x
Click to expand

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#9099
Comment Ranking:#1587
Highest Content Rank:#9114
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 58502 total,  71906 ,  13404
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 96.1% (961/1000)
Level 352 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk → Level 353 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10883
Times Content Favorited:13 times
Total Comments Made:16821
FJ Points:25193

latest user's comments

#42 - Oh, so it's just the wording that's a problem for you? If I ju…  [+] (25 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Science 0
User avatar #43 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'd ask you to prove your claim, but sure.

Evidence =/= actually seeing them.
I accept that bacteria are real despite never having seen them.
We have evidence of black holes, but for obvious reasons, they can't be seen.

All the people who thought lightning was made by a guy with an anvil, yeah.
All the guys who thought the earth was round, yeah.
I don't see why this superstition should be any different than all the others.

Except I didn't.
There's a distinct difference between "I don't believe your claim" (my position) and "I believe the opposite of your claim" (What you seem to think my position is)
User avatar #44 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
So exactly what amount of evidence does it take before you deem it valid and looking into?

Yet, relative to Earth population, very few people believed in either of those things. EVERY culture has spirits.

So if someone brought you evidence of ghosts, just one piece, you'd delve into it? Once more, exactly what counts as evidence to you?
User avatar #46 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Anything substantial that isn't "I had a feeling" or "My great aunt had a feeling"
You know, actual evidence.

That's doesn't give it any credit, though.
People are prone to superstition.
Most cultures also have a creation myth.

"Just one piece"
No. Unless said one piece was an actual ghost, like talking and walking.
An actual ghost, traveling the world, appearing on talk shows and shit. Being examined by scientists. A controlled experiment. A mechanism for how ghosts arise.
Evidence.

How do we know that there are giant squid in the deep sea? They wash up dead on occasion. We actually have something to study.
Ghosts? Nada. Shitty pictures taken by questionable individuals? Stories told over a fire? Come on, man.
User avatar #48 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Certainly!: THE BOOK OF THE DAMNED Part 1 of 2 - FULL AudioBook | Greatest Audio Books Enjoy.

Yet those creation myths all differ. The belief of spirits and souls are incredibly similar.

So an atom must talk and walk for you to believe it? "No, because it doesn't work that way" so how are you so sure ghosts work that way? Once more, you've never looked up a single thing about it.
#49 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not convinced that I'm either talking to an idiot or a troll.
Neither of which I'll spend my time on.

User avatar #51 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
You see? I give you evidence, a MASSIVE book containing documented cases of unsolved, borderline paranormal phenomena that actually existed, happened, and is recorded, and you brush it off.

Good job proving my point old boy; I'm sure you'll do the same in our next debate.
User avatar #53 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
kinda budding off our argument but hes got a point, anyone writing a book can put whatever they want in it. theres a thing called a scientific journal with citations for this reason, thats probably what he was asking for.
User avatar #54 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
But that's exactly what it is. If either of you bothered so much to look it up or listen, you'd know that. It is a genuine, scientific journal, of compiled evidence regarding borderline paranormal phenomena. It HAS citations, dates, times, witnesses, testimonies, samples (when available), everything.

See, this is what I mean: Now it's not so much a matter of finding you both proof, as you guys simply not wanting to change your views.
User avatar #56 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
and just like in our conversation, if its as genuine as you say it is, wheres the approval rating? why hasnt the majority of the scientific community accepted it yet?
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Don't know, but I do know it actually covers that in the introduction (as well as the name). If memory serves me well it's just because the cases were unsolved and nobody could tell how these scenarios happened, so they just put them on a backburner as there wasn't enough evidence to tell of the origins.
User avatar #61 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
exactly, so if its unsolved, we dont know what happened and claiming the supernatural did it is, well, you seeing the problem yet?
User avatar #63 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
No. If the word 'supernatural' is all you're concerned about, this debate could be solved with a simple sentence:

"Supernatural does not exist. It is just a word we use to describe what we are currently unable to measure. Ghosts are supernatural, but they will not be once we find the principles behind them"

See? Now you don't need to fret over semantics. You can read the book now.
User avatar #65 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
still not getting my point...
"supernatural means what isnt measured" my rocks arent measured, they must be supernatural then by that definition correct? i agreed with this, but then you turn around and bring ghosts into the discussion like i wouldnt notice.
this is what happens when you have a poor definition, we cant even begin to argue whether something is real or not until you fully define your terms.

what is a "ghost" and what relation does it have with the term "supernatural"?
User avatar #67 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Yet they are, we know types of rocks, the composition of rocks, and how they are formed. When I say measure I'm not talking about putting a tape measurer to it. I thought someone so caught up on semantics as you would know that.

Well, I can't really say, because my evidence is anecdotal and I am not a peer reviewed scientist. Are you willing to take my word for it? If not, it doesn't matter.
User avatar #60 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Some scientific paper
"We don't know shit. Maybe nothing even happened, lol"
User avatar #64 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
BECAUSE I read it, I would know you'd barely be past the introduction. It's quite a long book, and I know for a fact you would have postponed quite a bit before even clicking the link.

You're not fooling anyone.

As I said: If you don't want to be proven wrong, just say so next time. I only gave it to you because it seemed like you genuinely wanted proof.
User avatar #69 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Hey, ghosts would be fucking cool
It'd be a world-changing discovery.
We're talking Nobel Prize shit.
And yet, nobody has managed to produce so much as a proper indication that there's actually something there.

It's like the Loch Ness Monster.
Several decades.
No bodies.
Nothing other than hearsay and shitty pictures.

There's no fucking Loch Ness Monster.
Find it? Fucking awesome. Why the fuck was there not even a shred of evidence of its existence?


I would love it if the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, etc was real.
But it just doesn't seem like they are. And people have had a lot of time to prove their case.
User avatar #55 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Sure it is.

Which journal was this published in?
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Unknown, it's been a year or so since I read it and its a very large book; but, if you really want that evidence as much as you desire, you should have no problem spending 14 hours of your life sifting through it and learning something and gaining a new view. Or hell, you could even look it up on google.

You asked, I provided, now you're refusing to look. What does that say about you, I wonder?
User avatar #59 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
If I read through every occult/paranormal "book" out there, I'd have to devote my life to it.

But I'll put it to you simple.
If this book was a proper scientific paper (it isn't), and it had proper evidence (it doesn't), then mainstream science would accept that ghosts are real.

I still don't think you're serious, by the way.
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Yet you don't have to, I put one right in front of you and you still refused.

And did you actually check or are you just saying that? It's very hard to tell with you; see, because:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Damned

There's no criticism against it.

www.amazon.com/The-Book-Damned-Charles-Fort/dp/1596050276

Has positive reviews, none of which question its authenticity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fort

And the man himself is a credited researcher.

You can 'not think I'm serious' all you please, but lying to others, and most of all yourself, about what you're really looking for is a waste of time. Next time, just admit you want to stick to your mindset and don't WANT to be proven wrong or gain a new insight, and I will leave you be.
User avatar #70 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Seven hours
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
14 hours actually, the part you're listening to is just the first half.

I told you, it has a LOT of proof. They're just inconclusive, yet are so fantastical that only the most precise natural phenomena could have made them.
#66 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
...youre kidding?
please disregard my previous comment, im done here.
User avatar #68 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
That's fine, I figured you were 'done' when you asked for evidence and I gave you exactly what you asked for only for you to split hairs about why it's not good enough.

Is it the "wikipedia" thing? Editing articles and all that? Because if the article was in favour of your argument I'm sure you'd be more than happy to accept it at face value. Reviews at Amazon? Obviously you haven't looked up a scientific book before, as half a review goes entirely toward the credibility of the book and author, as the comments here do now.
#40 - Because the only reason it 'doesn't' is because it's unable to…  [+] (36 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Science 0
User avatar #73 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not wasting more than half a day, watching some "paranormal researcher" talk about UFOs, ghosts and god knows what else.
If I want that, I can watch Discovery Channel or some other mindless crap where you already know the ending. Why do you know the ending? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE LITERALLY WORLD-CHANGING NEWS.

Prove an afterlife, and your name will be remembered until the sun dies
And yet you're telling me that it's just uninteresting news?
Get the fuck out.
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Okay, so what you're telling me now is that you want evidence, but it must be Earth shattering life changing evidence to apply. Is that right?
User avatar #75 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
It must be sufficient evidence to convince a skeptic.
Anything less is pointless.

Anecdotal evidence and argumentation is simply not enough.
If this is a physical phenomenon, it leaves physical traces ---> evidence.
Such things have not been found despite rigorous searching.

Absence of evidence when evidence should be present, is evidence of absence
User avatar #76 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
The book is actually quite famous for convincing many skeptics and is, in fact, on the 'must read' list of non-fiction.

Though some are harder to convince than others I suppose.
User avatar #77 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Sure.
Go on youtube and search for "Islam skeptics" and you'll find hundreds of videos that show a skeptic being convinced that Islam is the one true religion.
This doesn't mean shit.

When you convince the scientific community, then you can talk about proper evidence.
Until then, nah. Your evidence is shit.
User avatar #78 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Well they were 'convinced'. The happenings in the book have been examined and no probable cause was found; so they just put it on the backburner and it's been there ever since.

They can't conclude 'dem ghosts gone dun it!' because we don't have the materials required to measure such things, but only the imprint, which is literally what you asked for, remember? "An invisible elephant still leaves a footprint".

The issue is that, no matter what anyone finds or what the scientific community says, it will not be concluded because we don't have the right tools. Until we do, it will always just be "strange happenings" that you will brush off.
User avatar #79 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
An imprint is evidence of something
Not ghosts. Not elephants. You have to actually determine what caused the imprint. That's why it's useless as evidence for anything other than itself.

And I'll be right in doing so.
If you can prove it, great. I'll accept that ghosts are real, and I'll be right in doing so.
User avatar #80 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to prove ghosts are real, I'm trying to prove there's more credit behind the paranormal than many people want to admit.
User avatar #81 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
That's awfully vague.
If they manage to produce some useful results, I'll give them credit.
Until then, I'll see all "paranormal investigators" as being on par with those "bigfoot hunters" on Discovery Channel.
Fat, redneck americans walking through a random forest, attributing every sound in the forest to Bigfoot.

Dousing rods, psychics, tarot cards, astrology.
All that crap.
Not once has it demonstrated an actual effect or use, other than the placebo effect or conning idiots out of their money.
User avatar #41 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Precisely. We cannot measure supernatural things, so we don't deal in it. If we could, then it wouldn't be supernatural It'd be natural.

If we can't gather evidence, then the default position is non-belief.
They're not necessarily lying. They're just wrong. Same with how lightning forms. Zeus/Thor? Nah, electricity.

I'm coming from the position of "If there's no evidence to support it, there's no reason to believe it"
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Oh, so it's just the wording that's a problem for you? If I just said "It's natural, but we haven't found the tools to measure it yet, kinda like how we didn't know about ultraviolet light 200 years ago" then it's cool?

Once more: So does that mean you disbelieve everything unless you can see it? So, say, you don't believe the pyramids exist because you've never seen them and photos could be faked and anecdotal evidence cannot be relied upon?

So everyone with those experiences since (let's say the dawn of man) is wrong, but you, sure that it doesn't exist even though you've never gone out of your way to so much as look, you're right. Am I getting that correctly?

You're perfectly right, there is no reason to believe it, but there's also no reason not to. "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence after a certain point" also means that, after a certain point, no fallacy is actually a fallacy (Such as the Slippery Slope fallacy). What you're doing is staunchly saying it does NOT exist, and you KNOW it does not exist beyond a shadow of a doubt; which is just a stupid a position as BELIEVING it does without evidence. You are what you hate, just on the other side of the spectrum. Congratulations.
User avatar #43 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'd ask you to prove your claim, but sure.

Evidence =/= actually seeing them.
I accept that bacteria are real despite never having seen them.
We have evidence of black holes, but for obvious reasons, they can't be seen.

All the people who thought lightning was made by a guy with an anvil, yeah.
All the guys who thought the earth was round, yeah.
I don't see why this superstition should be any different than all the others.

Except I didn't.
There's a distinct difference between "I don't believe your claim" (my position) and "I believe the opposite of your claim" (What you seem to think my position is)
User avatar #44 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
So exactly what amount of evidence does it take before you deem it valid and looking into?

Yet, relative to Earth population, very few people believed in either of those things. EVERY culture has spirits.

So if someone brought you evidence of ghosts, just one piece, you'd delve into it? Once more, exactly what counts as evidence to you?
User avatar #46 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Anything substantial that isn't "I had a feeling" or "My great aunt had a feeling"
You know, actual evidence.

That's doesn't give it any credit, though.
People are prone to superstition.
Most cultures also have a creation myth.

"Just one piece"
No. Unless said one piece was an actual ghost, like talking and walking.
An actual ghost, traveling the world, appearing on talk shows and shit. Being examined by scientists. A controlled experiment. A mechanism for how ghosts arise.
Evidence.

How do we know that there are giant squid in the deep sea? They wash up dead on occasion. We actually have something to study.
Ghosts? Nada. Shitty pictures taken by questionable individuals? Stories told over a fire? Come on, man.
User avatar #48 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Certainly!: THE BOOK OF THE DAMNED Part 1 of 2 - FULL AudioBook | Greatest Audio Books Enjoy.

Yet those creation myths all differ. The belief of spirits and souls are incredibly similar.

So an atom must talk and walk for you to believe it? "No, because it doesn't work that way" so how are you so sure ghosts work that way? Once more, you've never looked up a single thing about it.
#49 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not convinced that I'm either talking to an idiot or a troll.
Neither of which I'll spend my time on.

User avatar #51 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
You see? I give you evidence, a MASSIVE book containing documented cases of unsolved, borderline paranormal phenomena that actually existed, happened, and is recorded, and you brush it off.

Good job proving my point old boy; I'm sure you'll do the same in our next debate.
User avatar #53 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
kinda budding off our argument but hes got a point, anyone writing a book can put whatever they want in it. theres a thing called a scientific journal with citations for this reason, thats probably what he was asking for.
User avatar #54 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
But that's exactly what it is. If either of you bothered so much to look it up or listen, you'd know that. It is a genuine, scientific journal, of compiled evidence regarding borderline paranormal phenomena. It HAS citations, dates, times, witnesses, testimonies, samples (when available), everything.

See, this is what I mean: Now it's not so much a matter of finding you both proof, as you guys simply not wanting to change your views.
User avatar #56 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
and just like in our conversation, if its as genuine as you say it is, wheres the approval rating? why hasnt the majority of the scientific community accepted it yet?
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Don't know, but I do know it actually covers that in the introduction (as well as the name). If memory serves me well it's just because the cases were unsolved and nobody could tell how these scenarios happened, so they just put them on a backburner as there wasn't enough evidence to tell of the origins.
User avatar #61 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
exactly, so if its unsolved, we dont know what happened and claiming the supernatural did it is, well, you seeing the problem yet?
User avatar #63 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
No. If the word 'supernatural' is all you're concerned about, this debate could be solved with a simple sentence:

"Supernatural does not exist. It is just a word we use to describe what we are currently unable to measure. Ghosts are supernatural, but they will not be once we find the principles behind them"

See? Now you don't need to fret over semantics. You can read the book now.
User avatar #65 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
still not getting my point...
"supernatural means what isnt measured" my rocks arent measured, they must be supernatural then by that definition correct? i agreed with this, but then you turn around and bring ghosts into the discussion like i wouldnt notice.
this is what happens when you have a poor definition, we cant even begin to argue whether something is real or not until you fully define your terms.

what is a "ghost" and what relation does it have with the term "supernatural"?
User avatar #67 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Yet they are, we know types of rocks, the composition of rocks, and how they are formed. When I say measure I'm not talking about putting a tape measurer to it. I thought someone so caught up on semantics as you would know that.

Well, I can't really say, because my evidence is anecdotal and I am not a peer reviewed scientist. Are you willing to take my word for it? If not, it doesn't matter.
User avatar #60 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Some scientific paper
"We don't know shit. Maybe nothing even happened, lol"
User avatar #64 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
BECAUSE I read it, I would know you'd barely be past the introduction. It's quite a long book, and I know for a fact you would have postponed quite a bit before even clicking the link.

You're not fooling anyone.

As I said: If you don't want to be proven wrong, just say so next time. I only gave it to you because it seemed like you genuinely wanted proof.
User avatar #69 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Hey, ghosts would be fucking cool
It'd be a world-changing discovery.
We're talking Nobel Prize shit.
And yet, nobody has managed to produce so much as a proper indication that there's actually something there.

It's like the Loch Ness Monster.
Several decades.
No bodies.
Nothing other than hearsay and shitty pictures.

There's no fucking Loch Ness Monster.
Find it? Fucking awesome. Why the fuck was there not even a shred of evidence of its existence?


I would love it if the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, etc was real.
But it just doesn't seem like they are. And people have had a lot of time to prove their case.
User avatar #55 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Sure it is.

Which journal was this published in?
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Unknown, it's been a year or so since I read it and its a very large book; but, if you really want that evidence as much as you desire, you should have no problem spending 14 hours of your life sifting through it and learning something and gaining a new view. Or hell, you could even look it up on google.

You asked, I provided, now you're refusing to look. What does that say about you, I wonder?
User avatar #59 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
If I read through every occult/paranormal "book" out there, I'd have to devote my life to it.

But I'll put it to you simple.
If this book was a proper scientific paper (it isn't), and it had proper evidence (it doesn't), then mainstream science would accept that ghosts are real.

I still don't think you're serious, by the way.
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Yet you don't have to, I put one right in front of you and you still refused.

And did you actually check or are you just saying that? It's very hard to tell with you; see, because:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Damned

There's no criticism against it.

www.amazon.com/The-Book-Damned-Charles-Fort/dp/1596050276

Has positive reviews, none of which question its authenticity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fort

And the man himself is a credited researcher.

You can 'not think I'm serious' all you please, but lying to others, and most of all yourself, about what you're really looking for is a waste of time. Next time, just admit you want to stick to your mindset and don't WANT to be proven wrong or gain a new insight, and I will leave you be.
User avatar #70 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Seven hours
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
14 hours actually, the part you're listening to is just the first half.

I told you, it has a LOT of proof. They're just inconclusive, yet are so fantastical that only the most precise natural phenomena could have made them.
#66 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
...youre kidding?
please disregard my previous comment, im done here.
User avatar #68 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
That's fine, I figured you were 'done' when you asked for evidence and I gave you exactly what you asked for only for you to split hairs about why it's not good enough.

Is it the "wikipedia" thing? Editing articles and all that? Because if the article was in favour of your argument I'm sure you'd be more than happy to accept it at face value. Reviews at Amazon? Obviously you haven't looked up a scientific book before, as half a review goes entirely toward the credibility of the book and author, as the comments here do now.
#74 - Yeah....yeah...nah...I'd rather be normal and not want to slic… 05/05/2015 on The Anti-SJW +16
#38 - Once more I can tell you've done no research, because there ar…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Science 0
User avatar #47 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
forget that first part, i worded it badly.
essentially im trying to say nobody is taking it seriously, so why should i?
User avatar #45 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
look, neither of us are qualified individuals, so i have to rely on the scientific community to say whether something is bullshit or not by seeing if they take it seriously. there are countless scientists from all around the world, each doing their thing looking to redo someone else's experiments, so if nobody is taking a study seriously theres probably a good reason for it.
also makes me wonder, if psychics are real why hasnt any of them claimed their millions dollars from james randi yet? that should be easy money for them.

let me say again, i am in no way denying the existence of the placebo effect, i am claiming that tricking people into believing things like homeopathy works like actual medicine is scamming them.

irrelevant, my point was who cares what someone's religious beliefs were, they are just as irrelevant to their scientific discoveries as their culinary or political beliefs.

cool, a god might exist depending on its definition , go find it for me then we can talk about it.
also argument from popularity, lots of people also believed the earth was flat, they must be right because how can that single idea span so many isolated cultures and time periods?
its easy to imagine an idea about some kind of soul, so no surprise many people have. "what if when we die we stay there?" "where are these non-dead people then?" "they must be invisible and untouchable." sound like one?

or how about they never existed to begin with?
besides, what the hell is "supernatural" anyway? this conversation spiraled so far out of control i dont even know what it is you are arguing exists anymore.
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Except millions of people take it seriously; in fact, there are vastly many more people who believe in ghosts than those who don't. Just as well, the group mentality of "They do/don't do X, so I will do/won't do X too" is something that leads to destruction far more than thriving. Innocent young ladies who were accused of being witches and not having their pleas of innocence taken seriously, for example...

Indeed, but they still did it while having those beliefs. The comic above claimed no creationist ever made that big contribution (paraphrasing), I rebuttled, you claimed that if it was all they knew they wouldn't have done it, I reminded you it WAS all they knew, now you're claiming it doesn't matter.

Why should I find it for you? If you staunchly believe one doesn't exist, you should have looked for it yourself, yet you haven't, so you are just as silly as the people you dislike. Actually, relative to population, very FEW people thought the Earth was flat; while every single culture claims the existence of spirits in shockingly similar ways.

No it hasn't, you're just moving the goal posts. "Supernatural" is anything that hasn't been measured yet.
User avatar #52 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
i mean the scientific community, the vast majority people who actually know what they are talking about dont take psychics seriously, so why should i?

im pretty sure he meant creationism itself hasnt contributed anything, because we already know people with all kinds of beliefs discover things. it would have been pointless to include that bit otherwise, but judging intent is difficult over the internet so i digress.
people studying the stars knew how to work a telescope, so theres an example of something other than creationism they knew of. get my point yet?

how do you know i havent looked around all i could?
also burden of proof, i generally dont believe a god/s exist that is to say i dont believe your average every day god exists. it depends on the definition, for example if you said "god is just cheese" then technically ya i would believe god exists, since cheese exists. , if you do im only asking you first define what a god is, then provide evidence for it.
also im done addressing the argument from popularity you got going there, it doesnt mean anything if we havent found evidence of whatever a "spirit" is yet. until then, people tend to think alike, often imagining the same things.

you presented a false dichotomy, "what sounds more likely, ghosts exist or everyone lied about them?" i said people must have mistaken what they saw or imagined it.
also, thats the first time ive heard of that definition for supernatural. a quick google says "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.", so i assumed thats what you meant.
does that mean the rocks outside my house are supernatural because i havent measured them yet? in that sense sure i would believe the supernatural exists, if thats all there is to it.
#37 - Who says? Do you believe we've discovered every law of the uni…  [+] (39 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Science 0
User avatar #71 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
"because my evidence is anecdotal"
And therefore useless.
User avatar #39 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
hwut
How did you get that from "Science doesn't deal in the supernatural"?

huh?
No. But in order to convince someone else that my claim is correct, I must provide evidence.

Nigga. "I don't believe in X" doesn't mean "X is not possible"
Are you trolling or do you legit not understand the difference?
User avatar #40 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Because the only reason it 'doesn't' is because it's unable to measure it. What? Are you saying that even if it was, you'd ignore it?

And how can evidence be brought to the table when we don't currently have tools to measure it? Every culture and people since the dawn of civilization and probably further has a deep seated belief in spirits and the essence of the soul. Is it simpler to assume every one of them is lying or that we just haven't found a way to 'capture' that?

I am doing neither and understand it just fine; I'm just not sure where you're coming from or if you're just moving the goal posts.
User avatar #73 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not wasting more than half a day, watching some "paranormal researcher" talk about UFOs, ghosts and god knows what else.
If I want that, I can watch Discovery Channel or some other mindless crap where you already know the ending. Why do you know the ending? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE LITERALLY WORLD-CHANGING NEWS.

Prove an afterlife, and your name will be remembered until the sun dies
And yet you're telling me that it's just uninteresting news?
Get the fuck out.
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Okay, so what you're telling me now is that you want evidence, but it must be Earth shattering life changing evidence to apply. Is that right?
User avatar #75 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
It must be sufficient evidence to convince a skeptic.
Anything less is pointless.

Anecdotal evidence and argumentation is simply not enough.
If this is a physical phenomenon, it leaves physical traces ---> evidence.
Such things have not been found despite rigorous searching.

Absence of evidence when evidence should be present, is evidence of absence
User avatar #76 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
The book is actually quite famous for convincing many skeptics and is, in fact, on the 'must read' list of non-fiction.

Though some are harder to convince than others I suppose.
User avatar #77 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Sure.
Go on youtube and search for "Islam skeptics" and you'll find hundreds of videos that show a skeptic being convinced that Islam is the one true religion.
This doesn't mean shit.

When you convince the scientific community, then you can talk about proper evidence.
Until then, nah. Your evidence is shit.
User avatar #78 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Well they were 'convinced'. The happenings in the book have been examined and no probable cause was found; so they just put it on the backburner and it's been there ever since.

They can't conclude 'dem ghosts gone dun it!' because we don't have the materials required to measure such things, but only the imprint, which is literally what you asked for, remember? "An invisible elephant still leaves a footprint".

The issue is that, no matter what anyone finds or what the scientific community says, it will not be concluded because we don't have the right tools. Until we do, it will always just be "strange happenings" that you will brush off.
User avatar #79 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
An imprint is evidence of something
Not ghosts. Not elephants. You have to actually determine what caused the imprint. That's why it's useless as evidence for anything other than itself.

And I'll be right in doing so.
If you can prove it, great. I'll accept that ghosts are real, and I'll be right in doing so.
User avatar #80 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to prove ghosts are real, I'm trying to prove there's more credit behind the paranormal than many people want to admit.
User avatar #81 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
That's awfully vague.
If they manage to produce some useful results, I'll give them credit.
Until then, I'll see all "paranormal investigators" as being on par with those "bigfoot hunters" on Discovery Channel.
Fat, redneck americans walking through a random forest, attributing every sound in the forest to Bigfoot.

Dousing rods, psychics, tarot cards, astrology.
All that crap.
Not once has it demonstrated an actual effect or use, other than the placebo effect or conning idiots out of their money.
User avatar #41 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Precisely. We cannot measure supernatural things, so we don't deal in it. If we could, then it wouldn't be supernatural It'd be natural.

If we can't gather evidence, then the default position is non-belief.
They're not necessarily lying. They're just wrong. Same with how lightning forms. Zeus/Thor? Nah, electricity.

I'm coming from the position of "If there's no evidence to support it, there's no reason to believe it"
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Oh, so it's just the wording that's a problem for you? If I just said "It's natural, but we haven't found the tools to measure it yet, kinda like how we didn't know about ultraviolet light 200 years ago" then it's cool?

Once more: So does that mean you disbelieve everything unless you can see it? So, say, you don't believe the pyramids exist because you've never seen them and photos could be faked and anecdotal evidence cannot be relied upon?

So everyone with those experiences since (let's say the dawn of man) is wrong, but you, sure that it doesn't exist even though you've never gone out of your way to so much as look, you're right. Am I getting that correctly?

You're perfectly right, there is no reason to believe it, but there's also no reason not to. "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence after a certain point" also means that, after a certain point, no fallacy is actually a fallacy (Such as the Slippery Slope fallacy). What you're doing is staunchly saying it does NOT exist, and you KNOW it does not exist beyond a shadow of a doubt; which is just a stupid a position as BELIEVING it does without evidence. You are what you hate, just on the other side of the spectrum. Congratulations.
User avatar #43 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'd ask you to prove your claim, but sure.

Evidence =/= actually seeing them.
I accept that bacteria are real despite never having seen them.
We have evidence of black holes, but for obvious reasons, they can't be seen.

All the people who thought lightning was made by a guy with an anvil, yeah.
All the guys who thought the earth was round, yeah.
I don't see why this superstition should be any different than all the others.

Except I didn't.
There's a distinct difference between "I don't believe your claim" (my position) and "I believe the opposite of your claim" (What you seem to think my position is)
User avatar #44 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
So exactly what amount of evidence does it take before you deem it valid and looking into?

Yet, relative to Earth population, very few people believed in either of those things. EVERY culture has spirits.

So if someone brought you evidence of ghosts, just one piece, you'd delve into it? Once more, exactly what counts as evidence to you?
User avatar #46 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Anything substantial that isn't "I had a feeling" or "My great aunt had a feeling"
You know, actual evidence.

That's doesn't give it any credit, though.
People are prone to superstition.
Most cultures also have a creation myth.

"Just one piece"
No. Unless said one piece was an actual ghost, like talking and walking.
An actual ghost, traveling the world, appearing on talk shows and shit. Being examined by scientists. A controlled experiment. A mechanism for how ghosts arise.
Evidence.

How do we know that there are giant squid in the deep sea? They wash up dead on occasion. We actually have something to study.
Ghosts? Nada. Shitty pictures taken by questionable individuals? Stories told over a fire? Come on, man.
User avatar #48 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Certainly!: THE BOOK OF THE DAMNED Part 1 of 2 - FULL AudioBook | Greatest Audio Books Enjoy.

Yet those creation myths all differ. The belief of spirits and souls are incredibly similar.

So an atom must talk and walk for you to believe it? "No, because it doesn't work that way" so how are you so sure ghosts work that way? Once more, you've never looked up a single thing about it.
#49 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not convinced that I'm either talking to an idiot or a troll.
Neither of which I'll spend my time on.

User avatar #51 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
You see? I give you evidence, a MASSIVE book containing documented cases of unsolved, borderline paranormal phenomena that actually existed, happened, and is recorded, and you brush it off.

Good job proving my point old boy; I'm sure you'll do the same in our next debate.
User avatar #53 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
kinda budding off our argument but hes got a point, anyone writing a book can put whatever they want in it. theres a thing called a scientific journal with citations for this reason, thats probably what he was asking for.
User avatar #54 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
But that's exactly what it is. If either of you bothered so much to look it up or listen, you'd know that. It is a genuine, scientific journal, of compiled evidence regarding borderline paranormal phenomena. It HAS citations, dates, times, witnesses, testimonies, samples (when available), everything.

See, this is what I mean: Now it's not so much a matter of finding you both proof, as you guys simply not wanting to change your views.
User avatar #56 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
and just like in our conversation, if its as genuine as you say it is, wheres the approval rating? why hasnt the majority of the scientific community accepted it yet?
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Don't know, but I do know it actually covers that in the introduction (as well as the name). If memory serves me well it's just because the cases were unsolved and nobody could tell how these scenarios happened, so they just put them on a backburner as there wasn't enough evidence to tell of the origins.
User avatar #61 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
exactly, so if its unsolved, we dont know what happened and claiming the supernatural did it is, well, you seeing the problem yet?
User avatar #63 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
No. If the word 'supernatural' is all you're concerned about, this debate could be solved with a simple sentence:

"Supernatural does not exist. It is just a word we use to describe what we are currently unable to measure. Ghosts are supernatural, but they will not be once we find the principles behind them"

See? Now you don't need to fret over semantics. You can read the book now.
User avatar #65 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
still not getting my point...
"supernatural means what isnt measured" my rocks arent measured, they must be supernatural then by that definition correct? i agreed with this, but then you turn around and bring ghosts into the discussion like i wouldnt notice.
this is what happens when you have a poor definition, we cant even begin to argue whether something is real or not until you fully define your terms.

what is a "ghost" and what relation does it have with the term "supernatural"?
User avatar #67 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Yet they are, we know types of rocks, the composition of rocks, and how they are formed. When I say measure I'm not talking about putting a tape measurer to it. I thought someone so caught up on semantics as you would know that.

Well, I can't really say, because my evidence is anecdotal and I am not a peer reviewed scientist. Are you willing to take my word for it? If not, it doesn't matter.
User avatar #60 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Some scientific paper
"We don't know shit. Maybe nothing even happened, lol"
User avatar #64 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
BECAUSE I read it, I would know you'd barely be past the introduction. It's quite a long book, and I know for a fact you would have postponed quite a bit before even clicking the link.

You're not fooling anyone.

As I said: If you don't want to be proven wrong, just say so next time. I only gave it to you because it seemed like you genuinely wanted proof.
User avatar #69 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Hey, ghosts would be fucking cool
It'd be a world-changing discovery.
We're talking Nobel Prize shit.
And yet, nobody has managed to produce so much as a proper indication that there's actually something there.

It's like the Loch Ness Monster.
Several decades.
No bodies.
Nothing other than hearsay and shitty pictures.

There's no fucking Loch Ness Monster.
Find it? Fucking awesome. Why the fuck was there not even a shred of evidence of its existence?


I would love it if the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, etc was real.
But it just doesn't seem like they are. And people have had a lot of time to prove their case.
User avatar #55 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Sure it is.

Which journal was this published in?
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Unknown, it's been a year or so since I read it and its a very large book; but, if you really want that evidence as much as you desire, you should have no problem spending 14 hours of your life sifting through it and learning something and gaining a new view. Or hell, you could even look it up on google.

You asked, I provided, now you're refusing to look. What does that say about you, I wonder?
User avatar #59 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
If I read through every occult/paranormal "book" out there, I'd have to devote my life to it.

But I'll put it to you simple.
If this book was a proper scientific paper (it isn't), and it had proper evidence (it doesn't), then mainstream science would accept that ghosts are real.

I still don't think you're serious, by the way.
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Yet you don't have to, I put one right in front of you and you still refused.

And did you actually check or are you just saying that? It's very hard to tell with you; see, because:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Damned

There's no criticism against it.

www.amazon.com/The-Book-Damned-Charles-Fort/dp/1596050276

Has positive reviews, none of which question its authenticity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fort

And the man himself is a credited researcher.

You can 'not think I'm serious' all you please, but lying to others, and most of all yourself, about what you're really looking for is a waste of time. Next time, just admit you want to stick to your mindset and don't WANT to be proven wrong or gain a new insight, and I will leave you be.
User avatar #70 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Seven hours
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
14 hours actually, the part you're listening to is just the first half.

I told you, it has a LOT of proof. They're just inconclusive, yet are so fantastical that only the most precise natural phenomena could have made them.
#66 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
...youre kidding?
please disregard my previous comment, im done here.
User avatar #68 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
That's fine, I figured you were 'done' when you asked for evidence and I gave you exactly what you asked for only for you to split hairs about why it's not good enough.

Is it the "wikipedia" thing? Editing articles and all that? Because if the article was in favour of your argument I'm sure you'd be more than happy to accept it at face value. Reviews at Amazon? Obviously you haven't looked up a scientific book before, as half a review goes entirely toward the credibility of the book and author, as the comments here do now.
#24 - "Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservat… 05/05/2015 on Successful and Unsuccessful... 0
#26 - See, now I know you haven't looked up anything, because that s…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Science 0
User avatar #27 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
i have no interest since no form of psychic ability has been performed under a controlled environment and everything else (news articles, documentaries, etc) is just anecdotal. if a legitimate study has been published, wheres the vast approval from the majority of the scientific community by now? inb4 big bad scientists conspiring to suppressing stuff and such

yes the placebo effect is real, its just convincing people that something has actual effects on the body when in reality it doesnt then selling it to them is something cannot stand for.

you missed my point entirely. lets say the human race knows nothing about insects, someone believed the universe was created by a Yoplait original key lime pie flavored yogurt, that someone then went outside and discovered an ant with a magnifying glass he invented. should we credit the discovery of insects to his belief in yogurt or the magnifying glass?

you gotta put the claim on the board first, otherwise theres nothing there to wipe, got it. you never defined god/s, so i just pointed it out.
and yes, its better to discover something then describe it. you go where the evidence points, not make a point then search for the evidence, so its kinda pointless discussing the existence of a god/s as of the moment. unless of course you have found something that can be shown to others then by all means share it.

become aware of it, record it, then report back the data you've collected and request others to repeat. from there we can start drawing conclusions and experiments to test those conclusions as to what event caused the impact.
problem is we know what presents are and what people do with them, so i have no reason to believe anything other than a person would have placed presents in my closet.
User avatar #38 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Once more I can tell you've done no research, because there are many cases where the results heavily point to supernatural phenomena, yet they don't have public recognition simply because people don't take them seriously; the same way how I'm sure YOU would dismiss any studies I gave to you with any excuse you could. During the cold war a Russian woman was put into a psychic training program in the USSR and moved a coin across a table without touching it; "she was just using a string!" yes, that may be true, but she also stopped a frog's heart with the same method, and nobody can find out how she did that. Likewise, the American Government started up their own psychic training program after hearing of the Russian's, and a retired man who claimed to be able to Astral-Project. They brought him in and he did indeed, after these sessions, predict the locations of Russian weapons, bases, and troops were with "startling accuracy". Once more, would you like me to find these studies for you?

Not so. It's not convincing someone it has an actual effect, it IS an actual physical effect. Once more, would you like me to find studies for you? Here, have a video about the nocebo (negative placebo): https://youtube.com/devicesupport

Neither, to the person. Rather, I think someone saw the ant, wanted to investigate further, and so built the magnifying glass to do so. I understand the metaphor that you're getting at, but you must also understand man; besides, just because you did indeed discover the ant with a magnifying glass doesn't mean you won't discover a delicious yogurt in space tomorrow. The universe is so vast with so many probabilities that I'm sure a man of science such as yourself could agree that next to anything and everything is possible somehow.

But as you already said, we just may not have done it. For example, just because nobody invented the magnifying glass doesn't mean ants and other bugs aren't roaming around beneath us; if someone suggested "hey, maybe we should look smaller" without that discovery, you would have been laughing it off as something silly. Of course it's always good to have a reason to chase something, but you're asking for a reason and the reason is simple: Since the dawn of civilization and writing, people have been speaking about ghosts and spirits, in every culture, every history, every people, even those who never connected. Did everyone fancify the hypothesis of a soul themselves, or did they have a reason?

Even if nobody was around or you lived with no one else? Of course you would; as the conclusion that takes the least amount of assumptions is usually closest to the truth: So what takes the most assumptions, that everyone who talks about/reports/has personal experiences with the supernatural from the dawn of civilization (and probably further) is lying, or that we just don't know what rules these things might follow?
User avatar #47 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
forget that first part, i worded it badly.
essentially im trying to say nobody is taking it seriously, so why should i?
User avatar #45 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
look, neither of us are qualified individuals, so i have to rely on the scientific community to say whether something is bullshit or not by seeing if they take it seriously. there are countless scientists from all around the world, each doing their thing looking to redo someone else's experiments, so if nobody is taking a study seriously theres probably a good reason for it.
also makes me wonder, if psychics are real why hasnt any of them claimed their millions dollars from james randi yet? that should be easy money for them.

let me say again, i am in no way denying the existence of the placebo effect, i am claiming that tricking people into believing things like homeopathy works like actual medicine is scamming them.

irrelevant, my point was who cares what someone's religious beliefs were, they are just as irrelevant to their scientific discoveries as their culinary or political beliefs.

cool, a god might exist depending on its definition , go find it for me then we can talk about it.
also argument from popularity, lots of people also believed the earth was flat, they must be right because how can that single idea span so many isolated cultures and time periods?
its easy to imagine an idea about some kind of soul, so no surprise many people have. "what if when we die we stay there?" "where are these non-dead people then?" "they must be invisible and untouchable." sound like one?

or how about they never existed to begin with?
besides, what the hell is "supernatural" anyway? this conversation spiraled so far out of control i dont even know what it is you are arguing exists anymore.
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Except millions of people take it seriously; in fact, there are vastly many more people who believe in ghosts than those who don't. Just as well, the group mentality of "They do/don't do X, so I will do/won't do X too" is something that leads to destruction far more than thriving. Innocent young ladies who were accused of being witches and not having their pleas of innocence taken seriously, for example...

Indeed, but they still did it while having those beliefs. The comic above claimed no creationist ever made that big contribution (paraphrasing), I rebuttled, you claimed that if it was all they knew they wouldn't have done it, I reminded you it WAS all they knew, now you're claiming it doesn't matter.

Why should I find it for you? If you staunchly believe one doesn't exist, you should have looked for it yourself, yet you haven't, so you are just as silly as the people you dislike. Actually, relative to population, very FEW people thought the Earth was flat; while every single culture claims the existence of spirits in shockingly similar ways.

No it hasn't, you're just moving the goal posts. "Supernatural" is anything that hasn't been measured yet.
User avatar #52 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
i mean the scientific community, the vast majority people who actually know what they are talking about dont take psychics seriously, so why should i?

im pretty sure he meant creationism itself hasnt contributed anything, because we already know people with all kinds of beliefs discover things. it would have been pointless to include that bit otherwise, but judging intent is difficult over the internet so i digress.
people studying the stars knew how to work a telescope, so theres an example of something other than creationism they knew of. get my point yet?

how do you know i havent looked around all i could?
also burden of proof, i generally dont believe a god/s exist that is to say i dont believe your average every day god exists. it depends on the definition, for example if you said "god is just cheese" then technically ya i would believe god exists, since cheese exists. , if you do im only asking you first define what a god is, then provide evidence for it.
also im done addressing the argument from popularity you got going there, it doesnt mean anything if we havent found evidence of whatever a "spirit" is yet. until then, people tend to think alike, often imagining the same things.

you presented a false dichotomy, "what sounds more likely, ghosts exist or everyone lied about them?" i said people must have mistaken what they saw or imagined it.
also, thats the first time ive heard of that definition for supernatural. a quick google says "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.", so i assumed thats what you meant.
does that mean the rocks outside my house are supernatural because i havent measured them yet? in that sense sure i would believe the supernatural exists, if thats all there is to it.
#13 - So, ah, I don't really get this either. I can't imagine her do…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/05/2015 on Rapunzel's Dirty Secret +4
User avatar #15 - blackcomet (05/05/2015) [-]
She asks them to eat her out before they can enter her temple of vaginal love juice. And they end up choking on her pubic hair.
#6 - "The weak are meat, the strong eat" 05/05/2015 on Art 22 +1
#15 - Actually, psychics have been used by the public and police to …  [+] (49 new replies) 05/05/2015 on Science -1
#32 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Science cannot establish supernatual causation.
A true scientist scotsman would ignore claims of supernatural causation, because it's quite simply beyond the realm of science.


"the only answer you should ever hear is "I don't know" or "Not yet". "
No, the answer should be "No", because the case for ghosts, psychics, etc has not met its burden of proof, making belief unjustifiable

Stop talking out of your ass about something you clearly know nothing about, you no good hippie scum.
User avatar #37 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Who says? Do you believe we've discovered every law of the universe already? Do you believe we've invented every instrument we will ever need to measure it? What you're claiming is literally that just because you do not know how something works, it cannot possibly either exist or be found to work.

And as we just talked about, the burden of proof cannot be found because it's 'beyond the realm of science'. Do YOU wait for all evidence to be brought to you before believing something or learning something new? Always? You NEVER go looking for it yourself?

How can you say I don't know what I'm talking about when all you're saying is (It's beyond the realm of science and we cannot find the proof) "I cannot find it so it cannot possibly exist", do you hold the same view of aliens? That in the massive vastness of this universe there doesn't exist a single one because none of our instruments have found a reasonable justification for believing they do? "Well of course I do" you say, almost shocked "The universe is so big that it's nearly impossible NOT to believe", yet something as simple as ghosts or the essence of the soul or a being with so much power it may be mistaken as a god, nope, that's out of the realm of possibility?

Who's the one who doesn't know what they're talking about again?
User avatar #71 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
"because my evidence is anecdotal"
And therefore useless.
User avatar #39 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
hwut
How did you get that from "Science doesn't deal in the supernatural"?

huh?
No. But in order to convince someone else that my claim is correct, I must provide evidence.

Nigga. "I don't believe in X" doesn't mean "X is not possible"
Are you trolling or do you legit not understand the difference?
User avatar #40 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Because the only reason it 'doesn't' is because it's unable to measure it. What? Are you saying that even if it was, you'd ignore it?

And how can evidence be brought to the table when we don't currently have tools to measure it? Every culture and people since the dawn of civilization and probably further has a deep seated belief in spirits and the essence of the soul. Is it simpler to assume every one of them is lying or that we just haven't found a way to 'capture' that?

I am doing neither and understand it just fine; I'm just not sure where you're coming from or if you're just moving the goal posts.
User avatar #73 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not wasting more than half a day, watching some "paranormal researcher" talk about UFOs, ghosts and god knows what else.
If I want that, I can watch Discovery Channel or some other mindless crap where you already know the ending. Why do you know the ending? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE LITERALLY WORLD-CHANGING NEWS.

Prove an afterlife, and your name will be remembered until the sun dies
And yet you're telling me that it's just uninteresting news?
Get the fuck out.
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Okay, so what you're telling me now is that you want evidence, but it must be Earth shattering life changing evidence to apply. Is that right?
User avatar #75 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
It must be sufficient evidence to convince a skeptic.
Anything less is pointless.

Anecdotal evidence and argumentation is simply not enough.
If this is a physical phenomenon, it leaves physical traces ---> evidence.
Such things have not been found despite rigorous searching.

Absence of evidence when evidence should be present, is evidence of absence
User avatar #76 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
The book is actually quite famous for convincing many skeptics and is, in fact, on the 'must read' list of non-fiction.

Though some are harder to convince than others I suppose.
User avatar #77 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Sure.
Go on youtube and search for "Islam skeptics" and you'll find hundreds of videos that show a skeptic being convinced that Islam is the one true religion.
This doesn't mean shit.

When you convince the scientific community, then you can talk about proper evidence.
Until then, nah. Your evidence is shit.
User avatar #78 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Well they were 'convinced'. The happenings in the book have been examined and no probable cause was found; so they just put it on the backburner and it's been there ever since.

They can't conclude 'dem ghosts gone dun it!' because we don't have the materials required to measure such things, but only the imprint, which is literally what you asked for, remember? "An invisible elephant still leaves a footprint".

The issue is that, no matter what anyone finds or what the scientific community says, it will not be concluded because we don't have the right tools. Until we do, it will always just be "strange happenings" that you will brush off.
User avatar #79 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
An imprint is evidence of something
Not ghosts. Not elephants. You have to actually determine what caused the imprint. That's why it's useless as evidence for anything other than itself.

And I'll be right in doing so.
If you can prove it, great. I'll accept that ghosts are real, and I'll be right in doing so.
User avatar #80 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to prove ghosts are real, I'm trying to prove there's more credit behind the paranormal than many people want to admit.
User avatar #81 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
That's awfully vague.
If they manage to produce some useful results, I'll give them credit.
Until then, I'll see all "paranormal investigators" as being on par with those "bigfoot hunters" on Discovery Channel.
Fat, redneck americans walking through a random forest, attributing every sound in the forest to Bigfoot.

Dousing rods, psychics, tarot cards, astrology.
All that crap.
Not once has it demonstrated an actual effect or use, other than the placebo effect or conning idiots out of their money.
User avatar #41 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Precisely. We cannot measure supernatural things, so we don't deal in it. If we could, then it wouldn't be supernatural It'd be natural.

If we can't gather evidence, then the default position is non-belief.
They're not necessarily lying. They're just wrong. Same with how lightning forms. Zeus/Thor? Nah, electricity.

I'm coming from the position of "If there's no evidence to support it, there's no reason to believe it"
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Oh, so it's just the wording that's a problem for you? If I just said "It's natural, but we haven't found the tools to measure it yet, kinda like how we didn't know about ultraviolet light 200 years ago" then it's cool?

Once more: So does that mean you disbelieve everything unless you can see it? So, say, you don't believe the pyramids exist because you've never seen them and photos could be faked and anecdotal evidence cannot be relied upon?

So everyone with those experiences since (let's say the dawn of man) is wrong, but you, sure that it doesn't exist even though you've never gone out of your way to so much as look, you're right. Am I getting that correctly?

You're perfectly right, there is no reason to believe it, but there's also no reason not to. "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence after a certain point" also means that, after a certain point, no fallacy is actually a fallacy (Such as the Slippery Slope fallacy). What you're doing is staunchly saying it does NOT exist, and you KNOW it does not exist beyond a shadow of a doubt; which is just a stupid a position as BELIEVING it does without evidence. You are what you hate, just on the other side of the spectrum. Congratulations.
User avatar #43 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'd ask you to prove your claim, but sure.

Evidence =/= actually seeing them.
I accept that bacteria are real despite never having seen them.
We have evidence of black holes, but for obvious reasons, they can't be seen.

All the people who thought lightning was made by a guy with an anvil, yeah.
All the guys who thought the earth was round, yeah.
I don't see why this superstition should be any different than all the others.

Except I didn't.
There's a distinct difference between "I don't believe your claim" (my position) and "I believe the opposite of your claim" (What you seem to think my position is)
User avatar #44 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
So exactly what amount of evidence does it take before you deem it valid and looking into?

Yet, relative to Earth population, very few people believed in either of those things. EVERY culture has spirits.

So if someone brought you evidence of ghosts, just one piece, you'd delve into it? Once more, exactly what counts as evidence to you?
User avatar #46 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Anything substantial that isn't "I had a feeling" or "My great aunt had a feeling"
You know, actual evidence.

That's doesn't give it any credit, though.
People are prone to superstition.
Most cultures also have a creation myth.

"Just one piece"
No. Unless said one piece was an actual ghost, like talking and walking.
An actual ghost, traveling the world, appearing on talk shows and shit. Being examined by scientists. A controlled experiment. A mechanism for how ghosts arise.
Evidence.

How do we know that there are giant squid in the deep sea? They wash up dead on occasion. We actually have something to study.
Ghosts? Nada. Shitty pictures taken by questionable individuals? Stories told over a fire? Come on, man.
User avatar #48 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Certainly!: THE BOOK OF THE DAMNED Part 1 of 2 - FULL AudioBook | Greatest Audio Books Enjoy.

Yet those creation myths all differ. The belief of spirits and souls are incredibly similar.

So an atom must talk and walk for you to believe it? "No, because it doesn't work that way" so how are you so sure ghosts work that way? Once more, you've never looked up a single thing about it.
#49 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
I'm not convinced that I'm either talking to an idiot or a troll.
Neither of which I'll spend my time on.

User avatar #51 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
You see? I give you evidence, a MASSIVE book containing documented cases of unsolved, borderline paranormal phenomena that actually existed, happened, and is recorded, and you brush it off.

Good job proving my point old boy; I'm sure you'll do the same in our next debate.
User avatar #53 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
kinda budding off our argument but hes got a point, anyone writing a book can put whatever they want in it. theres a thing called a scientific journal with citations for this reason, thats probably what he was asking for.
User avatar #54 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
But that's exactly what it is. If either of you bothered so much to look it up or listen, you'd know that. It is a genuine, scientific journal, of compiled evidence regarding borderline paranormal phenomena. It HAS citations, dates, times, witnesses, testimonies, samples (when available), everything.

See, this is what I mean: Now it's not so much a matter of finding you both proof, as you guys simply not wanting to change your views.
User avatar #56 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
and just like in our conversation, if its as genuine as you say it is, wheres the approval rating? why hasnt the majority of the scientific community accepted it yet?
User avatar #58 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Don't know, but I do know it actually covers that in the introduction (as well as the name). If memory serves me well it's just because the cases were unsolved and nobody could tell how these scenarios happened, so they just put them on a backburner as there wasn't enough evidence to tell of the origins.
User avatar #61 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
exactly, so if its unsolved, we dont know what happened and claiming the supernatural did it is, well, you seeing the problem yet?
User avatar #63 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
No. If the word 'supernatural' is all you're concerned about, this debate could be solved with a simple sentence:

"Supernatural does not exist. It is just a word we use to describe what we are currently unable to measure. Ghosts are supernatural, but they will not be once we find the principles behind them"

See? Now you don't need to fret over semantics. You can read the book now.
User avatar #65 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
still not getting my point...
"supernatural means what isnt measured" my rocks arent measured, they must be supernatural then by that definition correct? i agreed with this, but then you turn around and bring ghosts into the discussion like i wouldnt notice.
this is what happens when you have a poor definition, we cant even begin to argue whether something is real or not until you fully define your terms.

what is a "ghost" and what relation does it have with the term "supernatural"?
User avatar #67 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Yet they are, we know types of rocks, the composition of rocks, and how they are formed. When I say measure I'm not talking about putting a tape measurer to it. I thought someone so caught up on semantics as you would know that.

Well, I can't really say, because my evidence is anecdotal and I am not a peer reviewed scientist. Are you willing to take my word for it? If not, it doesn't matter.
User avatar #60 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Some scientific paper
"We don't know shit. Maybe nothing even happened, lol"
User avatar #64 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
BECAUSE I read it, I would know you'd barely be past the introduction. It's quite a long book, and I know for a fact you would have postponed quite a bit before even clicking the link.

You're not fooling anyone.

As I said: If you don't want to be proven wrong, just say so next time. I only gave it to you because it seemed like you genuinely wanted proof.
User avatar #69 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Hey, ghosts would be fucking cool
It'd be a world-changing discovery.
We're talking Nobel Prize shit.
And yet, nobody has managed to produce so much as a proper indication that there's actually something there.

It's like the Loch Ness Monster.
Several decades.
No bodies.
Nothing other than hearsay and shitty pictures.

There's no fucking Loch Ness Monster.
Find it? Fucking awesome. Why the fuck was there not even a shred of evidence of its existence?


I would love it if the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, etc was real.
But it just doesn't seem like they are. And people have had a lot of time to prove their case.
User avatar #55 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Sure it is.

Which journal was this published in?
User avatar #57 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Unknown, it's been a year or so since I read it and its a very large book; but, if you really want that evidence as much as you desire, you should have no problem spending 14 hours of your life sifting through it and learning something and gaining a new view. Or hell, you could even look it up on google.

You asked, I provided, now you're refusing to look. What does that say about you, I wonder?
User avatar #59 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
If I read through every occult/paranormal "book" out there, I'd have to devote my life to it.

But I'll put it to you simple.
If this book was a proper scientific paper (it isn't), and it had proper evidence (it doesn't), then mainstream science would accept that ghosts are real.

I still don't think you're serious, by the way.
User avatar #62 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Yet you don't have to, I put one right in front of you and you still refused.

And did you actually check or are you just saying that? It's very hard to tell with you; see, because:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Damned

There's no criticism against it.

www.amazon.com/The-Book-Damned-Charles-Fort/dp/1596050276

Has positive reviews, none of which question its authenticity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fort

And the man himself is a credited researcher.

You can 'not think I'm serious' all you please, but lying to others, and most of all yourself, about what you're really looking for is a waste of time. Next time, just admit you want to stick to your mindset and don't WANT to be proven wrong or gain a new insight, and I will leave you be.
User avatar #70 - testaburger (05/05/2015) [-]
Seven hours
User avatar #72 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
14 hours actually, the part you're listening to is just the first half.

I told you, it has a LOT of proof. They're just inconclusive, yet are so fantastical that only the most precise natural phenomena could have made them.
#66 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
...youre kidding?
please disregard my previous comment, im done here.
User avatar #68 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
That's fine, I figured you were 'done' when you asked for evidence and I gave you exactly what you asked for only for you to split hairs about why it's not good enough.

Is it the "wikipedia" thing? Editing articles and all that? Because if the article was in favour of your argument I'm sure you'd be more than happy to accept it at face value. Reviews at Amazon? Obviously you haven't looked up a scientific book before, as half a review goes entirely toward the credibility of the book and author, as the comments here do now.
User avatar #25 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
police: "so, did person A do it or person B?"
psychic: "Person B"
police: "by god he was right, psychics must be real!"
there is such a thing as chance, and in a world with billions of people, one in a million should be expected to happen often.

ya placebo is real, but you can get that effect from much cheaper things that dont misleadingly claim to actually cure you of anything. origami, whistling, or hell just thinking pleasant thoughts for example.
also they do, to their fullest extent, and sometimes thats not good enough so we invented a thing called conventional medicine.

racism and sexism were also way more common in those days, but so what? if all they knew was creationism they wouldnt have made any of those discoveries.

of course every idea brought to light can be considered, but when something is poorly defined or contradictory in its definition, it can easily be wiped off the board until a clearer definition is brought forth. for example, i can straight away claim there are no such things as married bachelors without having to look any deeper than the words themselves.

remember kids: absence of evidence is evidence of absence if the existence of something should be leaving a noticeable impact on the materiel world, like an invisible elephant should still leave footprints.
User avatar #26 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
See, now I know you haven't looked up anything, because that scenario in itself rarely happens the way you described. Would you like me to look up the articles for you?

Doesn't change the fact that homeopathy has at least THAT benefit. Just as well, I wasn't saying conventional medicine is bad, but that homeopathy could be used effectively.

Yet that's obviously wrong because all they knew WAS creationism and they still did it; it's not as if they suddenly had an epiphany by universal forces, became an Atheist, THEN did the research. Out of the people who've made the greatest contributions to Scientific progress, most of them were indeed staunchly religious.

But you still looked at the meanings of the words; what I'm saying is making that claim despite not knowing ANYTHING, dig it? To wipe off a claim without knowing it IS contradictory or poorly formed is folly; and only by research do you tell whether it is or not; just HEARING if it's contradictory is rarely enough.

The thing is, everything we don't know about COULD have a major impact on the material world around us, and we could just be unaware of it. You, for example, could be completely unaware of how presents suddenly appeared in a closet or under a tree, but you don't immediately dismiss the notion that someone put them there just because "I see no reason to believe someone did indeed put them there".
User avatar #27 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
i have no interest since no form of psychic ability has been performed under a controlled environment and everything else (news articles, documentaries, etc) is just anecdotal. if a legitimate study has been published, wheres the vast approval from the majority of the scientific community by now? inb4 big bad scientists conspiring to suppressing stuff and such

yes the placebo effect is real, its just convincing people that something has actual effects on the body when in reality it doesnt then selling it to them is something cannot stand for.

you missed my point entirely. lets say the human race knows nothing about insects, someone believed the universe was created by a Yoplait original key lime pie flavored yogurt, that someone then went outside and discovered an ant with a magnifying glass he invented. should we credit the discovery of insects to his belief in yogurt or the magnifying glass?

you gotta put the claim on the board first, otherwise theres nothing there to wipe, got it. you never defined god/s, so i just pointed it out.
and yes, its better to discover something then describe it. you go where the evidence points, not make a point then search for the evidence, so its kinda pointless discussing the existence of a god/s as of the moment. unless of course you have found something that can be shown to others then by all means share it.

become aware of it, record it, then report back the data you've collected and request others to repeat. from there we can start drawing conclusions and experiments to test those conclusions as to what event caused the impact.
problem is we know what presents are and what people do with them, so i have no reason to believe anything other than a person would have placed presents in my closet.
User avatar #38 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Once more I can tell you've done no research, because there are many cases where the results heavily point to supernatural phenomena, yet they don't have public recognition simply because people don't take them seriously; the same way how I'm sure YOU would dismiss any studies I gave to you with any excuse you could. During the cold war a Russian woman was put into a psychic training program in the USSR and moved a coin across a table without touching it; "she was just using a string!" yes, that may be true, but she also stopped a frog's heart with the same method, and nobody can find out how she did that. Likewise, the American Government started up their own psychic training program after hearing of the Russian's, and a retired man who claimed to be able to Astral-Project. They brought him in and he did indeed, after these sessions, predict the locations of Russian weapons, bases, and troops were with "startling accuracy". Once more, would you like me to find these studies for you?

Not so. It's not convincing someone it has an actual effect, it IS an actual physical effect. Once more, would you like me to find studies for you? Here, have a video about the nocebo (negative placebo): https://youtube.com/devicesupport

Neither, to the person. Rather, I think someone saw the ant, wanted to investigate further, and so built the magnifying glass to do so. I understand the metaphor that you're getting at, but you must also understand man; besides, just because you did indeed discover the ant with a magnifying glass doesn't mean you won't discover a delicious yogurt in space tomorrow. The universe is so vast with so many probabilities that I'm sure a man of science such as yourself could agree that next to anything and everything is possible somehow.

But as you already said, we just may not have done it. For example, just because nobody invented the magnifying glass doesn't mean ants and other bugs aren't roaming around beneath us; if someone suggested "hey, maybe we should look smaller" without that discovery, you would have been laughing it off as something silly. Of course it's always good to have a reason to chase something, but you're asking for a reason and the reason is simple: Since the dawn of civilization and writing, people have been speaking about ghosts and spirits, in every culture, every history, every people, even those who never connected. Did everyone fancify the hypothesis of a soul themselves, or did they have a reason?

Even if nobody was around or you lived with no one else? Of course you would; as the conclusion that takes the least amount of assumptions is usually closest to the truth: So what takes the most assumptions, that everyone who talks about/reports/has personal experiences with the supernatural from the dawn of civilization (and probably further) is lying, or that we just don't know what rules these things might follow?
User avatar #47 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
forget that first part, i worded it badly.
essentially im trying to say nobody is taking it seriously, so why should i?
User avatar #45 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
look, neither of us are qualified individuals, so i have to rely on the scientific community to say whether something is bullshit or not by seeing if they take it seriously. there are countless scientists from all around the world, each doing their thing looking to redo someone else's experiments, so if nobody is taking a study seriously theres probably a good reason for it.
also makes me wonder, if psychics are real why hasnt any of them claimed their millions dollars from james randi yet? that should be easy money for them.

let me say again, i am in no way denying the existence of the placebo effect, i am claiming that tricking people into believing things like homeopathy works like actual medicine is scamming them.

irrelevant, my point was who cares what someone's religious beliefs were, they are just as irrelevant to their scientific discoveries as their culinary or political beliefs.

cool, a god might exist depending on its definition , go find it for me then we can talk about it.
also argument from popularity, lots of people also believed the earth was flat, they must be right because how can that single idea span so many isolated cultures and time periods?
its easy to imagine an idea about some kind of soul, so no surprise many people have. "what if when we die we stay there?" "where are these non-dead people then?" "they must be invisible and untouchable." sound like one?

or how about they never existed to begin with?
besides, what the hell is "supernatural" anyway? this conversation spiraled so far out of control i dont even know what it is you are arguing exists anymore.
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Except millions of people take it seriously; in fact, there are vastly many more people who believe in ghosts than those who don't. Just as well, the group mentality of "They do/don't do X, so I will do/won't do X too" is something that leads to destruction far more than thriving. Innocent young ladies who were accused of being witches and not having their pleas of innocence taken seriously, for example...

Indeed, but they still did it while having those beliefs. The comic above claimed no creationist ever made that big contribution (paraphrasing), I rebuttled, you claimed that if it was all they knew they wouldn't have done it, I reminded you it WAS all they knew, now you're claiming it doesn't matter.

Why should I find it for you? If you staunchly believe one doesn't exist, you should have looked for it yourself, yet you haven't, so you are just as silly as the people you dislike. Actually, relative to population, very FEW people thought the Earth was flat; while every single culture claims the existence of spirits in shockingly similar ways.

No it hasn't, you're just moving the goal posts. "Supernatural" is anything that hasn't been measured yet.
User avatar #52 - rakogoki (05/05/2015) [-]
i mean the scientific community, the vast majority people who actually know what they are talking about dont take psychics seriously, so why should i?

im pretty sure he meant creationism itself hasnt contributed anything, because we already know people with all kinds of beliefs discover things. it would have been pointless to include that bit otherwise, but judging intent is difficult over the internet so i digress.
people studying the stars knew how to work a telescope, so theres an example of something other than creationism they knew of. get my point yet?

how do you know i havent looked around all i could?
also burden of proof, i generally dont believe a god/s exist that is to say i dont believe your average every day god exists. it depends on the definition, for example if you said "god is just cheese" then technically ya i would believe god exists, since cheese exists. , if you do im only asking you first define what a god is, then provide evidence for it.
also im done addressing the argument from popularity you got going there, it doesnt mean anything if we havent found evidence of whatever a "spirit" is yet. until then, people tend to think alike, often imagining the same things.

you presented a false dichotomy, "what sounds more likely, ghosts exist or everyone lied about them?" i said people must have mistaken what they saw or imagined it.
also, thats the first time ive heard of that definition for supernatural. a quick google says "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.", so i assumed thats what you meant.
does that mean the rocks outside my house are supernatural because i havent measured them yet? in that sense sure i would believe the supernatural exists, if thats all there is to it.
#23 - Yes and no. We accept Trans-people so long as they ac…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/05/2015 on The Anti-SJW +17
#47 - phoenixactual (05/05/2015) [-]
There's nothing normal about it. There are only 700000 of us or so nationwide. That doesn't mean it's not natural, however Fuck being normal, weird is way more fun
User avatar #74 - captainfuckitall (05/05/2015) [-]
Yeah....yeah...nah...I'd rather be normal and not want to slice up my own genitals, thanks.
User avatar #51 - bemmo (05/05/2015) [-]
He didn't say anything about it being natural
#12 - What movie is this from?  [+] (2 new replies) 05/05/2015 on too ruff +1
User avatar #42 - karlKroenen (05/05/2015) [-]
Kingdom of Heaven. Amazing movie. 10/10
User avatar #13 - Hreidmar (05/05/2015) [-]
If I am not mistaken, it's from 'Kingdom of Heaven.' Pretty good movie, and contains some really fantastic scenes along with some pretty poor ones. I'd recommend watching it, but bear in mind, it's long. Very long.
#231 - "Pretty obvious logic if you think about it for two secon…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD 0
User avatar #235 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No, that's just a fact. The fact that you disagree and are wrong for disagreeing is on you, whether you like it or not. It's not a personal attack to state a fact.

"Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. "
AGAIN with the "everyone else must think like me" shtick without ANYTHING to back it up. I will personally vouch for the multitude of people I've seen arguing AGAINST that exact point, so no, it's not a generally accepted rule. It's always guys who don't care for futanari making that argument.

Nobody gives a shit what the public finds revolting. That's irrelevant. Scat fetishes are not gay, even if they're gross.

"because you project yourself into it,"
I don't project myself into it. I just don't. Doesn't appeal to me. Does that mean I'm gay for watching a man fuck a woman without pretending the man "doesn't count"? No. Does that account for why I might enjoy watching a woman fuck a woman instead of a man? Perhaps! Does THAT make me gay? Also no.

Special pleading means your argument is self-contradictory and fails on itself unless you justify it, which you have not. YOU have to correct it.
#229 - Because I'm actually interested in these types of topics and l…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD 0
User avatar #230 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"and you're not extremely defensive about it. "
Is the very first one. Gotta slip that in, because somehow, the fact that I defend a point weakens my argument just as a concept.

Here's the definition for ya.
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
Your argument DOES NOT WORK until you PROVE why it should.

My argument was "What is gayer? Watching a dude fuck a woman, or watching a woman fuck a woman? "
You cannot respond to that without losing, because the answer is quite obvious, so you say "well, when I watch a dude it doesn't really count" and then you don't justify it. So I'd say to go back, and come up with a reason why it "doesn't count", but you cannot, because that's just YOUR opinion that you try to thrust onto everyone else, as if everyone else is doing this thing you're doing, in an effort to make yourself not look gay or whatever.

You then try and say that I'm assuming just as much by saying that it's an assumption on my part that everyone doesn't do this, but you made a mistake there. It's not on me to prove a negative. Proving a negative is not a thing that exists. Your statement doesn't become automatically true until I disprove it, and it doesn't go into True/False limbo where we await the outcome. It's false unless you demonstrate why it's true. And you can never prove it because it relies on you knowing the minds of every other guy. And you don't know that.

Your special pleading is justified by saying you don't have to prove your point.

There. I spelled it all out for you.
User avatar #231 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
"Pretty obvious logic if you think about it for two seconds" is actually the first one.

That would work if I wasn't the one ARGUING the generally accepted rule. Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. If you go out in public with that, most people will be outright revolted.

Except I did respond to it, and I admitted that, technically, the guy and girl is gayer. I just argued why the guy wouldn't be the subject in straight porn because you project yourself into it, something you couldn't do with dick-chicks.

Nor is it on me. Neither of us can 'prove' anything because we're both assuming, except I'm arguing the generally accepted opinion and why it works that way.

Except I have proved my point, you were the one who said "No, logical fallacy, so it doesn't work".
User avatar #235 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No, that's just a fact. The fact that you disagree and are wrong for disagreeing is on you, whether you like it or not. It's not a personal attack to state a fact.

"Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. "
AGAIN with the "everyone else must think like me" shtick without ANYTHING to back it up. I will personally vouch for the multitude of people I've seen arguing AGAINST that exact point, so no, it's not a generally accepted rule. It's always guys who don't care for futanari making that argument.

Nobody gives a shit what the public finds revolting. That's irrelevant. Scat fetishes are not gay, even if they're gross.

"because you project yourself into it,"
I don't project myself into it. I just don't. Doesn't appeal to me. Does that mean I'm gay for watching a man fuck a woman without pretending the man "doesn't count"? No. Does that account for why I might enjoy watching a woman fuck a woman instead of a man? Perhaps! Does THAT make me gay? Also no.

Special pleading means your argument is self-contradictory and fails on itself unless you justify it, which you have not. YOU have to correct it.
#226 - Okay. 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD +1
#225 - You seem to write a lot of paragraphs for someone who doesn't …  [+] (5 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD +1
User avatar #227 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
Then what is your vested interest in being here and writing just as much as me?
Got something to prove?
We can make jabs at each other's sexuality all day, like you've been doing thus far, but it still won't make your argument any stronger.

It's not a matter of whether it's good or bad. It's a matter of "Look at me, I am the sole determinant of what is straight and what isn't, based on my years of experience into human sexuality that I conducted."
It's arrogance.
You say it's gay.
I say it's not.
What makes you SO FUCKING SURE of yourself to condescend to me about my sexuality when I've already demonstrated that your main example is special pleading.
User avatar #229 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Because I'm actually interested in these types of topics and learning about people.
Sure.
You used personal attacks long before I did. Once more, you are getting mad at me for things you yourself are also doing.

Fallacy Fallacy: Just because something is a falacy does not make it automatically incorrect. Boom, my argument stands, now you need something different than just saying it's a fallacy. What makes me so sure is exactly what I've already stated; it's not my fault if you just skimmed over the comments.
User avatar #230 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"and you're not extremely defensive about it. "
Is the very first one. Gotta slip that in, because somehow, the fact that I defend a point weakens my argument just as a concept.

Here's the definition for ya.
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
Your argument DOES NOT WORK until you PROVE why it should.

My argument was "What is gayer? Watching a dude fuck a woman, or watching a woman fuck a woman? "
You cannot respond to that without losing, because the answer is quite obvious, so you say "well, when I watch a dude it doesn't really count" and then you don't justify it. So I'd say to go back, and come up with a reason why it "doesn't count", but you cannot, because that's just YOUR opinion that you try to thrust onto everyone else, as if everyone else is doing this thing you're doing, in an effort to make yourself not look gay or whatever.

You then try and say that I'm assuming just as much by saying that it's an assumption on my part that everyone doesn't do this, but you made a mistake there. It's not on me to prove a negative. Proving a negative is not a thing that exists. Your statement doesn't become automatically true until I disprove it, and it doesn't go into True/False limbo where we await the outcome. It's false unless you demonstrate why it's true. And you can never prove it because it relies on you knowing the minds of every other guy. And you don't know that.

Your special pleading is justified by saying you don't have to prove your point.

There. I spelled it all out for you.
User avatar #231 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
"Pretty obvious logic if you think about it for two seconds" is actually the first one.

That would work if I wasn't the one ARGUING the generally accepted rule. Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. If you go out in public with that, most people will be outright revolted.

Except I did respond to it, and I admitted that, technically, the guy and girl is gayer. I just argued why the guy wouldn't be the subject in straight porn because you project yourself into it, something you couldn't do with dick-chicks.

Nor is it on me. Neither of us can 'prove' anything because we're both assuming, except I'm arguing the generally accepted opinion and why it works that way.

Except I have proved my point, you were the one who said "No, logical fallacy, so it doesn't work".
User avatar #235 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No, that's just a fact. The fact that you disagree and are wrong for disagreeing is on you, whether you like it or not. It's not a personal attack to state a fact.

"Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. "
AGAIN with the "everyone else must think like me" shtick without ANYTHING to back it up. I will personally vouch for the multitude of people I've seen arguing AGAINST that exact point, so no, it's not a generally accepted rule. It's always guys who don't care for futanari making that argument.

Nobody gives a shit what the public finds revolting. That's irrelevant. Scat fetishes are not gay, even if they're gross.

"because you project yourself into it,"
I don't project myself into it. I just don't. Doesn't appeal to me. Does that mean I'm gay for watching a man fuck a woman without pretending the man "doesn't count"? No. Does that account for why I might enjoy watching a woman fuck a woman instead of a man? Perhaps! Does THAT make me gay? Also no.

Special pleading means your argument is self-contradictory and fails on itself unless you justify it, which you have not. YOU have to correct it.
#218 - It's very easy to tell when someone's lost the argument when t…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD -1
User avatar #220 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
False.
False.
False.
False.
False.

There's not a single line in there that's remotely correct.
Just all the way through.
User avatar #226 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Okay.
#214 - Then maybe you should do some soul searching, old boy. It real…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD +1
User avatar #217 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
See, it's shit like that.
Your condescending bullshit towards someone who knows and is comfortable with their own sexuality, and isn't even arguing over a vested interest in it, but because it's so fucking obvious.
The sheer arrogance of that, to know nothing about a person other than this singular item, and determine that you know better than they what their own sexuality is, based on YOUR own particular definition, is appallingly ignorant.
This is YOUR definition, with logic you decided works. There’s nothing at all to suggest what you decided is a binary determinant. You could just as easily say that men who watch tentacle porn aren’t straight, since the tentacles are basically dicks. Or that men who watch gangbang porn aren’t straight because there are a lot of dicks and only 1 vagina. More dicks means less straight, and the same kind of tenuous logic you’ve applied can be applied here as well. Getting into more deviant activities, there’s femdom, pegging, cuckoldry, all of which you could conclude are not straight with the exact same amount of reasoning to back it up. The only people here who are uncomfortable with the sexuality are you, trying to assert your opinions over someone else that you know nothing about, based on your own subjective, hand-crafted definition of what it means to you to be straight. Certainly there are some acts that you might have an argument of saying that participating in makes you not straight. If you are dating a man, or having sex with men, then sure, you could say from that 1 item alone shows that they are not straight. But apparently what they do physically with women in real life has no bearing on the matter of their sexuality if they look at fictional pictures of women with penises.
User avatar #225 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You seem to write a lot of paragraphs for someone who doesn't even have a vested interest. If it was that obvious, you would have left the debate by comment #3. Perhaps even #2 if you really did predict how this one would end the same way.

Yet you're assuming much about my own personality and intelligence over the same level of information, so we're in the same boat. You are getting frustrated with me over things you yourself are also doing.

Well if you wanted to get into that, I'm sure we could nail down an exact scale of 'straightness', but I would personally just leave fetishes up to childhood traumas and erotic triggers throughout their life.

All I said is that if you liked dicks you're a bit gay. Hell, I like traps sometimes and I accept I have homosexual tendencies. As said, it's not a bad thing.
User avatar #227 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
Then what is your vested interest in being here and writing just as much as me?
Got something to prove?
We can make jabs at each other's sexuality all day, like you've been doing thus far, but it still won't make your argument any stronger.

It's not a matter of whether it's good or bad. It's a matter of "Look at me, I am the sole determinant of what is straight and what isn't, based on my years of experience into human sexuality that I conducted."
It's arrogance.
You say it's gay.
I say it's not.
What makes you SO FUCKING SURE of yourself to condescend to me about my sexuality when I've already demonstrated that your main example is special pleading.
User avatar #229 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Because I'm actually interested in these types of topics and learning about people.
Sure.
You used personal attacks long before I did. Once more, you are getting mad at me for things you yourself are also doing.

Fallacy Fallacy: Just because something is a falacy does not make it automatically incorrect. Boom, my argument stands, now you need something different than just saying it's a fallacy. What makes me so sure is exactly what I've already stated; it's not my fault if you just skimmed over the comments.
User avatar #230 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"and you're not extremely defensive about it. "
Is the very first one. Gotta slip that in, because somehow, the fact that I defend a point weakens my argument just as a concept.

Here's the definition for ya.
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
Your argument DOES NOT WORK until you PROVE why it should.

My argument was "What is gayer? Watching a dude fuck a woman, or watching a woman fuck a woman? "
You cannot respond to that without losing, because the answer is quite obvious, so you say "well, when I watch a dude it doesn't really count" and then you don't justify it. So I'd say to go back, and come up with a reason why it "doesn't count", but you cannot, because that's just YOUR opinion that you try to thrust onto everyone else, as if everyone else is doing this thing you're doing, in an effort to make yourself not look gay or whatever.

You then try and say that I'm assuming just as much by saying that it's an assumption on my part that everyone doesn't do this, but you made a mistake there. It's not on me to prove a negative. Proving a negative is not a thing that exists. Your statement doesn't become automatically true until I disprove it, and it doesn't go into True/False limbo where we await the outcome. It's false unless you demonstrate why it's true. And you can never prove it because it relies on you knowing the minds of every other guy. And you don't know that.

Your special pleading is justified by saying you don't have to prove your point.

There. I spelled it all out for you.
User avatar #231 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
"Pretty obvious logic if you think about it for two seconds" is actually the first one.

That would work if I wasn't the one ARGUING the generally accepted rule. Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. If you go out in public with that, most people will be outright revolted.

Except I did respond to it, and I admitted that, technically, the guy and girl is gayer. I just argued why the guy wouldn't be the subject in straight porn because you project yourself into it, something you couldn't do with dick-chicks.

Nor is it on me. Neither of us can 'prove' anything because we're both assuming, except I'm arguing the generally accepted opinion and why it works that way.

Except I have proved my point, you were the one who said "No, logical fallacy, so it doesn't work".
User avatar #235 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No, that's just a fact. The fact that you disagree and are wrong for disagreeing is on you, whether you like it or not. It's not a personal attack to state a fact.

"Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. "
AGAIN with the "everyone else must think like me" shtick without ANYTHING to back it up. I will personally vouch for the multitude of people I've seen arguing AGAINST that exact point, so no, it's not a generally accepted rule. It's always guys who don't care for futanari making that argument.

Nobody gives a shit what the public finds revolting. That's irrelevant. Scat fetishes are not gay, even if they're gross.

"because you project yourself into it,"
I don't project myself into it. I just don't. Doesn't appeal to me. Does that mean I'm gay for watching a man fuck a woman without pretending the man "doesn't count"? No. Does that account for why I might enjoy watching a woman fuck a woman instead of a man? Perhaps! Does THAT make me gay? Also no.

Special pleading means your argument is self-contradictory and fails on itself unless you justify it, which you have not. YOU have to correct it.
#213 - Except I don't. I haven't called any of your assumptions 'wron…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD 0
User avatar #216 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"I've just backed up my argument with actual points "

Holy shit.
You.
Are.
Fucking.
Idiotic.

How the fuck do you even exist? I mean honestly, I boggle at trying to fathom how someone becomes so adamantly stupid.

ACTUAL POINTS? You must be joking. At least, that's what I would say, if I hadn't already had several conversations with you, and each time you assure me of your earnestness.

A woman with a dick and a woman with a vagina.
A man with a dick and a woman with a vagina.

I don't care what kind of mental gymnastics you have to contort into to say how "the guy doesn't count because you think you're him" or whatever bullshit. You actually think watching a dude is straighter than watching a woman. You are clearly an idiot.
User avatar #218 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
It's very easy to tell when someone's lost the argument when they let their anger get the best of them. If you're so concerned about being incorrect, perhaps you really do hold the wrong view.

You seem to have a massive complex that you must be absolutely 100% straight, straighter than most of the male population as well. This probably wreaks a lot of havoc in your every day life and makes you frustrated every time you witness it, yes? That's the sign of someone who's uncomfortable with their stances, old boy. If you were absolutely sure you were correct and straight, you would feel neither the need to insult and degrade others or to be so defensive as you are. Maybe you should talk to someone about this.
User avatar #220 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
False.
False.
False.
False.
False.

There's not a single line in there that's remotely correct.
Just all the way through.
User avatar #226 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Okay.
#209 - You already said that, you're just repeating what you said in …  [+] (9 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD +1
User avatar #212 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
I'm well aware of how defensive I am.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Then maybe you should do some soul searching, old boy. It really is okay to be gay, there's nothing wrong with it.
User avatar #217 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
See, it's shit like that.
Your condescending bullshit towards someone who knows and is comfortable with their own sexuality, and isn't even arguing over a vested interest in it, but because it's so fucking obvious.
The sheer arrogance of that, to know nothing about a person other than this singular item, and determine that you know better than they what their own sexuality is, based on YOUR own particular definition, is appallingly ignorant.
This is YOUR definition, with logic you decided works. There’s nothing at all to suggest what you decided is a binary determinant. You could just as easily say that men who watch tentacle porn aren’t straight, since the tentacles are basically dicks. Or that men who watch gangbang porn aren’t straight because there are a lot of dicks and only 1 vagina. More dicks means less straight, and the same kind of tenuous logic you’ve applied can be applied here as well. Getting into more deviant activities, there’s femdom, pegging, cuckoldry, all of which you could conclude are not straight with the exact same amount of reasoning to back it up. The only people here who are uncomfortable with the sexuality are you, trying to assert your opinions over someone else that you know nothing about, based on your own subjective, hand-crafted definition of what it means to you to be straight. Certainly there are some acts that you might have an argument of saying that participating in makes you not straight. If you are dating a man, or having sex with men, then sure, you could say from that 1 item alone shows that they are not straight. But apparently what they do physically with women in real life has no bearing on the matter of their sexuality if they look at fictional pictures of women with penises.
User avatar #225 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You seem to write a lot of paragraphs for someone who doesn't even have a vested interest. If it was that obvious, you would have left the debate by comment #3. Perhaps even #2 if you really did predict how this one would end the same way.

Yet you're assuming much about my own personality and intelligence over the same level of information, so we're in the same boat. You are getting frustrated with me over things you yourself are also doing.

Well if you wanted to get into that, I'm sure we could nail down an exact scale of 'straightness', but I would personally just leave fetishes up to childhood traumas and erotic triggers throughout their life.

All I said is that if you liked dicks you're a bit gay. Hell, I like traps sometimes and I accept I have homosexual tendencies. As said, it's not a bad thing.
User avatar #227 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
Then what is your vested interest in being here and writing just as much as me?
Got something to prove?
We can make jabs at each other's sexuality all day, like you've been doing thus far, but it still won't make your argument any stronger.

It's not a matter of whether it's good or bad. It's a matter of "Look at me, I am the sole determinant of what is straight and what isn't, based on my years of experience into human sexuality that I conducted."
It's arrogance.
You say it's gay.
I say it's not.
What makes you SO FUCKING SURE of yourself to condescend to me about my sexuality when I've already demonstrated that your main example is special pleading.
User avatar #229 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Because I'm actually interested in these types of topics and learning about people.
Sure.
You used personal attacks long before I did. Once more, you are getting mad at me for things you yourself are also doing.

Fallacy Fallacy: Just because something is a falacy does not make it automatically incorrect. Boom, my argument stands, now you need something different than just saying it's a fallacy. What makes me so sure is exactly what I've already stated; it's not my fault if you just skimmed over the comments.
User avatar #230 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"and you're not extremely defensive about it. "
Is the very first one. Gotta slip that in, because somehow, the fact that I defend a point weakens my argument just as a concept.

Here's the definition for ya.
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
Your argument DOES NOT WORK until you PROVE why it should.

My argument was "What is gayer? Watching a dude fuck a woman, or watching a woman fuck a woman? "
You cannot respond to that without losing, because the answer is quite obvious, so you say "well, when I watch a dude it doesn't really count" and then you don't justify it. So I'd say to go back, and come up with a reason why it "doesn't count", but you cannot, because that's just YOUR opinion that you try to thrust onto everyone else, as if everyone else is doing this thing you're doing, in an effort to make yourself not look gay or whatever.

You then try and say that I'm assuming just as much by saying that it's an assumption on my part that everyone doesn't do this, but you made a mistake there. It's not on me to prove a negative. Proving a negative is not a thing that exists. Your statement doesn't become automatically true until I disprove it, and it doesn't go into True/False limbo where we await the outcome. It's false unless you demonstrate why it's true. And you can never prove it because it relies on you knowing the minds of every other guy. And you don't know that.

Your special pleading is justified by saying you don't have to prove your point.

There. I spelled it all out for you.
User avatar #231 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
"Pretty obvious logic if you think about it for two seconds" is actually the first one.

That would work if I wasn't the one ARGUING the generally accepted rule. Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. If you go out in public with that, most people will be outright revolted.

Except I did respond to it, and I admitted that, technically, the guy and girl is gayer. I just argued why the guy wouldn't be the subject in straight porn because you project yourself into it, something you couldn't do with dick-chicks.

Nor is it on me. Neither of us can 'prove' anything because we're both assuming, except I'm arguing the generally accepted opinion and why it works that way.

Except I have proved my point, you were the one who said "No, logical fallacy, so it doesn't work".
User avatar #235 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No, that's just a fact. The fact that you disagree and are wrong for disagreeing is on you, whether you like it or not. It's not a personal attack to state a fact.

"Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. "
AGAIN with the "everyone else must think like me" shtick without ANYTHING to back it up. I will personally vouch for the multitude of people I've seen arguing AGAINST that exact point, so no, it's not a generally accepted rule. It's always guys who don't care for futanari making that argument.

Nobody gives a shit what the public finds revolting. That's irrelevant. Scat fetishes are not gay, even if they're gross.

"because you project yourself into it,"
I don't project myself into it. I just don't. Doesn't appeal to me. Does that mean I'm gay for watching a man fuck a woman without pretending the man "doesn't count"? No. Does that account for why I might enjoy watching a woman fuck a woman instead of a man? Perhaps! Does THAT make me gay? Also no.

Special pleading means your argument is self-contradictory and fails on itself unless you justify it, which you have not. YOU have to correct it.
#205 - You're assuming most people don't, which is also an assumption.  [+] (6 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD 0
User avatar #210 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
And you act like your assumption holds more water than mine.
User avatar #213 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Except I don't. I haven't called any of your assumptions 'wrong', I've just backed up my argument with actual points while you say "No, it doesn't work like that, it's straighter with two girls".

Besides, even if I was, aren't you doing the same thing?
User avatar #216 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"I've just backed up my argument with actual points "

Holy shit.
You.
Are.
Fucking.
Idiotic.

How the fuck do you even exist? I mean honestly, I boggle at trying to fathom how someone becomes so adamantly stupid.

ACTUAL POINTS? You must be joking. At least, that's what I would say, if I hadn't already had several conversations with you, and each time you assure me of your earnestness.

A woman with a dick and a woman with a vagina.
A man with a dick and a woman with a vagina.

I don't care what kind of mental gymnastics you have to contort into to say how "the guy doesn't count because you think you're him" or whatever bullshit. You actually think watching a dude is straighter than watching a woman. You are clearly an idiot.
User avatar #218 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
It's very easy to tell when someone's lost the argument when they let their anger get the best of them. If you're so concerned about being incorrect, perhaps you really do hold the wrong view.

You seem to have a massive complex that you must be absolutely 100% straight, straighter than most of the male population as well. This probably wreaks a lot of havoc in your every day life and makes you frustrated every time you witness it, yes? That's the sign of someone who's uncomfortable with their stances, old boy. If you were absolutely sure you were correct and straight, you would feel neither the need to insult and degrade others or to be so defensive as you are. Maybe you should talk to someone about this.
User avatar #220 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
False.
False.
False.
False.
False.

There's not a single line in there that's remotely correct.
Just all the way through.
User avatar #226 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Okay.
#201 - Okay. Except it's not, it's putting yourself 'into' t…  [+] (19 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD +1
User avatar #207 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
And for the record, if you actually want to know, I really truly don't give a shit if people hold stupid, wrong views. It's when dickheads like you decide they need to tell other people their business like you somehow know better than they do.
User avatar #209 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You already said that, you're just repeating what you said in a paraphrased way.

You're being REALLY defensive, and anyone who reads these can see that even if you can't./
User avatar #212 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
I'm well aware of how defensive I am.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Then maybe you should do some soul searching, old boy. It really is okay to be gay, there's nothing wrong with it.
User avatar #217 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
See, it's shit like that.
Your condescending bullshit towards someone who knows and is comfortable with their own sexuality, and isn't even arguing over a vested interest in it, but because it's so fucking obvious.
The sheer arrogance of that, to know nothing about a person other than this singular item, and determine that you know better than they what their own sexuality is, based on YOUR own particular definition, is appallingly ignorant.
This is YOUR definition, with logic you decided works. There’s nothing at all to suggest what you decided is a binary determinant. You could just as easily say that men who watch tentacle porn aren’t straight, since the tentacles are basically dicks. Or that men who watch gangbang porn aren’t straight because there are a lot of dicks and only 1 vagina. More dicks means less straight, and the same kind of tenuous logic you’ve applied can be applied here as well. Getting into more deviant activities, there’s femdom, pegging, cuckoldry, all of which you could conclude are not straight with the exact same amount of reasoning to back it up. The only people here who are uncomfortable with the sexuality are you, trying to assert your opinions over someone else that you know nothing about, based on your own subjective, hand-crafted definition of what it means to you to be straight. Certainly there are some acts that you might have an argument of saying that participating in makes you not straight. If you are dating a man, or having sex with men, then sure, you could say from that 1 item alone shows that they are not straight. But apparently what they do physically with women in real life has no bearing on the matter of their sexuality if they look at fictional pictures of women with penises.
User avatar #225 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You seem to write a lot of paragraphs for someone who doesn't even have a vested interest. If it was that obvious, you would have left the debate by comment #3. Perhaps even #2 if you really did predict how this one would end the same way.

Yet you're assuming much about my own personality and intelligence over the same level of information, so we're in the same boat. You are getting frustrated with me over things you yourself are also doing.

Well if you wanted to get into that, I'm sure we could nail down an exact scale of 'straightness', but I would personally just leave fetishes up to childhood traumas and erotic triggers throughout their life.

All I said is that if you liked dicks you're a bit gay. Hell, I like traps sometimes and I accept I have homosexual tendencies. As said, it's not a bad thing.
User avatar #227 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
Then what is your vested interest in being here and writing just as much as me?
Got something to prove?
We can make jabs at each other's sexuality all day, like you've been doing thus far, but it still won't make your argument any stronger.

It's not a matter of whether it's good or bad. It's a matter of "Look at me, I am the sole determinant of what is straight and what isn't, based on my years of experience into human sexuality that I conducted."
It's arrogance.
You say it's gay.
I say it's not.
What makes you SO FUCKING SURE of yourself to condescend to me about my sexuality when I've already demonstrated that your main example is special pleading.
User avatar #229 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Because I'm actually interested in these types of topics and learning about people.
Sure.
You used personal attacks long before I did. Once more, you are getting mad at me for things you yourself are also doing.

Fallacy Fallacy: Just because something is a falacy does not make it automatically incorrect. Boom, my argument stands, now you need something different than just saying it's a fallacy. What makes me so sure is exactly what I've already stated; it's not my fault if you just skimmed over the comments.
User avatar #230 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"and you're not extremely defensive about it. "
Is the very first one. Gotta slip that in, because somehow, the fact that I defend a point weakens my argument just as a concept.

Here's the definition for ya.
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
Your argument DOES NOT WORK until you PROVE why it should.

My argument was "What is gayer? Watching a dude fuck a woman, or watching a woman fuck a woman? "
You cannot respond to that without losing, because the answer is quite obvious, so you say "well, when I watch a dude it doesn't really count" and then you don't justify it. So I'd say to go back, and come up with a reason why it "doesn't count", but you cannot, because that's just YOUR opinion that you try to thrust onto everyone else, as if everyone else is doing this thing you're doing, in an effort to make yourself not look gay or whatever.

You then try and say that I'm assuming just as much by saying that it's an assumption on my part that everyone doesn't do this, but you made a mistake there. It's not on me to prove a negative. Proving a negative is not a thing that exists. Your statement doesn't become automatically true until I disprove it, and it doesn't go into True/False limbo where we await the outcome. It's false unless you demonstrate why it's true. And you can never prove it because it relies on you knowing the minds of every other guy. And you don't know that.

Your special pleading is justified by saying you don't have to prove your point.

There. I spelled it all out for you.
User avatar #231 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
"Pretty obvious logic if you think about it for two seconds" is actually the first one.

That would work if I wasn't the one ARGUING the generally accepted rule. Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. If you go out in public with that, most people will be outright revolted.

Except I did respond to it, and I admitted that, technically, the guy and girl is gayer. I just argued why the guy wouldn't be the subject in straight porn because you project yourself into it, something you couldn't do with dick-chicks.

Nor is it on me. Neither of us can 'prove' anything because we're both assuming, except I'm arguing the generally accepted opinion and why it works that way.

Except I have proved my point, you were the one who said "No, logical fallacy, so it doesn't work".
User avatar #235 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No, that's just a fact. The fact that you disagree and are wrong for disagreeing is on you, whether you like it or not. It's not a personal attack to state a fact.

"Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. "
AGAIN with the "everyone else must think like me" shtick without ANYTHING to back it up. I will personally vouch for the multitude of people I've seen arguing AGAINST that exact point, so no, it's not a generally accepted rule. It's always guys who don't care for futanari making that argument.

Nobody gives a shit what the public finds revolting. That's irrelevant. Scat fetishes are not gay, even if they're gross.

"because you project yourself into it,"
I don't project myself into it. I just don't. Doesn't appeal to me. Does that mean I'm gay for watching a man fuck a woman without pretending the man "doesn't count"? No. Does that account for why I might enjoy watching a woman fuck a woman instead of a man? Perhaps! Does THAT make me gay? Also no.

Special pleading means your argument is self-contradictory and fails on itself unless you justify it, which you have not. YOU have to correct it.
User avatar #203 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No.
That's what YOU do.
You're assuming everyone else does that.
That's a wrong assumption.
User avatar #205 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You're assuming most people don't, which is also an assumption.
User avatar #210 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
And you act like your assumption holds more water than mine.
User avatar #213 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Except I don't. I haven't called any of your assumptions 'wrong', I've just backed up my argument with actual points while you say "No, it doesn't work like that, it's straighter with two girls".

Besides, even if I was, aren't you doing the same thing?
User avatar #216 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"I've just backed up my argument with actual points "

Holy shit.
You.
Are.
Fucking.
Idiotic.

How the fuck do you even exist? I mean honestly, I boggle at trying to fathom how someone becomes so adamantly stupid.

ACTUAL POINTS? You must be joking. At least, that's what I would say, if I hadn't already had several conversations with you, and each time you assure me of your earnestness.

A woman with a dick and a woman with a vagina.
A man with a dick and a woman with a vagina.

I don't care what kind of mental gymnastics you have to contort into to say how "the guy doesn't count because you think you're him" or whatever bullshit. You actually think watching a dude is straighter than watching a woman. You are clearly an idiot.
User avatar #218 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
It's very easy to tell when someone's lost the argument when they let their anger get the best of them. If you're so concerned about being incorrect, perhaps you really do hold the wrong view.

You seem to have a massive complex that you must be absolutely 100% straight, straighter than most of the male population as well. This probably wreaks a lot of havoc in your every day life and makes you frustrated every time you witness it, yes? That's the sign of someone who's uncomfortable with their stances, old boy. If you were absolutely sure you were correct and straight, you would feel neither the need to insult and degrade others or to be so defensive as you are. Maybe you should talk to someone about this.
User avatar #220 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
False.
False.
False.
False.
False.

There's not a single line in there that's remotely correct.
Just all the way through.
User avatar #226 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Okay.
#193 - Actually it's called 'mocking', and I wouldn't be the one call…  [+] (21 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD 0
User avatar #196 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
You have absolutely got to be fucking kidding me if you're saying that a woman fucking a woman is gayer than a man fucking a woman.

When you say that somehow the guy's penis "doesn't count" and is just there to fulfill the fantasy, that's a bullshit copout. That's what we call "special pleading" in logical fallacies. You do not have a legitimate reason. At all. And personally, I don't really give a shit if someone wants to hold an absolutely stupid and incorrect view. It's when they decide to go telling other people what their sexual orientation is, based on their own stupid views, that it bothers me.
User avatar #201 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Okay.

Except it's not, it's putting yourself 'into' the fantasy. That's like saying if you play an RPG and you choose a male character, you're gay, because you're watching a male ass swinging around for 10 hours. But it's not about the guy at all, it's about being able to put yourself INTO the fantasy; no different than porn, which is also much harder if it's a girl (and a girl).

Would you like me to point out all the logical fallacies you've made? It doesn't make you any smarter to know them, what makes you smart is being able to win a debate; getting frustrated and ranting and raving doesn't quite do that.

It's okay to be gay. I'm not even kidding; you seem to get far more frustrated with this than an average person would be. You obviously have a lot of emotional investment in this and that's not normal if you're not defensive about your sexual orientation.
User avatar #207 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
And for the record, if you actually want to know, I really truly don't give a shit if people hold stupid, wrong views. It's when dickheads like you decide they need to tell other people their business like you somehow know better than they do.
User avatar #209 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You already said that, you're just repeating what you said in a paraphrased way.

You're being REALLY defensive, and anyone who reads these can see that even if you can't./
User avatar #212 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
I'm well aware of how defensive I am.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Then maybe you should do some soul searching, old boy. It really is okay to be gay, there's nothing wrong with it.
User avatar #217 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
See, it's shit like that.
Your condescending bullshit towards someone who knows and is comfortable with their own sexuality, and isn't even arguing over a vested interest in it, but because it's so fucking obvious.
The sheer arrogance of that, to know nothing about a person other than this singular item, and determine that you know better than they what their own sexuality is, based on YOUR own particular definition, is appallingly ignorant.
This is YOUR definition, with logic you decided works. There’s nothing at all to suggest what you decided is a binary determinant. You could just as easily say that men who watch tentacle porn aren’t straight, since the tentacles are basically dicks. Or that men who watch gangbang porn aren’t straight because there are a lot of dicks and only 1 vagina. More dicks means less straight, and the same kind of tenuous logic you’ve applied can be applied here as well. Getting into more deviant activities, there’s femdom, pegging, cuckoldry, all of which you could conclude are not straight with the exact same amount of reasoning to back it up. The only people here who are uncomfortable with the sexuality are you, trying to assert your opinions over someone else that you know nothing about, based on your own subjective, hand-crafted definition of what it means to you to be straight. Certainly there are some acts that you might have an argument of saying that participating in makes you not straight. If you are dating a man, or having sex with men, then sure, you could say from that 1 item alone shows that they are not straight. But apparently what they do physically with women in real life has no bearing on the matter of their sexuality if they look at fictional pictures of women with penises.
User avatar #225 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You seem to write a lot of paragraphs for someone who doesn't even have a vested interest. If it was that obvious, you would have left the debate by comment #3. Perhaps even #2 if you really did predict how this one would end the same way.

Yet you're assuming much about my own personality and intelligence over the same level of information, so we're in the same boat. You are getting frustrated with me over things you yourself are also doing.

Well if you wanted to get into that, I'm sure we could nail down an exact scale of 'straightness', but I would personally just leave fetishes up to childhood traumas and erotic triggers throughout their life.

All I said is that if you liked dicks you're a bit gay. Hell, I like traps sometimes and I accept I have homosexual tendencies. As said, it's not a bad thing.
User avatar #227 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
Then what is your vested interest in being here and writing just as much as me?
Got something to prove?
We can make jabs at each other's sexuality all day, like you've been doing thus far, but it still won't make your argument any stronger.

It's not a matter of whether it's good or bad. It's a matter of "Look at me, I am the sole determinant of what is straight and what isn't, based on my years of experience into human sexuality that I conducted."
It's arrogance.
You say it's gay.
I say it's not.
What makes you SO FUCKING SURE of yourself to condescend to me about my sexuality when I've already demonstrated that your main example is special pleading.
User avatar #229 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Because I'm actually interested in these types of topics and learning about people.
Sure.
You used personal attacks long before I did. Once more, you are getting mad at me for things you yourself are also doing.

Fallacy Fallacy: Just because something is a falacy does not make it automatically incorrect. Boom, my argument stands, now you need something different than just saying it's a fallacy. What makes me so sure is exactly what I've already stated; it's not my fault if you just skimmed over the comments.
User avatar #230 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"and you're not extremely defensive about it. "
Is the very first one. Gotta slip that in, because somehow, the fact that I defend a point weakens my argument just as a concept.

Here's the definition for ya.
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
Your argument DOES NOT WORK until you PROVE why it should.

My argument was "What is gayer? Watching a dude fuck a woman, or watching a woman fuck a woman? "
You cannot respond to that without losing, because the answer is quite obvious, so you say "well, when I watch a dude it doesn't really count" and then you don't justify it. So I'd say to go back, and come up with a reason why it "doesn't count", but you cannot, because that's just YOUR opinion that you try to thrust onto everyone else, as if everyone else is doing this thing you're doing, in an effort to make yourself not look gay or whatever.

You then try and say that I'm assuming just as much by saying that it's an assumption on my part that everyone doesn't do this, but you made a mistake there. It's not on me to prove a negative. Proving a negative is not a thing that exists. Your statement doesn't become automatically true until I disprove it, and it doesn't go into True/False limbo where we await the outcome. It's false unless you demonstrate why it's true. And you can never prove it because it relies on you knowing the minds of every other guy. And you don't know that.

Your special pleading is justified by saying you don't have to prove your point.

There. I spelled it all out for you.
User avatar #231 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
"Pretty obvious logic if you think about it for two seconds" is actually the first one.

That would work if I wasn't the one ARGUING the generally accepted rule. Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. If you go out in public with that, most people will be outright revolted.

Except I did respond to it, and I admitted that, technically, the guy and girl is gayer. I just argued why the guy wouldn't be the subject in straight porn because you project yourself into it, something you couldn't do with dick-chicks.

Nor is it on me. Neither of us can 'prove' anything because we're both assuming, except I'm arguing the generally accepted opinion and why it works that way.

Except I have proved my point, you were the one who said "No, logical fallacy, so it doesn't work".
User avatar #235 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No, that's just a fact. The fact that you disagree and are wrong for disagreeing is on you, whether you like it or not. It's not a personal attack to state a fact.

"Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. "
AGAIN with the "everyone else must think like me" shtick without ANYTHING to back it up. I will personally vouch for the multitude of people I've seen arguing AGAINST that exact point, so no, it's not a generally accepted rule. It's always guys who don't care for futanari making that argument.

Nobody gives a shit what the public finds revolting. That's irrelevant. Scat fetishes are not gay, even if they're gross.

"because you project yourself into it,"
I don't project myself into it. I just don't. Doesn't appeal to me. Does that mean I'm gay for watching a man fuck a woman without pretending the man "doesn't count"? No. Does that account for why I might enjoy watching a woman fuck a woman instead of a man? Perhaps! Does THAT make me gay? Also no.

Special pleading means your argument is self-contradictory and fails on itself unless you justify it, which you have not. YOU have to correct it.
User avatar #203 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No.
That's what YOU do.
You're assuming everyone else does that.
That's a wrong assumption.
User avatar #205 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You're assuming most people don't, which is also an assumption.
User avatar #210 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
And you act like your assumption holds more water than mine.
User avatar #213 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Except I don't. I haven't called any of your assumptions 'wrong', I've just backed up my argument with actual points while you say "No, it doesn't work like that, it's straighter with two girls".

Besides, even if I was, aren't you doing the same thing?
User avatar #216 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"I've just backed up my argument with actual points "

Holy shit.
You.
Are.
Fucking.
Idiotic.

How the fuck do you even exist? I mean honestly, I boggle at trying to fathom how someone becomes so adamantly stupid.

ACTUAL POINTS? You must be joking. At least, that's what I would say, if I hadn't already had several conversations with you, and each time you assure me of your earnestness.

A woman with a dick and a woman with a vagina.
A man with a dick and a woman with a vagina.

I don't care what kind of mental gymnastics you have to contort into to say how "the guy doesn't count because you think you're him" or whatever bullshit. You actually think watching a dude is straighter than watching a woman. You are clearly an idiot.
User avatar #218 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
It's very easy to tell when someone's lost the argument when they let their anger get the best of them. If you're so concerned about being incorrect, perhaps you really do hold the wrong view.

You seem to have a massive complex that you must be absolutely 100% straight, straighter than most of the male population as well. This probably wreaks a lot of havoc in your every day life and makes you frustrated every time you witness it, yes? That's the sign of someone who's uncomfortable with their stances, old boy. If you were absolutely sure you were correct and straight, you would feel neither the need to insult and degrade others or to be so defensive as you are. Maybe you should talk to someone about this.
User avatar #220 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
False.
False.
False.
False.
False.

There's not a single line in there that's remotely correct.
Just all the way through.
User avatar #226 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Okay.
#185 - Except it's not. If a guy has the choice between a gi…  [+] (25 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD 0
User avatar #187 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"hurr durr Im gonna repeat the phrase he said because it will make me seem smart"

Shitforbrains, you act as if people only watch solo porn.
What is gayer? Watching a dude fuck a woman, or watching a woman fuck a woman?
#306 - adrenalinbbq (05/04/2015) [-]
Everyone will have their own preferences. I enjoy the idea of a biological woman with a penis fucking another chick with a vagina would be in theory, pretty cool. HOWEVER you can ALWAYS tell that the 'woman' with a dick is/was a guy, and that's a huge turn-off. Why would you think that is? Because....it's a guy. You can dress up a farmer to look like a businessman, but he's still gonna be a dickgirl.
User avatar #431 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"HOWEVER you can ALWAYS tell that the 'woman' with a dick is/was a guy, and that's a huge turn-off."

Hundred percent agree.
That's why I speak only about futanari, which is animated to make it look "natural".
I personally get a little weirded out by transgender porn.
User avatar #193 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Actually it's called 'mocking', and I wouldn't be the one calling out others when you're the guy resorting to personal attacks.

Except I'm not. I'm not saying only extremes can exist in porn, I'm saying that being sexually attracted to a penis is gay; the fact that it's on a girl doesn't make it any LESS gay, it's just gay.

Technically, the guy and the girl. Realistically, the girl and the girl; the reason being is that, watching a guy fuck a girl, you're interested in watching a girl get fucked; the guy's penis doesn't really enter into it, he's just their to fulfill the fantasy. If you're watching two girls fuck, chances are it's still the penis that does it for you somewhere.

You know, it really is fine if you're a bit gay. Nobody's gonna hate you, you don't have to have some huge crisis over it. It's fine to admit it.
User avatar #196 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
You have absolutely got to be fucking kidding me if you're saying that a woman fucking a woman is gayer than a man fucking a woman.

When you say that somehow the guy's penis "doesn't count" and is just there to fulfill the fantasy, that's a bullshit copout. That's what we call "special pleading" in logical fallacies. You do not have a legitimate reason. At all. And personally, I don't really give a shit if someone wants to hold an absolutely stupid and incorrect view. It's when they decide to go telling other people what their sexual orientation is, based on their own stupid views, that it bothers me.
User avatar #201 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Okay.

Except it's not, it's putting yourself 'into' the fantasy. That's like saying if you play an RPG and you choose a male character, you're gay, because you're watching a male ass swinging around for 10 hours. But it's not about the guy at all, it's about being able to put yourself INTO the fantasy; no different than porn, which is also much harder if it's a girl (and a girl).

Would you like me to point out all the logical fallacies you've made? It doesn't make you any smarter to know them, what makes you smart is being able to win a debate; getting frustrated and ranting and raving doesn't quite do that.

It's okay to be gay. I'm not even kidding; you seem to get far more frustrated with this than an average person would be. You obviously have a lot of emotional investment in this and that's not normal if you're not defensive about your sexual orientation.
User avatar #207 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
And for the record, if you actually want to know, I really truly don't give a shit if people hold stupid, wrong views. It's when dickheads like you decide they need to tell other people their business like you somehow know better than they do.
User avatar #209 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You already said that, you're just repeating what you said in a paraphrased way.

You're being REALLY defensive, and anyone who reads these can see that even if you can't./
User avatar #212 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
I'm well aware of how defensive I am.
User avatar #214 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Then maybe you should do some soul searching, old boy. It really is okay to be gay, there's nothing wrong with it.
User avatar #217 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
See, it's shit like that.
Your condescending bullshit towards someone who knows and is comfortable with their own sexuality, and isn't even arguing over a vested interest in it, but because it's so fucking obvious.
The sheer arrogance of that, to know nothing about a person other than this singular item, and determine that you know better than they what their own sexuality is, based on YOUR own particular definition, is appallingly ignorant.
This is YOUR definition, with logic you decided works. There’s nothing at all to suggest what you decided is a binary determinant. You could just as easily say that men who watch tentacle porn aren’t straight, since the tentacles are basically dicks. Or that men who watch gangbang porn aren’t straight because there are a lot of dicks and only 1 vagina. More dicks means less straight, and the same kind of tenuous logic you’ve applied can be applied here as well. Getting into more deviant activities, there’s femdom, pegging, cuckoldry, all of which you could conclude are not straight with the exact same amount of reasoning to back it up. The only people here who are uncomfortable with the sexuality are you, trying to assert your opinions over someone else that you know nothing about, based on your own subjective, hand-crafted definition of what it means to you to be straight. Certainly there are some acts that you might have an argument of saying that participating in makes you not straight. If you are dating a man, or having sex with men, then sure, you could say from that 1 item alone shows that they are not straight. But apparently what they do physically with women in real life has no bearing on the matter of their sexuality if they look at fictional pictures of women with penises.
User avatar #225 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You seem to write a lot of paragraphs for someone who doesn't even have a vested interest. If it was that obvious, you would have left the debate by comment #3. Perhaps even #2 if you really did predict how this one would end the same way.

Yet you're assuming much about my own personality and intelligence over the same level of information, so we're in the same boat. You are getting frustrated with me over things you yourself are also doing.

Well if you wanted to get into that, I'm sure we could nail down an exact scale of 'straightness', but I would personally just leave fetishes up to childhood traumas and erotic triggers throughout their life.

All I said is that if you liked dicks you're a bit gay. Hell, I like traps sometimes and I accept I have homosexual tendencies. As said, it's not a bad thing.
User avatar #227 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
Then what is your vested interest in being here and writing just as much as me?
Got something to prove?
We can make jabs at each other's sexuality all day, like you've been doing thus far, but it still won't make your argument any stronger.

It's not a matter of whether it's good or bad. It's a matter of "Look at me, I am the sole determinant of what is straight and what isn't, based on my years of experience into human sexuality that I conducted."
It's arrogance.
You say it's gay.
I say it's not.
What makes you SO FUCKING SURE of yourself to condescend to me about my sexuality when I've already demonstrated that your main example is special pleading.
User avatar #229 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Because I'm actually interested in these types of topics and learning about people.
Sure.
You used personal attacks long before I did. Once more, you are getting mad at me for things you yourself are also doing.

Fallacy Fallacy: Just because something is a falacy does not make it automatically incorrect. Boom, my argument stands, now you need something different than just saying it's a fallacy. What makes me so sure is exactly what I've already stated; it's not my fault if you just skimmed over the comments.
User avatar #230 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"and you're not extremely defensive about it. "
Is the very first one. Gotta slip that in, because somehow, the fact that I defend a point weakens my argument just as a concept.

Here's the definition for ya.
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
Your argument DOES NOT WORK until you PROVE why it should.

My argument was "What is gayer? Watching a dude fuck a woman, or watching a woman fuck a woman? "
You cannot respond to that without losing, because the answer is quite obvious, so you say "well, when I watch a dude it doesn't really count" and then you don't justify it. So I'd say to go back, and come up with a reason why it "doesn't count", but you cannot, because that's just YOUR opinion that you try to thrust onto everyone else, as if everyone else is doing this thing you're doing, in an effort to make yourself not look gay or whatever.

You then try and say that I'm assuming just as much by saying that it's an assumption on my part that everyone doesn't do this, but you made a mistake there. It's not on me to prove a negative. Proving a negative is not a thing that exists. Your statement doesn't become automatically true until I disprove it, and it doesn't go into True/False limbo where we await the outcome. It's false unless you demonstrate why it's true. And you can never prove it because it relies on you knowing the minds of every other guy. And you don't know that.

Your special pleading is justified by saying you don't have to prove your point.

There. I spelled it all out for you.
User avatar #231 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
"Pretty obvious logic if you think about it for two seconds" is actually the first one.

That would work if I wasn't the one ARGUING the generally accepted rule. Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. If you go out in public with that, most people will be outright revolted.

Except I did respond to it, and I admitted that, technically, the guy and girl is gayer. I just argued why the guy wouldn't be the subject in straight porn because you project yourself into it, something you couldn't do with dick-chicks.

Nor is it on me. Neither of us can 'prove' anything because we're both assuming, except I'm arguing the generally accepted opinion and why it works that way.

Except I have proved my point, you were the one who said "No, logical fallacy, so it doesn't work".
User avatar #235 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No, that's just a fact. The fact that you disagree and are wrong for disagreeing is on you, whether you like it or not. It's not a personal attack to state a fact.

"Most people believe liking dick-chicks makes you gay. "
AGAIN with the "everyone else must think like me" shtick without ANYTHING to back it up. I will personally vouch for the multitude of people I've seen arguing AGAINST that exact point, so no, it's not a generally accepted rule. It's always guys who don't care for futanari making that argument.

Nobody gives a shit what the public finds revolting. That's irrelevant. Scat fetishes are not gay, even if they're gross.

"because you project yourself into it,"
I don't project myself into it. I just don't. Doesn't appeal to me. Does that mean I'm gay for watching a man fuck a woman without pretending the man "doesn't count"? No. Does that account for why I might enjoy watching a woman fuck a woman instead of a man? Perhaps! Does THAT make me gay? Also no.

Special pleading means your argument is self-contradictory and fails on itself unless you justify it, which you have not. YOU have to correct it.
User avatar #203 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
No.
That's what YOU do.
You're assuming everyone else does that.
That's a wrong assumption.
User avatar #205 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
You're assuming most people don't, which is also an assumption.
User avatar #210 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
And you act like your assumption holds more water than mine.
User avatar #213 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Except I don't. I haven't called any of your assumptions 'wrong', I've just backed up my argument with actual points while you say "No, it doesn't work like that, it's straighter with two girls".

Besides, even if I was, aren't you doing the same thing?
User avatar #216 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
"I've just backed up my argument with actual points "

Holy shit.
You.
Are.
Fucking.
Idiotic.

How the fuck do you even exist? I mean honestly, I boggle at trying to fathom how someone becomes so adamantly stupid.

ACTUAL POINTS? You must be joking. At least, that's what I would say, if I hadn't already had several conversations with you, and each time you assure me of your earnestness.

A woman with a dick and a woman with a vagina.
A man with a dick and a woman with a vagina.

I don't care what kind of mental gymnastics you have to contort into to say how "the guy doesn't count because you think you're him" or whatever bullshit. You actually think watching a dude is straighter than watching a woman. You are clearly an idiot.
User avatar #218 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
It's very easy to tell when someone's lost the argument when they let their anger get the best of them. If you're so concerned about being incorrect, perhaps you really do hold the wrong view.

You seem to have a massive complex that you must be absolutely 100% straight, straighter than most of the male population as well. This probably wreaks a lot of havoc in your every day life and makes you frustrated every time you witness it, yes? That's the sign of someone who's uncomfortable with their stances, old boy. If you were absolutely sure you were correct and straight, you would feel neither the need to insult and degrade others or to be so defensive as you are. Maybe you should talk to someone about this.
User avatar #220 - YllekNayr (05/04/2015) [-]
False.
False.
False.
False.
False.

There's not a single line in there that's remotely correct.
Just all the way through.
User avatar #226 - captainfuckitall (05/04/2015) [-]
Okay.
#99 - The worst is when trap-lovers try to insist that traps are 'th…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/04/2015 on Le Black Twitter XD +1
User avatar #125 - AlexPaincakes (05/04/2015) [-]
In actuality a LOT of people have homosexual tendencies. People don't want to admit it but that is just nature. What it really comes down to is how gay you are. Not everyone wants to date and fall in love with a guy but you may just be sexually curious and honestly a trap is as good of a middle ground as you're gonna get. Yes they are actually guys with hormone treatments and not a "third gender" anyone saying other wise is lying to themselves. I just wish society wouldn't make sexuality out to be black and white when it really is a huge grey area for everyone.
#117 - Common Pepe (05/04/2015) [-]

Comments(508):

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

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

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

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

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

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

i am exhausted
User avatar #490 - commencingfailure (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 (09/22/2013) [-]
I would just like to say thank you.
User avatar #469 to #468 - captainfuckitall ONLINE (09/22/2013) [-]
For?
#466 - Common Pepe (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (07/16/2013) [-]
You're welcome, good sir.
You're welcome, good sir.
[ 508 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)