Upload
Login or register

fogglebeast

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:11/23/2011
Last Login:7/24/2016
Location:Heemscreeble
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#32010
Highest Comment Rank:#1891
Comment Thumbs: 4211 total,  4962 ,  751
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 68% (68/100)
Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 232 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:445
FJ Points:3199

latest user's comments

#18 - That doesn't make sense - many people want to do X but don't d… 07/22/2015 on The Truth Hurts 0
#220 - An interesting point, but a point I've considered in the past.… 07/22/2015 on Lol 0
#214 - In ancient history polygamy was widespread in the east, and at…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/22/2015 on Lol 0
#218 - anon (07/22/2015) [-]
I agree with you with not being guided by emotions; but remember that before all that logic: it was an emotion that started your relationship.
So all the logic that came after is based on a feeling that told you to be with your partner...unless of course you did it for a visa, money, sex, etc (material things).
User avatar
#220 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
An interesting point, but a point I've considered in the past. Here's how I think following passions can be okay:

- Imagine you have a choice to make consisting of options A and B.
- Both options would lead to different outcomes, except option A would be more emotionally satisfying. Neither option would cause harm.
- One may as well pick option A since it will be more satisfying at no extra cost.

What can these options represent? Well, imagine a child walking along with an opportunity to jump in a puddle. If they do it, they'll get satisfaction, then continue as normal; if they don't, they'll miss out on the satisfaction but then carry on as normal. As long as it has no negative consequences, we can agree that they may as well go for the satisfying option.

With a relationship, one can choose to enter it, or not enter it. Neither choice will cause indefinite harm, so if the people consent they may as well go for it as it will be emotionally satisfying.

My argument is that within a relationship, if partner X forbids partner Y to have sex with someone else because they're following their emotions, they do cause harm, since partner Y is denied their autonomy. It works both ways - each partner wants to be selfish, yet for some reason the monogamous, controlling partner always wins. I think that's unfair, as partner Y having sex with someone else doesn't do any non-emotional harm to partner X.
#213 - But it goes both ways - why should their desires to restrict y… 07/22/2015 on Lol 0
#212 - Someone has a different person, so they must have a personalit… 07/22/2015 on Lol 0
#211 - "[P]hilo major pleb" - I am indeed (or was). Philoso… 07/22/2015 on Lol 0
#129 - I'm making all of my arguments from a logical point of view, w…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -2
User avatar
#136 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
The douche defending sleeping with multiple partners while in a relationship is calling me weak willed
hah

you can't pull that "oh not letting your partner sleep around is you hurting them" bullshit.
if YOU as a polygamist chooses that lifestyle, then that's your thing and you need to be 100% open about it before getting into a relationship.
otherwise, it IS you hurting your partner

anyway, I'm done with this because you sound like you have some kind of personality disorder.
User avatar
#212 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
Someone has a different person, so they must have a personality disorder - fine reasoning, friendo.

And thanks for not answering the question - it proves that you're just an emotional, clingy person who is incapable of logical reasoning. I knew you wouldn't be able to remain consistent.
#121 - So if someone would get emotionally upset in response to your …  [+] (4 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
User avatar
#122 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
you're a dumb motherfucker man
if you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person
hurt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally
what if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight
BIG difference and you sound like a dumbass little kid
User avatar
#129 - fogglebeast (07/21/2015) [-]
I'm making all of my arguments from a logical point of view, whereas you seem to be a slave to your emotions. You have a weak will, and so I'd say you sound like a "dumbass kid", to be honest. Anyway, let's adress your points:

"[I]f you love someone, you don't do anything to hurt that person" - but by restricting your partner and commanding them to have no other relationships, you could be hurting them. It's a two-way street and it sounds like you think your desires are more important than your partner's.

"[H]urt feelings is so fucking different from hurting someone emotionally" - No, that's the same thing.

"[W]hat if your mother told you she hated you? how would that feel to you?
as opposed to her telling you that you're fat and need to lose weight " - I would respect that she exercises her own autonomy. Why would I be so pathetic as to get hurt feelings just because someone else hated me? It's their opinion and they have the right to it. (Plus, It'd be more likely that she'd want me to put on weight - I'm as slim as I am patient, and your rebuttals require a fair share of patience.)

You need to become stronger-willed, and just like everyone else in this thread, you ignore my questions about consistency, so I'll ask it again:

- If your partner said they'd be upset if you talked to other people, would you then never speak to anyone else again?

- If you answer yes, then you're more of a servant to their needs than an equal
- If you answer no, then you're being logically inconsistent
User avatar
#136 - therealfell (07/21/2015) [-]
The douche defending sleeping with multiple partners while in a relationship is calling me weak willed
hah

you can't pull that "oh not letting your partner sleep around is you hurting them" bullshit.
if YOU as a polygamist chooses that lifestyle, then that's your thing and you need to be 100% open about it before getting into a relationship.
otherwise, it IS you hurting your partner

anyway, I'm done with this because you sound like you have some kind of personality disorder.
User avatar
#212 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
Someone has a different person, so they must have a personality disorder - fine reasoning, friendo.

And thanks for not answering the question - it proves that you're just an emotional, clingy person who is incapable of logical reasoning. I knew you wouldn't be able to remain consistent.
#120 - (Your last paragraph appeals somewhat to authority - that's a …  [+] (2 new replies) 07/21/2015 on Lol -1
User avatar
#135 - donatelo (07/21/2015) [-]
"logical fallacy" are you a philo major pleb? likewise, somewhat..is it or not. because im sure as hell its not, im establishing crediblity and common ground, which is obivously lacking in this conversation.

you argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself. That is a luxury that is established by the modern world, im talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother so to speak.

no shit...again, by new world i mean culture...since in my original i said culturally people can be polygomous...however originally we evolved due to our monogomous relationships (shit flinging times). "neither are intrinsic" why contradict yourself further? your argument is not even an argument anymore, its just trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain.

no shit...im establishing credibility to show that i atleast have common knowledge as it pertains to this issue...and everything points to humans being naturally monogamous. This is not my area of expertise, but i still studied it.
User avatar
#211 - fogglebeast (07/22/2015) [-]
"[P]hilo major pleb" - I am indeed (or was). Philosophy teaches one how to make logical arguments, and philosophy student or not, using logical fallacies is a bit retarded, and so you'd be best avoiding them. If everyone learnt philosophy (or at the very least formal logic) there would be a lot less idiocy in the world (and if you're okay with making logical fallacies then you're twice the pleb I could possibly even try be).

"[Y]ou argued that it was man made, but if its also natural you contradcit yourself." - No I didn't. Anything man-made is natural - the houses humans build, the aeroplanes, the nuclear power plants - are you suggesting they're all supernatural or something? You can't wriggle out of it by simply stating that your opponent has contradicted themselves when really you just don't know how to properly rebut the argument.

"[I]'m talking about monogomy evloving alongside humans when they were still flinging shit at eachother..." - any evidence to back it up? Scientists usually argue that it is very difficult to know if early humans were monogamous or polygamous. I'm saying that modern humans are polygamous, and there's an abundance of proof for that.

"why contradict yourself further?" - Again, I'm not contradicting at all (seriously, you can't just keep saying that to try and win an argument - it fails miserably and makes you seem either lazy or dim). I merely stated that "we can at the very least say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous, but neither are intrinsic to the human condition. " - Note, "we can at the very least" - that is not to say that we do say that, just that we can, or could if we were to meet half-way. And though humans are naturally polygamous, it isn't a contradiction for me to say that humans can be either polygamous or monogamous - for example, humans naturally seek sex, yet some humans are celibate. Stop saying that things are contradictions when they're not.

"[J]ust trying to take down both sides ala sinking the ship to kill the captain. " - No, I'm trying to take both views into consideration. This is what philosophy is all about; rather than just being stubborn and ignoring every other argument that goes against your own beliefs, one should consider the opposition and then logically rebut the argument - your rebuts are neither logical nor well-constructed, but I'm assuming that's probably because you're not accustomed to placing together well-made arguments in your human biology class.

"[I]'m establishing credibility" - you're merely a student; your knowledge is severely limited on the subject compared to experts. When it comes to logical arguments you're fine as long as you can avoid being fallacious, yet you struggle with that a bit.

" [E]verything points to humans being naturally monogamous" - quite the assertion, especially since this content is all about cheating. Stop ignoring the facts that humans have multiple partners throughout their lifetimes, that they cheat, and that many cultures throughout history have been polygamous.
#109 - How does that destroy my arguments? If humans were naturally m… 07/21/2015 on Lol -1