Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:12/06/2016
Comment Ranking:#10365
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 6404 total,  8720 ,  2316
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 49% (49/100)
Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 256 Comments: Contaminated Win
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:2453
FJ Points:5424

latest user's comments

#179 - I read it again but I don't see what you are referring to. Cou…  [+] (2 replies) 08/19/2016 on never liked the alignment... 0
User avatar
#181 - woozuh (08/19/2016) [-]
Idk just how jesus didnt really follow much of the laws of the old testament
User avatar
#182 - Vandeekree (08/19/2016) [-]
But he did in that he fulfilled the prophesies of the old testament. To fulfill the law and lead the Jews and gentiles into a new age. It was only questioned whether he was or wasn't that messiah.
#30 - Jesus was definitely lawful good. Just Godly law, not Roman law.  [+] (5 replies) 08/18/2016 on never liked the alignment... +30
User avatar
#159 - woozuh (08/19/2016) [-]
Read it again
User avatar
#179 - Vandeekree (08/19/2016) [-]
I read it again but I don't see what you are referring to. Could you elaborate?
User avatar
#181 - woozuh (08/19/2016) [-]
Idk just how jesus didnt really follow much of the laws of the old testament
User avatar
#182 - Vandeekree (08/19/2016) [-]
But he did in that he fulfilled the prophesies of the old testament. To fulfill the law and lead the Jews and gentiles into a new age. It was only questioned whether he was or wasn't that messiah.
User avatar
#62 - IceIfritSIXSIXSIX (08/18/2016) [-]
People are down voting but yeah you're right. He went to do as much good for the world as he possibly could have he was lawful by following his own code of morality and belief, not Judaism or Roman law.
#19 - Should that freedom include the freedom to be intolerant to ot…  [+] (1 reply) 08/01/2016 on America 0
User avatar
#41 - angelusprimus (08/01/2016) [-]
You can hate anyone you want for whatever reason you want.
you just can't try to take away any of their rights.
#34 - And when that company falls then another will rise to fill the…  [+] (3 replies) 07/10/2016 on Tribute to a Hero -2
User avatar
#36 - Sethorein (07/10/2016) [-]
>when one company falls another will replace it

Are you kidding me? When the oil industry collapsed in alberta there was nowhere for Chemical Engineers to go. Companies don't just magically appear and when they collapse, the ripple effect on honest people's lives are devastating. That's friggen WHY too big to fail is even a thing. As shitty as it is to bail out irresponsible companies, the alternative of letting them collapse would have ruined America far worse.

>if living in luxury is hurting someone that is bad.

Are you fucking kidding me? So how poor do you need to live? Do we all need to be the saint mentioned above? Living like homeless people? Is that the only way to be good?

>The world could function as not for profit

Who would donate to them? No one would have any money? It'd be a bartering system of services being managed in the form of not for profits on an olligarchical level. Inevitably competition would be injected and rather than denying currency, services would be denied. Right now people just need to budget themselves. In your "utopia" regardless of what people do, if the not-for-profit olligarch they belong to is in strife with another they will lose all services. Wow, really well thought out!

>The current system equates success with immorality

My father literally just stopped someone from wrongfully taking 9 million dollars from hard-working tradesmen. Is his success somehow immoral because he asked for 500k (only for winning) after spending 5 years on the case? He is the obstacle to immorality. Him and everyone like him. So yeah, I'm mad that you sweep that shit under the rug just because he enjoys the luxuries that his labour has earned him.

>I'm proposing a moral utopia

Where communism is the doctrine.

>I am fighting people who couldn't win competitively.

They view the capacity of their ability to mask truth to be a competitive attribute, but my argument is in your "utopia" assholes like this will still exist. My dad and other people like him are the only protection regular people have against these dicks. But no, he isn't a good person. After all, he's paid.

>you're upset that according to my standards you aren't good.

Yes, because your standards are bullshit. You effectively require that in order to be good you must live as if you are in poverty. It is very rare that anyone with the skills necessary not to live in poverty would choose poverty over a decent life. You are requiring the soul of a saint for the title of "good".

>you are happy to work for yourself.

In service to others.

>do you really give good to others

My dad could have been the lawyer for the snake you know.

>even if you serve an essential function in society, if you profit from it and don't immediately give it all away, how are you good?

Because you are performing an essential function for society. If you don't do it, society collapses. Or should our doctors be paid pennies too? That'll really encourage quality healthcare I think.

>nothing self serving can be a good deed.

That is absolute hogwash.
User avatar
#81 - shaddyz (07/10/2016) [-]
hey at the end of the day, the tribunal of Angels will judge you, if you have a clean continuousness and know you did good, they will deem you worthy
User avatar
#44 - Vandeekree (07/10/2016) [-]
I agree. But those Chemical Engineers can't find work as Chemical Engineers. But they could find work elsewhere as something else. Most likely something lower paying. But the idea of compromising your standard of living is unthinkable to the average American. And so we live on a system that does not take care of someone when they fall. A company becomes massive and profitable and carries the lives of many workers on its shoulders only to drop them hard if it gets out competed and fails.

And yes. Everyone should ideally live as a saint. Notice how most saints lived on very little. Compared to how we live, we should live poorly. To give you an idea, if you were to take an educated estimate of all the money in the world and divided it up between all living people, each person would only get somewhere around 2-5 thousand American dollars. That means that if you own more than that then there are other people out there who have less than that to live on. So you should live dirt poor so long as there are other people who need your support to live healthy decent lives. And there will always be those people. Being a truly good person is quite the sacrifice.

Not for profit doesn't always mean the organization runs purely off of donations. It means it runs and sells its goods without trying to make any profit besides operation costs. Imagine if every business in existence kept working but instead of trying to squeeze profit out of their customers, they simple made enough to work effectively.

And what allowed that exploitation of the 9 million? It was the current system. And 500k for 5 years? That's 100k per year. Do you know how many people could live healthily off of that? Yes, taking that much is taking too much from any angle it can be looked at. And even if your father did the right thing in who he represented, him keeping the money and not further helping was not the right thing to do. Helping others to the full extent of your ability is always the right thing to do.

Communism is the same as capitalism when they are taken to the extreme. In both systems their is either a free market run by the people in which no government regulates or there is a massive government that every single person is part of and thus is run by the people. If the people in a pure capitalist utopia are moral then they will give to those in need freely and work like one big family structure. If the people in a communist utopia were moral they would work hard to contribute and give to those in need just like a family structure. They are the same idea at the core. Both could work.

And you might be able to do some good getting paid if you gave up a better job for one that you feel does more good. Like a nurse working at a clinic instead of a high paying hospital job. But your father would be doing more good if he didn't charge for his services. Or if he at least charged less. Surely you cant argue that your family needs 100 dollars a year to function.

And that's exactly why rich people have trouble getting into heaven. Because like you just said "Why can't I be a good person and still be wealthy and live better than everyone else?"

And do you read what you are saying? That it would take a saint. Someone inhuman to give up their riches once they have them. A rich man will give any justification in order to keep his riches.

And I'm afraid that "My father could have done worse" is not a very good argument. Anyone could do worse.

Are you sure society would collapse? There are very few services that are needed. People could live without their iPhones, without their alcohol. Aside from medical, food, shelter, and clothes, the rest could collapse and humanity would go on. Perhaps healthier without such things. And couldn't that essential function be preformed better by someone who wants to do it simply to help others instead of to make money? Can you not see the evil in a business that would cut corners and hurt others just to make money?