x
Click to expand

Vandeekree

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:4/21/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5628
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 4387 total,  6318 ,  1931
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 34% (34/100)
Level 240 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 241 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1868
FJ Points:3960

latest user's comments

#29 - Exactly my point. So there is no wrong then it's not "rig… 04/20/2013 on Righteous Path 0
#37 - And what am I supposed to glean from that? That's all fully tr…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/20/2013 on You've Got To Be Shipping Me +1
#40 - rotinaj (04/20/2013) [-]
Be chill. It's just a pretty badass thing.
User avatar #41 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Well could you explain your point a little more for me please?
#43 - rotinaj (04/20/2013) [-]
The ability to hear is a miracle. That's all.
User avatar #44 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Alright...well if that had anything to do with the post I'm afraid you lost me a bit.
#9 - But if that's true then every molecule you ever were remains y…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/20/2013 on Like a Deity 0
User avatar #16 - therollingstones (04/21/2013) [-]
Or maybe Evan is the collective electronic signals in his brain making up his personality, decisions, thoughts, and memories. So maybe Evan ceases to be when the brain waves and neurotransmitters in what was his brain stop transmitting
User avatar #21 - Vandeekree (04/21/2013) [-]
I might agree with that
#7 - But that's all a mix of theory and philosophy at this point. I…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/20/2013 on Like a Deity 0
User avatar #8 - charagrin (04/20/2013) [-]
But even deconstructed, you still ar. Just not in the form you were. Those molecules are still Evan, just like they are still dinosaur, and steve, and tree, and building.
User avatar #9 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
But if that's true then every molecule you ever were remains you after it leaves the pattern that is your body. If I remember right it is every 8 years that your body expels all that you were and you become everything you ate up until then, meaning that every atom you were before has been "pooped out" and now you are made of different "bits."

So what makes you you is not the particles that make you up, but also the pattern and form in which those particles are laid out. Once that pattern is completely deconstructed then that pile of molecules is no longer you and so you are no longer in existence.
User avatar #16 - therollingstones (04/21/2013) [-]
Or maybe Evan is the collective electronic signals in his brain making up his personality, decisions, thoughts, and memories. So maybe Evan ceases to be when the brain waves and neurotransmitters in what was his brain stop transmitting
User avatar #21 - Vandeekree (04/21/2013) [-]
I might agree with that
#25 - But no one does it out of nothing but choice. If I were to off…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/20/2013 on Righteous Path 0
User avatar #27 - catloverforlife (04/20/2013) [-]
You really believe that people can't do good in this world without the belief that they will get that reward, if you do I feel sorry for you. But I do understand what you mean, though the reward can be as simple as just feeling good because you did good, it doesnt have to be physical, or given to you by some higher being, or anything outside of your person.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I'm saying every action has a reaction. Every good deed is done because of the promise of reward or threat of punishment. If not, then what motivates an action?

It's like you're saying people do something for literally no reason.
User avatar #29 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Exactly my point. So there is no wrong then it's not "right" to not eat the cookie. Meaning that if there is no motivation for an action then that action won't occur. No one does anything for no reason.

So what definition of right and wrong is there that doesn't relate to punishment and reward? If there is no punishment nor negative outcome of an action, how can it be wrong? And if an action has no reward or benefit, how can it be right?

I think what is needed is a definition of "right" what you say that someone can do something right only because it is right.
User avatar #28 - cordlessorange (04/20/2013) [-]
Is this an Intelligent, calm, and civil religious discussion?
Didn't think those existed.
#26 - sabat has deleted their comment.
#34 - Is it really any of your business how a parent tries to protec… 04/20/2013 on You've Got To Be Shipping Me -1
#32 - A child is not going to see the difference. They will hear the…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/20/2013 on You've Got To Be Shipping Me 0
User avatar #33 - misfitsftw (04/20/2013) [-]
i cant stand overprotective moms though. and if they heard the sound and tried to repeat it, surely they'd still say "ship."
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Is it really any of your business how a parent tries to protect their child? Perhaps it's not how you would do it for your child, but there is something seriously wrong if your argument is that her complaining annoys you.

And perhaps the child would, but it doesn't exactly sound like the word shipping, it sounds like something else when it's repeated over and over like that. That is the joke and which do you think a child would pick up on? The innocent word shipping or that it's being used in a taboo way?
#30 - True, but surly you can agree that things learned at a young a…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/20/2013 on You've Got To Be Shipping Me 0
User avatar #31 - misfitsftw (04/20/2013) [-]
i guess but its not even like the ad uses a bad word; it says ship, and just because it sounds like a bad word, these bitch-moms want it removed from tv? i just dont see their logic. if they actually used "the s word", then I'd understand.
User avatar #32 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
A child is not going to see the difference. They will hear the sound, not understand the joke, and if nothing else, be introduced to the word when their parents don't want them too. I see something wrong with calling those mams who want to keep their children away from words like that "bitch-moms."

It's not like they want a show taken down, they could simply pay attention to when they show plays and not let their children watch it. This is a commercial, played at random times possibly on a channel their kids could watch. Thus they are complaining that it is inappropriate for common "family friendly" tv and people seem to think they don't have a right to speak out against it.
User avatar #33 - misfitsftw (04/20/2013) [-]
i cant stand overprotective moms though. and if they heard the sound and tried to repeat it, surely they'd still say "ship."
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Is it really any of your business how a parent tries to protect their child? Perhaps it's not how you would do it for your child, but there is something seriously wrong if your argument is that her complaining annoys you.

And perhaps the child would, but it doesn't exactly sound like the word shipping, it sounds like something else when it's repeated over and over like that. That is the joke and which do you think a child would pick up on? The innocent word shipping or that it's being used in a taboo way?
#4 - But can you still call that Evan? Or is it a puddle of organic…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/20/2013 on Like a Deity 0
User avatar #6 - charagrin (04/20/2013) [-]
Ah, but according to modern Quantum Mechanics, everything that has ever or will ever exist already exists. Since he existed at one time, he will always exist as he was, as he is now, and as he will be in the future.
#11 - anonymous (04/21/2013) [-]
You know nothing of quantum theory, just stop.
User avatar #7 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
But that's all a mix of theory and philosophy at this point. In real observable practicality. Once your body is deconstructed, you cease to be.
User avatar #8 - charagrin (04/20/2013) [-]
But even deconstructed, you still ar. Just not in the form you were. Those molecules are still Evan, just like they are still dinosaur, and steve, and tree, and building.
User avatar #9 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
But if that's true then every molecule you ever were remains you after it leaves the pattern that is your body. If I remember right it is every 8 years that your body expels all that you were and you become everything you ate up until then, meaning that every atom you were before has been "pooped out" and now you are made of different "bits."

So what makes you you is not the particles that make you up, but also the pattern and form in which those particles are laid out. Once that pattern is completely deconstructed then that pile of molecules is no longer you and so you are no longer in existence.
User avatar #16 - therollingstones (04/21/2013) [-]
Or maybe Evan is the collective electronic signals in his brain making up his personality, decisions, thoughts, and memories. So maybe Evan ceases to be when the brain waves and neurotransmitters in what was his brain stop transmitting
User avatar #21 - Vandeekree (04/21/2013) [-]
I might agree with that
#10 - Is it boring to just say I think primates would just do it again? 04/20/2013 on lol 4chan +2
#22 - Well I don't have kids, I am merely trying to understand why f… 04/20/2013 on You've Got To Be Shipping Me -1
#18 - I've seen similar things to this before and it seems like he's…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/20/2013 on Righteous Path 0
User avatar #23 - catloverforlife (04/20/2013) [-]
I'm not sure, with and without religion what is considered to be 'right' is generally the same across the board. I think it's a matter of doing good out of personal choice rather than based on the ideal that you may be rewarded for your actions. But that's just my perception, and it's how I live my life.
User avatar #25 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
But no one does it out of nothing but choice. If I were to offer you a cookie and told you that eating it was wrong bu could prove that if you did eat it nothing bad would ever happen, in fact it would be delicious. Would you still eat it?

Punishment and reward go hand in hand with morality. If there is an action that has no reward and no punishment then you simply wouldn't do it. Even "selfless acts" reward you with the good feeling you get from doing them.
User avatar #27 - catloverforlife (04/20/2013) [-]
You really believe that people can't do good in this world without the belief that they will get that reward, if you do I feel sorry for you. But I do understand what you mean, though the reward can be as simple as just feeling good because you did good, it doesnt have to be physical, or given to you by some higher being, or anything outside of your person.
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I'm saying every action has a reaction. Every good deed is done because of the promise of reward or threat of punishment. If not, then what motivates an action?

It's like you're saying people do something for literally no reason.
User avatar #29 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Exactly my point. So there is no wrong then it's not "right" to not eat the cookie. Meaning that if there is no motivation for an action then that action won't occur. No one does anything for no reason.

So what definition of right and wrong is there that doesn't relate to punishment and reward? If there is no punishment nor negative outcome of an action, how can it be wrong? And if an action has no reward or benefit, how can it be right?

I think what is needed is a definition of "right" what you say that someone can do something right only because it is right.
User avatar #28 - cordlessorange (04/20/2013) [-]
Is this an Intelligent, calm, and civil religious discussion?
Didn't think those existed.
#26 - sabat has deleted their comment.
#17 - I have to agree to a point. I mean these women(at least the on…  [+] (22 new replies) 04/20/2013 on You've Got To Be Shipping Me -5
User avatar #128 - theturkeyburger (04/21/2013) [-]
I disagree with the whole "Keep your kids from swear words" because that's a lot of what they're going to hear when they get older, might as well expose them to normal social interaction
User avatar #136 - Vandeekree (04/21/2013) [-]
And where you and some parents would disagree is that swear words are necessary for normal interaction.
User avatar #137 - theturkeyburger (04/21/2013) [-]
The fact of the matter is that people end up cursing without giving a shit anyways, and we're just wasting time telling them not to
User avatar #149 - Vandeekree (04/21/2013) [-]
But it remains that those are bad words that the parents don't want their children exposed too. It really doesn't matter whether you think it's right or wrong, it's that the parents of those children think it's wrong.
User avatar #150 - theturkeyburger (04/21/2013) [-]
I'm saying that I don't get it. Not trying to change their opinions.
#36 - rotinaj (04/20/2013) [-]
Think about it man. Vibrations (sound) on a child's collection of cells (ears) transmit chemical signals to other collections of cells (brain). The wrong vibrations can harm their health. Think about it.
User avatar #37 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
And what am I supposed to glean from that? That's all fully true I suppose. The right stimuli entering their brains can cause a reaction that is undesired by the parent. Causing a child that knows about curse words and thus curses.
#40 - rotinaj (04/20/2013) [-]
Be chill. It's just a pretty badass thing.
User avatar #41 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Well could you explain your point a little more for me please?
#43 - rotinaj (04/20/2013) [-]
The ability to hear is a miracle. That's all.
User avatar #44 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Alright...well if that had anything to do with the post I'm afraid you lost me a bit.
User avatar #28 - misfitsftw (04/20/2013) [-]
why do these children need protecting? they're only gonna hear it somewhere else sooner or later. they're only delaying the inevitable...
User avatar #30 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
True, but surly you can agree that things learned at a young age might effect the child negatively. Some things are better left until a later age when the mature child can be introduced to things like sex and offensive language in a way they fully understand instead of letting them learn it and then say the words they don't even understand the meaning behind.
But more importantly, shouldn't it be the parent's choice to pick what the child sees at that age? Should they be scolded for speaking out against commercials their child might see that contain language they deem harmful?
User avatar #31 - misfitsftw (04/20/2013) [-]
i guess but its not even like the ad uses a bad word; it says ship, and just because it sounds like a bad word, these bitch-moms want it removed from tv? i just dont see their logic. if they actually used "the s word", then I'd understand.
User avatar #32 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
A child is not going to see the difference. They will hear the sound, not understand the joke, and if nothing else, be introduced to the word when their parents don't want them too. I see something wrong with calling those mams who want to keep their children away from words like that "bitch-moms."

It's not like they want a show taken down, they could simply pay attention to when they show plays and not let their children watch it. This is a commercial, played at random times possibly on a channel their kids could watch. Thus they are complaining that it is inappropriate for common "family friendly" tv and people seem to think they don't have a right to speak out against it.
User avatar #33 - misfitsftw (04/20/2013) [-]
i cant stand overprotective moms though. and if they heard the sound and tried to repeat it, surely they'd still say "ship."
User avatar #34 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Is it really any of your business how a parent tries to protect their child? Perhaps it's not how you would do it for your child, but there is something seriously wrong if your argument is that her complaining annoys you.

And perhaps the child would, but it doesn't exactly sound like the word shipping, it sounds like something else when it's repeated over and over like that. That is the joke and which do you think a child would pick up on? The innocent word shipping or that it's being used in a taboo way?
#21 - anonymous (04/20/2013) [-]
Commercials during kids shows are always geared for kids, like toys and other kid shows. Commercials don't just get played randomly, they have to buy the time slot. A kids station or a station that plays kids shows will not allow a commercial like that to be played during kid shows.

Have you ever seen a Girls gone wild commercial during a kids show?
#20 - monkeyheadbsc (04/20/2013) [-]
How are they protecting anyone by requesting to ban a commercial with words that sound like swearwords. I mean, I don't get why you americans are so strict about cursing in the first place, but this has another aspect.

So I imagine you don't want your kids to learn "bad words" by TV or anything. So there are two possibilities:

1st: The kid already knows the word shit and unterstands the term "shit ones pants" and therefore get's the joke. But he/she already knew it, so no problem.

2nd: The kid doesn't know of the word shit. Then why would he unterstand this word in the first place? You only hear/see the things you know. Have you never experienced that lyrics in songs were "different" when you were younger? You could only fill what you heard with what you already knew. It's the same here. The kid hears "shipped my pants" because it's the word he knows that fits. There is no connection to any other word (shit) for him/her to make.

tl;dr: I don't think this has an influence on your kid
User avatar #22 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Well I don't have kids, I am merely trying to understand why funnyjunk seems to be so against the thought of a mother complaining about the contents of commercials.

But I would disagree with you. Children have an uncanny ability to pick up on words being used in ways that are tongue in cheek. They tend to pick out words that are "bad" words and kind of use them to test social limits. That is part of the reasoning behind the philosophy that these women don't want their children even exposed to that kind of language until they have matured enough to handle it. And even if the child down't know the word "shipped" to be close to a bad word, they would still pick up on the fact it's being used in such a way, repeated over and over, and thus not understand and it might very well stick in their underdeveloped minds. The point is there's a risk of it happening and that's why it is being spoken out about.

But children aside, i think the main issue is actually more about whether the mom's should be complaining about the commercial at all. Maybe it hurts kids, maybe it doesn't, but they are undoubtedly worried about it hurting their kids. But when they complain about it everyone gets riled up as though they are encroaching on some right. I agree everyone has the right of freedom of speech but if there is even a slight risk that the commercial really is hurting children's minds then it seems to me that the right thing to do would be to say "we could show this, but we've decided not too to ensure no harm is done." Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should exercise it all the times. Unless of course everyone seems to think this joke is just incredibly funny and needs to be gotten out to the public...
User avatar #18 - Eralus (04/20/2013) [-]
I've witnessed children as young as 7 and 8 cussing like a 40 year old sailor. I don't think banning T.V. would be a bad move for some of these overdeveloped cumshots.
User avatar #29 - misfitsftw (04/20/2013) [-]
i remember being four years old and i saw another kid tell a teacher to fuck off. he was also four.
#1239 - I would disagree, you see you explain something over and over … 04/20/2013 on co-existion is possible 0
#464 - A lot like krznixtkransj said a few comments below. If you get… 04/20/2013 on Boston all the time 0
#1237 - Interesting, so your point is that we all should make up our m…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/20/2013 on co-existion is possible 0
#1238 - ackbobthedead (04/20/2013) [-]
You clearly are not understanding what I am saying, because you keep saying basically the same thing over again.

Bye, Christfag.
User avatar #1239 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I would disagree, you see you explain something over and over in different words to someone who doesn't understand what you're saying, not when you yourself don't understand.

But I'm sorry if you're not enjoying our little debate, I was finding it interesting. Have a good day.
#1233 - So then right and wrong, for you, is simply what the masses sa…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/19/2013 on co-existion is possible 0
#1234 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
Not always. If something is wrong, we will all see that eventually. Humans need to make up their own minds, we can't just live our lives by some story book.
User avatar #1237 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Interesting, so your point is that we all should make up our minds on what is right and wrong UNLESS you made up your mind based on a book written by God, in which case you are wrong and clearly not using your own mind?

I can't help but ask you to look at the real world to justify your point. Has there ever been a point in history in which everyone agreed on what was right? Can we ever all agree on what is right if we just say "right is what you feel like it should be?"

What about those people who are sure racism is right? Or those who see nothing wrong with murder? If you say you have a valid idea of right and wrong based on how you feel, then how can you discount everyone else's feelings? That has to include those who think the right way to live is that all people murder who they want and steal if they can get away with it. There are people who have exact opposite beliefs of what is right and wrong than you do. But you feel no sympathy that they are considered outcasts and their beliefs are outlawed simply because you agree with what the current laws holds as right.

You see, that way of thinking is arbitrary and leaves literally anything open to be called righteous and anything to be called evil and immoral. It's arbitrary and has no back bone, nothing to back it up. At least my story book has reason behind all of its laws and rules while you apparently pull your morals out of thin air and then make fun that mine come from a book.
#1238 - ackbobthedead (04/20/2013) [-]
You clearly are not understanding what I am saying, because you keep saying basically the same thing over again.

Bye, Christfag.
User avatar #1239 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I would disagree, you see you explain something over and over in different words to someone who doesn't understand what you're saying, not when you yourself don't understand.

But I'm sorry if you're not enjoying our little debate, I was finding it interesting. Have a good day.
#1229 - But what if two people's common sense contradict? You see just…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/19/2013 on co-existion is possible 0
#1232 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
That's why humans are social creatures. We talk to each other and learn if something bothers the other. One person may want to commit murder, but it's unnatural for a mammal, as far as I know, to kill a member of the same species. We don't need a book to tell us that harming someone or stealing is wrong. It's simply unhealthy if you can't understand what's blatantly right and wrong. Some people have different ideas of what's right and wrong, yes, but those people just need to speak with others around them and be social and someones ideals will change, hopefully for the better.
User avatar #1233 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
So then right and wrong, for you, is simply what the masses say is right and wrong? Do you see no flaw in that?
#1234 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
Not always. If something is wrong, we will all see that eventually. Humans need to make up their own minds, we can't just live our lives by some story book.
User avatar #1237 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Interesting, so your point is that we all should make up our minds on what is right and wrong UNLESS you made up your mind based on a book written by God, in which case you are wrong and clearly not using your own mind?

I can't help but ask you to look at the real world to justify your point. Has there ever been a point in history in which everyone agreed on what was right? Can we ever all agree on what is right if we just say "right is what you feel like it should be?"

What about those people who are sure racism is right? Or those who see nothing wrong with murder? If you say you have a valid idea of right and wrong based on how you feel, then how can you discount everyone else's feelings? That has to include those who think the right way to live is that all people murder who they want and steal if they can get away with it. There are people who have exact opposite beliefs of what is right and wrong than you do. But you feel no sympathy that they are considered outcasts and their beliefs are outlawed simply because you agree with what the current laws holds as right.

You see, that way of thinking is arbitrary and leaves literally anything open to be called righteous and anything to be called evil and immoral. It's arbitrary and has no back bone, nothing to back it up. At least my story book has reason behind all of its laws and rules while you apparently pull your morals out of thin air and then make fun that mine come from a book.
#1238 - ackbobthedead (04/20/2013) [-]
You clearly are not understanding what I am saying, because you keep saying basically the same thing over again.

Bye, Christfag.
User avatar #1239 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I would disagree, you see you explain something over and over in different words to someone who doesn't understand what you're saying, not when you yourself don't understand.

But I'm sorry if you're not enjoying our little debate, I was finding it interesting. Have a good day.
#1223 - Wait, did you just accuse me of thinking people who believe di…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/18/2013 on co-existion is possible 0
#1225 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
If you need some manual to what's wrong, then you have problems. You have to use your common sense to tell if something is wrong. The bible says we should Stone divorced women, but we use common sense to say that the bible is wrong. And believe me, the bible IS wrong.
User avatar #1229 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
But what if two people's common sense contradict? You see just going on your feelings on something means that morality can simply change with your feelings. It's arbitrary and based on literally thin air. If a man convinces himself that murder is ok then does that make it so?
#1232 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
That's why humans are social creatures. We talk to each other and learn if something bothers the other. One person may want to commit murder, but it's unnatural for a mammal, as far as I know, to kill a member of the same species. We don't need a book to tell us that harming someone or stealing is wrong. It's simply unhealthy if you can't understand what's blatantly right and wrong. Some people have different ideas of what's right and wrong, yes, but those people just need to speak with others around them and be social and someones ideals will change, hopefully for the better.
User avatar #1233 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
So then right and wrong, for you, is simply what the masses say is right and wrong? Do you see no flaw in that?
#1234 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
Not always. If something is wrong, we will all see that eventually. Humans need to make up their own minds, we can't just live our lives by some story book.
User avatar #1237 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Interesting, so your point is that we all should make up our minds on what is right and wrong UNLESS you made up your mind based on a book written by God, in which case you are wrong and clearly not using your own mind?

I can't help but ask you to look at the real world to justify your point. Has there ever been a point in history in which everyone agreed on what was right? Can we ever all agree on what is right if we just say "right is what you feel like it should be?"

What about those people who are sure racism is right? Or those who see nothing wrong with murder? If you say you have a valid idea of right and wrong based on how you feel, then how can you discount everyone else's feelings? That has to include those who think the right way to live is that all people murder who they want and steal if they can get away with it. There are people who have exact opposite beliefs of what is right and wrong than you do. But you feel no sympathy that they are considered outcasts and their beliefs are outlawed simply because you agree with what the current laws holds as right.

You see, that way of thinking is arbitrary and leaves literally anything open to be called righteous and anything to be called evil and immoral. It's arbitrary and has no back bone, nothing to back it up. At least my story book has reason behind all of its laws and rules while you apparently pull your morals out of thin air and then make fun that mine come from a book.
#1238 - ackbobthedead (04/20/2013) [-]
You clearly are not understanding what I am saying, because you keep saying basically the same thing over again.

Bye, Christfag.
User avatar #1239 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I would disagree, you see you explain something over and over in different words to someone who doesn't understand what you're saying, not when you yourself don't understand.

But I'm sorry if you're not enjoying our little debate, I was finding it interesting. Have a good day.
#1216 - That felt a bit mocking but I assure you that everything i say…  [+] (10 new replies) 04/18/2013 on co-existion is possible 0
#1217 - ackbobthedead (04/18/2013) [-]
There is no moral harm from gay sex xD
Sure, people who are sex addicts may want to have sex with males, but that's because they're just looking for a hole to fuck. They don't represent the homosexual community. Silly Bible thumper. From where I come from, people who talk about the Bible as if it's not just a story book are either taken as if they're kidding, or assumed to be crazy. You, too, are tainted with that book with thoughts of people who don't live and think exactly like you have some kind of mental illness. Grow Up.
User avatar #1223 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
Wait, did you just accuse me of thinking people who believe differently to be mental right after saying that where you come from people who think differently are are considered mental?

And if you want to get into it, there's no moral harm to anything without God. What makes gay sex wrong? God said it was wrong. What makes murder wrong? God said it was wrong. Aside from that you can't give a reason that anything is wrong. You can say that murder hurts people, but what makes hurting people wrong?
#1225 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
If you need some manual to what's wrong, then you have problems. You have to use your common sense to tell if something is wrong. The bible says we should Stone divorced women, but we use common sense to say that the bible is wrong. And believe me, the bible IS wrong.
User avatar #1229 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
But what if two people's common sense contradict? You see just going on your feelings on something means that morality can simply change with your feelings. It's arbitrary and based on literally thin air. If a man convinces himself that murder is ok then does that make it so?
#1232 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
That's why humans are social creatures. We talk to each other and learn if something bothers the other. One person may want to commit murder, but it's unnatural for a mammal, as far as I know, to kill a member of the same species. We don't need a book to tell us that harming someone or stealing is wrong. It's simply unhealthy if you can't understand what's blatantly right and wrong. Some people have different ideas of what's right and wrong, yes, but those people just need to speak with others around them and be social and someones ideals will change, hopefully for the better.
User avatar #1233 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
So then right and wrong, for you, is simply what the masses say is right and wrong? Do you see no flaw in that?
#1234 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
Not always. If something is wrong, we will all see that eventually. Humans need to make up their own minds, we can't just live our lives by some story book.
User avatar #1237 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Interesting, so your point is that we all should make up our minds on what is right and wrong UNLESS you made up your mind based on a book written by God, in which case you are wrong and clearly not using your own mind?

I can't help but ask you to look at the real world to justify your point. Has there ever been a point in history in which everyone agreed on what was right? Can we ever all agree on what is right if we just say "right is what you feel like it should be?"

What about those people who are sure racism is right? Or those who see nothing wrong with murder? If you say you have a valid idea of right and wrong based on how you feel, then how can you discount everyone else's feelings? That has to include those who think the right way to live is that all people murder who they want and steal if they can get away with it. There are people who have exact opposite beliefs of what is right and wrong than you do. But you feel no sympathy that they are considered outcasts and their beliefs are outlawed simply because you agree with what the current laws holds as right.

You see, that way of thinking is arbitrary and leaves literally anything open to be called righteous and anything to be called evil and immoral. It's arbitrary and has no back bone, nothing to back it up. At least my story book has reason behind all of its laws and rules while you apparently pull your morals out of thin air and then make fun that mine come from a book.
#1238 - ackbobthedead (04/20/2013) [-]
You clearly are not understanding what I am saying, because you keep saying basically the same thing over again.

Bye, Christfag.
User avatar #1239 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I would disagree, you see you explain something over and over in different words to someone who doesn't understand what you're saying, not when you yourself don't understand.

But I'm sorry if you're not enjoying our little debate, I was finding it interesting. Have a good day.
#4 - *if it's used for the good of mankind. 04/18/2013 on science 0
#1214 - Yes, having gay sex is both mentally, and can be physically …  [+] (12 new replies) 04/18/2013 on co-existion is possible 0
#1215 - ackbobthedead (04/18/2013) [-]
I'm sorry Satan has gotten to you :(
I know it's hard to tell, because he's so tricky, and you would never admit it, because no one who has let Satan into their souls would admit it.
we'll pray for you....poor thing. :(
User avatar #1216 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
That felt a bit mocking but I assure you that everything i say is taken directly from the bible(new testament)
But if you don't care about moral harm you do to yourself them look at the non religious based studies. The trends and data are unmistakable. There is simply a massively higher rate of mental illness and disease in people who are willing to have gay sex.
#1217 - ackbobthedead (04/18/2013) [-]
There is no moral harm from gay sex xD
Sure, people who are sex addicts may want to have sex with males, but that's because they're just looking for a hole to fuck. They don't represent the homosexual community. Silly Bible thumper. From where I come from, people who talk about the Bible as if it's not just a story book are either taken as if they're kidding, or assumed to be crazy. You, too, are tainted with that book with thoughts of people who don't live and think exactly like you have some kind of mental illness. Grow Up.
User avatar #1223 - Vandeekree (04/18/2013) [-]
Wait, did you just accuse me of thinking people who believe differently to be mental right after saying that where you come from people who think differently are are considered mental?

And if you want to get into it, there's no moral harm to anything without God. What makes gay sex wrong? God said it was wrong. What makes murder wrong? God said it was wrong. Aside from that you can't give a reason that anything is wrong. You can say that murder hurts people, but what makes hurting people wrong?
#1225 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
If you need some manual to what's wrong, then you have problems. You have to use your common sense to tell if something is wrong. The bible says we should Stone divorced women, but we use common sense to say that the bible is wrong. And believe me, the bible IS wrong.
User avatar #1229 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
But what if two people's common sense contradict? You see just going on your feelings on something means that morality can simply change with your feelings. It's arbitrary and based on literally thin air. If a man convinces himself that murder is ok then does that make it so?
#1232 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
That's why humans are social creatures. We talk to each other and learn if something bothers the other. One person may want to commit murder, but it's unnatural for a mammal, as far as I know, to kill a member of the same species. We don't need a book to tell us that harming someone or stealing is wrong. It's simply unhealthy if you can't understand what's blatantly right and wrong. Some people have different ideas of what's right and wrong, yes, but those people just need to speak with others around them and be social and someones ideals will change, hopefully for the better.
User avatar #1233 - Vandeekree (04/19/2013) [-]
So then right and wrong, for you, is simply what the masses say is right and wrong? Do you see no flaw in that?
#1234 - ackbobthedead (04/19/2013) [-]
Not always. If something is wrong, we will all see that eventually. Humans need to make up their own minds, we can't just live our lives by some story book.
User avatar #1237 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
Interesting, so your point is that we all should make up our minds on what is right and wrong UNLESS you made up your mind based on a book written by God, in which case you are wrong and clearly not using your own mind?

I can't help but ask you to look at the real world to justify your point. Has there ever been a point in history in which everyone agreed on what was right? Can we ever all agree on what is right if we just say "right is what you feel like it should be?"

What about those people who are sure racism is right? Or those who see nothing wrong with murder? If you say you have a valid idea of right and wrong based on how you feel, then how can you discount everyone else's feelings? That has to include those who think the right way to live is that all people murder who they want and steal if they can get away with it. There are people who have exact opposite beliefs of what is right and wrong than you do. But you feel no sympathy that they are considered outcasts and their beliefs are outlawed simply because you agree with what the current laws holds as right.

You see, that way of thinking is arbitrary and leaves literally anything open to be called righteous and anything to be called evil and immoral. It's arbitrary and has no back bone, nothing to back it up. At least my story book has reason behind all of its laws and rules while you apparently pull your morals out of thin air and then make fun that mine come from a book.
#1238 - ackbobthedead (04/20/2013) [-]
You clearly are not understanding what I am saying, because you keep saying basically the same thing over again.

Bye, Christfag.
User avatar #1239 - Vandeekree (04/20/2013) [-]
I would disagree, you see you explain something over and over in different words to someone who doesn't understand what you're saying, not when you yourself don't understand.

But I'm sorry if you're not enjoying our little debate, I was finding it interesting. Have a good day.
#27 - For me, the absurdity of white Jesus didn't sink in until the …  [+] (2 new replies) 04/17/2013 on White Jesus +31
#48 - azraelthemage (04/17/2013) [-]
#28 - dosburritos (04/17/2013) [-]
there's also Native American Jesus
#13 - It's almost like these games and movies are marketed for a spe… 04/16/2013 on Gear up! +6
#53 - I get where you're coming from, nothing is sacred on the inter… 04/16/2013 on I'm ready for your butt hurt +2

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000
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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree ONLINE (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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)