you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Your definition of human is lacking.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I didn't define it, so how would you know?

IMO, you should create /s/askanazi.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Inference. You hold that power corrupts. Yes, this is true, unless somebody has become fully incorruptible. There is an actual science of the mind that allows this, and its practicioners readily see the near-infinite advantages of such a state.

Therefore MOST people are corruptible and will remain so, but there are and will be growing numbers of fully incorruptible individuals. While these are EXCEEDINGLY rare today, there will be more. Soon. Give it a decade and there could be enough to head every single nation on Earth.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Inference ≠ definition.

There already are more than enough to lead all nations - many times over. But they will never be allowed to by the corrupt matrix of rigged systems of centralized power.

We need alternative FOTPACH systems.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I inferred some characteristics of your definition by your statements.

Also, no, there are not more than 5 fully incorruptible individuals on this planet.

As for being "allowed", once again you presume to know so much, from a standpoint of so much ignorance. The Incorruptibles are endowed with many characteristics that make it so that they don't need anybody's permission for ANYTHING.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you were discussing in good faith, you would ask questions about my statements.