The Ultimate Irrational Precept to... determine rationality?
Can you genuinely prove I'm not the "Man of Lawlessness", as was predicted by quite a bit of holy scripture and even some renaissance prophecy?
Edit:Maybe this precept needs some fine tuning...
Do you have any proof whatsoever that I'm not the "Man of Lawlessness"?
Perhaps I should clarify this precept even FURTHER!
I want other RRS'ers to demonstrate:
- how my posts denote (thus far!) theistic beliefs
- how my posts thus far denotes irrationality within my mental contents
- how my mind displays (or even flaunts?) weakness(es)
- that I have indulged the irrational precepts, somehow
- That I'm a parasite of some particular sort or another
- That I am indeed "not special", and am better off understanding this
- That "Survival of the Fittest; elemination of the 'Unfit'" is an unpragmatic ideal
- That having unlimited ambitions is, inherently, counter-productive
- a.That self-fulfilling prophecies are either nonexistant or irrelevant|b. That there hasn't been countless attempts to "create gods (and goddesses!) from mere mortals"; otherwise ambitious, death-prone individuals who seek to break the nearly impenetrable barrier between LEGEND, and DEMIGOD, throughout recorded history. | c. That someone (like me!?) is NOT going to inevitably attempt to "create gods and goddesses from 'mere mortals'" again, this time using TECHNOLOGICAL superiority instead of asinine, unweildy rituals and ceremonies of 'coronation'. (either in this century or the next...) |d. That we should NOT attempt Technological Singularity, because some intangible, Skydaddy-oriented sense of ethics and moral values prevent us from doing so!
- That we should NOT attempt to be masters and mistresses of our own domain... i.e. masters and mistresses of 'realism'
Demonstrate this... and demonstrate it *WELL*, or else your silence will indicate indecisiveness of thought, and ultimately... agreement. Either way...
...I wish to be told the faults of my character!
(so that I may... correct said faults)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)