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

hide menu

captainfuckitall

Rank #371 on Comments
captainfuckitall Avatar Level 349 Comments: Sold Soul
Online
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:#371
Highest Content Rank:#10530
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 34 total,  90 ,  56
Comment Thumbs: 53645 total,  65535 ,  11890
Content Level Progress: 66.1% (39/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 46.4% (464/1000)
Level 349 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 350 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:22
Content Views:9755
Times Content Favorited:12 times
Total Comments Made:15593
FJ Points:21689

latest user's comments

#60 - Well that just seems silly; people should know what they want …  [+] (11 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? 0
User avatar #65 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Every government does not equal every leader. You are making assumptions here. Completely unwarranted ones I might add. That personal attack is advice: stop dismissing things just because you disagree. That aside, governments are composed of more than one person. All it takes are a few corrupt people though. You could have a government composed of hundreds or thousands. But 50 corrupt people can do a lot even there. There is no such thing as a government free of corruption. You are not choosing to see the world in a better light, you are choosing to ignore what is there. As for your question v answer one, there are a number of questions which do not have an answer.
User avatar #93 - toastedspikes (10/01/2013) [-]
This is why anarchism as a form of government theoretically should have the lowest form of government, as the government comprises of every individual in a population. In essence it is pure democracy. Is it viable? That's another debate. But as a political ideology it does promise the least amount of corruption.
User avatar #67 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I never made assumptions, I said it was "Akin too", as you cannot have a governing body without a head. I'm not dismissing anything. True, but there can only be 'one' leader, a President, Prime-Minister, or King. Again, that is not the fault of the government, but the people; there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a governing body, just the mind-set of a few people within it (and the very fact it can only be just a few proves it). You don't uproot a tree just because a few branches are bad, you simply snip them away and hope for the best.

Many questions that do not have an answer? Such as? (Note: Philosophical questions do not count, as personal belief changes from person to person. Just as well, questions currently unanswered to not mean a question HAS no answer)
User avatar #81 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
This has nothing to do with our debate or argument. Whichever you prefer to call it. But did you know that as an anon they censor the word "assumption"
User avatar #72 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
You cannot take out questions on a debate like this. So philosophical questions do count. As such I think you can come up with them on your own.

Ignoring that, as it is not important to this: You aren't disagreeing with me. Why do you insist on arguing if you aren't going to disagree? I agree that we should keep the governments. Governments are necessary. Are you trying to imply with your statement that I think we should get rid of governments? Because no where have I said anything like that. But that doesn't make governments right. It doesn't make them wrong. But they are always corrupt to some level. The best we can do is limit that corruption. We cannot get rid of it. Instead of ignoring that it is there, let us make sure it is limited as possible.
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Yes you can, when they have no place to be there. Philosophical questions do not count, as philosophical beliefs vary from person to person, and thus questions like "What is the meaning of life" has a million different answers, even though it is impossible to accept them all. You cannot include questions where the answers are subjective, otherwise there is no concrete answer at all.

Why would I come up with questions to prove YOUR point? That's not how debating works. You make a claim, you prove it.

Because I don't disagree with everything you say, only some things. I actually thought we had moved on from governments and was onto morality, which explains why I agreed with you regarding the logic concerning governments and not when concerning morality.
User avatar #79 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Two different sets of arguments. One is about morality itself, the other is about corruption in the government. If you haven't noticed we have been going from the top to the bottom of this thread with this, because the replies are in different places. Because it is two different arguments, though they may overlap a bit. As far as why you would come up with a question to support me...I said you can. Not you would. You don't need to type them out, since I already know they are their in your head. And I still stand, that philosophical questions, such as they are, count. That aside though, I ask you if you know what a theory is? It is an answer to a question in science yes. An answer with an large amount of evidence for it...but is still not proven. Why? Because it can't be proven. Those are the questions we can never know the answer That aside, i am pretty sure you want to end this, So after I respond to your other thing, I will stop responding period. You can have your own response after it, and I will probably find it wanting, since you will probably say I am contradictiing myself or something and then say I said something I didn't actually say. But like I said, it will be the end for me.
User avatar #110 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
Theories can, and have been proven countless times before. Again, just because something has yet to be answered does not mean it lacks an answer, it just means we haven't figured it out yet. There is no such thing as a question without an answer, and I stand by that point.
#75 - include (10/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #76 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Feel free to do so if you so choose. It is always good to have a second opinion. What is your personal view on morality and where it comes from, Include?
#77 - include (10/01/2013) [-]
Ahh...I just believe everyone has their own opinions on morality even if their right or wrong.
#59 - >"Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary fa…  [+] (7 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? 0
User avatar #61 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Once again, twisting of words.

Now you are just purposefully being stupid. Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. Of course contest means nothing to you, if you can find something that agrees with what you say. You would be a great politician, if a terrible philosopher or scientist. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said. So you are now agreeing with what I have said, but saying it in a way that looks like it disagrees. Good job mate.
User avatar #66 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I literally copied and pasted your words, there is no way I could twist them. Here, I'll even copy and paste the rest: "Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor. Government might be decided by what people view as morally right, or it might be decided by what a dictator wants." But you have also said: "Just because someone claims something is moral, doesn't mean it is.", which contradicts your "I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality." because if a government is not PART of the ultimate source of morality, it is subject to change.

Actually what you said was "Government is not a moral factor", so whether it is right or wrong becomes nill. Well you're right, Empathy cannot change, because it's an emotion, changing would imply it no longer is affiliated with that feeling; the only thing that MATTERS is that FEELINGS of Empathy do change, just as any emotion can, and thus morality can as well; at leas that's the logical view of things.

Actually I didn't say anything about the basis of morality, I was only questioning your stance upon it.

It's funny that you paint me out to be the ass, but if we took away every personal attack against me:

"Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said."

Your paragraph is literally cut in half.
User avatar #71 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
By the way, no where did I paint you as an ass. I have been strongly pointing out how prone you are to ignoring key parts of an argument....like a politician.
User avatar #70 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
For your first paragraph:

You copied and pasted the entire thing and you still think I am contradicting myself? You are ignoring the NOT A MORAL FACTOR. Because it is not a moral factor, it can be morally right or wrong in what it does. But it is not definitely on either side of the factor. Please stop ignoring the context.

Second Paragraph

YOU JUST AGREED WITH ME in your first sentence. And your second. And I will agree with you on the next part. Empathy doesn't change, but the feelings you are empathizing do. That is why morality depends on the situation. I won't feel the same moral obligation for a lie as I will a murder. Why? Because they are different situations. But for the same situation, morality will not change.

You clearly have disagreed with my stance. But that being said, I expect this part was in response to the you have agreed with me thing. Well, by saying that "Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short." you are saying that you can make a decision different from your feelings on the subject. This does not mean that morality is not decided by empathy. It means decisions are not decided by empathy. So what I said still stands.

As for your personal attack thing. You cut out a part that wasn't a personal attack.

I took out the real personal attacks and it turns out that 137 words with them, 113 words without. Hardly half. And that doesn't change my points anyway so....
User avatar #73 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation is getting far too convoluted to keep track of. I would suggest we either go back to basics or end it right here, lest we end up hating eachother due to the wrong reasons. But, just so I can prove I'm not 'coping out":

You are contradicting yourself, you can't say Empathy doesn't change and then say people can decide whether the government is moral or not (after-all, if Empathy didn't change, the opinion would remain the same).

Yes, I can agree with you, just like you can agree with me; I don't exactly like the idea of butting heads for the sake of butting heads, so if you say something I agree with, yes, I will say so.

If morality depends on the situation, then it is not absolute, it is situational. But if morality depends on the situations, why wouldn't it change based upon the reason for the lie or murder?

I disagreed about your stance regarding morality, not the government. But if decisions are not decided by Empathy, and thus, Morality, what are they decided by? Or rather, whatever they are decided by, where does morality come into the picture at all?

That would depend on personal opinion, and is thus unreliable as we both have two differing ones.
User avatar #80 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation should have ended awhile ago.

I am worried I would fill up my entire 2,000 words with why your second section is wrong. I have not once contradicted myself. Empathy doesn't change. I never once said people could decide the morality of a govt. A govt. can be either moral or immoral. People can make their own judgements on it. But people can be wrong. People don't judge things based off of morality and NONE have complete empathy. People make decisions, but they do not decide morality.

You have said things that agree with what I say. You just say them differently. You think they are different, but really they aren't.

Morality doesn't change. It is absolute. There is a reason murder and lying were used. Because morality cannot in any way view those as the same. Because they are not the same. It is based off of the situation, but that does not mean the same thing as morality changes. It would be like a computer deciding what is just in our justice system. In two identical situations it will never change what it does, but in two slightly different situations it might. Does the computer then, ever change? No.

You are now asking me to tell you what decisions are based off of. This is not an argument on how people decide what is moral. It is an argument as to what IS moral. Two completely different things.

This is my last response. You can tell me I contradict myself when I don't all you want. But you wanted finality so I am giving it to you. This is my last response.
User avatar #111 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
But then, again, what is the point of morality at all? If people could choose what is moral or immoral, yet morality doesn't change, would that not mean we move along without it? If the entire world simultaneously decided that 4 actually meant 5, would they be wrong? Absolutely not, because the numbers are just representations, things we use as a bridge of meaning, they change as people's meanings change. If people do not judge things based off morality or have complete Empathy, there is no point for them at all, it would be just like a poster in the Arctic that nobody ever comes across. Besides, if they can be wrong, can't you be wrong about the ultimate source of morality as well?

Oh, okay, it's comforting to know that you know my arguments and mind-set better than I do.

But if a murder is caused by a lie, or a lie prevents a life from being saved, they become interchangeable, just like morality. You're right, in two identical situations it would not change the verdict, however, another computer just might disagree.
#58 - True, but that just means it stands to be improved, not to be …  [+] (1 new reply) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? +2
User avatar #68 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
i can actually agree with you on this, have this thumb
#53 - So now it's gone from "Governments are bad" to "…  [+] (3 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? 0
User avatar #54 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
but the thing is, most, if not all, mpdern governments are currupt in some way.
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
True, but that just means it stands to be improved, not to be cut away.
User avatar #68 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
i can actually agree with you on this, have this thumb
#51 - Because, again, you disregarded that morality hinges on an ind…  [+] (9 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? -1
User avatar #55 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
You are beginning to piss me off with your blatant disregard for what I have said, and twisting of words.

I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality. I said that they are not moral themselves.

Furthermore, empathy does not change. People may have varying levels of empathy, but true empathy would lead you down only one path. No one has truly complete empathy and thus morality SEEMS subject to change. In reality it is not. No where have I disregarded my explanation. You have disregarded.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
>"Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor."
>"Once again, necessary, not right."

Don't be mad at me because you didn't word it the way you wanted.

Empathy can change, as it is just the ability to understand and share feelings/connections with a person, thing, or idea. Empathy literally changes because different people find connections at different things at different levels; I myself am empathetic toward the working man, while you might be empathetic toward the sorrowful man, or the guy below might be empathetic toward cloning or machine rights, or any number of things. Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short.

(Although, if you really do have it figured out as Empathy, I would recommend perfecting that and becoming a pro-philosopher as you have just cracked a riddle many have been trying to solve since the first few civilizations).
User avatar #61 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Once again, twisting of words.

Now you are just purposefully being stupid. Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. Of course contest means nothing to you, if you can find something that agrees with what you say. You would be a great politician, if a terrible philosopher or scientist. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said. So you are now agreeing with what I have said, but saying it in a way that looks like it disagrees. Good job mate.
User avatar #66 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I literally copied and pasted your words, there is no way I could twist them. Here, I'll even copy and paste the rest: "Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor. Government might be decided by what people view as morally right, or it might be decided by what a dictator wants." But you have also said: "Just because someone claims something is moral, doesn't mean it is.", which contradicts your "I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality." because if a government is not PART of the ultimate source of morality, it is subject to change.

Actually what you said was "Government is not a moral factor", so whether it is right or wrong becomes nill. Well you're right, Empathy cannot change, because it's an emotion, changing would imply it no longer is affiliated with that feeling; the only thing that MATTERS is that FEELINGS of Empathy do change, just as any emotion can, and thus morality can as well; at leas that's the logical view of things.

Actually I didn't say anything about the basis of morality, I was only questioning your stance upon it.

It's funny that you paint me out to be the ass, but if we took away every personal attack against me:

"Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said."

Your paragraph is literally cut in half.
User avatar #71 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
By the way, no where did I paint you as an ass. I have been strongly pointing out how prone you are to ignoring key parts of an argument....like a politician.
User avatar #70 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
For your first paragraph:

You copied and pasted the entire thing and you still think I am contradicting myself? You are ignoring the NOT A MORAL FACTOR. Because it is not a moral factor, it can be morally right or wrong in what it does. But it is not definitely on either side of the factor. Please stop ignoring the context.

Second Paragraph

YOU JUST AGREED WITH ME in your first sentence. And your second. And I will agree with you on the next part. Empathy doesn't change, but the feelings you are empathizing do. That is why morality depends on the situation. I won't feel the same moral obligation for a lie as I will a murder. Why? Because they are different situations. But for the same situation, morality will not change.

You clearly have disagreed with my stance. But that being said, I expect this part was in response to the you have agreed with me thing. Well, by saying that "Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short." you are saying that you can make a decision different from your feelings on the subject. This does not mean that morality is not decided by empathy. It means decisions are not decided by empathy. So what I said still stands.

As for your personal attack thing. You cut out a part that wasn't a personal attack.

I took out the real personal attacks and it turns out that 137 words with them, 113 words without. Hardly half. And that doesn't change my points anyway so....
User avatar #73 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation is getting far too convoluted to keep track of. I would suggest we either go back to basics or end it right here, lest we end up hating eachother due to the wrong reasons. But, just so I can prove I'm not 'coping out":

You are contradicting yourself, you can't say Empathy doesn't change and then say people can decide whether the government is moral or not (after-all, if Empathy didn't change, the opinion would remain the same).

Yes, I can agree with you, just like you can agree with me; I don't exactly like the idea of butting heads for the sake of butting heads, so if you say something I agree with, yes, I will say so.

If morality depends on the situation, then it is not absolute, it is situational. But if morality depends on the situations, why wouldn't it change based upon the reason for the lie or murder?

I disagreed about your stance regarding morality, not the government. But if decisions are not decided by Empathy, and thus, Morality, what are they decided by? Or rather, whatever they are decided by, where does morality come into the picture at all?

That would depend on personal opinion, and is thus unreliable as we both have two differing ones.
User avatar #80 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation should have ended awhile ago.

I am worried I would fill up my entire 2,000 words with why your second section is wrong. I have not once contradicted myself. Empathy doesn't change. I never once said people could decide the morality of a govt. A govt. can be either moral or immoral. People can make their own judgements on it. But people can be wrong. People don't judge things based off of morality and NONE have complete empathy. People make decisions, but they do not decide morality.

You have said things that agree with what I say. You just say them differently. You think they are different, but really they aren't.

Morality doesn't change. It is absolute. There is a reason murder and lying were used. Because morality cannot in any way view those as the same. Because they are not the same. It is based off of the situation, but that does not mean the same thing as morality changes. It would be like a computer deciding what is just in our justice system. In two identical situations it will never change what it does, but in two slightly different situations it might. Does the computer then, ever change? No.

You are now asking me to tell you what decisions are based off of. This is not an argument on how people decide what is moral. It is an argument as to what IS moral. Two completely different things.

This is my last response. You can tell me I contradict myself when I don't all you want. But you wanted finality so I am giving it to you. This is my last response.
User avatar #111 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
But then, again, what is the point of morality at all? If people could choose what is moral or immoral, yet morality doesn't change, would that not mean we move along without it? If the entire world simultaneously decided that 4 actually meant 5, would they be wrong? Absolutely not, because the numbers are just representations, things we use as a bridge of meaning, they change as people's meanings change. If people do not judge things based off morality or have complete Empathy, there is no point for them at all, it would be just like a poster in the Arctic that nobody ever comes across. Besides, if they can be wrong, can't you be wrong about the ultimate source of morality as well?

Oh, okay, it's comforting to know that you know my arguments and mind-set better than I do.

But if a murder is caused by a lie, or a lie prevents a life from being saved, they become interchangeable, just like morality. You're right, in two identical situations it would not change the verdict, however, another computer just might disagree.
#49 - Now you're just sounding like one of those people who say &quo…  [+] (13 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? 0
User avatar #57 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
As for your first part, I don't necessarily believe those people are wrong. You are discarding their belief out of hand. As you seem prone to do.

I apologize for not getting that he was making a joke. I still think my point stands, just not the way it did before. It is not what he intended but I don't think I am wrong in saying what I said.
User avatar #60 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Well that just seems silly; people should know what they want and be decisive about getting the point across, if they are unable to do so, they shouldn't have the right to speak about such things that would require the skill at all.

Your personal attacks against me aside, saying that every government is corrupt is akin to saying every leader is corrupt, which would imply every one of them is fundamentally flawed, but I think that would be a very dreary way to look at things and would rather not see it that way, instead, I would rather think that it is simply a problem of efficiency, one that has to be solved by such things as frequent pruning and conflict. Past experiences may tell us that every government and kingdom can fall, but past experiences also tell us that every question has an answer, it just takes some exploration and trial and error to get the right one.
User avatar #65 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Every government does not equal every leader. You are making assumptions here. Completely unwarranted ones I might add. That personal attack is advice: stop dismissing things just because you disagree. That aside, governments are composed of more than one person. All it takes are a few corrupt people though. You could have a government composed of hundreds or thousands. But 50 corrupt people can do a lot even there. There is no such thing as a government free of corruption. You are not choosing to see the world in a better light, you are choosing to ignore what is there. As for your question v answer one, there are a number of questions which do not have an answer.
User avatar #93 - toastedspikes (10/01/2013) [-]
This is why anarchism as a form of government theoretically should have the lowest form of government, as the government comprises of every individual in a population. In essence it is pure democracy. Is it viable? That's another debate. But as a political ideology it does promise the least amount of corruption.
User avatar #67 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I never made assumptions, I said it was "Akin too", as you cannot have a governing body without a head. I'm not dismissing anything. True, but there can only be 'one' leader, a President, Prime-Minister, or King. Again, that is not the fault of the government, but the people; there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a governing body, just the mind-set of a few people within it (and the very fact it can only be just a few proves it). You don't uproot a tree just because a few branches are bad, you simply snip them away and hope for the best.

Many questions that do not have an answer? Such as? (Note: Philosophical questions do not count, as personal belief changes from person to person. Just as well, questions currently unanswered to not mean a question HAS no answer)
User avatar #81 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
This has nothing to do with our debate or argument. Whichever you prefer to call it. But did you know that as an anon they censor the word "assumption"
User avatar #72 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
You cannot take out questions on a debate like this. So philosophical questions do count. As such I think you can come up with them on your own.

Ignoring that, as it is not important to this: You aren't disagreeing with me. Why do you insist on arguing if you aren't going to disagree? I agree that we should keep the governments. Governments are necessary. Are you trying to imply with your statement that I think we should get rid of governments? Because no where have I said anything like that. But that doesn't make governments right. It doesn't make them wrong. But they are always corrupt to some level. The best we can do is limit that corruption. We cannot get rid of it. Instead of ignoring that it is there, let us make sure it is limited as possible.
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Yes you can, when they have no place to be there. Philosophical questions do not count, as philosophical beliefs vary from person to person, and thus questions like "What is the meaning of life" has a million different answers, even though it is impossible to accept them all. You cannot include questions where the answers are subjective, otherwise there is no concrete answer at all.

Why would I come up with questions to prove YOUR point? That's not how debating works. You make a claim, you prove it.

Because I don't disagree with everything you say, only some things. I actually thought we had moved on from governments and was onto morality, which explains why I agreed with you regarding the logic concerning governments and not when concerning morality.
User avatar #79 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Two different sets of arguments. One is about morality itself, the other is about corruption in the government. If you haven't noticed we have been going from the top to the bottom of this thread with this, because the replies are in different places. Because it is two different arguments, though they may overlap a bit. As far as why you would come up with a question to support me...I said you can. Not you would. You don't need to type them out, since I already know they are their in your head. And I still stand, that philosophical questions, such as they are, count. That aside though, I ask you if you know what a theory is? It is an answer to a question in science yes. An answer with an large amount of evidence for it...but is still not proven. Why? Because it can't be proven. Those are the questions we can never know the answer That aside, i am pretty sure you want to end this, So after I respond to your other thing, I will stop responding period. You can have your own response after it, and I will probably find it wanting, since you will probably say I am contradictiing myself or something and then say I said something I didn't actually say. But like I said, it will be the end for me.
User avatar #110 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
Theories can, and have been proven countless times before. Again, just because something has yet to be answered does not mean it lacks an answer, it just means we haven't figured it out yet. There is no such thing as a question without an answer, and I stand by that point.
#75 - include (10/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #76 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Feel free to do so if you so choose. It is always good to have a second opinion. What is your personal view on morality and where it comes from, Include?
#77 - include (10/01/2013) [-]
Ahh...I just believe everyone has their own opinions on morality even if their right or wrong.
#46 - How so? Caring breeds morality? That doesn't work, because tha…  [+] (11 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? -1
User avatar #50 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
If nobody cared morallity would be null....That is kind of the idea. I don't see where that doesn't work.

Morality doesn't change. It is what people view as morality that changes. There is only one thing that is truly moral. It is like science. The science of the universe has always remained the same. But what people know about it has changed. Just because someone claims something is moral, doesn't mean it is.
User avatar #51 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Because, again, you disregarded that morality hinges on an individual because it shouldn't be subjected to change. However, your explanation, that it hinges on empathy, means that it WOULD be subject to change as empathy is as well, which means you had no reason to disregard the explanation before that in the first-place.

And by that logic, just because someone says it's not moral doesn't mean it isn't? If that is so, how are you so sure that governments are, in fact, not right on the basis of morality?
User avatar #55 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
You are beginning to piss me off with your blatant disregard for what I have said, and twisting of words.

I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality. I said that they are not moral themselves.

Furthermore, empathy does not change. People may have varying levels of empathy, but true empathy would lead you down only one path. No one has truly complete empathy and thus morality SEEMS subject to change. In reality it is not. No where have I disregarded my explanation. You have disregarded.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
>"Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor."
>"Once again, necessary, not right."

Don't be mad at me because you didn't word it the way you wanted.

Empathy can change, as it is just the ability to understand and share feelings/connections with a person, thing, or idea. Empathy literally changes because different people find connections at different things at different levels; I myself am empathetic toward the working man, while you might be empathetic toward the sorrowful man, or the guy below might be empathetic toward cloning or machine rights, or any number of things. Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short.

(Although, if you really do have it figured out as Empathy, I would recommend perfecting that and becoming a pro-philosopher as you have just cracked a riddle many have been trying to solve since the first few civilizations).
User avatar #61 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Once again, twisting of words.

Now you are just purposefully being stupid. Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. Of course contest means nothing to you, if you can find something that agrees with what you say. You would be a great politician, if a terrible philosopher or scientist. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said. So you are now agreeing with what I have said, but saying it in a way that looks like it disagrees. Good job mate.
User avatar #66 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I literally copied and pasted your words, there is no way I could twist them. Here, I'll even copy and paste the rest: "Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor. Government might be decided by what people view as morally right, or it might be decided by what a dictator wants." But you have also said: "Just because someone claims something is moral, doesn't mean it is.", which contradicts your "I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality." because if a government is not PART of the ultimate source of morality, it is subject to change.

Actually what you said was "Government is not a moral factor", so whether it is right or wrong becomes nill. Well you're right, Empathy cannot change, because it's an emotion, changing would imply it no longer is affiliated with that feeling; the only thing that MATTERS is that FEELINGS of Empathy do change, just as any emotion can, and thus morality can as well; at leas that's the logical view of things.

Actually I didn't say anything about the basis of morality, I was only questioning your stance upon it.

It's funny that you paint me out to be the ass, but if we took away every personal attack against me:

"Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said."

Your paragraph is literally cut in half.
User avatar #71 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
By the way, no where did I paint you as an ass. I have been strongly pointing out how prone you are to ignoring key parts of an argument....like a politician.
User avatar #70 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
For your first paragraph:

You copied and pasted the entire thing and you still think I am contradicting myself? You are ignoring the NOT A MORAL FACTOR. Because it is not a moral factor, it can be morally right or wrong in what it does. But it is not definitely on either side of the factor. Please stop ignoring the context.

Second Paragraph

YOU JUST AGREED WITH ME in your first sentence. And your second. And I will agree with you on the next part. Empathy doesn't change, but the feelings you are empathizing do. That is why morality depends on the situation. I won't feel the same moral obligation for a lie as I will a murder. Why? Because they are different situations. But for the same situation, morality will not change.

You clearly have disagreed with my stance. But that being said, I expect this part was in response to the you have agreed with me thing. Well, by saying that "Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short." you are saying that you can make a decision different from your feelings on the subject. This does not mean that morality is not decided by empathy. It means decisions are not decided by empathy. So what I said still stands.

As for your personal attack thing. You cut out a part that wasn't a personal attack.

I took out the real personal attacks and it turns out that 137 words with them, 113 words without. Hardly half. And that doesn't change my points anyway so....
User avatar #73 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation is getting far too convoluted to keep track of. I would suggest we either go back to basics or end it right here, lest we end up hating eachother due to the wrong reasons. But, just so I can prove I'm not 'coping out":

You are contradicting yourself, you can't say Empathy doesn't change and then say people can decide whether the government is moral or not (after-all, if Empathy didn't change, the opinion would remain the same).

Yes, I can agree with you, just like you can agree with me; I don't exactly like the idea of butting heads for the sake of butting heads, so if you say something I agree with, yes, I will say so.

If morality depends on the situation, then it is not absolute, it is situational. But if morality depends on the situations, why wouldn't it change based upon the reason for the lie or murder?

I disagreed about your stance regarding morality, not the government. But if decisions are not decided by Empathy, and thus, Morality, what are they decided by? Or rather, whatever they are decided by, where does morality come into the picture at all?

That would depend on personal opinion, and is thus unreliable as we both have two differing ones.
User avatar #80 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation should have ended awhile ago.

I am worried I would fill up my entire 2,000 words with why your second section is wrong. I have not once contradicted myself. Empathy doesn't change. I never once said people could decide the morality of a govt. A govt. can be either moral or immoral. People can make their own judgements on it. But people can be wrong. People don't judge things based off of morality and NONE have complete empathy. People make decisions, but they do not decide morality.

You have said things that agree with what I say. You just say them differently. You think they are different, but really they aren't.

Morality doesn't change. It is absolute. There is a reason murder and lying were used. Because morality cannot in any way view those as the same. Because they are not the same. It is based off of the situation, but that does not mean the same thing as morality changes. It would be like a computer deciding what is just in our justice system. In two identical situations it will never change what it does, but in two slightly different situations it might. Does the computer then, ever change? No.

You are now asking me to tell you what decisions are based off of. This is not an argument on how people decide what is moral. It is an argument as to what IS moral. Two completely different things.

This is my last response. You can tell me I contradict myself when I don't all you want. But you wanted finality so I am giving it to you. This is my last response.
User avatar #111 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
But then, again, what is the point of morality at all? If people could choose what is moral or immoral, yet morality doesn't change, would that not mean we move along without it? If the entire world simultaneously decided that 4 actually meant 5, would they be wrong? Absolutely not, because the numbers are just representations, things we use as a bridge of meaning, they change as people's meanings change. If people do not judge things based off morality or have complete Empathy, there is no point for them at all, it would be just like a poster in the Arctic that nobody ever comes across. Besides, if they can be wrong, can't you be wrong about the ultimate source of morality as well?

Oh, okay, it's comforting to know that you know my arguments and mind-set better than I do.

But if a murder is caused by a lie, or a lie prevents a life from being saved, they become interchangeable, just like morality. You're right, in two identical situations it would not change the verdict, however, another computer just might disagree.
#45 - I don't disregard anything, I just understand that "peopl…  [+] (5 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? 0
User avatar #52 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
Hm, i guess thats correct. Still tho, less ruling is often better, but if you get the right ruling, i guess it can be good. But as we see, its not like ruling is helping anyone. Good rulers just don`t seems to exist anymore. Both anarchy and rule seems corrupt and misleading. Other options can be beyond human comprehention. So much i can`t even inmagine alternatives.
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
So now it's gone from "Governments are bad" to "Corrupt governments are bad", which was my first point all-together. Anything that can be corrupted can be used for evil, that doesn't mean the thing itself is fundamentally wrong, however.
User avatar #54 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
but the thing is, most, if not all, mpdern governments are currupt in some way.
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
True, but that just means it stands to be improved, not to be cut away.
User avatar #68 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
i can actually agree with you on this, have this thumb
#42 - And where would you say lies the ultimate source of morality? …  [+] (13 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? -1
User avatar #44 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
That is just as easy. Empathy is the ultimate source of morality.
User avatar #46 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
How so? Caring breeds morality? That doesn't work, because that means if nobody cared, morality would be null in the first-place; but if morality is unchanging, it cannot hinder on a factor that also changes with time.
User avatar #50 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
If nobody cared morallity would be null....That is kind of the idea. I don't see where that doesn't work.

Morality doesn't change. It is what people view as morality that changes. There is only one thing that is truly moral. It is like science. The science of the universe has always remained the same. But what people know about it has changed. Just because someone claims something is moral, doesn't mean it is.
User avatar #51 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Because, again, you disregarded that morality hinges on an individual because it shouldn't be subjected to change. However, your explanation, that it hinges on empathy, means that it WOULD be subject to change as empathy is as well, which means you had no reason to disregard the explanation before that in the first-place.

And by that logic, just because someone says it's not moral doesn't mean it isn't? If that is so, how are you so sure that governments are, in fact, not right on the basis of morality?
User avatar #55 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
You are beginning to piss me off with your blatant disregard for what I have said, and twisting of words.

I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality. I said that they are not moral themselves.

Furthermore, empathy does not change. People may have varying levels of empathy, but true empathy would lead you down only one path. No one has truly complete empathy and thus morality SEEMS subject to change. In reality it is not. No where have I disregarded my explanation. You have disregarded.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
>"Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor."
>"Once again, necessary, not right."

Don't be mad at me because you didn't word it the way you wanted.

Empathy can change, as it is just the ability to understand and share feelings/connections with a person, thing, or idea. Empathy literally changes because different people find connections at different things at different levels; I myself am empathetic toward the working man, while you might be empathetic toward the sorrowful man, or the guy below might be empathetic toward cloning or machine rights, or any number of things. Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short.

(Although, if you really do have it figured out as Empathy, I would recommend perfecting that and becoming a pro-philosopher as you have just cracked a riddle many have been trying to solve since the first few civilizations).
User avatar #61 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Once again, twisting of words.

Now you are just purposefully being stupid. Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. Of course contest means nothing to you, if you can find something that agrees with what you say. You would be a great politician, if a terrible philosopher or scientist. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said. So you are now agreeing with what I have said, but saying it in a way that looks like it disagrees. Good job mate.
User avatar #66 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I literally copied and pasted your words, there is no way I could twist them. Here, I'll even copy and paste the rest: "Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor. Government might be decided by what people view as morally right, or it might be decided by what a dictator wants." But you have also said: "Just because someone claims something is moral, doesn't mean it is.", which contradicts your "I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality." because if a government is not PART of the ultimate source of morality, it is subject to change.

Actually what you said was "Government is not a moral factor", so whether it is right or wrong becomes nill. Well you're right, Empathy cannot change, because it's an emotion, changing would imply it no longer is affiliated with that feeling; the only thing that MATTERS is that FEELINGS of Empathy do change, just as any emotion can, and thus morality can as well; at leas that's the logical view of things.

Actually I didn't say anything about the basis of morality, I was only questioning your stance upon it.

It's funny that you paint me out to be the ass, but if we took away every personal attack against me:

"Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said."

Your paragraph is literally cut in half.
User avatar #71 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
By the way, no where did I paint you as an ass. I have been strongly pointing out how prone you are to ignoring key parts of an argument....like a politician.
User avatar #70 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
For your first paragraph:

You copied and pasted the entire thing and you still think I am contradicting myself? You are ignoring the NOT A MORAL FACTOR. Because it is not a moral factor, it can be morally right or wrong in what it does. But it is not definitely on either side of the factor. Please stop ignoring the context.

Second Paragraph

YOU JUST AGREED WITH ME in your first sentence. And your second. And I will agree with you on the next part. Empathy doesn't change, but the feelings you are empathizing do. That is why morality depends on the situation. I won't feel the same moral obligation for a lie as I will a murder. Why? Because they are different situations. But for the same situation, morality will not change.

You clearly have disagreed with my stance. But that being said, I expect this part was in response to the you have agreed with me thing. Well, by saying that "Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short." you are saying that you can make a decision different from your feelings on the subject. This does not mean that morality is not decided by empathy. It means decisions are not decided by empathy. So what I said still stands.

As for your personal attack thing. You cut out a part that wasn't a personal attack.

I took out the real personal attacks and it turns out that 137 words with them, 113 words without. Hardly half. And that doesn't change my points anyway so....
User avatar #73 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation is getting far too convoluted to keep track of. I would suggest we either go back to basics or end it right here, lest we end up hating eachother due to the wrong reasons. But, just so I can prove I'm not 'coping out":

You are contradicting yourself, you can't say Empathy doesn't change and then say people can decide whether the government is moral or not (after-all, if Empathy didn't change, the opinion would remain the same).

Yes, I can agree with you, just like you can agree with me; I don't exactly like the idea of butting heads for the sake of butting heads, so if you say something I agree with, yes, I will say so.

If morality depends on the situation, then it is not absolute, it is situational. But if morality depends on the situations, why wouldn't it change based upon the reason for the lie or murder?

I disagreed about your stance regarding morality, not the government. But if decisions are not decided by Empathy, and thus, Morality, what are they decided by? Or rather, whatever they are decided by, where does morality come into the picture at all?

That would depend on personal opinion, and is thus unreliable as we both have two differing ones.
User avatar #80 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation should have ended awhile ago.

I am worried I would fill up my entire 2,000 words with why your second section is wrong. I have not once contradicted myself. Empathy doesn't change. I never once said people could decide the morality of a govt. A govt. can be either moral or immoral. People can make their own judgements on it. But people can be wrong. People don't judge things based off of morality and NONE have complete empathy. People make decisions, but they do not decide morality.

You have said things that agree with what I say. You just say them differently. You think they are different, but really they aren't.

Morality doesn't change. It is absolute. There is a reason murder and lying were used. Because morality cannot in any way view those as the same. Because they are not the same. It is based off of the situation, but that does not mean the same thing as morality changes. It would be like a computer deciding what is just in our justice system. In two identical situations it will never change what it does, but in two slightly different situations it might. Does the computer then, ever change? No.

You are now asking me to tell you what decisions are based off of. This is not an argument on how people decide what is moral. It is an argument as to what IS moral. Two completely different things.

This is my last response. You can tell me I contradict myself when I don't all you want. But you wanted finality so I am giving it to you. This is my last response.
User avatar #111 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
But then, again, what is the point of morality at all? If people could choose what is moral or immoral, yet morality doesn't change, would that not mean we move along without it? If the entire world simultaneously decided that 4 actually meant 5, would they be wrong? Absolutely not, because the numbers are just representations, things we use as a bridge of meaning, they change as people's meanings change. If people do not judge things based off morality or have complete Empathy, there is no point for them at all, it would be just like a poster in the Arctic that nobody ever comes across. Besides, if they can be wrong, can't you be wrong about the ultimate source of morality as well?

Oh, okay, it's comforting to know that you know my arguments and mind-set better than I do.

But if a murder is caused by a lie, or a lie prevents a life from being saved, they become interchangeable, just like morality. You're right, in two identical situations it would not change the verdict, however, another computer just might disagree.
#40 - No, no they wouldn't, because the average person doesn't SEE t…  [+] (7 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? 0
User avatar #43 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
you obviously disreguard that unless that person is lonely, he will help people he cares about, they will, inturn care for those that they care about, shit happens when the decider cares fo no-one, he becomes enclosed in himself, so do his decitions, others will notice this, they will try to stop him, again, human nature.
User avatar #45 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I don't disregard anything, I just understand that "people they care about" certainly does not encompass all of society. If that is so, why do people disregard so many tragedies throughout the world and society itself? It's because until a problem AFFECTS them personally, people tend to be apathetic or misunderstand the struggles of others. Human intention is what you are going for, and while that very well may be in the right place, only an idiot would say that the heart is the smartest thing to put your money on.

Why would anyone try to stop someone who only cares about themselves? Again, people don't tend to care unless it affects them personally. Rather than believe I disregard certain factors, perhaps you should take in mind that perhaps you have too much faith that 'empathy conquers all'
User avatar #52 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
Hm, i guess thats correct. Still tho, less ruling is often better, but if you get the right ruling, i guess it can be good. But as we see, its not like ruling is helping anyone. Good rulers just don`t seems to exist anymore. Both anarchy and rule seems corrupt and misleading. Other options can be beyond human comprehention. So much i can`t even inmagine alternatives.
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
So now it's gone from "Governments are bad" to "Corrupt governments are bad", which was my first point all-together. Anything that can be corrupted can be used for evil, that doesn't mean the thing itself is fundamentally wrong, however.
User avatar #54 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
but the thing is, most, if not all, mpdern governments are currupt in some way.
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
True, but that just means it stands to be improved, not to be cut away.
User avatar #68 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
i can actually agree with you on this, have this thumb
#39 - Nevermind, I literally just saw the typo and apologize for ass…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? +1
#88 - newdevyx (10/01/2013) [-]
all that shitstorm, but i don't mind.
#37 - Whether that's true or not, it's also true that people are for…  [+] (9 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? 0
User avatar #38 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
but to benefit themselves, they will often choose to help other people and society at large, as that would benefit them.
User avatar #40 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
No, no they wouldn't, because the average person doesn't SEE that far ahead into the future. If things worked that way, the free-market would absolutely be the best source of buying and selling, but we both know that's not true; and why? Because someone will always want a bigger piece of the pie, regardless of whether or whether not it's best for others.
User avatar #43 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
you obviously disreguard that unless that person is lonely, he will help people he cares about, they will, inturn care for those that they care about, shit happens when the decider cares fo no-one, he becomes enclosed in himself, so do his decitions, others will notice this, they will try to stop him, again, human nature.
User avatar #45 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I don't disregard anything, I just understand that "people they care about" certainly does not encompass all of society. If that is so, why do people disregard so many tragedies throughout the world and society itself? It's because until a problem AFFECTS them personally, people tend to be apathetic or misunderstand the struggles of others. Human intention is what you are going for, and while that very well may be in the right place, only an idiot would say that the heart is the smartest thing to put your money on.

Why would anyone try to stop someone who only cares about themselves? Again, people don't tend to care unless it affects them personally. Rather than believe I disregard certain factors, perhaps you should take in mind that perhaps you have too much faith that 'empathy conquers all'
User avatar #52 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
Hm, i guess thats correct. Still tho, less ruling is often better, but if you get the right ruling, i guess it can be good. But as we see, its not like ruling is helping anyone. Good rulers just don`t seems to exist anymore. Both anarchy and rule seems corrupt and misleading. Other options can be beyond human comprehention. So much i can`t even inmagine alternatives.
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
So now it's gone from "Governments are bad" to "Corrupt governments are bad", which was my first point all-together. Anything that can be corrupted can be used for evil, that doesn't mean the thing itself is fundamentally wrong, however.
User avatar #54 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
but the thing is, most, if not all, mpdern governments are currupt in some way.
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
True, but that just means it stands to be improved, not to be cut away.
User avatar #68 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
i can actually agree with you on this, have this thumb
#36 - So what would you define 'right' as, if not necessary?  [+] (16 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? -1
User avatar #41 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
That's easy. Right is what is morally good. Don't start spewing bullshit about morals being different for everyone. Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor. Government might be decided by what people view as morally right, or it might be decided by what a dictator wants. But without government everything becomes much worse, because contrary to what anarchists believe, humans do not do well without a governing body. Once again, necessary, not right.
User avatar #90 - toastedspikes (10/01/2013) [-]
You obviously have no idea what anarchism entails. Anarchists (at least not the 12-year-old rebellious "lol anarchy n kaos! no roolz!" kind) agree that there is a difference between Government and State. All anarchists oppose the State, which is a hierarchal form of governance. Anarchism is still a form of governance, but it is entirely anti-authoritarian, decentralised, horizontal, and basically, every individual has the same power as any other.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
And where would you say lies the ultimate source of morality? If what is 'right' is morally good, and doesn't change, then there has to be a final source of it. Can you tell me what that is that is not subjected to change?

Government is moral factor if you include the "Might Makes Right" belief.
User avatar #44 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
That is just as easy. Empathy is the ultimate source of morality.
User avatar #46 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
How so? Caring breeds morality? That doesn't work, because that means if nobody cared, morality would be null in the first-place; but if morality is unchanging, it cannot hinder on a factor that also changes with time.
User avatar #50 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
If nobody cared morallity would be null....That is kind of the idea. I don't see where that doesn't work.

Morality doesn't change. It is what people view as morality that changes. There is only one thing that is truly moral. It is like science. The science of the universe has always remained the same. But what people know about it has changed. Just because someone claims something is moral, doesn't mean it is.
User avatar #51 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Because, again, you disregarded that morality hinges on an individual because it shouldn't be subjected to change. However, your explanation, that it hinges on empathy, means that it WOULD be subject to change as empathy is as well, which means you had no reason to disregard the explanation before that in the first-place.

And by that logic, just because someone says it's not moral doesn't mean it isn't? If that is so, how are you so sure that governments are, in fact, not right on the basis of morality?
User avatar #55 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
You are beginning to piss me off with your blatant disregard for what I have said, and twisting of words.

I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality. I said that they are not moral themselves.

Furthermore, empathy does not change. People may have varying levels of empathy, but true empathy would lead you down only one path. No one has truly complete empathy and thus morality SEEMS subject to change. In reality it is not. No where have I disregarded my explanation. You have disregarded.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
>"Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor."
>"Once again, necessary, not right."

Don't be mad at me because you didn't word it the way you wanted.

Empathy can change, as it is just the ability to understand and share feelings/connections with a person, thing, or idea. Empathy literally changes because different people find connections at different things at different levels; I myself am empathetic toward the working man, while you might be empathetic toward the sorrowful man, or the guy below might be empathetic toward cloning or machine rights, or any number of things. Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short.

(Although, if you really do have it figured out as Empathy, I would recommend perfecting that and becoming a pro-philosopher as you have just cracked a riddle many have been trying to solve since the first few civilizations).
User avatar #61 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Once again, twisting of words.

Now you are just purposefully being stupid. Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. Of course contest means nothing to you, if you can find something that agrees with what you say. You would be a great politician, if a terrible philosopher or scientist. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said. So you are now agreeing with what I have said, but saying it in a way that looks like it disagrees. Good job mate.
User avatar #66 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I literally copied and pasted your words, there is no way I could twist them. Here, I'll even copy and paste the rest: "Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor. Government might be decided by what people view as morally right, or it might be decided by what a dictator wants." But you have also said: "Just because someone claims something is moral, doesn't mean it is.", which contradicts your "I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality." because if a government is not PART of the ultimate source of morality, it is subject to change.

Actually what you said was "Government is not a moral factor", so whether it is right or wrong becomes nill. Well you're right, Empathy cannot change, because it's an emotion, changing would imply it no longer is affiliated with that feeling; the only thing that MATTERS is that FEELINGS of Empathy do change, just as any emotion can, and thus morality can as well; at leas that's the logical view of things.

Actually I didn't say anything about the basis of morality, I was only questioning your stance upon it.

It's funny that you paint me out to be the ass, but if we took away every personal attack against me:

"Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said."

Your paragraph is literally cut in half.
User avatar #71 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
By the way, no where did I paint you as an ass. I have been strongly pointing out how prone you are to ignoring key parts of an argument....like a politician.
User avatar #70 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
For your first paragraph:

You copied and pasted the entire thing and you still think I am contradicting myself? You are ignoring the NOT A MORAL FACTOR. Because it is not a moral factor, it can be morally right or wrong in what it does. But it is not definitely on either side of the factor. Please stop ignoring the context.

Second Paragraph

YOU JUST AGREED WITH ME in your first sentence. And your second. And I will agree with you on the next part. Empathy doesn't change, but the feelings you are empathizing do. That is why morality depends on the situation. I won't feel the same moral obligation for a lie as I will a murder. Why? Because they are different situations. But for the same situation, morality will not change.

You clearly have disagreed with my stance. But that being said, I expect this part was in response to the you have agreed with me thing. Well, by saying that "Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short." you are saying that you can make a decision different from your feelings on the subject. This does not mean that morality is not decided by empathy. It means decisions are not decided by empathy. So what I said still stands.

As for your personal attack thing. You cut out a part that wasn't a personal attack.

I took out the real personal attacks and it turns out that 137 words with them, 113 words without. Hardly half. And that doesn't change my points anyway so....
User avatar #73 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation is getting far too convoluted to keep track of. I would suggest we either go back to basics or end it right here, lest we end up hating eachother due to the wrong reasons. But, just so I can prove I'm not 'coping out":

You are contradicting yourself, you can't say Empathy doesn't change and then say people can decide whether the government is moral or not (after-all, if Empathy didn't change, the opinion would remain the same).

Yes, I can agree with you, just like you can agree with me; I don't exactly like the idea of butting heads for the sake of butting heads, so if you say something I agree with, yes, I will say so.

If morality depends on the situation, then it is not absolute, it is situational. But if morality depends on the situations, why wouldn't it change based upon the reason for the lie or murder?

I disagreed about your stance regarding morality, not the government. But if decisions are not decided by Empathy, and thus, Morality, what are they decided by? Or rather, whatever they are decided by, where does morality come into the picture at all?

That would depend on personal opinion, and is thus unreliable as we both have two differing ones.
User avatar #80 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation should have ended awhile ago.

I am worried I would fill up my entire 2,000 words with why your second section is wrong. I have not once contradicted myself. Empathy doesn't change. I never once said people could decide the morality of a govt. A govt. can be either moral or immoral. People can make their own judgements on it. But people can be wrong. People don't judge things based off of morality and NONE have complete empathy. People make decisions, but they do not decide morality.

You have said things that agree with what I say. You just say them differently. You think they are different, but really they aren't.

Morality doesn't change. It is absolute. There is a reason murder and lying were used. Because morality cannot in any way view those as the same. Because they are not the same. It is based off of the situation, but that does not mean the same thing as morality changes. It would be like a computer deciding what is just in our justice system. In two identical situations it will never change what it does, but in two slightly different situations it might. Does the computer then, ever change? No.

You are now asking me to tell you what decisions are based off of. This is not an argument on how people decide what is moral. It is an argument as to what IS moral. Two completely different things.

This is my last response. You can tell me I contradict myself when I don't all you want. But you wanted finality so I am giving it to you. This is my last response.
User avatar #111 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
But then, again, what is the point of morality at all? If people could choose what is moral or immoral, yet morality doesn't change, would that not mean we move along without it? If the entire world simultaneously decided that 4 actually meant 5, would they be wrong? Absolutely not, because the numbers are just representations, things we use as a bridge of meaning, they change as people's meanings change. If people do not judge things based off morality or have complete Empathy, there is no point for them at all, it would be just like a poster in the Arctic that nobody ever comes across. Besides, if they can be wrong, can't you be wrong about the ultimate source of morality as well?

Oh, okay, it's comforting to know that you know my arguments and mind-set better than I do.

But if a murder is caused by a lie, or a lie prevents a life from being saved, they become interchangeable, just like morality. You're right, in two identical situations it would not change the verdict, however, another computer just might disagree.
#35 - Comment deleted 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? 0
#34 - What was the point? He said "Governments are all wrong&qu…  [+] (15 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? -1
User avatar #47 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
The point of something and the actual words said can be, and often are, different. Someone as "intelligent" as you should get that. He wasn't saying that governments are all wrong in the sense that none of them do anything right or are helpful at all. He was saying that every government is corrupt, regardless. There is no way to guarantee equality in any government. That being said, government is a necessary evil and there are some forms less corruptible than others.
User avatar #49 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Now you're just sounding like one of those people who say "No means no, but yes doesn't always mean yes".

He was actually just making a joke, I apologized for not getting it the first time (as seen in the comment below ours). Perhaps, instead of focusing on why I'M not interpreting it correctly, you should focus on interpreting correctly yourself first.
User avatar #57 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
As for your first part, I don't necessarily believe those people are wrong. You are discarding their belief out of hand. As you seem prone to do.

I apologize for not getting that he was making a joke. I still think my point stands, just not the way it did before. It is not what he intended but I don't think I am wrong in saying what I said.
User avatar #60 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Well that just seems silly; people should know what they want and be decisive about getting the point across, if they are unable to do so, they shouldn't have the right to speak about such things that would require the skill at all.

Your personal attacks against me aside, saying that every government is corrupt is akin to saying every leader is corrupt, which would imply every one of them is fundamentally flawed, but I think that would be a very dreary way to look at things and would rather not see it that way, instead, I would rather think that it is simply a problem of efficiency, one that has to be solved by such things as frequent pruning and conflict. Past experiences may tell us that every government and kingdom can fall, but past experiences also tell us that every question has an answer, it just takes some exploration and trial and error to get the right one.
User avatar #65 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Every government does not equal every leader. You are making assumptions here. Completely unwarranted ones I might add. That personal attack is advice: stop dismissing things just because you disagree. That aside, governments are composed of more than one person. All it takes are a few corrupt people though. You could have a government composed of hundreds or thousands. But 50 corrupt people can do a lot even there. There is no such thing as a government free of corruption. You are not choosing to see the world in a better light, you are choosing to ignore what is there. As for your question v answer one, there are a number of questions which do not have an answer.
User avatar #93 - toastedspikes (10/01/2013) [-]
This is why anarchism as a form of government theoretically should have the lowest form of government, as the government comprises of every individual in a population. In essence it is pure democracy. Is it viable? That's another debate. But as a political ideology it does promise the least amount of corruption.
User avatar #67 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I never made assumptions, I said it was "Akin too", as you cannot have a governing body without a head. I'm not dismissing anything. True, but there can only be 'one' leader, a President, Prime-Minister, or King. Again, that is not the fault of the government, but the people; there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a governing body, just the mind-set of a few people within it (and the very fact it can only be just a few proves it). You don't uproot a tree just because a few branches are bad, you simply snip them away and hope for the best.

Many questions that do not have an answer? Such as? (Note: Philosophical questions do not count, as personal belief changes from person to person. Just as well, questions currently unanswered to not mean a question HAS no answer)
User avatar #81 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
This has nothing to do with our debate or argument. Whichever you prefer to call it. But did you know that as an anon they censor the word "assumption"
User avatar #72 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
You cannot take out questions on a debate like this. So philosophical questions do count. As such I think you can come up with them on your own.

Ignoring that, as it is not important to this: You aren't disagreeing with me. Why do you insist on arguing if you aren't going to disagree? I agree that we should keep the governments. Governments are necessary. Are you trying to imply with your statement that I think we should get rid of governments? Because no where have I said anything like that. But that doesn't make governments right. It doesn't make them wrong. But they are always corrupt to some level. The best we can do is limit that corruption. We cannot get rid of it. Instead of ignoring that it is there, let us make sure it is limited as possible.
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Yes you can, when they have no place to be there. Philosophical questions do not count, as philosophical beliefs vary from person to person, and thus questions like "What is the meaning of life" has a million different answers, even though it is impossible to accept them all. You cannot include questions where the answers are subjective, otherwise there is no concrete answer at all.

Why would I come up with questions to prove YOUR point? That's not how debating works. You make a claim, you prove it.

Because I don't disagree with everything you say, only some things. I actually thought we had moved on from governments and was onto morality, which explains why I agreed with you regarding the logic concerning governments and not when concerning morality.
User avatar #79 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Two different sets of arguments. One is about morality itself, the other is about corruption in the government. If you haven't noticed we have been going from the top to the bottom of this thread with this, because the replies are in different places. Because it is two different arguments, though they may overlap a bit. As far as why you would come up with a question to support me...I said you can. Not you would. You don't need to type them out, since I already know they are their in your head. And I still stand, that philosophical questions, such as they are, count. That aside though, I ask you if you know what a theory is? It is an answer to a question in science yes. An answer with an large amount of evidence for it...but is still not proven. Why? Because it can't be proven. Those are the questions we can never know the answer That aside, i am pretty sure you want to end this, So after I respond to your other thing, I will stop responding period. You can have your own response after it, and I will probably find it wanting, since you will probably say I am contradictiing myself or something and then say I said something I didn't actually say. But like I said, it will be the end for me.
User avatar #110 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
Theories can, and have been proven countless times before. Again, just because something has yet to be answered does not mean it lacks an answer, it just means we haven't figured it out yet. There is no such thing as a question without an answer, and I stand by that point.
#75 - include (10/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #76 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Feel free to do so if you so choose. It is always good to have a second opinion. What is your personal view on morality and where it comes from, Include?
#77 - include (10/01/2013) [-]
Ahh...I just believe everyone has their own opinions on morality even if their right or wrong.
#1 - There is so much fear in that dogs eyes...  [+] (1 new reply) 10/01/2013 on Alien vs Dog +1
#6 - learned (10/01/2013) [-]
There's so much sexual frustration in the brown dogs eyes.
#17 - That's like saying every form of rulership is wrong. It's not …  [+] (52 new replies) 10/01/2013 on 2+2=? -1
User avatar #89 - toastedspikes (10/01/2013) [-]
All forms of hierarchal structure are wrong, yes. They cannot be justified, ever, and the human nature argument is a fallacy that has been rebuked countless times. Leadership and initiative are a necessity. Institutionalised structures to give leaders more power than others, are far from a necessity. George Orwell himself was an anarchist, you know.
User avatar #109 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
Indeed, and Socrates was against freedom of speech, that doesn't mean I should support their views just because they studied a subject.

What 'Human Nature' argument? That without a head, people tend to do as they like? If you would be so kind as to explain to me how that has been rebuked, I would greatly appreciate it.

You make it sound as if I believe that governments should have absolute power; I don't, I believe that people should do their best to support and make it easier for their government and that the government should support and make it easier for their people, simple. But, that aside, how are such institutions inherently 'wrong'? And what decides them to be so?
User avatar #33 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
you know human nature will lead most people to be kind without other incentives. Ans it will often cause assholes to be disreguareded and ignored, human nature would be a better leader than another human, go anarchy!
User avatar #37 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Whether that's true or not, it's also true that people are for themselves more often than they are for anyone else. That means they will deliberately choose the best option for themselves, even if it may not be the best choice for people or society at large, and therein lies the problem. Assholes will not be disregarded or ignored, all it takes is a big man to say he's in charge and beat up people who say otherwise for people to start answering to a leader. After-all, it's not as if we just CHOSE to follow some guy millennia past, we followed them because they were the most mighty and made the choices we agreed with.
User avatar #38 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
but to benefit themselves, they will often choose to help other people and society at large, as that would benefit them.
User avatar #40 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
No, no they wouldn't, because the average person doesn't SEE that far ahead into the future. If things worked that way, the free-market would absolutely be the best source of buying and selling, but we both know that's not true; and why? Because someone will always want a bigger piece of the pie, regardless of whether or whether not it's best for others.
User avatar #43 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
you obviously disreguard that unless that person is lonely, he will help people he cares about, they will, inturn care for those that they care about, shit happens when the decider cares fo no-one, he becomes enclosed in himself, so do his decitions, others will notice this, they will try to stop him, again, human nature.
User avatar #45 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I don't disregard anything, I just understand that "people they care about" certainly does not encompass all of society. If that is so, why do people disregard so many tragedies throughout the world and society itself? It's because until a problem AFFECTS them personally, people tend to be apathetic or misunderstand the struggles of others. Human intention is what you are going for, and while that very well may be in the right place, only an idiot would say that the heart is the smartest thing to put your money on.

Why would anyone try to stop someone who only cares about themselves? Again, people don't tend to care unless it affects them personally. Rather than believe I disregard certain factors, perhaps you should take in mind that perhaps you have too much faith that 'empathy conquers all'
User avatar #52 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
Hm, i guess thats correct. Still tho, less ruling is often better, but if you get the right ruling, i guess it can be good. But as we see, its not like ruling is helping anyone. Good rulers just don`t seems to exist anymore. Both anarchy and rule seems corrupt and misleading. Other options can be beyond human comprehention. So much i can`t even inmagine alternatives.
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
So now it's gone from "Governments are bad" to "Corrupt governments are bad", which was my first point all-together. Anything that can be corrupted can be used for evil, that doesn't mean the thing itself is fundamentally wrong, however.
User avatar #54 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
but the thing is, most, if not all, mpdern governments are currupt in some way.
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
True, but that just means it stands to be improved, not to be cut away.
User avatar #68 - timmity (10/01/2013) [-]
i can actually agree with you on this, have this thumb
User avatar #26 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
I am not sure you understand the idea here. Essentially what you said is that government is necessary. Necessary is not the same as right.
User avatar #36 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
So what would you define 'right' as, if not necessary?
User avatar #41 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
That's easy. Right is what is morally good. Don't start spewing bullshit about morals being different for everyone. Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor. Government might be decided by what people view as morally right, or it might be decided by what a dictator wants. But without government everything becomes much worse, because contrary to what anarchists believe, humans do not do well without a governing body. Once again, necessary, not right.
User avatar #90 - toastedspikes (10/01/2013) [-]
You obviously have no idea what anarchism entails. Anarchists (at least not the 12-year-old rebellious "lol anarchy n kaos! no roolz!" kind) agree that there is a difference between Government and State. All anarchists oppose the State, which is a hierarchal form of governance. Anarchism is still a form of governance, but it is entirely anti-authoritarian, decentralised, horizontal, and basically, every individual has the same power as any other.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
And where would you say lies the ultimate source of morality? If what is 'right' is morally good, and doesn't change, then there has to be a final source of it. Can you tell me what that is that is not subjected to change?

Government is moral factor if you include the "Might Makes Right" belief.
User avatar #44 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
That is just as easy. Empathy is the ultimate source of morality.
User avatar #46 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
How so? Caring breeds morality? That doesn't work, because that means if nobody cared, morality would be null in the first-place; but if morality is unchanging, it cannot hinder on a factor that also changes with time.
User avatar #50 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
If nobody cared morallity would be null....That is kind of the idea. I don't see where that doesn't work.

Morality doesn't change. It is what people view as morality that changes. There is only one thing that is truly moral. It is like science. The science of the universe has always remained the same. But what people know about it has changed. Just because someone claims something is moral, doesn't mean it is.
User avatar #51 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Because, again, you disregarded that morality hinges on an individual because it shouldn't be subjected to change. However, your explanation, that it hinges on empathy, means that it WOULD be subject to change as empathy is as well, which means you had no reason to disregard the explanation before that in the first-place.

And by that logic, just because someone says it's not moral doesn't mean it isn't? If that is so, how are you so sure that governments are, in fact, not right on the basis of morality?
User avatar #55 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
You are beginning to piss me off with your blatant disregard for what I have said, and twisting of words.

I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality. I said that they are not moral themselves.

Furthermore, empathy does not change. People may have varying levels of empathy, but true empathy would lead you down only one path. No one has truly complete empathy and thus morality SEEMS subject to change. In reality it is not. No where have I disregarded my explanation. You have disregarded.
User avatar #59 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
>"Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor."
>"Once again, necessary, not right."

Don't be mad at me because you didn't word it the way you wanted.

Empathy can change, as it is just the ability to understand and share feelings/connections with a person, thing, or idea. Empathy literally changes because different people find connections at different things at different levels; I myself am empathetic toward the working man, while you might be empathetic toward the sorrowful man, or the guy below might be empathetic toward cloning or machine rights, or any number of things. Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short.

(Although, if you really do have it figured out as Empathy, I would recommend perfecting that and becoming a pro-philosopher as you have just cracked a riddle many have been trying to solve since the first few civilizations).
User avatar #61 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Once again, twisting of words.

Now you are just purposefully being stupid. Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. Of course contest means nothing to you, if you can find something that agrees with what you say. You would be a great politician, if a terrible philosopher or scientist. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said. So you are now agreeing with what I have said, but saying it in a way that looks like it disagrees. Good job mate.
User avatar #66 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I literally copied and pasted your words, there is no way I could twist them. Here, I'll even copy and paste the rest: "Government is not moral factor. It is a necessary factor. Government might be decided by what people view as morally right, or it might be decided by what a dictator wants." But you have also said: "Just because someone claims something is moral, doesn't mean it is.", which contradicts your "I never said government can't be in the right on basis of morality." because if a government is not PART of the ultimate source of morality, it is subject to change.

Actually what you said was "Government is not a moral factor", so whether it is right or wrong becomes nill. Well you're right, Empathy cannot change, because it's an emotion, changing would imply it no longer is affiliated with that feeling; the only thing that MATTERS is that FEELINGS of Empathy do change, just as any emotion can, and thus morality can as well; at leas that's the logical view of things.

Actually I didn't say anything about the basis of morality, I was only questioning your stance upon it.

It's funny that you paint me out to be the ass, but if we took away every personal attack against me:

"Anyone could see that in that context I am not saying government is always wrong, simply that it is not always right. Something that is not always something cannot be said to be something. Empathy doesn't change. You can have different levels of empathy. I have already said this and what you just said AGREED. I said morality is defined by empathy, not decisions, which is essentially what you just said."

Your paragraph is literally cut in half.
User avatar #71 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
By the way, no where did I paint you as an ass. I have been strongly pointing out how prone you are to ignoring key parts of an argument....like a politician.
User avatar #70 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
For your first paragraph:

You copied and pasted the entire thing and you still think I am contradicting myself? You are ignoring the NOT A MORAL FACTOR. Because it is not a moral factor, it can be morally right or wrong in what it does. But it is not definitely on either side of the factor. Please stop ignoring the context.

Second Paragraph

YOU JUST AGREED WITH ME in your first sentence. And your second. And I will agree with you on the next part. Empathy doesn't change, but the feelings you are empathizing do. That is why morality depends on the situation. I won't feel the same moral obligation for a lie as I will a murder. Why? Because they are different situations. But for the same situation, morality will not change.

You clearly have disagreed with my stance. But that being said, I expect this part was in response to the you have agreed with me thing. Well, by saying that "Just as well, you might be empathetic toward a struggle, but not like or support it; you might also NOT be empathetic toward something, yet still support or respect it. As such, the explanation still falls short." you are saying that you can make a decision different from your feelings on the subject. This does not mean that morality is not decided by empathy. It means decisions are not decided by empathy. So what I said still stands.

As for your personal attack thing. You cut out a part that wasn't a personal attack.

I took out the real personal attacks and it turns out that 137 words with them, 113 words without. Hardly half. And that doesn't change my points anyway so....
User avatar #73 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation is getting far too convoluted to keep track of. I would suggest we either go back to basics or end it right here, lest we end up hating eachother due to the wrong reasons. But, just so I can prove I'm not 'coping out":

You are contradicting yourself, you can't say Empathy doesn't change and then say people can decide whether the government is moral or not (after-all, if Empathy didn't change, the opinion would remain the same).

Yes, I can agree with you, just like you can agree with me; I don't exactly like the idea of butting heads for the sake of butting heads, so if you say something I agree with, yes, I will say so.

If morality depends on the situation, then it is not absolute, it is situational. But if morality depends on the situations, why wouldn't it change based upon the reason for the lie or murder?

I disagreed about your stance regarding morality, not the government. But if decisions are not decided by Empathy, and thus, Morality, what are they decided by? Or rather, whatever they are decided by, where does morality come into the picture at all?

That would depend on personal opinion, and is thus unreliable as we both have two differing ones.
User avatar #80 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
This conversation should have ended awhile ago.

I am worried I would fill up my entire 2,000 words with why your second section is wrong. I have not once contradicted myself. Empathy doesn't change. I never once said people could decide the morality of a govt. A govt. can be either moral or immoral. People can make their own judgements on it. But people can be wrong. People don't judge things based off of morality and NONE have complete empathy. People make decisions, but they do not decide morality.

You have said things that agree with what I say. You just say them differently. You think they are different, but really they aren't.

Morality doesn't change. It is absolute. There is a reason murder and lying were used. Because morality cannot in any way view those as the same. Because they are not the same. It is based off of the situation, but that does not mean the same thing as morality changes. It would be like a computer deciding what is just in our justice system. In two identical situations it will never change what it does, but in two slightly different situations it might. Does the computer then, ever change? No.

You are now asking me to tell you what decisions are based off of. This is not an argument on how people decide what is moral. It is an argument as to what IS moral. Two completely different things.

This is my last response. You can tell me I contradict myself when I don't all you want. But you wanted finality so I am giving it to you. This is my last response.
User avatar #111 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
But then, again, what is the point of morality at all? If people could choose what is moral or immoral, yet morality doesn't change, would that not mean we move along without it? If the entire world simultaneously decided that 4 actually meant 5, would they be wrong? Absolutely not, because the numbers are just representations, things we use as a bridge of meaning, they change as people's meanings change. If people do not judge things based off morality or have complete Empathy, there is no point for them at all, it would be just like a poster in the Arctic that nobody ever comes across. Besides, if they can be wrong, can't you be wrong about the ultimate source of morality as well?

Oh, okay, it's comforting to know that you know my arguments and mind-set better than I do.

But if a murder is caused by a lie, or a lie prevents a life from being saved, they become interchangeable, just like morality. You're right, in two identical situations it would not change the verdict, however, another computer just might disagree.
User avatar #23 - numbertwozeldafan (10/01/2013) [-]

Thanks for the Ecenomics 101 course there, but you kinda missed the point.
User avatar #34 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
What was the point? He said "Governments are all wrong", are you saying I somehow misinterpreted that?
User avatar #47 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
The point of something and the actual words said can be, and often are, different. Someone as "intelligent" as you should get that. He wasn't saying that governments are all wrong in the sense that none of them do anything right or are helpful at all. He was saying that every government is corrupt, regardless. There is no way to guarantee equality in any government. That being said, government is a necessary evil and there are some forms less corruptible than others.
User avatar #49 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Now you're just sounding like one of those people who say "No means no, but yes doesn't always mean yes".

He was actually just making a joke, I apologized for not getting it the first time (as seen in the comment below ours). Perhaps, instead of focusing on why I'M not interpreting it correctly, you should focus on interpreting correctly yourself first.
User avatar #57 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
As for your first part, I don't necessarily believe those people are wrong. You are discarding their belief out of hand. As you seem prone to do.

I apologize for not getting that he was making a joke. I still think my point stands, just not the way it did before. It is not what he intended but I don't think I am wrong in saying what I said.
User avatar #60 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Well that just seems silly; people should know what they want and be decisive about getting the point across, if they are unable to do so, they shouldn't have the right to speak about such things that would require the skill at all.

Your personal attacks against me aside, saying that every government is corrupt is akin to saying every leader is corrupt, which would imply every one of them is fundamentally flawed, but I think that would be a very dreary way to look at things and would rather not see it that way, instead, I would rather think that it is simply a problem of efficiency, one that has to be solved by such things as frequent pruning and conflict. Past experiences may tell us that every government and kingdom can fall, but past experiences also tell us that every question has an answer, it just takes some exploration and trial and error to get the right one.
User avatar #65 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Every government does not equal every leader. You are making assumptions here. Completely unwarranted ones I might add. That personal attack is advice: stop dismissing things just because you disagree. That aside, governments are composed of more than one person. All it takes are a few corrupt people though. You could have a government composed of hundreds or thousands. But 50 corrupt people can do a lot even there. There is no such thing as a government free of corruption. You are not choosing to see the world in a better light, you are choosing to ignore what is there. As for your question v answer one, there are a number of questions which do not have an answer.
User avatar #93 - toastedspikes (10/01/2013) [-]
This is why anarchism as a form of government theoretically should have the lowest form of government, as the government comprises of every individual in a population. In essence it is pure democracy. Is it viable? That's another debate. But as a political ideology it does promise the least amount of corruption.
User avatar #67 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I never made assumptions, I said it was "Akin too", as you cannot have a governing body without a head. I'm not dismissing anything. True, but there can only be 'one' leader, a President, Prime-Minister, or King. Again, that is not the fault of the government, but the people; there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a governing body, just the mind-set of a few people within it (and the very fact it can only be just a few proves it). You don't uproot a tree just because a few branches are bad, you simply snip them away and hope for the best.

Many questions that do not have an answer? Such as? (Note: Philosophical questions do not count, as personal belief changes from person to person. Just as well, questions currently unanswered to not mean a question HAS no answer)
User avatar #81 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
This has nothing to do with our debate or argument. Whichever you prefer to call it. But did you know that as an anon they censor the word "assumption"
User avatar #72 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
You cannot take out questions on a debate like this. So philosophical questions do count. As such I think you can come up with them on your own.

Ignoring that, as it is not important to this: You aren't disagreeing with me. Why do you insist on arguing if you aren't going to disagree? I agree that we should keep the governments. Governments are necessary. Are you trying to imply with your statement that I think we should get rid of governments? Because no where have I said anything like that. But that doesn't make governments right. It doesn't make them wrong. But they are always corrupt to some level. The best we can do is limit that corruption. We cannot get rid of it. Instead of ignoring that it is there, let us make sure it is limited as possible.
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Yes you can, when they have no place to be there. Philosophical questions do not count, as philosophical beliefs vary from person to person, and thus questions like "What is the meaning of life" has a million different answers, even though it is impossible to accept them all. You cannot include questions where the answers are subjective, otherwise there is no concrete answer at all.

Why would I come up with questions to prove YOUR point? That's not how debating works. You make a claim, you prove it.

Because I don't disagree with everything you say, only some things. I actually thought we had moved on from governments and was onto morality, which explains why I agreed with you regarding the logic concerning governments and not when concerning morality.
User avatar #79 - mylazy (10/01/2013) [-]
Two different sets of arguments. One is about morality itself, the other is about corruption in the government. If you haven't noticed we have been going from the top to the bottom of this thread with this, because the replies are in different places. Because it is two different arguments, though they may overlap a bit. As far as why you would come up with a question to support me...I said you can. Not you would. You don't need to type them out, since I already know they are their in your head. And I still stand, that philosophical questions, such as they are, count. That aside though, I ask you if you know what a theory is? It is an answer to a question in science yes. An answer with an large amount of evidence for it...but is still not proven. Why? Because it can't be proven. Those are the questions we can never know the answer That aside, i am pretty sure you want to end this, So after I respond to your other thing, I will stop responding period. You can have your own response after it, and I will probably find it wanting, since you will probably say I am contradictiing myself or something and then say I said something I didn't actually say. But like I said, it will be the end for me.
User avatar #110 - captainfuckitall (10/02/2013) [-]
Theories can, and have been proven countless times before. Again, just because something has yet to be answered does not mean it lacks an answer, it just means we haven't figured it out yet. There is no such thing as a question without an answer, and I stand by that point.
#75 - include (10/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #76 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Feel free to do so if you so choose. It is always good to have a second opinion. What is your personal view on morality and where it comes from, Include?
#77 - include (10/01/2013) [-]
Ahh...I just believe everyone has their own opinions on morality even if their right or wrong.
#20 - newdevyx (10/01/2013) [-]
**newdevyx rolled a random image posted in comment #36 at owned ** dude... that was joke. there was a... what's it called? a typo?
User avatar #39 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
Nevermind, I literally just saw the typo and apologize for assuming you had idiotic political beliefs.
#88 - newdevyx (10/01/2013) [-]
all that shitstorm, but i don't mind.
#35 - captainfuckitall has deleted their comment.
#6 - That's the most stupid 'hipsterish' thing I've ever seen in my life. 10/01/2013 on #hashtag 0
#20 - So, uh...anyone know where to find more of this...fine artwork?  [+] (8 new replies) 10/01/2013 on The fox says no. 0
#25 - justakewldewd (10/01/2013) [-]
Here, have this.
User avatar #52 - derpinoff (10/01/2013) [-]
You have no idea how many times I shall use this
#88 - justakewldewd (10/03/2013) [-]
I'm guessing more than I'd expect, but less than I'd hope.
User avatar #89 - derpinoff (10/03/2013) [-]
Is this a challenge?
#90 - justakewldewd (10/03/2013) [-]
THE GAUNTLET HATH BEEN THROWN, MUTHA FUCKA!
User avatar #91 - derpinoff (10/03/2013) [-]
BRING IT!!!!
#92 - justakewldewd (10/03/2013) [-]
Go forth and do great things with this gift I lay upon thee. MAKE ME PROUD!
User avatar #93 - derpinoff (10/03/2013) [-]
I shall not fail you!
#102 - I'm glad. Just remember that many of the people around you are… 10/01/2013 on Single vs Relationship +1
#100 - Well, which would you rather do, live your whole life without …  [+] (2 new replies) 10/01/2013 on Single vs Relationship +1
User avatar #101 - tastycrisps (10/01/2013) [-]
Thanks, that actually helps.
User avatar #102 - captainfuckitall (10/01/2013) [-]
I'm glad. Just remember that many of the people around you are just as afraid of getting hurt as you are; there's a reason people look up to those who have confidence and control, it's because it makes those around them feel safer and more secure. If you can be that man, or be the man you want to be, you'll find that nearly everything in life, win or lose, will come easy.
#6 - Were they out of real dogs or something?  [+] (1 new reply) 09/30/2013 on Does your doge bite? +25
User avatar #7 - roderick (09/30/2013) [-]
hehe. No, I was Clouseau
#15 - You're actually right, in a way. Satan, as portrayed in actual… 09/30/2013 on He is kill x666 +4
#94 - I'm just quoting what I heard from the wiki, but just as well … 09/30/2013 on WHY HAVE I NOT THOUGH ABOUT... 0
#15 - Actually, because you develop Bending powers based upon your c…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/30/2013 on WHY HAVE I NOT THOUGH ABOUT... +1
User avatar #45 - lotengo (09/30/2013) [-]
then why do they have 4 nations. If what u state is fact there sould be earthbenders born in the fire nation and firebenders in the earth kingdom
User avatar #94 - captainfuckitall (09/30/2013) [-]
I'm just quoting what I heard from the wiki, but just as well there is a natural explanation.

As any avid fan would explain to you, that actually CAN happen, it's just that the personality of the bender also has a massive effect on their proficiency. Perhaps it's just due to the culture that not many benders of different types are found in different kingdoms

Comments(489):

[ 489 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
Latest users (1): jimmyprice, anonymous(3).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#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 #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 #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 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 (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.
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.
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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (02/27/2012) [-]
ahhh, haha, sorry then :P
[ 489 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)