative decisions. For example, everyone will agree that a bridge has to be built(or, more realistically, they'll all agree that X person is a good decision maker and will represent the correct decision, and then X makes the correct decision of ordering the bridge built). After that, it is the function of the leaders to determine the best way to build the bridge, order studies to make sure it's sturdy enough and so on. As you can see, since all decisions in society eventually boil down to this, there is no need for a Big Brother to keep people in line - they will keep themselves in line because they love the line, because they have been educated as to the beauty and righteouness of the line.

2) Minitruth and Miniplenty
Propaganda and starvation will of course be unneeded. There is no need to disseminate propaganda to get people to support a cause they already support. Starvation is a completely useless thing and nobody wants it, so we simply won't have it. I suppose you could argue that the re-education schools are considered propaganda, but they're propaganda in the service of the good guys, so that's fine.

3) The telescreens.
In 1984, the function of the telescreens is to monitor citizens to make sure they aren't up to no good. Once again, such things will not be necessary in the utopia. As the citizens blindly trust the leaders to follow the correct path, so do the leaders blindly trust the citizens to do the right thing. In this manner, everyone will work together for the greater good without the need for checks and balances like telescreens. This is all in accordance with the rule of balance. Furthermore, there's no need to monitor people that you know are definitely good.

4) Two Minutes' Hate
There is no need for this kind of program. Citizens will already be taught to hate evil and bad things, and they're not going to suddenly stop hating evil past some arbitrary two minute timeslot. I suppose you could consider that in my utopia the hated evil will be "24/7 Hate"!

5) The Thought Police
The Thought Police in 1984 function to attack people who have committed the crime of wrongthink. Of course, in my utopia, wrongthink will not be possible. Thus, the existence of an agency to catch wrongthink is unneeded.

6) Room 101
The function of Room 101 in 1984 is to teach dissidents to love Big Brother - or in the context of my utopia the government. That function is already fulfilled by schools who will teach the correct path. Therefore, torturing people to love the government is unecessary.

As you can see, all the things you are worried about will not happen.

[Accountant]

Go to new users, welcome them, treat them well and help them out, then slowly reel them in to your ideal bit by bit cause all at once is too much, then when they become in the fold, have them welcome new members just as you did.

I don't like that idea. I think it feels a bit manipulative. If I'm going to do this, it would make more sense to throw everything at them at once, rather than be deceptive and only feed them bits.

[Accountant]

Any suggestions?

Learning the basics of logic and rhetoric before trying to make use of them might be a good start.

It would be dumb to try to use logic and rhetoric to assert something that is above either. Only a fool would try to prove the existence of God through mortal means...

[Accountant]

The blind faith, the unquestioning belief, the follow no matter what mentality, it being the "true" way to walk, etc.

Right, but that has no impact on the truthiness of my systen.

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."

I do not seek to be deep. I merely seek to assert the truth. In fact, I think my system's tenets are shallow and obvious, which is why it always makes me roll my eyes when people can't even see something that simple.

[Accountant]

No you haven't. If you are sure you have, point me to one of your prior posts, repeat yourself or copy+paste it.

Tell me which part you're unclear about. Is it the actual content of my philosophy? Or the methods in which I intend to use to impose it on the world?

Both.

My philosophy is simple. There are a set of correct truths in which every sentient being should live their lives by. This is "good". Sometimes, in fact most of the time, sentient beings do not life their lives by these truths. This is "evil". We should aim to promote good and eliminate evil.

As for the methods in which I intend to use to impose it on the world, I believe that the best way to promote good is to get people to live their lives by the correct truths, making them "good people". In order to do this, I wish to create schools and educational systems to teach people about the truths. Once that happens, everyone will become in agreement and the world will turn into a utopia.

[Accountant]

How can something be its own evidence? No, "it just is" isn't an answer, nor is "it's self-evident", as you seem to use them interchangeably.

This is simple. "Evidence" means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". One of the most important sources and source of information regarding the validity of the moral system is the moral system itself, which asserts that it is morally right to believe in it.

You're basically saying "it is because it is".

No logic.

Yes, yes, we've established that my system is above logic already. Stop pretending that calling my system illogical is relevant in any way.

[Accountant]

But if he needed to be forcibly reeducated to get to the top, who would do that? You'd need someone on top who was forcibly educated first. Also, people can change their minds.

When I say theology, it's because of how much of a leap of faith (hehe) you're taking to this objective moral system, and how you follow it as if it is a god.

I see what you mean - at some point there has to be an initial re-educator, who can educate others without being educated himself. This, of course, is my goal.

Nobody with sufficiently high conviction will change their mind.

Finally, that's an acceptable comparison. I suppose it shares some similarities with theology in that respect, but I think the two are different enough that it's a bad idea to make assumptions about one based on the other.

[Accountant]

1) Morality is simply what you believe is right, and you can disobey your morals. You can also disobey other people or governments in accordance with your morals.

2) Being self-righteous means you're a pretentious halfwit.

3) But it'd need to have logic backing it first.

1) If you disobey your own morals, you don't really believe those morals, obviously.
2) No, it means you're right. Hence the "right" in "righteous".
3) Why the fuck would that be necessary?

[Accountant]

Doesn't the fact that people disagree on this invalidate the supposed objectivity?

It's an objective fact that the earth is not flat, and yet people disagree on it.

[Accountant]

Said every cult leader ever.

What makes you different? At least be self-aware enough to acknowledge how comparatively dumb this looks.

Look... you're neglecting the big,

big

difference between a cult and me.

I am actually right.

Once you accept that, then everything else becomes irrelevant.

[Accountant]

I'm going to assume you meant that you'd rather tell a lie and kill someone. Well and good. But what about betraying your principles?

my principles are simply to bring as much happiness and little sadness into the world as possible. I don't see the point in applying moral absolutism to actions because every situation is different and due to lesser of two evils situations it is always possible for a rule ethical theory to be wrong.

Would you kill someone if it meant making the world happier?

Stopping sadness is more important. If that person was causing harm to others and killing them was the only way to stop them, if it was bad enough I would (e.g. assassinating an evil despot if it would improve the situation.

Would you re-educate someone if it meant making the world happier?

[Accountant]

You're projecting copious amounts of complacency. If you want to keep people in line, you're going to start incorporating elements of those systems.

I literally just said I wouldn't. Are you claiming to know my utopia better than me? I'll have you know that I'm the world's foremost expert on Accountant's utopia.

[Accountant]

Bloody hell

Your head is so far up your arse that I can't tell which end is speaking

????????

[Accountant]

While there are definitely some solid things that most people think are evil, such as murder, people have disagreements over what is moral and what is not. Some people think being gay is wrong. Some people think thinking being gay is wrong is wrong. Some people believe all sentient life is equal, some believe humans are elevated. You can have your opinions on these matters, and many more, but what makes your system more objective than any other outside of the fact that it is yours? And if it is so self-evident, why is there so much diversity in people's individual moral compasses?

So, you want to promote your idea of good, and shit on your idea of bad, as most people do. However, the difference here is that, while I may have a stance of freedom (to certain extents, of course, anarchy is dumb), you have an authoritarian mindset, which is kind of not good at all. First of all, the above should be considered, as your morals are not necessarily going to be right by the rest of the world, and if there are objective moral truths, you might be mislead. There is nothing about your opinion that is inherently better than anyone else's, and due to your lack of understanding of relativity you want to be a giant chungus about it and push it onto everyone else, which I thoroughly disagree with on principle. Even if we had identical moral beliefs I would still oppose you. While you can have schools to re-educate people, this assumes (or projects, as I may) a level of complacency onto the populous which does not exist, especially with morality they may happen to disagree with. To assume there will be perfect agreement is foolish, as are the majority of your thoughts.

What makes my system more objective? Well, there is no "higher thing" that makes my system more objective. We start from the premise that it is the most objective and correct thing in the universe and move on from there. A question like that is as silly as asking who created God.

Why is there so much diversity in people's individual moral compasses? My theory is that people are just born misguided. However, with proper care and education, they can be moved into the correct path.

"assumes a level of complacency onto the populace which does not exist" - well, the thing is, we can sit here and argue back and forth as to whether or not the population will change their views to match mine. But in the end if they don't change their views to match mine they simply won't be allowed to leave the re-education centers.

[Accountant]

How can something be its own evidence? No, "it just is" isn't an answer, nor is "it's self-evident", as you seem to use them interchangeably.

This is simple. "Evidence" means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". One of the most important sources and source of information regarding the validity of the moral system is the moral system itself, which asserts that it is morally right to believe in it.

You're basically saying "it is because it is".

No logic.

Yes, yes, we've established that my system is above logic already. Stop pretending that calling my system illogical is relevant in any way.

If it is not logically possible for your system to begin, function, or sustain itself, I consider that

extremely fucking important.

Well, suppose it was not logically possible for my system to begin. Then we can look at it as Logic ordering my system "not to exist" because it is logically impossible(in much the same way that logic would "order" - although it is of course not sentient - the existence of B if we take A -> B && A to be true). However, because my system is above logic, it simply "countermands the lesser order" and imposes itself onto reality.

Therefore, all that's necessary to do to create my utopia is to disobey logic. This may seem a difficult task, but I'm sure that with all of humanity working towards it, we'll be able to accomplish our goal eventually.

[Accountant]

You're projecting copious amounts of complacency. If you want to keep people in line, you're going to start incorporating elements of those systems.

I literally just said I wouldn't. Are you claiming to know my utopia better than me? I'll have you know that I'm the world's foremost expert on Accountant's utopia.

I am going directly off of what you said. If you have changed your mind, inform me.

Where have I said that I will create Minitruth or Room 101?

[Accountant]

Bloody hell

Your head is so far up your arse that I can't tell which end is speaking

????????

Okay, maybe that was a bit harsh, but the point is that I guarantee you that

every single one

of those cult members also thought they were 100% right with absolute certainty based on things that they think should be obvious (despite them being unwilling/unable to back it up), just like you. You asserting that you're right is just like them asserting that they are right.

And Christians will think they are right about God 100% with absolute certainty. So will Muslims. Atheists too. Republicans think they are 100% right with absolute certainty. There's probably someone out there who thinks that toilet paper should be rolled with the paper facing the wall, and believes they are right 100% with absolute certainty.

In general, people think they are right. This is not a startling new insight.

[Accountant]

I don't like that idea. I think it feels a bit manipulative.

But re-education to force people to love something that they originally didn't like the idea of? Nah, not manipulative at all.

It's not manipulative. I'm very open and honest about what the schools do.

[Accountant]

Accountant's plans are more like dr. Eggman and will turn everyone into robots.

not really

[Accountant]

...Right. You're really good at missing the point aren't you?

Actually, you've provided a good example - out of all of those groups, some of them are inevitably wrong. What makes you think that there's no chance that you're wrong, even though you know that there are groups of people who are wrong about things that they believe they are 100% right about?

Me not being wrong is the premise of the argument.

[Accountant]

I'm pretty sure that forcing people into re-education facilities definitely is manipulative.

It is not unscrupulous.

[Accountant]

Cults also say that snow is white; saying the same things as a cult does not make you cultish.

[Accountant]

Can reporters report on whatever they want?

Yes

[Accountant]

You are terrified of an internet forum thread?

[Accountant]

Solar flares are very unlikely.

[Accountant]

no. I guess what I really mean is that people should to given the opportunity to obtain happiness. Re-education removes that choice and is therefore bad.

Suppose you could re-educate an evil person to become good, thus stopping them from commiting evil acts and making them work for good. Then the world becomes happier. Do you do it?

[Accountant]

The frequency of occurrence of solar flares varies, from several per day when the Sun is particularly "active" to less than one every week when the Sun is "quiet", following the 11-year cycle (the solar cycle).

Yeah, but those aren't any danger to us.

[Accountant]

My question to paragraph one seems to be unanswered. I'm saying that because there is no distinction between your objective truth and Kate Bush's objective truth, how is yours more objective FROM AN OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVE.

All people (outside socio/psychopaths) have base empathy, and know not to murder and steal and so on. There are base morals that are fairly solid principles, but beyond those it is largely shaped by individual experience and perspective.

Okay, so you are an orwellian, moral busybody, self-absorbed, authoritarian slimepit, and this response has solidified it, more or less. How do you expect to have re-education centers if everyone hates your systems right now? Not even your morals really, but your methods.

1) There is no outside perspective, and if there was it's completely irrelevant. I don't see why you keep wanting to bring in the outside perspective, it's completely useless.

2) This is a good explanation of how people develop morals, but I do not understand what it has to do with my system.

3) They will come to their senses eventually.

[Accountant]

You can't just say fuck logic and have things work out. You need to be able to construct and maintain your system within reality.

Says who?

[Accountant]

You are terrified of an internet forum thread?

Terrified of your stupidity in the next generation

Don't worry fam, I got you covered.

When you say "stupidity", you are referring to my moral system, which you unrightly consider stupid. As you yourself have conceded that nobody else wishes to adopt it, then there's no reason to be terrified of my moral system "in" the next generation. Well, unless you think that my theory about the world inevitably moving closer to the correct path is correct. Is that the case?

[Accountant]

Solar flares are very unlikely.

So is your system getting off the ground.

My system is inevitable.

[Accountant]

My system is inevitable.

Why do you believe this?

Because most people are good people.

[Accountant]

The frequency of occurrence of solar flares varies, from several per day when the Sun is particularly "active" to less than one every week when the Sun is "quiet", following the 11-year cycle (the solar cycle).

Yeah, but those aren't any danger to us.

Solar flares can knock out electronics. Like a natural EMP which would take out your robots and symbiotic humans.

Install protections against solar flares then.

[Accountant]

What protections?

Who cares?

[Accountant]

Or Robotmanity

I already provided the solution. Let the scientists or the more technical people work out the numbers. Conceptually the problem has been solved.

[Accountant]

1) Your basic denial skills are astounding. That, or you have literally zero mental perspective.

2) I'm saying that people naturally have different morals, and trying to force people down certain paths against their will, even if you are right, will not work. People do not like authority, generally.

3) Why? Because you're right? Circular reasoning again (if you forgot it basically means no logic)

1) Mental perspective is not needed, since I know I am right.

2) It is not about whether or not they will like it. That is the meaning of "force". And once the process is over, they will like it.

3) We have already established that my system is circular and above logic. There is no point in reiterating this.

[Accountant]

You can't just say fuck logic and have things work out. You need to be able to construct and maintain your system within reality.

Says who?

Reality. If you want your system to happen (i'm assuming you do) then you need to conform to that authority.

Reality says it, and my system countermands it. My system will never conform to the authority of reality. Rather, reality will conform to the authority of my system. That's because my system has a higher level of authority than reality.

[Accountant]

I do not consider your morals stupid, from what I've heard I agree with most things. It's not objective though. I'm not saying people won't adopt your ideals, but if you're looking at all of civilaztion, yeah, no.

I'll admit it's not the easiest of tasks, but it can be done. As long as you have the moral high ground, nothing is impossible.


Also, if you agree with most things you should be on my side.

[Accountant]

You keep saying its inevitable or people will come around eventually without actually listening to reality.

If you want this change, make a plan, or get up and do something about it. You're basically a whining child if you're unwilling to do anything.

Why would I listen to reality when I could listen to my system - which is a higher authority than reality?

I

am

doing something about it. I spread my philosophy everywhere I go. This is not the only platform in which I am having this conversation.

[Accountant]

Please dont encourage the creation of dytopias

How is my system a dystopia?

[Accountant]

What if it's not possible to defend from solar flares?

Only the severest magnetic storms are able to pierce Earth's magnetosphere, in which your hard disk lives immersed. It follows that only rarely a magnetic storm will develop local strengths of more than, say, five times Earth's magnetic field, which is around 0.50 Gauss.

And hard disks (and consumer electronic equipment in general) are largely immune to fields up to six hundred times that.

For example, in RAID disks, you'll have DISK 2 which is spinning very close to disks 1 and 3, which come equipped with very powerful rare earth magnets. From 2's point of views, those two magnets are an interference and a harassment, yet RAID disks perform flawlessly for years.

Additionally, desktop PC are usually encased in a steel or iron case which is not only antistatic (a Faraday cage) since it is metallic, but it is also antimagnetic since it's made of ferrous alloy. Laptop PCs have lighter alloy cases (from most to least expensive, titanium, magnesium, aluminum and plastic) which are not antimagnetic (plastic is not even antistatic - or not very much even when the inside is surface treated with conductive paint).

However, there are magnetic shielding cloths that will increase your equipment's resistance to solar flares by anywhere from 2 to 7 orders of magnitude; I remember seeing an antistatic/antimagnetic/RFID-proof case for Mac Air on Amazon, so I'm pretty sure they should exist for other models too.

you guys are exaggerating hte impact of solar flares

[Accountant]

1) Your basic denial skills are astounding. That, or you have literally zero mental perspective.

2) I'm saying that people naturally have different morals, and trying to force people down certain paths against their will, even if you are right, will not work. People do not like authority, generally.

3) Why? Because you're right? Circular reasoning again (if you forgot it basically means no logic)

1) Mental perspective is not needed, since I know I am right.

2) It is not about whether or not they will like it. That is the meaning of "force". And once the process is over, they will like it.

3) We have already established that my system is circular and above logic. There is no point in reiterating this.

1) Before you came to this conclusion, you thought you were right before. Why are you right now, so much that any other perspective is outlawed?

2) You can't force people to like your shitty government. Some people are stupidly rebellious, and some just have basic values that they don't like being denied. If you think this is a realistic expectation, you need to like, live more, or something.

3) It's not established. It was never even explained properly. This is you right now:

The world will not be receptive to this once you enter it. When you are young you have time to spin off ideas, but you need to be able to be a functioning adult if you want to be, well, a functioning adult.

1) There is no "why". There is no reasoning or logic behind the assertion I am right. It is an axiom - a premise that we start off. It is self-evident and one of the core truths of the world. Do not question it.

2) I

can

force people to like my government. That is the point of education. If people are stupidly rebellious, they will be detained, arrested, shot, prosecuted, punished, reformed or otherwise dealt with. There are plenty of ways to deal with such people. Eventually we will simply remove that kind of worthless mindset from humanity. This is the same with people who have axioms mutually exclusive to the correct path. Once again, this is not a realistic expectation. This is a

demand

from the lawful authority known as the correct path that we have no choice but to follow. If it can't work, then we'll make it work, by hook or by crook.

3) Less "I can't hear you" and more "I can hear you, but I choose not to, because the only words worth hearing are the words of the correct path, which guides me through life."

[Accountant]

accountant doesnt outlaw other perspectives but his ultimate faith towards what he believes implies that other perspectives are bad.

There's no point outlawing something that doesn't exist.

[Accountant]

1) You don't understand burden of proof. We start neutral, and go from there.

2) Wow, you are a horrible person.

3) Which is the path you're already on. I have another question. Answer it.

1) Burden of proof does not apply to my system, even if you claim that it does. That's because burden of proof is a logical test, and logic is below my system. Therefore logic cannot demand anything of my system, including proof.

2) A horrible person who will make a brighter future for everybody.

3) You did not express any question in your response to me last post.

[Accountant]

So when you believe things, you believe those things are right because duh, however, you probably didn't used to believe those things. What makes right now different? Why is now the point at which no further mental development is possible?

Because the system says it is right and I'm not going to question it.

[Accountant]

this is above stupidity. It's not even agreeing with them or thinking they should deserve attention, you're just denying they exist now. Literally everyone else is another perspective.

I'd only be "outlawing" something if my utopia already exists. Of course, no wrong perspectives will be allowed in a utopia.

[Accountant]

1) How is your system above logic? I've asked before and you did not provide an actual answer.

That is the premise of the debate. There is no "how" or "why". This is the root fact from which all arguments spring - attempting to futilely ask how it is above logic is similarly to asking who created God; the question itself is bad.

[Accountant]

You didn't formerly believe in this "system" though, so what makes it different now?

The shreds of moral intuition I had before I discovered the correct path did not demand unquestioning obedience, but that's fine, because they weren't correct anyway. Some of them were reforged and integrated into the correct system, though. However, when I discovered the correct system through seeing the self-evident facts of the world that previously eluded me, my eyes were opened to the truth. After that, I could not

not

believe in it.

[Accountant]

this is above stupidity. It's not even agreeing with them or thinking they should deserve attention, you're just denying they exist now. Literally everyone else is another perspective.

I'd only be "outlawing" something if my utopia already exists. Of course, no wrong perspectives will be allowed in a utopia.

No wrongthink in wonderland.

Indeed.

[Accountant]

@Chevre: Well, I know I am right, so it would be disingenuous to not push my views forward. Under your advocated course of action, I would cease to advance a viewpoint I know is correct simply because people do not believe it and think I am bad. This is of course a very cowardly thing to do. If I were to do this, it would be saying that I care about social capital more than I care about doing the right thing. It is my moral duty to back the good guys, even if it makes people not like me any more.

"Good" is not something that is only done when it is easy. It is akin to an iron law that must be executed to the utmost letter at all times, even if it is difficult or unpleasant. I do not find it very fun to have guns put to people's heads and force them to study the correct path until they agree. But it is necessary so it must be carried out. If I am to engage in this kind of rhetoric, then to back away simply because the consequences are hurting me - this would be the highest hypocrisy.

[Accountant]

bro ur not supposed to learn what the self-evident ur supposed to zen it like the enlightened accountant. who cares if he can't explain shit

I understand this is sarcasm, but note that even if you can't understand it, you can still obey.

[Accountant]

We start with my system being outside of logic because it is. It is only your own flawed assumptions that lead to you formulating foolish ideas like "everything is inside logic, even things that actually aren't". Again, do not ask for explanation. Explanation is only reserved for systems inside logic.

If you have trouble accepting that my system is outside logic but still wish to be a good person, that is acceptable. Simply wait for the re-education centres to be built and then enroll in one.

Argument consists of a series of premises, from which we show how the conclusions arrive. If you cannot accept these premises, then you have no right to argue.

[Accountant]

But when you had the beliefs you had before now, you thought they were correct. What is different now, other than this godly delusion you have cooked up?

This time, they actually are correct, rather than just me merely thinking they are correct.

[Accountant]

You never believe anything because it simply is. You strawman me as saying everything is inside logic, when what I am actually saying is that such a thing needs some sort of explanation.

But to clarify, everything is within logic. Throw anything at me that is not horseshit, and there is a logical explanation for it.

It's true that believing something because it simply is is a bad idea. However, that's just a general rule of thumb. In certain cases it's good because the thing has more authority that the principle of skepticism, and in that case if you attempted to question it you would be bad.

[Accountant]

You don't understand. Before, you thought they were correct. Now, you think they are correct. What is different between these two states of minds, other than the fact that you have a different state of mind?

One state of mind is simply an opinion. The other is correlated with the absolute moral system that passes judgement on the entire universe.

[Accountant]

You're basically admitting to wanting to threaten people to death until they change their minds. If I supported such a thing (I don't), you would be number one, as you have been entirely unreceptive to any sort of actual intellect.

Intellect is great. I love intellect. It's above almost anything else.

Almost.

No amount of intellect, no amount of logic can

ever

disrupt the absolute unquestioning obedience necessary to become a good person. No amount of skepticism can ever disrupt the absolute weight of the iron law that imposes itself on the universe.

[Accountant]

You've been consistently saying that we should attempt to explain why soemthing is above logic, when that is a contradiction. If something is above logic, then explaining it is bullshit, because an explanation is an inherently logical process. In this case, you should obey the correct path whether or not an explanation is given.

[Accountant]

And no, I am not threatening people to death until they change their minds. I am simply demanding that they do, and if they don't then they will be shown through proper education why it's for the best - for everyone and themselves - that they do.

[Accountant]

What is this authority? You've never shown it to be anything other than your morals, and then your heavily authoritarian ways of enforcing them.

The authority stems from its status as the absolute moral system. That is what the term absolute means - it is beyond anything else.

[Accountant]

The "absolute moral system"... is an opinion.

This is incorrect. It is an objective truth. You would agree with me if you had eyes to see how self-evidently true it is.

[Accountant]

That's not true. Suppose everyone in the world thought it was right to murder. In that case, the moral statement "murder is wrong" is still correct, even though nobody is forcibly making it so. It is not just an opinion. It is the undeniable truth.

[Accountant]

It's clear to me that you do not understand the premises of this argument.

The premises are that my moral system is absolute, above logic and should be unquestioningly obeyed. If you do not accept these premises, then having an argument with you is utterly pointless. It would be like speaking alien languages to each other. If you do,

then

you can understand the explanations I give you.

[Accountant]

Sesq, I will not respond to any of your posts until you clearly either accept or deny the premises I have laid forth. If you deny them, then I suggest that you leave this thread, live out your life as you see fit and await the arrival of the utopia. Or don't, and keep telling yourself that it will never come. That's fine. If you do, then we can keep talking.

[Accountant]

Here is an example argument.

Premise:
All A are B
All B are C

Conclusion:
All A are C

As you can see, there is no point trying to explain the link between premise and conclusion until all parties agree on the premises. Now, let me illustrate my argument.

Premise:
Accountant's moral system is absolute, above logic, possesses ultimate authority and should not be questioned.

Conclusion:
Therefore, Accountant's moral system is absolute, above logic, possesses ultimate authority and should not be questioned.

So you see that the premises prove themselves, but only if you accept the premises first. Therefore, there is no point speaking with me until you accept the premises. Until then, this is an exercise in futility.

[Accountant]

How would your school's education people without using logic?

Do you mean the schools that teach the correct path or the schools that teach English and math? For the former, they will use group conformity and mental conditioning techniques, which are proven to be effective in forcibly changing minds. For the latter, logic will be used.

[Accountant]

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.

[Accountant]

Not so. I will be a teacher at those schools. Likely I will also become a writer. Furthermore, it's fine if you're not a productive member of the Utopia. That's because the Utopia is meant to allow people to do as they wish freely without any obligations*.

*As long as they don't do anything evil.

[Accountant]

Your premise and conclusion are a literal copy+paste. They are the same thing. This premise, conclusion thing isn't how arguments work anyway. Someone presents an idea they are for, some people are against it, and they logic it out. A lot of the time only one side is logicing it out though (I WONDER WHO THAT COULD BE)

Yes, the premise and conclusions are the same thing. I hope I do not have to illustrate how the premise leads to the conclusion, as it is a strict tautology.

Your system of argumentation is fine in most cases, but "logicing" it out fails when logic is not applicable to the idea in question.

[Accountant]

No, this premise/conclusion idea does not matter here. The argument is regarding your principles. Answer to arguments against them. As I've said, logic is applicable to everything, and you have not responded to this outside "NO IT ISNT" without anything to back it up. You can't reject logic. It's like rejecting mountains or gravity or human existence.

I deny that logic is applicable to everything. If you continue to insist it is, I will take it as an implicit refusal to accept the premise that my system is above logic. In this case, I will simply stop responding to your posts, because then you are essentially living in a backwards parallel dimension from me and speaking from that point of view. There's no point with arguing with an alien about morality.

[Accountant]

That is the premise. You can't justify or explain premises.

[Accountant]

That is the premise. You can't justify or explain premises.

Why isn't your objective moral system within logic?

Also, it isn't a premise for this argument. It is the subject matter. Stop asserting it is.

Once again, it cannot be justify or explained. It is a premise.

It is both the premise and the subject matter. I am unwilling to engage in any argument which does not have that as a premise. If you wish to engage in an argument which does not have it as a premise, have it without me.

[Accountant]

My premise is that we are ruled by frog-people. Nothing you can say or do will change my mind, as it is a premise. If you disagree with me, you are wrong.

Our claims are on the same level. Prove me wrong.

I don't need to. If you axiomatically believe that we are ruled by frog-people, and nothing I say can change your mind, then it's clear our minds are incompatible. In such a case, arguing with you will be futile, so I will simply not talk to you.

[Accountant]

@Dwlee: Why is free will good?

[Accountant]

Not so. I will be

Future actions don't help the Utopia right now. If you had a paper due on Tuesday, would you wait for the paper to write itself?

The Utopia does not exist right now.

[Accountant]

@Dwlee: Why is free will good?

The only way to be truly happy is to be true to yourself. If you cannot be true to yourself and have the free will to believe, say, and do what you'd like (within reason, such as not murdering people) you will not be as happy as you could be.

It sounds like what you want is there to be a world in which there are just robots that never do anything wrong and are perfect. This isn't 1. possible, and 2. the humans in it wouldn't even be humans if it was possible. There is no use in creating a "perfect" world if it can't even be inhabited by real humans.

There is no "self" to be true to. No, further than that, there is no "true". In my utopia, humans will be more like a hive mind, so there's no "real self" that they are betraying.

Furthermore, it goes without saying that my utopia will not have real humans. The inhabitants of my utopia will be former humans that have extensively modified their mind and body to become superior.

Why isn't a world full of perfect - well, not robots, but shall we say sentient beings who are similar to robots in some key ways - why isn't a world of such beings possible?

@Annadog: I have already explained why the "paper" will indeed write itself.

[Accountant]

You are not answering my question. Our claims are on the same level, yes or no.

I refuse to answer your question. Any attempt at philosophically conversing with someone who accepts as a premise that frog-men rule the world is futile.

[Accountant]

You are not answering my question. Our claims are on the same level, yes or no.

I refuse to answer your question. Any attempt at philosophically conversing with someone who accepts as a premise that frog-men rule the world is futile.

(on a less serious level, this is the best out-of-context sentence i've ever heard)

I don't actually think frog-people (not frog-MEN, you sexist)* are ruling. You have no reason not to answer me.

In that case, I think that the claims are not on ths same level.

[Accountant]

Do you pretend that airplanes in the night sky are shooting stars?

I do not.

[Accountant]

By having this admittedly illogical and unchangeable premise, you have allowed anyone to have any belief as a premise. I can say my premise is that having hair is immoral, and that all people with hair should be killed. I can use this as justification to kill you from nothing (unless you are bald, which in that case imagine it was the same with bald people.)

Do you see how this is a problem?

You are indeed allowed to have such a premise. In that case, you will simply be sent to the electric chair for murder. That's just the natural progression of events. Eventually such people will be exterminated by the arrival of the utopia.

[Accountant]

@Dwlee:

1) You will have your own mind. In fact, it will be a perfect mind. But it's unfair and weird for you to have the only perfect mind. Therefore everyone else will be given a perfect mind. Since there is only one perfect mind, it follows that everyone will have the same mind.

2) Robots do not have emotions. That is one of the things that separates robots from inhabitants of my utopia(let us call them utopians).

3) Didn't I clearly explain how it would come to pass? People will eventually want it, or be made to want it.

@Sesq: why would I be killed? I have not committed any crime.

[Accountant]

It was in reference to the inevitable kingdom I will rule one day that will kill all people with hair. It was in response to your hypothetical utopia wanting to kill me for such beliefs. I will win in the end, however.

If that is your line of thinking, so be it. I have nothing more to say to you. You will be shown the folly of your own ideas by yourself sooner or later, and nothing I say here will convince you of it.

[Accountant]

Perfection does not exist, accountant.

Perfection definitely exists. Only cynical people think perfection does not exist. Even if perfection is impossible to reach, it's trivially easy to just impose perfection on what ever you have and demand perfection from everything you do. Anyone who lives and does not reach for profession is nothing more than a mediocre amateur.

[Accountant]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Well, that saying stems from certain logical principles that my system is above.

[Accountant]

It was in reference to the inevitable kingdom I will rule one day that will kill all people with hair. It was in response to your hypothetical utopia wanting to kill me for such beliefs. I will win in the end, however.

If that is your line of thinking, so be it. I have nothing more to say to you. You will be shown the folly of your own ideas by yourself sooner or later, and nothing I say here will convince you of it.

I don't literally believe this, it's an example to show how having these unmovable premises is inherently flawed.

It's not flawed at all. I would respect someone who truly had the absolute ideal of killing someone with hair and attempted to impose it on reality no matter the cost more than someone who had moderate or even good views but was spineless in trying to impose them. At least the first person has convictions - at least they have a good and strong mindset. But the second person is just a mediocre amateur.

Did you really think I'd let reality get in the way of my utopia?

[Accountant]

You can't subvert reality. That's why it's called reality.

Well, mediocre amateurs might find it hard. But for correct people, it is as if the universe bends to the correct path.

[Accountant]

No, not necessarily. I do not intend to go "outside" reality. I intend to change reality by imposing my utopia on it.

[Accountant]

I will assert that it is correct.

[Accountant]

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.

See steps 1-6

[Accountant]

accountants like an anime character

Anime characters - and fictional characters in general - have a tendency to be simple, and where they have defined philosophies those philosophies tend to be simple and absolute. In that respect I am like them. I think that's a good thing.

[Accountant]

Would Accountant do well as an incubator?

I'd love to be an incubator

[Accountant]

Morality is neither simple nor absolute though, it's interpretive. It's situational. It's like that fuckin trolley cart meme; save the many and doom the few, or do nothing G and remain not responsible for the death of many

The principle of "sacrificing the few to save the many" is a simple and absolute rule that can be applied to any situation no matter what - it's not situational and there's no room for interpretation.

[Accountant]

Accountant, if you had to give your top 5 rules for interacting with people, what would they be?

1) Be polite and civil.
2) Be confident.
3) Talk about things that either you or them are passionate about.
4) Be respectful.
5) Acquiesce to reasonable requests.

[Accountant]

The 300. This is obvious.

[Accountant]

Did you just
What
Are you reading what you're writing?

Are you confused as to why I wish to save aid workers?

[Accountant]

Morality is neither simple nor absolute though, it's interpretive. It's situational. It's like that fuckin trolley cart meme; save the many and doom the few, or do nothing G and remain not responsible for the death of many

The principle of "sacrificing the few to save the many" is a simple and absolute rule that can be applied to any situation no matter what - it's not situational and there's no room for interpretation.

But what if you end up being infamous for your failure
and you yourself end up having a terrible life
and everyone you love leaves you
and someone murders you for failing to save their gf or something

While I do not believe in blindly maximizing number of lives saved, your argument by consequence is bad. To say that someone should not do the right thing because it's too hard or you might suffer some personal consequences - such a thing is ridiculous. Do you think something as small as everyone I love leaving me will stop me from doing the right thing? If it was enough to stop me, I would be nothing but a cowardly hypocrite.

[Accountant]

Did you just
What
Are you reading what you're writing?

Are you confused as to why I wish to save aid workers?

Is it not possible the convicts were being sent to reformation and could have become good people, and the aid workers were sent to assist in continuing a bloody civil war?

Then you save the convicts.

All you have to do is follow the principle of "save good people, abandon bad people". It's as simple as that. Follow that principle absolutely and you will be guided to the right decision in any situation, leaving no room for interpretation.

[Accountant]

accountants like an anime character

Anime characters - and fictional characters in general - have a tendency to be simple, and where they have defined philosophies those philosophies tend to be simple and absolute. In that respect I am like them. I think that's a good thing.

You're also a fictitious being created for the entertainment of others.

This is my best joke.

If I'm fictitious, how am I posting here? This assertion is silly and unfounded.

[Accountant]

account geniune question is war bad?

War itself is bad. But sometimes the badness of war is tolerable if the war leads to good outcomes.

[Accountant]

what if your country drafts you for a bad cause?

That is bad.

[Accountant]

No.

[Accountant]

By the way, the situation outlined in 732 is what I am actually facing in 2 years, albeit in a modified form.

[Accountant]

what if your country drafts you for a bad cause?

That is bad.

So do you not know what to do?

I'm not trying to demean with you with that question either.

As I have explained before, you do the bad thing, because not doing the bad thing is disobedient, and that is even worse.

[Accountant]

Why does the authority of the stat outweigh the authority of the AMSOT in hat case?

The authority of the state tells me to be a good soldier. The authority the AMSOT tells me that what the state is doing is bad, but to obey anyway. Thus I believe the state is bad, but I obey and am a good soldier.

[Accountant]

Well, that's an exaggerated way of putting it, but I suppose you could say the distastefulness of fighting in a war is less than the distastefulness of having a disorderly society.

[Accountant]

Also I hold that soldiers are not morally responsible for following orders, so really any innocent deaths wouldn't be on me.

[Accountant]

Not all circumstances just most

[Accountant]

you're the one putting the gun to their head

Tellimg a soldier that they're the ones putting a gun to the head of an innocent person is akin to telling the gunpowder that it's the one igniting and propelling the bullet into the head of an innocent person.

Neither the "soldier" nor the "gunpowder" are the ones making the decision. It is the generals and decision makers who use these things as extensions of their will to execute the innocents. A soldier is more like a mindless obedient tool that merely executes a given command.

[Accountant]

What's an example where they shouldn't follow orders?

If the soldiers were asked to do something illegal, like torture people. International law > national law.

[Accountant]

i guess that's one outlook but i don't think i'd ever be able to fight for the wrong cause knowing about it.

like, if they aren't telling me we're doing b ad things but i know they are anyway, kind of like the nazi's, i'd rather desert than shoot innocent people.

if it's a good thing tho or something i believe is a good thing (maybe im ignorant thats it a bad thing) then i'd gladly fight for my country.

Why are you even thinking about the cause? Once you put on the uniform, you become a "soldier". Your function is to shoot, not think. Does the muzzle of your rifle think about the cause it's firing for?

[Accountant]

Again, once you put on the uniform, you become akin to a tool rather than an actual human being. Your job is to follow orders, that's all. Don't think too much. That's my position on how to conceptually be a proper soldier - you must have a soldier-like mindset.

@What makes my morals absolute? Well, it is because they are correct.

[Accountant]

i like to be human and make mistakes and be not perfect whatsoever

...........why on gods green earth

[Accountant]

What use is an imperfect, flawed, limited, subjective life?

[Accountant]

Did you just
What
Are you reading what you're writing?

Are you confused as to why I wish to save aid workers?

Is it not possible the convicts were being sent to reformation and could have become good people, and the aid workers were sent to assist in continuing a bloody civil war?

Then you save the convicts.

All you have to do is follow the principle of "save good people, abandon bad people". It's as simple as that. Follow that principle absolutely and you will be guided to the right decision in any situation, leaving no room for interpretation.

This implies complete knowledge of the situation that you may not have
there are consequences that are not necessarily beyond your knowing
let's say you run an art school and you have one last slot to put in your class
you have one guy who's angry and kinda not good for class environment
and another guy who's nice, but not too good at painting

if you pick the nice guy, congratulations i was talking about hitler

hitler happened because someone didn't put him in art school

butterfly

But the "blame" of Nazi Germany lies squarely on Hitler's shoulders. The admissions director for art school has performed his function adequately according to the correct principles and may wash his hands of everything else. He has followed all the principles, done everything he could, saw as far as he can. If bad things still happen, that is nothing more than a tragic accident that the admissions director is not at fault for.

[Accountant]

i enjoy being nervous. i enjoy being scared, angry, hurt, or even depressed. i may not have the room to say such things as my life has been going rather well at this point, but I do think without one side, you cannot have the other. A perfect life of living in your world sounds absolutely lame, no offense. i'd become vry sad or even rebel against your statehood because i enjoy exploring life and figuring out how everything works. i like competition, and i like to be happy by challenging myself and feeling new emotions everyday.

your society focuses too much on making your nation the best overall and not the best for your people. your people would never follow a regime such as that because much as we say we're all part of a machine, we're not. we're not tools or anything like that. a single person can do great things while another can do terrible things. people must be allowed to express themselves and be exposed to their full potential.

in the book anthem by ayn rand who was a pure genius, (i recommend reading the book, great read) she went across the concept of what you're trying to achieve with a utopia and why people would be unhappy.

but i'm not trying to force my opinions on you, either. i think you'll do great things, but you have to improve yourself and your views before you can accomplish anything. your determination is very admirable regardless.

I know you enjoy all these things. I think that's partially due to the fact that humans are complex, messy and multifaceted. Such things have no place in my society. When you have been taught the correct path, you will no longer have paradoxical beliefs like "I enjoy being depressed".

It is definitely possible to have happiness without sadness. I haven't felt real sadness for months, and I'm perfectly happy.

You will be allowed to explore life, figure out stuff, compete, conflict and challenge yourself under my regime. Do not worry.

People will be allowed to express themselves, but the "self" will be simple, so the expressions are simple and correct.

[Accountant]

what if obedience makes people die and disobedience makes people not die

i mean i understand your stance somewhat but if i was perfectly obedient i'd be dead right now

Nobody ever said doing the right thing was easy.

[Accountant]

Also I hold that soldiers are not morally responsible for following orders, so really any innocent deaths wouldn't be on me.

If you put up a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, you murdered somebody

that's just the objective moral system™

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. As an extension of that, soldiers don't kill people. Generals kill people.

You were merely used as a tool.

[Accountant]

gunpowder doesn't have free will, it is commanded by others
humans can be commanded by others but can choose not to
i think your definition of soldier is a projection of how bdsm-level obedient you are to people in general

Humans should not have free will. If you do have free will, please do not act on it.

[Accountant]

I mean, you could theoretically disobey your rightful commanding officer and choose not to shoot people, but you'd be a coward, a deserter and a disobedient person who has no sense of order, authority or hiearchy. Or you could just follow orders and know that no moral weight falls on you. Your choice.

[Accountant]

you can't just say someone's correct though, accountant. the best pieces of art were mistakes, and the greatest accomplishments were done during times of great strife for some. is someone being depressed worth it if they create something new for the world?

accountant i've never met someone who hasn't felt sadness in months, so i don't know how i'm supposed to validate your claim apart from the internet.

again with the correctness.

also yes humans should have free will because that is what defines us as human.

We will simply find ways to artificially induce the inspiration that depressed people get in order to continue to produce good art.

If free will is what defines humanity, then I don't want to be human and I would very much like to strip everyone else of their humanity. Free will is disgusting and leads to badness.

[Accountant]

I mean, you could theoretically disobey your rightful commanding officer and choose not to shoot people, but you'd be a coward, a deserter and a disobedient person who has no sense of order, authority or hiearchy. Or you could just follow orders and know that no moral weight falls on you. Your choice.

i'd keep my dignity and morals and desert.

It's better for you to behave in an incorrect manner(deserting) than abandon your morals. But by far superior is for you to have the correct morals leading to the correct action.

[Accountant]

free will also leads to goodness and there is no productivity or success without it.

you have free will, do you not? that is what drives your determination. that is why you seek to do great things. if you turn humans into mindless zombies, we lose productivity and do not be successful. we're also not very happy.

That is what re-education is for. You will learn to be productive and happy without the useless burden of free will. You're so attached to the idea of free will that you can't even function properly without it. That's disgusting - it is akin to a man clinging to the edge of a cliff with spikes on the side. The spikes cause him pain, but if he lets go, he will fall. I want to help him up from the cliff, allow him to live without having to torture himself, to live without burden of choice weighing him down.

My determination is driven by my function. I did not choose to take this path.

This is the only possible path.

[Accountant]

@accountants second post, if i had a better situation that lead to the correct action id take it, but there is no correct action there seeing as it's two bad things. desert your country or do very bad things. personally, i can never shoot someone as a 'tool' so i would desert.

If we say that killing innocent people is "very bad", then deserting would be "very very bad". Whem faced with a choice between "very bad" and "very very bad", you would of course pick the lesser of two evils.

[Accountant]

Did you feel sadness before those months?

Regrettably yes.

[Accountant]

@accountant, deserting doesn't kill people, so i'd rate it just regular bad. if it's very bad and just bad, i pick bad.

Disobeying authority, acting without concern for your rank and place in society, insubordination and cowardice. All of these things bundled into one is way more than just regular bad.

[Accountant]

You implied it a lot, though. Morality is not easy. Stop pretending like it is. Even if you have objective principles, most situations are complex and ambiguous enough that you still end up with dilemmas.

No. Morality is simple, not easy. The answer is easy to find, the difficulty is in executing it. Find me any situation complex and ambiguous enough that I will have a moral dilemma over it - I bet you can't. I already showed why the admissions director was correct in his actions, even though you tried to cloud the situation by saying he indirectly caused Hitler. Morality is not about understanding all the consequences of your actions and pretending to be a fucking oracle. Morality is not about agonizing over deaths or whining about "but the correct path takes away muh freedom!" Morality is about picking a principle and sticking to it absolutely, no matter what happens, no matter how great the challenge to it, to the point where you're nothing more than a robot programmed to optimize that principle. That is what it means to have an axiom. Do you think the ASI gives two flying fucks about the horrible complex consequences of turning a planet into paper clips?

[Accountant]

Also I hold that soldiers are not morally responsible for following orders, so really any innocent deaths wouldn't be on me.

If you put up a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, you murdered somebody

that's just the objective moral system™

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. As an extension of that, soldiers don't kill people. Generals kill people.

You were merely used as a tool.

Becoming a soldier does not remove your agency, it removes how much agency you are allowed. Acting like soldiers have no free will is a serious disrespect of soldiers.

Once more we see the blind and worthless worship of agency. You've been clinging to the spikes so long you've convinced yourself that spikes are great and lovely.

[Accountant]

gunpowder doesn't have free will, it is commanded by others
humans can be commanded by others but can choose not to
i think your definition of soldier is a projection of how bdsm-level obedient you are to people in general

Humans should not have free will. If you do have free will, please do not act on it.

You're acting on the free will to breathe. "If you have free will, please do not act on it."

I am nor acting on the free will to breathe. My every action is controlled by my axioms, and it is patently obvious that asphyxiating to death will not help me optimize them.

[Accountant]

I mean, you could theoretically disobey your rightful commanding officer and choose not to shoot people, but you'd be a coward, a deserter and a disobedient person who has no sense of order, authority or hiearchy. Or you could just follow orders and know that no moral weight falls on you. Your choice.

Depends on who it was. If it was like, a serious war criminal and you didn't want to hurt any fee-fees, then yes you'd be a coward and a wimp. To say that no moral weight falls on you as a soldier is wrong. Some things are beyond your control, such as becoming a soldier in countries that force drafts, or where you are sent. But I think if you had actual experience on the battlefield you would attest differently.

How about we speak again after I've completed my National Service? I'll bet you any amount of money I won't "attest differently".

[Accountant]

It also leads to good. All of your entertainment was created out of free will.

You have an incorrect mindset. If something creates both goodness and badness, you do not let the badness exist for the sake of the goodness. Rather, you destroy that thing and replace it with something that has only goodness.

[Accountant]

What use is an imperfect, flawed, limited, subjective life?

If humans are perfect, will there be a need for religion?

No.

[Accountant]

Freedom allows for creativity which in turn can make new tech to improve society.

We can have creativity without freedom. Consider a human whose only purpose in life was to invent new technology. He would still have the capacity to come up with innovative new ideas, but he would not be free.

[Accountant]

The burden of choice does not weigh me down, it brings me up. It is a ledge upon which I have climbed to achieve something for myself and to escape the infinite nothing that is of a lack of free will.

Also, if you think you can re-educate a human not to have free will, that is not how psychology.

A lack of free will is not infinite nothing. It is, in fact, the act of obedience to your axioms. Suppose you had to choose between good and bad - in this case, rather than having to think for yourself, you can just refer to the axiom that says "do good" and immediately you lose free will, you are incapable of choosing bad, you can only choose good. There is no risk of falling into badness, no risk of harm, there is only the choice of good after good after good, like an MCQ test with only one option per question - a test you're certainly going to get 100% on.

[Accountant]

What if spreading your morality was a crime?

Then I wouldn't spread it. I'm not a hypocrite.

[Accountant]

@accountant, deserting doesn't kill people, so i'd rate it just regular bad. if it's very bad and just bad, i pick bad.

Disobeying authority, acting without concern for your rank and place in society, insubordination and cowardice. All of these things bundled into one is way more than just regular bad.

then i guess i'm a bad person

I think you're just misguided. You will learn eventually.

[Accountant]

What are your opinions on following authority as a citizen?
Would you, for example, report where Jews are hiding to the Nazis and rationalize that as following orders?

If I was working for the Nazis, I would definitely report any Jews I found. And the blame for those dead Jews wouldn't lie on me, it would lie on Hitler and his commanders(Goebbels, Goring, Himmler, whoever).

[Accountant]

If when you are in the military, the neighboring country adopted your Utopian ideal. Your country feels threatened by this and goes to war against your utopia. What would you do in that situation?

In that case, I'd definitely desert. The badness of deserting is horrible indeed, even worse than the badness of killing an innocent. But it is not as bad as the badness of attacking Utopia. That is some next level shit.

[Accountant]

What are your opinions on following authority as a citizen?
Would you, for example, report where Jews are hiding to the Nazis and rationalize that as following orders?

If I was working for the Nazis, I would definitely report any Jews I found. And the blame for those dead Jews wouldn't lie on me, it would lie on Hitler and his commanders(Goebbels, Goring, Himmler, whoever).

But you are helpig them by reporting Jews.

It's true. And I hate helping Nazis. But I hate disobeying more.

[Accountant]

Do you

really

believe "disobeying" is worse than genocide? I don't believe you at this point

No. That is a misrepresentation of my argument. I think disobeying is worse than the small amount of help I give to the Nazis. The blame of genocide lies solely on the shoulders of those who issue the commands.

[Accountant]

accountant look at my signature and c if u agree

I disagree. Ruling can be difficult and inconvenient. The people do not necessarily live to serve. The people live to promote the correct path, and one of its tenets is a proper respect for authority.

[Accountant]

I've already found it, but you lack the intellectual honesty to admit it.

That's objectively wrong. I challenged you to find a dilemma that makes me uncertain, makes my decision unclear. You have not yet done so. Every time you set a problem before me, I have immediately answered clearly and decisively. You may criticize the answers, but it is objectively wrong to state that you have found something which makes me in a state of dilemma.

[Accountant]

At what point do you disobey?
5 jews, 10 jews, 50 jews, 100 jews, 1000 jews, 10000 jews?

Even if I were to pull the trigger on 10,000 Jews, the blame still lies with Hitler. So the answer is the same. I have no moral burden.

[Accountant]

You're using quite a lot of resources right now and I'm fairly sure you aren't employed

How is this relevant?

[Accountant]

Presuppositionalism

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Presuppositionalism

I am not a Christian, nor do I advocate the Christian worldview.

[Accountant]

It also leads to good. All of your entertainment was created out of free will.

You have an incorrect mindset. If something creates both goodness and badness, you do not let the badness exist for the sake of the goodness. Rather, you destroy that thing and replace it with something that has only goodness.

Your suggestion has no good (and arguably no bad)

Is it not good to live knowing that you will invariably pick the right option 100% of the time, because rather than choosing, you are allowing something higher to choose for you?

[Accountant]

Freedom allows for creativity which in turn can make new tech to improve society.

We can have creativity without freedom. Consider a human whose only purpose in life was to invent new technology. He would still have the capacity to come up with innovative new ideas, but he would not be free.

You probably haven't been creative before

This is provably incorrect. I've written short stories and shared them with the mafiascum writer's group on Skype.

[Accountant]

Makes no sense.

Which part was unclear?

[Accountant]

ur speaking to a person who literally can't comprehend roller coasters and horror movies

That's incorrect. I can.

[Accountant]

My original statement that intellectual honesty was to blame was incorrectly placed. I like using the phrase but it was not appropriate. It would be more accurate to say you ignored it once it became complicated, as you have been doing.

I won't deny that moral situations can be complicated. However can absolute adherence to simple principles can allow you to essentially skip past all the complication and arrive at a simple answer quickly.

[Accountant]

Presuppositionalism

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Presuppositionalism

I am not a Christian, nor do I advocate the Christian worldview.

It doesn't just apply to christianity, it can be applied to other things as well, such as other religions, your worldviews, feminism, etc.

Also if you use rationalwiki you should know how wrong everything you've said is by now

I use rationalwiki, and thus I understand how incompatible my worldview is with rationalism. What is the issue with this?

[Accountant]

you're placing too much trust on them. while you'll be doing what they want, probably, you won't be doing what's moral

What is moral is defined by what the objectve moral system wants. That statement is contradictory.

[Accountant]

At what point do you disobey?
5 jews, 10 jews, 50 jews, 100 jews, 1000 jews, 10000 jews?

Even if I were to pull the trigger on 10,000 Jews, the blame still lies with Hitler. So the answer is the same. I have no moral burden.

So you'd rather kill 10,000 jews than disobey Hitler?

I am not killing 10000 Jews. Hitler is the killer. I am just a mindless weapon with no free will.

[Accountant]

you're placing too much trust on them. while you'll be doing what they want, probably, you won't be doing what's moral

What is moral is defined by what the objectve moral system wants. That statement is contradictory.

You don't understand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that obedience seems to contradict the moral system, when it isn't obedience to the moral system itself.

The obedience to Hitler is demanded by the moral system, so obedience to Hitler is obedience to the moral system.

[Accountant]

Sounds like slavery

It is, partially self-imposed.

It's a good kind of slavery.

[Accountant]

No. You are told "Go hunt down and kill 10,000 jews." You could desert and not kill 10,000 jews. But rather, by your own FREE WILL you choose to carry out the task and kill 10,000 jews and blame it on your commanders.

I have no free will. I simply execute commander's orders. Who are you to blame a robot for following its programming? Who are you to demand that humans think and act for themselves? I say that this kind of independence is dangerous and will only lead to more and more people deviating in ways we do not want. Let the higher-ups worry about morals. Your first priority is to follow orders. There should be no hate of Jews or feeling of satisfaction or illusion of choice when you pull the trigger. When the order was given, your destiny was sealed. Now you are just a mindless automaton who executes instructions.

[Accountant]

If the commander told you to go into a suicide mission, would you?

Probably not. I think that I can fulfil more of my axioms if I don't die.

[Accountant]

Is obedience the top moral within the moral system?

No. Orderliness, intelligence and conviction all rank higher.

[Accountant]

Then your moral system is fundamentally flawed.

Where is the flaw? The one on top demands; I obey. This is all in accordance with order and balance. There is no conceptual flaw here. You argue that the consequences are bad, but so what? The concepts themselves are perfectly aligned.

[Accountant]

Here is the way I see it. If the concepts are in order but the bad consequence(dead Jews) happens anyway, then it is not your fault. The responsibility falls to the causer of the bad consequence(Hitler) to get their shit together. You have done your part. Once your portion of the work had been completed, any failure in the total work must be due to others' incompetence. You are blameless.

[Accountant]

I'm curious how much of his views are derived from traumatic experience. It seems very viable at this point.

The most traumatic experience I've ever had was when I fell off my bike and scraped my knee.

[Accountant]

If the commander told you to go into a suicide mission, would you?

Probably not. I think that I can fulfil more of my axioms if I don't die.

Did you just imply that your life is more important than the lives of 10,000 Jews?

I think that I am more likely to bring utopia to this world than 10000 random Jews, most of whom probably don't even follow the correct path.

[Accountant]

So would you say that Karl Plagge, a Nazi party member who worked in the army and used these positions to save 1240 Jews, was a bad person as he disobeyed his orders just so he could save lives?

He's not bad. He's a very good person. But his actions were misguided.

[Accountant]

You said earlier that slavery was a universal evil.

The "slavery" we are speaking of when we talk about obedience to the correct path has some key differences from the everyday slavery that I decry as a universal evil.

[Accountant]

If the commander told you to go into a suicide mission, would you?

Probably not. I think that I can fulfil more of my axioms if I don't die.

But you are disobaying your leader. The government needs suicide missions.

Also, sitting around and waiting for the Utopia won't bring about the Utopia but if it did, you are not needed for its' creation so you are betraying your government and your tenant which would cause you to need reeducation.

The disobedience of my leader is something that would weigh heavily on me. Perhaps I am unable to sleep at night. However, sometimes we have to do nasty things in service of an even stronger benefit.

Creation of utopia =/= fulfulling axioms

[Accountant]

If the commander told you to go into a suicide mission, would you?

Probably not. I think that I can fulfil more of my axioms if I don't die.

So then you do have free will

I don't understand.

[Accountant]

No, you are not a tool, you are not a machine, you are not a robot. You can make decisions for yourself regarding what you want to do.
You called me a moral coward for not saving the many in the trolley dillema (Im kind of undecided on the trolley dillema now) but now you are saying you would rather follow orders and cause the death of 10,000 jews than disobey and have 10,000 more people alive at the end of the day.

I

can

make those decisions. But why should I? What good does it do me to be making those decisions? I established long ago that I have no control over what I want. What I want is dictated entirely and solely by what the correct path wants. Therefore trying to think too hard for myself would definitely go against the moral system, which function is to think for me. That is the purpose of principles, they allow you to make decisions without being omniscient.

You are 100% a coward if you choose to appease your warm, fuzzy feelings by saving the Jews and abandoning the righteousness that comes from knowing you have followed all your principles to the letter and have the moral high ground. The decision here is whether the lives of Jews are more important than following the moral system, and of course a mere 10000 people cannot match up to the absolute righteousness of the correct path.

[Accountant]

However, sometimes we have to do nasty things in service of an even stronger benefit.

In what way do you intend to benefit the creating of your utopia?

The benefit I speak of is not necessarily the creation of paradise(although I do contribute by for example spreading the ideology to sites like this one). What I meant is the optimization of my axioms.

[Accountant]

The flaw is that you put yourself as a robot when you arent one. You can think for yourself and make your own decisions yet instead you choose to follow an axiom blindly and without remorse and thought for the consequences of your action.

Explain clearly why you find this bad.

[Accountant]

No. Take responsibility for your own actions. At the Nuremberg trials Im sure no one said "I just blindly followed orders, it isnt my fault!" and got away with it.

With great power comes great responsibility.
With absolute power comes absolute responsibility.
Therefore, with no power comes no responsibility(the responsibility is held by those with power, as established above).

When one becomes a soldier, you become a tool in service of the State. Therefore you surrender all your power and hold no responsibility.

What you said about Nuremberg is correct. The decisions reached at the Trials were disgusting and incorrect. Many innocent men and women were unfairly punished because the prosecutors wanted someone to take their anger out on after seeing so many atrocities.

[Accountant]

I think it is pretty clear that blind obedience to the government is much more dangerous than thinking for yourself, accountant. Prove me wrong.

Did you think that something being dangerous would stop me from doing the right thing?

[Accountant]

100,000, 1 million, 10 million, 1 billion people. Do you stop obeying at this scale, accountant?

Around the scale of 1 billion, the act of murdering so many would affect humanity on a great enough level that the march towards utopia might be affected. Therefore I would consider disobeying around that scale.

[Accountant]

You are 100% a coward if you choose to appease your warm, fuzzy feelings by saving the Jews and abandoning the righteousness that comes from knowing you have followed all your principles to the letter and have the moral high ground.

someone's principles could be saving the jews. that would be bravery sknce they are risking the goverment punishment. your actions would be more cowerdly since you face less risk for your actions.

If someone's principles are saving lives, then they would definitely disobey. Yes, that is brave and admirable, if a tad misguided(not totally wrong, but they perhaps shoulf get their priorities in order). But for someone who values obedience as a principle, it's definitely cowardly to run away.

[Accountant]

If the commander told you to go into a suicide mission, would you?

Probably not. I think that I can fulfil more of my axioms if I don't die.

So then you do have free will

I don't understand.

You would choose not to follow orders in this instance, so you do have free will

No. My axioms tell me that I should maximize them and not do things that would hurt them. Me not following orders here is just an execution of this instruction.

[Accountant]

I think that a lot of you are freaking out because you perceive my statements as being in support of murdering Jews. That's not true. I am merely saying that I am in support of obedience and that obedience goes above respect for human life.

[Accountant]

What if you knew one of the jews followed your AMSOT

That's a totally different question entirely. I think then desertion becomes a much more viable option.

[Accountant]

The point of you making those decisions is to prevent thousands or millions of people dying in this hypothetical.

My priority here is obedience, not human life. I seek to take actions that maximize righteousness, not lives saved, or I would be donating to mosquito nets in Africa instead of telling you why righteousness is good.

[Accountant]

So if I follow my principles in the trolley dilemma and don't save the many because I feel myself inadequate to make the decision, I'm a coward. But if you outright kill 10,000 people because you deem yourself inadequate to make the decision and instead place the burden upon your commanders you are morally vindicated?

Well, your principles are incorrect in the first place, so the analogy is really bad here. Also, I don't deem myself inadequate of making decisions, I am perfectly adequate, I just think it's more righteous to go with what my superior says.

[Accountant]

So if ONE PERSON followed your AMSOT you wouldn't kill anyone? Accountant is starting to sound like Yahweh in Sodom and Gomorrah.
pedit But the actions that are right are the ones that save people.

What's this nonsense about Sodom and Gomorrah? I'm not religious, so the context is flying over my head.

The actions that are right are actions that espouse and maximize the right values, such as balance, obedience, orderliness, and so forth. Yes, human lives are there too, but wayyyy below the otherd.

[Accountant]

Because I believe in a form of utilitarianism: Blindly following your axioms despite the consequences they hold (10,000 jews being killed by your hand) is completely against my moral philosophy. The consequence of all of those people being killed means the action is not moral.

I, too, believe in utilitarianism. It is the consequences, in fact, that swayed me. The consequence of being a disobedient, disorderly person means that the act of deserting is not moral(to frame the idea using your own words). I'm not saying that human lives don't matter, I'm saying obedience matters more.

[Accountant]

Wrong, you still have power. You may have less power than that of your commanders, but you still have the power to shoot or not to shoot and make decisions. You have the power to desert because you find hunting down and killing thousands of jews too immoral to follow your leader's commands.

I have voluntarily surrendered this power because I think it is righteous to do so. You cannot force people to accept and use power that they do not want. If Spider-man had decided to not use his powers, you can't say that's evil, even if it means the Green Goblin takes over New York.

[Accountant]

You said independence was dangerous. Now you're agreeing that blind obedience is dangerous. Which is it?

I do not agree blind obedience is dangerous. That is your stance. But rather than get into a meaningless argument about whether it is or isn't dangerous, I'm going to tell you that your argument is fundamentally flawed, that the concept of danger has no place in a debate about moral righteousness. Thus, even if you are right and it is dangerous that is still no reason not to do it.

[Accountant]

So where does the line get drawn? At what point do you say "killing this many people is immoral, but killing one less is moral?"

The line is drawn at the point where the deaths become so obscenely large that the impact on utopia is significant enough to outweigh the horribleness of disobedience. 1 billion is definitely on the wrong side of that line.

[Accountant]

I think it's a close enough shave that we'd have to do some calculations.

[Accountant]

Well, bravery is kind of subjective, so it's fine if you think that. To some extent I can also understand why you'd push for human life as an important value(I do as well). I just think obedience tends to be more important.

Something I haven't talked about yet is whether the weight of numbers can allow a lower concept to beat a higher concept. I think the answer is probably yes, but it's hard to say how many dead Jews it would take for a lesser concept to outweigh a higher concept(obedience and orderliness). That's something that I admit requires more analysis.

[Accountant]

I think it's a close enough shave that we'd have to do some calculations.

What sort of calculations?

Weighing the moral, social and economic impact etc. Of murdering 500 million people and weighing it against the moral impact of being disobedient. Needless to say, this is a very unrealistic and hypothetical situation, so I won't bother actually doing it. I'll give you my word that if I ever find myself in this situation I'll make sure to calculate carefully.

[Accountant]

Yes, Not_Mafia. I understand the concept is repulsive and dirty. I am not a sociopath. But at some point we have to number crunch and look at weighing up the consequences, or we'll never get anywhere. It may seem weird to try to calculate the value of human life, but it's a necessary evil to be able to make consistent moral choices.

[Accountant]

So you think yourself less adequate at deciding?

No. I am equally adequate, but it is more righteous to let my superiors decide. The righteousness of the action doesn't stem from them being more adequate, but from the fact that the hiearchy of high rank and low rank, high power and low power, has been followed and executed in a neat and excellent manner.

Sodom and Gomorrah is the thing in the bible where Yahweh says if there are just so many righteous people he won't destroy everyone. It reminded me of what you were saying, that if some of the people believed in your moral system now they're more worthy of living than others.
Balance, obedience, and orderliness should all be placed beneath human life. If an authority tells you to do something wrong you should not do it. If an authority tells you to do something that isn't wrong, then you should probably follow the order.

Not quite. I do not say that because I believe a follower of the correct path is more worthy of living, but because I believe a follower of the correct path is more likely to bring about utopia. That's reasonable, don't you think?

I think that human life is beneath these concepts because these concepts are of paramount importance. It's tragic when a human dies, but barring that human being a prodigy or great sage, the impact on utopia is not excessively high. On the other hand, a lack of balance or orderliness can tarnish it to a large extent. For instance, suppose you order a plate of spaghetti, and the chef has scooped out some noodles and dumped them in the trash. That's bad, but you can deal. But if that dish had arrived with a tiny rat dropping - even one that's much smaller than the scoop the chef took - then that's enough to stain the entire dish. Thus we can see why it's more important to protect utopia from negative outside forces.

No, this isn't spider-man not using his powers. This is spider-man using his powers to become a super villain.

If we say that the power is the ability to choose, this is perhaps akin to Spider-Man extracting his superpowered DNA and giving samples of it to the US government, who uses it to develop a more powerful type of nuclear bomb that they use to rain death upon Syria. In this case, it's the US government that's at fault.

Dangerous as in: "Can lead to REALLY bad results"

Only in bad situations. If you are in a situation where your commander orders you to kill 500 million Jews, no good will come of that no matter the choices you make. I am picking the lesser of two evils.

So having to kill one more person can suddenly make something immoral? So if you were ordered to kill as many people as possible, you kill 499,999,999 of them, and then you find the 500 millionth and THEN decide to disobey? What about the other 499,999,999 people?

I'll kill people for the sake of obedience if I feel the impact is not great enough to overwhelm the horror of disorderliness. Likely the removal and addition of corpses demanded will move me back and forth along the line - it is like the paradox of the heap.

[Accountant]

What you want is what you concieve of as the correct path, which is more or less just your opinion. You are thinking for yourself, as your moral system is your own thought. You can't shrug this off, when you adapt this moral system, you are saying you are willing to murder people under obedience and expect not to take the blame for it. You writhing maggot. You say that killing ten fucking thousand is better than disobeying someone.

The moral system is not my thought. It is the absolute set of moral laws that all sentient beings within this universe must follow.

And yes, I am willing to murder other people under the command of a superior person and not take the blame for it, because I was merely a tool. I do not have responsibility, I am just an extension of the superior person. Yes, I say that killing ten thousand people is better tham being a disorderly person. I value orderliness greatly, so it's only natural for me to believe that. If something like human lives would cause me to abandon my previously touted principle of obedience, that is nothing but blatant hypocrisy. I would not be able to look you in the eye and say that I am someone with convictions.

[Accountant]

You really look like a victim of child abuse (or intense brainwashing, doubt this.)

Nonsense. It's not an uncommon view. Plenty of nationalists in America are willing to murder ten thousand people if it means that America is kept safe. Are they all child abuse victims?

[Accountant]

How do you know if they are a higher authority than you?

Well, the military has very clearly defined ranks.

[Accountant]

If you're anywhere above 10 it's a 100% chance that it's better to disobey

Explain?

[Accountant]

@Annadog: You inform the second officer of the order from the first officer. If the second officer insists that their order be followed, then I follow the second officer, and inform the first officer of these circumstances ASAP.

As far as I can tell, that's in line with official military doctrine for conflicting orders.

[Accountant]

You have invented this system (or perhaps indoctrinated.)

It is very rare that you can kill someone and be innocent, and in that scenario, that is not true. You may commit yourself to authority, but just because you choose to have less agency doesn't mean you aren't guilty of murder. You also seem to think that killing ten thousand is not disorderly. Killing one person is more disorderly than disobeying an authority by not doing it. Hell, even heavily injuring one. You can have convictions while also having a system that is dynamic and complex. I believe people should be free and happy and able to do as they wish, but in order to uphold said values, you're going to need to partially restrict them, which sounds contradictory but isn't necessarily. A good example would be an unregulated capitalist market, where a monopoly would form, restricting the freedom of new business. However, by adding regulations, which may make it less technically free, you're disabling monopolies and making it more free. It might be hard for a child such as yourself to understand, but morality and the world and everything is complicated and usually requires thought beyond simple tenents if you want to actually be a moral person.

I discovered the system. There is a key difference.

Ten thousand people slaughtered in a mass murder spree is disorderly. Ten thousand people killed because of an order given down on high, methodically distributed to thousands of soldiers, policies implemented to support it, logistics arranged, structured and scheduled and planned? It's certainly an atrocity, but not a disorderly one.

I think a dynamic and complex system is worthless. Systems should be simple and absolute, and force reality to conform to it. Dynamic and complex systems smack of overcomplication.

I disagree strongly that morality and the world are complicated. Morality and the world are very simple. Only an absolute fool would believe that they need a Byzantine system of conflicting rules and value tests. Rather, all that's needed to be a good person is to follow the few basic principles outlined by the correct path. And even if you are right that morality is complicated, it should not be, so we will act as if it is not. Only a cynic would slavishly follow reality rather than acting in accordance with their ideals.

[Accountant]

It's not about killing people, it's about your intense authoritarian beliefs. Most americans are not like this, or at least aren't OK with it even if some of their beliefs pull it in that direction.

It's insulting and foolish for you to attempt to claim I was abused as a child because I think a strong sense of law, justice and control are important.

[Accountant]

Who is a better person; Joseph Mengele or Irena Sendler?

I don't know much about either, but most people are good.

[Accountant]

Discovering is the same as inventing in this context.

No. Isaac Newton did not invent gravity.

I will say that slaughtering ten thousand jews is vague, but it most cases it is extremely disorderly to have a bunch of people die. If there was an isolated community that was killed, that might be less disorderly, but that doesn't really exist within Germany at all at that time, or even now. Killing anyone will have effects on society, and when you kill a lot of people (presumably in one area), it's going to have affect. You being punished, or possibly rejected from the military is much less disorderly than people dying.

When I say orderly, I do not mean a world that is physically cleaner. I do not believe that littering is a mortal sin. I mean conceptual orderliness - an adherence to iron laws, an adherence to hiearchy and a respect for balance. If Hitler orders 10000 Jews killed, the order travels down the chain of command to the soldiers, who execute it. All this is very natural and in accordance with how authority's commands travels. This is a perfectly natural sequence. But if the sequence is broken and a soldier deserts, that is where disorderliness comes in.

[Accountant]

The thing is, we can't have a simple system, because life isn't simple. Yours might be simple, but for the billions of people out there moral absolutes will not necessarily work. What I believe the root of this authoritarianism is is your upbringing, and your parents saying things are right and wrong in absolutes and requiring complete authority. I theorized abuse due to the extremity this is to, but it also might be your own lack of intellect.

I do not give a flying fuck that billions of people don't like or want my system, I do not care that it won't work for them. They will grow to like it, they will grow to have simple lives that are guided by iron principles, helped along by a healthy dose of education.

And if they don't, they will stay until they learn, or learn to deal with it.

[Accountant]

For the record, my parents are fairly liberal in terms of their beliefs in freedom and politics. So your baseless theory is completely incorrect. I came to this conclusion by myself when I realized that a strong rule of law was necessary to prevent the disorderly mess that was freedom and democracy.

[Accountant]

Principles themselves are not complex. I want a society that is free and happy and equal. Those are not complex things at all, but when applying them, you're going to need to have things be a bit complicated in order to uphold those ideals. I previously posted an example, of which you ignored probably because it was so amazing. You are correct we should not slavishly follow reality, and that we should be driven by ideals. However, reality is everything. Literally everything is reality. If you want to apply your ideals, you need to work in accordance with reality or it will not work at all. When you speak of bending reality, what you actually mean is just normally applying ideals, but with the added vocabulary because of how idiotic and generally difficult to apply your ideals are.

I did

not

ignore your example about the aid workers. I showed how that particular situation can be trivially resolved through applications of simple principles.

No. I do not mean "applying ideals" when I speak of bending reality. I mean expecting reality to conform to your ideals, and forcing it to do so - breaking any laws of logic, practicality or physics that dare to stand in your way - if it does not. How can you stand up and tell me you have an ideal if something as petty and meaningless as the rules of reality can stop you dead in your tracks? That you have convictions if you allow yourself to be bent so easily?

[Accountant]

I didn't attempt to claim it, I claimed it outright. It's like you're using needlessly sesquipedalian vocabulary in effort to make yourself seem smarter. I'm not unfamiliar with it.

I do retract said claim, however. I think it wasn't outright abuse, but perhaps a very miserable and authoritarian upbringing.

I'm using a formal tone of voice because I feel comfortable with it. Also the word "attempts" isn't particularly complicated. And your claim is, as usual, incorrect. My childhood was happy and filled with joy and laughter.