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

hide menu

Vandeekree

Rank #7582 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 236 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:12/19/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7582
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3957 total,  5789 ,  1832
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1697
FJ Points:3622

latest user's comments

#74 - It's not about killing people, it's the opposite. It's the thr… 11/17/2014 on 2 deep 4 u 0
#10 - S....stop it! 11/16/2014 on Shapes man 0
#14 - Everyone's a wannabe, chasing some over-romanticized image of …  [+] (3 new replies) 11/16/2014 on Reality always sucks 0
User avatar #34 - bulbakip (11/16/2014) [-]
Except the punks.
User avatar #52 - privoxy (11/16/2014) [-]
gotta love punks
User avatar #45 - tealcanaan (11/16/2014) [-]
Punks are literally the worst though.
#197 - While I have seen no reason to doubt the effectiveness of vacc…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/08/2014 on Not actually anti-vaccine... 0
User avatar #218 - testaburger (11/08/2014) [-]
No, it shows that people are morons.
#206 - NereidALbel (11/08/2014) [-]
No, it just takes a couple "celebrities" with intellects slightly below the average brick to convince people things are bad. And if you doubt their lack of intellect, just look how popular Scientology is in Hollywood...
#10 - It looks like suicide to me. The red thing represents suicide …  [+] (2 new replies) 11/01/2014 on Korean comic comp (Part 3) +124
User avatar #34 - thelizardqueen (11/02/2014) [-]
I thought that it meant that that little fucker ant getting a game boy
#29 - funnychunk (11/02/2014) [-]
Oh. I thought it was a ghost that killed people who stole meatballs...
I guess yours makes more sense..
#11 - Indeed. And if you are attributing it to God then it doesn't a… 10/30/2014 on science man 0
#6 - I don't think I can agree with this. Because if you're thankin…  [+] (9 new replies) 10/30/2014 on science man +16
User avatar #68 - jukuku (10/31/2014) [-]
If you believe in divine intervention than the logical consequence of this is that god is at fault for everything that happens, good or bad. Your family is raped and murdered? That's god's doing. You won the lottery? God.

If god can control everything why does he allow bad things to happen?

If you need to learn a lesson and he is all powerful than why does he not just make you wise from the beginning, what is the point in suffering if an all powerful being can just create you to be perfect for the circumstances which he can already foresee and supposedly created himself?

Why would god create something knowing that they would suffer?

If god created life while knowing that there would be an unfathomable amount of suffering due to the very nature of life than is he apathetic to the suffering or is he malevolent? If the ultimate fate is for some humans to go to heaven and some to hell than isn't it just better for no one to exist as it guarantees no suffering?

How can a being of infinite love possess the apathy to condemn one to an eternity in hell, often for things they have no control over (being raised a Muslim and not accepting the holy trinity gets you sent to hell according to the bible)

If a god can change anything, even beyond the realms of physical limitation that why would he have so many gigantic flaws in his designs? The esophagus and trachea share the same passage so you can choke to death, why not have a separate orifice to breath from? Why do animals die? Why do living things need food? Why does disease exist? Why isn't everything engineered for permanent happiness?

Assuming god is real, he cannot be both all loving and all powerful given the world we live in. He must be limited in power but all loving or unlimited in power but apathetic and malevolent at times. Suffering wouldn't exist if he was all loving and all powerful, he could just create circumstances where suffering doesn't need to exist for us to learn lessons.

*had to fix typos
#67 - jukuku has deleted their comment.
#55 - innocentbabies (10/31/2014) [-]
I'm an asshole who has way more than he deserves. So, did God give me these advantages that I don't deserve in any way because that was just?
User avatar #21 - kombee (10/30/2014) [-]
Winning is relative. Just because someone wins a match doesn't really mean that it's good for them in the long run. Even if the person in question might think otherwise, losing could be the better outcome, you never know. That's why one should always be grateful winning or loosing, and think that "this" is the best road you could take. As they say, god works in mysterious ways.
#10 - nonanonnon (10/30/2014) [-]
So in other words, if you win, it's because you had the ability to, and if you lose, it's because you didn't.
#16 - oosime (10/30/2014) [-]
thumb for the quote. love that book. pic related.
User avatar #11 - Vandeekree (10/30/2014) [-]
Indeed. And if you are attributing it to God then it doesn't automatically mean that God is at fault for the other person losing because, if God is a completely fair god, then the one who won was the one who deserved it. And while you can thank someone for giving you what you earned, you can't blame someone for not giving you what you didn't earn.
#8 - aphoticnefelibata (10/30/2014) [-]
I concur with you, mortal.
People just love to blame God when things don't go their way, and yet, if something good happens, they are far too quickly to dismiss their thanks to Him.
We humans are funny creatures lqtm.
User avatar #7 - dangler (10/30/2014) [-]
Something like this. Maybe not the "justice-y" bits, but the ability thing, definitely
#21 - Comment deleted 10/30/2014 on It's a conspiracy. 0
#68 - Well yeah but I saved first....  [+] (3 new replies) 10/27/2014 on PC Stupidity +2
User avatar #106 - ninjaroo (10/27/2014) [-]
This is a D&D reference. There are no saves in D&D.
User avatar #83 - psyachu (10/27/2014) [-]
maybe on a single player game, but not an MMO.
User avatar #121 - lahel (10/27/2014) [-]
we meet again.
#31 - Why are they automatically at fault? Perhaps you're the one wh…  [+] (6 new replies) 10/22/2014 on Hate when this happens +4
User avatar #104 - YllekNayr (10/23/2014) [-]
Because in this story, he is only talking about the scenarios where the other person is wrong.

That's the premise of the situation. He didn't say "THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS"
#113 - anonymous (10/23/2014) [-]
It's faulty because how do you know that you're wrong. Most of the time, the people who complain about this shit are idiots who aren't actually right, but "know" that they are and then get infuriated when their inability to process things logically means that they won't resolve the argument.
User avatar #114 - YllekNayr (10/23/2014) [-]
Because some things are objectively factual.
Example: You argue with someone about the moon orbiting earth, rather than the other way around.
#121 - anonymous (10/23/2014) [-]
"Because some things are objectively factual." Well alright, I can tell you're no engineer yet, but that's a discussion for another time.

But here again you're doing something stupid again however, you're assuming that the arguments are about things like this while nothing of the sort has been said.
User avatar #137 - YllekNayr (10/23/2014) [-]
Yes, it has.
You're being fucking stupid by picking at something that's already been established.

That's like if someone said "Whenever the weather's really cloudy outside, I don't need my sunglasses."
And you respond "Who said the weather is always cloudy? Why are you assuming it's cloudy?"
#34 - anonasuser (10/22/2014) [-]
i once had an argument with my ex
i said "agree to disagree" and she insisted she wasn't disagreeing with me
saying things like "i just think it's this way, not the way you think it is"
we argued for 30 minutes before she said "how about i just believe what i believe, and you believe what you believe"
"right. agree to disagree"
#31 - I watched this recently. Funnyjunk had spoiled all the good pa…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/19/2014 on George Martin -3
User avatar #48 - faggotville (10/19/2014) [-]
K hun.
#45 - killerraise (10/19/2014) [-]
#155 - Well I will agree with you. Common sense gets in the way of mo… 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
#153 - I never said that everything was equally true. But yes, every …  [+] (2 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #154 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I'm not 100% about anything, but even if some crazy shit was true, it goes against too much commons sense and simple observations on our universe to believe. Maybe it was okay a thousand years ago when nobody knew any better, but we know how things work now. They're outdated beliefs that stand on tradition alone, and no logical merit. I don't usually talk about it, because I find beliefs a private matter, inappropriate to discuss in public, but the circumstances of this conversation excuse that.
User avatar #155 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Well I will agree with you. Common sense gets in the way of morality quite often. After all, it makes sense to kill one person to save two others.
#151 - And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words s… 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
#147 - Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect f…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#145 - You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceiv…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#143 - And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but t…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#141 - I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell mo…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#139 - Someone's full of assumptions.  [+] (10 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #140 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Unless you were using "sin" as an abstract term, then it shows you have a belief in a supernatural element, which would mean you aren't rational enough to argue with.
User avatar #141 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell more than anything. But it's fine if you want to take that out from the argument.
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#137 - Wrong because though you could save them, the cost of taking t…  [+] (12 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #138 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
That explains everything, I'm out.
User avatar #139 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Someone's full of assumptions.
User avatar #140 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Unless you were using "sin" as an abstract term, then it shows you have a belief in a supernatural element, which would mean you aren't rational enough to argue with.
User avatar #141 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell more than anything. But it's fine if you want to take that out from the argument.
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#135 - Clearly you miss the point of my statement. It's not about pai…  [+] (14 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #136 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
And since you have the power to save those 5 people, not saving them is exactly the same as killing them.
User avatar #137 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Wrong because though you could save them, the cost of taking that route is sinning, and to sin is wrong, therefore to avoid wrong you have to take another action. Sadly, in this constraining metaphor, there are no other actions, thus your only option is to let them die.

You are not responsible for their deaths if you do all you can short of sinning.
User avatar #138 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
That explains everything, I'm out.
User avatar #139 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Someone's full of assumptions.
User avatar #140 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Unless you were using "sin" as an abstract term, then it shows you have a belief in a supernatural element, which would mean you aren't rational enough to argue with.
User avatar #141 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell more than anything. But it's fine if you want to take that out from the argument.
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#133 - Because it's all the same. The few lose so the many can prospe…  [+] (16 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #134 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not the same. Again, the train situation is very specific. 5 people are going to die. You can hit a lever so that only 1 person dies. At least 1 person HAS to die in this situation, and nobody can deny that. It's not you taking it upon yourself to take money from a child to give to two other random children.

You're preventing anguish, not causing celebration. It's not okay to cause a little pain in one person for the pleasure of others. But to cause pain in one person to prevent the pain of 5 others, that's acceptable. I really feel like this distinction with convince you of my side, don't let me down.
User avatar #135 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Clearly you miss the point of my statement. It's not about pain or pleasure, it's about gain or loss.

But sticking to the train situation sense others only seem to confuse, I agree that someone has to die in this situation. But you don't have to kill anyone. That's the difference. You're not murdering those 5 people but if you pull that lever you are murdering the one. The questions isn't about how many people die, it's about how many YOU KILL.
User avatar #136 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
And since you have the power to save those 5 people, not saving them is exactly the same as killing them.
User avatar #137 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Wrong because though you could save them, the cost of taking that route is sinning, and to sin is wrong, therefore to avoid wrong you have to take another action. Sadly, in this constraining metaphor, there are no other actions, thus your only option is to let them die.

You are not responsible for their deaths if you do all you can short of sinning.
User avatar #138 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
That explains everything, I'm out.
User avatar #139 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Someone's full of assumptions.
User avatar #140 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Unless you were using "sin" as an abstract term, then it shows you have a belief in a supernatural element, which would mean you aren't rational enough to argue with.
User avatar #141 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell more than anything. But it's fine if you want to take that out from the argument.
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#131 - That's wrong, not only because you can't think of a situation …  [+] (18 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #132 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
You're comparing two children getting ice cream to four families not having to mourn a loved one.

And just because I can't think of an example of something, doesn't make it false. I'm not a god.
User avatar #133 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Because it's all the same. The few lose so the many can prosper and you are the one took from the few. That's wrong. You can't do wrong and expect it to have good results for the person you wronged. You are taking from him to make someone else's life better. So why not it be your life that is made better? Take from one and give to yourself and one other person and it's all square right?
User avatar #134 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It's not the same. Again, the train situation is very specific. 5 people are going to die. You can hit a lever so that only 1 person dies. At least 1 person HAS to die in this situation, and nobody can deny that. It's not you taking it upon yourself to take money from a child to give to two other random children.

You're preventing anguish, not causing celebration. It's not okay to cause a little pain in one person for the pleasure of others. But to cause pain in one person to prevent the pain of 5 others, that's acceptable. I really feel like this distinction with convince you of my side, don't let me down.
User avatar #135 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Clearly you miss the point of my statement. It's not about pain or pleasure, it's about gain or loss.

But sticking to the train situation sense others only seem to confuse, I agree that someone has to die in this situation. But you don't have to kill anyone. That's the difference. You're not murdering those 5 people but if you pull that lever you are murdering the one. The questions isn't about how many people die, it's about how many YOU KILL.
User avatar #136 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
And since you have the power to save those 5 people, not saving them is exactly the same as killing them.
User avatar #137 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Wrong because though you could save them, the cost of taking that route is sinning, and to sin is wrong, therefore to avoid wrong you have to take another action. Sadly, in this constraining metaphor, there are no other actions, thus your only option is to let them die.

You are not responsible for their deaths if you do all you can short of sinning.
User avatar #138 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
That explains everything, I'm out.
User avatar #139 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Someone's full of assumptions.
User avatar #140 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Unless you were using "sin" as an abstract term, then it shows you have a belief in a supernatural element, which would mean you aren't rational enough to argue with.
User avatar #141 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
I know what you zeroed in on. And if think that's tail tell more than anything. But it's fine if you want to take that out from the argument.
User avatar #142 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
To be 100% fair, if there is a supernatural inherent characteristic of every action taken, and a force of ultimate knowledge and creation said that if you do an action it deems evil, for whatever reason, you'll spend an infinite amount of time in ultimate agony - then yes, you are right, it's better not to do anything in that situation.

And given how unrealistic that situation is, for a multitude of reasons, I find it impossible to respect the opinion of someone who believes such things.
User avatar #143 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I find it sad you don't have respect for all people, but that's just another thing we disagree on.
User avatar #144 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
It depends on what kind of respect I have for people; I don't think respect is a static defined thing. It's more like, "I look down upon that person's system of logic and understanding". I get along well with many such people I would consider completely retarded if other characteristics didn't exist. People aren't just their cosmology.
User avatar #145 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
You disregard a person as inherently wrong based on preconceived understandings of how their minds work based on their system of belief. I would say that's just about the same thing as not having enough respect for a person you don't know to give them the benefit of the doubt. You just assume you already know.
User avatar #146 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
Did you even read my last comment? That's literally the opposite of what I said.
User avatar #147 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Yes, I read it. You said you hold varying amounts of respect for different people. Your statements before that proved that those varying amounts come from what you understand that person to think and feel based on what you've heard about the group as a whole without caring to get to know that individual. It's all very telling.
User avatar #148 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
I hold varying amounts of respect for different people based on many factors, with certain qualities influencing that respect to varying degrees. For example: I look down on people who believe in ridiculous things more than I look down on someone who wears those ugly running shoes that nobody should ever wear. But neither of those are a deciding factor in my interaction with a person (except for a guy that I thought was cute until I saw him wearing his non-formal clothes, which included those shoes, and I haven't bothered to interact with him since)
User avatar #151 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
And I can't condone looking down on anyone. A person's words should be taken on equal ground with anyone else's because they all come from thinking human beings and while it's easy to get into the mind set that yours is the most intelligent and right brain you've ever read, it's also the only one you've ever sifted through.
But I really hope you aren't serious when you say you stopped interacting with someone because of the shoes they wear....
#129 - Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing. But y… 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
#127 - You're right, it would take more effort to help the starving k…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/29/2014 on Help me with this guys 0
User avatar #128 - demandsgayversion (09/29/2014) [-]
If you want to talk about what level of charity is acceptable/obligated of a person, that's fine, but that conversation is rather unrelated to the people on the tracks. What any one person feels of one situation shouldn't effect the other.

And there's a different situation where there's 5 people on a track with a train heading towards them, and you are above them with a stranger who's really really fat. You know that pushing him would derail the train, and save the 5 people. The difference being that you have to directly kill a person now, rather than indirectly through the lever, and you also have the option of jumping in front of the train yourself in hopes of stopping the train, which you may or may not. Very different situation from just a small twist.
User avatar #129 - Vandeekree (09/29/2014) [-]
Haven't heard the fat man one but it's amusing.

But you see, it is relevant. As you said, it's charity. It's a good deed. And that's what saving those people is, a good deed. A positive. But killing that one is a bad deed. And not doing bad things trumps doing any amount of good. Good is only a bonus, not a necessity. You do good when you can but not at all costs. On the other hand, avoiding wrong is a necessity. At all costs, you avoid doing wrong. That's what makes doing the wrong worse than not doing the right. That's why you can't kill to save a life.
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)