Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

Kindness is relative. Kind for one person is unkind to another.

Ultimately Accountant's philosophy is the ultimate in feelgood bullshit and assumption that everyone derives happiness from the same things. Come at me

This is what re-edcuation is for

[Accountant]

Accountant is a troll

For the record, this theory has been posited over and over again and been debunked over and over again. I am utterly serious. You don't get to call me a troll just because you disagree.

[Accountant]

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

I feel this sums up my relationship with Accountant's trolling

I want to know if he was indoctrinated into his belief system or if he actually did soul-searching and came to the values he did. I can understand the former very well, being indoctrinated into something with a similar mindset towards authority as a Jehovah's Witness. All authority must be respected. If you don't agree with something the authority would be doing just "Wait on Jehovah" to fix it. Just put all your trust into the authority. Etc., etc. There was actually a book written called

The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses

which I want to (eventually) read.

Neither occurred. I simply looked at the world and saw what was obvious and self evident. Then from those obvious and self evident things I developed a moral system.

[Accountant]

How would you re-educate me?

You seem like a good person, so I'll try to avoid wasting your time. Chiefly the role of re-education is not brainwashing like Showtime implies but rather the integration of people into utopia so that they won't feel hurt or loss from what they leave behind. You'll likely be sent to a school where you'll be given a brief orientation as to the rules and regulations that govern the utopia and taught some of our core values, such as happiness and righteousness. I imagine you might have to go through some short(2 week) courses to unlearn any bad habits you may have picked up. Essentially we want you to come to us, we don't want to force you into something you do not want to do. But it's obvious you will because no right-thinking person would turn down paradise.

[Accountant]

all things tend to disorder. Embracing disorder is the true key to happiness :^)

It's true that all things tend to disorder, but defeating disorder and establishing a perfect ideal of order on top of it - asserting your dominance over it - would be the true happiness.

[Accountant]

You've also grown up in very different contexts, in general a teenager doesn't have the life experience to learn some humility

Humility is an overrated trait. Doubt is the biggest enemy of conviction.

[Accountant]

I have grown considerably less enamored with the establishment as I've aged. I'm not ready to go off into the woods and build a bunker, but I can sympathize with those who do. It really feels like if they want you screwed you're screwed, and your only defense is to escape notice.

Well, that's what happens when you fall on the bad side of authority. The important thing is not doing so, so they have no reason to screw you.

[Accountant]

Of course, if you don't, this means that you were never really a right-thinking person.

This is why we have to keep the brain blenders on standby.

Cease trying to misrepresent my ideas. If you look at what I said to Annadog, it's clear my schools are far from brain blenders. It's really no different from a life skills workshop or a college orientation course.

[Accountant]

I would like to apologize for any disparaging comments I have made in this public forum thread. I am still being rehabilitated, but I urge you others who display these errors in thought and judgement to seek assistance and have them corrected for your own happiness.

Well, I'm not perfect either, so don't worry about it.

[Accountant]

Well if you're not perfect, why should we all be modelled after you?

You are not modelled after me. It would be arrogant to claim that. You are modelled after the ideal of the perfect human, who is also my model. Thus we are alike.

[Accountant]

It's an important distinction. I, as a human, may be imperfect. My ideals are not.

[Accountant]

Hey don't sell yourself short, it's actually amazing you were the first one to discover what the true ideal of the perfect human is.

Again, I did not discover anything. Anyone could have done that since the answer was obvious and self evident.

[Accountant]

Which, a), will not have the one hundred percent success rate necessary to have your proposed utopia not become 1984, and b), doesn't actually answer the question that was raised (albeit raised by satire) regarding what it is you do with those who don't convert.

They'll be placed in schools until they do.

[Accountant]

I can see why people struggle so much to believe it. I mean really, what are the realistic chances you out of all people happened to meet someone who knows what the true human ideals are? And you discover this not from a book, not on the news, but on a small internet forum where you're part of an exclusive few who are probably ever going to hear about this truth.

It's mindblowing when you realize it, but you have to break down your conditioning and approach with an open mind to get there. It's understandable why it's so difficult but I urge anyone reading to examine the axioms themselves and just give it a chance. You have to un-learn years, in some cases decades of training from all the various institutions of society to see that but it truly is worth it.

@Showtime: my conversion methods don't work, eh?

[Accountant]

So you accuse me of being a troll then troll yourself. Real mature.

[Accountant]

Which, a), will not have the one hundred percent success rate necessary to have your proposed utopia not become 1984, and b), doesn't actually answer the question that was raised (albeit raised by satire) regarding what it is you do with those who don't convert.

They'll be placed in schools until they do.

Forcing someone to learn behaviors to integrate into society is forced re-education. If it was a "hey, come on in, if you don't like it that's ok" thing then that's different. This is not.

I agree it is forced re-education

[Accountant]

One of the axioms is obedience, to follow the law whenever possible. But what would happen if you are in a society where as a law they've explicitly denounced this philosophy in its totality?
In this way is it not impossible to act as the ideal perfect human? You violate the axioms with either choice. What am failing to see here?

Aha! A common question, and one posed by many before.

In this case, you would believe the philosophy while obeying the law. In this manner, you secure not one but two moral victories. You are morally superior to the law as a follower of the correct path, but at the same time you obey the law, which makes you moral as well.

[Accountant]

You're definitely a troll if you believe this guy is being sincere.

Forgive me for having faith in human beings rather than being all cynical and worldly and reality-oriented!!! and all

[Accountant]

What if I rephrase the above, to: what would one do if you are in a society where as a law you cannot believe the philosophy (and resistance entails re-education).

Well, you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. No matter what happens, you'll do a moral wrong - either you commit the wrong of believing the wrong thing or you disobey, which is wrong. In this case you should disobey and rebel, choosing the lesser evil(assuming you can't emigrate).

[Accountant]

You're definitely a troll if you believe this guy is being sincere.

Forgive me for having faith in human beings rather than being all cynical and worldly and reality-oriented!!! and all

It's not cynicism vs. optimism. It's observational skills vs. complete lack of linguistic comprehension.

I've seen people converted to goodness before.

[Accountant]

It isn't just morally wrong for him to act as though someone could be lying to him. Even suspecting it is wrongthink. He is obligated to trust.

I trust in those who are higher than me.

[Accountant]

Again, I did not discover anything. Anyone could have done that since the answer was obvious and self evident.

But they didn't. No one did. So you are the first to realise these truths for what they truly are, or at least the first person to share the insight with others. Now whether you call this groundbreaking realization a "discovery" or something else I'm not sure, but surely you must admit how amazing it truly is.

Yes I guess I am lucky

[Accountant]

Do you trust Trump?

No - a power higher than him has told me not to trust him, and I trust that power.

[Accountant]

The absolute moral system of objective truth.

[Accountant]

I respect the authority that the absolute moral system tells me to respect, even if I personally don't like it. For example, I think my teacher is garbage, but my moral system demands I respect her, so I do that.

[Accountant]

One major flaw is that there's this objective higher system of morality, but morality isn't objective so it's basically Acc taking his own beliefs and naming that as a power to fit in with the rest of his bullshit

My beliefs are derived from this absolute system of morality. If it didn't exist, where would my own beliefs come from?

[Accountant]

Then I'd respect him.

[Accountant]

AMSOT?

[Accountant]

Then he's wrong, but I'd definitely respect him anyway, because he's a teacher.

[Accountant]

I respect the authority that the absolute moral system tells me to respect, even if I personally don't like it. For example, I think my teacher is garbage, but my moral system demands I respect her, so I do that.

No, that's you believing that you should have a base level of respect for people, and then personifying that belief as a grand authority when in reality it is your own moral code that you live by. However, by considering this as objective, you have drawn a line saying that everyone else's morality is bad and that yours is good, with no ways to back that up except with circular logic.

No, I wouldn't respect Trump if he wasn't a teacher, but I would if he was. My respect for him stems directly from the fact that he has an authority which my moral system considers above me.

[Accountant]

I agree. The problem comes when certain undesirable elements have very bad ways of "living as they please".

[Accountant]

What is your list of axioms from most to least important, accluntant?

I actually already posted this in the philosophy thread.

[Accountant]

What would you do to start this utopia?

Wait.

[Accountant]

LOL! My system of morality is objective and absolute, so claimjng that I created it would be tantamount to calling me God.

[Accountant]

Don't worry too much about the fact that nobody else believes in this system. Everyone will, sooner or later, by one means or another. It's as inevitable as the march of time.

[Accountant]

Which, since an absolute system of morality doesn't exist, is pretty handy for you, really.

Actually it does. For example, my system if morality is absolute. Only a coward who does not wish to divide the world into stark right and stark wrong would claim otherwise.

[Accountant]

Being drunk is okay. Being a racist or anarchist is not.

[Accountant]

I disagree. Freedom is a privilege to be given to those who have shown they have the right mindset and attitude to use it correctly.

[Accountant]

That is where you are wrong. It is true that all moral codes are made up by humans, but when a human is absolutely right - then wouldn't their moral code be equivalent to an objective one? Wouldn't that code be equivalent to God?

Your post rests on the assumption that just because a human says something or thinks something, it is just their opinion. However, a sufficiently righteous person can definitely impose their reality on top of the universe. Thus, from a universe of pure subjectivity we obtain objective truths. This is the power of the correct path.

[Accountant]

Being drunk is okay. Being a racist or anarchist is not.

DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD WRONGTHINK DETECTED

THOUGHTCRIME CONFIRMED

LET THE PURGING BEGIN

Purging racists is good. Do you agree? Or do you sife with the racists?

[Accountant]

you should be allowed to have your own opinions of people, even if they're backwards and awful.

Why do you value the existence of something you admit is backwards and awful?

[Accountant]

I disagree. Freedom is a privilege to be given to those who have shown they have the right mindset and attitude to use it correctly.

There's no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" mindset. My right mindset could be your mindset. What if you posting this thread right now disagreeing with the government looked like the wrong mindset to them, and they decided to jail you?

Then they would be wrong, and I would be right. Absolute truth prevails above all.

[Accountant]

I disagree. Freedom is a privilege to be given to those who have shown they have the right mindset and attitude to use it correctly.

There's no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" mindset. My right mindset could be your mindset. What if you posting this thread right now disagreeing with the government looked like the wrong mindset to them, and they decided to jail you?

unfortunately your actions have proven that you are a moral subjectivist

subjectivism is wrongthink

report for reeducation

glory to arstotzka

Stop misrepresenting my ideas. I never punish for wrongthink; I punish for wrongspeak, for wrongact, for wrongwrite. Never for think.

[Accountant]

Purging racists is good. Do you agree?

No.

Or do you sife with the racists?

You really don't seem to understand this whole concept of "I value freedom of speech more highly than I do a world without opposing opinions".

That's just paying lip service to stopping racism. In reality what you care about is freedom of speech rather than being right. This is why you fail, because you value freedom over righteousness. You will never set foot on the correct path unless you let go of your foolish clinging to the useless concept known as freedom to do bad things.

[Accountant]

I disagree. Freedom is a privilege to be given to those who have shown they have the right mindset and attitude to use it correctly.

There's no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" mindset. My right mindset could be your mindset. What if you posting this thread right now disagreeing with the government looked like the wrong mindset to them, and they decided to jail you?

Then they would be wrong, and I would be right. Absolute truth prevails above all.

So accountant, what you are actually telling me is that you think you are morally superior to every human in existence.

What can I say? I tell it like it is.

[Accountant]

Heck, you think you're morally superior to every human being in existence too. Or at least you would if you were really convinced your moral system was right. That is why I say all subjectivists lack conviction.

[Accountant]

I'm starting to wonder if you actually read 1984. You certainly don't seem to even understand how these terms work or what the flaws in the system were, let alone the way they are exactly appropriate and fit your actions perfectly.

The flaw was that the system of Big Brother punished correct people and banned good things like sex. That's obvious to see. You have to explain how my system bans sex or punishes good people.

[Accountant]

Freedom = righteousness

Someone exercising their freedom of speech to claim that God hates gays is not righteous.

[Accountant]

Ok so accountant is a troll account

No. Not this shit again. This has been debunked so many fucking times. You don't get to call people trolls just because you think they're wrong.

[Accountant]

It's not paying any service to stopping racism. I am not a racist. I find racism reprehensible, and discriminatory actions should be punished by law. But it is not the law's place to police the thoughts and speech of the populace.

[Accountant]

It's not paying any service to stopping racism. I am not a racist. I find racism reprehensible, and discriminatory actions should be punished by law. But it is not the law's place to police the thoughts and speech of the populace.

You claim to hate racism but don't want to stop it. That's nothing but hypocrisy. One wonders how deep your hatred really runs.

[Accountant]

Mmmmmyep. People are free to be wrong if they want. People are also free to be right if they want.

And why do you value the existence of wrongness? Tell me why you love evil so much.

[Accountant]

son you're a fifteen-year-old sitting in your parent's basement on a website dedicated to playing forum mafia stop pretending you are the buddha

The Buddha? No. A more accurate comparison would be something like a prophet who tells everyone about the teachings of God. Only it's not God, it's the absolute and perfect moral system that judges the entire universe and has the highest possible authority.

[Accountant]

But I still don't think you can tell humans how to think.

Why not? We know it's feasible and it leads to results that we both agree are good.

[Accountant]

Would you prosecute people for saying you're a troll?

No. My moral system has nothing to say about people who call other people trolls.

[Accountant]

I'm not 15, but that's an irrelevant factor. What's important is that I'm right.

@Aeronaut: Hey, would you be interested in making a small $10 or $20 bet that in 5-10 years I'll have exactlh the same views as I have right now? I accept payments through PayPal and bitcoin wallets.

[Accountant]

North Korea is totally different from my utopia. For one, North Korea has rampart poverty and bad living conditions. For another, the authorities there are harsh and corrupt. They are also a weak state that seek to use nuclear weapons to threaten others.

My utopia will be bountiful and prosper. The authorities will be very fair and extremely just. Finally, it will extend across the world, and the galaxy when we start colonizing, and so there is no need for warlike posturing

If you want to refute this you have to show me exactly how my system has an inherent or systematic flaw that leads it to have the living conditions of North Korea.

[Accountant]

Incorrect. I do not wish to stop it through implementation of a police state.

I do not wish to stop it through implementation of a police state either. I wish to stop it through educating people about how racism is bad and how it's important to avoid treating people badly because of the color of their skin.

[Accountant]

It just happens that I consider the suppression of freedom to be about the single biggest evil possible.

That's a terrible mindset. You love freedom so much you can't see how excessive freedom hurts society by allowing room for mistakes.

[Accountant]

Which you force them into by implementing a police state, natch.

Who cares? Results are results.

[Accountant]

It has been explained to you multiple times that your system is inherently open to abuse, and actively encourages those that follow it to participate in their own abuse.

This is how you get North Korea.

Not if everyone is re-educated to not abuse the system.

[Accountant]

People who don't want to live in a police state.

Yeah, well, people bitch about everything.

[Accountant]

Read before responding.

Explain clearly why I couldn't just re-educate people to be non-abusive.

[Accountant]

I'm fine with Davsto's bingo board. Lord knows I'm tired of hearing the same worn out old arguments("but muh freedom of speech" "but muh free will" "oh noez 1984/north korea/hitler/crusades" "deus vult hahahahaha")

[Accountant]

People who don't want to live in a police state.

Yeah, well, people bitch about everything.

Because these things make them unhappy.

Is your goal not to maximize human happiness? Or do you just not care, and want to force people into a police state for the hell of it?

My goal is to maximize human righteousness and moral uprightness - to make the world perfect. Happiness is good as well, but sometimes these goals are incompatible. Too bad. The backup option is to alter the things that make them happy to get the best of both worlds.

[Accountant]

What does "someone attempts to put down accountants views but they agree" mean?

[Accountant]

Read before responding.

Explain clearly why I couldn't just re-educate people to be non-abusive.

All right. I understand that this is complicated, so you're going to have to bear with me here. This is gonna be a tough one.

Deep breaths. Okay.

Here we go:

Because it doesn't work.

Why wouldn't it?

[Accountant]

Where they say "it's forced re-education" as it being a bad thing, and your reaction is essentially "so what if it is, what's wrong with that?"

Oh okay that makes sense

[Accountant]

I want to save certain posts and force Accountant to view them again once he's not hormonal. I think it would be entertaining.

I'm willing to extend the same bet I made with Aeronaut to you.

[Accountant]

The only reason you're presuming your moral code is absolute is because you're a child with no real-life experience.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Only a child will have the naive idealism necessary to impose paradise.

[Accountant]

It's a bad thing because you have no idea how to impose your world views and make change, nor are you really able to. If you're going to sit and do nothing (as you said) and wait for things to change, why should they, why will they, and why haven't they before?

Because humans are good people and will come to the realization that what I am doing is right and will see the truth in my moral system and do the same

[Accountant]

Your definition of debunked seems to be "dismissed via excuses", which means, not debunked at all.

No, it's debunked, as in I have actually talked to scummers outside of the forum context and done online groups and stuff and they know I'm not trolling.

[Accountant]

Why haven't they before, then?

They already are! In small, gentle steps. Abolishing slavery, legalizing gay marriage. Sure, there may be some setbacks, but the general trend is good. That's because more and more humans have seem the truth of the correct path.

[Accountant]

I'd ask you for evidence, but that's like asking a tree to run a marathon or for The Lumineers to write a song that doesn't make me want to jump off a bridge.

Go talk to Nati or Zorblag or T-Bone, I've had these conversations with them in the past. It's dumb that you're asking me to give evidence that I'm not a troll.

[Accountant]

Human rights and totalitarianism are very far apart on the spectrum. Polar opposites if anything.

And how do we enforce the human rights? Why, with the law, of course - what you cheaply call "totalitarianism".

[Accountant]

The only reason you're presuming your moral code is absolute is because you're a child with no real-life experience.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Only a child will have the naive idealism necessary to impose paradise.

You don't have the

anything

necessary to impose paradise. Your naive "idealism" is only sufficient to make you look like an idiot on the internet, and also give you

objectively

incorrect ideas about morality, politics, and the human condition.

And yet the past five hundred years of human history has proven you wrong. Mankind will only continue to march onward towards the correct path, and any naysayers will be quickly subsumed or left behind. In five million years, the correct path won't just be the best, most correct idea; it'll be the only idea, the only system of morality that humans are capable of conceptualizing.

[Accountant]

ftr, gay marriage is not about human rights. It's simply a brute fact that treating people differently based on their sexuality makes no sense, so anyone who does so must be wrong.

[Accountant]

I'd ask you for evidence, but that's like asking a tree to run a marathon or for The Lumineers to write a song that doesn't make me want to jump off a bridge.

Go talk to Nati or Zorblag or T-Bone, I've had these conversations with them in the past. It's dumb that you're asking me to give evidence that I'm not a troll.

Yeah, it's so dumb to ask for evidence when someone makes a claim you disagree with. It's soooo stupid.

Evidence is not necessary when the answer is blatantly obvious or self evident.

[Accountant]

Human rights and totalitarianism are very far apart on the spectrum. Polar opposites if anything.

And how do we enforce the human rights? Why, with the law, of course - what you cheaply call "totalitarianism".

I don't think you understand the first thing about politics. Totalitarianism is no freedom. Human rights ARE freedom.

Your airy ideas about freedom and human rights is what is wrong about your position. Human rights have no place in a discussion about correctness. Gay people are given the freedom to marry, because marriage is good. Straight people also get to marry, so gay marriage provides balance - a double whammy.

On the other hand, neither gay nor straight people have the freedom to contradict the absolute truth of the correct path, for that is bad. There are no "rights". Only good and bad.

[Accountant]

Your teacher wouldn't accept an answer like that in an exam

The question itself was stupid.

[Accountant]

You think it's not obvious that I'm not a troll?

[Accountant]

You think it's not obvious that I'm not a troll?

No, because everything you have said so far has been some of the most moronic things I have ever heard and so stereotypically orwellian that it is difficult to have faith in its sincerity.

Is it my turn to post laughing gifs now? I can't believe you're still blindly insisting that my ideals are bad just because they involve elements from 1984.

[Accountant]

Again, there is no objective path. Trying to argue against my point on the basis of something that already reeks of bullshit doesn't make you winner.

If there isn't an objective path, then what am i following? Don't tell me subjective; I didn't make this shit up.

[Accountant]

Accountant what would you do if there was someone very similar to you but they just had different axioms they claimed as perfect? How would you convince them they were wrong?

How can they be similar if they have different axioms? That's nonsensical.

[Accountant]

Accountant what would you do if there was someone very similar to you but they just had different axioms they claimed as perfect? How would you convince them they were wrong?

How can they be similar if they have different axioms? That's nonsensical.

What he means is someone who is exactly like you, but what they believe the objective moral authority is is completely opposite to yours.

You mean someone who believes the objective moral authority is an anarchistic, hateful, technophobic, bigoted, dystopic, disorderly, unhappy and evil way of life?

Again, how is this person similar to me?

[Accountant]

It's because those elements involved are terrible and oppressive.

Only the evil people are oppressed, so that's fine. A good citizen who follows all the laws will never be affected.

[Accountant]

Again, there is no objective path. Trying to argue against my point on the basis of something that already reeks of bullshit doesn't make you winner.

If there isn't an objective path, then what am i following? Don't tell me subjective; I didn't make this shit up.

False Black/White. It isn't objective path vs. making everything up yourself, you've probably derived your morals from other people.

No, Sesq, I didn't make anything up.

[Accountant]

No I didn't. I obtained it by looking at the self-evident moral truths already present in the world.

[Accountant]

Just because you are too blind to see them does not mean they do not exist.

[Accountant]

You want me to prove my moral system? Well, that's impossible. But I don't think you should want to see it proven. You should just accept and obey. It doesn't matter if it's real or not.

[Accountant]

I want you to take a good hard look at your own argument when even one of Mafiascum's most chronic shitposters can immediately show you why you're wrong.

[Accountant]

Yyyyyes it does.

You're incorrect. The only thing that matters is being conceptually righteous. Anything else is a lie devised by evil people.

[Accountant]

Burden of proof always applies. If something is actually self-evident, all that means is that meeting the burden is trivial.

Unfortunately, it doesn't apply for things that are axiomatically correct. Such statements are not meant to be proven, but asserted. Should someone disagree, then that is what re-education is for.

[Accountant]

This person wants the same authoritarian government as you, but with different moral values.

This person sounds evil and incorrect. I'd tell him of the correct path and try to sway him towards the good guys.

[Accountant]

Statements taken as axiomatic are only axiomatic within the system that they serve to define. If these statements cannot be shown to be factually true in the real world, they are considered false, and the system is discarded as worthless.

You deluded, arrogant fool. When will you understand that my system's authority is higher than reality's? It cannot be shown to be factually false in the real world, because if it was then the real world would bend itself until it reaches the system. This is what it means to be the highest of all things, even reality; the universe itself bends to you. That is why mankind will slowly but surely move towards paradise, and why your lowly and irrelevant concepts of proof and evidence are completely nonsensical. Nobody is trying to prove anything here. The only thing that's left is to assert the system and obey and worship it

[Accountant]

Even 1984 understood this concept, since you seem to be so, so eager to bring it up. Remember when O'Brian interrogates Winston? If they say 2 + 2 = 5, then it equals five. The only thing that's left is to blindly obey and accept the authority of those higher than you. Otherwise you're nothing but rebellious, anarchistic rabble who refuses to accept order or authority and may be cleaned up like worthless trash.

[Accountant]

When someone higher than you asserts something, you do not go "but my arithmetic says 2 + 2 = 4!" No. The correct path is even higher than arithmetic, so if they disagree then the correct path is the winner. The fact that you still talk about the correct path in lowly terms like proof of evidence - the standards that you would use to judge things like theorems or opinions - that is proof that you still do not properly appreciate the absolute highest authority of my moral system.

I hate to put others down, but this questioning attitude is too dangerous to be allowed to exist for too long.

[Accountant]

And so it all comes back to calling me a troll rather than even making the tiniest effort to understand or obey. You do not care about truth, you only care about freedom and human rights. You have no sense of hiearchy or your place in the world, and freely assert that something created by humans as their personal opinions can ever even hope to rival something that stands as the absolute truth of the universe. You might as well be an inventor wearing wings of leather and foam, leaping off a building in a futile effort to reach Heaven and challenge God.

[Accountant]

And so it all comes back to calling me a troll

Well, you're either that or completely bugfuck insane, kiddo. Take your pick.

Either way, though, 10/10 'ad me a giggle m80.

"They're either a troll or insane"

[Accountant]

And so it all comes back to calling me a troll

Well, you're either that or completely bugfuck insane, kiddo. Take your pick.

Either way, though, 10/10 'ad me a giggle m80.

"They're either a troll or insane"

YOU HAVE TO SHOW WHY THAT ACTUALLY MERITS A RESPONSE YOU LUNATIC

Because I'm obviously not insane or a troll. Who else here thinks I'm insane or a troll?

[Accountant]

I endorse purging threats to the good guys. How is that abusable?

[Accountant]

If it's so ridiculous it looks like trolling, then it is trolling.
Perception is reality
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

War is not peace. Freedom is just dangerous, not slavery. Ignorance is terrible.

[Accountant]

There is no higher authority than the correct path and it assures me that war is indeed not peace

[Accountant]

Because 2+2=4 is not a moral issue

[Accountant]

Objectivity is not subjectivity.

[Accountant]

I don't enjoy horror movies. How should I know why others enjoy it?

[Accountant]

Nope.

[Accountant]

You want me to prove my moral system? Well, that's impossible. But I don't think you should want to see it proven. You should just accept and obey. It doesn't matter if it's real or not.

You want me to prove that there's a magical god who wants you to sacrifice children every weekend? Well, that's impossible. But I don't think you should want to see it proven. You should just accept and obey. It doesn't matter if it's real or not.

If it doesn't matter if it's real, why is your entire fucking argument based upon it?

Ah, but it is not moral to sacrifice children, so I cannot do that.

[Accountant]

This person wants the same authoritarian government as you, but with different moral values.

This person sounds evil and incorrect. I'd tell him of the correct path and try to sway him towards the good guys.

What if he was busy oppressing you under his moral values?

If he was a dictator or something like that, then I guess I'd see whether it was worth it to start a rebellion. But mostl likely I wouldn't.

[Accountant]

Burden of proof always applies. If something is actually self-evident, all that means is that meeting the burden is trivial.

Burden of proof does not apply to my moral system.

[Accountant]

And so it all comes back to calling me a troll rather than even making the tiniest effort to understand or obey. You do not care about truth, you only care about freedom and human rights. You have no sense of hiearchy or your place in the world, and freely assert that something created by humans as their personal opinions can ever even hope to rival something that stands as the absolute truth of the universe. You might as well be an inventor wearing wings of leather and foam, leaping off a building in a futile effort to reach Heaven and challenge God.

Do you not understand that outside your bubble that you look like a complete idiot?

Regardless of whether or not it's correct, that's what it appears as, and that hurts you.

It's a natural consequence. Too bad.

[Accountant]

I would. Life without suffering is pointless.

If you desire suffering, you're welcome to it. My utopia has no laws against self harm.

[Accountant]

how is this cowardly?

[Accountant]

how is this cowardly?

It is running away from the responsibility of determining who is good in the world and supporting them, and determining who is evil in the world and destroying them.

[Accountant]

each person should be able to pursue freedom in their own way. You cannot be moral without a choice.

Rubbish. If you cure cancer, you'd be rightly acclaimed as a hero, even if it was I who put a gun to your head and made you synthesize the cure at gunpoint.

[Accountant]

freedom and human rights are more important than truth.

You cannot be serious.

[Accountant]

MY IMAGINARY SKY FRIEND IS STRONGER THAN YOUR IMAGINARY SKY FRIEND

Well, it doesn't exist in the sky, nor is it a friend, so your analogy is bad.

[Accountant]

You're right, burden of proof doesn't apply here. Why would I apply burden of proof on an argument I've already won?

You have not yet won the argument.

[Accountant]

So you know that you can't convince anyone of your arguments. Why bother? You might as well say "I have stupid beliefs with zero logical backing, but I'll believe in them anyway and I cannot prove them to you nor can you disprove them for me."

I have faith that one of you will see the truth someday.

[Accountant]

how is this cowardly?

It is running away from the responsibility of determining who is good in the world and supporting them, and determining who is evil in the world and destroying them.

What was that about sitting back and waiting for the world to come around to your thinking?

That has nothing to do with destroying all evil in your sight.

[Accountant]

each person should be able to pursue freedom in their own way. You cannot be moral without a choice.

Rubbish. If you cure cancer, you'd be rightly acclaimed as a hero, even if it was I who put a gun to your head and made you synthesize the cure at gunpoint.

That's not how cancer works, child.

Oh well. You get the idea.

[Accountant]

Burden of proof always applies. If something is actually self-evident, all that means is that meeting the burden is trivial.

Burden of proof does not apply to my moral system.

Yes it does.

This will remain true no matter how many temper tantrums you throw over it.

It does for normal moral systems but not for mine because mine has absolute authority.

[Accountant]

Burden of proof always applies. If something is actually self-evident, all that means is that meeting the burden is trivial.

Burden of proof does not apply to my moral system.

Yes it does.

This will remain true no matter how many temper tantrums you throw over it.

It does for normal moral systems but not for mine because mine has absolute authority.

[Accountant]

You're right, burden of proof doesn't apply here. Why would I apply burden of proof on an argument I've already won?

You have not yet won the argument.

This was never an argument.

You were trying to prove my system wrong. Of course, that is a futile effort.

[Accountant]

It applies for everything.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "NOT MINE 'CAUSE MINE IS MAGIC AND SPECIAL" only makes you look like even more of a deluded child than you already do.

Well, it doesn't matter how I look. I know I am correct.

[Accountant]

Explain how.

Well, you see, I was but a wee lad, and then one day I looked at the world and saw all the moral truths in it. By looking at these pieces of self evident truths I was able to understand the moral system, which demanded that I follow it. Since there is no way that my system could be wrong, I know for a fact I am correct.

[Accountant]

I know that you're young, and that sometimes, reading big words can be hard. What I said was "Explain how", and you must have accidentally read "Excuse how". Here, I'll make sure it's easy:

E-X-P-L-A-I-N how.

It cannot be explained. You must see the self-evident truths with your own mind. If you can't, then follow those who can. Your habit of demanding explanations is bad; it carries some very nasty implications. When someone above you gives an order, it's unwise to question it.

[Accountant]

Morally speaking, I am above everyone who does not follow the correct path.

I will not drown in a river. That is a baseless allegation. I already clearly showed you my thoughts.

[Accountant]

With morals, you keep saying there is """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""self-evident"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" truths, and every time you are asked to explain them you say "well I'm right, you're wrong," without any logical argument.

Well, you said that explaining myself was to present my thoughts to you, and I am presenting my thoughts to you. Can't you see how right I am?

[Accountant]

With morals, you keep saying there is """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""self-evident"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" truths, and every time you are asked to explain them you say "well I'm right, you're wrong," without any logical argument.

Well, you said that explaining myself was to present my thoughts to you, and I am presenting my thoughts to you. Can't you see how right I am?

No, because this circular bullshit doesn't cut it for anyone with an IQ over 60.

It cuts it for anyone with the eyes to see the self-evident moral truths that populate the world. They're

right there

. Open your metaphorical goddamn eyes and

look

. It's not hard.

[Accountant]

This is a religion. It's like asking a Cathoic to explain why saints are not witches.

There's no worship, and my moral system isn't superhuman or controlling.

[Accountant]

If I'm not seeing them, they aren't self-evident. Explain your shit.

Do I need to amend "self-evident" to "self-evident to any sane person"?

[Accountant]

You are also completely uneducated when it comes to basic principles of rationality, philosophy, or even semantics. You don't know what "self-evident" means. You don't know what the burden of proof is or how it applies to supposedly self-evident claims. You don't know what an axiom is or how the burden of proof relates to that, either. You don't understand what the terms "objective" and "subjective" mean, and you constantly equivocate between the two.

But why does it matter? My moral system is above all these things. Suppose rationality was used to disprove it. Then it's clear rationality is wrong and should be scrapped and reworked until it conforms. The same with philosophy.

[Accountant]

do not understand the idea of practical limitations

Practical limitations... exist, but they exist to be overcome. In the end, no amount of cynicism can stop something as simple as me imposing my utopia onto the world.

You claim my system is ripe for abuse. This is missing the point. There are several reasons why people won't abuse my system:

1) They've been taught not to abuse the system(that indoctrinated doesn't sound so bad, now does it?)

2) They like being in paradise and have no reason to rock the boat.

3) They're good people and won't do something as evil as abuse the system.

[Accountant]

hero =/= morall good person. If you refused to do until someone forced you to then you are a bad person.

No. Only results matter. This sort of thinking is dangerous, because you're saying intentions count, and then any half-baked fool who thinks they're saving the world gets credit no matter how badly they do.

[Accountant]

I am. I would rather tell a lie than save a life.

What??? Why would you lie rather than save a life??? Are you a psychopath?

[Accountant]

Your entire argument comes down to a schoolyard imagination fight where you declare "well I'm the best and my superpowers make me always win to infinity plus one HA".

>tfw you're in a schoolyard fight and your opponent actually has superpowers and they replace the entire world with a perfect paradise with their infinity plus one powers

[Accountant]

"my moral system is self-evidently correct"

then it should be trivially easy for you to meet the burden of proof

"burden of proof doesn't apply to axiomatic claims"

it does if you want them to apply to the real world rather than just the hypothetical that takes them as axiomatic

"well my system has a higher authority than rationality"

i don't think that you know what those words mean

"your dangerous questioning attitude and silly cynical concerns with things like

reality

can't stop me from imposing my utopia on the world"

kid you are sitting in your mother's basement shitposting on a mafia forum

you couldn't impose gravy on biscuits

Even if it doesn't meet the burden of proof, it'll apply to the real world anyway.

I do.

I am not sitting in my mother's basement, nor am I shitposting. You clearly don't know anything.

[Accountant]

Hey accountant your system is wrong. It's just self-evident why that is.

No it's not. I don't see how it is.

[Accountant]

Do I need to amend "self-evident" to "self-evident to any sane person"?

But you are lying when you say it's self-evident. When I say something is self-evident, that's obviously true. But when you say it, it's a lie.

[Accountant]

Nope.

Yes, it does. For example, human society has moved closer and closer to my ideals over the years. That must be because my moral system is strong enough that it draws human society towards it.

[Accountant]

Mmmmnope.

Yes, I do. I can send you screenshots of the definitions of the words with a signed waiver that I have fully read and understood the contents of the screenshot.

[Accountant]

Aaaand a third nope.

I can send you a picture of my surroundings right now to prove I'm not in a basement. I'm currently sitting on a train, and when I get home I'll move to the computer in my room. Similarly my post is not low effort or low quality. I put in a lot of effort in trying to show people the right way of thinking, and of course doing the right thing can't be considered low quality by any reasonable person.

[Accountant]

Explain.
Your.
Fucking.
Reasoning.

The premise of your demand is incorrect.

[Accountant]

Hey accountant your system is wrong. It's just self-evident why that is.

No it's not. I don't see how it is.

And I don't see how YOUR bullshit is.

That's because you're blind to moral truths. But I am not, so if I can't see what Rask is talking about, then it must mean he is lying.

[Accountant]

Demonstrably false.

Hence the number of people telling you you're wrong.

That's because you guys can't see obviously true things...

[Accountant]

Non sequitur.

This is the most absolute basic of logical fallacies (except maybe bare assertion, which you also commit regularly). Your conclusion does not follow from its premises even granting that it is true, which is debatable at best. You fail both in formulation and application.

You really have absolutely no understanding of anything about philosophy and reasoning.

Telling me that my moral system is logically fallacious is absolutely meaningless, because my moral system is above logic - thus it being fallacious is completely irrelevant. If logic claims that my moral system is wrong, then it must be that logic is wrong.

When you understand it means to be above logic, then you will understand my moral system.

[Accountant]

[quote=]it's nice to at least have it out in the open that you simply assume that you are correct and outright reject anything that would demonstrate otherwise.[/quote]
It's not really an assumption if it's a self evident truth

[Accountant]

Which means they're not actually obviously true.

Kind of what I'm talkin' about when I say you don't actually know what words mean.

No, it just means you can't see obvious things. It's obvious to me, and that's what matters.

[Accountant]

It's not word salad. Let me illustrate your error.

Showtime's thought process:
Accountant's system is logically fallacious -> all logically fallacious things are wrong -> Accountant's system is wrong

That is not the correct way to conceptualize my system. Instead, it's better to start with the premise that it is correct.

Accountant's system is correct -> Accountant's system is fallacious -> Accountant's system is fallacious but nevertheless correct

Once you realize this, you'll see that proving my system is fallacious is meaningless, because that doesn't have any impact on its correctness(because that's already pre-determined)

[Accountant]

Explain.
Your.
Fucking.
Reasoning.

The premise of your demand is incorrect.

If you cannot explain your reasoning, it is incorrect. The definition of "self-evident" is something with reasoning so obvious that it does not need to be explained to anyone. I will keep pressing you until you offer logical reasons as to why I should listen to you.

My system doesnt need any logical reasons. Logic is beneath it.

[Accountant]

Hey accountant your system is wrong. It's just self-evident why that is.

No it's not. I don't see how it is.

And I don't see how YOUR bullshit is.

That's because you're blind to moral truths. But I am not, so if I can't see what Rask is talking about, then it must mean he is lying.

Because you're SO intelligent, that if you don't understand something, then they're lying.

This sort of pride is too immature even for our age.

it's not pride if its the truth

[Accountant]

It's not word salad. Let me illustrate your error.

Showtime's thought process:
Accountant's system is logically fallacious -> all logically fallacious things are wrong -> Accountant's system is wrong

That is not the correct way to conceptualize my system. Instead, it's better to start with the premise that it is correct.

Accountant's system is correct -> Accountant's system is fallacious -> Accountant's system is fallacious but nevertheless correct

Once you realize this, you'll see that proving my system is fallacious is meaningless, because that doesn't have any impact on its correctness(because that's already pre-determined)

You start with the premise that things are incorrect until proven correct. This is basic skepticism. This is basic logic. This is basic intellectual thought.

My system is above logic.

[Accountant]

The premise I start with is that my system is correct.

[Accountant]

That is not the correct way to conceptualize my system. Instead, it's better to start with the premise that it is correct.

Accountant's system is correct -> Accountant's system is fallacious -> Accountant's system is fallacious but nevertheless correct

Once you realize this, you'll see that proving my system is fallacious is meaningless, because that doesn't have any impact on its correctness(because that's already pre-determined)

Circular reasoning, with the biggest possible scare quotes around "reasoning".

Rejected.

Why is circular reasoning bad?

[Accountant]

This is more or less equivalent to saying "well, I'LL DO IT ANYWAY! FUCK YOU!", despite having no reasoning behind this starting point.

Once again, reasoning is not needed for self-evident truths.

[Accountant]

No such thing.

There is such a thing - my system.

[Accountant]

Circular reasoning comes down to an assertion of truth supported only by an assertion of truth. It is a bare assertion folded back on itself.

Yes, that is the way my system runs. There is no point trying to argue about it. It is there only to be asserted, imposed and above all else obeyed.

[Accountant]

You keep repeating that it's "self-evident", but this would mean that there is evidence for it, which means it can, in fact, be adjudicated by logic. Then you can't supply this evidence, so you try to dance back and say that it's just true anyway even though there's no evidence for it and the fact that your argument is literally nothing but a mess of fallacies doesn't matter because I'M ACCOUNTANT I'M KIM JONG "GAUTAMA" O'BRIEN AND THIS IS THE SUPREME TRUTH EVEN THOUGH IT MAKES NO SENSE, I CAN'T BACK IT UP, LITERALLY EVERYTHING ABOUT IT IS FALLACIOUS, AND THERE'S GENERALLY NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND MY FEELS.

Wrong. There's no evidence for it - it is its own evidence. My "feelings" are irrelevant. This is the supreme truth because it is. If you don't believe that, then you're wrong. End of story. No amount of arguing about logic can save you from wrongness.

[Accountant]

The premise I start with is that my system is correct.

and this is where you also seem to stop.

The rest of us can see the big BUT that follows when looking at it from that point of view.

We still do not know how this differentiates from other communist ideas.

There is no "BUT" you are mistaken. I am correct, and that's the bare truth. Just because you claim it is circular, fallacious, whatever, does not change the bare fact that I am right. It does not matter if you do not believe me either.

It is different because it is correct.

[Accountant]

This will never be true, no matter how many temper tantrums you throw over it.

It already is. It's not as if I'm trying to make it true; it already is, I'm just explaining how true it is to you. If you want to delude yourself into it not being true, then you're wrong and should be stifled so you don't make the real converts doubt.

[Accountant]

If I'm not seeing them, they aren't self-evident. Explain your shit.

Do I need to amend "self-evident" to "self-evident to any sane person"?

Sorry, but are you calling literally every other person on this site insane? Because that's really quite offensive.

I'm calling everyone who can't see obvious truths like "justice is good" insane. Anyone who thinks justice is bad is insane.

[Accountant]

With all these higher morals, justice shouldn't actually be neededin the first place.

Justice is not needed to achieve a higher purpose. It's needed in and of itself. The act of punishing guilty people and setting free innocent people - that itself is a goal to reach for. It is not a stepping-stone to societal harmony or anything like that. It's simply a goal by itself.

[Accountant]

But since we're meant to all be understanding perfectly this Uptopia, there is no need for justice, as everyone will know what is right, and since that is the case, everyone would follow.

Then the justice is "present but not used". It's important that it still be there, though.

[Accountant]

If you were wrong, accountant, would you want to know?

If so, how would you test it?

About morality? That's not possible.

[Accountant]

If you were wrong, accountant, would you want to know?

If so, how would you test it?

About morality? That's not possible.

what makes you right and everyone else wrong?

The fact that I follow the absolute rightness

[Accountant]

If I'm not seeing them, they aren't self-evident. Explain your shit.

Do I need to amend "self-evident" to "self-evident to any sane person"?

Sorry, but are you calling literally every other person on this site insane? Because that's really quite offensive.

I'm calling everyone who can't see obvious truths like "justice is good" insane. Anyone who thinks justice is bad is insane.

I don't believe that justice is good, for example I don't believe the correct response to someone committing murder is to kill them (as is your view on justice), and I am definitely not alone in that view.

Does that make me insane?

If you think justice is bad, you're insane. If you think justice is good but don't think that murdering murderers constitutes justice, then that's fine - we can argue about that. But if you think justice itself is bad, then you're insane.

[Accountant]

This is more or less equivalent to saying "well, I'LL DO IT ANYWAY! FUCK YOU!", despite having no reasoning behind this starting point.

Once again, reasoning is not needed for self-evident truths.

Self-evident means "the reasoning is apparent enough to not need explanation from anyone else." If I do not see your reasoning, it is not self-apparent.

fucking explain your ideology

I've already explained it. What part do you find unclear?

[Accountant]

Nothing can be its own evidence. That isn't a thing. Your arguments - sorry, """""""arguments"""""" are based purely in assertion without logic.

Yes, they are. I don't see why this is a problem.

[Accountant]

I think I'm starting to see where the lack of intellect is coming from. You're saying it's "above logic" because you think once it's up, it will be good, despite seeming illogical, correct? How will this system not be abused and corrupt? Although a ""high moral authority"" can be followed, it cannot act, so it will be down to the top head human, and the other top head humans below that top head human. How will this system not be susceptible to corruption and abuse?

The top head human will be re-educated to be not corrupted and abusive.

Also, you are once again misunderstanding the meaning of "above logic". If it exists, it will be good. The utopia will be good because it follows the axioms of absolute correctness. Once those axioms are followed, what we have is paradise. Even if it's an illogical paradise, it's a necessary one - eventually logic will be changed to fit in with the paradise as well.

You come from the position that a utopia exists to serve other values: for example, a utopia to you might create happiness, which you like.

But for me the existence of a utopia that follows my axioms is enough. Once this utopia is established, thinking further, like about corruption or abuse or logic or any of those things which are below it - such things are pointless. It would be like a runner considering what lies beyond the finish line. All they have to do is get past the finish line and the world will be perfect forever. This is self-evident.

[Accountant]

Then it's not true.

My system is true even without evidence.

Contradicting yourself and wrong. Impressive.

It's obviously not wrong. Where is the contradiction?

This will never be true, no matter how many temper tantrums you throw over it.

Unfortunately you are simply in denial. I have already made it true, and the perfect moral system already is established as God. Your only choice is whether or not to follow it.

[Accountant]

I am. I would rather tell a lie than save a life.

What??? Why would you lie rather than save a life??? Are you a psychopath?

lies don't have to hurt people. lies can be sorted out later. Kill someone and you cannot make amends to that person.

But you said you'd rather tell a lie than save a life. Killing someone has nothing to do with this.

[Accountant]

But since we're meant to all be understanding perfectly this Uptopia, there is no need for justice, as everyone will know what is right, and since that is the case, everyone would follow.

Then the justice is "present but not used". It's important that it still be there, though.

Why does something that is actually useless need to exist?

Because if it doesn't exist then we lose. If it exists we win.

[Accountant]

Well, this is somewhat of a paradox.

A system where every human acts "morally perfect" (don't bother arguing the subjectivity of morality. It's the premise of this argument that there is objective morality), such a system of rules instilled in this morality is unnecessary. However, once said morality is thrown to the wayside, it is needed again. When things such as justice and morality are followed perfectly by all, there is no need for them whatsoever, however the instance one person is exempted from them, the need for them arises.

Extrapolate this to a whole society of "perfect humans", and you run into an issue. Such a society is entirely counter-intuitive, and by most practical purposes, illogical. So why does the human race dream of a "perfect society" (it doesn't matter what the definition of perfection is for them, the basic premise behind this argument is the same)? There is a fundamental flaw in the human psyche which can only be rectified under one of a few various premises (This isn't a comprehensive list). One is that human psyche is directed towards a sort of insanity where they constantly fling themselves towards a self-destructive path, pursuing a ghost of "satisfaction" that can never be attained. An evidence of this is the human race's tendency towards debauchery: drug addition, alcoholism, obesity, consumerism, etc. Another would be that humans are not the "highest being" that we see ourselves as on Earth. Be this some sort of deity or a "superintelligent" race (superintelligent AIs would also fit this role), this premise asserts that there is something out there which has an unfathomable sense of awareness or consciousness that we can't really comprehend.

Man, it's been a while since I've embarked on these type of conversations

I disagree. A society of perfect humans is not only completely intuitive(hence why millions of people bought into Nazi Germany's, and Soviet's Russia's, and Communist China's, and North Korea's shit) but extremely logical. It's the natural endpoint of humanity - the endgoal that we're all working towards.

[Accountant]

But what are we losing?

I'm just trying to go with the theory that your ideals are correct

They've being counterproductive though.

Although I'm not actually sure why I'm still posting here.

We're not losing anything. The whole point of life is to fulfil the axioms as best as possible. That's literally the only reason to exist, so not doing it is nonsensical.

[Accountant]

Because there is no reason to accept them as true, or even believe that they could be true.

And no, before you say it: it isn't "self-evident". If it were, you wouldn't have to rely on bare assertion and idiocy like "it's above logic", which is just so absolutely, unbelievably stupid that I honestly can't believe you expect anyone to take you seriously after saying it.

You should just obey and accept without any given reason.

[Accountant]

You should just obey and accept without any given reason.

No.

Well, that kind of thinking is typical of you.

[Accountant]

Thank you. I do pride myself on being consistently better at this than you. It's nice to be noticed.

Actually I meant that it was typical of a disobedient person.

Disobedience is bad, so you're not good.

[Accountant]

Actually I meant that it was typical of a disobedient person.

Disobedience is bad, so you're not good.

Trust me, Accountant. Your thought processes are not particularly complicated or hard to follow. I know what you meant.

I just don't

care

.

>not caring about morality

good shit

[Accountant]

I criticized your attitude towards morality, you said you don't care.

Ergo, you don't care about the possibility that your attitude towards morality may be wrong, which signals to me that you think morality is unimportant.

[Accountant]

You not caring about my opinion is a failure, because I'm currently the only person in the thread who can perceive the truth. Perhaps when you become less immature and radical you'll settle down and see how important justice and order and harmony is. Right now you're akin to a wild child who wishes for reckless independence, not realizing that independence with the wrong ideals will only lead to danger. However, it has become clear to me that you won't be convinced, so there's nothing to do but wait for the truth to become apparent. I have faith that you are a good person - that's why you align yourself with the good guys in the first place, so I think that an accord and mutual agreement between us is not too far off.

I would like to point out that I understand everything in this thread, because it was I who created those concepts.

[Accountant]

Thank you. It's nice to know there are open-minded people out there.

[Accountant]

What does that picture mean? I'm not sure I follow your... argument? there.

[Accountant]

Thank you. It's nice to know there are open-minded people out there.

Oh, plenty of people here are open-minded.

You are just utterly, absolutely, irredeemably,

comically

wrong in literally every respect.

On one hand, a person on the internet tells me I am wrong. On the other, the arbiter of ultimate judgement and absolute truth tells me I am right and obedient. I wonder who to believe.

Hint: it's not you.

[Accountant]

Kind of weird when people say Accountant isn't open minded yet they lack the same open mind that he is lacking.

Well, open-mindedness is good if you're wrong, because it lets you become right. But it is bad if you're right because you run the risk of becoming wrong.

[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?

[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.

[Accountant]

My point is that the top head human can't be forcibly reeducated, as they are at the top.

You can't have paradise if it cannot be reasonably built or function, regardless of whether or not I want it (or even if everyone wanted it.)

Your axioms are the subjective moral authority (i.e., god), so you're essentially a theological orwellian who refuses to say it, despite the evidence being there.

the top human head wouldn't get to the top unless he was forcibly reeducated in the first place

Also, they're objective. God is subjective. There's nothing theological about what I do - no metaphysics or religion or supernatural elements are involved.

[Accountant]

I criticized your attitude towards morality, you said you don't care.

Ergo, you don't care about the possibility that your attitude towards morality may be wrong, which signals to me that you think morality is unimportant.

Morality and disobedience... pretty fucking different.

Kind of weird when people say Accountant isn't open minded yet they lack the same open mind that he is lacking.

Well, open-mindedness is good if you're wrong, because it lets you become right. But it is bad if you're right because you run the risk of becoming wrong.

How do you know in the moment if you're right or wrong? You don't. Stay open-minded always.

Thank you. It's nice to know there are open-minded people out there.

Oh, plenty of people here are open-minded.

You are just utterly, absolutely, irredeemably,

comically

wrong in literally every respect.

On one hand, a person on the internet tells me I am wrong. On the other, the arbiter of ultimate judgement and absolute truth tells me I am right and obedient. I wonder who to believe.

Hint: it's not you.

Do you not understand that this god is entirely of your own invention?

With that in account (AYYYY) you're possibly the most self-righteous child I've ever met.

Kind of weird when people say Accountant isn't open minded yet they lack the same open mind that he is lacking.

I'm open-minded, but I kind of need things like "logic" and "reason", or else my mind is not going to change. Considering Acc's posts, no wonder I haven't mentally gone anywhere yet.

You not caring about my opinion is a failure, because I'm currently the only person in the thread who can perceive the truth. Perhaps when you become less immature and radical you'll settle down and see how important justice and order and harmony is. Right now you're akin to a wild child who wishes for reckless independence, not realizing that independence with the wrong ideals will only lead to danger. However, it has become clear to me that you won't be convinced, so there's nothing to do but wait for the truth to become apparent. I have faith that you are a good person - that's why you align yourself with the good guys in the first place, so I think that an accord and mutual agreement between us is not too far off.

I would like to point out that I understand everything in this thread, because it was I who created those concepts.

OH,

HE'S

IMMATURE?

HAAAAA

HAHAAAHAHAHHAHAH

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

AHAHHHHHAHAHAH

1) What is morality if not a code that you obey? A disobedient person will never be able to obey such a code, so a disobedient person is inherently immoral.

2) The "god" is not of my invention. It already exists. I merely obey it. I am proud of being self-righteous - such a trait indicates that I'm morally superior.

3) Logic and reason are incredibly important, but the absolute moral system is even more important.

[Accountant]

I'm open-minded, but I kind of need things like "logic" and "reason", or else my mind is not going to change. Considering Acc's posts, no wonder I haven't mentally gone anywhere yet.

his morals are coming from his value system, which is just opinion based.

Opinions have logic behind them. I'm more talking about his orwellian methods.

What beef do you have against orwellian methods? They

work

- that's why Orwell was so scared of them and why he wrote about them, because he was afraid of a flawed ideal being imposed through orwellian methods. As my ideals are not flawed, this fear is baseless.

[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?

[Accountant]

his morals are coming from his value system, which is just opinion based.

He claims it is objectively correct, not opinion. That's sort of the whole point.

Doesn't pretty much every religion do this?

I'm not a religion though

[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?

[Accountant]

There's no God or places of worship or rituals or afterlife or supernatural beliefs

[Accountant]

The blind faith and discouragement from questioning anything is functionally identical to a fundamentalist religion

That's just a surface similarity.

[Accountant]

And your not a religion, your utopia is. Big diff.

A big part of religion is belief in supernatural elements, usually including a personal God or Gods.

[Accountant]

Hmm. So you think my beliefs are akin to Buddhism? I suppose there's some merit in that comparison.

[Accountant]

Literally though accountant's posts are so akin to things cult members say it is eerie.

Cult members think that snow is white, and so do I. Is that eerie?

[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.

[Accountant]

Any suggestions?