Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Vandeekree

Rank #7055 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:12/22/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7055
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3981 total,  5815 ,  1834
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 15% (15/100)
Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1698
FJ Points:3641

latest user's comments

#13 - It's because that guy with the guitar is doing nothing new. Ar…  [+] (5 new replies) 11/06/2013 on the sad truth +11
User avatar #37 - plutobr (11/07/2013) [-]
How can you possibly know he is not doing anything new? This picture have no sound.
User avatar #107 - Vandeekree (11/07/2013) [-]
Because he's on the street. Good artists get noticed. poor artists complain about how the good artist's music is different than established types of music.
User avatar #30 - Sataria (11/07/2013) [-]
Only a slight part of me agrees with that, look at all the musicians now, everything is exactly the same
User avatar #108 - Vandeekree (11/07/2013) [-]
No, most of it is the same, but there are a few innovators. All time periods had this. A few people making good songs and a bunch of people copying them and ruining it. But, like how the oldies are still remembered and how the great composers of old are still famous, the greats of this age will out live the rest.
User avatar #22 - noblexfenrir (11/06/2013) [-]
Absolutely agree. There is a difference between appreciative entertainment and monetary entertainment. You can desire to be applauded and thanked for (While quite a vain idea) your hard work and accomplishment, you however have no right to think people should have to pay for things they don't want to or that your specific product is special in some way and that inherently makes you under appreciated and unnoticed.
#111 - Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean there isn… 11/06/2013 on Graveyard for the gods 0
#24 - My dad taught at the middle school I went to and for years I t… 11/05/2013 on Learn how to talk +4
#109 - Not at all, I have nothing to prove to you. This world is full…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/05/2013 on Graveyard for the gods 0
#110 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Indeed, the world is full of proof, yet none exists in the bible. Anyone can make a claim and it matters not where that claim is, bible or not. Many people believe that somehow if a story is in the bible is it absolutely true, yet under modern scrutiny it it easy to see that this is false. Often we hear about these soc called truths, yet no proof is ever provided.
User avatar #111 - Vandeekree (11/06/2013) [-]
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean there isn't any. Of course anyone can make a claim, that's what I sad before. That you have to look at the claim and decide for yourself. But do note that my scrutiny is just as "modern" as yours. I can see the same facts and figures you can. Just because I come to a different conclusion doesn't mean that I'm less intelligent or that you can somehow see something I can't. If you have a reason why the bible is wrong I would enjoy discussing it with you.
#107 - You seem to think I'm saying that it does. I have not claimed …  [+] (4 new replies) 11/05/2013 on Graveyard for the gods 0
#108 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Well..i guess you're going to have to demonstrate the existence of this 'god...aren't you?
User avatar #109 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
Not at all, I have nothing to prove to you. This world is full of proof. Book of the testaments of people from the times when the events happened. If you want proof then I invite you to go out and look at what can be offered for yourself. If not, well that's really your choice. Though if you are curious, I would be happy give my opinion on where you should look first and explain why I believe what I do.

Though I would like to point out I have yet to claim God exists. I have merely tried to explain what religion claims and how it relates to science.
#110 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Indeed, the world is full of proof, yet none exists in the bible. Anyone can make a claim and it matters not where that claim is, bible or not. Many people believe that somehow if a story is in the bible is it absolutely true, yet under modern scrutiny it it easy to see that this is false. Often we hear about these soc called truths, yet no proof is ever provided.
User avatar #111 - Vandeekree (11/06/2013) [-]
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean there isn't any. Of course anyone can make a claim, that's what I sad before. That you have to look at the claim and decide for yourself. But do note that my scrutiny is just as "modern" as yours. I can see the same facts and figures you can. Just because I come to a different conclusion doesn't mean that I'm less intelligent or that you can somehow see something I can't. If you have a reason why the bible is wrong I would enjoy discussing it with you.
#105 - Someone's word can be used as proof. And it is used as proof i…  [+] (6 new replies) 11/05/2013 on Graveyard for the gods 0
#106 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
That does not cut it in science.
User avatar #107 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
You seem to think I'm saying that it does. I have not claimed that. I have said that science deals with constantly trying to improve flawed understanding with slightly less flawed understanding while knowing that complete understanding is impossible. Religion skips that by have the answer directly from a God that already has complete understanding.
#108 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Well..i guess you're going to have to demonstrate the existence of this 'god...aren't you?
User avatar #109 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
Not at all, I have nothing to prove to you. This world is full of proof. Book of the testaments of people from the times when the events happened. If you want proof then I invite you to go out and look at what can be offered for yourself. If not, well that's really your choice. Though if you are curious, I would be happy give my opinion on where you should look first and explain why I believe what I do.

Though I would like to point out I have yet to claim God exists. I have merely tried to explain what religion claims and how it relates to science.
#110 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Indeed, the world is full of proof, yet none exists in the bible. Anyone can make a claim and it matters not where that claim is, bible or not. Many people believe that somehow if a story is in the bible is it absolutely true, yet under modern scrutiny it it easy to see that this is false. Often we hear about these soc called truths, yet no proof is ever provided.
User avatar #111 - Vandeekree (11/06/2013) [-]
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean there isn't any. Of course anyone can make a claim, that's what I sad before. That you have to look at the claim and decide for yourself. But do note that my scrutiny is just as "modern" as yours. I can see the same facts and figures you can. Just because I come to a different conclusion doesn't mean that I'm less intelligent or that you can somehow see something I can't. If you have a reason why the bible is wrong I would enjoy discussing it with you.
#103 - As I said, we can't obtain any truth. Everything we choose to …  [+] (8 new replies) 11/03/2013 on Graveyard for the gods 0
#104 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
That sort of evidence doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny such as in a court and far less in science. Claims mean nothing. Evidence is demonstrable.
User avatar #105 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
Someone's word can be used as proof. And it is used as proof in courts. They bring in witnesses who's only reason to be there is that they claimed to have seen things.
#106 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
That does not cut it in science.
User avatar #107 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
You seem to think I'm saying that it does. I have not claimed that. I have said that science deals with constantly trying to improve flawed understanding with slightly less flawed understanding while knowing that complete understanding is impossible. Religion skips that by have the answer directly from a God that already has complete understanding.
#108 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Well..i guess you're going to have to demonstrate the existence of this 'god...aren't you?
User avatar #109 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
Not at all, I have nothing to prove to you. This world is full of proof. Book of the testaments of people from the times when the events happened. If you want proof then I invite you to go out and look at what can be offered for yourself. If not, well that's really your choice. Though if you are curious, I would be happy give my opinion on where you should look first and explain why I believe what I do.

Though I would like to point out I have yet to claim God exists. I have merely tried to explain what religion claims and how it relates to science.
#110 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Indeed, the world is full of proof, yet none exists in the bible. Anyone can make a claim and it matters not where that claim is, bible or not. Many people believe that somehow if a story is in the bible is it absolutely true, yet under modern scrutiny it it easy to see that this is false. Often we hear about these soc called truths, yet no proof is ever provided.
User avatar #111 - Vandeekree (11/06/2013) [-]
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean there isn't any. Of course anyone can make a claim, that's what I sad before. That you have to look at the claim and decide for yourself. But do note that my scrutiny is just as "modern" as yours. I can see the same facts and figures you can. Just because I come to a different conclusion doesn't mean that I'm less intelligent or that you can somehow see something I can't. If you have a reason why the bible is wrong I would enjoy discussing it with you.
#97 - It's simply what it looks like to me. I've looked at as much o…  [+] (10 new replies) 11/02/2013 on Graveyard for the gods -1
#102 - popeflatus (11/03/2013) [-]
Just because something looks like it might be something and therefore it seems to be true is in no way evidence. What you are doing is making an assumption about 'the truth of things' and also an assumption about an 'all knowing god' existing. No such evidence exists.
User avatar #103 - Vandeekree (11/03/2013) [-]
As I said, we can't obtain any truth. Everything we choose to believe as a truth is just an assumption we've made based on the always limited evidence. Evidence is something that points toward another thing being true.\ but doesn't actually mean that thing is true. People claiming to have seen and spoken with God is evidence. The book that claims to have been written by God inspired people is also evidence.

Does that mean God exists? Maybe, such evidence only points to the possibility. That's all that evidence does after all. And you have to take evidence like that and make assumptions sense you have no way of knowing for completely sure. That applies not just to this issue of God's existence but to all questions we can ask about the world.

My point was not that I know that God exists, but that religion is the only place that asserts it has real truth. No where else can you find such claims.

Science admits it will never obtain full truth, religion says it has full truth. I'm not saying I know the truth, I said religion claims to.
#104 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
That sort of evidence doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny such as in a court and far less in science. Claims mean nothing. Evidence is demonstrable.
User avatar #105 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
Someone's word can be used as proof. And it is used as proof in courts. They bring in witnesses who's only reason to be there is that they claimed to have seen things.
#106 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
That does not cut it in science.
User avatar #107 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
You seem to think I'm saying that it does. I have not claimed that. I have said that science deals with constantly trying to improve flawed understanding with slightly less flawed understanding while knowing that complete understanding is impossible. Religion skips that by have the answer directly from a God that already has complete understanding.
#108 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Well..i guess you're going to have to demonstrate the existence of this 'god...aren't you?
User avatar #109 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
Not at all, I have nothing to prove to you. This world is full of proof. Book of the testaments of people from the times when the events happened. If you want proof then I invite you to go out and look at what can be offered for yourself. If not, well that's really your choice. Though if you are curious, I would be happy give my opinion on where you should look first and explain why I believe what I do.

Though I would like to point out I have yet to claim God exists. I have merely tried to explain what religion claims and how it relates to science.
#110 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Indeed, the world is full of proof, yet none exists in the bible. Anyone can make a claim and it matters not where that claim is, bible or not. Many people believe that somehow if a story is in the bible is it absolutely true, yet under modern scrutiny it it easy to see that this is false. Often we hear about these soc called truths, yet no proof is ever provided.
User avatar #111 - Vandeekree (11/06/2013) [-]
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean there isn't any. Of course anyone can make a claim, that's what I sad before. That you have to look at the claim and decide for yourself. But do note that my scrutiny is just as "modern" as yours. I can see the same facts and figures you can. Just because I come to a different conclusion doesn't mean that I'm less intelligent or that you can somehow see something I can't. If you have a reason why the bible is wrong I would enjoy discussing it with you.
#41 - My point was that just because there are some religions and th… 11/01/2013 on Graveyard for the gods +3
#31 - How would you know hating isn't a choice? You don't understand… 11/01/2013 on Being Gay 0
#28 - Well there is a difference. Scientific theory takes …  [+] (12 new replies) 11/01/2013 on Graveyard for the gods -5
#79 - popeflatus (11/01/2013) [-]
If you think we can't ever have a truth, what makes you so certain that there is 'truth' in a god?
User avatar #97 - Vandeekree (11/02/2013) [-]
It's simply what it looks like to me. I've looked at as much of the world as I can get my hands on and this is what seems to be true.
#102 - popeflatus (11/03/2013) [-]
Just because something looks like it might be something and therefore it seems to be true is in no way evidence. What you are doing is making an assumption about 'the truth of things' and also an assumption about an 'all knowing god' existing. No such evidence exists.
User avatar #103 - Vandeekree (11/03/2013) [-]
As I said, we can't obtain any truth. Everything we choose to believe as a truth is just an assumption we've made based on the always limited evidence. Evidence is something that points toward another thing being true.\ but doesn't actually mean that thing is true. People claiming to have seen and spoken with God is evidence. The book that claims to have been written by God inspired people is also evidence.

Does that mean God exists? Maybe, such evidence only points to the possibility. That's all that evidence does after all. And you have to take evidence like that and make assumptions sense you have no way of knowing for completely sure. That applies not just to this issue of God's existence but to all questions we can ask about the world.

My point was not that I know that God exists, but that religion is the only place that asserts it has real truth. No where else can you find such claims.

Science admits it will never obtain full truth, religion says it has full truth. I'm not saying I know the truth, I said religion claims to.
#104 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
That sort of evidence doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny such as in a court and far less in science. Claims mean nothing. Evidence is demonstrable.
User avatar #105 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
Someone's word can be used as proof. And it is used as proof in courts. They bring in witnesses who's only reason to be there is that they claimed to have seen things.
#106 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
That does not cut it in science.
User avatar #107 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
You seem to think I'm saying that it does. I have not claimed that. I have said that science deals with constantly trying to improve flawed understanding with slightly less flawed understanding while knowing that complete understanding is impossible. Religion skips that by have the answer directly from a God that already has complete understanding.
#108 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Well..i guess you're going to have to demonstrate the existence of this 'god...aren't you?
User avatar #109 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
Not at all, I have nothing to prove to you. This world is full of proof. Book of the testaments of people from the times when the events happened. If you want proof then I invite you to go out and look at what can be offered for yourself. If not, well that's really your choice. Though if you are curious, I would be happy give my opinion on where you should look first and explain why I believe what I do.

Though I would like to point out I have yet to claim God exists. I have merely tried to explain what religion claims and how it relates to science.
#110 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Indeed, the world is full of proof, yet none exists in the bible. Anyone can make a claim and it matters not where that claim is, bible or not. Many people believe that somehow if a story is in the bible is it absolutely true, yet under modern scrutiny it it easy to see that this is false. Often we hear about these soc called truths, yet no proof is ever provided.
User avatar #111 - Vandeekree (11/06/2013) [-]
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean there isn't any. Of course anyone can make a claim, that's what I sad before. That you have to look at the claim and decide for yourself. But do note that my scrutiny is just as "modern" as yours. I can see the same facts and figures you can. Just because I come to a different conclusion doesn't mean that I'm less intelligent or that you can somehow see something I can't. If you have a reason why the bible is wrong I would enjoy discussing it with you.
#25 - I feel this argument is flawed. Look at all these fai…  [+] (19 new replies) 11/01/2013 on Graveyard for the gods -8
User avatar #73 - rosette (11/01/2013) [-]
Science is all about trying to find the most logical solution. Any scientist you ask will tell you that what they study is not truth. Science is not law or fact, it's just an attempt at figuring out what is true by studying the evidence around us.

Inversely, religion is about seeking answers without any evidence, and instead faith. Ever since humans began seeking answers, they concluded, millions of times, without any evidence, that it was the work of a god. Only a couple of these last to this day
#35 - anonymous (11/01/2013) [-]
The point is, you can't disprove the existence of a god. Your logic is flawed because for a scientific theory to be disproved, another has to be proven. The same can't ever be said about gods.
#78 - popeflatus (11/01/2013) [-]
No. If you make a claim like a god exists, the burden of proof lies with you.
User avatar #41 - Vandeekree (11/01/2013) [-]
My point was that just because there are some religions and theories that aren't true doesn't mean there isn't one that is true. In fact the opposite seems true if you look at the scientific method.
"Some religions are false so then all religions are false" is about as logical as saying "Some theories about plate tectonics are false so all theories about plate tectonics are false."

My logic is not flawed because I'm not saying that scientific theory and religion are the same thing,(as you seem to think I'm saying) only that they have similarities that can be sued to illustrate this point.
User avatar #27 - herbolifee (11/01/2013) [-]
The thing is though, most failed scientific experiments are learned from and therefor help in progression of science (if you know why it failed, chances are you'll be more succesful next time since you learn from mistakes).

How do forgotten gods help in the progression of religion?

Don't get me wrong btw I'm not trying to shitstorm. Genuinely interested in this theory.
User avatar #36 - WakaTakaBang (11/01/2013) [-]
Many religions piggyback off of other religions. For example, take the representation of the Judeo-Christian God. He looks like Zeus. The concept of rising from the dead in three days was also taken from an ancient Egyptian deity.
User avatar #28 - Vandeekree (11/01/2013) [-]
Well there is a difference.

Scientific theory takes small steps at a time towards unattainable truths by making small corrections to it's flawed self in order to reach perfect understanding of everything.

Religion is something of it's polar opposite. It has already found the truth of things, given by an all knowing god, and can only decay away from the truth through the creation of false gods and perversions of the original.

Religion decays for the same reason science will always be flawed. Humans have limited perception and we can't obtain real truth.
#79 - popeflatus (11/01/2013) [-]
If you think we can't ever have a truth, what makes you so certain that there is 'truth' in a god?
User avatar #97 - Vandeekree (11/02/2013) [-]
It's simply what it looks like to me. I've looked at as much of the world as I can get my hands on and this is what seems to be true.
#102 - popeflatus (11/03/2013) [-]
Just because something looks like it might be something and therefore it seems to be true is in no way evidence. What you are doing is making an assumption about 'the truth of things' and also an assumption about an 'all knowing god' existing. No such evidence exists.
User avatar #103 - Vandeekree (11/03/2013) [-]
As I said, we can't obtain any truth. Everything we choose to believe as a truth is just an assumption we've made based on the always limited evidence. Evidence is something that points toward another thing being true.\ but doesn't actually mean that thing is true. People claiming to have seen and spoken with God is evidence. The book that claims to have been written by God inspired people is also evidence.

Does that mean God exists? Maybe, such evidence only points to the possibility. That's all that evidence does after all. And you have to take evidence like that and make assumptions sense you have no way of knowing for completely sure. That applies not just to this issue of God's existence but to all questions we can ask about the world.

My point was not that I know that God exists, but that religion is the only place that asserts it has real truth. No where else can you find such claims.

Science admits it will never obtain full truth, religion says it has full truth. I'm not saying I know the truth, I said religion claims to.
#104 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
That sort of evidence doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny such as in a court and far less in science. Claims mean nothing. Evidence is demonstrable.
User avatar #105 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
Someone's word can be used as proof. And it is used as proof in courts. They bring in witnesses who's only reason to be there is that they claimed to have seen things.
#106 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
That does not cut it in science.
User avatar #107 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
You seem to think I'm saying that it does. I have not claimed that. I have said that science deals with constantly trying to improve flawed understanding with slightly less flawed understanding while knowing that complete understanding is impossible. Religion skips that by have the answer directly from a God that already has complete understanding.
#108 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Well..i guess you're going to have to demonstrate the existence of this 'god...aren't you?
User avatar #109 - Vandeekree (11/05/2013) [-]
Not at all, I have nothing to prove to you. This world is full of proof. Book of the testaments of people from the times when the events happened. If you want proof then I invite you to go out and look at what can be offered for yourself. If not, well that's really your choice. Though if you are curious, I would be happy give my opinion on where you should look first and explain why I believe what I do.

Though I would like to point out I have yet to claim God exists. I have merely tried to explain what religion claims and how it relates to science.
#110 - popeflatus (11/05/2013) [-]
Indeed, the world is full of proof, yet none exists in the bible. Anyone can make a claim and it matters not where that claim is, bible or not. Many people believe that somehow if a story is in the bible is it absolutely true, yet under modern scrutiny it it easy to see that this is false. Often we hear about these soc called truths, yet no proof is ever provided.
User avatar #111 - Vandeekree (11/06/2013) [-]
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean there isn't any. Of course anyone can make a claim, that's what I sad before. That you have to look at the claim and decide for yourself. But do note that my scrutiny is just as "modern" as yours. I can see the same facts and figures you can. Just because I come to a different conclusion doesn't mean that I'm less intelligent or that you can somehow see something I can't. If you have a reason why the bible is wrong I would enjoy discussing it with you.
#6 - ok 10/29/2013 on Should I? 0
#7 - Trust me, it will go by so very fast. Too fast. 10/29/2013 on best answer ever +12
#105 - Comment deleted 10/22/2013 on Which animal has inspired... 0
#101 - Comment deleted  [+] (2 new replies) 10/22/2013 on Which animal has inspired... 0
#104 - Katzie Comment deleted by Vandeekree
#105 - Vandeekree Comment deleted by Vandeekree
#7 - This is exactly my brother an I playing Diablo 3. Through the … 10/21/2013 on Co-op +2
#78 - That was just a joke. I would have actually made it three week… 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +2
#74 - They are the same, you murdered someone. And now you must pay …  [+] (2 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +2
User avatar #75 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
> Two weeks public service.

How about life in prison, the one your victim lived.
User avatar #78 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
That was just a joke. I would have actually made it three weeks AND a hefty fine.
#72 - And I agree. But that doesn't mean that your motive, so long a…  [+] (4 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +2
User avatar #73 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
But if you murder someone,simply because, say they are black,but you murder an asian man because he wronged you, which is worse?
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
They are the same, you murdered someone. And now you must pay the two weeks of public service which is the fair punishment for murder.
User avatar #75 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
> Two weeks public service.

How about life in prison, the one your victim lived.
User avatar #78 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
That was just a joke. I would have actually made it three weeks AND a hefty fine.
#69 - But how do you determine that? IN this example, how do we what… 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +1
#58 - Do we gauge all crimes by motive instead of action like that? …  [+] (8 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +2
User avatar #62 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
Look at it this way: Until you get to know someone, you shouldn't hate them. Hate, envy, greed, these are reasons we murder and those feelings are brought up by something the person has done, or said. If we were to murder only because people were different, because they were a different sexual orientation, skin tone, religion, then it would have no real motive. We don't know who these people are, we don't feel true hate for them, only disgust in the fact they are different, that is a hate crime, that is not justified.
User avatar #72 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
And I agree. But that doesn't mean that your motive, so long as you actual meant that person's death to be the result of your actions, should have any bearing on the punishment. You killed someone so you get the punishment for taking a live that wasn't yours to take.
User avatar #73 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
But if you murder someone,simply because, say they are black,but you murder an asian man because he wronged you, which is worse?
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
They are the same, you murdered someone. And now you must pay the two weeks of public service which is the fair punishment for murder.
User avatar #75 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
> Two weeks public service.

How about life in prison, the one your victim lived.
User avatar #78 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
That was just a joke. I would have actually made it three weeks AND a hefty fine.
User avatar #59 - thegrimreaver (10/21/2013) [-]
Everything really comes down to motive. Take for example, if you came home, and found that some guy had broken in to your house and killed your wife/girlfriend, and in a blind rage, you killed him, you could potentially be charged with just Manslaughter, rather than murder. When you're being charged with something like that, your state of mind is one of the biggest things that is taken in to consideration.
User avatar #69 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
But how do you determine that? IN this example, how do we what the murders of her son were motivated by? Did they do it because they were afraid of the spread of gay culture because they were told to be afraid by someone else? If so should they be given lighter sentences and the person who taught them such things blamed? Did they do it out of hate for the kids because they knew them and knew they were different and so they picked on them? What if it wasn't even about them being gay?

It doesn't make sense to punish someone, not for what they did, but for what they might have been thinking while doing it.

If I killed that guy who broke into my house I still killed him, it wasn't self defense, it wasn't to protect my already dead family. I did not control myself. You can control your emotions, they don't control you, it's no excuse for what I hypothetically did. So I deserve to be put on trial for murder just like he should be put on trial for his murders.

The only differences that should be taken into account when someone kills another, is if they were trying to kill that person or if it was not the goal of their actions.
#51 - There are already laws against murder, so is she saying she wa…  [+] (10 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +1
User avatar #56 - thegrimreaver (10/21/2013) [-]
There is a difference between a regular homicide, and a hate crime. Hate crimes are more severely punished.
User avatar #58 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
Do we gauge all crimes by motive instead of action like that? Is there murder motivated by hate and murder motivated by greed and murder motivated by anger. It's all intentional murder, is it really a good idea to start making it worse or not so bad to murder someone depending on who they are?
User avatar #62 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
Look at it this way: Until you get to know someone, you shouldn't hate them. Hate, envy, greed, these are reasons we murder and those feelings are brought up by something the person has done, or said. If we were to murder only because people were different, because they were a different sexual orientation, skin tone, religion, then it would have no real motive. We don't know who these people are, we don't feel true hate for them, only disgust in the fact they are different, that is a hate crime, that is not justified.
User avatar #72 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
And I agree. But that doesn't mean that your motive, so long as you actual meant that person's death to be the result of your actions, should have any bearing on the punishment. You killed someone so you get the punishment for taking a live that wasn't yours to take.
User avatar #73 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
But if you murder someone,simply because, say they are black,but you murder an asian man because he wronged you, which is worse?
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
They are the same, you murdered someone. And now you must pay the two weeks of public service which is the fair punishment for murder.
User avatar #75 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
> Two weeks public service.

How about life in prison, the one your victim lived.
User avatar #78 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
That was just a joke. I would have actually made it three weeks AND a hefty fine.
User avatar #59 - thegrimreaver (10/21/2013) [-]
Everything really comes down to motive. Take for example, if you came home, and found that some guy had broken in to your house and killed your wife/girlfriend, and in a blind rage, you killed him, you could potentially be charged with just Manslaughter, rather than murder. When you're being charged with something like that, your state of mind is one of the biggest things that is taken in to consideration.
User avatar #69 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
But how do you determine that? IN this example, how do we what the murders of her son were motivated by? Did they do it because they were afraid of the spread of gay culture because they were told to be afraid by someone else? If so should they be given lighter sentences and the person who taught them such things blamed? Did they do it out of hate for the kids because they knew them and knew they were different and so they picked on them? What if it wasn't even about them being gay?

It doesn't make sense to punish someone, not for what they did, but for what they might have been thinking while doing it.

If I killed that guy who broke into my house I still killed him, it wasn't self defense, it wasn't to protect my already dead family. I did not control myself. You can control your emotions, they don't control you, it's no excuse for what I hypothetically did. So I deserve to be put on trial for murder just like he should be put on trial for his murders.

The only differences that should be taken into account when someone kills another, is if they were trying to kill that person or if it was not the goal of their actions.
#21 - Did the pilot survive?  [+] (11 new replies) 10/13/2013 on Alternative energy +256
#179 - nightlynutria (10/13/2013) [-]
I dont know if you heard that joke before or you came up with it, but that was really funny
#93 - jbkubel (10/13/2013) [-]
I may be buried in a sea of red thumbs for this, but I don't see any plane in this .gif
Wasn't it just a flawed turbine that accelerated out of controle and broke or am I completely retartded ?
#101 - tjilaz (10/13/2013) [-]
Is joke
#79 - RipperMan (10/13/2013) [-]
When does the pilot EVER survive?
#58 - bloxicity (10/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #51 - thascomrad (10/13/2013) [-]
Isded
User avatar #47 - berkut (10/13/2013) [-]
pilot is kill. The cabin was crushed dont you see?
#36 - xecoq (10/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #102 - mineymann (10/13/2013) [-]
You. I applaud you. I would thumb you but I can't, sorry
User avatar #106 - psychoticcaleb (10/13/2013) [-]
Just post in nsfw a lot.It fucking works.
#23 - sheathedfang (10/13/2013) [-]
haha this made my day thanks.
#47 - Yeah, but it's not even his, it's his uncle's ride. 10/12/2013 on Teenage drivers +35
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy ONLINE (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you not have morals? Like seriously do you not have any? You claim that you only do as the bible instructs every time someone asks you about morals, but do you not know right from wrong without religion?

If so perhaps you should learn it. I'm an agnostic and I still know what's right from wrong without a higher entity instructing me on it. If the only thing keeping you from being a moral-less prick is religion then you are probably a psychopath.
User avatar #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Lets just put this here, shall we? Fewer purple lines
User avatar #18 to #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Now I strongly disagree that more studies need to be done in order to come to a consensus. All of the leading bodies which have done research on the subject have found no reason to indicate that gays are naturally more likely through their expression of sexuality to have any types of adverse effects. The only people I have heard calling for more research are the same people claiming that climate change is not a thing or that natural selection doesnt happen. There is a consensus in the scientific community and it is people who are not a part of the community who claim that they cant make conclusions (because they dont like the ones made)
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - anonymous (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)