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

hide menu

Vandeekree

Rank #7896 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:12/24/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7896
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

#3 - What is this crap? Here in America we only show the globe wher…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/01/2013 on Just the earth 0
User avatar #4 - lube (02/02/2013) [-]
Sorry, where are you from again?
#1 - Darwin is the best scientist you could think of for this? 02/01/2013 on Yes it is 0
#11 - Respect 01/31/2013 on . +1
#22 - No, the chicken came first, the egg came from a not-chicken so… 01/30/2013 on well.... I guess that's that -2
#21 - I'm thinking about giving up on my religion so I can start doi… 01/29/2013 on Your move Jesus 0
#5 - Yes, that's what i was attempting to say. Thanks 01/27/2013 on God loves us all! +1
#3 - "God will never give you more than you can handle" i…  [+] (3 new replies) 01/27/2013 on God loves us all! +2
#8 - Bohya (01/27/2013) [-]
#4 - mrzomgomg (01/27/2013) [-]
I Corinthians 10:13
what you have in quotation is an out of context paraphrase of this verse.
but it's close enough that people throw it around like it talks about more than temptation.
User avatar #5 - Vandeekree (01/27/2013) [-]
Yes, that's what i was attempting to say. Thanks
#164 - Well then, the basis for science is people(scientists) saying … 01/26/2013 on We got a badass here 0
#115 - i agree with most of what you're saying but the fact that the …  [+] (1 new reply) 01/26/2013 on We got a badass here 0
#120 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
...........proof is a taboo word in science. Any scientist will tell you that science doesn't PROVE anything, it just comes up with explanations for observable trends. Evolution is the smallest circle that fits around a group of pegs, not a guess. Gravity is a theory, it is an explanation, a very fucking good one I might add, for the phenomenon of objects of mass attracting each other, including rules for determining the strength of the pool and the properties that make these phenomenon occur. Just like evolution, it is the best explanation available given all the evidence that explains how organisms change over time, given that we sure as shit know they do.
#81 - I'd rebutle, but you're anon  [+] (7 new replies) 01/26/2013 on We got a badass here 0
#125 - sirchopchop (01/26/2013) [-]
Sorry, forgot to login
User avatar #164 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
Well then, the basis for science is people(scientists) saying they observed something and think it means this. Religion works the same way, people from ancient times claimed to have observed things that were shown to them by God. It's rather hard to prove that so that's where faith comes in, you decide if you believe them or not, in the same way, when a scientist makes a claim it is up to the individual to decide if they agree and believe what that scientist says or not based on the things he claims
#87 - AnonymousDonor (01/26/2013) [-]
"rebuttal"

also, while i think anon's statement is retarded and might warrant a rebuttal, i shall instead go to your first one and say that, while i certainly agree with you and you are quite correct, the mere truth that science isnt absolute fact is also an issue;
when people present the ideas of evolution and global warming, the corporate-funded politicians immediately poke into the natural uncertainties like how evolution is a theory and how global warming is a possibility and they use that to exploit the natural terrified psychology of the average person - namely, that they look only for absolute certainty and will not back evolution or GW unless it's 100% truth

which sucks because a scientific "theory" is as close to 100% fact as you can get, and the political exploitation of the non-science world is the reason why we didn't solve global warming 40 years ago, and why there are still idiots on the internet who think that religion is somehow contradictory to science and evolution

i dont know if thats where you were going with your point, but i felt it needed to be said
#116 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
Most people don't understand the word theory, because the literal context, which is how any scientist worth his salt will use, is vastly different than how it is used colloquially. A theory is the simplest explanation that only needs the given, observed facts to be true. When normal people here the word theory, they think that it's a guess that scientists are trying to find evidence to support.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
i agree with most of what you're saying but the fact that the media uses fear mongering does not take away from the fact that these scientific facts are only the conclusion drawn by people, fallible people. So it is perfectly legitimate to say that you don't believe in evolution because it remains unproveable(probably a word) and so even if people put together evidence. My only point that this man is wrong when he says science deals in fact, science deals in evidence and makes the best guesses it can and to discount anything goes against science.
#120 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
...........proof is a taboo word in science. Any scientist will tell you that science doesn't PROVE anything, it just comes up with explanations for observable trends. Evolution is the smallest circle that fits around a group of pegs, not a guess. Gravity is a theory, it is an explanation, a very fucking good one I might add, for the phenomenon of objects of mass attracting each other, including rules for determining the strength of the pool and the properties that make these phenomenon occur. Just like evolution, it is the best explanation available given all the evidence that explains how organisms change over time, given that we sure as shit know they do.
#112 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
and the word is rebut. One rebuts with a rebuttal.
#73 - Part of science is that it always accepts that it might be wro…  [+] (9 new replies) 01/26/2013 on We got a badass here +2
#78 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
And religion goes based off of what priests said thousands of years ago, and refuses to accept new ideas.


At least science looks for answers
User avatar #81 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
I'd rebutle, but you're anon
#125 - sirchopchop (01/26/2013) [-]
Sorry, forgot to login
User avatar #164 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
Well then, the basis for science is people(scientists) saying they observed something and think it means this. Religion works the same way, people from ancient times claimed to have observed things that were shown to them by God. It's rather hard to prove that so that's where faith comes in, you decide if you believe them or not, in the same way, when a scientist makes a claim it is up to the individual to decide if they agree and believe what that scientist says or not based on the things he claims
#87 - AnonymousDonor (01/26/2013) [-]
"rebuttal"

also, while i think anon's statement is retarded and might warrant a rebuttal, i shall instead go to your first one and say that, while i certainly agree with you and you are quite correct, the mere truth that science isnt absolute fact is also an issue;
when people present the ideas of evolution and global warming, the corporate-funded politicians immediately poke into the natural uncertainties like how evolution is a theory and how global warming is a possibility and they use that to exploit the natural terrified psychology of the average person - namely, that they look only for absolute certainty and will not back evolution or GW unless it's 100% truth

which sucks because a scientific "theory" is as close to 100% fact as you can get, and the political exploitation of the non-science world is the reason why we didn't solve global warming 40 years ago, and why there are still idiots on the internet who think that religion is somehow contradictory to science and evolution

i dont know if thats where you were going with your point, but i felt it needed to be said
#116 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
Most people don't understand the word theory, because the literal context, which is how any scientist worth his salt will use, is vastly different than how it is used colloquially. A theory is the simplest explanation that only needs the given, observed facts to be true. When normal people here the word theory, they think that it's a guess that scientists are trying to find evidence to support.
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
i agree with most of what you're saying but the fact that the media uses fear mongering does not take away from the fact that these scientific facts are only the conclusion drawn by people, fallible people. So it is perfectly legitimate to say that you don't believe in evolution because it remains unproveable(probably a word) and so even if people put together evidence. My only point that this man is wrong when he says science deals in fact, science deals in evidence and makes the best guesses it can and to discount anything goes against science.
#120 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
...........proof is a taboo word in science. Any scientist will tell you that science doesn't PROVE anything, it just comes up with explanations for observable trends. Evolution is the smallest circle that fits around a group of pegs, not a guess. Gravity is a theory, it is an explanation, a very fucking good one I might add, for the phenomenon of objects of mass attracting each other, including rules for determining the strength of the pool and the properties that make these phenomenon occur. Just like evolution, it is the best explanation available given all the evidence that explains how organisms change over time, given that we sure as shit know they do.
#112 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
and the word is rebut. One rebuts with a rebuttal.
#29 - See, that's the problem right there, when you talk about it yo…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/26/2013 on What a Dick -25
#57 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
i personally take my anger out in my games so if my violent games were to be taken away i guess i would just have to get my anger out through realistic violence
User avatar #32 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I am assuming no one is a victim. I am simply stating that both parties obviously have a bias and one can not discredit the views of the other simply because their motives seem less noble.
#27 - I believe his point was that, sense gamers are only speaking a…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/26/2013 on What a Dick -20
User avatar #28 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I don't blame people for speaking out against something they sincerely believe is causing harm. That is not the issue. This issue is this: Group A believes Object Z is dangerous and wants it banned. They will therefore collect evidence to prove that point. Group B believes Object Z is not dangerous and do not want it banned, and will therefore wish to provide contradictory evidence. As both groups have a personal interest in whether or not Object Z is banned, it is unreasonable to accept evidence from one while refusing the other. Your statement about "wanting best for society" does not come into play. If the videogame enthusiasts sincerely believe the accusations being lobbied against something they hold dear are unjust, then they have every right to defend it.
User avatar #29 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
See, that's the problem right there, when you talk about it you assume video games are the victims of this and that the people who prosecute are just uptight and looking for something to blame. You and i have bias, and thus have nothing valid to say on the issue.
#57 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
i personally take my anger out in my games so if my violent games were to be taken away i guess i would just have to get my anger out through realistic violence
User avatar #32 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I am assuming no one is a victim. I am simply stating that both parties obviously have a bias and one can not discredit the views of the other simply because their motives seem less noble.
#24 - Because the safety and well being of her child takes precedenc…  [+] (8 new replies) 01/25/2013 on What a Dick -32
#46 - deadlyambitions (01/26/2013) [-]
okay ur no allowed to drive cuz i dont approve of ur driving, u cant hav a steak knife cuz my kid might get hurt. stfu its their parents fault never the games. if the parent cant eve be like he isnt mature enough for that game nope well that family deserves for its kid to do something stupid
#62 - javalavalay (01/26/2013) [-]
Nigga, don't jump in an argument with your illiterate ways, You're not needed what so ever.
User avatar #26 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
Unless there is hard evidence to prove that something - whether it be a film or a game or anything at all - is an active threat to society, it is completely unreasonable to expect it to be banned on the testimony of one person or group alone and even more unreasonable to ban those who take the opposite view from entering the debate.
User avatar #27 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
I believe his point was that, sense gamers are only speaking against this because they want video games to be kept free, not because they are thinking about what is best for society, then that selfish motive makes them unfit to speak about whether games cause violence, they have nothing to base it on besides their opinions.
While the people speaking against the games think the games are causing harm and you simply can't blaim someone for speaking against something they think is causing harm to others.
User avatar #28 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I don't blame people for speaking out against something they sincerely believe is causing harm. That is not the issue. This issue is this: Group A believes Object Z is dangerous and wants it banned. They will therefore collect evidence to prove that point. Group B believes Object Z is not dangerous and do not want it banned, and will therefore wish to provide contradictory evidence. As both groups have a personal interest in whether or not Object Z is banned, it is unreasonable to accept evidence from one while refusing the other. Your statement about "wanting best for society" does not come into play. If the videogame enthusiasts sincerely believe the accusations being lobbied against something they hold dear are unjust, then they have every right to defend it.
User avatar #29 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
See, that's the problem right there, when you talk about it you assume video games are the victims of this and that the people who prosecute are just uptight and looking for something to blame. You and i have bias, and thus have nothing valid to say on the issue.
#57 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
i personally take my anger out in my games so if my violent games were to be taken away i guess i would just have to get my anger out through realistic violence
User avatar #32 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I am assuming no one is a victim. I am simply stating that both parties obviously have a bias and one can not discredit the views of the other simply because their motives seem less noble.
#22 - Who can he speak for? Others? Has he done and research? Any st…  [+] (10 new replies) 01/25/2013 on What a Dick -31
User avatar #23 - TheFreak (01/25/2013) [-]
Why should the mom be allowed to speak against it? She has not looked into the genre or its effects on children either, she has simply watched a few scenes and decided that it was bad and should be banned. He is as qualified to speak on the effects of the genre as she is and perhaps more so because his hobby leads him to have more information on the subject.
User avatar #24 - Vandeekree (01/25/2013) [-]
Because the safety and well being of her child takes precedence over the avalibility of the movie enthusiast's hobby. She has a concern for her child's mental health and thus has every right to speak. It falls to the enthusiast to bring something forward that is more substantial "Well I think we shouldn't ban this"
#46 - deadlyambitions (01/26/2013) [-]
okay ur no allowed to drive cuz i dont approve of ur driving, u cant hav a steak knife cuz my kid might get hurt. stfu its their parents fault never the games. if the parent cant eve be like he isnt mature enough for that game nope well that family deserves for its kid to do something stupid
#62 - javalavalay (01/26/2013) [-]
Nigga, don't jump in an argument with your illiterate ways, You're not needed what so ever.
User avatar #26 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
Unless there is hard evidence to prove that something - whether it be a film or a game or anything at all - is an active threat to society, it is completely unreasonable to expect it to be banned on the testimony of one person or group alone and even more unreasonable to ban those who take the opposite view from entering the debate.
User avatar #27 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
I believe his point was that, sense gamers are only speaking against this because they want video games to be kept free, not because they are thinking about what is best for society, then that selfish motive makes them unfit to speak about whether games cause violence, they have nothing to base it on besides their opinions.
While the people speaking against the games think the games are causing harm and you simply can't blaim someone for speaking against something they think is causing harm to others.
User avatar #28 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I don't blame people for speaking out against something they sincerely believe is causing harm. That is not the issue. This issue is this: Group A believes Object Z is dangerous and wants it banned. They will therefore collect evidence to prove that point. Group B believes Object Z is not dangerous and do not want it banned, and will therefore wish to provide contradictory evidence. As both groups have a personal interest in whether or not Object Z is banned, it is unreasonable to accept evidence from one while refusing the other. Your statement about "wanting best for society" does not come into play. If the videogame enthusiasts sincerely believe the accusations being lobbied against something they hold dear are unjust, then they have every right to defend it.
User avatar #29 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
See, that's the problem right there, when you talk about it you assume video games are the victims of this and that the people who prosecute are just uptight and looking for something to blame. You and i have bias, and thus have nothing valid to say on the issue.
#57 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
i personally take my anger out in my games so if my violent games were to be taken away i guess i would just have to get my anger out through realistic violence
User avatar #32 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I am assuming no one is a victim. I am simply stating that both parties obviously have a bias and one can not discredit the views of the other simply because their motives seem less noble.
#17 - But when you say you don't think video games cause violence is…  [+] (3 new replies) 01/25/2013 on What a Dick -3
#50 - deadlyambitions (01/26/2013) [-]
everything can cause violence u insolent slump. again ithe parents have to approve of the games. they have a rating on them like like all shows and movies. so pron causes std's and pregnancy, ban that, the horror movies cause ppl to becoem violent ban those, swearing turns my kids into assholes ban them, wrap turns my kids into gangsters ban them
User avatar #30 - aciar (01/26/2013) [-]
But I have more knowledge on the effects of violence in video games from a first person point of view. I witness what effects it has on people. I'm better qualified to speak on behalf of video games violence than someone who has no knowledge on the subject, nor have they seen any evidence that it actually does have an effect, but only speculation.

Anyway. Studies have actually been done on this and there is absolutely no evidence to say that Video games violence effects some-ones perception of violence. Fantasy violence is nothing like real violence. Infact the only similarities is that there may be red liquid expunging from an un-natural orifice of some-ones body.
#25 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
The people arguing against it don't know about it. There aren't many unbaised studies, and therefore they can't make a logical and fair conclusion.

In order to draw a conclusion, you need both sides of the issue. You can't exclude one side. Ex: when women were fighting for the right to vote, anyone smart didn't say "women have no right arguing on this issue, let the men do everything." They would have never actually gotten the right to vote if that were true.

And yes, people that don't want something banned have a vote in the matter. Have you seen the alcohol debates of the past? Successful businessmen would go to the streets in protest because they didn't want it banned. And videogames aren't even a drug.

In addition the entire videogame debate raises the question: Is it the industries problem or is it your problem? Parents can regulate what their kids play and monitor the computer for illegal downloads of the games. But they don't. They could get rid of the computer or console. But they don't. Why do we blame the industry for parental failure? Why should gamers suffer for your incompetence?
#15 - He has a point, it's like someone on drugs saying drugs don't …  [+] (35 new replies) 01/25/2013 on What a Dick -43
#107 - comehonorfacetwice (01/26/2013) [-]
Funnyjunk logic: I don't like what I'm hearing, therefore it's false. You, my good sir, are correct.
#92 - duudegladiator (01/26/2013) [-]
#42 - profflippystix (01/26/2013) [-]
User avatar #41 - thewickedgoose (01/26/2013) [-]
while you do have a somewhat valid point, you are against FJs opinion, there for you are wrong and everybody hates you.
#37 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
Masterful trolling
User avatar #21 - TheFreak (01/25/2013) [-]
Think of it this way. An overprotective mom wants to ban horror films from a local tv station because she believes fake gore will psychologically scar her children. She takes the case to court before a judge (a neutral third party) but refuses to let in a horror film enthusiast to speak in defense of the films because she deems him "biased" despite the fact that he is living, speaking proof that horror films do not inevitably traumatize the viewers. Same deal.
User avatar #22 - Vandeekree (01/25/2013) [-]
Who can he speak for? Others? Has he done and research? Any statistics gathering or test cases? He seems terribly under qualified. At best it proves that he doesn't think there should be a ban and that he, one person, is not effected by it. So why should he be allowed to speak on it?
User avatar #23 - TheFreak (01/25/2013) [-]
Why should the mom be allowed to speak against it? She has not looked into the genre or its effects on children either, she has simply watched a few scenes and decided that it was bad and should be banned. He is as qualified to speak on the effects of the genre as she is and perhaps more so because his hobby leads him to have more information on the subject.
User avatar #24 - Vandeekree (01/25/2013) [-]
Because the safety and well being of her child takes precedence over the avalibility of the movie enthusiast's hobby. She has a concern for her child's mental health and thus has every right to speak. It falls to the enthusiast to bring something forward that is more substantial "Well I think we shouldn't ban this"
#46 - deadlyambitions (01/26/2013) [-]
okay ur no allowed to drive cuz i dont approve of ur driving, u cant hav a steak knife cuz my kid might get hurt. stfu its their parents fault never the games. if the parent cant eve be like he isnt mature enough for that game nope well that family deserves for its kid to do something stupid
#62 - javalavalay (01/26/2013) [-]
Nigga, don't jump in an argument with your illiterate ways, You're not needed what so ever.
User avatar #26 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
Unless there is hard evidence to prove that something - whether it be a film or a game or anything at all - is an active threat to society, it is completely unreasonable to expect it to be banned on the testimony of one person or group alone and even more unreasonable to ban those who take the opposite view from entering the debate.
User avatar #27 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
I believe his point was that, sense gamers are only speaking against this because they want video games to be kept free, not because they are thinking about what is best for society, then that selfish motive makes them unfit to speak about whether games cause violence, they have nothing to base it on besides their opinions.
While the people speaking against the games think the games are causing harm and you simply can't blaim someone for speaking against something they think is causing harm to others.
User avatar #28 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I don't blame people for speaking out against something they sincerely believe is causing harm. That is not the issue. This issue is this: Group A believes Object Z is dangerous and wants it banned. They will therefore collect evidence to prove that point. Group B believes Object Z is not dangerous and do not want it banned, and will therefore wish to provide contradictory evidence. As both groups have a personal interest in whether or not Object Z is banned, it is unreasonable to accept evidence from one while refusing the other. Your statement about "wanting best for society" does not come into play. If the videogame enthusiasts sincerely believe the accusations being lobbied against something they hold dear are unjust, then they have every right to defend it.
User avatar #29 - Vandeekree (01/26/2013) [-]
See, that's the problem right there, when you talk about it you assume video games are the victims of this and that the people who prosecute are just uptight and looking for something to blame. You and i have bias, and thus have nothing valid to say on the issue.
#57 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
i personally take my anger out in my games so if my violent games were to be taken away i guess i would just have to get my anger out through realistic violence
User avatar #32 - TheFreak (01/26/2013) [-]
I am assuming no one is a victim. I am simply stating that both parties obviously have a bias and one can not discredit the views of the other simply because their motives seem less noble.
#16 - anonymous (01/25/2013) [-]
Except drugs are addictive by nature. They affect someone's psychology so that they would say whatever they need to in an attempt to 'get their fix' or rationalize it in their own head. A better point of reference would be car owners. Car owners can have perfectly legitimate claims and point for a debate on 'vehicular regulation'.

Video games are a past-time; a hobby, not a drug that can be abused.
#20 - anonymous (01/25/2013) [-]
of course they can be addictive u dip shit, theres mental and physical addictions... how else would ppl get addicted to alcohol or gaming...
#18 - comehonorfacetwice (01/25/2013) [-]
Actually anon, video games are also addictive, I will look for the study
#19 - spiderfan (01/25/2013) [-]
Video games are not truly addictive. Drugs affect the mind to force it to crave more. Video games don't do that. To say video games are addictive is like saying baseball is addictive. It's a fun past-time, and that is pretty much it.
#105 - comehonorfacetwice (01/26/2013) [-]
Also, saying that video game addiction is not real is the exact same as saying gambling addiction is not real. Shall I start looking for references on that? Because I'm nearly positive the APA recognizes gambling addiction AND video game addiction as legitimate forms of addiction.
User avatar #468 - spiderfan (01/26/2013) [-]
Last time I was on Wikipedia, I was too busy laughing at the Ewoks storming Normandy.
#471 - comehonorfacetwice (01/27/2013) [-]
Shall I follow the link and then follow the references at the bottom that they cite and link them, or should I take this as a sign of you being finished with intelligent discussion?
User avatar #472 - spiderfan (01/27/2013) [-]
Wikipedia is great when it is accurate. I said that because the last few times I was there, almost nothing was right. Even a large portion of their sources were, in fact, wrong. It comes down to the "don't believe everything you read on the internet." lesson that we all... sorry, most of us learned early on.
#473 - comehonorfacetwice (01/27/2013) [-]
I learned that. However, the study I read wasn't online. I cannot find a link to it, but am still looking for it inbetween studying for midterms and browsing fj. So inbetween browsing fj.
User avatar #474 - spiderfan (01/27/2013) [-]
If I need to study for anything, I have full access to a library. It has encyclopedias that can't be edited by morons with a keyboard. In all my time there, I never once found anything on that. Gambling, however, is recognized as an addiction, and on that point, you do have my agreement.
#475 - comehonorfacetwice (01/27/2013) [-]
As do I. With 5.5 million volumes and access to millions more through the state.
User avatar #476 - spiderfan (01/27/2013) [-]
I still have yet to see an accurate study on videogames. All of the ones I've found were conducted by highly biased groups, and had almost no credibility to them.
#104 - comehonorfacetwice (01/26/2013) [-]
And quote "Instances have been reported in which users play compulsively, isolating themselves from family and friends or from other forms of social contact, and focus almost entirely on in-game achievements rather than other life events, and exhibit lack of imagination and mood swings." Sounds like an addiction to me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_addiction
#35 - roderick (01/26/2013) [-]
If they were actually addicting, I would be addicted, but if the situation rises, that I don't have a game to play or just can't do for lack of time, I'm fine and I can find something else to do. It's just VERY fun and a lot of the stories are great.
User avatar #17 - Vandeekree (01/25/2013) [-]
But when you say you don't think video games cause violence is that because you know about it? You have some greater insight into the effects of video games than anyone else? Or are you only saying it because you don't want video games(the thing you enjoy to be regulated or banned?
#50 - deadlyambitions (01/26/2013) [-]
everything can cause violence u insolent slump. again ithe parents have to approve of the games. they have a rating on them like like all shows and movies. so pron causes std's and pregnancy, ban that, the horror movies cause ppl to becoem violent ban those, swearing turns my kids into assholes ban them, wrap turns my kids into gangsters ban them
User avatar #30 - aciar (01/26/2013) [-]
But I have more knowledge on the effects of violence in video games from a first person point of view. I witness what effects it has on people. I'm better qualified to speak on behalf of video games violence than someone who has no knowledge on the subject, nor have they seen any evidence that it actually does have an effect, but only speculation.

Anyway. Studies have actually been done on this and there is absolutely no evidence to say that Video games violence effects some-ones perception of violence. Fantasy violence is nothing like real violence. Infact the only similarities is that there may be red liquid expunging from an un-natural orifice of some-ones body.
#25 - anonymous (01/26/2013) [-]
The people arguing against it don't know about it. There aren't many unbaised studies, and therefore they can't make a logical and fair conclusion.

In order to draw a conclusion, you need both sides of the issue. You can't exclude one side. Ex: when women were fighting for the right to vote, anyone smart didn't say "women have no right arguing on this issue, let the men do everything." They would have never actually gotten the right to vote if that were true.

And yes, people that don't want something banned have a vote in the matter. Have you seen the alcohol debates of the past? Successful businessmen would go to the streets in protest because they didn't want it banned. And videogames aren't even a drug.

In addition the entire videogame debate raises the question: Is it the industries problem or is it your problem? Parents can regulate what their kids play and monitor the computer for illegal downloads of the games. But they don't. They could get rid of the computer or console. But they don't. Why do we blame the industry for parental failure? Why should gamers suffer for your incompetence?
#38 - Well seeing how the bible advises people to seek out knowledge… 01/25/2013 on Rage mode initiated +5
#98 - To an extent I suppose. But are not you doing the same thing? … 01/25/2013 on faith vs insanity -1
#37 - That seems like it would have an easy answer of "yes, if … 01/24/2013 on Check 0
#85 - You don't need a god to tell you there is right and wrong, but…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/24/2013 on faith vs insanity -1
#97 - theblackcrow (01/25/2013) [-]
You will keep replying, don't you?
User avatar #98 - Vandeekree (01/25/2013) [-]
To an extent I suppose. But are not you doing the same thing? It's called a conversation, were it only one of us talking, I think that'd be a lecture.
#36 - Medicpacks don't really work that fast, so unrealistic. 01/23/2013 on What defines(and doesn't) a... 0
#81 - You should, it's just about the most important thing one can l…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/22/2013 on faith vs insanity 0
#84 - theblackcrow (01/24/2013) [-]
I will live my life as good as i can, nature always order the things and if i can follow that order i will live happy. If you need a god to tell you what goodness is instead of giving you the free will to you to let you do your best... That's your problem. I'm out.
User avatar #85 - Vandeekree (01/24/2013) [-]
You don't need a god to tell you there is right and wrong, but you do need one to tell you the difference between them.
He does give us free will to do our best, in fact he tells us to do our best even though we won't be perfect.
my point is you say you will live your life as good as you can, but if you were truly doing that then would it not mean seeking out what it means to do something good?
Unless you claim to know the answer to all questions on morality, in which case i would advise you to go look at some of the tougher ones people have encountered and then let me know what you think because i'm still working it out myself.
#97 - theblackcrow (01/25/2013) [-]
You will keep replying, don't you?
User avatar #98 - Vandeekree (01/25/2013) [-]
To an extent I suppose. But are not you doing the same thing? It's called a conversation, were it only one of us talking, I think that'd be a lecture.
#79 - Not at all, the morals of a religion come from the omnipotence…  [+] (6 new replies) 01/21/2013 on faith vs insanity 0
#80 - theblackcrow (01/22/2013) [-]
User avatar #81 - Vandeekree (01/22/2013) [-]
You should, it's just about the most important thing one can learn about in our lives.
#84 - theblackcrow (01/24/2013) [-]
I will live my life as good as i can, nature always order the things and if i can follow that order i will live happy. If you need a god to tell you what goodness is instead of giving you the free will to you to let you do your best... That's your problem. I'm out.
User avatar #85 - Vandeekree (01/24/2013) [-]
You don't need a god to tell you there is right and wrong, but you do need one to tell you the difference between them.
He does give us free will to do our best, in fact he tells us to do our best even though we won't be perfect.
my point is you say you will live your life as good as you can, but if you were truly doing that then would it not mean seeking out what it means to do something good?
Unless you claim to know the answer to all questions on morality, in which case i would advise you to go look at some of the tougher ones people have encountered and then let me know what you think because i'm still working it out myself.
#97 - theblackcrow (01/25/2013) [-]
You will keep replying, don't you?
User avatar #98 - Vandeekree (01/25/2013) [-]
To an extent I suppose. But are not you doing the same thing? It's called a conversation, were it only one of us talking, I think that'd be a lecture.
#3 - I agree with the two comments below me but the guy above me is…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/20/2013 on A Difference +1
User avatar #29 - thepyras (01/21/2013) [-]
Finally someone sees the light.
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 (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)