Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Ankamius]

For example, if you live your life in a morally correct way, you'd also want others to live their lives in morally correct ways.

This is very likely the most effective possible way to get me to never want to subscribe to your ideology.

[Accountant]

You don't have to. You can live out your life, grow old and pass away peacefully at the ripe old age of 96, and then two centuries later everything is utopia. Thus, the current situation of people not agreeing with me is not an issue at all.

[Shaziro]

You don't get to say "one rule for me, a different rule for you". Sorry, just doesn't work.

Also, have you considered the fact that you won't live for the centuries, and the only way your ideas will last that long is if you convince others?

[Accountant]

You don't get to say "one rule for me, a different rule for you". Sorry, just doesn't work.

Also, have you considered the fact that you won't live for the centuries, and the only way your ideas will last that long is if you convince others?

I do get to say it. The correct path grants me the privilege. If Shaziro says I cannot do a thing and the correct path says I can, obviously the latter is right.

In the first place, heroes and NPCs have different rules. If an NPC kills someone, they are a murderer. But if a hero kills someone, it must have been to stop evil - they are permitted to do it.

For your second paragraph, I plan for signing up for cryonics in order to preserve my body and mind. Even if that doesn't work, remember that I am a set of ideals. The world will become smarter and more enlightened and adopt my ideals naturally, and then I will live on through them, I will become them, like the queen of a beehive that unites the world.

[Shaziro]

Nnnno. If a hero kills somebody, they have to have a good reason. It isn't just assumed they did. Real life is also not a storybook. But, if you want "oh my 'correct path' says I can do X" to hold weight, you have to prove that your "correct path" is right. It isn't self evident, and you can only "prove" it by begging the question to the best of my knowledge, which is logically invalid.

Cryonics don't work. Sorry. As for the whole "I'm a set of ideals" thing, those ideals die with you if you can't convince people to agree.

[Accountant]

Nnnno. If a hero kills somebody, they have to have a good reason. It isn't just assumed they did. Real life is also not a storybook. But, if you want "oh my 'correct path' says I can do X" to hold weight, you have to prove that your "correct path" is right. It isn't self evident, and you can only "prove" it by begging the question to the best of my knowledge, which is logically invalid.

Cryonics don't work. Sorry. As for the whole "I'm a set of ideals" thing, those ideals die with you if you can't convince people to agree.

First of all, in the first place, a hero wouldn't kill somebody without a good reason. For example, King Arthur wouldn't randomly kill someone for no reason. Thus, if I was told something like "in the Arthurian legend, it is said that King Arthur struck down a peasant who was passing by", I'd immediately know that it was for a good reason - perhaps the peasant was an evil sorceress in disguise.

It is true that real life is also not a storybook, but due to the fact that the concepts embedded in stories, like "hero" and "villain", are essentially the way the universe is structured, we can use stories to model how things play out in real life.

Secondly, I do not need to prove the correct path is right. What is a proof? A proof is a statement used to verify the correctness of something. But the correct path is itself correct. To prove the correct path is correct is like proving that the color black is dark. It is completely ridiculous. You cannot say "prove that the color black is dark-colored before I accept that it is". It's true that it's logically invalid, but as I have repeatedly explained, the correct path is above logic.

For yoru second paragraph, cryonics are just one of many routes by which I hope to gain immortality. It can be said to be a backup plan or a contingency preparation. The ideals won't die with me if I can't convince people to agree, due to the fact that people will adopt my ideals naturally as they get smarter.

[Shaziro]

Prove that the universe is structured that way without using "self evident" or "because correct path" as your proof. For reasons why those aren't viable answers, please see every post in this thread explaining that.

Nothing is above logic. Proving black is dark is easy. You define darkness, usually by a maximum amount of light produced by or reflected by the thing in question, and then see if the color black fits that definition. You have to do similar. Good luck.

Do you think you're the smartest person alive, since you're the only one who agrees with your ideals?

[Accountant]

I have thoroughly refuted why the posts who claim that those aren't viable answers are wrong. Thus, you must either refute my refutations, or accept that those are indeed viable answers.

There is definitely something above logic. Your claim that nothing is above logic is just a baseless accusation. On the other hand, the correct path tells me that it is above logic, so I choose to believe it. For definitional proofs, I find this to be simple. I define "right" as "whatever is said by the correct path". Since the correct path says things that are said by the correct path, it follows that the correct path is right. Such a proof is purely tautological - it's really dumb that you even have to ask such a basic question.

Finally, I am not the smartest person alive. Just the most righteous.

[Davsto]

Finally, I am not the smartest person alive. Just the most righteous.

"Just"

[Accountant]

Pun not intended.

[Not_Mafia]

Are you the most humble person alive?

[Kublai Khan]

Actually, both of your arguments are flawed from the start. In the first place, Kublai Khan and Shaziro are both baldly providing un-proved assertions without giving any evidence, such as "chaos is fundamentally good" and "you are not the hero". Thus, such an argumentative style cannot be considered to be a valid one. If you want to participate in such a debate, it's necessary for you to back up your opinions with evidence.

The response to this that I predict will be that I myself baldly assert things. However, that's due to the fact that I have the "mandate of heaven" granted by the fact that I support the correct path. This mandate grants the privilege of being "absolutely correct", which means that whatever I say about morality is definitely correct. Hence, the use of "evidence", which is to "prove the correctness of a statement", is completely redundant. Since neither Kublai Khan nor Shaziro have obtained this mandate, it is impermissible for them to use bald assertions.

Since I do have a mandate of heaven that tells me chaos is absolutely the correct path, that means that your mandate is inarguably and demonstrably false. I can't provide evidence because it is in itself it's own evidence. Once you stop arguing against it, you will stop being fundamentally and inarguably wrong. My support of chaos makes me correct.

[Kublai Khan]

There are also many NPCs scattered around who are neutral, for example innkeepers or random villagers. Most of the people on this site are an example of such NPCs.

Wow.

So the person on the site who has a single simplistic idea and repeats it over and over with little variation, shows no growth, can barely acknowledge new ideas that contradict their core programmed thought, does not ever question their pre-programmed simple thought, and shows absolutely no self-awareness is telling us that other people seem like NPCs?

Because of course they are.

[Kublai Khan]

How many people have you met that are fully on board with you and the "correct path"?

Zero. But in the following few centuries, as people get smarter, that number will jump rapidly until it reaches 50% of the world's population or thereabouts.

What is your lifespan?
Do you have evidence that people are getting smarter? How are you defining smart?

[Not_Mafia]

How can you grow from perfection?

[Kublai Khan]

To prove the correct path is correct is like proving that the color black is dark. It is completely ridiculous. You cannot say "prove that the color black is dark-colored before I accept that it is".

BTW, that can easily be proven.

[Shaziro]

To prove the correct path is correct is like proving that the color black is dark. It is completely ridiculous. You cannot say "prove that the color black is dark-colored before I accept that it is".

BTW, that can easily be proven.

I did it in like....two sentences, I think?

[Accountant]

Since I do have a mandate of heaven that tells me chaos is absolutely the correct path, that means that your mandate is inarguably and demonstrably false. I can't provide evidence because it is in itself it's own evidence. Once you stop arguing against it, you will stop being fundamentally and inarguably wrong. My support of chaos makes me correct.

You can't have a mandate of heaven. Mandates of heaven are only given to those who support the correct path, which decrees that order is good and chaos is bad.

[Shaziro]

Nah, I'm pretty sure Kublai has a mandate of heaven.

[Accountant]

Wow.

So the person on the site who has a single simplistic idea and repeats it over and over with little variation, shows no growth, can barely acknowledge new ideas that contradict their core programmed thought, does not ever question their pre-programmed simple thought, and shows absolutely no self-awareness is telling us that other people seem like NPCs?

Because of course they are.

I have plenty of self-awareness, and all those other behaviors are indicative of PCs, not NPCs. NPCs do things like stumble or falter, they waver in their path, their personality develops, they grow as characters. PCs do not. PCs walk a single, unwavering path that is absolutely straight and true, a one-dimensional pawn of the correct path. Compare the amount of "variation" or "growth" or "acknowledgement of new ideas" shown by Frodo vs Merry/Pippin/Sam/Gandalf/Aragon.

The others are characters. Frodo is a "hero". He is just a machine whose function is to drop the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom.

[Accountant]

Nah, I'm pretty sure Kublai has a mandate of heaven.

You're wrong.

[Annadog40]

Agreed, chaos is truth.

Ur a self aware as a block of cheese.

[Accountant]

What is your lifespan?
Do you have evidence that people are getting smarter? How are you defining smart?

My lifespan is unknowable, but the estimated time is "forever".

Yes, I do! For example, over time throughout history, we have seen humans acquiring more knowledge and developing more refined moral stances. Furthermore, the general moral consensus held by the world has shifted closer and closer towards the correct path. LGBT rights movements vs discrimination against anyone who isn't the same, the pursuit of peace and negotiation over mindless war and conquest embodied by the old school rulers like Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, an increasing understanding of the need to protect the Earth from climate change, the rise in acceptance of body modification over blind hatred of anything that isn't human - all of these things are evidence that humanity is slowly moving towards the kind of world reflected in utopia.

[Accountant]

Agreed, chaos is truth.

Ur a self aware as a block of cheese.

You're also wrong about chaos.

Let's talk about self-awareness. What part of my self do you think I am not aware of? My mind and body are my domain. They are controlled and manipulated according to my will. It therefore seems absurd for you to claim that I have no self-awareness.

[Annadog40]

Cause it isn't like sociaty can backslide or anything...




Your reaction to people and awareness of your own hypocrosies.

Hardly absurd.