Upload
Login or register

fredthedead

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:10/18/2011
Stats
Comment Ranking:#8316
Highest Content Rank:#2849
Highest Comment Rank:#4804
Content Thumbs: 3047 total,  3715 ,  668
Comment Thumbs: 1587 total,  1850 ,  263
Content Level Progress: 88% (88/100)
Level 127 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 128 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 22% (22/100)
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:169893
Times Content Favorited:182 times
Total Comments Made:190
FJ Points:4037

Text Posts

First2[ 11 ]
First2[ 11 ]
First2[ 11 ]

latest user's comments

#554 - Does theese "kissed-a-girl-once fags" realize that n…  [+] (1 reply) 11/10/2016 on WE DID IT LADS +1
User avatar
#557 - donnydarko (11/10/2016) [-]
Having seen Islam up close and personal, my friend, we should all be a lot more scared of their eventual rule. After the nuclear Apocalypse the only thing left will be the cockroaches and the Muslims.
#98 - F 10/31/2016 on FBI (ANON) RISES 0
#47 - sure, about 10 people of the entire population have that kind …  [+] (3 replies) 10/29/2016 on 75th anniversary -6
#85 - jeveasy (10/30/2016) [-]
"10" try dozens.
User avatar
#123 - fredthedead (10/30/2016) [-]
Dozens, sure lets say 10 000 dozens, thats 12 * 10 000 = 120 000
(120 000 / 7 500 000 000) * 100 = 0.0016 %

Wow, so many, the chance of this person standing in front of me being a superhuman is insaaaaaaane
User avatar
#48 - ogthegreat (10/29/2016) [-]
Kryptonian, yeah. But super strength is a dime a dozen in DC. I can't say the same for average intelligence in the real world though.
#13 - When someone strap themselves with explosives, fill their pock…  [+] (2 replies) 10/26/2016 on Nasual -1
User avatar
#15 - bgr (10/26/2016) [-]
*that *is, sorry phone tying is stupid
User avatar
#14 - bgr (10/26/2016) [-]
Youre right, i do care what they believe in. And i hate it.

Which is why i will never let religious ideology creep into US law as a free american, and the constitution helps me achieve exactly hat. I dont care if the source if Islam, Christianity or any religion. Individual liberties will not be infringed upon.
#32 - The idea those who created this wristband had in mind was to m…  [+] (3 replies) 10/26/2016 on SWEDEN YES +2
User avatar
#75 - zioken (10/27/2016) [-]
Is there one for theft and murder too? I didn't think you had to show you were against a very grievous crime
#112 - flufflepuff (10/27/2016) [-]
they're trying to show the citizens they aren't supporting all these rapists


it's easy to see how they could think that, letting them all in and then hardly punishing them and stuff
User avatar
#70 - carlonord (10/27/2016) [-]
>Kind of like cancer wristbands.

The point of the wristbands to show solidarity and bring awareness, not to spread the illness itself.
#10 - So you have proof that Allah, Jesus and the boys didnt visit o…  [+] (14 replies) 10/25/2016 on Big +11
#148 - anon (10/26/2016) [-]
get yo smug anime girls outta here
User avatar
#18 - ruba (10/26/2016) [-]
You are making the claim that they did, the burden of proof is on you.
User avatar
#29 - reycall (10/26/2016) [-]
actually no he is not making that claim. He maid the claim that OP claimed that there is no proof that "god" visited other worlds. In short the burden of proof is on OP or whoever supports the thesis claim.
User avatar
#43 - karenoniks (10/26/2016) [-]
I though Burden Of Proof only applied to positive statements.
There is no proof that Unicorns exist - Negative statement
There is proof that Unicorns exist - Positive statement

You can't exactly prove a negative statement reliably, but you can prove a positive statement and you have to prove it or else it is presumed false.
User avatar
#221 - reycall (10/26/2016) [-]
That rule is also fucking stupid as all hell and cant be held for subjective accountability.

look a negative statement

the nazis did not endorse the use of capitalist political workings..... and that can be proven reliably.


look a positive statement

there is somewhere between 100 to 200 people masturbating furiously in a bunny costume while listening to ACDC's back in black at this exact second of my post..... There is no way to accurately prove this.



all statements and claims should be immediately backed up by proof. and what fredthedead said was that OP did not provide proof for his argument. He didnt make a claim of somethings accuracy, he maid a claim that someone has no proof. This means that there isnt a need for him to shoulder the burden of proof... as he never said anything that needed to be proven/we already have proof for (that op did not provided proof of his claim at the time of the post)
#184 - anon (10/26/2016) [-]
The idea that you can't prove a negative statement is usually thrown around on the internet but you'll never find any philosopher worth his salt support that because you certainly can prove a negative statement. For example, logically incoherent negatives can be proven EG there are no married bachelor's. Or if there is proof of the negative - there are no toasters orbiting the sun in space - we never launched a toaster, toasters have never been found in space, toasters are not naturally occurring extraterrestrial objects, and nobody else could have put a toaster there. Basically if a claim is made for a negative, the burden of proof does not automatically rest on the positive.
User avatar
#144 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/26/2016) [-]
That is correct. You are not obligated to prove a negative claim or disbelief at another claim, as proving a negative is virtually impossible. This is the exact reason that science is based off of the idea that if there is no evidence supporting a claim, then you assume the claim is untrue until which time that evidence is provided. This is also by far the most rational stance to have as a human, and even the most devout religious fanatic unconsciously does it.

A Christian may believe in angels, imps, hellfire, and magic jews, but usually they will think the idea of fairies, unicorns, and goblins to be ridiculous. After all, there is zero real evidence supporting the existence of the latter, but for the faithful, that same idea of evidence being necessary for belief does not apply to their religion. The worst is when people entirely misunderstand what the burden of proof is, and think that anybody skeptical on the concepts of god or magic somehow have to prove them wrong, rather than them prove themselves right.
User avatar
#222 - reycall (10/26/2016) [-]
expet that negative statments can be checked and verified all the time. It is not the way you make your claim... because you can word anything differently in order to make it positive or negative.

It is the subject matter at hand.

The most rational stance as a human is to say: if we can reliably prove its false then its false, if we can reliably prove it is true then its true. If we cant reliably prove if it is false or true then we will wait and keep testing until we can in fact really prove a claim one way or the other.


To discredit something because of the way is worded or with limited knowledge of the facts/possibilities/variables is foolhardy at best and reckless and irresponsible at worst.
#228 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/27/2016) [-]
"expet that negative statments can be checked and verified all the time. It is not the way you make your claim... because you can word anything differently in order to make it positive or negative."

You don't understand what a "positive" or "negative" claim is then. A positive claim is claiming something to exist or to be true. For example, if you say "fairies exist at some place on th planet", that is a positive statement, and requires proof that fairies exist. Saying that "fairies do not exist because there is no evidence they do" is a negative statement, and does not need proof. The reason it doesn't need proof is because it's impossible to provide. In order to prove fairies exist, you simply need to show proof of ONE fairy that lives somewhere on the planet. In order to prove that fairies don't exist, you'd have to simultaneously observe every place on the planet at once to prove that at no place and time there was a fairy. It's impossible. That's why all rational and scientific arguments are based off of the burden of proof. The only people who disagree simply do not understand the concept, because it forms the basis of quite literally everything in our life.

What you claim is the "most rational" stance is not supported by reality. The entirety of our justice system, science, and all argumentation is based off of the burden of proof. You can't change that simply because it proves inconvenient for your religious beliefs.

"To discredit something because of the way is worded or with limited knowledge of the facts/possibilities/variables is foolhardy at best and reckless and irresponsible at worst."

Then you believe fairies are real and that aliens control all governments and corporations on the planet? Since belief in claims does not rely on evidence, then surely you must believe both those claims? If you don't, then explain how that can be possible given your previous rationalizations.
#234 - reycall (10/27/2016) [-]
ok here is a positive statement

"there is somewhere between 100 to 200 people masturbating furiously in a bunny costume while listening to ACDC's back in black at this exact second of my post with a lasting interval of 10 seconds"

Thats positive... prove that for me.


here is a negative
"the nazis did not endorse the use of capitalist political workings"

Thats not exactly hard to prove wrong......


What you are trying to say is. Well we have no way of knowing, so its best to ignore it for now... Admitily thats fine.

But thats not what you are actually referring to, what you say is. We have no way of knowing so it is not true.

Thats the apex of this position you take.


"Then you believe fairies are real and that aliens control all governments and corporations on the planet?"

my response to that, is that it isnt likely; HOWEVER, i dont have proof so I cant make a final stance on that. That, is the most rational and sound way to approach problems and IT IS HOW OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM WORKS! We analyses facts long enough until we ave a jury that can agree that the facts are all strong enough to say guilty or not guilty. If they cant decide because of lack of facts they pass it on to the next jury.
User avatar
#237 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/27/2016) [-]
" That, is the most rational and sound way to approach problems and IT IS HOW OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM WORKS"

Also incorrect. The judicial system assumes innocence until guilt is proven. You can make any claim you want in the courts, but if there is insufficient evidence to support the claim then it is assumed false. Don't just take my word for it though:

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

2/2
User avatar
#239 - reycall (10/27/2016) [-]
That is how it is and must constructed in order to save peoples face. Claims of murder are serious and just the claim could ruin your life, thats why we assume innocent.. so innocent people do not get their life destroyed.

HOWEVER

in practive a jury doesnt know if they are inocent or not, they operate based on facts and make their unanimous decision. If a jury cant agree then it is turned over to a new jury that can until finally if they cant decide, the law system for the sake of moving the case along says there is not enough prove to say he is guilty and thus cant be charged.... This is as good as saying we don't know and just need this of our plate.
User avatar
#236 - nigeltheoutlaw (10/27/2016) [-]
You seem to misunderstand several things still. One, I said that "proving a negative is virtually impossible", not that it is impossible. Sure, you can pull out one example that is easy to prove wrong, but what about something like proving "I have no raped somebody at some point in my life", or "I am not an android built to be impossible to tell apart from humans in any way who was 'born' to parents with implanted memories." There is no way to prove those two examples wrong unless you had multiple witnesses watching you every second of every day for the former, and I do not think there would be a way to prove the latter wrong. You picked an example you KNEW was wrong in order to try to show that proving a negative was wrong in order to further your misunderstanding of what the burden of proof is. A more accurate corollary for how difficult it can be to prove a negative would be to say "If the Nazis had won WWII, the world would be peaceful and prosperous after the war and genocide ended". It's impossible to disprove that claim because there IS no evidence, and no way to obtain that evidence at this point in time.

This is also why I have had the fairy example. It's far from the only one either: take Russel's Teapot (google it for more info). Let's say that somewhere in our solar system there is a china teapot orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit. This teapot can not be detected through any known methods, but I insist it is there. You can not prove me wrong without observing the whole of the solar system visually at a close enough distance to see a small china teapot, so in effect, my claim can not be disproved by you. This is the claim you are making with god. So please, tell me, how would you prove that negative claim? It's scientifically unfalsifiable, but you are incredibly insistent that the burden of proof does not exist, so please explain how such disproval could come to pass.

Yes, these are kind of silly examples, but you are thinking too small for the discussion at hand. You are trying to compare a singular event with a wide range of evidence proving that something else happened to the argument that in a universe of billions, if not trillions, or stars, there is a being that resembles your Abrahamic God at some point in space and time. For me to prove that was false, I would have to observe everything in existence from before the beginning of time in order to determine definitely if god was real or not. This isn't just currently impossible, it is impossible. There will never be a point in time that humanity can directly observe every part of the universe at all points in time in every single way. All you have to do is provide a handful of different kinds of evidence to prove the existence of god, yet you think it rational to expect humans to observe literally everything ever in every conceivable way to prove YOU wrong? How is that rational in any way?

"But thats not what you are actually referring to, what you say is. We have no way of knowing so it is not true."

That is wrong. What I am saying is: if there is no evidence for a claim, then logic dictates that you assume that claim is false until some evidence is provided. This doesn't just apply to god, it applies to ALL claims, because the only way to seek some fact of life is to only consider the things that can be supported through evidence. You and everyone else are free to make any fantastic claims you wish in the absence of evidence, and it is the responsibility of rational people to only accept claims with evidence supporting the claim.

1/2
User avatar
#240 - reycall (10/27/2016) [-]
if you willingly admit that your way of judging is not completely infallible why should we use it? No one takes this positive negative stuff in the real world seriously exactly because of this, it can be skewed. And i did not pick those examples to further my understanding and confirmation of anything. I picked them to show you there are very explotable flaws with your way of deeming what needs to shoulder the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on any one who makes any claim..... thats the point. Whether it positive or negative in wording. If it is so out there that we dont know, we say we dont know and you need to provide more evidence that proves your right and we will also wait for someone to come with enough evidence to say you are wrong..... that is the burden of proof.


yes even in rustles tea pot that is true, we cant prove you wrong unless we do obeserve every nook and cranny of the universe or create a machine that detects reliably all tea pots in the universe.

and here is where you dont follow me

so yes for all we know there might be a tea pot. but in reality we say it is unlikely. BUT WE CANT SAY WE KNOW THERE ISNT.... Why cant we say that, because we have not checked and verified and come with enough proof to say otherwise.

It is the same thing with god. Yes it is unlikely that god exists, but we cant say "WITH OUT A DOUBT THERE IS NO GOD." Why cant we say that, because we dont actually know and untill we do it is best just to wait for more evidence of its existence or lack of.

I will say it is your thining that is rather small. In an universe with thousands of unexplored posibilities/sciences/discoveries... You have fermented your position and say "no". I on the other hand see that there is a biger picture that frankly i dont know enough about and untill i do i say "i dont know".


you seem to think that i belive there is a god, i dont know why you do. I have not maid that claim.. not in this thread or the other we are talking about. I have hypothesized as to perhaps the Abraham god is just a shape he presented to the middle eastern people while instead he came to the Indians as Ashura. and the karbongs zialians of planet animetitdies as Ormagphor. These are just hypothasis not belives i hold and i dont claim they are true because i lack evidence. But thats the point, we dont know.. and untill we do we cant reliably make a claim.

Now thats a leap in what we are talking about. Yes logic can dictate how we act upon things we dont have full understanding on. We all do that, we all make educated decisions when we dont have enough facts..... But thats not the same as taking the stance we lack enough evidence so that must be false. Logic and making finite claims although have relations are still very different things.


You frankly have done me a dis service and have asumed some things about me that are not true and i resent that. Because it is an unfounded attack on my character or biases that frankly are not true.

Im not "You and everyone else are free to make any fantastic claims you wish in the absence of evidence" as you say. I have repeatedly stated that i dont know and i will withhold my judgment untill we have more facts.

IT IS YOU who have made your irresponsible decision with out enough evidence to back it up.
#6 - yall need this game  [+] (14 replies) 10/25/2016 on /v/ likes Harry Potter +47
User avatar
#61 - ganjalf (10/28/2016) [-]
Grinding simulator

Not even the sexual kind of grinding
#34 - senjougahara (10/26/2016) [-]
dont bother people. like commando said, there is too much grinding for very little porn and the scenes arent thay great.
but you're still interested, i would recommend at least princess trainer. Its still a bit grindy but at least the cgs are pretty nice.
User avatar
#39 - godlydesu (10/26/2016) [-]
grinding?
User avatar
#41 - senjougahara (10/26/2016) [-]
its a point and click kind of game.
you are giving certain goals to accomplish and to do so, you gotta click dialogue options after another in order to achieve certain scenes.
in witch trainer, you need to convince hermoine to do sexual favors in exchange for house points or whatever they get in the series in order for Griffindore to be in the lead. over time, she can do more extreme favors but you have to continually do stupid things like read erotica and books to open up more dialogue options.
the game is honestly a waste of time due to the lack of scenes and how little they are.
#35 - anon (10/26/2016) [-]
skazgames.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25

Modded version by russians.

is better
User avatar
#20 - reycall (10/26/2016) [-]
it was a big disappointment.
User avatar
#11 - clonedcommando (10/25/2016) [-]
Meh too much grinding for way too little actual porn most of the sex is seen a tiny sprites with little to no visible stuff.
User avatar
#14 - congthea (10/26/2016) [-]
Just download a near complete save
#31 - Gute (10/26/2016) [-]
How
User avatar
#7 - khaller (10/25/2016) [-]
where's that soss, boss?
User avatar
#50 - InsomniacDreamer (10/26/2016) [-]
Just dl'd it played through for a few hours, realized some content was never implemented. Did some looking and found it was never fully completed. Though there are some other people that picked up where akabur left off.
User avatar
#13 - bakonforall (10/26/2016) [-]
Nice!
User avatar
#10 - khaller (10/25/2016) [-]
sank yu
[ 189 Total ]