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

captainfuckitall    

Rank #230 on Comments
captainfuckitall Avatar Level 347 Comments: Sold Soul
Offline
Send mail to captainfuckitall Block captainfuckitall Invite captainfuckitall to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#230
Highest Content Rank:#10530
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 34 total,  90 ,  56
Comment Thumbs: 50315 total,  61487 ,  11172
Content Level Progress: 66.1% (39/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 17.19% (172/1000)
Level 347 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 348 Comments: Sold Soul
Subscribers:21
Content Views:9692
Times Content Favorited:12 times
Total Comments Made:14942
FJ Points:19397

latest user's comments

#101 - 1. No one was shot. 2. If he was a burglar and they gave h…  [+] (9 new replies) 22 hours ago on bullshit you a nigga 0
User avatar #193 - rainbowrush (19 hours ago) [-]
Shoot first, ask questions later refers to the mentality. They have no right to order anyone around, and the kid was calm. Sensible cops would've resolved the issue a lot better. If the kid had ran, or anything like that, I'd agree that tazering him would be the better choice.
User avatar #222 - captainfuckitall (18 hours ago) [-]
Indeed, the cops lacked proper information, most are poorly trained, and they could have done it a lot better. That doesn't mean they were 'wrong', nor does it mean it's a race issue. They acted as well as they thought they could with the supplies they had on hand. Could a smarter, wiser, more sensible person done better? Of course. But that just speaks about the type of people we should be encouraging to join the police-force and the education they receive.
#158 - wolfgangof (20 hours ago) [-]
They pepper sprayed him for living in his own house. That he was living there for a year already. I'm pretty sure you'd be very upset if you lived in your welcoming and loving foster families house for a year, then your dumb ass neighbors call the cops simply because you're black and then the cops break into your house and then pepper spray you because once again, you're black.
#156 - wolfgangof (20 hours ago) [-]
Man you're basically saying, cops should racially profile every time to avoid horrible circumstances. I don't know if it qualifies as racist, but its definitely a huge dick move. I mean he didn't even look like he was stealing anything. When the cops broke in the nigga was kinda just...living there.
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (19 hours ago) [-]
1. It's not racial profiling. They saw a man in a house who could not prove he lived there after there was a call of a burglar, what the fuck do you expect them to do? If it was a white person in a black house they would have responded the same way. Hell, if it was a white person in a white house they would have responded the same way. It's not an issue of race, but a lack of communication and information.

2. They didn't call the cops on him because he was black, nor was he pepper-sprayed because he was black. The neighbours did not recognize him, he looked nothing like the people who lived there (ya, you can call "racial profiling" and "dick moves" all you like, and sure they can be, but it doesn't change the fact that when you see two white people with an Indian child you think "Oh, by some miracle of science they happened to have a child of a different race!" no. You either think they adopted them or are just watching them, the LOGICAL thing), could not prove that he lived there, and did not cooperate. Again, it's not an issue of race, but a lack of communication and proper information.
#153 - flapz (20 hours ago) [-]
"If"... as a cop you are not supposed to make that assumption based purely on skin color. That is in fact racist.

I am not saying they can't question him, as to what he is doing, but assuming he is breaking in without any other reason, than the fact he is black and the owners are white, is wrong.
User avatar #187 - captainfuckitall (19 hours ago) [-]
Okay, now, I get what you're saying, but I want you to keep in mind something here:

You are literally asking them

Now follow along here, this is important

You are literally asking them...to get a call about a burglar, find someone nobody recognizes, someone who looks NOTHING like the owners in the house, and assume "Well, we don't actually KNOW". You realize that, right?

You also realize that if would be just the same if it was the other way around, black owners and a white guy in the house, right?

I understand what all sides are saying and why they're saying it, but the fact of the matter remains that being a cop is a VERY dangerous job, not to mention the hate they usually get for just DOING their jobs the best way they can. The benefit of the doubt is NOT something they can afford to give and has easily cost more police lives than it gained.
#192 - flapz (19 hours ago) [-]
If they get a call about a burglar obviously they have to search the place for burglars or otherwise.

But! and follow now this is important

Should they find someone at the mentioned place they of course have to question that person. One easy way to figure out if the person is anyway related to this place is to see some ID and check it out. The only reason to draw weapon or exhibit force would be if the individual resisted.

All this can be done without ever getting into assumptions and by only dealing with the facts at hand.
It is a very dangerous job to be a cop and many cases that have caused cops to shoot innocent people in fear of their own lives.

I don't know much about American law but where I come from the suspect is always entitled to the benefit of a doubt and I believe it's somewhat the same in America though there is exceptions of which I am certain of none (I just know they exist).
User avatar #216 - captainfuckitall (18 hours ago) [-]
How do you know they didn't try? Did you read the article? Because the subject in question refused to follow any instruction and antagonized the officers. Did he have a right to? Perhaps, but it was stupid to do so. And again, going into a place where a criminal might be WITHOUT any type of drawn weapon is something they don't have the benefit of doing. Electricians don't touch the lines until they're sure it's off, doctors don't stop observing the patient until they're sure they're cured, truckers do not drive without knowing their load is securely hitched, and police do not go into a place assuming everything is hunky-dorey and everyone is happy to greet them.

Indeed, it is the same in America where the benefit of the doubt is always given, but that's only AFTER everyone is secured and out of harms way, criminals and police. They tried to do just that and the subject resisted. Again, does he have a right to? Perhaps, even probably, but it still didn't make the situation any better.
#120 - Ten Thousand Fists in my ass 10/23/2014 on in my ass 0
#36 - I never thought so many feels could be felt from reading about… 10/23/2014 on Tank +1
#140 - Have you ever TRIED to find out if religion had any merit? Hav…  [+] (7 new replies) 10/23/2014 on Hate when this happens 0
User avatar #157 - YllekNayr (19 hours ago) [-]
Most atheists start out religious and deconvert.
I was no exception.
User avatar #158 - captainfuckitall (19 hours ago) [-]
That's not what I asked. Being raised into something and looking into it are two different things. You can have scientists for parents, but that doesn't mean you know anything about it.
User avatar #159 - YllekNayr (19 hours ago) [-]
There is nothing there for me, if that's what you're wondering.
User avatar #160 - captainfuckitall (18 hours ago) [-]
It's not. I'm asking if you did any research into it yourself and you're avoiding the question; but I'm going to assume either you didn't do research and decided it's not for you, in which case you ARE exactly as I 'described' Atheists as not wanting to believe our of faith. Or you did do research and decided it's not for you, which is fine. However, if that's the case than you did the exact same thing I did; you riled on me for assuming all Atheists were the same when you assume all religious people are the same and believe just because they want to. Yet you don't give the benefit of the doubt that they might have found something, or evidence, or a connection that you failed to find; which is in itself an act of faith that they're wrong and you're right.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

It's true that you cannot prove a negative. "You can't prove a god DOESN'T exist!" is just plain silly, but that doesn't change the fact that scientists believe many things that cannot outright be proven, such as everything from the Multiverse theory, to much of quantum physics, to even the theory of evolution. Indeed connections can be made and gaps can be bridged, but by the very virtue of Science, nothing can ever be 100% proven. There is absolutely no way to know if we're not just brains floating in a vat of liquid with all these images and memories being projected onto us, and yet we assume we aren't. Whatever type of 'sake-of-convenience' or hardline evidence or basic argument you make, it doesn't change the fact that all these are still just assumptions based on faith.

Everyone believes things because they want to. The act of believing a child should NOT be raped is based purely on subjective morality and yet you follow that as an act of faith, because you want to believe what you do is right.

Faith is an intrinsic part of life that gives people the means to express themselves beyond the bounds of absolute practicality. No one is immune from it, nor should they be.
User avatar #161 - YllekNayr (18 hours ago) [-]
It's not as you described.
There are no atheists that do not believe in ANY (not just your) religion simply "because they want to". They do not believe because there has been ZERO evidence that yours or any religion is correct. Burden of Proof, my friend. NOT believing in something is the default state.
User avatar #162 - captainfuckitall (17 hours ago) [-]
We've been through this. Did you even read anything I wrote?

1. You do not know the motivations of all Atheists. I for one have met a few who assumed all religion and myth was wrong without ever picking up a book of it. Regardless of whether they're even right or not, they decide it on faith.

2. I never mentioned anything about my or any specific religion other than a vague mention of A monotheistic deity.

3. Burden of proof applies, but you still need to make an effort. Do you just sit there and wait for ALL information to be presented to you? Of course not, you do your own research to come to X conclusions. Not doing any research and concluding that they are either right or wrong is an act of faith, regardless of religious views.

4. Even if it wasn't, faith is still used in all walks of life from assuming someone won't try to cheat you to assuming they don't try to kill you; as a result, bashing any one particular thing because of "Hurr durr, faith" is an idiot argument, as faith is required in order to live a well-adjusted life, and probably any good life at all.

But regardless, it is obvious you are exactly as I described in my very first comment, someone who doesn't believe or listen because they don't want to. That's fine, but this will be my last comment on the matter.
User avatar #163 - YllekNayr (17 hours ago) [-]
1. I don't have to. It's implied by what "atheist" means.
2. It's pretty obvious.
3. No I don't. It's false until you religious folk can prove otherwise. I don't expect you to waste your time looking at grainy footage of Bigfoot just because I think Bigfoot is real and want you to "do your own research"
4. No it isn't. You've mistaken faith with "understanding social conditioning". I don't have to rely on faith to assume that most people aren't going to attack me, though I do guard myself on the off chance that it were to happen. Faith isn't necessary. You see it is, but you cannot push it onto everyone else as a way of preemptively asserting your position as correct.
#51 - It's not as if they cops made a great leap in logic. You don't…  [+] (16 new replies) 10/23/2014 on bullshit you a nigga +9
User avatar #94 - haroldsaxon (23 hours ago) [-]
American cops are being taught to shoot first, ask questions later. This is a huge problem.
User avatar #149 - TheExile (20 hours ago) [-]
How does this deal with anything? Nobody fired a single shot. Literally, nothing was fired from a weapon. Yes the pepper spray was extreme, but it wasn't a fucking gun man.

I agree with captainfuckitall, if he had been a burglar (like they were pretty sure he was, given the details), the benefit of the doubt would have been the last thing to give him.
User avatar #209 - haroldsaxon (18 hours ago) [-]
I think you misunderstood me. The cops should've handled the situation differently. There was no threat, still they pepper spray.

Shit like this doesn't happen in other western countries, cause of how big of a difference with cops.
User avatar #212 - TheExile (18 hours ago) [-]
Okay, true enough. I do agree that pepper spray was probably excessive (unless there are some details that weren't released by press, which is possible considering how they spun the entire scenario.) They should have just cuffed him for the time being and had him sit on the curb/porch until the situation was figured out. However, I can tell you that it's not the police being "trigger happy" as so many people seem to think, but it is legitimately the way they are trained to handle situations. As in, this is what they are taught to do, and has been approved by people in high positions all through government. I know you said they were being taught to do so, so I'm pretty sure you understand that. I just figured this was a good spot to plug this in for those people who do think that all cops are just trigger happy.
User avatar #215 - haroldsaxon (18 hours ago) [-]
My entire point was originally how badly cops are trained.
User avatar #217 - TheExile (18 hours ago) [-]
I can agree with that. Hopefully it will change sometime in the future, but I really don't see anything different happening over the next few years.
User avatar #101 - captainfuckitall (22 hours ago) [-]
1. No one was shot.
2. If he was a burglar and they gave him the benefit of the doubt, he could have gotten away, or worse, could have killed one of them.
User avatar #193 - rainbowrush (19 hours ago) [-]
Shoot first, ask questions later refers to the mentality. They have no right to order anyone around, and the kid was calm. Sensible cops would've resolved the issue a lot better. If the kid had ran, or anything like that, I'd agree that tazering him would be the better choice.
User avatar #222 - captainfuckitall (18 hours ago) [-]
Indeed, the cops lacked proper information, most are poorly trained, and they could have done it a lot better. That doesn't mean they were 'wrong', nor does it mean it's a race issue. They acted as well as they thought they could with the supplies they had on hand. Could a smarter, wiser, more sensible person done better? Of course. But that just speaks about the type of people we should be encouraging to join the police-force and the education they receive.
#158 - wolfgangof (20 hours ago) [-]
They pepper sprayed him for living in his own house. That he was living there for a year already. I'm pretty sure you'd be very upset if you lived in your welcoming and loving foster families house for a year, then your dumb ass neighbors call the cops simply because you're black and then the cops break into your house and then pepper spray you because once again, you're black.
#156 - wolfgangof (20 hours ago) [-]
Man you're basically saying, cops should racially profile every time to avoid horrible circumstances. I don't know if it qualifies as racist, but its definitely a huge dick move. I mean he didn't even look like he was stealing anything. When the cops broke in the nigga was kinda just...living there.
User avatar #190 - captainfuckitall (19 hours ago) [-]
1. It's not racial profiling. They saw a man in a house who could not prove he lived there after there was a call of a burglar, what the fuck do you expect them to do? If it was a white person in a black house they would have responded the same way. Hell, if it was a white person in a white house they would have responded the same way. It's not an issue of race, but a lack of communication and information.

2. They didn't call the cops on him because he was black, nor was he pepper-sprayed because he was black. The neighbours did not recognize him, he looked nothing like the people who lived there (ya, you can call "racial profiling" and "dick moves" all you like, and sure they can be, but it doesn't change the fact that when you see two white people with an Indian child you think "Oh, by some miracle of science they happened to have a child of a different race!" no. You either think they adopted them or are just watching them, the LOGICAL thing), could not prove that he lived there, and did not cooperate. Again, it's not an issue of race, but a lack of communication and proper information.
#153 - flapz (20 hours ago) [-]
"If"... as a cop you are not supposed to make that assumption based purely on skin color. That is in fact racist.

I am not saying they can't question him, as to what he is doing, but assuming he is breaking in without any other reason, than the fact he is black and the owners are white, is wrong.
User avatar #187 - captainfuckitall (19 hours ago) [-]
Okay, now, I get what you're saying, but I want you to keep in mind something here:

You are literally asking them

Now follow along here, this is important

You are literally asking them...to get a call about a burglar, find someone nobody recognizes, someone who looks NOTHING like the owners in the house, and assume "Well, we don't actually KNOW". You realize that, right?

You also realize that if would be just the same if it was the other way around, black owners and a white guy in the house, right?

I understand what all sides are saying and why they're saying it, but the fact of the matter remains that being a cop is a VERY dangerous job, not to mention the hate they usually get for just DOING their jobs the best way they can. The benefit of the doubt is NOT something they can afford to give and has easily cost more police lives than it gained.
#192 - flapz (19 hours ago) [-]
If they get a call about a burglar obviously they have to search the place for burglars or otherwise.

But! and follow now this is important

Should they find someone at the mentioned place they of course have to question that person. One easy way to figure out if the person is anyway related to this place is to see some ID and check it out. The only reason to draw weapon or exhibit force would be if the individual resisted.

All this can be done without ever getting into assumptions and by only dealing with the facts at hand.
It is a very dangerous job to be a cop and many cases that have caused cops to shoot innocent people in fear of their own lives.

I don't know much about American law but where I come from the suspect is always entitled to the benefit of a doubt and I believe it's somewhat the same in America though there is exceptions of which I am certain of none (I just know they exist).
User avatar #216 - captainfuckitall (18 hours ago) [-]
How do you know they didn't try? Did you read the article? Because the subject in question refused to follow any instruction and antagonized the officers. Did he have a right to? Perhaps, but it was stupid to do so. And again, going into a place where a criminal might be WITHOUT any type of drawn weapon is something they don't have the benefit of doing. Electricians don't touch the lines until they're sure it's off, doctors don't stop observing the patient until they're sure they're cured, truckers do not drive without knowing their load is securely hitched, and police do not go into a place assuming everything is hunky-dorey and everyone is happy to greet them.

Indeed, it is the same in America where the benefit of the doubt is always given, but that's only AFTER everyone is secured and out of harms way, criminals and police. They tried to do just that and the subject resisted. Again, does he have a right to? Perhaps, even probably, but it still didn't make the situation any better.
#138 - 1. How exactly did I describe Atheists 2. How in the hell …  [+] (9 new replies) 10/23/2014 on Hate when this happens 0
User avatar #139 - YllekNayr (10/23/2014) [-]
Because atheism as a definition is a lack of belief, not a "I choose to believe in nothing"
You don't DO anything to be an atheist.
User avatar #140 - captainfuckitall (10/23/2014) [-]
Have you ever TRIED to find out if religion had any merit? Have you ever looked into it yourself?
User avatar #157 - YllekNayr (19 hours ago) [-]
Most atheists start out religious and deconvert.
I was no exception.
User avatar #158 - captainfuckitall (19 hours ago) [-]
That's not what I asked. Being raised into something and looking into it are two different things. You can have scientists for parents, but that doesn't mean you know anything about it.
User avatar #159 - YllekNayr (19 hours ago) [-]
There is nothing there for me, if that's what you're wondering.
User avatar #160 - captainfuckitall (18 hours ago) [-]
It's not. I'm asking if you did any research into it yourself and you're avoiding the question; but I'm going to assume either you didn't do research and decided it's not for you, in which case you ARE exactly as I 'described' Atheists as not wanting to believe our of faith. Or you did do research and decided it's not for you, which is fine. However, if that's the case than you did the exact same thing I did; you riled on me for assuming all Atheists were the same when you assume all religious people are the same and believe just because they want to. Yet you don't give the benefit of the doubt that they might have found something, or evidence, or a connection that you failed to find; which is in itself an act of faith that they're wrong and you're right.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

It's true that you cannot prove a negative. "You can't prove a god DOESN'T exist!" is just plain silly, but that doesn't change the fact that scientists believe many things that cannot outright be proven, such as everything from the Multiverse theory, to much of quantum physics, to even the theory of evolution. Indeed connections can be made and gaps can be bridged, but by the very virtue of Science, nothing can ever be 100% proven. There is absolutely no way to know if we're not just brains floating in a vat of liquid with all these images and memories being projected onto us, and yet we assume we aren't. Whatever type of 'sake-of-convenience' or hardline evidence or basic argument you make, it doesn't change the fact that all these are still just assumptions based on faith.

Everyone believes things because they want to. The act of believing a child should NOT be raped is based purely on subjective morality and yet you follow that as an act of faith, because you want to believe what you do is right.

Faith is an intrinsic part of life that gives people the means to express themselves beyond the bounds of absolute practicality. No one is immune from it, nor should they be.
User avatar #161 - YllekNayr (18 hours ago) [-]
It's not as you described.
There are no atheists that do not believe in ANY (not just your) religion simply "because they want to". They do not believe because there has been ZERO evidence that yours or any religion is correct. Burden of Proof, my friend. NOT believing in something is the default state.
User avatar #162 - captainfuckitall (17 hours ago) [-]
We've been through this. Did you even read anything I wrote?

1. You do not know the motivations of all Atheists. I for one have met a few who assumed all religion and myth was wrong without ever picking up a book of it. Regardless of whether they're even right or not, they decide it on faith.

2. I never mentioned anything about my or any specific religion other than a vague mention of A monotheistic deity.

3. Burden of proof applies, but you still need to make an effort. Do you just sit there and wait for ALL information to be presented to you? Of course not, you do your own research to come to X conclusions. Not doing any research and concluding that they are either right or wrong is an act of faith, regardless of religious views.

4. Even if it wasn't, faith is still used in all walks of life from assuming someone won't try to cheat you to assuming they don't try to kill you; as a result, bashing any one particular thing because of "Hurr durr, faith" is an idiot argument, as faith is required in order to live a well-adjusted life, and probably any good life at all.

But regardless, it is obvious you are exactly as I described in my very first comment, someone who doesn't believe or listen because they don't want to. That's fine, but this will be my last comment on the matter.
User avatar #163 - YllekNayr (17 hours ago) [-]
1. I don't have to. It's implied by what "atheist" means.
2. It's pretty obvious.
3. No I don't. It's false until you religious folk can prove otherwise. I don't expect you to waste your time looking at grainy footage of Bigfoot just because I think Bigfoot is real and want you to "do your own research"
4. No it isn't. You've mistaken faith with "understanding social conditioning". I don't have to rely on faith to assume that most people aren't going to attack me, though I do guard myself on the off chance that it were to happen. Faith isn't necessary. You see it is, but you cannot push it onto everyone else as a way of preemptively asserting your position as correct.
#132 - Ah, yes, the perfect age old argument of "You're wrong, b… 10/23/2014 on Hate when this happens 0
#131 - *Cough*Not believing in something because you want to is just …  [+] (11 new replies) 10/23/2014 on Hate when this happens -1
User avatar #136 - YllekNayr (10/23/2014) [-]
No it's not.
That's asinine logic.
It WOULD work if any atheists were as you described.
But they're not.
User avatar #138 - captainfuckitall (10/23/2014) [-]
1. How exactly did I describe Atheists
2. How in the hell did you come to know the entire world population of them?
User avatar #139 - YllekNayr (10/23/2014) [-]
Because atheism as a definition is a lack of belief, not a "I choose to believe in nothing"
You don't DO anything to be an atheist.
User avatar #140 - captainfuckitall (10/23/2014) [-]
Have you ever TRIED to find out if religion had any merit? Have you ever looked into it yourself?
User avatar #157 - YllekNayr (19 hours ago) [-]
Most atheists start out religious and deconvert.
I was no exception.
User avatar #158 - captainfuckitall (19 hours ago) [-]
That's not what I asked. Being raised into something and looking into it are two different things. You can have scientists for parents, but that doesn't mean you know anything about it.
User avatar #159 - YllekNayr (19 hours ago) [-]
There is nothing there for me, if that's what you're wondering.
User avatar #160 - captainfuckitall (18 hours ago) [-]
It's not. I'm asking if you did any research into it yourself and you're avoiding the question; but I'm going to assume either you didn't do research and decided it's not for you, in which case you ARE exactly as I 'described' Atheists as not wanting to believe our of faith. Or you did do research and decided it's not for you, which is fine. However, if that's the case than you did the exact same thing I did; you riled on me for assuming all Atheists were the same when you assume all religious people are the same and believe just because they want to. Yet you don't give the benefit of the doubt that they might have found something, or evidence, or a connection that you failed to find; which is in itself an act of faith that they're wrong and you're right.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

It's true that you cannot prove a negative. "You can't prove a god DOESN'T exist!" is just plain silly, but that doesn't change the fact that scientists believe many things that cannot outright be proven, such as everything from the Multiverse theory, to much of quantum physics, to even the theory of evolution. Indeed connections can be made and gaps can be bridged, but by the very virtue of Science, nothing can ever be 100% proven. There is absolutely no way to know if we're not just brains floating in a vat of liquid with all these images and memories being projected onto us, and yet we assume we aren't. Whatever type of 'sake-of-convenience' or hardline evidence or basic argument you make, it doesn't change the fact that all these are still just assumptions based on faith.

Everyone believes things because they want to. The act of believing a child should NOT be raped is based purely on subjective morality and yet you follow that as an act of faith, because you want to believe what you do is right.

Faith is an intrinsic part of life that gives people the means to express themselves beyond the bounds of absolute practicality. No one is immune from it, nor should they be.
User avatar #161 - YllekNayr (18 hours ago) [-]
It's not as you described.
There are no atheists that do not believe in ANY (not just your) religion simply "because they want to". They do not believe because there has been ZERO evidence that yours or any religion is correct. Burden of Proof, my friend. NOT believing in something is the default state.
User avatar #162 - captainfuckitall (17 hours ago) [-]
We've been through this. Did you even read anything I wrote?

1. You do not know the motivations of all Atheists. I for one have met a few who assumed all religion and myth was wrong without ever picking up a book of it. Regardless of whether they're even right or not, they decide it on faith.

2. I never mentioned anything about my or any specific religion other than a vague mention of A monotheistic deity.

3. Burden of proof applies, but you still need to make an effort. Do you just sit there and wait for ALL information to be presented to you? Of course not, you do your own research to come to X conclusions. Not doing any research and concluding that they are either right or wrong is an act of faith, regardless of religious views.

4. Even if it wasn't, faith is still used in all walks of life from assuming someone won't try to cheat you to assuming they don't try to kill you; as a result, bashing any one particular thing because of "Hurr durr, faith" is an idiot argument, as faith is required in order to live a well-adjusted life, and probably any good life at all.

But regardless, it is obvious you are exactly as I described in my very first comment, someone who doesn't believe or listen because they don't want to. That's fine, but this will be my last comment on the matter.
User avatar #163 - YllekNayr (17 hours ago) [-]
1. I don't have to. It's implied by what "atheist" means.
2. It's pretty obvious.
3. No I don't. It's false until you religious folk can prove otherwise. I don't expect you to waste your time looking at grainy footage of Bigfoot just because I think Bigfoot is real and want you to "do your own research"
4. No it isn't. You've mistaken faith with "understanding social conditioning". I don't have to rely on faith to assume that most people aren't going to attack me, though I do guard myself on the off chance that it were to happen. Faith isn't necessary. You see it is, but you cannot push it onto everyone else as a way of preemptively asserting your position as correct.
#70 - Pardon me, but I have absolutely no idea who you are  [+] (1 new reply) 10/23/2014 on Hate when this happens 0
User avatar #72 - hudis (10/23/2014) [-]
Hah, I figured that would be the case. I've argued with loads of people on this site and I don't remember half of them either - but there are some I remember or see regularly, and I have a pretty good people-memory, so there you go.
#7 - I find it ironic and also a bit funny that this massive shift …  [+] (4 new replies) 10/22/2014 on Idk what school it is.. +65
#25 - xxxsonic fanxxx (10/23/2014) [-]
In regards to any activist cause, the people doing the most damage to their own cause are always the people who are supposed to be supporting it.
#24 - pronprofile (10/23/2014) [-]
It's like D.A.R.E. but with minorities.
#23 - nonanonnon (10/23/2014) [-]
In a weird, backwards way, it's making all of the "politically correct" people racist too, they just turn the tables around and threaten different people.
#8 - geese (10/22/2014) [-]
same, I used to be a normal kid thinking everyone was equal, until I saw how fucked up certain ideologies/cultures make people act.

the saddest words in the world "/pol/ was right again"
#6 - Couldn't the same be said about every "X culture" group? 10/22/2014 on Idk what school it is.. +4
#25 - As a general rule, you should never debate for the sake of cha…  [+] (23 new replies) 10/22/2014 on Hate when this happens +70
#112 - xxxsonic fanxxx (10/23/2014) [-]
You're making a lot of assumptions here, assumptions that aren't necessarily correct. The only thing you said that can be generally understood as correct is that people who have set their mind on something will stay on that.
User avatar #132 - captainfuckitall (10/23/2014) [-]
Ah, yes, the perfect age old argument of "You're wrong, but I'm not gonna tell you why"
User avatar #102 - YllekNayr (10/23/2014) [-]
*cough*religion*cough*
User avatar #131 - captainfuckitall (10/23/2014) [-]
*Cough*Not believing in something because you want to is just as bad as believing in something because you want to*cough*
User avatar #136 - YllekNayr (10/23/2014) [-]
No it's not.
That's asinine logic.
It WOULD work if any atheists were as you described.
But they're not.
User avatar #138 - captainfuckitall (10/23/2014) [-]
1. How exactly did I describe Atheists
2. How in the hell did you come to know the entire world population of them?
User avatar #139 - YllekNayr (10/23/2014) [-]
Because atheism as a definition is a lack of belief, not a "I choose to believe in nothing"
You don't DO anything to be an atheist.
User avatar #140 - captainfuckitall (10/23/2014) [-]
Have you ever TRIED to find out if religion had any merit? Have you ever looked into it yourself?
User avatar #157 - YllekNayr (19 hours ago) [-]
Most atheists start out religious and deconvert.
I was no exception.
User avatar #158 - captainfuckitall (19 hours ago) [-]
That's not what I asked. Being raised into something and looking into it are two different things. You can have scientists for parents, but that doesn't mean you know anything about it.
User avatar #159 - YllekNayr (19 hours ago) [-]
There is nothing there for me, if that's what you're wondering.
User avatar #160 - captainfuckitall (18 hours ago) [-]
It's not. I'm asking if you did any research into it yourself and you're avoiding the question; but I'm going to assume either you didn't do research and decided it's not for you, in which case you ARE exactly as I 'described' Atheists as not wanting to believe our of faith. Or you did do research and decided it's not for you, which is fine. However, if that's the case than you did the exact same thing I did; you riled on me for assuming all Atheists were the same when you assume all religious people are the same and believe just because they want to. Yet you don't give the benefit of the doubt that they might have found something, or evidence, or a connection that you failed to find; which is in itself an act of faith that they're wrong and you're right.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

It's true that you cannot prove a negative. "You can't prove a god DOESN'T exist!" is just plain silly, but that doesn't change the fact that scientists believe many things that cannot outright be proven, such as everything from the Multiverse theory, to much of quantum physics, to even the theory of evolution. Indeed connections can be made and gaps can be bridged, but by the very virtue of Science, nothing can ever be 100% proven. There is absolutely no way to know if we're not just brains floating in a vat of liquid with all these images and memories being projected onto us, and yet we assume we aren't. Whatever type of 'sake-of-convenience' or hardline evidence or basic argument you make, it doesn't change the fact that all these are still just assumptions based on faith.

Everyone believes things because they want to. The act of believing a child should NOT be raped is based purely on subjective morality and yet you follow that as an act of faith, because you want to believe what you do is right.

Faith is an intrinsic part of life that gives people the means to express themselves beyond the bounds of absolute practicality. No one is immune from it, nor should they be.
User avatar #161 - YllekNayr (18 hours ago) [-]
It's not as you described.
There are no atheists that do not believe in ANY (not just your) religion simply "because they want to". They do not believe because there has been ZERO evidence that yours or any religion is correct. Burden of Proof, my friend. NOT believing in something is the default state.
User avatar #162 - captainfuckitall (17 hours ago) [-]
We've been through this. Did you even read anything I wrote?

1. You do not know the motivations of all Atheists. I for one have met a few who assumed all religion and myth was wrong without ever picking up a book of it. Regardless of whether they're even right or not, they decide it on faith.

2. I never mentioned anything about my or any specific religion other than a vague mention of A monotheistic deity.

3. Burden of proof applies, but you still need to make an effort. Do you just sit there and wait for ALL information to be presented to you? Of course not, you do your own research to come to X conclusions. Not doing any research and concluding that they are either right or wrong is an act of faith, regardless of religious views.

4. Even if it wasn't, faith is still used in all walks of life from assuming someone won't try to cheat you to assuming they don't try to kill you; as a result, bashing any one particular thing because of "Hurr durr, faith" is an idiot argument, as faith is required in order to live a well-adjusted life, and probably any good life at all.

But regardless, it is obvious you are exactly as I described in my very first comment, someone who doesn't believe or listen because they don't want to. That's fine, but this will be my last comment on the matter.
User avatar #163 - YllekNayr (17 hours ago) [-]
1. I don't have to. It's implied by what "atheist" means.
2. It's pretty obvious.
3. No I don't. It's false until you religious folk can prove otherwise. I don't expect you to waste your time looking at grainy footage of Bigfoot just because I think Bigfoot is real and want you to "do your own research"
4. No it isn't. You've mistaken faith with "understanding social conditioning". I don't have to rely on faith to assume that most people aren't going to attack me, though I do guard myself on the off chance that it were to happen. Faith isn't necessary. You see it is, but you cannot push it onto everyone else as a way of preemptively asserting your position as correct.
User avatar #69 - hudis (10/23/2014) [-]
Although I've disagreed with you quite a few times before, I don't entirely disagree from you now. I generally learn a lot from debates/arguments - probably those I've had with you as well, though I can't even recall what they were about right now. Oh well.
User avatar #70 - captainfuckitall (10/23/2014) [-]
Pardon me, but I have absolutely no idea who you are
User avatar #72 - hudis (10/23/2014) [-]
Hah, I figured that would be the case. I've argued with loads of people on this site and I don't remember half of them either - but there are some I remember or see regularly, and I have a pretty good people-memory, so there you go.
User avatar #49 - neptomite (10/22/2014) [-]
i rarely thumb posts. you have my thumb captainfuckitall
User avatar #48 - Aerosmither (10/22/2014) [-]
No
#42 - bbobwithtwobs (10/22/2014) [-]
Disagree. You argue with someone to show OTHER people why you are right.
#111 - xxxsonic fanxxx (10/23/2014) [-]
"Disagree: Here is why I see people arguing."

And I could list a third option. There are many reasons why people argue.
#33 - lean (10/22/2014) [-]
Nah man, I disagree. Debating is completely about someones wrong opinions and making them feel like a fuckin' retard.
#4 - I know how he feels, I always feel the need to remind mothers … 10/22/2014 on How not to pedo +50
#6 - It's funny because this exact idea (in the exact same form) wa… 10/22/2014 on 2coopy went full retard 0
#4 - But why would she want a pussy when she already has one for a … 10/22/2014 on Compromise +12
#191 - "I swear I'm right, but I don't have to tell you anything…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/22/2014 on My new Bae 0
User avatar #192 - bestfoxgirl (10/22/2014) [-]
More like "I told you why you're spewing bullshit, but you're too fucking dumb to understand it no matter how simply I put it, so I don't care anymore."
#190 - I didn't thumb you down. If you noticed, that anonymous and me… 10/22/2014 on My new Bae 0
#189 - Well I found 24 in yours See? We can both make up num…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/22/2014 on My new Bae 0
User avatar #193 - bestfoxgirl (10/22/2014) [-]
You don't have a fucking clue what a "fallacy" is, right?

I told you why you're wrong a couple of times, each time in a simpler way. But you can't read with comprehension, which isn't my fault. I don't have to teach you how to read, kid.
#188 - Ah, I'm sorry, I suppose Mien Kampf itself is not a good refer…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/22/2014 on My new Bae 0
User avatar #194 - bestfoxgirl (10/22/2014) [-]
implying you'd understand shit about it. Also, confirmed for not knowing history.

Actually, it kinda shows you on what level the others perceive you. And trust me, I know when I'm talking to a guy who hasn't passed the middle school yet. Your level of reading with comprehension skills and the way you contradict yourself or use words you don't know the meaning of gives it away perfectly.
#18 - I often wonder if they INTENTIONALLY make themselves look like… 10/22/2014 on how the opposition sees... -4
#17 - Mike Tyson, what are you doing on Funnyjunk? You're supposed t… 10/22/2014 on Breaking Bad Toys R Us -... 0
#176 - How so? 10/22/2014 on My new Bae 0
#175 - Comment #173 10/22/2014 on My new Bae -1
#174 - Actually, the Third Reich started with EXACTLY that. A few peo…  [+] (3 new replies) 10/22/2014 on My new Bae +1
User avatar #184 - bestfoxgirl (10/22/2014) [-]
Kid, just stop embarrassing yourself pls. 3rd Reich got the support of US (that's how Hitler came to power) and from then- they were in full control of the government. Go read a history book for elementary school kids, you'll probably find it there.
User avatar #188 - captainfuckitall (10/22/2014) [-]
Ah, I'm sorry, I suppose Mien Kampf itself is not a good reference for what happened with Hitler and the Reich, I should just trust you instead, my mistake.

By the way, belittling someone as "Boy" and "Kid" just proves you don't have enough of an argument. You shouldn't have to insult anyone to win or inflate your own ego
User avatar #194 - bestfoxgirl (10/22/2014) [-]
implying you'd understand shit about it. Also, confirmed for not knowing history.

Actually, it kinda shows you on what level the others perceive you. And trust me, I know when I'm talking to a guy who hasn't passed the middle school yet. Your level of reading with comprehension skills and the way you contradict yourself or use words you don't know the meaning of gives it away perfectly.
#173 - Anecdotal fallacy: Just because you have a different experienc…  [+] (3 new replies) 10/22/2014 on My new Bae 0
User avatar #186 - bestfoxgirl (10/22/2014) [-]
Kid, you shouldn't speak about fallacies, really. Read your posts in this thread and try to find as many of them as you can. Tip: I didn't really bother and I already found about 7
User avatar #189 - captainfuckitall (10/22/2014) [-]
Well I found 24 in yours

See? We can both make up numbers, isn't that fun? But really your argument just comes down to "You're wrong, but I'm not gonna tell you why, you still have to believe me though". Even in the worst of debates you don't make someone prove your point for you, you do it yourself or you don't mention it, simple.
User avatar #193 - bestfoxgirl (10/22/2014) [-]
You don't have a fucking clue what a "fallacy" is, right?

I told you why you're wrong a couple of times, each time in a simpler way. But you can't read with comprehension, which isn't my fault. I don't have to teach you how to read, kid.

Comments(483):

[ 483 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #490 - commencingfailure (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (09/22/2013) [-]
I would just like to say thank you.
#466 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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 (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 (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.
User avatar #461 - potgardener (06/01/2013) [-]
youre pretty ****** in the head if beating a kid is a good idea, parents would need to hit their kids if they taught them what was right and wrong from the beginning
User avatar #462 to #461 - captainfuckitall (06/01/2013) [-]
It's ironic how you talk about avoiding situations, when your very comment isn't needed considering I already explained, about five times now, that I do not mean you must 'abuse' your children in order to get good results. My comment, and all the comments afterwards, were about how when compassion and support fails you must turn to punishment and discipline, including simply smacking your kid upside the head

Perhaps you should read more and get better informed before jumping to opinions, yes?
#459 - bossdelainternet (05/11/2013) [-]
I'd just like to say thank you for created one of the funniest  threads i've seen this year.   
To sum up why i thought it was so funny, a quote...   
"Most people would say 'I lost. I give up.', but you, you just keep trying. You're like the Dominican Republic, always killing the guy in charge and saying 'Ah, this new guy, this new guy's gonna get it right!'." - Family Guy
I'd just like to say thank you for created one of the funniest threads i've seen this year.
To sum up why i thought it was so funny, a quote...
"Most people would say 'I lost. I give up.', but you, you just keep trying. You're like the Dominican Republic, always killing the guy in charge and saying 'Ah, this new guy, this new guy's gonna get it right!'." - Family Guy
User avatar #460 to #459 - captainfuckitall (05/11/2013) [-]
I'm not sure whether I should take that as a compliment or an insult

I choose the former

Thank you, good sir
#453 - WhattheNorris (11/12/2012) [-]
I just thought I'd let you know that I just did an awful thing and quoted your majestic deep words of death wisdom onto my facebook. I gave you credit, but as part of my shame for stealing I thought I'd tell you. That was honestly one of the best things I've ever read.

Which is also why I screencapped it. Don't worry I swear I'm not going to try to get to frontpage with it I just wanted to save it.
User avatar #454 to #453 - captainfuckitall (11/12/2012) [-]
Not at all, I am not concerned with thumbs in the least. If you would like to post it, by all means do so, if you'd like to take credit, do so as well; I care not for material value or fame, as long as comprehend and understand the message
#455 to #454 - WhattheNorris (11/12/2012) [-]
Oh man you just keep getting better:)    
   
But I wouldn't dare steal your credit.
Oh man you just keep getting better:)

But I wouldn't dare steal your credit.
#449 - captainspankmonkey (02/27/2012) [-]
Internet problems
That is why :P
User avatar #450 to #460 - captainfuckitall (02/27/2012) [-]
ahhh, haha, sorry then :P
#447 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/26/2011) [-]
you're a lovely person
User avatar #448 to #458 - captainfuckitall (09/26/2011) [-]
awe, thank you, kind stranger :3

that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D
[ 483 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)