In post 3594, Shaziro wrote:Lol no you didn't. You're not God, people have been telling stories for a long -long- time before you were born.
Not the kind of stories that corresponds to the story that the universe is structured around.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 3594, Shaziro wrote:No no, definitely write a manifesto. It's great. Totally awesome. Name it "Perjuangan saya"
Why that name?
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 3594, Shaziro wrote:If "paraconsistent thinking" is a shield for liars, then wouldn't future "correct path" followers who use it be liars, and therefore not "correct path" followers? You just shot a massive hole in your own reasoning for why future "correct path" followers haven't come back and imposed order. Congrats, now you have to find another reason for that. Do you ever get tired of shooting yourself in the foot while trying to think up a response to the overwhelming proof that you're wrong?
Paraconsistent thinking is not a shield for liars. I've never shot myself in the foot, despite how you always claim I do.
In the first place, like I've said many times before, it's a crucial tool for achieving seemingly impossible results that everyone should have. Just because you think it's silly doesn't mean you get to characterize the people who use it as liars. I use it, and I'm not a liar.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 3590, Accountant wrote:Bald assertion without evidence. I invented storytelling.
Replace that first period with a colon and it becomes an accurate statement.
"Bald assertion without evidence: I invented storytelling."
Maybe you just don't understand punctuation?
I understand punctuation. It was Shaziro's post, who I quoted, that was the bald assertion.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1975, Accountant wrote:I'm going to repeat what I said in post 1962. I would never say that I am God. I would never claim that I am God. The PM I sent you reads:
Accountant (05:35)
But let me tell you a secret
Accountant (05:35)
I am actually God
This is correct, and there is no contradiction or lie in this. I have never, and will not, claim that I am God.
In post 3594, Shaziro wrote:If "paraconsistent thinking" is a shield for liars, then wouldn't future "correct path" followers who use it be liars, and therefore not "correct path" followers? You just shot a massive hole in your own reasoning for why future "correct path" followers haven't come back and imposed order. Congrats, now you have to find another reason for that. Do you ever get tired of shooting yourself in the foot while trying to think up a response to the overwhelming proof that you're wrong?
Paraconsistent thinking is not a shield for liars. I've never shot myself in the foot, despite how you always claim I do.
In the first place, like I've said many times before, it's a crucial tool for achieving seemingly impossible results that everyone should have. Just because you think it's silly doesn't mean you get to characterize the people who use it as liars. I use it, and I'm not a liar.
Also, uh, I'd just like to point out that I specifically said my reasoning was a mere guess and not authoritative, and that it's something we'll have to ask them in the future. But I guess Shaziro enjoys making straw men of my beliefs because he's too high-and-mighty to actually read what I'm saying and engage with my arguments. Have fun misrepresenting my positions, but it won't win you any debates.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 1975, Accountant wrote:I'm going to repeat what I said in post 1962. I would never say that I am God. I would never claim that I am God. The PM I sent you reads:
Accountant (05:35)
But let me tell you a secret
Accountant (05:35)
I am actually God
This is correct, and there is no contradiction or lie in this. I have never, and will not, claim that I am God.
You can't just quote random posts and claim that this invalidates my posts. You have to actually explain how it does. In this case, there is nothing in this post that says that I claimed I am God. The quoted post reads "I have never, and will not, claim that I am God". Frankly I don't understand how you can extrapolate this to say that I claimed that I am God.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 3584, Shaziro wrote:Your only argument against it is more "paraconsistant thinking" nonsense.
Please do not lie to people. I have theorized about the possibility of paraconsistent thinking, but I am a very consistent person with strong, absolute convictions. Therefore, I would never engage in paraconsistent thinking. It is nothing but a shield for liars to hide behind in order to mask their hypocrisy or inconsistency.
In post 3594, Shaziro wrote:If "paraconsistent thinking" is a shield for liars, then wouldn't future "correct path" followers who use it be liars, and therefore not "correct path" followers? You just shot a massive hole in your own reasoning for why future "correct path" followers haven't come back and imposed order. Congrats, now you have to find another reason for that. Do you ever get tired of shooting yourself in the foot while trying to think up a response to the overwhelming proof that you're wrong?
Paraconsistent thinking is not a shield for liars. I've never shot myself in the foot, despite how you always claim I do.
In the first place, like I've said many times before, it's a crucial tool for achieving seemingly impossible results that everyone should have. Just because you think it's silly doesn't mean you get to characterize the people who use it as liars. I use it, and I'm not a liar.
In post 3608, Annadog40 wrote:I told a real life person, they thought you were a static charactor.
Also how can the hero already win when their goal wasn't met?
It's inevitable that the goal will be met. It's like when you've killed the villain and the castle crumbles around you and you've escaped and are waiting for the castle to crumble. It's just that this castle is going to take a couple of decades.
I am a very static character, yes.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 3584, Shaziro wrote:Your only argument against it is more "paraconsistant thinking" nonsense.
Please do not lie to people. I have theorized about the possibility of paraconsistent thinking, but I am a very consistent person with strong, absolute convictions. Therefore, I would never engage in paraconsistent thinking. It is nothing but a shield for liars to hide behind in order to mask their hypocrisy or inconsistency.
In post 3594, Shaziro wrote:If "paraconsistent thinking" is a shield for liars, then wouldn't future "correct path" followers who use it be liars, and therefore not "correct path" followers? You just shot a massive hole in your own reasoning for why future "correct path" followers haven't come back and imposed order. Congrats, now you have to find another reason for that. Do you ever get tired of shooting yourself in the foot while trying to think up a response to the overwhelming proof that you're wrong?
Paraconsistent thinking is not a shield for liars. I've never shot myself in the foot, despite how you always claim I do.
In the first place, like I've said many times before, it's a crucial tool for achieving seemingly impossible results that everyone should have. Just because you think it's silly doesn't mean you get to characterize the people who use it as liars. I use it, and I'm not a liar.
Look! I can use the quote button too! I just quoted your post!! THAT MEANS YOU'RE WRONG!! omg!!
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
Shaziro, if you're just going to spampost quotes of random posts of mine, that is against forum rules.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 3614, Shaziro wrote:I'm quoting your contradictions, and you shooting yourself in the foot. It's funny.
There is no contradiction in any of those posts. I have never contradicted myself. You're just saying this because you think that if you say it often enough people will believe it, but I have always been 100% consistent in all my posts.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
a contradiction. A contradiction is when I say two things that are the opposite of each other or that are incompatible with each other.
In this case, I said "It is nothing but a shield for liars to hide behind in order to mask their hypocrisy or inconsistency." That was in order to express my disgust for cowards that make excuses and hide behind the fake curtain of paraconsistent thinking. In the other post, I wrote "paraconsistent thinking is not a shield for liars", as a preamble to my refutation of your post claiming it was. Where is the contradiction here?
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 3561, Kublai Khan wrote: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.
Well, if mandates of heaven are only given to those who support the correct path and I was given a mandate of heaven, then you must admit that you are not the follower of the correct path and I am. Iron-clad.
In post 3619, Kublai Khan wrote:Well, if mandates of heaven are only given to those who support the correct path and I was given a mandate of heaven, then you must admit that you are not the follower of the correct path and I am. Iron-clad.
The correct path states that order is good. Do you accept this? If not, you can't possibly be a follower and must be lying about your mandate.
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In the former, you say that "paraconsistent thinking" is a shield for liars. You do not say anything about it being an expression of disgust for cowards or whatever. You just claim that it's a shield. You then later claim that it isn't a shield. You do this a lot, saying one thing, and then when people point out that you're a hypocrite, you try to argue that you -meant- something completely different than what you said. You're a liar.
In post 3621, Shaziro wrote:In the former, you say that "paraconsistent thinking" is a shield for liars. You do not say anything about it being an expression of disgust for cowards or whatever. You just claim that it's a shield. You then later claim that it isn't a shield. You do this a lot, saying one thing, and then when people point out that you're a hypocrite, you try to argue that you -meant- something completely different than what you said. You're a liar.
I am not a liar. Paraconsistent thinking
is
a shield for liars. I have never claimed anything other than what I said. The only reason it's an expression of disgust is that t's a shield for liars; I was expressing my disgust at the fact that it's a shield for liars. What is so contradictory about me saying it's a shield for liars?
There's nothing that says that a fake can't beat the real thing.
You must not imagine that for beings like you and us there can be laughter. The low men laugh, and we envy them. But for us, the higher ones, there is no laughter, only an unending vigil, purely serious, stretching on into the night.
In post 3619, Kublai Khan wrote:Well, if mandates of heaven are only given to those who support the correct path and I was given a mandate of heaven, then you must admit that you are not the follower of the correct path and I am. Iron-clad.
The correct path states that order is good. Do you accept this? If not, you can't possibly be a follower and must be lying about your mandate.
The correct path states that chaos is good. If you don't accept this then you're not a follower and your mandate is false.
