x
Click to expand

Yardie

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/06/2010
Last Login:3/03/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5345
Highest Content Rank:#19808
Highest Comment Rank:#2956
Content Thumbs: 23 total,  38 ,  15
Comment Thumbs: 2800 total,  3417 ,  617
Content Level Progress: 47.45% (28/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 2% (2/100)
Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:6490
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:948
FJ Points:2456

YouTube Videos

  • Views: 1017
    Thumbs Up 7 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +4
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 12/31/10
    Cup of soup Cup of soup

latest user's comments

#22 - Well property rights have been well defined by a lot of philos… 02/13/2015 on Metal as fuck +1
#19 - It's not the do not want, it's the cannot want. You can not wa…  [+] (11 new replies) 02/13/2015 on Metal as fuck +1
User avatar #21 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
I agree, but we're just dealing with an issue of semantics at this point. What does 'stealing' imply? Can you steal something that has no owner? What counts as an owner? Are you stealing if you are taking something rightfully yours even if no one considers it yours? Who decides what is rightfully yours? So on, so fourth. I'm not arguing with you about what ethics implies, I'm arguing about what IS ethical and what is not.

Oh? Is the thought that Ethics do not apply to everyone Ethical in itself? Isn't the point of morals and ethics to pursue them regardless of our surroundings or circumstances, including the actions of others? If a dishonourable act is done against someone dishonourable, is it okay?

Very well, we agree on this.

Mhmm, I completely agree.

One of the issues that I face, regarding morals and ethics, all the time is whether or not I should follow them always or if there are situations I can disregard them. For example, say I follow a religion, and one of the laws of the religion is that I cannot do X; suddenly, my religion is on the verge of extinction and I can save it by doing X. Is X right to do, even if it's against my principles, in order to SAVE my principles? Or by breaking them, does that make me as hollow or heartless as the people trying to destroy me FOR my principles?

#36 - randomdudelny (02/13/2015) [-]
What are you twelve or something?

Didn't they teach you in school about Plato?
The key to a perfect society is finding a kind and wise leader that doesn't want to lead.

Also, allow me to repeat what I understood from your first commentary:
"You are free to starve to death."
No shit Sherlok, humans can not survive on their own, we need society, need teamwork in order to prevail. Isolation is literaly the end.

The answer we are looking for is balance between knoledge, respect, kindness and altruism.
Because while "freedom is a state of mind" I find it hard to concentrate when:
1) The pope is brain washing me to "allahu akbar" your sorry ass of this planet.
2) I am doing forced labour in the Gulag for the leader.
3) I am canibalizing your ass because 4 days have past since I last ate something.
User avatar #38 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
The sad thing is, even if I WAS 12, that would still be a step up over someone who assumes people are stupid for not agreeing with them, eh?

They did, though I also know of other philosophers who stated many differing things. Do you? Just because someone is your favourite doesn't make them correct, after-all.

A "wise and kind leader who doesn't want to lead" would be hopeless. They would feel unconfident and uncomfortable with the situation, they would be indecisive and, since not seeing themselves as someone made to be a leader, would be hesitant to make tough decisions or any decisions at all. When's the last time YOU were good at something you didn't want to do?

Indeed you are, you are also free to grow your own crops or hunt as you please, dig it? Humans can and have survived on their own plenty of times. Vagrants, Vagabonds, Hermits, and many holy men often isolate themselves from the majority of the world and spend nearly all of their adventures alone, or at least, independent. Just because you are incapable doesn't mean it can't be done.

And how are those traits in a leader going to stop a criminal or a renegade? As a matter of fact, how would they stop anyone? Last time I checked, GIVING respect and kindness did not entitle you to receiving it, and there are many people who would simply not want to give it back. Even with your idea of a perfect leader, people would still want to "allahu akbar" your ass, still want to force you into a Gulag for their other leader, and still want to look out for themselves if they came to an ultimatum.

Congratulations, your 'perfect society' run by a 'perfect leader' solved literally nothing.

Anyways, as I was saying; by being free in the state of your mind and understanding you are the master of your own destiny, regardless of what else my try to confine or defeat you, people can understand they do not HAVE to 'allahu akbar' your ass to see their goals, they can understand they do not have to work under a tyrant, and they can understand teamwork would be the best option in an ultimatum; after that, it all comes down to personal choice.
#39 - randomdudelny (02/13/2015) [-]
Holy shit you really didn't studied Plato!

Read nigga, read!

And then we will keep talking.
User avatar #40 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
Running away from an argument due to assumptions only makes you look worse.

Also, you do realize that most of Plato's theories were just rehashes of Socrates', right? Nearly everything he wrote about was a 'branch off' of what his teacher said. You picked a very shitty favourite philosopher.
#41 - randomdudelny (02/13/2015) [-]
Quickly scrolling wikipedia doesn't count.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
Neither does dodging my arguments :^)
#44 - randomdudelny (02/13/2015) [-]
Ok senpai but my body doesn't crave redneck free for all isolation.

It craves Eurpean Nordic master race society.
User avatar #46 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
Which comes down to subjective opinion, doesn't it?

Once more, for the record, not liking a view doesn't automatically make it incorrect, and in HOLDING that view, you are only blinding yourself to personal growth and potential. That's probably why you cause most of your own problems. Work on that.
#48 - randomdudelny (02/13/2015) [-]
Oh yes, this has to be good !

Please enumerate my problems and elaborate solutions for every one of them.
User avatar #22 - Yardie (02/13/2015) [-]
Well property rights have been well defined by a lot of philosophers and economists a lot better than what I can do. But essentially somebody owns something when they appropriate their own work into it. For example if you build a house on a plot of land, you've turned the land into a product and I would say you now own that product of your labor. If you pay money for it or trade for it, then the same can be said.

Basically what you own is a product of your labor, whether you paid for it indirectly or made it directly yourself. You can then relinquish your ownership to somebody through trade, or use it for yourself. Supply and demand work as a price mechanism for how valuable your property is to society and a whole mess of economics flows from there.

And of course ethics are meant to be always pursued. That doesn't mean they can be in all circumstances. There are physical limitations and uncertainty exists. It is always preferable to not kill people, but if somebody is pointing a knife in your direction you might not have a choice but to defend yourself or risk death.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but "rules" aren't universal ethics. They're arbitrary words backed by strict discipline. There is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to a rule, because a rule has no moral content. "Thou shalt not kill" isn't a moral argument. It's an ultimatum. "Thou shalt not kill or go to hell" is basically what it means. There's room for contradictions there, and that's not philosophy at all.

To see if something can be applied to universal ethics, you first have to propose it as if it's true. For example "It is moral to steal"

Then you apply universality. If it is moral to steal, then I must allow people to steal from me. If I allow people to steal from me, it's no longer theft. That's literally just giving stuff away. Definition of theft breaks. Therefore it is irrational to say "it is moral to steal." and it can't be applied to universal ethics.

Conversely I can say "Respecting property rights is moral." If I respect property rights, I can own my property, you can own your property, that guy over there can own his property, and we can all willingly trade with each other. There's no breaking of definitions and no contradictions. Therefore it can be said that respecting property rights is perfectly fine universal behavior.
#15 - That's an interesting point to think about. But the thing is t…  [+] (13 new replies) 02/13/2015 on Metal as fuck +1
User avatar #16 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
But that doesn't quite make sense; just because you do not want something done to you doesn't mean it's unethical to do it to others. For example, if someone tries to kill you FIRST and you kill them in self-defense, you are not an unethical person.

But that could be said of ANY government or person in authority, can't it? People with power have a tendency to abuse it, even if it is as simple as an owner over a pet, and even in small ways.

But that fails for the same reason the plot of Portal started, just because you can admit something is good or adhere to a code of ethics and conduct doesn't mean you cannot break it later. Likewise, just because you know what is the right thing to do doesn't mean you will choose to do it.

And then we come to the question of: How much can something be done before immoral action is considered right? In the movie Unthinkable, there is a terrorist who is caught and threatened to detonate three atomic bombs. In order to try to prevent this, the interrogator murders the terrorists wife in front of him and brings in his children in order to torture them to find out the location of the bombs. Is he 'right' in doing so if it saves the country they're in? Or is he an evil person regardless of the outcome?
User avatar #19 - Yardie (02/13/2015) [-]
It's not the do not want, it's the cannot want. You can not want to steal and be stolen from at the same time. It doesn't logically follow, therefore stealing cannot be ethically virtuous behavior.

Self defense is kinda tricky. The aggressor is rejecting the universal ethics, and is therefore no longer protected by the universal ethics, and at that point it's just primal survival tactics. I'll get more into this in a second.

Of course it applies to any government or person in authority. It's universal. Doesn't mean people will not abuse power, it just means that it needs to be recognized that the abuse of power is more often than not immoral.

Again, in your last example, you're describing a case of self-defense. Ethics are completely tossed out the window when somebody points a gun at you. They don't matter. Your life and the lives of others are more important at that point. Hurting other people in the process? Probably not the best course of action to take, but if it's absolutely necessary, then let society be the judge I guess. Obviously if somebody is holding your daughter hostage, starting a mass genocide or involving innocent people to stop it is not usually reasonably justified behavior.

It's really difficult to say what is right in the realm of self-defense because somebody's already broken a universal principle. Wouldn't it be the fault of the aggressor at that point? He's forcing somebody to take drastic action. I don't have the answers, but it's definitely something worth thinking about and talking about.
User avatar #21 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
I agree, but we're just dealing with an issue of semantics at this point. What does 'stealing' imply? Can you steal something that has no owner? What counts as an owner? Are you stealing if you are taking something rightfully yours even if no one considers it yours? Who decides what is rightfully yours? So on, so fourth. I'm not arguing with you about what ethics implies, I'm arguing about what IS ethical and what is not.

Oh? Is the thought that Ethics do not apply to everyone Ethical in itself? Isn't the point of morals and ethics to pursue them regardless of our surroundings or circumstances, including the actions of others? If a dishonourable act is done against someone dishonourable, is it okay?

Very well, we agree on this.

Mhmm, I completely agree.

One of the issues that I face, regarding morals and ethics, all the time is whether or not I should follow them always or if there are situations I can disregard them. For example, say I follow a religion, and one of the laws of the religion is that I cannot do X; suddenly, my religion is on the verge of extinction and I can save it by doing X. Is X right to do, even if it's against my principles, in order to SAVE my principles? Or by breaking them, does that make me as hollow or heartless as the people trying to destroy me FOR my principles?

#36 - randomdudelny (02/13/2015) [-]
What are you twelve or something?

Didn't they teach you in school about Plato?
The key to a perfect society is finding a kind and wise leader that doesn't want to lead.

Also, allow me to repeat what I understood from your first commentary:
"You are free to starve to death."
No shit Sherlok, humans can not survive on their own, we need society, need teamwork in order to prevail. Isolation is literaly the end.

The answer we are looking for is balance between knoledge, respect, kindness and altruism.
Because while "freedom is a state of mind" I find it hard to concentrate when:
1) The pope is brain washing me to "allahu akbar" your sorry ass of this planet.
2) I am doing forced labour in the Gulag for the leader.
3) I am canibalizing your ass because 4 days have past since I last ate something.
User avatar #38 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
The sad thing is, even if I WAS 12, that would still be a step up over someone who assumes people are stupid for not agreeing with them, eh?

They did, though I also know of other philosophers who stated many differing things. Do you? Just because someone is your favourite doesn't make them correct, after-all.

A "wise and kind leader who doesn't want to lead" would be hopeless. They would feel unconfident and uncomfortable with the situation, they would be indecisive and, since not seeing themselves as someone made to be a leader, would be hesitant to make tough decisions or any decisions at all. When's the last time YOU were good at something you didn't want to do?

Indeed you are, you are also free to grow your own crops or hunt as you please, dig it? Humans can and have survived on their own plenty of times. Vagrants, Vagabonds, Hermits, and many holy men often isolate themselves from the majority of the world and spend nearly all of their adventures alone, or at least, independent. Just because you are incapable doesn't mean it can't be done.

And how are those traits in a leader going to stop a criminal or a renegade? As a matter of fact, how would they stop anyone? Last time I checked, GIVING respect and kindness did not entitle you to receiving it, and there are many people who would simply not want to give it back. Even with your idea of a perfect leader, people would still want to "allahu akbar" your ass, still want to force you into a Gulag for their other leader, and still want to look out for themselves if they came to an ultimatum.

Congratulations, your 'perfect society' run by a 'perfect leader' solved literally nothing.

Anyways, as I was saying; by being free in the state of your mind and understanding you are the master of your own destiny, regardless of what else my try to confine or defeat you, people can understand they do not HAVE to 'allahu akbar' your ass to see their goals, they can understand they do not have to work under a tyrant, and they can understand teamwork would be the best option in an ultimatum; after that, it all comes down to personal choice.
#39 - randomdudelny (02/13/2015) [-]
Holy shit you really didn't studied Plato!

Read nigga, read!

And then we will keep talking.
User avatar #40 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
Running away from an argument due to assumptions only makes you look worse.

Also, you do realize that most of Plato's theories were just rehashes of Socrates', right? Nearly everything he wrote about was a 'branch off' of what his teacher said. You picked a very shitty favourite philosopher.
#41 - randomdudelny (02/13/2015) [-]
Quickly scrolling wikipedia doesn't count.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
Neither does dodging my arguments :^)
#44 - randomdudelny (02/13/2015) [-]
Ok senpai but my body doesn't crave redneck free for all isolation.

It craves Eurpean Nordic master race society.
User avatar #46 - captainfuckitall (02/13/2015) [-]
Which comes down to subjective opinion, doesn't it?

Once more, for the record, not liking a view doesn't automatically make it incorrect, and in HOLDING that view, you are only blinding yourself to personal growth and potential. That's probably why you cause most of your own problems. Work on that.
#48 - randomdudelny (02/13/2015) [-]
Oh yes, this has to be good !

Please enumerate my problems and elaborate solutions for every one of them.
User avatar #22 - Yardie (02/13/2015) [-]
Well property rights have been well defined by a lot of philosophers and economists a lot better than what I can do. But essentially somebody owns something when they appropriate their own work into it. For example if you build a house on a plot of land, you've turned the land into a product and I would say you now own that product of your labor. If you pay money for it or trade for it, then the same can be said.

Basically what you own is a product of your labor, whether you paid for it indirectly or made it directly yourself. You can then relinquish your ownership to somebody through trade, or use it for yourself. Supply and demand work as a price mechanism for how valuable your property is to society and a whole mess of economics flows from there.

And of course ethics are meant to be always pursued. That doesn't mean they can be in all circumstances. There are physical limitations and uncertainty exists. It is always preferable to not kill people, but if somebody is pointing a knife in your direction you might not have a choice but to defend yourself or risk death.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but "rules" aren't universal ethics. They're arbitrary words backed by strict discipline. There is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to a rule, because a rule has no moral content. "Thou shalt not kill" isn't a moral argument. It's an ultimatum. "Thou shalt not kill or go to hell" is basically what it means. There's room for contradictions there, and that's not philosophy at all.

To see if something can be applied to universal ethics, you first have to propose it as if it's true. For example "It is moral to steal"

Then you apply universality. If it is moral to steal, then I must allow people to steal from me. If I allow people to steal from me, it's no longer theft. That's literally just giving stuff away. Definition of theft breaks. Therefore it is irrational to say "it is moral to steal." and it can't be applied to universal ethics.

Conversely I can say "Respecting property rights is moral." If I respect property rights, I can own my property, you can own your property, that guy over there can own his property, and we can all willingly trade with each other. There's no breaking of definitions and no contradictions. Therefore it can be said that respecting property rights is perfectly fine universal behavior.
#15 - Maybe because cats are domestic animals that have evolved alon… 02/13/2015 on If your +3
#7 - Comment deleted 02/13/2015 on When you see it... 0
#82 - So Java is the finicky weapon that explodes all the time while… 01/08/2015 on If programming languages... +1
#39 - Son going down the path of violence? Use violence to teach him…  [+] (11 new replies) 01/05/2015 on "Gangsta" Son getin rekt -57
User avatar #152 - becauseoprahsaidso (01/05/2015) [-]
You are the softest pussy I have ever seen. The kid wants to carry a gun and sell drugs but don't hit him because that will scar him emotionally. haha you're a fucking joke.
User avatar #149 - yumpod (01/05/2015) [-]
you must be a special kind of stupid
User avatar #135 - Kairyuka (01/05/2015) [-]
I'm going to have to agree with you, he didn't need to hit the kid, his words were the weight against the kid.
#125 - anonexplains (01/05/2015) [-]
you grew up in a very liberal household i presume
#113 - julescb (01/05/2015) [-]
The problem with today's parenting is kids think they are completely equal in terms of power with parents. They're "friends" on equal terms.

No. That's not how it works. The parent is in charge. And I believe a little fear is a good thing so that you think twice of doing anything stupid.
#111 - anonexplains (01/05/2015) [-]
Yeah dude, the guy should've put him on the naughty step.
#101 - soulfate (01/05/2015) [-]
This is not abuse or even physical discipline. This was a lesson.

The father did not hit his son for wanting to be a gangster, selling drugs and such. He hit him to show him what happens. He hit him to show his son he doesn't have what it takes to live such a life. If he can't beat up his own father how will he defend himself when some thugged out mother fucker is about to kick his shit over a $5 bag of dope?

The only discipline this kid recieved as shown in the video was being sent to his room. Everything else was showing the tough life he would be living and that he really isn't up for the task of fighting for that life.

Now if you want a real video of child abuse, check out this Texas Judge beating his daughter with cerebral pulsy for downloading music: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229077/Judge-William-Adams-suspended-beating-cerebral-palsy-daughter-returns-bench.html

is there any lesson here? Downloading music is bad and the consequences of getting caught by me is a beating? This just teaches her to be more careful to not get caught and helps her harness a hatred toward her father that has torn the family apart. The kid in this video was not abused. He was going down a dark path and the father showed what that path entails. The lesson he takes away is that he is not cut out for it and that his father loves and believes in him enough that he sees a bright future academically or athletically where he can earn the respect of others.
#99 - siriuslygrim (01/05/2015) [-]
You sound like someone who didn't get spanked enough. Proper discipline sticks with children long after they leave their parents, so this dad was literally just knocking some sense into his kid.
User avatar #89 - Shiny (01/05/2015) [-]
I'd agree if it was something like letting grades slip to failing levels, but his son literally told his family that he wants to be a homicidal degenerate because he thinks it's cool. This is dangerous thinking.
User avatar #40 - LEAFMAN (01/05/2015) [-]
you need to understand the difference between abuse and discipline...
#41 - ileiktrolling (01/05/2015) [-]
agree'd, if you can watch this and think "wow thats a bad parent" your an idiot...
#39 - If a company gets wealthy enough to form a monopoly in a free … 12/31/2014 on I agree 0
#30 - When people talk about the Free Market they are talking about …  [+] (2 new replies) 12/31/2014 on I agree -4
User avatar #71 - jukuku (12/31/2014) [-]
There are numerous instances where the lack of regulation allowed for terrible things to happen.

How about the tainting of blood products with HIV? Inadequately tested drugs going to market? Monopolization of internet services?

The idea that a free (really it is a chaotic market) is the perfect solution is delusional.
User avatar #42 - blewws (12/31/2014) [-]
That's a pretty idealistic way of seeing it. Without any regulations or government interference companies are free to monopolize, lie, and cheat. In a truly free market, the rich get richer and the poor suffer for it. Without taxes, for example, there would be no civil services. Only the rich would have an education, good housing and food, and the like. And maybe those wealthy folks worked hard and earned every cent, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority are up shits creek. Maybe they made poor choices. Maybe they were unlucky. Maybe they're dumber, weaker, or sicker. Maybe they're lazier and don't even deserve the money. Does that mean they and their families should suffer? Does it mean they should starve or freeze or never get an education? I don't think so. Not when it isn't necessary. In a truly free market the wealthy would, ideally, earn their wealth fairly because they were smart, persistent, and hard working. They might deserve everything they get. But they don't need it and I think reducing human suffering is far more important than economic fairness.
#43 - You have the right to own a gun of that caliber because you ar… 12/31/2014 on Top comment deserved its... 0

items

Total unique items point value: 251 / Total items point value: 2381
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - emmerich (06/25/2014) [-]
Hello!
 Friends (0)