Rank #8985 on CommentsLevel 254 Comments: Contaminated Win
OfflineSend mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||2/21/2010|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#1622|
|Comment Thumbs:||6272 total, 8555 , 2283|
|Content Level Progress:|| 6.77% (4/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 17% (17/100) |
Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win
|Total Comments Made:||2358|
latest user's comments
|#46 - That's true only if you believe in relative morality. And if a…||05/11/2016 on Ghey||0|
|#34 - This is true, a lot of Christians point to the old testament w… [+] (10 new replies)||05/11/2016 on Ghey||0|
#47 - Vandeekree (05/11/2016) [-]
And what do you base that on? Some objective morality yourself? Of course not. Your idea that me thinking that is subjective and thus not truly right or wrong either. And so if my idea is "autistic" you seem to be asserting that it being so is bad. But if you say your and my morality system is subjective then there's nothing go or bad about being autistic either. Your point is self defeating when you argue my point is morally wrong because there is no right and wrong.
#48 - esioh (05/11/2016) [-]
except the point is not self defeating. Consider the following. Any point anyone makes about right and wrong is automatically null and void. Then to simply make an argument for something to be right or wrong in the first place IS to be autistic. Therefore my argumet still holds.
#49 - Vandeekree (05/11/2016) [-]
But if there is no right and wrong, then all actions are valid. And if all actions are valid, then there is no move you can make that is better or worse. Perhaps you die and turn to dust, perhaps you become ruler of all you survey. Neither is good or bad or matters. And so to act in a way you would call autistic, such as arguing, is just as autistic as any other move. Arguing is equally autistic as calling someone who argues autistic.
#52 - esioh (05/11/2016) [-]
nah nah nah nah nah, we were getting somewhere mate and then you had to ruin it. You cant always think abot things in a relative sense. If everything is autistic, everything is STLL autistic. You see what I'm saying? Like sure relatively speaking everything becomes not autistic, but its not always about relativity is it
#53 - Vandeekree (05/11/2016) [-]
But why mention something that goes without saying? Is there a need to hand someone and apple and say "Here is not a dog, not a car, not a rock, not a star, not a..." on and on until you have said everything that thing is not? Of course not. By telling what that thing is, you are telling what it is not as well. And vice versa. And so why would you point out that everything in the universe is, by your surmising, autistic?
So if being autistic is neither good nor bad and everything is autistic already. Then stating it is autistic has no purpose, it's the same as saying nothing at all. So why even say it?
But I'm glad you've come full circle to see my original point about morality. That being that relativism has no foothold without something objective to stand on.
#46 - Vandeekree (05/11/2016) [-]
That's true only if you believe in relative morality. And if all morality is relative then I agree, nothing it right and wrong. In order to see what is truly right or wrong it would take the ability to see everything and thus be a true and infallible judge. Such a judge could exist in the form of the Christian God.
I personally subscribe to absolute morality. It makes more sense and counters determinism. The problem with determinism, as you said, is that it would mean we really are just robots driven by the emotions in our brains which are driven by chemical reactions. If that's the case then we cannot choose and so nothing we do matters because we are as the river that does not choose which way to flow. We may think we have consciousness but it's simply not true, we are watching the movie of our lives and even the way we watch it is predetermined. And if you can do nothing, change nothing, and there is no right or wrong, then in the words of the late Freddy "nothing really matters"
|#36 - I see the gay card also gets you out of being called on dodgin…||05/08/2016 on Lesbian||-3|
|#26 - I don't see why people make fun of this. It seems to … [+] (1 new reply)||05/05/2016 on FAIR POINT...||+1|
#27 - whitie (05/05/2016) [-]
Well different people have different interpretations of what life is about, i believe that centralizing power leads to innovation, for example ; if all resources were spread evenly across the world to all people, there would be no single country rich enough to innovate in space flight, severely impeding the rate at which our scientific knowledge expands
Perhaps you remember from high school biology how for a long time all life on earth was single cells, because they lacked the energy to cross the threshold into multi cellular life, the symbiosis of mitochondria and bacterium is what allowed the gap to be crossed
I like to think that human society behaves in a similar way, the wealth of poor nations goes to richer countries and in exchange those rich countries provide innovation that allows poor countries to catch up to that level of wealth; and if killing you enemies is necessary to keep your material wealth secure then it is morally admissable to me because it is simply the best solution to protect ourselves and our desire to move forward
|#115 - It's simply what sells. Most players like to fantasize when th… [+] (5 new replies)||05/01/2016 on RPG races||+10|
#148 - wattlegobbler (05/01/2016) [-]
|#12 - Interesting, well thank you for sharing your thoughts.||05/01/2016 on home||0|
|#10 - So the only purpose for a human to be alive might be to help t… [+] (2 new replies)||05/01/2016 on home||0|
|#7 - Ah, so he's simply saying that, because the world is relativel… [+] (5 new replies)||05/01/2016 on home||0|
|#2 - Where does that logic come from? To help each other because th… [+] (9 new replies)||05/01/2016 on home||+1|
#6 - nerdreaper (05/01/2016) [-]
As anon said, the logic is that, as we cannot currently escape this world for another, then it would be a benefit to take care of it. In extension of, properly taking care of the world would best be done by everyone, thereore everyone should help take care for each other.
Also the size of the planet does not matter in his speech, it was a redundant phrase.
#7 - Vandeekree (05/01/2016) [-]
Ah, so he's simply saying that, because the world is relatively small then it is relatively valuable. And that it is necessary to preserve the resource that is the Earth until more can be found and inhabited. So it's not a moral debate at all, more of a statement on the current market value of a resource.
And yet he mentions that we should take care of our fellow human. That seems contradictory sense, in order to keep the Earth livable for longer, reducing the amount of competition for that finite resource would be the best way to "ration" it.
#5 - anon (05/01/2016) [-]
To poorly summarize what would be a long explanation, the idea is that we're mucking up the only place we've got.
|#30 - Damn those Bulgarians and their milk induced longevity.||04/30/2016 on What China thinks of Europe||+2|