Upload
Login or register

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#592
Highest Content Rank:#8779
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 78892 total,  96883 ,  17991
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 84.3% (843/1000)
Level 367 Comments: FJ Noble → Level 368 Comments: FJ Noble
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10927
Total Comments Made:20812
FJ Points:40047

latest user's comments

#30 - Of course; I'm not saying he's a bad person for wanting her to…  [+] (10 new replies) 08/11/2015 on Blood on your hands +3
User avatar
#64 - lolollo (08/11/2015) [-]
No, because you commit those actions under the assumption that the dangerous outcomes would happen. Of you ask someone to drive over to your house, and they get in an accident, are you somehow responsible because "you know its been proven that driving is more dangerous than walking"?
User avatar
#66 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Considering that he grabbed a girls ass, punched a police officer, and fully understood the limbs were working off his subconscious desires and he had a desire to kill his wife, it doesn't take a massive leap in brain power to connect that it could seriously injure or kill someone if he's so much as in a bad mood.
User avatar
#78 - lolollo (08/11/2015) [-]
"I didn't know what the limitations of the prosthetics were. For all I knew, it only worked off of simple impulses which are simpler to justify, but don't require as much suppression. It would have been a gross assumption that the machinery would go so far as to enact the deeper desires of the human mind."
User avatar
#81 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Just as well, he punched a cop for giving him a ticket.

I'll say that again because you didn't seem to understand the first time.

He punched an officer of the law, enacting grievous consequences in doing so, because he was annoyed at getting a parking ticket.

I would pray to any higher deity out there that most people are smart enough to understand why it's NOT a good idea to go near a wife you hated enough to desire her death, and furthermore, to understand that ANY situation which makes you rather irritated would end extremely badly for everyone involved whether you wanted it or not.

I know you're just being combative and argumentative for the sake of it, but surely you can see this as well.
User avatar
#82 - lolollo (08/11/2015) [-]
Do you understand what the connection between the ID ego and superego is? He didn't consciously punch the cop for giving him a ticket, he had the impulse of wanting to punch the cop, and since the prosthetics were working off of his ID impulses, they bypassed whatever ego/superego suppression would keep him from enacting it.

Meaning: Congratulations. You've rounded back to the central controversy of the trial. The idea/fact that it wasn't that he consciously punched the cop, but that his arms were reacting to a very human impulse to want to punch the cop.
User avatar
#84 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
And congratulations back to you for ignoring the part where this was a malfunction that he was supposed to report, didn't, while knowing it may cause grievous injury to those around him, and someone died as a result.

Never have I argued over whether he consciously hurt anyone; I know he didn't; I'm arguing that, he KNEW something bad would most likely come of it, and chose to ignore it out of fear, directly resulting in someone's death.
User avatar
#85 - lolollo (08/11/2015) [-]
Then that still doesn't warrant a murder charge. At best, it warrants manslaughter. He knew the prosthetics were malfunctioning, but he didn't know to what extent they were malfunctioning. He knew they had caused bodily harm, but he didn't know whether it would stop there or keep going. He didn't even know if the malfunctions were permanent. So yes, I agree it was a fault on him he didn't report the malfunctions, but to presume he's then directly to blame for the further malfunctions is erroneous. You saw in the content, the lawyer wasn't making a point to call attention to the mistake of not reporting it, he was calling attention to the idea that he somehow directly caused his wife's death by wanting it, resulting in a 1st degree murder charge.
User avatar
#86 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
That's also not what we're arguing (though I agree the charge is stupid), I thought the point of the comic was to debate levels of guilt regarding indirect actions.
User avatar
#88 - lolollo (08/11/2015) [-]
In that case, aggression isn't judged on the act, its judged on the intent. 2 people get into 2 separate car accidents. Person one gets in an accident and the other two people, a male and female both about 20 years old, die. The second person gets in an accident where, instead, a 20 year old male, and 10 year old female die.

Regardless of how "over heinous" the second accident is compared to the former, the two are to be judged under the same charges in order for it to be fair.

So the guy had the motivation, and the means to kill his ex wife, but no intent, intent needing both desire, and action to work. The controversy comes from the fact that the action which carried out the crime wasn't his, it was in the prosthetics, working on his desire. You can have desire for something, but know not to enact on it, so you don't.

Like if someone is on a workout regions, theyll still have the urge to cheat, particularly during the first year. The idea is that the prosthetics say the urge to cheat, and ignored the reasoning given by the ego and superego to resist that urge. The idea is that this creates a system where the individual is not in full control over the systems at work.

The idea portrayed in the guy "indirectly wanting to kill his wife" is that he ignored the warning to get his prosthetics looked at because of the reason that the prosthetics would then kill his wife.

The problem with that hypothesis is its entirety too inefficient. For one, he could have just killed his wife the second he got the prosthetics. He had the motive, means, and intent from there, yet it only happened after the machinery had started "acting on their own". Even if he was planning some elaborate case where "I'll just blame the prosthetics, he'd have to give up his freedom anyway, as he'd have to anticipate that they would confiscate the faulty prosthetics, despite "working perfectly", especially when such an elaborate plan could only come from having freshly received the prosthetics.

All of this is still plausible, but then again so is the idea that your pet is actually a space alien meant to spy on you. It's highly unlightly, and incredibly illogical.
User avatar
#80 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Which makes much more complex assumption than my explanation does, yes. Good job. Out of all possibilities, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is probably closer to the truth, so there we go.
#27 - It's not meant to be taken seriously, it's meant to cause debate. 08/11/2015 on Blood on your hands +3
#26 - But it happened as a direct result of him wanting it. He may n…  [+] (12 new replies) 08/11/2015 on Blood on your hands 0
User avatar
#29 - zomaru (08/11/2015) [-]
Yes, but mechanical error is not his fault. Any one would want their Ex to die if they walked out on them in that situation.
User avatar
#30 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Of course; I'm not saying he's a bad person for wanting her to die, I'm saying she died as a direct result of his actions.

If your loved ones were coming to see you and, in traveling, asked someone for directions, and this person intentionally lied and gave them directions through a place he KNEW was not safe and deadly, and they died while going through, would you hold him responsible?

If an Elevator is malfunctioning and a worker knows it could go very wrong, yet does not report it out of fear of losing his job, and someone dies as a result, would you hold him responsible?
User avatar
#64 - lolollo (08/11/2015) [-]
No, because you commit those actions under the assumption that the dangerous outcomes would happen. Of you ask someone to drive over to your house, and they get in an accident, are you somehow responsible because "you know its been proven that driving is more dangerous than walking"?
User avatar
#66 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Considering that he grabbed a girls ass, punched a police officer, and fully understood the limbs were working off his subconscious desires and he had a desire to kill his wife, it doesn't take a massive leap in brain power to connect that it could seriously injure or kill someone if he's so much as in a bad mood.
User avatar
#78 - lolollo (08/11/2015) [-]
"I didn't know what the limitations of the prosthetics were. For all I knew, it only worked off of simple impulses which are simpler to justify, but don't require as much suppression. It would have been a gross assumption that the machinery would go so far as to enact the deeper desires of the human mind."
User avatar
#81 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Just as well, he punched a cop for giving him a ticket.

I'll say that again because you didn't seem to understand the first time.

He punched an officer of the law, enacting grievous consequences in doing so, because he was annoyed at getting a parking ticket.

I would pray to any higher deity out there that most people are smart enough to understand why it's NOT a good idea to go near a wife you hated enough to desire her death, and furthermore, to understand that ANY situation which makes you rather irritated would end extremely badly for everyone involved whether you wanted it or not.

I know you're just being combative and argumentative for the sake of it, but surely you can see this as well.
User avatar
#82 - lolollo (08/11/2015) [-]
Do you understand what the connection between the ID ego and superego is? He didn't consciously punch the cop for giving him a ticket, he had the impulse of wanting to punch the cop, and since the prosthetics were working off of his ID impulses, they bypassed whatever ego/superego suppression would keep him from enacting it.

Meaning: Congratulations. You've rounded back to the central controversy of the trial. The idea/fact that it wasn't that he consciously punched the cop, but that his arms were reacting to a very human impulse to want to punch the cop.
User avatar
#84 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
And congratulations back to you for ignoring the part where this was a malfunction that he was supposed to report, didn't, while knowing it may cause grievous injury to those around him, and someone died as a result.

Never have I argued over whether he consciously hurt anyone; I know he didn't; I'm arguing that, he KNEW something bad would most likely come of it, and chose to ignore it out of fear, directly resulting in someone's death.
User avatar
#85 - lolollo (08/11/2015) [-]
Then that still doesn't warrant a murder charge. At best, it warrants manslaughter. He knew the prosthetics were malfunctioning, but he didn't know to what extent they were malfunctioning. He knew they had caused bodily harm, but he didn't know whether it would stop there or keep going. He didn't even know if the malfunctions were permanent. So yes, I agree it was a fault on him he didn't report the malfunctions, but to presume he's then directly to blame for the further malfunctions is erroneous. You saw in the content, the lawyer wasn't making a point to call attention to the mistake of not reporting it, he was calling attention to the idea that he somehow directly caused his wife's death by wanting it, resulting in a 1st degree murder charge.
User avatar
#86 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
That's also not what we're arguing (though I agree the charge is stupid), I thought the point of the comic was to debate levels of guilt regarding indirect actions.
User avatar
#88 - lolollo (08/11/2015) [-]
In that case, aggression isn't judged on the act, its judged on the intent. 2 people get into 2 separate car accidents. Person one gets in an accident and the other two people, a male and female both about 20 years old, die. The second person gets in an accident where, instead, a 20 year old male, and 10 year old female die.

Regardless of how "over heinous" the second accident is compared to the former, the two are to be judged under the same charges in order for it to be fair.

So the guy had the motivation, and the means to kill his ex wife, but no intent, intent needing both desire, and action to work. The controversy comes from the fact that the action which carried out the crime wasn't his, it was in the prosthetics, working on his desire. You can have desire for something, but know not to enact on it, so you don't.

Like if someone is on a workout regions, theyll still have the urge to cheat, particularly during the first year. The idea is that the prosthetics say the urge to cheat, and ignored the reasoning given by the ego and superego to resist that urge. The idea is that this creates a system where the individual is not in full control over the systems at work.

The idea portrayed in the guy "indirectly wanting to kill his wife" is that he ignored the warning to get his prosthetics looked at because of the reason that the prosthetics would then kill his wife.

The problem with that hypothesis is its entirety too inefficient. For one, he could have just killed his wife the second he got the prosthetics. He had the motive, means, and intent from there, yet it only happened after the machinery had started "acting on their own". Even if he was planning some elaborate case where "I'll just blame the prosthetics, he'd have to give up his freedom anyway, as he'd have to anticipate that they would confiscate the faulty prosthetics, despite "working perfectly", especially when such an elaborate plan could only come from having freshly received the prosthetics.

All of this is still plausible, but then again so is the idea that your pet is actually a space alien meant to spy on you. It's highly unlightly, and incredibly illogical.
User avatar
#80 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Which makes much more complex assumption than my explanation does, yes. Good job. Out of all possibilities, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is probably closer to the truth, so there we go.
#25 - That's exactly what happened. The question is whether or not h…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/11/2015 on Blood on your hands +4
User avatar
#28 - joaomartins (08/11/2015) [-]
I say : Fry that legless motherfucker ! I'm an asshole
User avatar
#46 - ForReal (08/11/2015) [-]
That's one big tater tot
#24 - Of course, but what I'm asking is, if you WANT something to ha…  [+] (17 new replies) 08/11/2015 on Blood on your hands +3
User avatar
#43 - derpthefifth (08/11/2015) [-]
It's more like someone saying "wouldnt it be easier if he were dead?" and you answer yes, and so that person kills the person and you go to prison for it.
It might be easier for you, you might even want that, but if you'd never do it then you're being convicted based on a thought
User avatar
#34 - couriernine (08/11/2015) [-]
Think of it this way.

Imagine that he complained to a random stranger about his Wife's actions, and said that he wished she was dead because of that. He wouldn't actually kill her, but he wished that she was dead.
A few days later, the stranger knocks on his front door. When the man answers the door, the stranger slits his wife's throat in front of him. The man asks why, and the stranger replies "Because you wanted it."

Is it the man's fault that the wife is dead? He wanted her dead, but he would never actually have killed her. Is it his fault then? Should he be blamed for her death?

Its similar to the idea of someone falling off of a building and landing on someone. The person they landed on dies, is it the fault of the person who fell? In a way, they played a part in the death of the other person, but the person who fell is not a murderer.
User avatar
#35 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
But he had no way of knowing the stranger would kill her. He KNEW the arms were malfunctioning and capable of extremely hurting someone.
#56 - anon (08/11/2015) [-]
your theory and all else fails with that shit comment
User avatar
#60 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
You know what's really funny? I know you're only commenting and insulting me because I have thumbs down. If it were the other way around, you would never conceive of insulting a popular opinion. Even more so, you do it as anon. How much of a coward are you, exactly?
#52 - anon (08/11/2015) [-]
the arms didn't malfunction btw
User avatar
#61 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Considering they were designed to replace limbs, and limbs do not act on subconscious thought, yeah, yeah they did.
#112 - Thundergod (08/11/2015) [-]
Hoo, boy. Soooo I take it you're totally incapable of standing or walking without paying attention to it? You've never caught something out of reflex? Never scratched an itch or tightened your fist in anger without thinking about it? Subconscious routines make up so much of what we do that if we were to remove even a quarter of them, we'd all be immovable wrecks, with only the most mentally capable so much as going to the store to buy a can of beans.
#67 - skebaba (08/11/2015) [-]
No, they didn't. They were designed to work with the subconcious part of the brain. Something that is a design isn't a malfunction.
User avatar
#69 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
I apologize, would you like me to rephrase my entire sentence to appeal to your semantics?
#71 - skebaba (08/11/2015) [-]
Yes.
User avatar
#73 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
You're the type of person to spend 10 minuets arguing with the cashier that it should be "10 Items or Fewer", aren't you? Of course you are correct, but that doesn't stop you from being a faggot.
#75 - skebaba (08/11/2015) [-]
*minutes
User avatar
#77 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
*faggot
User avatar
#131 - sircontagious (08/11/2015) [-]
im so sorry bb this is just how i get my sick kicks please forgive
User avatar
#130 - sircontagious (08/11/2015) [-]
you spelled it right gosh you are so dumb
User avatar
#45 - lordogames (08/11/2015) [-]
He knew they were malfunctioning, but he didn't know the extent in which they would go.
#14 - If someone wanted you dead and so you died as a result of them…  [+] (32 new replies) 08/10/2015 on Blood on your hands -39
User avatar
#127 - commontroll (08/11/2015) [-]
I've wanted to kill people many times in my life, so much that I had to actively hold back myself. If I had arms working on my subconscious I would have cleaved my ex-roommate's head with a kukri after he attacked me because I had to consciously stop myself, and even then I felt my arms trying to reach for it.
#125 - oiman (08/11/2015) [-]
so if i didnt have any limbs and i say i'd like to fuck your mom's mouth and then someone came and forced her to suck my dick, i should be accused of rape even though i cant possibly do anything to stop that from happening? wtf is wrong with you?
User avatar
#110 - Kairyuka (08/11/2015) [-]
There's a difference between what you feel and what you do with those feelings. It looks like the arms cut off that barrier.
User avatar
#102 - europe (08/11/2015) [-]
No. What someone wants matters little if he doesn't purposefully pursue that result. If it just so happens that due to that desire alone that result is acquired, then it's an accident.
User avatar
#62 - mowgaycraft (08/11/2015) [-]
Well. I can want something but I can know it won't happen.

I hate to use the term but to think that just because I want something it means it'll happen is the basis for neo-feminist tumblr hate (ie; you're a rapist if you so much as fantasize about women).

There's a movie called Law Abiding Citizen (It's good, watch it) that has a scene in which a man is being questioned by a lawyer and says that he wanted the person who killed his family dead. He then proceeds to explain that this isn't incriminating because he was a bad person and it's not a farfetched principle for a lot of people to have wanted him dead but just because they wanted something doesn't purposefully incriminate each and every one of them.
User avatar
#65 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
You misunderstand what I'm saying.

Say you have a wish, for whatever reason, a genie gives you one, but you can't decide right then so you leave it. A bit later, you get into a serious fight with someone, anyone, and genuinely wish they got hit by a car and died. Not a minute later, they get hit by a car and die as a result of your wish.

I'm not saying "Hurr durr he's obviously guilty because of simple subconscious desire he can't really control", I'm saying that, as a DIRECT result of his actions, she is now dead; you can make of that what you will.

Furthermore, even WHILE he knew they were malfunctioning, he did not report it out of fear, ALSO leading to the death of a (relatively) innocent person.
User avatar
#68 - mowgaycraft (08/11/2015) [-]
Well taking that into account it seems that it was mainly the arms problem because even during the killing scene recollection he shows remorse enough that, had his arms been organic and completely within his control, he'd have stopped. Strangulation isn't an instant kill, after all. But you're also putting the point that it's a SUBconscious desire to kill them, as in the desires that we have no control over.

So can you blame someone for something they have no control over in the first place? Generally uncontrollable impulses get treated as mental disorders rather than intent to kill and treated as such.

It falls to the people who created the arms for not tuning them enough I'd say.
User avatar
#72 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
But he somehow got INTO that situation knowing the possibility. He may not have murdered her, but he did not stop her murder either by preemptive planning. At most, he is an accessory to murder because he failed to report the issue.
User avatar
#74 - mowgaycraft (08/11/2015) [-]
I believe that's the point of the comic, yes.
User avatar
#76 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
I don't. I think the point is to start a philosophical debate about the extent of ones guilt in indirect matters.
#37 - anon (08/11/2015) [-]
No, because if we all had limbs that acted on our primal instincts and not on our premeditated thought, we'd all be killing people.
User avatar
#63 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Yes. That is exactly what happened. He knew it may, yet did not act on it.
User avatar
#18 - mrmask (08/10/2015) [-]
not really, there is a difference between desire and conviction.
have you ever wanted to do something but didn't because of reasons?
#51 - anon (08/11/2015) [-]
the fake hands would have stopped if he realized he didn't want to kill her he still wanted to kill her while he was doing it
User avatar
#24 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Of course, but what I'm asking is, if you WANT something to happen and it happens as a DIRECT result of you wanting it, is it not the same as doing it yourself?

If a traveler asks me for a safe path and I intentionally lie and tell them of a dangerous one, then later on hear of their death because they crossed the path, is their death my fault or their own?
User avatar
#43 - derpthefifth (08/11/2015) [-]
It's more like someone saying "wouldnt it be easier if he were dead?" and you answer yes, and so that person kills the person and you go to prison for it.
It might be easier for you, you might even want that, but if you'd never do it then you're being convicted based on a thought
User avatar
#34 - couriernine (08/11/2015) [-]
Think of it this way.

Imagine that he complained to a random stranger about his Wife's actions, and said that he wished she was dead because of that. He wouldn't actually kill her, but he wished that she was dead.
A few days later, the stranger knocks on his front door. When the man answers the door, the stranger slits his wife's throat in front of him. The man asks why, and the stranger replies "Because you wanted it."

Is it the man's fault that the wife is dead? He wanted her dead, but he would never actually have killed her. Is it his fault then? Should he be blamed for her death?

Its similar to the idea of someone falling off of a building and landing on someone. The person they landed on dies, is it the fault of the person who fell? In a way, they played a part in the death of the other person, but the person who fell is not a murderer.
User avatar
#35 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
But he had no way of knowing the stranger would kill her. He KNEW the arms were malfunctioning and capable of extremely hurting someone.
#56 - anon (08/11/2015) [-]
your theory and all else fails with that shit comment
User avatar
#60 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
You know what's really funny? I know you're only commenting and insulting me because I have thumbs down. If it were the other way around, you would never conceive of insulting a popular opinion. Even more so, you do it as anon. How much of a coward are you, exactly?
#52 - anon (08/11/2015) [-]
the arms didn't malfunction btw
User avatar
#61 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
Considering they were designed to replace limbs, and limbs do not act on subconscious thought, yeah, yeah they did.
#112 - Thundergod (08/11/2015) [-]
Hoo, boy. Soooo I take it you're totally incapable of standing or walking without paying attention to it? You've never caught something out of reflex? Never scratched an itch or tightened your fist in anger without thinking about it? Subconscious routines make up so much of what we do that if we were to remove even a quarter of them, we'd all be immovable wrecks, with only the most mentally capable so much as going to the store to buy a can of beans.
#67 - skebaba (08/11/2015) [-]
No, they didn't. They were designed to work with the subconcious part of the brain. Something that is a design isn't a malfunction.
User avatar
#69 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
I apologize, would you like me to rephrase my entire sentence to appeal to your semantics?
#71 - skebaba (08/11/2015) [-]
Yes.
User avatar
#73 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
You're the type of person to spend 10 minuets arguing with the cashier that it should be "10 Items or Fewer", aren't you? Of course you are correct, but that doesn't stop you from being a faggot.
#75 - skebaba (08/11/2015) [-]
*minutes
User avatar
#77 - captainfuckitall (08/11/2015) [-]
*faggot
User avatar
#131 - sircontagious (08/11/2015) [-]
im so sorry bb this is just how i get my sick kicks please forgive
User avatar
#130 - sircontagious (08/11/2015) [-]
you spelled it right gosh you are so dumb
User avatar
#45 - lordogames (08/11/2015) [-]
He knew they were malfunctioning, but he didn't know the extent in which they would go.
#8 - Every time I see this I wonder if his name actually is Jeff, b… 08/10/2015 on My Name is Jeff +4
#5 - Now all of Funnyjunk knows you're queer.  [+] (14 new replies) 08/10/2015 on Anons discuss gay porn +121
#75 - anon (08/10/2015) [-]
i thought it was pretty obvious what it meant, if he wasn't the bottom it wouldn't really work to well if he went limp lol
User avatar
#44 - elijie (08/10/2015) [-]
A woman can be on top too
User avatar
#19 - gonzoen (08/10/2015) [-]
#16 - anon (08/10/2015) [-]
Look at his fucking name you nitwit.
#7 - bleachboi (08/10/2015) [-]
Bruh. Been knowin.
User avatar
#9 - ingloriousgamer (08/10/2015) [-]
User avatar
#45 - dgurevich (08/10/2015) [-]
#21 - bleachboi (08/10/2015) [-]
From Texas, can confirm.
User avatar
#24 - wrpen (08/10/2015) [-]
Steers, queers, beers, and sheers.

It's hot as hell down here, gotta wear thin clothes.
#25 - bleachboi (08/10/2015) [-]
Which fuckin sucks cuz I look hot as hell in winter clothes.
User avatar
#26 - wrpen (08/10/2015) [-]
You're lookin' hot as hell either way.
#27 - bleachboi (08/10/2015) [-]
Omg I'm blushing.
#29 - bleachboi (08/10/2015) [-]
That was pretty good, lmao.
#21 - Comment deleted 08/09/2015 on Dragon Age Fact Comp #4 Magic 0
#19 - Comment deleted  [+] (2 new replies) 08/09/2015 on Dragon Age Fact Comp #4 Magic 0
#20 - sladee Comment deleted by
#21 - captainfuckitall Comment deleted by