x
Click to expand

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#1745
Highest Content Rank:#8779
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 59735 total,  73279 ,  13544
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 81.49% (815/1000)
Level 353 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk → Level 354 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10899
Times Content Favorited:13 times
Total Comments Made:16980
FJ Points:26047

latest user's comments

#85 - You thumbed down my comment first. Check the question mark bes…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/28/2014 on Home Line 0
User avatar #86 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
I posted before you i couldnt of done it first.
still though, nice song, right?
User avatar #88 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
Mhmm! Thank you for bringing it to my attention
User avatar #89 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
Not a problem.
User avatar #87 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
EDIT:
I thumbed up your first one
#11 - This **** is Heresy. 04/28/2014 on Drake and Josh 0
#4 - Alright, the first thing we have to do in order to fix this is…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/28/2014 on tittle +5
User avatar #8 - citruslord (04/28/2014) [-]
Don't forget that we need to fix that the CDC defines rape as "forced penetration" so a large amount of male victims aren't considered as actually being raped and this skews statistics in feminists favor. Forced envelopment falls under the "other" category
User avatar #9 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
Mhmm, that too! I didn't know the word for rape upon males, but that's why I kept it ambiguous by saying "People" rather than "women" in my examples.
#10 - citruslord (04/28/2014) [-]
That's how it should be, but they really like to split it up.
www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/
There's the article that I got the term from, it's pretty bad when even the government isn't free from this crap. Not to mention Google's old definition of rape. I did some research and apparently they've changed it a couple times and now it doesn't show any definition. They've had a few definitions and none of them neutral
#6 - bossben (04/28/2014) [-]
Dude thats exactly what we need. A definitive classification of rape, not just like oh I was drinking and now I regret it, it must have been rape. I agree with the other guy. Right a letter or something man
User avatar #5 - fent (04/28/2014) [-]
You need to write a letter to your local congressman. (Or equivalent government official if you live outside the USA) You're on to something.
#14 - Your own damn fault for not following them. People ar…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/28/2014 on (untitled) +20
User avatar #20 - Icedangel (04/28/2014) [-]
Judging by the hearts it's meant to say he fell in love with someone who was in love with someone else.
User avatar #25 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
So why would you want someone like that anyways? Why not get up and look for more; the third guy did that and it landed him your lover. My point still stands.
User avatar #26 - Icedangel (04/28/2014) [-]
When someone breaks your heart you can't just get back up immediately. Gotta take some time. I agree with you, though. Don't just lay down and become lifes bitch.
#16 - anonymous (04/28/2014) [-]
Its obvious he/she wasnt wanted, the message for this isin't "deal with your own problems and/or wait for someone to fix your problems" its that everything comes in time, and you just have to be patient...I do agree with making things happen for yourself
User avatar #18 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
That...doesn't look like the message at all, actually. It just shows some lonely guy who made a friend and then his friends leave him behind, having him feel lonely again.
#15 - anonymous (04/28/2014) [-]
I CANNOT agree with this more.
Right now, I'm fighting a constant battle with my girlfriend who always wants to be with me because I make her happy.
She goes on about how she's bored and sad and shit when I'm enjoying my alone time or hanging out with my friends, but she's not even making an effort to find something to occupy her time with so she's not constantly bothering me.
I feel for her, because I don't want her to feel bad. But it just feels like, to me, that she's selfish and doesn't want to put the work in to enjoy herself when I'm not with her.
#19 - anonymous (04/28/2014) [-]
What makes u think of was a she /masculinism
User avatar #17 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
That's exactly it, good sir.

Why not sit her down and tell her that, or try to get her into some hobbies?
#14 - Speak for yourself, mortal. 04/27/2014 on Don't sweat it, and live... +4
#49 - Mountain snow. 04/27/2014 on it's the little things in life 0
#83 - I'd prefer a version with just Rosilina  [+] (1 new reply) 04/27/2014 on Earthquake in the mushroom... 0
User avatar #88 - yunoavailable (04/27/2014) [-]
if you look at comment 87 there is a link and you can change it to rosalina
#33 - "A quick death and an easy one" What kind o…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/27/2014 on Creative Toasts +16
User avatar #41 - bokkos (04/27/2014) [-]
A quick and easy death is getting shot (by a trained marksman).

How you earn that death is up to the imagination!
User avatar #87 - zarcos (04/28/2014) [-]
Getting mauled by a bear and left to die as you fend off wolves with a tree branch for several days as you succumb to the deceptively warm and inviting embrace of death by hypothermia is far more metal.
User avatar #102 - bokkos (04/28/2014) [-]
Maybe. But hijacking a school bus and driving it into a lion enclosure, bailing out at the last moment with your mosin nagant in full Soviet attire, screaming "For the motherland" as you creatively poach your way across the zoo, only to be shot by a SWAT sniper as you pull your jacket wide open to reveal a white shirt bearing the word "Illuminati" in bold print is a lot more interesting, if not metal.
#90 - Broken Down is actually my all-time favourite song. I listen t… 04/27/2014 on Punk 0
#74 - I know, right? I originally made it with the intention of abso…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/27/2014 on Home Line +2
User avatar #84 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
As much as I dislike you for thumbing down my comments because you opposed me,
this video should be your theme song.
F**k Everything (Jon Lajoie)
User avatar #85 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
You thumbed down my comment first. Check the question mark beside the ones you were thumbed down on; the first one wasn't from me, the second one was a reaction to you thumbing me down.
User avatar #86 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
I posted before you i couldnt of done it first.
still though, nice song, right?
User avatar #88 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
Mhmm! Thank you for bringing it to my attention
User avatar #89 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
Not a problem.
User avatar #87 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
EDIT:
I thumbed up your first one
#95 - Then we simply have different Ethical principles. Wel… 04/27/2014 on a great message 0
#66 - I certainly hope so  [+] (1 new reply) 04/27/2014 on Punk +2
User avatar #83 - DrDanny (04/27/2014) [-]
O_O


Yes plz
#63 - Yes it does, actually. There is an implied tone with everythin…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/27/2014 on Home Line +1
#65 - mayihavecaps (04/27/2014) [-]
I don't think you live up to your name, but I support your arguments.
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
I know, right? I originally made it with the intention of absolute apathy and that I didn't care about much, but that was a while ago and I've seemed to undergo a shift where I care about MANY things and want to correct them all.
User avatar #84 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
As much as I dislike you for thumbing down my comments because you opposed me,
this video should be your theme song.
F**k Everything (Jon Lajoie)
User avatar #85 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
You thumbed down my comment first. Check the question mark beside the ones you were thumbed down on; the first one wasn't from me, the second one was a reaction to you thumbing me down.
User avatar #86 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
I posted before you i couldnt of done it first.
still though, nice song, right?
User avatar #88 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
Mhmm! Thank you for bringing it to my attention
User avatar #89 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
Not a problem.
User avatar #87 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
EDIT:
I thumbed up your first one
#63 - Misread that, I thought it said "Are you guys gonna…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/27/2014 on Punk +1
#64 - twofreegerbils (04/27/2014) [-]
Well?

Are you?
User avatar #66 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
I certainly hope so
User avatar #83 - DrDanny (04/27/2014) [-]
O_O


Yes plz
#92 - There is no inconsistency "Well, righteousness means mora…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/27/2014 on a great message 0
#93 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
i'm not sure about the game, i read all of socrates books so i think that was more interesting. but i might try it one day.
and no, we dont both agree on the ethical conviction. a false good is better than a true evil for example. if someone helped another one, even thoug hhe didnt want to or just felt like pressured into it, it is a better deed than someone who really wanted to hurt someone else and did it.

"Morals is what type of action you take (such as good, helping, bad, hurting, or neither, being indifferent), and Ethics is HOW you go about it. "
Both are characteristics that are, in themself, not defined. people define them.
what type of action - killing someone can be both good, bad, and so on
how you do it - nobody how, you can still say it was good, bad, and so on.

so we are stilla t the same point... we take some definitions as true and let it be. but there is no evidence, or rather, there is no problem to use sophisms to state that the opposite is true too.
User avatar #95 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
Then we simply have different Ethical principles.

Well of course we can do that because they're words, if enough people think they mean one thing then they do, or if even one person uses it in a certain way then it means a certain thing for them. Words are just a means to expression, so I suppose the proper thing to do would be to agree upon exactly what Morals and Ethics means before debating about it, but if you are convinced that they cannot be pinned down (or even if the definition can be pinned down, but what exactly they are cannot) then the debate will go absolutely nowhere.

Also the game has very little to do with Socrates. It's just about a guy who goes to the Philosophers afterlife to debate about where morality comes form, as he debates against ancient philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Emmanuel Kant, and Pythagoras
#61 - You seem very angry.  [+] (10 new replies) 04/27/2014 on Home Line +1
User avatar #62 - beatyea (04/27/2014) [-]
Word choice doesn't mean I'm butt-angry cool your jets there speed racer.
User avatar #63 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
Yes it does, actually. There is an implied tone with everything you say, you know; if you don't want to be perceived as having roid-rage, talk in a more polite tone.
#65 - mayihavecaps (04/27/2014) [-]
I don't think you live up to your name, but I support your arguments.
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
I know, right? I originally made it with the intention of absolute apathy and that I didn't care about much, but that was a while ago and I've seemed to undergo a shift where I care about MANY things and want to correct them all.
User avatar #84 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
As much as I dislike you for thumbing down my comments because you opposed me,
this video should be your theme song.
F**k Everything (Jon Lajoie)
User avatar #85 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
You thumbed down my comment first. Check the question mark beside the ones you were thumbed down on; the first one wasn't from me, the second one was a reaction to you thumbing me down.
User avatar #86 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
I posted before you i couldnt of done it first.
still though, nice song, right?
User avatar #88 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
Mhmm! Thank you for bringing it to my attention
User avatar #89 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
Not a problem.
User avatar #87 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
EDIT:
I thumbed up your first one
#89 - But who decides what is morally good? The culture and civiliza…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/27/2014 on a great message 0
#90 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
you dont even realise the inconsistency.
there is no difference for the argumentation about moral or ethical good. "a measure of how you do something". yeah, alright.
but then again: who states how doing something is right/good?

you have the exactly same problem as we stated with morals before.
thats why i said its naive to simply state "xy is good or bad". its hard to really tell, and its even harder to tell if you take in the historical and cultural differences. what might be good/bad right now doesnt have to be in 100years or 100years ago.
see now why i think a question about "What if I believe something wrong is right?" answered "Simple, you look at the motives of WHY people stand by what they do." is pretty naive?

humans have to accept that they have no way to know if something is right or not, they can just do their best trying to achieve righteousness. and to hope that what they do corresponds to some higher value. if you dont believe in a higher value, then there simply is no way to answer that question.
User avatar #92 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
There is no inconsistency "Well, righteousness means moral rightness, but because we can't judge what is morally right, I propose we make it 'Ethical rightness' instead!"

Yes there is a difference between morals and ethics, otherwise it would just be called the same word. Morals is what type of action you take (such as good, helping, bad, hurting, or neither, being indifferent), and Ethics is HOW you go about it. Someone who hurts just because they want to and someone who hurts because they want to get something out of it certainly do not possess the same measure of Ethics, although they DO share common morals. You see?

Well I'm not sure, that's just it. However, while you cannot judge good or evil objectively, you can judge right and wrong objectively as they both go by different standards. For example, it would be good to save a puppy from a fire, but it would be right to not risk your own life (which has more potential) for the sake of an animal.

No I don't, because again, we can both agree that real good is better than false good, and that real evil is better than false evil, and likewise, real evil is better than false good, and real good is better than false evil, not by measures of morality, but by measures of ethical conviction and righteousness.

Well surely there is, as a person could have a higher value to themselves. Now we're just into the debate of what makes a person a god.

May I suggest the game: "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher"? I think you'll enjoy it.
#93 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
i'm not sure about the game, i read all of socrates books so i think that was more interesting. but i might try it one day.
and no, we dont both agree on the ethical conviction. a false good is better than a true evil for example. if someone helped another one, even thoug hhe didnt want to or just felt like pressured into it, it is a better deed than someone who really wanted to hurt someone else and did it.

"Morals is what type of action you take (such as good, helping, bad, hurting, or neither, being indifferent), and Ethics is HOW you go about it. "
Both are characteristics that are, in themself, not defined. people define them.
what type of action - killing someone can be both good, bad, and so on
how you do it - nobody how, you can still say it was good, bad, and so on.

so we are stilla t the same point... we take some definitions as true and let it be. but there is no evidence, or rather, there is no problem to use sophisms to state that the opposite is true too.
User avatar #95 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
Then we simply have different Ethical principles.

Well of course we can do that because they're words, if enough people think they mean one thing then they do, or if even one person uses it in a certain way then it means a certain thing for them. Words are just a means to expression, so I suppose the proper thing to do would be to agree upon exactly what Morals and Ethics means before debating about it, but if you are convinced that they cannot be pinned down (or even if the definition can be pinned down, but what exactly they are cannot) then the debate will go absolutely nowhere.

Also the game has very little to do with Socrates. It's just about a guy who goes to the Philosophers afterlife to debate about where morality comes form, as he debates against ancient philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Emmanuel Kant, and Pythagoras
#86 - Yes. Righteousness has nothing to do with morality, but only e…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/27/2014 on a great message 0
#88 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
rightous means morally good...
User avatar #89 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
But who decides what is morally good? The culture and civilization at the time? If so, then slave owners in the south were acting righteously while people who tried freeing them were degenerates, but of course we know that isn't true. But it's also unfair to judge everything from history by modern standards, so where is the line drawn of what is universally considered 'morally good' and not?

I do not like the dictionary definition for this reason, and thus prefer my own, which involves ETHICAL goodness, as Ethics are a measure of how you do something, rather than what you do.
#90 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
you dont even realise the inconsistency.
there is no difference for the argumentation about moral or ethical good. "a measure of how you do something". yeah, alright.
but then again: who states how doing something is right/good?

you have the exactly same problem as we stated with morals before.
thats why i said its naive to simply state "xy is good or bad". its hard to really tell, and its even harder to tell if you take in the historical and cultural differences. what might be good/bad right now doesnt have to be in 100years or 100years ago.
see now why i think a question about "What if I believe something wrong is right?" answered "Simple, you look at the motives of WHY people stand by what they do." is pretty naive?

humans have to accept that they have no way to know if something is right or not, they can just do their best trying to achieve righteousness. and to hope that what they do corresponds to some higher value. if you dont believe in a higher value, then there simply is no way to answer that question.
User avatar #92 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
There is no inconsistency "Well, righteousness means moral rightness, but because we can't judge what is morally right, I propose we make it 'Ethical rightness' instead!"

Yes there is a difference between morals and ethics, otherwise it would just be called the same word. Morals is what type of action you take (such as good, helping, bad, hurting, or neither, being indifferent), and Ethics is HOW you go about it. Someone who hurts just because they want to and someone who hurts because they want to get something out of it certainly do not possess the same measure of Ethics, although they DO share common morals. You see?

Well I'm not sure, that's just it. However, while you cannot judge good or evil objectively, you can judge right and wrong objectively as they both go by different standards. For example, it would be good to save a puppy from a fire, but it would be right to not risk your own life (which has more potential) for the sake of an animal.

No I don't, because again, we can both agree that real good is better than false good, and that real evil is better than false evil, and likewise, real evil is better than false good, and real good is better than false evil, not by measures of morality, but by measures of ethical conviction and righteousness.

Well surely there is, as a person could have a higher value to themselves. Now we're just into the debate of what makes a person a god.

May I suggest the game: "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher"? I think you'll enjoy it.
#93 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
i'm not sure about the game, i read all of socrates books so i think that was more interesting. but i might try it one day.
and no, we dont both agree on the ethical conviction. a false good is better than a true evil for example. if someone helped another one, even thoug hhe didnt want to or just felt like pressured into it, it is a better deed than someone who really wanted to hurt someone else and did it.

"Morals is what type of action you take (such as good, helping, bad, hurting, or neither, being indifferent), and Ethics is HOW you go about it. "
Both are characteristics that are, in themself, not defined. people define them.
what type of action - killing someone can be both good, bad, and so on
how you do it - nobody how, you can still say it was good, bad, and so on.

so we are stilla t the same point... we take some definitions as true and let it be. but there is no evidence, or rather, there is no problem to use sophisms to state that the opposite is true too.
User avatar #95 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
Then we simply have different Ethical principles.

Well of course we can do that because they're words, if enough people think they mean one thing then they do, or if even one person uses it in a certain way then it means a certain thing for them. Words are just a means to expression, so I suppose the proper thing to do would be to agree upon exactly what Morals and Ethics means before debating about it, but if you are convinced that they cannot be pinned down (or even if the definition can be pinned down, but what exactly they are cannot) then the debate will go absolutely nowhere.

Also the game has very little to do with Socrates. It's just about a guy who goes to the Philosophers afterlife to debate about where morality comes form, as he debates against ancient philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Emmanuel Kant, and Pythagoras
#82 - 1: That's not 'naive' 2: It was an example, not because o…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/27/2014 on a great message 0
#83 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
many serial killers and terrorists also firmly believe in what they do is right. does that make it any more righteous?
many pedophiles believe its right to do such things to kids, is it right because of that?

strong ethics or ideals are in no way any measurement of right or wrong. its just that they show conviction. but doesnt imply any measure off right or wrong.

and exactly that view in itself is what i call naive.
User avatar #86 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
Yes. Righteousness has nothing to do with morality, but only ethical principles.
What is 'right' is subjective, and while I do not agree with child abuse and vehemently against it, I cannot stop the 'rightness' of what one believes. However, again, Righteousness and 'rightness' are night the same thing, but I can say it is better to be a pedophile (or anything, really) because you believe it is right than to be a pedophile because you believe you just can be.

I never said they were. What I said was that it was a measurement of righteousness.
#88 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
rightous means morally good...
User avatar #89 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
But who decides what is morally good? The culture and civilization at the time? If so, then slave owners in the south were acting righteously while people who tried freeing them were degenerates, but of course we know that isn't true. But it's also unfair to judge everything from history by modern standards, so where is the line drawn of what is universally considered 'morally good' and not?

I do not like the dictionary definition for this reason, and thus prefer my own, which involves ETHICAL goodness, as Ethics are a measure of how you do something, rather than what you do.
#90 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
you dont even realise the inconsistency.
there is no difference for the argumentation about moral or ethical good. "a measure of how you do something". yeah, alright.
but then again: who states how doing something is right/good?

you have the exactly same problem as we stated with morals before.
thats why i said its naive to simply state "xy is good or bad". its hard to really tell, and its even harder to tell if you take in the historical and cultural differences. what might be good/bad right now doesnt have to be in 100years or 100years ago.
see now why i think a question about "What if I believe something wrong is right?" answered "Simple, you look at the motives of WHY people stand by what they do." is pretty naive?

humans have to accept that they have no way to know if something is right or not, they can just do their best trying to achieve righteousness. and to hope that what they do corresponds to some higher value. if you dont believe in a higher value, then there simply is no way to answer that question.
User avatar #92 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
There is no inconsistency "Well, righteousness means moral rightness, but because we can't judge what is morally right, I propose we make it 'Ethical rightness' instead!"

Yes there is a difference between morals and ethics, otherwise it would just be called the same word. Morals is what type of action you take (such as good, helping, bad, hurting, or neither, being indifferent), and Ethics is HOW you go about it. Someone who hurts just because they want to and someone who hurts because they want to get something out of it certainly do not possess the same measure of Ethics, although they DO share common morals. You see?

Well I'm not sure, that's just it. However, while you cannot judge good or evil objectively, you can judge right and wrong objectively as they both go by different standards. For example, it would be good to save a puppy from a fire, but it would be right to not risk your own life (which has more potential) for the sake of an animal.

No I don't, because again, we can both agree that real good is better than false good, and that real evil is better than false evil, and likewise, real evil is better than false good, and real good is better than false evil, not by measures of morality, but by measures of ethical conviction and righteousness.

Well surely there is, as a person could have a higher value to themselves. Now we're just into the debate of what makes a person a god.

May I suggest the game: "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher"? I think you'll enjoy it.
#93 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
i'm not sure about the game, i read all of socrates books so i think that was more interesting. but i might try it one day.
and no, we dont both agree on the ethical conviction. a false good is better than a true evil for example. if someone helped another one, even thoug hhe didnt want to or just felt like pressured into it, it is a better deed than someone who really wanted to hurt someone else and did it.

"Morals is what type of action you take (such as good, helping, bad, hurting, or neither, being indifferent), and Ethics is HOW you go about it. "
Both are characteristics that are, in themself, not defined. people define them.
what type of action - killing someone can be both good, bad, and so on
how you do it - nobody how, you can still say it was good, bad, and so on.

so we are stilla t the same point... we take some definitions as true and let it be. but there is no evidence, or rather, there is no problem to use sophisms to state that the opposite is true too.
User avatar #95 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
Then we simply have different Ethical principles.

Well of course we can do that because they're words, if enough people think they mean one thing then they do, or if even one person uses it in a certain way then it means a certain thing for them. Words are just a means to expression, so I suppose the proper thing to do would be to agree upon exactly what Morals and Ethics means before debating about it, but if you are convinced that they cannot be pinned down (or even if the definition can be pinned down, but what exactly they are cannot) then the debate will go absolutely nowhere.

Also the game has very little to do with Socrates. It's just about a guy who goes to the Philosophers afterlife to debate about where morality comes form, as he debates against ancient philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Emmanuel Kant, and Pythagoras
#75 - This took a very strange turn that I wasn't fully prepared for.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/27/2014 on Why Do I Do These Things? +1
User avatar #76 - giffythetoad (04/27/2014) [-]
You can never fully prepare for my antics.
#74 - It's not as if I'm lying. 04/27/2014 on a great message 0
#73 - It's not evil. When you have two people with differing ideolog… 04/27/2014 on a great message +2
#72 - I would be happy to. It's not as if I'm saying anything false. 04/27/2014 on a great message +1
#45 - Well it very well could be, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.  [+] (12 new replies) 04/27/2014 on Home Line 0
User avatar #58 - beatyea (04/27/2014) [-]
>BUT I SEE YOUR POINT.
What the fuck son can you not read my comment?
User avatar #61 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
You seem very angry.
User avatar #62 - beatyea (04/27/2014) [-]
Word choice doesn't mean I'm butt-angry cool your jets there speed racer.
User avatar #63 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
Yes it does, actually. There is an implied tone with everything you say, you know; if you don't want to be perceived as having roid-rage, talk in a more polite tone.
#65 - mayihavecaps (04/27/2014) [-]
I don't think you live up to your name, but I support your arguments.
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
I know, right? I originally made it with the intention of absolute apathy and that I didn't care about much, but that was a while ago and I've seemed to undergo a shift where I care about MANY things and want to correct them all.
User avatar #84 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
As much as I dislike you for thumbing down my comments because you opposed me,
this video should be your theme song.
F**k Everything (Jon Lajoie)
User avatar #85 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
You thumbed down my comment first. Check the question mark beside the ones you were thumbed down on; the first one wasn't from me, the second one was a reaction to you thumbing me down.
User avatar #86 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
I posted before you i couldnt of done it first.
still though, nice song, right?
User avatar #88 - captainfuckitall (04/28/2014) [-]
Mhmm! Thank you for bringing it to my attention
User avatar #89 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
Not a problem.
User avatar #87 - beatyea (04/28/2014) [-]
EDIT:
I thumbed up your first one
#69 - How so?  [+] (10 new replies) 04/27/2014 on a great message 0
#80 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
meh... its hard to explain in a short comment.

its pretty much a basic problem. what is wrong and what is right? now you gave a pretty simple answer. that in itself states already what is right and what is wrong, but it gives no prove or real reason why that right is right.
1) truth should be free to everyone
2)everyone can decide the life they want to lead
are two statements you took as markers for the righteousness, but what if those in themself arent right?

dumbed it down a lot to make it a short comment.
User avatar #82 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
1: That's not 'naive'
2: It was an example, not because of the subject matter itself (that being: truth) but because of the motives of the person who has them, that's what you need to pay attention to. A person who does something, whether widely considered good or evil, because of firm and strong ethics or ideals is far more righteous than someone who does good or evil because they feel it is expected of them or 'lolidunno'
#83 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
many serial killers and terrorists also firmly believe in what they do is right. does that make it any more righteous?
many pedophiles believe its right to do such things to kids, is it right because of that?

strong ethics or ideals are in no way any measurement of right or wrong. its just that they show conviction. but doesnt imply any measure off right or wrong.

and exactly that view in itself is what i call naive.
User avatar #86 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
Yes. Righteousness has nothing to do with morality, but only ethical principles.
What is 'right' is subjective, and while I do not agree with child abuse and vehemently against it, I cannot stop the 'rightness' of what one believes. However, again, Righteousness and 'rightness' are night the same thing, but I can say it is better to be a pedophile (or anything, really) because you believe it is right than to be a pedophile because you believe you just can be.

I never said they were. What I said was that it was a measurement of righteousness.
#88 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
rightous means morally good...
User avatar #89 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
But who decides what is morally good? The culture and civilization at the time? If so, then slave owners in the south were acting righteously while people who tried freeing them were degenerates, but of course we know that isn't true. But it's also unfair to judge everything from history by modern standards, so where is the line drawn of what is universally considered 'morally good' and not?

I do not like the dictionary definition for this reason, and thus prefer my own, which involves ETHICAL goodness, as Ethics are a measure of how you do something, rather than what you do.
#90 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
you dont even realise the inconsistency.
there is no difference for the argumentation about moral or ethical good. "a measure of how you do something". yeah, alright.
but then again: who states how doing something is right/good?

you have the exactly same problem as we stated with morals before.
thats why i said its naive to simply state "xy is good or bad". its hard to really tell, and its even harder to tell if you take in the historical and cultural differences. what might be good/bad right now doesnt have to be in 100years or 100years ago.
see now why i think a question about "What if I believe something wrong is right?" answered "Simple, you look at the motives of WHY people stand by what they do." is pretty naive?

humans have to accept that they have no way to know if something is right or not, they can just do their best trying to achieve righteousness. and to hope that what they do corresponds to some higher value. if you dont believe in a higher value, then there simply is no way to answer that question.
User avatar #92 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
There is no inconsistency "Well, righteousness means moral rightness, but because we can't judge what is morally right, I propose we make it 'Ethical rightness' instead!"

Yes there is a difference between morals and ethics, otherwise it would just be called the same word. Morals is what type of action you take (such as good, helping, bad, hurting, or neither, being indifferent), and Ethics is HOW you go about it. Someone who hurts just because they want to and someone who hurts because they want to get something out of it certainly do not possess the same measure of Ethics, although they DO share common morals. You see?

Well I'm not sure, that's just it. However, while you cannot judge good or evil objectively, you can judge right and wrong objectively as they both go by different standards. For example, it would be good to save a puppy from a fire, but it would be right to not risk your own life (which has more potential) for the sake of an animal.

No I don't, because again, we can both agree that real good is better than false good, and that real evil is better than false evil, and likewise, real evil is better than false good, and real good is better than false evil, not by measures of morality, but by measures of ethical conviction and righteousness.

Well surely there is, as a person could have a higher value to themselves. Now we're just into the debate of what makes a person a god.

May I suggest the game: "Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher"? I think you'll enjoy it.
#93 - kanedam (04/27/2014) [-]
i'm not sure about the game, i read all of socrates books so i think that was more interesting. but i might try it one day.
and no, we dont both agree on the ethical conviction. a false good is better than a true evil for example. if someone helped another one, even thoug hhe didnt want to or just felt like pressured into it, it is a better deed than someone who really wanted to hurt someone else and did it.

"Morals is what type of action you take (such as good, helping, bad, hurting, or neither, being indifferent), and Ethics is HOW you go about it. "
Both are characteristics that are, in themself, not defined. people define them.
what type of action - killing someone can be both good, bad, and so on
how you do it - nobody how, you can still say it was good, bad, and so on.

so we are stilla t the same point... we take some definitions as true and let it be. but there is no evidence, or rather, there is no problem to use sophisms to state that the opposite is true too.
User avatar #95 - captainfuckitall (04/27/2014) [-]
Then we simply have different Ethical principles.

Well of course we can do that because they're words, if enough people think they mean one thing then they do, or if even one person uses it in a certain way then it means a certain thing for them. Words are just a means to expression, so I suppose the proper thing to do would be to agree upon exactly what Morals and Ethics means before debating about it, but if you are convinced that they cannot be pinned down (or even if the definition can be pinned down, but what exactly they are cannot) then the debate will go absolutely nowhere.

Also the game has very little to do with Socrates. It's just about a guy who goes to the Philosophers afterlife to debate about where morality comes form, as he debates against ancient philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Emmanuel Kant, and Pythagoras

items

Total unique items point value: 0 / Total items point value: 0

Comments(508):

[ 508 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#513 - anonymous (02/16/2015) [-]
I thought I'd waste some time also, and FIX yo' thumbs ;)
#514 to #513 - anonymous (02/16/2015) [-]
Love, luluwho
#505 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
Man, I think I love you
Man, I think I love you
User avatar #506 to #505 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (01/26/2015) [-]
Haha, where the hell did that come from?
User avatar #507 to #506 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
I saw that kind of argument that you had and I liked not only what you said but the way you said it, I think you did it pretty cool and everything

if you meant the gif it's from Soul Eater
User avatar #508 to #507 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (01/26/2015) [-]
That's the first time I heard that. Generally, my abrasive and blunt speech drives most people to dislike me, not give me affection. You're a sweetheart, though.

Haha, no, I did not mean the gif.
User avatar #509 to #508 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
I feel the same way about myself, I have to say that if those speeches were used against me I would feel a little bit upset, but you ask for clear answers and sources, and you try to make the other person think before they speak, I like that in general, not just mindless bashing ahaha
User avatar #510 to #509 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (01/26/2015) [-]
Well I'm certainly glad you can see the good in my speaking skills. Frankly, I do it to get to the point. I hate having my time wasted for any reason, and so I extend that courtesy to others and try not to waste anyone else's time either; which leads me to being very blunt and brutal in my words so that they cannot be confused or misheard. Though I admit I was frustrated in that debate.
User avatar #511 to #510 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
most of them are frustrating anyway

and yeah, it sucks when people start to get offtrack because of a single comment that you used as an example or something, it's proof that they are desperately trying to derail the conversation to their favor
User avatar #512 to #511 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (01/26/2015) [-]
Oh well. When you get into a debate with someone, the point should be because you are trying to change your own views, not theirs.

If someone doesn't want to believe something, they won't. End of story. You could use all the proof you want to tell someone the colour of the sky is blue, but if they want it to be green, it will be and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Thus, the only person you should be focused on changing in a debate is yourself, and only do so to get more perspective on the issues important to you.
User avatar #498 - gugek (12/30/2014) [-]
Hey! Good afternoon. I hope the rest of your day is awesome and tomorrow is freaking fantastic!
#492 - miia ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
User avatar #494 to #492 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
Well aren't you a sweetheart for helping me get over my fear
#495 to #494 - miia ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
im actually about to go to bed but hi
User avatar #499 to #495 - aurumleo (01/08/2015) [-]
Who's the artist? Sauce?
User avatar #500 to #499 - miia ONLINE (01/08/2015) [-]
i dont remember and its too late for me to find out
reverse search it
#501 to #500 - aurumleo (01/08/2015) [-]
I found it! The artist's nukomasu. Thanks, Miia. If it weren't for that image, I won't find it.
User avatar #496 to #495 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
Well don't let me keep you. Hi back, and feel free to continue the conversation any time.
User avatar #503 to #502 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (01/09/2015) [-]
Hello again.
#504 to #503 - miia ONLINE (01/09/2015) [-]
hello

i am exhausted
User avatar #490 - commencingfailure ONLINE (09/30/2014) [-]
******* retard compares the IS to today's feminists. One could say ignorance is an everspreading cancer, you did your job to increase the spread.
User avatar #491 to #490 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (09/30/2014) [-]
You seem REALLY mad, friend. Perhaps you should calm down and take some ass ointment before you need to see a doctor
User avatar #489 - myfourthaccount ONLINE (07/18/2014) [-]
dude, you're like my most favorite person on earth right now haha
User avatar #487 - imvlad (05/04/2014) [-]
you brought shame to your house
User avatar #483 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Have you by chance had an older account here before?
User avatar #484 to #483 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (04/22/2014) [-]
Yes I have. My first username was Hiimquinn, but it was deleted for some reason I never found, so I just made another.
#485 to #484 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Oh. Never mind then. I saw someone call you Dave and I mistook you for someone else.
User avatar #486 to #485 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (04/22/2014) [-]
It's fine. It was a joke from a picture a while back where a man was looking out the window and saw a dog and his owner walking down the street. The dog barked at another, bigger dog, and his owner just turned and said "See, this is why you have no ******* mates, Dave".
User avatar #481 - iforgotmyothername (03/20/2014) [-]
you are one cool tempered potato compared to me, bringing my fury upon your wrongness. i salute you, and thumbed up all your comments in the a capella debate.
User avatar #482 to #481 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (03/20/2014) [-]
It's alright, I apologize for making you upset, but you don't need to thumb my posts up. Thumbs are a way to express positivity or negativity toward any type of comments; if you do not like them, it is perfectly within your right to thumb them down.
#480 - lolollo ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
#479 - lolollo ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
#478 - lolollo ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
#477 - lolollo ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
#476 - lolollo ONLINE (03/08/2014) [-]
User avatar #474 - aherorising (11/20/2013) [-]
you're a really cool bro
#471 - shiifter (10/06/2013) [-]
This still makes me giggle.

Oh and by the way, i never actually thumbed you down. I just said that i did.
User avatar #472 to #471 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (10/06/2013) [-]
The thing is, the way I found OUT you gave me those thumbs was because of the question mark, which allows people to see who voted on content. I could only KNOW it was you if you had thumbed them down, which you did.

And now you not only prove to be an idiot, but a liar as well.
#473 to #472 - shiifter (10/12/2013) [-]
Wait? You still remembered that? That's hilarious.

By the way, i screencapped this. it's like a trophy.
User avatar #468 - satrenkotheone ONLINE (09/22/2013) [-]
I would just like to say thank you.
User avatar #469 to #468 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (09/22/2013) [-]
For?
#466 - anonymous (08/25/2013) [-]
Due to your pointlessly rude comment on the post "Jesus ain't got time for **** ",

I have gone through 20 of your previous comments and thumbed them all down.

You're also a stupid, unfunny, tryhard feelfag. Exactly the kind of user that this site is infamous for.
User avatar #467 to #466 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (08/25/2013) [-]
I wasn't pointlessly rude. If you read it more carefully, you would find I am not insulting your god or faith, but rather, the people who spread it about; and even they are just doing it to themselves, while I am mearly making an observation

It's ironic you call me tryhard, considering you just went through the time to thumb-down my last 20 comments as if it would have any effect on me personally or my ranking here. It's also odd you call me stupid, considering you were the one who read it uncorrectly. And I think the fact I have so many comment thumbs anyways (including my own jesus comment) speaks to the point that I am, in fact, quite hilarious. "Feelfag", is that supposed to be a derogatory term for someone who is passionate about certain things? If so, then I take pride in it, as it is only through passion that things grow.

Considering you are pretentious, arrogant, immature, and without a sense of humour; you fit the criteria for '12 year old funnyjunker' far better than I do.
#463 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.   
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.   
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.   
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
User avatar #464 to #463 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (07/16/2013) [-]
You are just a wonderful person, you know that? Thank you very much for your kind words and appreciation, and I'm glad you have made an account and made many friends here, including myself
#465 to #464 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
You're welcome, good sir.
You're welcome, good sir.
[ 508 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)