Post
Post #2689 (isolation #200) » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:37 am
Postby Shaziro »
Imp is right, yeah. Really the better thing to say would be that you do have to back something up for somebody else to believe it on anything but blind faith.
Post
Post #2699 (isolation #201) » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:46 am
Postby Shaziro »
If it helps, I don't think you're a troll either, and that's part of why I'm so concerned with this stuff. Right, so, here's the thing Accountant. Wouldn't resistance, as bloody and violent as it can be, affecting both the people resisting and the people not resisting, be worse than one person being a really bad dude that everyone can unite against? It trades one person being bad for loads of people being bad.
Post
Post #2708 (isolation #203) » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:00 am
Postby Shaziro »
In this scenario, I'd be recommending the eagles that Gandalf knows carry Frodo there rather than them walking there. An easier, safer way, and one that you haven't considered.
Post
Post #2725 (isolation #207) » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:27 am
Postby Shaziro »
That clearly isn't a well enough personified enemy for people to unite. My point is, you're not going about your goals in the most efficient or optimal manner, which I figure would be part of it actually being correct.
Post
Post #2737 (isolation #209) » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:02 pm
Postby Shaziro »
You are describing situational morality, Accountant. The act is the same, for instance quickhammering, but the -situation- is different, and that defines the morality of the act.
Post
Post #2739 (isolation #210) » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:29 pm
Postby Shaziro »
I mean, no it wasn't. If your point was that morality isn't situational...you know, the thing you said...then your point was pretty soundly shot down. Not even with light arms fire, it was some Anti-Air level shootdown.
In post 2779, Accountant wrote:I am a superior being that doesn't need to answer mathematics questions or follow procedures to get the answers I need. That is for unrighteous plebeians. The superiority gives me the divine right to do so, ignoring all the laws of logic and knowledge. Only you, who are below those laws, are bound by them.
Post
Post #2854 (isolation #219) » Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:27 am
Postby Shaziro »
Your path still allows for personal choice. For instance, snow. Some people like it, some people don't. There is no moral issue there, it's preference. How, then, does a world exist both with and without snow?
any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —
(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore;
Isn't this the case? I usually promote education and peaceful transfer of power over violent revolt, except in the most extreme cases.
It doesn't matter if you usually promote education and peaceful transfer of power, you also promote violent revolt if the former doesn't work, which immediately drops it back into illegal.
Post
Post #3013 (isolation #229) » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:28 pm
Postby Shaziro »
Just because something is illegal does not mean it is instantly enforced. It is illegal for people to kill other people, but people get away with murder all the time.
Post
Post #3344 (isolation #233) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:32 pm
Postby Shaziro »
Given that Accountant is only meant to be discussing their ideology here, wouldn't all discussion of it and therefore the topic in general be forced to end if people just stopped talking here?
In post 3344, Shaziro wrote:Given that Accountant is only meant to be discussing their ideology here, wouldn't all discussion of it and therefore the topic in general be forced to end if people just stopped talking here?
You realize what social interaction is?
People choose to talk to Accountant about it because, wait for it...
fun
.
It was a theoretical question. Look at my posting history in this thread before making assumptions.
Post
Post #3409 (isolation #237) » Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:20 am
Postby Shaziro »
The problem with that argument, Gin, is that Accountant's arguments are based in the idea that Accountant will eventually beat logic somehow. So arguing with logic doesn't work. Accountant basically begs the question and then says that's not a bad thing.
Post
Post #3439 (isolation #240) » Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:45 pm
Postby Shaziro »
You have to convince people to enforce re-education. To do that, you either need lots of money, or the ability to convince them of your opinion. For society to "realize the truth" you have to convince them. Try again.
Post
Post #3463 (isolation #241) » Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:26 pm
Postby Shaziro »
Pyramid posting aside, Accountant, that is a fairly important question. If time travel is possible, then it is morally good to cause order sooner rather than waiting for it. If time travel is impossible, then it is something that even your correct path cannot overcome, which proves that it is fallible.
Post
Post #3481 (isolation #244) » Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:44 pm
Postby Shaziro »
Do you agree that you should strive to better understand it, and improve yourself as such? If so, then you should strive to find the answer. Or is that impossible for you to do?
Post
Post #3488 (isolation #245) » Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:49 pm
Postby Shaziro »
Ok, para-consistant thinking. I'm going to do whatever the hell I want, but also not do it from a hypothetical perspective. Therefore I am perfectly good, right? If I hypothetically follow your path, but in reality don't, I'm a good person.
In post 3488, Shaziro wrote:Ok, para-consistant thinking. I'm going to do whatever the hell I want, but also not do it from a hypothetical perspective. Therefore I am perfectly good, right? If I hypothetically follow your path, but in reality don't, I'm a good person.
Yes, you can! However, one question I'd like to pose is why you don't want to follow my path in reality.
Because your path consists of the ravings of a teen who should seek help, its a gross cult, and it requires you to say "just pretend I'm right" so many times it makes you look like a 6 year old trying to get away with something after learning about "make believe".
Post
Post #3544 (isolation #247) » Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:55 am
Postby Shaziro »
Hey, Accountant? You're not the hero. You're the raving villager who calls himself the "Prophet of Heaven Above All Else" that the heroes meet when the DM wants to throw in some comedy. You're a plot hook at best.
Also, as a side note, loads of people agree that it is morally righteous not to lie, and that it is important not to. They still lie. Agreement with and belief in the moral value of something doesn't affect actions very much at all. There's actually this whole concept that is really interesting when you're doing psychological stuff that if you -ask- somebody what they think, they'll give one answer, but will almost always perform differently if you observe their actions. I can't remember the term for it right now, though, which is p. bad on my part, but finals are coming up and right now I'm cramming grammar.
Post
Post #3554 (isolation #249) » Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:34 pm
Postby 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.
Post
Post #3556 (isolation #250) » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:14 pm
Postby 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?
In post 3555, Accountant wrote: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".
Post
Post #3582 (isolation #254) » Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:09 am
Postby Shaziro »
I mean, when you started declaring that your morals are the best and everyone else should follow them and that you're God, you lost any "debate" there was. People get annoyed when self-righteous jerks act like self-righteous jerks, but I'm sure you have lots of experiences with that regardless.
In storytelling, there are Dynamic Characters and Static Characters. Main characters are almost always dynamic in some way, because of the Hero's Journey. The call to action, the denial of the call, etc. Non-main-characters, or NPCs in games, are most often static characters. They don't change, because they are there for the dynamic characters to interact with and develop themselves, and the NPC's development is unimportant. So no, by being super rigid in your beliefs and repeating yourself over and over, you become the NPC. You're the equivalent of the random villager in town who just says "Press 'A' to jump!" whenever you talk to him. Grats.
Post
Post #3584 (isolation #255) » Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:13 am
Postby Shaziro »
No, you literally outright said it. I have quoted it in this thread, several times in fact. Your only argument against it is more "paraconsistant thinking" nonsense. It doesn't work, you said it, and you made the mistake of challenging me to prove it. You probably should have stuck to not giving me permission to share the contents of private conversations. You also aren't right. KK has a mandate of heaven that says he's right, and I agree.
In post 3584, Shaziro wrote:No, you literally outright said it. I have quoted it in this thread, several times in fact. Your only argument against it is more "paraconsistant thinking" nonsense. It doesn't work, you said it, and you made the mistake of challenging me to prove it. You probably should have stuck to not giving me permission to share the contents of private conversations. You also aren't right. KK has a mandate of heaven that says he's right, and I agree.
No, you have absolute permission to share the contents of everything that I've said to you, Shaziro. I do not want people thinking that I secretly said "I am God" in some private conversation and am hiding it by refusing to give you permission to share it. Thus, I say this to you, the absolute word of truth: I have never, ever, claimed that I am God. Ever. This is a final, absolute statement. There is no wordplay here, despite what you claim. There is no shenanigans or sophistry. It is just the simple admission of fact: I have never claimed that I am God. If you have proof against it, I challenge you to quote where I said it. You cannot; because I am right.
I have quoted it. Many times. You just argue that "Me saying I'm God isn't me saying I'm God". That is innately untrue. Your argument to that being innately untrue is "It's almost like reality warps to be what I say"...but it doesn't. You have no control over reality.
Do you find it a humorous concept? Not_Mafia suggested that I write it as a guide in order to help people understand the correct path. As a teacher, it is my job to help people understand the correct path, so it seemed a great idea.
No no, definitely write a manifesto. It's great. Totally awesome. Name it "Perjuangan saya"
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.
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?