x
Click to expand

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#9437
Comment Ranking:#994
Highest Content Rank:#9444
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 58210 total,  71201 ,  12991
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 76.4% (764/1000)
Level 352 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk → Level 353 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10871
Times Content Favorited:13 times
Total Comments Made:16678
FJ Points:24996

latest user's comments

#643 - Technically speaking, things that exist on a Quantum level, th…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites +1
#644 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
That's the monistic vision of Atomists like Leucippus or Democritus of Abdera. I do not know the concept of the immateriality of atoms you have in mind but i think it does not contradict what I have said. If something is immaterial it would mean that it has no body and collection of such beings would not be able to create body, neither would they be able to collide in any way, as collision is the ability of material being.
User avatar #650 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I would be lying if I said I could explain it properly. The most I can do is suggest you look up Quantum Physics for yourself. You won't be able to get it either, but it'll give you a bearing of what I mean
#651 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
i looked it up but the problem is i need it referenced to the concept of the philosohical matter as a part of the ontic structure of being. But even in the wave description it does not seem like a matterless thing. What might be the cause of misunderstanding is also the different definition of matter we seem to bear in mind. Anyway, ciao, gl&hf
#38 - Don't even ******* joke about that 06/16/2013 on Microsofts Response to Sony -1
#3 - Comment deleted 06/16/2013 on Ron Paul +3
#4 - I just graduated and this actually made me a bit sad …  [+] (5 new replies) 06/16/2013 on SuperGrad +2
#9 - recio has deleted their comment.
User avatar #14 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
Eh, life is only as boring as you allow it to be
User avatar #8 - wavad (06/16/2013) [-]
This is not a fun fact...
User avatar #7 - erotictentacle (06/16/2013) [-]
only 1 on this side
User avatar #6 - derpybestpony (06/16/2013) [-]
i can confirm this
#6 - I just...I just can't NOT hear it in the voice of a sassy blac… 06/16/2013 on cat +11
#9 - I don't know, man. If I had an opportunity to **** Nyar… 06/16/2013 on Soccer Teams +2
#23 - PC Gamers are the Atheists of the gaming world Even i… 06/16/2013 on e3 -4
#640 - I already told you, we're talking about 'existence' here. Exis…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites +1
#642 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
By existance you mean a purely existing being or a purely material being? By what you've called the existing existance. Do you mean the chemically reacting atom? Because if so then my point stil stands. Something that is material needs existance from outside. Its existance is per aliud. If you mean pure existance then you mean something non material.
User avatar #643 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
Technically speaking, things that exist on a Quantum level, the atoms which collided to create the big bang, are not 'material'. You're referring to "Outside" in the context of a being outside the universe, I refer to "Outside" as a universe that isn't this one, of which it is generally accepted there are many. Atoms pass through universes all the time, who's to say that they did not appear in a void and collide in a freak accident, or who's to say there was "nothing" at all, as there could have very well been a previous universe beforehand that was destroyed when ours came into being
#644 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
That's the monistic vision of Atomists like Leucippus or Democritus of Abdera. I do not know the concept of the immateriality of atoms you have in mind but i think it does not contradict what I have said. If something is immaterial it would mean that it has no body and collection of such beings would not be able to create body, neither would they be able to collide in any way, as collision is the ability of material being.
User avatar #650 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I would be lying if I said I could explain it properly. The most I can do is suggest you look up Quantum Physics for yourself. You won't be able to get it either, but it'll give you a bearing of what I mean
#651 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
i looked it up but the problem is i need it referenced to the concept of the philosohical matter as a part of the ontic structure of being. But even in the wave description it does not seem like a matterless thing. What might be the cause of misunderstanding is also the different definition of matter we seem to bear in mind. Anyway, ciao, gl&hf
#89 - He could tell me all he wanted, and I would never believe him … 06/16/2013 on Destiny +1
#109 - Yes 06/16/2013 on Tesla +2
#628 - I feel your pain, believe it or not. If it makes it easier, ju… 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#627 - Eh, there may very well be an 'Absolute creator', but I certai…  [+] (7 new replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites +1
#634 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
But atom is a part of matter. As such, what would be the cause of its existance.
User avatar #640 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I already told you, we're talking about 'existence' here. Existence has always existed, we're talking about the universe which has come INTO existence
#642 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
By existance you mean a purely existing being or a purely material being? By what you've called the existing existance. Do you mean the chemically reacting atom? Because if so then my point stil stands. Something that is material needs existance from outside. Its existance is per aliud. If you mean pure existance then you mean something non material.
User avatar #643 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
Technically speaking, things that exist on a Quantum level, the atoms which collided to create the big bang, are not 'material'. You're referring to "Outside" in the context of a being outside the universe, I refer to "Outside" as a universe that isn't this one, of which it is generally accepted there are many. Atoms pass through universes all the time, who's to say that they did not appear in a void and collide in a freak accident, or who's to say there was "nothing" at all, as there could have very well been a previous universe beforehand that was destroyed when ours came into being
#644 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
That's the monistic vision of Atomists like Leucippus or Democritus of Abdera. I do not know the concept of the immateriality of atoms you have in mind but i think it does not contradict what I have said. If something is immaterial it would mean that it has no body and collection of such beings would not be able to create body, neither would they be able to collide in any way, as collision is the ability of material being.
User avatar #650 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I would be lying if I said I could explain it properly. The most I can do is suggest you look up Quantum Physics for yourself. You won't be able to get it either, but it'll give you a bearing of what I mean
#651 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
i looked it up but the problem is i need it referenced to the concept of the philosohical matter as a part of the ontic structure of being. But even in the wave description it does not seem like a matterless thing. What might be the cause of misunderstanding is also the different definition of matter we seem to bear in mind. Anyway, ciao, gl&hf
#301 - There is absolutely eternally something, but that eternal some…  [+] (9 new replies) 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites +1
#310 - anonymous (06/15/2013) [-]
Still it depends of if we consider that there could be an nfinite chain of causes we cannot point to the existance of an Absolute creator. However if we consider the chain to be limited then everything that has potential element in it cannot be the final and efficient cause of whole of the creation. Thus every event like big bang points to somethin that caused it, actualized it. The conclusion from that is such, that the ultimate being cannot have potency, thus material element in its structure. Such a thing is called the Absolute, and in Christian religion interpreted as God. I dont really know much about the existance of the parallel universes thus my answer might be a little off as to what you were trying to point to.
User avatar #627 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
Eh, there may very well be an 'Absolute creator', but I certainly do not believe it is a sentient being or a being at all. It could just be a single atom reacting chemically or through nuclear fission for all we know
#634 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
But atom is a part of matter. As such, what would be the cause of its existance.
User avatar #640 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I already told you, we're talking about 'existence' here. Existence has always existed, we're talking about the universe which has come INTO existence
#642 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
By existance you mean a purely existing being or a purely material being? By what you've called the existing existance. Do you mean the chemically reacting atom? Because if so then my point stil stands. Something that is material needs existance from outside. Its existance is per aliud. If you mean pure existance then you mean something non material.
User avatar #643 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
Technically speaking, things that exist on a Quantum level, the atoms which collided to create the big bang, are not 'material'. You're referring to "Outside" in the context of a being outside the universe, I refer to "Outside" as a universe that isn't this one, of which it is generally accepted there are many. Atoms pass through universes all the time, who's to say that they did not appear in a void and collide in a freak accident, or who's to say there was "nothing" at all, as there could have very well been a previous universe beforehand that was destroyed when ours came into being
#644 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
That's the monistic vision of Atomists like Leucippus or Democritus of Abdera. I do not know the concept of the immateriality of atoms you have in mind but i think it does not contradict what I have said. If something is immaterial it would mean that it has no body and collection of such beings would not be able to create body, neither would they be able to collide in any way, as collision is the ability of material being.
User avatar #650 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I would be lying if I said I could explain it properly. The most I can do is suggest you look up Quantum Physics for yourself. You won't be able to get it either, but it'll give you a bearing of what I mean
#651 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
i looked it up but the problem is i need it referenced to the concept of the philosohical matter as a part of the ontic structure of being. But even in the wave description it does not seem like a matterless thing. What might be the cause of misunderstanding is also the different definition of matter we seem to bear in mind. Anyway, ciao, gl&hf
#71 - Everyone's counting on me To cheer them up and give t…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/15/2013 on I would sing Gary┬┤s rap song +23
User avatar #88 - erotictentacle (06/15/2013) [-]
here's the sauce, just in case someone'll ask www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkWWx0YSyM0
#52 - You know what?... You're right. I am mistaken … 06/15/2013 on Smash bros 4 +1
#1087 - Wow, the first post from Canada, and you happen to live in the…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/15/2013 on Let's try an experiment... 0
User avatar #2215 - mehmachine (06/15/2013) [-]
Small world eh
#32 - Yet you obviously care enough to make a post about it  [+] (2 new replies) 06/15/2013 on Smash bros 4 -3
#39 - tedge (06/15/2013) [-]
the post was about smash bros.
thats all that really matters.
User avatar #52 - captainfuckitall (06/15/2013) [-]
You know what?...

You're right. I am mistaken

You deserve all the thumbs you get, my good chum
#112 - There's a lot more to the Big Bang than that, have you even lo…  [+] (11 new replies) 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites +1
#299 - anonymous (06/15/2013) [-]
but the basic thing with the criticism shown here is that there was either eternally something (some kind of matter if we consider the monistic interpretation of most of the fields of science) or nothing out of which came something. Both are quite strange if you think about it. As for once, how can being come into existance from non being. Also about the eternal existance, the difference between God and matter is that matter is purely potential element and its actualization seems to should have came from something with the ability to actualize it.
User avatar #301 - captainfuckitall (06/15/2013) [-]
There is absolutely eternally something, but that eternal something may not always be here. Well there wasn't 'non-being', otherwise you would be right and we wouldn't be here, there is ALWAYS something, but whatever it was was not a part of our known universe or perhaps a different one.
#310 - anonymous (06/15/2013) [-]
Still it depends of if we consider that there could be an nfinite chain of causes we cannot point to the existance of an Absolute creator. However if we consider the chain to be limited then everything that has potential element in it cannot be the final and efficient cause of whole of the creation. Thus every event like big bang points to somethin that caused it, actualized it. The conclusion from that is such, that the ultimate being cannot have potency, thus material element in its structure. Such a thing is called the Absolute, and in Christian religion interpreted as God. I dont really know much about the existance of the parallel universes thus my answer might be a little off as to what you were trying to point to.
User avatar #627 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
Eh, there may very well be an 'Absolute creator', but I certainly do not believe it is a sentient being or a being at all. It could just be a single atom reacting chemically or through nuclear fission for all we know
#634 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
But atom is a part of matter. As such, what would be the cause of its existance.
User avatar #640 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I already told you, we're talking about 'existence' here. Existence has always existed, we're talking about the universe which has come INTO existence
#642 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
By existance you mean a purely existing being or a purely material being? By what you've called the existing existance. Do you mean the chemically reacting atom? Because if so then my point stil stands. Something that is material needs existance from outside. Its existance is per aliud. If you mean pure existance then you mean something non material.
User avatar #643 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
Technically speaking, things that exist on a Quantum level, the atoms which collided to create the big bang, are not 'material'. You're referring to "Outside" in the context of a being outside the universe, I refer to "Outside" as a universe that isn't this one, of which it is generally accepted there are many. Atoms pass through universes all the time, who's to say that they did not appear in a void and collide in a freak accident, or who's to say there was "nothing" at all, as there could have very well been a previous universe beforehand that was destroyed when ours came into being
#644 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
That's the monistic vision of Atomists like Leucippus or Democritus of Abdera. I do not know the concept of the immateriality of atoms you have in mind but i think it does not contradict what I have said. If something is immaterial it would mean that it has no body and collection of such beings would not be able to create body, neither would they be able to collide in any way, as collision is the ability of material being.
User avatar #650 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I would be lying if I said I could explain it properly. The most I can do is suggest you look up Quantum Physics for yourself. You won't be able to get it either, but it'll give you a bearing of what I mean
#651 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
i looked it up but the problem is i need it referenced to the concept of the philosohical matter as a part of the ontic structure of being. But even in the wave description it does not seem like a matterless thing. What might be the cause of misunderstanding is also the different definition of matter we seem to bear in mind. Anyway, ciao, gl&hf
#104 - If you would have finished reading the ONE paragraph, it covers that 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites +1
#103 - It's still HIGHLY unlikely, and goes against what roughly 98% …  [+] (23 new replies) 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites +4
User avatar #108 - GrimTheRealReaper (06/15/2013) [-]
About as unlikely as a random explosion happening out of fucking nowhere right? As unlikely as the particles of tiny ass atoms colliding in just the perfect way to create a rock, then a meteor, then a planet, then you, then your computer, and everything else right? Because it seems EXTREMELY likely that that could all happen by sheer fucking chance with no hand guiding it. You accuse Christians of too much faith when you have the faith to believe something like that could happen out of nowhere.
User avatar #201 - fabbethefirst (06/15/2013) [-]
Well the thing is that even though the chance of that happening is very small, the chance of us living in such a universe is equal to P(humans living in this universe)=1 because it must be so, we cannot live anywhere else, thus the fact that we are able to observe this universe is a constant fact.
#128 - mrloki (06/15/2013) [-]
**mrloki rolled a random image posted in comment #644575 at Anime & Manga - anime shows, anime games, anime art, manga ** how to easily explain why you are totally wrong: what is the chance that over 100 year, someone throwing a coin every 5 seconds, manage to get 5 tails in a row? it's pretty high chance once you factor time and relativity into it
User avatar #414 - traelos (06/15/2013) [-]
Here's the problem with that:

We're not talking about getting tails 5 times in a row.
We're talking more like getting tails 10,000 times in a row.
User avatar #593 - mrloki (06/16/2013) [-]
and we aren't talking about 100 year, we are talking about a non existent number of time, near infinity.
User avatar #605 - traelos (06/16/2013) [-]
Yes but we're also talking about a series of occurrences with a nigh infinite chance of not happening.
#612 - mrloki (06/16/2013) [-]
**mrloki rolled a random image posted in comment #2456154 at Friendly ** let's put it in math 0.0001% x infinite = 100% / 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 x infinite = 100%

it was going to happen eventually, the only problem was how long until mass reached that critical point.
User avatar #619 - traelos (06/16/2013) [-]
But there's no reason time is infinite, which means that there's no reason the chances of the big bang happening couldn't be a smaller fraction than the time it had to do so was a large number.

.000000000000001 * 10000000000000 = .1 while 10000000000000 x .00000000000001 = 1
#623 - mrloki (06/16/2013) [-]
**mrloki rolled a random image posted in comment #4720538 at My Little Pony fanfiction, backgrounds, songs, lyrics, and GIFs. ** now you entered something else, since there was no time as we know before the big bang, the time we consider here is not a linear progression, not any kind of progression. You will need to read over the relation between matter and time, as well as converting energy to matter so we could better explain it. Basically, we can not consider before the bigbang as a time passing but an infinite amount of possibilities happening at a time with no progression. I can't simplify that as I did with the time x probability explanation.

that's basically the same thing you need to read to properly understand what captainfuckitall said.
#624 - traelos (06/16/2013) [-]
That's a theory, and not a very accepted one either.

You're treading a fine line between theoretical physics and Sci-Fi.
#626 - mrloki (06/16/2013) [-]
**mrloki rolled a random image posted in comment #66 at Llullaillaco Maiden ** now you are throwing another controversial theme. The big bang is a theory because all "proof" we have of it comes from physics, logic, chemistry, math ...
beyond all being theory here, what you don't understand can be seen as sci-fi

I won't keep explaining everything here, just look for it on google or wikipedia.

This can help a little : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

and that's it, I'm not replying anymore
User avatar #112 - captainfuckitall (06/15/2013) [-]
There's a lot more to the Big Bang than that, have you even looked it up? It's a folly to try and fight something without knowing exactly what it is or how it works. Furthermore, it didn't happen so instantly like that, it went on for billions upon billions of years. Have you ever heard of the 'Entropy Principle'? It basically means that the longer something is around, the higher the chances of something improbable happening (to the point where, no matter how unlikely it is, it eventually gets to 100% and then happens). It could be said that time was irrelevant before the big bang, as there was nothing that could have recorded the time that passed (For all we know, it could have been a literally uncountable number of years, eventually making the chances of a universe appearing 100%, as well as everything that followed, which has to do with chemistry, physics, biology, quantum physics, and many other things that will take years to master)

Just look it all up, it's easy and you have google
#299 - anonymous (06/15/2013) [-]
but the basic thing with the criticism shown here is that there was either eternally something (some kind of matter if we consider the monistic interpretation of most of the fields of science) or nothing out of which came something. Both are quite strange if you think about it. As for once, how can being come into existance from non being. Also about the eternal existance, the difference between God and matter is that matter is purely potential element and its actualization seems to should have came from something with the ability to actualize it.
User avatar #301 - captainfuckitall (06/15/2013) [-]
There is absolutely eternally something, but that eternal something may not always be here. Well there wasn't 'non-being', otherwise you would be right and we wouldn't be here, there is ALWAYS something, but whatever it was was not a part of our known universe or perhaps a different one.
#310 - anonymous (06/15/2013) [-]
Still it depends of if we consider that there could be an nfinite chain of causes we cannot point to the existance of an Absolute creator. However if we consider the chain to be limited then everything that has potential element in it cannot be the final and efficient cause of whole of the creation. Thus every event like big bang points to somethin that caused it, actualized it. The conclusion from that is such, that the ultimate being cannot have potency, thus material element in its structure. Such a thing is called the Absolute, and in Christian religion interpreted as God. I dont really know much about the existance of the parallel universes thus my answer might be a little off as to what you were trying to point to.
User avatar #627 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
Eh, there may very well be an 'Absolute creator', but I certainly do not believe it is a sentient being or a being at all. It could just be a single atom reacting chemically or through nuclear fission for all we know
#634 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
But atom is a part of matter. As such, what would be the cause of its existance.
User avatar #640 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I already told you, we're talking about 'existence' here. Existence has always existed, we're talking about the universe which has come INTO existence
#642 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
By existance you mean a purely existing being or a purely material being? By what you've called the existing existance. Do you mean the chemically reacting atom? Because if so then my point stil stands. Something that is material needs existance from outside. Its existance is per aliud. If you mean pure existance then you mean something non material.
User avatar #643 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
Technically speaking, things that exist on a Quantum level, the atoms which collided to create the big bang, are not 'material'. You're referring to "Outside" in the context of a being outside the universe, I refer to "Outside" as a universe that isn't this one, of which it is generally accepted there are many. Atoms pass through universes all the time, who's to say that they did not appear in a void and collide in a freak accident, or who's to say there was "nothing" at all, as there could have very well been a previous universe beforehand that was destroyed when ours came into being
#644 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
That's the monistic vision of Atomists like Leucippus or Democritus of Abdera. I do not know the concept of the immateriality of atoms you have in mind but i think it does not contradict what I have said. If something is immaterial it would mean that it has no body and collection of such beings would not be able to create body, neither would they be able to collide in any way, as collision is the ability of material being.
User avatar #650 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I would be lying if I said I could explain it properly. The most I can do is suggest you look up Quantum Physics for yourself. You won't be able to get it either, but it'll give you a bearing of what I mean
#651 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
i looked it up but the problem is i need it referenced to the concept of the philosohical matter as a part of the ontic structure of being. But even in the wave description it does not seem like a matterless thing. What might be the cause of misunderstanding is also the different definition of matter we seem to bear in mind. Anyway, ciao, gl&hf
#101 - Eh, nobody is forcing you to read through this or comment on i…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
User avatar #332 - tastycrisps (06/15/2013) [-]
While most of the time that is true, I get a lot of with from my mom. She didn't even know I was an athiest until she over over heard me talking to my friend about it. Now she wont leave me alone.
User avatar #628 - captainfuckitall (06/16/2013) [-]
I feel your pain, believe it or not. If it makes it easier, just tell her you're religious and she'll be happy and leave you alone. Sure it'll make you a liar, but she's not exactly making it easy for you
#99 - 7. There IS no absolute morality, as morals and ethics are com… 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites +3
#86 - 1. It's true that many Atheists use crimes committed by Theist…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites +3
#102 - bobbyshallunite (06/15/2013) [-]
They can commit crime because they believe there is no god to judge them.
User avatar #104 - captainfuckitall (06/15/2013) [-]
If you would have finished reading the ONE paragraph, it covers that
User avatar #99 - captainfuckitall (06/15/2013) [-]
7. There IS no absolute morality, as morals and ethics are completely subjective and up to opinion and debate; however, this does not mean you are not allowed to feel emotions such as anger (besides, most anger in that situation would be directed to the fact that the person scammed them and ruined their day, rather than the fact that they are scamming people at all)

8. Eh, I can understand the issue, but you also have to give it some wiggle room. For example, I am absolutely sure there is no such thing as 'time' in the traditional sense, but that does not mean there is not a process that happens between growth and decay that can be defined as 'time'

9. See 1. Christianity (while this should be focused on ALL religion) has done many bad things since it has come into creation, however, that doesn't mean all its practitioners must be evil

10. This is the only one I absolutely agree with. Than again, at the same time, when a religious person crams their religion down your throat, it's because they think you are a heretic of sorts and you're going to die and suffer for eternity if you do not convert. Atheists just think you're an idiot

11. See 1. This is also a logical fallacy. While it's true that these men were very religious, they did not study and achieve those accomplishments BECAUSE they were religious.

12. See 1, again. This is ALSO a logical fallacy ('No True Scotsman'). While it's true that stereotypes and generalization are bad, it can be commonly agreed upon that stereotypes exist because of the majority. While the majority of christians (and theists in general) many not be bad, they certainly can be very uptight and defensive.

Let it be known that I am a very religious person myself. However, this does not mean I ignore evidence, logistics, or basic principles of rationality. While it may comfort you to believe something, you should never treat it as truth simple because it appeals to you (and this goes BOTH ways as well)
#8 - "But it's only been FIVE MINUETS! How could you have gone… 06/15/2013 on Tardy by TARDIS +10
#56 - He's lying, I know it, I know it, I know it, I can feel it in … 06/14/2013 on Walmart 0

Comments(507):

[ 507 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#513 - anonymous (02/16/2015) [-]
I thought I'd waste some time also, and FIX yo' thumbs ;)
#514 to #513 - anonymous (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (09/30/2014) [-]
You seem REALLY mad, friend. Perhaps you should calm down and take some ass ointment before you need to see a doctor
User avatar #489 - myfourthaccount (07/18/2014) [-]
dude, you're like my most favorite person on earth right now haha
User avatar #487 - imvlad (05/04/2014) [-]
you brought shame to your house
User avatar #483 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Have you by chance had an older account here before?
User avatar #484 to #483 - captainfuckitall (04/22/2014) [-]
Yes I have. My first username was Hiimquinn, but it was deleted for some reason I never found, so I just made another.
#485 to #484 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Oh. Never mind then. I saw someone call you Dave and I mistook you for someone else.
User avatar #486 to #485 - captainfuckitall (04/22/2014) [-]
It's fine. It was a joke from a picture a while back where a man was looking out the window and saw a dog and his owner walking down the street. The dog barked at another, bigger dog, and his owner just turned and said "See, this is why you have no ******* mates, Dave".
User avatar #481 - iforgotmyothername (03/20/2014) [-]
you are one cool tempered potato compared to me, bringing my fury upon your wrongness. i salute you, and thumbed up all your comments in the a capella debate.
User avatar #482 to #481 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
It's alright, I apologize for making you upset, but you don't need to thumb my posts up. Thumbs are a way to express positivity or negativity toward any type of comments; if you do not like them, it is perfectly within your right to thumb them down.
User avatar #474 - aherorising (11/20/2013) [-]
you're a really cool bro
#471 - shiifter (10/06/2013) [-]
This still makes me giggle.

Oh and by the way, i never actually thumbed you down. I just said that i did.
User avatar #472 to #471 - captainfuckitall (10/06/2013) [-]
The thing is, the way I found OUT you gave me those thumbs was because of the question mark, which allows people to see who voted on content. I could only KNOW it was you if you had thumbed them down, which you did.

And now you not only prove to be an idiot, but a liar as well.
#473 to #472 - shiifter (10/12/2013) [-]
Wait? You still remembered that? That's hilarious.

By the way, i screencapped this. it's like a trophy.
User avatar #468 - satrenkotheone ONLINE (09/22/2013) [-]
I would just like to say thank you.
#466 - anonymous (08/25/2013) [-]
Due to your pointlessly rude comment on the post "Jesus ain't got time for **** ",

I have gone through 20 of your previous comments and thumbed them all down.

You're also a stupid, unfunny, tryhard feelfag. Exactly the kind of user that this site is infamous for.
User avatar #467 to #466 - captainfuckitall (08/25/2013) [-]
I wasn't pointlessly rude. If you read it more carefully, you would find I am not insulting your god or faith, but rather, the people who spread it about; and even they are just doing it to themselves, while I am mearly making an observation

It's ironic you call me tryhard, considering you just went through the time to thumb-down my last 20 comments as if it would have any effect on me personally or my ranking here. It's also odd you call me stupid, considering you were the one who read it uncorrectly. And I think the fact I have so many comment thumbs anyways (including my own jesus comment) speaks to the point that I am, in fact, quite hilarious. "Feelfag", is that supposed to be a derogatory term for someone who is passionate about certain things? If so, then I take pride in it, as it is only through passion that things grow.

Considering you are pretentious, arrogant, immature, and without a sense of humour; you fit the criteria for '12 year old funnyjunker' far better than I do.
#463 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.   
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.   
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.   
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
User avatar #464 to #463 - captainfuckitall (07/16/2013) [-]
You are just a wonderful person, you know that? Thank you very much for your kind words and appreciation, and I'm glad you have made an account and made many friends here, including myself
#465 to #464 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
You're welcome, good sir.
You're welcome, good sir.
[ 507 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)