Upload
Login or register

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Stats
Comment Ranking:#1589
Highest Content Rank:#8779
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 80380 total,  98573 ,  18193
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 33.1% (331/1000)
Level 369 Comments: FJ Noble → Level 370 Comments: Immortal
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10934
Total Comments Made:21171
FJ Points:41148

latest user's comments

#142 - That's not an argument, that's just opinions. You are…  [+] (4 replies) 10/15/2015 on Literally, brainwashing 0
User avatar
#143 - pfccross (10/16/2015) [-]
i already told you... or can you really not read?

either you are too stupid to realize that the bible was cherry picked among a shit ton of different books so only the ones the church liked got through. even now when people turn to the bible, they turn to the parts they like. they like to ignore or pretend the parts they dont like never existed like.. say.. the old testament? which apparently jesus believed in so to discount it makes you against your own religion. Oh but thats right, jesus and god, none of that matters. because what the religion is is what its leaders say it is. which is why religions are constantly changing.

2. alot of people that are religious are so for the singular purpose that they are too cowardly to die without a backup plan. they will submit themselves entirely to something they dont understand and makes no sense simply because some guy with a nice smile said you would get to live forever. The most blatant bull shit i've ever heard. telling everyone those words is a bullshit way to get followers.

3. last we have the clinically insane. the ones that are TRULY devote to their religion lie here. Here we have people that will submit themselves to ANYTHING their church leaders say their religion wants from them. Believe without seeing and all that. From here we got the crusades. from here we got suicide bombers. Every atrocity done in the name of religion came from these people who gave up all their common humane morals for the sake of some guy that they just gotta trust is there and is going to give them 72 virgins or a really cozy place in the afterlife.
User avatar
#144 - captainfuckitall (10/16/2015) [-]
No you didn't. You literally didn't. Your argument was the same as me saying "I hate all blacks because they're all savage", then saying "No no, that IS scientific" when someone asks for empirical evidence. You're just trying to weasel your way out of it.

Once more, like with the anon that 'wasn't' you, you're just griping on Christianity, not religion in general.

As a general rule, everything is constantly changing; that's not a negative point for religion otherwise you wouldn't spend the same breath criticizing it as ancient hogwash. Gods, provided they exist, are allowed to change their minds or formulate new ideas too.

Most religions do not allow for eternal life, simply an after-life. Once more, you are griping on Christianity (or at least Judaism/Islam). Besides, the question of eternal life and after-life's being real or not is a question of whether a soul exists. It would be rather ignorant to say it doesn't, just because we have been unable to measure it thus far; we also lack machines that are unable to allow us to see certain types of colours, that doesn't mean they don't exist. In short, religion doesn't claim in eternal/after-life, it claims HAVING a soul = eternal/afterlife regardless.

Doesn't that happen with any ideology? Politics, culture, military, ethics? Do you claim all people who follow those zealously are insane? Believing without seeing is something everybody does in the same way that you believe you're actually a human being living in a real universe despite the fact that you could just as well be a brain floating in a jar of nutrients that simulates all this. Faith is required for basic survival and well-adjusted living, and is the reason you don't walk outside armed to the teeth fearing your neighbours will shoot you, because you have faith they won't.

Once more, you're still only griping on Christianity and Islam. Nice change of pace adding a second religion, but you still have a long way to go.
User avatar
#145 - pfccross (10/16/2015) [-]
I think I was correct. You simply cannot read. You keep on bring up things that are outright wrong about what i said, or you just completely disregard something I've already said. I'm left to assume you are an idiot so let me put this as simple as possible to you.

If you have an imaginary friend and you are older than 5, you are either insane or retarded. If you kill people in the name of you imaginary friend or his book, you are either insane or retarded. There is no room for argument here. If you do either of those 2 things you belong in a mental institution. Religious people do those things.

if you cannot understand that then im talking to a wall and im done with this conversation anyway, because you seriously in your first sentence tried to turn this into a race hate metaphor.
User avatar
#146 - captainfuckitall (10/16/2015) [-]
Okay, so there's nothing else to discuss. Bye.
#138 - Would you rather trust a 10 year old who read all the books an…  [+] (2 replies) 10/15/2015 on Literally, brainwashing 0
User avatar
#150 - popeflatus (10/17/2015) [-]
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism Part 2

It's not about 'everything that can happen does' at all. Random mutations in DNA cause organisms to change. Most of the time these mutations have no effect. Sometimes they are 'bad' and sometimes they are 'good'. Bad mutations can leave an organism incapable of surviving and hence it cant reproduce. That means that those mutations have been removed from the gene pool. 'Good' mutations however provide an organism with a survival or reproductive advantage. More fur in cold regions, better water storage or efficient usage in dry climates, a prettier frill, etc. This means the organism is more likely to pass it genes into the next generation. Over millions of generations this changes the species so much that they are no longer the same species they were at the beginning.

As I said earlier, you don't seem to understand this theory, or even how science works in general so I'll leave you with this:

If you think that evolution is wrong, you have to prove it. Talk is cheap but research is hard. I'll bee looking forward to seeing you receive your Nobel Prize in the near future.
User avatar
#149 - popeflatus (10/17/2015) [-]
Your'e missing the point about children. They in general do not posses the maturity that adults possess. That is why we don't let them vote, drive, marry or run for political offices. It's pretty obvious.

Prerogative: a right or privilege exclusive to a particular individual or class. In this sense the 'class' is that of a consenting adult and not of a dependent child.

I stated clearly the culture is not in and of itself bad as long as it is doesn't cause harm. Your point about Arabian cultures missed this clarification.

We have cut off ages for sex between people of different ages for precisely the reasons I've outlined already about their maturity. As for only having sex with someone you love: why? People who are adults in Western countries can have sex with whom ever they like.

My point about killing toddlers was to demonstrate that 'killing' is different depending on the circumstances. Funny how in the Bible God commands people to kill disobedient children! We tend to not do that these days as we have morally and intellectually advanced as a culture and no longer hold on to many such heinous Biblical proclamations.

Just by understanding sex does not necessarily mean a person will be emotionally ready for it. Children's bodies are also not ready for the physical aspects of intercourse either. Again, we have a cut off age to protect all children. Should there be a test for kids to take to see if they're ready for sex? Sounds like a total fucking sick disaster.

If you think science is based on superstition then you do not understand the basic fundamental of what science is and how it works. Yes, measuring things is how we learn about them. If you make a claim you have to prove it and in the case of the black cat there is no evidence that its presence has caused bad fortune. Gravity, which we can measure, does cause things to fall, so there is no superstition there.

So what if we can't prove that we're not brains in vats? In science we discover what is most likely based on the evidence that we glean from reality.We also do indeed dismiss things when they are not backed up by evidence and we call this the burden of proof. Claims are easy to make, like 'I had breakfast with Zeus this morning'. Now, do you accept that with out substantial evidence? Of course not!

We don't need to be 'objective' in deciding to not kill toddlers. Western morality is largely based on consequentialism which is deciding what is best for most people and causes the least harm. It is not based on the Bible like many seem to think, which brings me back to the point of God commanding the deaths of disobedient kids.

Doctrine is a set of belief that get taught and are not necessarily based on reason or evidence. Science is based on empiricism and reason.

Obviously I'm talking about adults fucking kids, and not 2 kids together.

Again, most kids aren't able to make critical decisions. It's rare that an adult will need to trust a child in the cliff-hanging scenario. Children are not well educated enough as it takes time to learn complex things like brain surgery that unless there is a very rare prodigy it just doesn't happen. Are you even from this planet?

It's not a 'belief' in evolution, it is an understanding that it is true and how it works. Evolution is not random- there are random mutations that get acted on by natural selection which is a non-random process. It's amazing how many people don't even understand the basics of one of the cornerstones of modern science.

It is not 'unlikely at all' it is a certainty because it has in fact happened. It's as real as gravity is! You don't understand it so come out with the old, completely debunked creationist drivel about 'incalculable odds'.


#122 - Which is exactly why I included the latter bit "If not ba…  [+] (5 replies) 10/15/2015 on Literally, brainwashing 0
User avatar
#133 - popeflatus (10/15/2015) [-]
No trouble explaining anything, I thought that would have been obvious. Sorry.

Instead of indoctrinating children into religions we teach them critical thinking. Kinda plays into the whole 'believe in what I say" system as opposed to 'this is what we know and how we know it'. We don't ban people from teaching religion but we ban it from being taught in public schools. We do this because it is not based on evidence and reason but instead on on superstition.

Teach reason and not doctrine. They are markedly different.

Sure, people mature at different rates but you can't have a legal system that is based on an individual test to see if people are able to make 'adult' decisions. We have a system that has a cut off age that must bne adhered to.

'She said she was mature!' is no excuse in a court of law when dealing with a 7 year old kid when it comes to sex.

It's also obvious that as people age they become more attuned to the world around them and are able to make more informed decisions regarding what they do with themselves. Again, how many 4 year olds do you think are ready for the presidency?



User avatar
#129 - popeflatus (10/15/2015) [-]
Do you need me to explain why 10 years old kids don't make the best heart surgeons?

If people choose to be religious when they are older that is their prerogative.

Culture is not 'dangerous' if it poses no immediate and identifiable threats to other. Modern culture adapt and change if ideas are deleterious.

So how would you decide when it is right for a child to be fucked?

Many ideas are dangerous if you don't temper them with reason. This applies equally to 'don't kill toddlers' as it does with 'don't kill terrorists'. Each must be assessed on its own individual merits.

'It doesn't occur with time at all, it occurs with experience and observation.'

So as long as a child as 'experience' fucking or 'observing' fucking, it should be OK?
User avatar
#138 - captainfuckitall (10/15/2015) [-]
Would you rather trust a 10 year old who read all the books and has an understanding of it, or a 30 year old who knows nothing?

That's...not what prerogative means. You could always just say "That's their choice".

Oh? Then what of Islamic/Arabian culture which threatens the safety of women?

Personally, I would say that the right time is when the child is educated, fully understands it, perhaps possesses a few ideals of it (I.E should only be done with someone you love).

I'm pretty sure killing someone who qualifies as a terrorist is ethically superior than killing a baby.

Observation can count with research as well, that's what I mean. If the child fully understands the implications of sex and what it means, there's no real reason beyond over-protectiveness that I would say they're not ready, especially considering many people can have worse reasons.

Isn't telling a child they are not ready for sex because you do not believe they are ready "Believe in what I say"? Just as well, isn't Science also based on superstition? There's very little difference between "I am unlucky because a black cat crossed my path" and "I got hit in the head because something fell from the sky". The only measurable difference between them is that you CAN measure one, and cannot measure the other; yet even in that case, all knowledge and information we have is based off of the assumption that it is real, which cannot be proved, as we cannot prove we are anything more than brains floating in vats. Of course not believing anything would make for a horrible world, but than again, so would dismissing anything because you cannot witness it yourself with the tools you have on hand.

Isn't "don't kill toddlers" doctrine? Seeing as how you cannot prove in any scientific way that it is objectively wrong to murder them?

Isn't that, too, doctrine?

It is if they were both 7.

You're dealing with extremes, which is the exact thing you were opting to work against in the previous comment. Once more, I would rather trust a child or a teen that understands what they are doing than an adult that doesn't. If I was hanging off the cliff by a rope, I would rather trust a kid with all Knot-Tying Merit Badges than an adult who didn't know anything to tie a knot that leads to saving my life.

I assume you are an Atheist, and since you are I will assume you believe in evolution; since you believe in evolution, that genuinely means you believe that everything that has happened so far in the universe has happened randomly, by sheer chance, all the way down to us being here able to write out these comments. I'm absolutely sure I don't have to bring up all the incalculable odds that would come from that process and just how unlikely it is. But hey, over-time, everything that has a chance of happening happens, right? That's the only way we can explain such odds happening so conveniently for our sake, but the idea of 'luck' existing in a material way? Or the idea of a being with such power to be considered a god? No no, that's too much? That's where you draw the line of 'can't happen'? Come on now, don't you think that's the height of arrogance?
User avatar
#150 - popeflatus (10/17/2015) [-]
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism Part 2

It's not about 'everything that can happen does' at all. Random mutations in DNA cause organisms to change. Most of the time these mutations have no effect. Sometimes they are 'bad' and sometimes they are 'good'. Bad mutations can leave an organism incapable of surviving and hence it cant reproduce. That means that those mutations have been removed from the gene pool. 'Good' mutations however provide an organism with a survival or reproductive advantage. More fur in cold regions, better water storage or efficient usage in dry climates, a prettier frill, etc. This means the organism is more likely to pass it genes into the next generation. Over millions of generations this changes the species so much that they are no longer the same species they were at the beginning.

As I said earlier, you don't seem to understand this theory, or even how science works in general so I'll leave you with this:

If you think that evolution is wrong, you have to prove it. Talk is cheap but research is hard. I'll bee looking forward to seeing you receive your Nobel Prize in the near future.
User avatar
#149 - popeflatus (10/17/2015) [-]
Your'e missing the point about children. They in general do not posses the maturity that adults possess. That is why we don't let them vote, drive, marry or run for political offices. It's pretty obvious.

Prerogative: a right or privilege exclusive to a particular individual or class. In this sense the 'class' is that of a consenting adult and not of a dependent child.

I stated clearly the culture is not in and of itself bad as long as it is doesn't cause harm. Your point about Arabian cultures missed this clarification.

We have cut off ages for sex between people of different ages for precisely the reasons I've outlined already about their maturity. As for only having sex with someone you love: why? People who are adults in Western countries can have sex with whom ever they like.

My point about killing toddlers was to demonstrate that 'killing' is different depending on the circumstances. Funny how in the Bible God commands people to kill disobedient children! We tend to not do that these days as we have morally and intellectually advanced as a culture and no longer hold on to many such heinous Biblical proclamations.

Just by understanding sex does not necessarily mean a person will be emotionally ready for it. Children's bodies are also not ready for the physical aspects of intercourse either. Again, we have a cut off age to protect all children. Should there be a test for kids to take to see if they're ready for sex? Sounds like a total fucking sick disaster.

If you think science is based on superstition then you do not understand the basic fundamental of what science is and how it works. Yes, measuring things is how we learn about them. If you make a claim you have to prove it and in the case of the black cat there is no evidence that its presence has caused bad fortune. Gravity, which we can measure, does cause things to fall, so there is no superstition there.

So what if we can't prove that we're not brains in vats? In science we discover what is most likely based on the evidence that we glean from reality.We also do indeed dismiss things when they are not backed up by evidence and we call this the burden of proof. Claims are easy to make, like 'I had breakfast with Zeus this morning'. Now, do you accept that with out substantial evidence? Of course not!

We don't need to be 'objective' in deciding to not kill toddlers. Western morality is largely based on consequentialism which is deciding what is best for most people and causes the least harm. It is not based on the Bible like many seem to think, which brings me back to the point of God commanding the deaths of disobedient kids.

Doctrine is a set of belief that get taught and are not necessarily based on reason or evidence. Science is based on empiricism and reason.

Obviously I'm talking about adults fucking kids, and not 2 kids together.

Again, most kids aren't able to make critical decisions. It's rare that an adult will need to trust a child in the cliff-hanging scenario. Children are not well educated enough as it takes time to learn complex things like brain surgery that unless there is a very rare prodigy it just doesn't happen. Are you even from this planet?

It's not a 'belief' in evolution, it is an understanding that it is true and how it works. Evolution is not random- there are random mutations that get acted on by natural selection which is a non-random process. It's amazing how many people don't even understand the basics of one of the cornerstones of modern science.

It is not 'unlikely at all' it is a certainty because it has in fact happened. It's as real as gravity is! You don't understand it so come out with the old, completely debunked creationist drivel about 'incalculable odds'.


#114 - That's not what I asked. Also, aren't cultures just a…  [+] (7 replies) 10/15/2015 on Literally, brainwashing +2
User avatar
#115 - popeflatus (10/15/2015) [-]
I never said anything about banning anything, all I said was 'what if..'. It was a oppositional response to the comment that I was replying to. Alcohol can be very dangerous as we know but we don't ban it, nor do I want to see it become illegal. I'm drinking vodka right now, kill me Ivan.

The age of reason is something that is important to discuss but it's obvious that there are reasons that we restrict what young people can do. Getting a 10 year old drunk is different than getting a 20 year old drunk. A 13 year old most likely has little understanding of politics and is hence be able to make a ration decision about whom to vote for. When can you have sex?

You can judge anyone at any age, but your judgement will change depending on your understanding of the world. This judgement will then of course change as you learn more about the world, something that only occurs with time. We have assigned certain ages in different countries as to what this age is but it is generally recognized as a time when people are able to think for themselves. It's obvious that there is not an exact age but a good idea of when people are mature.
User avatar
#122 - captainfuckitall (10/15/2015) [-]
Which is exactly why I included the latter bit "If not ban it, would you just consider it dangerous?" And yet you seem to have trouble answering that too.

Of course that stands true, I was just making a point about what 'maturity' even means, considering I'm sure you've met some young people you would consider far wiser and of better judgement than older people.

It doesn't occur with time at all, it occurs with experience and observation.

Still, you are not answering any of the original questions:
What if someone chooses to be religious despite reaching maturity?
And is culture/patriotism just as dangerous as religion in terms of fervor?
And finally, isn't ANY ideology dangerous if taken with extreme fervor?
User avatar
#133 - popeflatus (10/15/2015) [-]
No trouble explaining anything, I thought that would have been obvious. Sorry.

Instead of indoctrinating children into religions we teach them critical thinking. Kinda plays into the whole 'believe in what I say" system as opposed to 'this is what we know and how we know it'. We don't ban people from teaching religion but we ban it from being taught in public schools. We do this because it is not based on evidence and reason but instead on on superstition.

Teach reason and not doctrine. They are markedly different.

Sure, people mature at different rates but you can't have a legal system that is based on an individual test to see if people are able to make 'adult' decisions. We have a system that has a cut off age that must bne adhered to.

'She said she was mature!' is no excuse in a court of law when dealing with a 7 year old kid when it comes to sex.

It's also obvious that as people age they become more attuned to the world around them and are able to make more informed decisions regarding what they do with themselves. Again, how many 4 year olds do you think are ready for the presidency?



User avatar
#129 - popeflatus (10/15/2015) [-]
Do you need me to explain why 10 years old kids don't make the best heart surgeons?

If people choose to be religious when they are older that is their prerogative.

Culture is not 'dangerous' if it poses no immediate and identifiable threats to other. Modern culture adapt and change if ideas are deleterious.

So how would you decide when it is right for a child to be fucked?

Many ideas are dangerous if you don't temper them with reason. This applies equally to 'don't kill toddlers' as it does with 'don't kill terrorists'. Each must be assessed on its own individual merits.

'It doesn't occur with time at all, it occurs with experience and observation.'

So as long as a child as 'experience' fucking or 'observing' fucking, it should be OK?
User avatar
#138 - captainfuckitall (10/15/2015) [-]
Would you rather trust a 10 year old who read all the books and has an understanding of it, or a 30 year old who knows nothing?

That's...not what prerogative means. You could always just say "That's their choice".

Oh? Then what of Islamic/Arabian culture which threatens the safety of women?

Personally, I would say that the right time is when the child is educated, fully understands it, perhaps possesses a few ideals of it (I.E should only be done with someone you love).

I'm pretty sure killing someone who qualifies as a terrorist is ethically superior than killing a baby.

Observation can count with research as well, that's what I mean. If the child fully understands the implications of sex and what it means, there's no real reason beyond over-protectiveness that I would say they're not ready, especially considering many people can have worse reasons.

Isn't telling a child they are not ready for sex because you do not believe they are ready "Believe in what I say"? Just as well, isn't Science also based on superstition? There's very little difference between "I am unlucky because a black cat crossed my path" and "I got hit in the head because something fell from the sky". The only measurable difference between them is that you CAN measure one, and cannot measure the other; yet even in that case, all knowledge and information we have is based off of the assumption that it is real, which cannot be proved, as we cannot prove we are anything more than brains floating in vats. Of course not believing anything would make for a horrible world, but than again, so would dismissing anything because you cannot witness it yourself with the tools you have on hand.

Isn't "don't kill toddlers" doctrine? Seeing as how you cannot prove in any scientific way that it is objectively wrong to murder them?

Isn't that, too, doctrine?

It is if they were both 7.

You're dealing with extremes, which is the exact thing you were opting to work against in the previous comment. Once more, I would rather trust a child or a teen that understands what they are doing than an adult that doesn't. If I was hanging off the cliff by a rope, I would rather trust a kid with all Knot-Tying Merit Badges than an adult who didn't know anything to tie a knot that leads to saving my life.

I assume you are an Atheist, and since you are I will assume you believe in evolution; since you believe in evolution, that genuinely means you believe that everything that has happened so far in the universe has happened randomly, by sheer chance, all the way down to us being here able to write out these comments. I'm absolutely sure I don't have to bring up all the incalculable odds that would come from that process and just how unlikely it is. But hey, over-time, everything that has a chance of happening happens, right? That's the only way we can explain such odds happening so conveniently for our sake, but the idea of 'luck' existing in a material way? Or the idea of a being with such power to be considered a god? No no, that's too much? That's where you draw the line of 'can't happen'? Come on now, don't you think that's the height of arrogance?
User avatar
#150 - popeflatus (10/17/2015) [-]
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism Part 2

It's not about 'everything that can happen does' at all. Random mutations in DNA cause organisms to change. Most of the time these mutations have no effect. Sometimes they are 'bad' and sometimes they are 'good'. Bad mutations can leave an organism incapable of surviving and hence it cant reproduce. That means that those mutations have been removed from the gene pool. 'Good' mutations however provide an organism with a survival or reproductive advantage. More fur in cold regions, better water storage or efficient usage in dry climates, a prettier frill, etc. This means the organism is more likely to pass it genes into the next generation. Over millions of generations this changes the species so much that they are no longer the same species they were at the beginning.

As I said earlier, you don't seem to understand this theory, or even how science works in general so I'll leave you with this:

If you think that evolution is wrong, you have to prove it. Talk is cheap but research is hard. I'll bee looking forward to seeing you receive your Nobel Prize in the near future.
User avatar
#149 - popeflatus (10/17/2015) [-]
Your'e missing the point about children. They in general do not posses the maturity that adults possess. That is why we don't let them vote, drive, marry or run for political offices. It's pretty obvious.

Prerogative: a right or privilege exclusive to a particular individual or class. In this sense the 'class' is that of a consenting adult and not of a dependent child.

I stated clearly the culture is not in and of itself bad as long as it is doesn't cause harm. Your point about Arabian cultures missed this clarification.

We have cut off ages for sex between people of different ages for precisely the reasons I've outlined already about their maturity. As for only having sex with someone you love: why? People who are adults in Western countries can have sex with whom ever they like.

My point about killing toddlers was to demonstrate that 'killing' is different depending on the circumstances. Funny how in the Bible God commands people to kill disobedient children! We tend to not do that these days as we have morally and intellectually advanced as a culture and no longer hold on to many such heinous Biblical proclamations.

Just by understanding sex does not necessarily mean a person will be emotionally ready for it. Children's bodies are also not ready for the physical aspects of intercourse either. Again, we have a cut off age to protect all children. Should there be a test for kids to take to see if they're ready for sex? Sounds like a total fucking sick disaster.

If you think science is based on superstition then you do not understand the basic fundamental of what science is and how it works. Yes, measuring things is how we learn about them. If you make a claim you have to prove it and in the case of the black cat there is no evidence that its presence has caused bad fortune. Gravity, which we can measure, does cause things to fall, so there is no superstition there.

So what if we can't prove that we're not brains in vats? In science we discover what is most likely based on the evidence that we glean from reality.We also do indeed dismiss things when they are not backed up by evidence and we call this the burden of proof. Claims are easy to make, like 'I had breakfast with Zeus this morning'. Now, do you accept that with out substantial evidence? Of course not!

We don't need to be 'objective' in deciding to not kill toddlers. Western morality is largely based on consequentialism which is deciding what is best for most people and causes the least harm. It is not based on the Bible like many seem to think, which brings me back to the point of God commanding the deaths of disobedient kids.

Doctrine is a set of belief that get taught and are not necessarily based on reason or evidence. Science is based on empiricism and reason.

Obviously I'm talking about adults fucking kids, and not 2 kids together.

Again, most kids aren't able to make critical decisions. It's rare that an adult will need to trust a child in the cliff-hanging scenario. Children are not well educated enough as it takes time to learn complex things like brain surgery that unless there is a very rare prodigy it just doesn't happen. Are you even from this planet?

It's not a 'belief' in evolution, it is an understanding that it is true and how it works. Evolution is not random- there are random mutations that get acted on by natural selection which is a non-random process. It's amazing how many people don't even understand the basics of one of the cornerstones of modern science.

It is not 'unlikely at all' it is a certainty because it has in fact happened. It's as real as gravity is! You don't understand it so come out with the old, completely debunked creationist drivel about 'incalculable odds'.


#112 - What if they're not forced, what then?  [+] (9 replies) 10/15/2015 on Literally, brainwashing 0
User avatar
#113 - popeflatus (10/15/2015) [-]
Obviously most children have their education and religion etc decided by their parents and it would be a rare case for them to make those sorts of decisions by themselves. We don't let kids drive, buy alcohol, vote or run for president because they are not at the age of reason.
User avatar
#114 - captainfuckitall (10/15/2015) [-]
That's not what I asked.

Also, aren't cultures just as dangerous, raising them in a culture they did not choose. So would you ban patriotism and nationalism as well, citing it as dangerous? Or would you just consider it dangerous?

What is the age of reason? I would like to know the exact age where everyone suddenly becomes wise and insightful and 100% capable of making their own decisions. On that note, does that mean I cannot judge someone twice my age for leading what I believe to see a poor lifestyle?
User avatar
#115 - popeflatus (10/15/2015) [-]
I never said anything about banning anything, all I said was 'what if..'. It was a oppositional response to the comment that I was replying to. Alcohol can be very dangerous as we know but we don't ban it, nor do I want to see it become illegal. I'm drinking vodka right now, kill me Ivan.

The age of reason is something that is important to discuss but it's obvious that there are reasons that we restrict what young people can do. Getting a 10 year old drunk is different than getting a 20 year old drunk. A 13 year old most likely has little understanding of politics and is hence be able to make a ration decision about whom to vote for. When can you have sex?

You can judge anyone at any age, but your judgement will change depending on your understanding of the world. This judgement will then of course change as you learn more about the world, something that only occurs with time. We have assigned certain ages in different countries as to what this age is but it is generally recognized as a time when people are able to think for themselves. It's obvious that there is not an exact age but a good idea of when people are mature.
User avatar
#122 - captainfuckitall (10/15/2015) [-]
Which is exactly why I included the latter bit "If not ban it, would you just consider it dangerous?" And yet you seem to have trouble answering that too.

Of course that stands true, I was just making a point about what 'maturity' even means, considering I'm sure you've met some young people you would consider far wiser and of better judgement than older people.

It doesn't occur with time at all, it occurs with experience and observation.

Still, you are not answering any of the original questions:
What if someone chooses to be religious despite reaching maturity?
And is culture/patriotism just as dangerous as religion in terms of fervor?
And finally, isn't ANY ideology dangerous if taken with extreme fervor?
User avatar
#133 - popeflatus (10/15/2015) [-]
No trouble explaining anything, I thought that would have been obvious. Sorry.

Instead of indoctrinating children into religions we teach them critical thinking. Kinda plays into the whole 'believe in what I say" system as opposed to 'this is what we know and how we know it'. We don't ban people from teaching religion but we ban it from being taught in public schools. We do this because it is not based on evidence and reason but instead on on superstition.

Teach reason and not doctrine. They are markedly different.

Sure, people mature at different rates but you can't have a legal system that is based on an individual test to see if people are able to make 'adult' decisions. We have a system that has a cut off age that must bne adhered to.

'She said she was mature!' is no excuse in a court of law when dealing with a 7 year old kid when it comes to sex.

It's also obvious that as people age they become more attuned to the world around them and are able to make more informed decisions regarding what they do with themselves. Again, how many 4 year olds do you think are ready for the presidency?



User avatar
#129 - popeflatus (10/15/2015) [-]
Do you need me to explain why 10 years old kids don't make the best heart surgeons?

If people choose to be religious when they are older that is their prerogative.

Culture is not 'dangerous' if it poses no immediate and identifiable threats to other. Modern culture adapt and change if ideas are deleterious.

So how would you decide when it is right for a child to be fucked?

Many ideas are dangerous if you don't temper them with reason. This applies equally to 'don't kill toddlers' as it does with 'don't kill terrorists'. Each must be assessed on its own individual merits.

'It doesn't occur with time at all, it occurs with experience and observation.'

So as long as a child as 'experience' fucking or 'observing' fucking, it should be OK?
User avatar
#138 - captainfuckitall (10/15/2015) [-]
Would you rather trust a 10 year old who read all the books and has an understanding of it, or a 30 year old who knows nothing?

That's...not what prerogative means. You could always just say "That's their choice".

Oh? Then what of Islamic/Arabian culture which threatens the safety of women?

Personally, I would say that the right time is when the child is educated, fully understands it, perhaps possesses a few ideals of it (I.E should only be done with someone you love).

I'm pretty sure killing someone who qualifies as a terrorist is ethically superior than killing a baby.

Observation can count with research as well, that's what I mean. If the child fully understands the implications of sex and what it means, there's no real reason beyond over-protectiveness that I would say they're not ready, especially considering many people can have worse reasons.

Isn't telling a child they are not ready for sex because you do not believe they are ready "Believe in what I say"? Just as well, isn't Science also based on superstition? There's very little difference between "I am unlucky because a black cat crossed my path" and "I got hit in the head because something fell from the sky". The only measurable difference between them is that you CAN measure one, and cannot measure the other; yet even in that case, all knowledge and information we have is based off of the assumption that it is real, which cannot be proved, as we cannot prove we are anything more than brains floating in vats. Of course not believing anything would make for a horrible world, but than again, so would dismissing anything because you cannot witness it yourself with the tools you have on hand.

Isn't "don't kill toddlers" doctrine? Seeing as how you cannot prove in any scientific way that it is objectively wrong to murder them?

Isn't that, too, doctrine?

It is if they were both 7.

You're dealing with extremes, which is the exact thing you were opting to work against in the previous comment. Once more, I would rather trust a child or a teen that understands what they are doing than an adult that doesn't. If I was hanging off the cliff by a rope, I would rather trust a kid with all Knot-Tying Merit Badges than an adult who didn't know anything to tie a knot that leads to saving my life.

I assume you are an Atheist, and since you are I will assume you believe in evolution; since you believe in evolution, that genuinely means you believe that everything that has happened so far in the universe has happened randomly, by sheer chance, all the way down to us being here able to write out these comments. I'm absolutely sure I don't have to bring up all the incalculable odds that would come from that process and just how unlikely it is. But hey, over-time, everything that has a chance of happening happens, right? That's the only way we can explain such odds happening so conveniently for our sake, but the idea of 'luck' existing in a material way? Or the idea of a being with such power to be considered a god? No no, that's too much? That's where you draw the line of 'can't happen'? Come on now, don't you think that's the height of arrogance?
User avatar
#150 - popeflatus (10/17/2015) [-]
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism Part 2

It's not about 'everything that can happen does' at all. Random mutations in DNA cause organisms to change. Most of the time these mutations have no effect. Sometimes they are 'bad' and sometimes they are 'good'. Bad mutations can leave an organism incapable of surviving and hence it cant reproduce. That means that those mutations have been removed from the gene pool. 'Good' mutations however provide an organism with a survival or reproductive advantage. More fur in cold regions, better water storage or efficient usage in dry climates, a prettier frill, etc. This means the organism is more likely to pass it genes into the next generation. Over millions of generations this changes the species so much that they are no longer the same species they were at the beginning.

As I said earlier, you don't seem to understand this theory, or even how science works in general so I'll leave you with this:

If you think that evolution is wrong, you have to prove it. Talk is cheap but research is hard. I'll bee looking forward to seeing you receive your Nobel Prize in the near future.
User avatar
#149 - popeflatus (10/17/2015) [-]
Your'e missing the point about children. They in general do not posses the maturity that adults possess. That is why we don't let them vote, drive, marry or run for political offices. It's pretty obvious.

Prerogative: a right or privilege exclusive to a particular individual or class. In this sense the 'class' is that of a consenting adult and not of a dependent child.

I stated clearly the culture is not in and of itself bad as long as it is doesn't cause harm. Your point about Arabian cultures missed this clarification.

We have cut off ages for sex between people of different ages for precisely the reasons I've outlined already about their maturity. As for only having sex with someone you love: why? People who are adults in Western countries can have sex with whom ever they like.

My point about killing toddlers was to demonstrate that 'killing' is different depending on the circumstances. Funny how in the Bible God commands people to kill disobedient children! We tend to not do that these days as we have morally and intellectually advanced as a culture and no longer hold on to many such heinous Biblical proclamations.

Just by understanding sex does not necessarily mean a person will be emotionally ready for it. Children's bodies are also not ready for the physical aspects of intercourse either. Again, we have a cut off age to protect all children. Should there be a test for kids to take to see if they're ready for sex? Sounds like a total fucking sick disaster.

If you think science is based on superstition then you do not understand the basic fundamental of what science is and how it works. Yes, measuring things is how we learn about them. If you make a claim you have to prove it and in the case of the black cat there is no evidence that its presence has caused bad fortune. Gravity, which we can measure, does cause things to fall, so there is no superstition there.

So what if we can't prove that we're not brains in vats? In science we discover what is most likely based on the evidence that we glean from reality.We also do indeed dismiss things when they are not backed up by evidence and we call this the burden of proof. Claims are easy to make, like 'I had breakfast with Zeus this morning'. Now, do you accept that with out substantial evidence? Of course not!

We don't need to be 'objective' in deciding to not kill toddlers. Western morality is largely based on consequentialism which is deciding what is best for most people and causes the least harm. It is not based on the Bible like many seem to think, which brings me back to the point of God commanding the deaths of disobedient kids.

Doctrine is a set of belief that get taught and are not necessarily based on reason or evidence. Science is based on empiricism and reason.

Obviously I'm talking about adults fucking kids, and not 2 kids together.

Again, most kids aren't able to make critical decisions. It's rare that an adult will need to trust a child in the cliff-hanging scenario. Children are not well educated enough as it takes time to learn complex things like brain surgery that unless there is a very rare prodigy it just doesn't happen. Are you even from this planet?

It's not a 'belief' in evolution, it is an understanding that it is true and how it works. Evolution is not random- there are random mutations that get acted on by natural selection which is a non-random process. It's amazing how many people don't even understand the basics of one of the cornerstones of modern science.

It is not 'unlikely at all' it is a certainty because it has in fact happened. It's as real as gravity is! You don't understand it so come out with the old, completely debunked creationist drivel about 'incalculable odds'.


#111 - Oh, so you don't hate religious people, you hate christians. …  [+] (6 replies) 10/15/2015 on Literally, brainwashing 0
User avatar
#141 - pfccross (10/15/2015) [-]
i wasn't the one that said that. And i hate religious people because you have to be either 1. an idiot 2. a coward or 3. clinically insane to truly be religious.
User avatar
#142 - captainfuckitall (10/15/2015) [-]
That's not an argument, that's just opinions.

You are obviously an Atheist, and seeing your hatred of religious people for their irrational train of thought, I want a completely rational and logical train of thought from you that explains why you hate them.
User avatar
#143 - pfccross (10/16/2015) [-]
i already told you... or can you really not read?

either you are too stupid to realize that the bible was cherry picked among a shit ton of different books so only the ones the church liked got through. even now when people turn to the bible, they turn to the parts they like. they like to ignore or pretend the parts they dont like never existed like.. say.. the old testament? which apparently jesus believed in so to discount it makes you against your own religion. Oh but thats right, jesus and god, none of that matters. because what the religion is is what its leaders say it is. which is why religions are constantly changing.

2. alot of people that are religious are so for the singular purpose that they are too cowardly to die without a backup plan. they will submit themselves entirely to something they dont understand and makes no sense simply because some guy with a nice smile said you would get to live forever. The most blatant bull shit i've ever heard. telling everyone those words is a bullshit way to get followers.

3. last we have the clinically insane. the ones that are TRULY devote to their religion lie here. Here we have people that will submit themselves to ANYTHING their church leaders say their religion wants from them. Believe without seeing and all that. From here we got the crusades. from here we got suicide bombers. Every atrocity done in the name of religion came from these people who gave up all their common humane morals for the sake of some guy that they just gotta trust is there and is going to give them 72 virgins or a really cozy place in the afterlife.
User avatar
#144 - captainfuckitall (10/16/2015) [-]
No you didn't. You literally didn't. Your argument was the same as me saying "I hate all blacks because they're all savage", then saying "No no, that IS scientific" when someone asks for empirical evidence. You're just trying to weasel your way out of it.

Once more, like with the anon that 'wasn't' you, you're just griping on Christianity, not religion in general.

As a general rule, everything is constantly changing; that's not a negative point for religion otherwise you wouldn't spend the same breath criticizing it as ancient hogwash. Gods, provided they exist, are allowed to change their minds or formulate new ideas too.

Most religions do not allow for eternal life, simply an after-life. Once more, you are griping on Christianity (or at least Judaism/Islam). Besides, the question of eternal life and after-life's being real or not is a question of whether a soul exists. It would be rather ignorant to say it doesn't, just because we have been unable to measure it thus far; we also lack machines that are unable to allow us to see certain types of colours, that doesn't mean they don't exist. In short, religion doesn't claim in eternal/after-life, it claims HAVING a soul = eternal/afterlife regardless.

Doesn't that happen with any ideology? Politics, culture, military, ethics? Do you claim all people who follow those zealously are insane? Believing without seeing is something everybody does in the same way that you believe you're actually a human being living in a real universe despite the fact that you could just as well be a brain floating in a jar of nutrients that simulates all this. Faith is required for basic survival and well-adjusted living, and is the reason you don't walk outside armed to the teeth fearing your neighbours will shoot you, because you have faith they won't.

Once more, you're still only griping on Christianity and Islam. Nice change of pace adding a second religion, but you still have a long way to go.
User avatar
#145 - pfccross (10/16/2015) [-]
I think I was correct. You simply cannot read. You keep on bring up things that are outright wrong about what i said, or you just completely disregard something I've already said. I'm left to assume you are an idiot so let me put this as simple as possible to you.

If you have an imaginary friend and you are older than 5, you are either insane or retarded. If you kill people in the name of you imaginary friend or his book, you are either insane or retarded. There is no room for argument here. If you do either of those 2 things you belong in a mental institution. Religious people do those things.

if you cannot understand that then im talking to a wall and im done with this conversation anyway, because you seriously in your first sentence tried to turn this into a race hate metaphor.
User avatar
#146 - captainfuckitall (10/16/2015) [-]
Okay, so there's nothing else to discuss. Bye.
#80 - Why do you hate religious people?  [+] (8 replies) 10/15/2015 on Literally, brainwashing +1
#100 - anon (10/15/2015) [-]
Read a history book
Read the old testament

They'll kill you with a smile and forgive themselves

User avatar
#111 - captainfuckitall (10/15/2015) [-]
Oh, so you don't hate religious people, you hate christians.

Or did you believe that all 27,000+ religions that existed since the dawn of civilization fell under one banner?
User avatar
#141 - pfccross (10/15/2015) [-]
i wasn't the one that said that. And i hate religious people because you have to be either 1. an idiot 2. a coward or 3. clinically insane to truly be religious.
User avatar
#142 - captainfuckitall (10/15/2015) [-]
That's not an argument, that's just opinions.

You are obviously an Atheist, and seeing your hatred of religious people for their irrational train of thought, I want a completely rational and logical train of thought from you that explains why you hate them.
User avatar
#143 - pfccross (10/16/2015) [-]
i already told you... or can you really not read?

either you are too stupid to realize that the bible was cherry picked among a shit ton of different books so only the ones the church liked got through. even now when people turn to the bible, they turn to the parts they like. they like to ignore or pretend the parts they dont like never existed like.. say.. the old testament? which apparently jesus believed in so to discount it makes you against your own religion. Oh but thats right, jesus and god, none of that matters. because what the religion is is what its leaders say it is. which is why religions are constantly changing.

2. alot of people that are religious are so for the singular purpose that they are too cowardly to die without a backup plan. they will submit themselves entirely to something they dont understand and makes no sense simply because some guy with a nice smile said you would get to live forever. The most blatant bull shit i've ever heard. telling everyone those words is a bullshit way to get followers.

3. last we have the clinically insane. the ones that are TRULY devote to their religion lie here. Here we have people that will submit themselves to ANYTHING their church leaders say their religion wants from them. Believe without seeing and all that. From here we got the crusades. from here we got suicide bombers. Every atrocity done in the name of religion came from these people who gave up all their common humane morals for the sake of some guy that they just gotta trust is there and is going to give them 72 virgins or a really cozy place in the afterlife.
User avatar
#144 - captainfuckitall (10/16/2015) [-]
No you didn't. You literally didn't. Your argument was the same as me saying "I hate all blacks because they're all savage", then saying "No no, that IS scientific" when someone asks for empirical evidence. You're just trying to weasel your way out of it.

Once more, like with the anon that 'wasn't' you, you're just griping on Christianity, not religion in general.

As a general rule, everything is constantly changing; that's not a negative point for religion otherwise you wouldn't spend the same breath criticizing it as ancient hogwash. Gods, provided they exist, are allowed to change their minds or formulate new ideas too.

Most religions do not allow for eternal life, simply an after-life. Once more, you are griping on Christianity (or at least Judaism/Islam). Besides, the question of eternal life and after-life's being real or not is a question of whether a soul exists. It would be rather ignorant to say it doesn't, just because we have been unable to measure it thus far; we also lack machines that are unable to allow us to see certain types of colours, that doesn't mean they don't exist. In short, religion doesn't claim in eternal/after-life, it claims HAVING a soul = eternal/afterlife regardless.

Doesn't that happen with any ideology? Politics, culture, military, ethics? Do you claim all people who follow those zealously are insane? Believing without seeing is something everybody does in the same way that you believe you're actually a human being living in a real universe despite the fact that you could just as well be a brain floating in a jar of nutrients that simulates all this. Faith is required for basic survival and well-adjusted living, and is the reason you don't walk outside armed to the teeth fearing your neighbours will shoot you, because you have faith they won't.

Once more, you're still only griping on Christianity and Islam. Nice change of pace adding a second religion, but you still have a long way to go.
User avatar
#145 - pfccross (10/16/2015) [-]
I think I was correct. You simply cannot read. You keep on bring up things that are outright wrong about what i said, or you just completely disregard something I've already said. I'm left to assume you are an idiot so let me put this as simple as possible to you.

If you have an imaginary friend and you are older than 5, you are either insane or retarded. If you kill people in the name of you imaginary friend or his book, you are either insane or retarded. There is no room for argument here. If you do either of those 2 things you belong in a mental institution. Religious people do those things.

if you cannot understand that then im talking to a wall and im done with this conversation anyway, because you seriously in your first sentence tried to turn this into a race hate metaphor.
User avatar
#146 - captainfuckitall (10/16/2015) [-]
Okay, so there's nothing else to discuss. Bye.