Upload
Login or register

misfitxcreepx

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 32
Date Signed Up:3/07/2011
Location:Vegas
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#16937
Highest Content Rank:#25864
Highest Comment Rank:#4276
Content Thumbs: 15 total,  17 ,  2
Comment Thumbs: 1402 total,  1706 ,  304
Content Level Progress: 32.2% (19/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 5% (5/100)
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:115
Total Comments Made:560
FJ Points:1427

latest user's comments

#32 - Your logic is sound. Agnostic does literally mean not knowing.…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/18/2015 on awkward erection +2
#33 - sytheris (12/18/2015) [-]
Indeed, the meaning of words change over time, this is why I encourage people to define words when in these kinds of discussions.

If that was the consistent common meaning of Agnostic, I'd at least accept it as a common definition, but I've heard three different definitions for it that are similar, but have very different repercussions down the line. 'A God(s) exist but I don't know which / Gods might exist, I don't know / I don't know if it's possible for gods to exist', etc.

Indeed, the supposed 'neutrality' position is another definition, but I'd respond that belief is dichotic. You believe or you do not believe. "it's impossible to know" doesn't say if you believe or you don't believe, meaning you're still either Atheist, Theist, or unsure.

"It seems maybe you assume everyone has "taken a side" on the topic." - I try not to, but my above point explains my rather strict stance here. Belief is a dichotomy. There is literally no third position when asking if you believe in X, the answer is Yes or No.

"You can be skeptical of the existence, but still understand that fundamentally you can't know, so to say there aren't gods is just as much an act of faith as claiming there are." - Assuming you need to be 100% confident in any answer you give, that would be true, but I don't hold that stance. c:

Picture is me when getting into a good discussion.
User avatar
#52 - misfitxcreepx (12/18/2015) [-]
Yeah, while I was typing I questioned if not claiming a side would essentially be not believing. And I suppose it is.

Maybe my issues is more that when you say atheist, there's a sense of finality to the word. If someone tells me they're an agnostic atheist, if I don't have a discussion with them about it, my first thought is that they "don't know, so they don't believe" but more sternly than that implies. "Atheist" to me implies a certainty of non existence. Even agnostic atheist, while there is that "we can't know" element to it, it gives an air of "but there is no god." Whereas simply "agnostic" seems more of just "I don't know if there is one." Maybe agnostic lends itself to me as an expression of "we can't know, so it's pointless to claim one way or the other." But again, that brings us back around to if that is the same as not believing.

And I know that this is all just my own perceptions of the words and the weight they carry. On a level without implications of words, I suppose you're right. To be agnostic without claiming a side is to not believe. It's just also not discounting the possibility. So it doesn't really speak to the belief of the individual, only the thought process.

And unfortunately, I do need to be 100% confident in a lot of answers I give haha. I choose my words very carefully as to not deal in absolutes unless I'm certain. I lean on the side of atheism, but know I don't really have evidence of gods not existing. I don't have enough evidence one way or the other to say anything certainly. But I suppose when it comes down to it I don't "believe" there are gods.
#57 - sytheris (12/18/2015) [-]
I pretty much agree on the bits that aren't your opinion, and think the bits about your opinion are pretty meritus self-reflection. Not much else to say.
User avatar
#81 - misfitxcreepx (12/18/2015) [-]
Certainly. Yesterday was a weird day for me with a lot of self reflection. I was kind of just thinking out loud at you lol
#82 - sytheris (12/18/2015) [-]
Never a bad thing. I'm admittedly a little flattered. Cheers.
#13 - Well you gotta consider also that it's not even winter for the… 11/27/2015 on Melbourne +1
#93 - That's true, it did likely hurt the author. I know in my exper…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/21/2015 on R-pats on twilight +1
User avatar
#94 - adplum (11/21/2015) [-]
yeah pretty much.
#64 - Eh that comparison is shaky. That would be more like the autho…  [+] (3 new replies) 11/20/2015 on R-pats on twilight 0
User avatar
#65 - adplum (11/20/2015) [-]
I dont really agree with you on that. Youre painting him like he's not one of the biggest influences in the movie. A large portion of the audience for twilight was the fangirls who loved edward, if you dont remember back when it came out. Sure it wont turn fans away from future movies they make, but it will turn them away from future books and subsequent movies based off those books by the same author (which did seem to happen with the host.) I'm not saying he can't have his own opinion, everyone has their right to that, but he's taken it to the level of being almost preachy about it. He's not payed to say he likes them, youre right, but that doesn't mean he should shout it out to the world that theyre the worst movies ever.
It just seems rude to me. It's like doing someone's yard work and shitting on their lawn after. I dunno, maybe its just business so he can further his career, i mean the movies made him famous but really not in the way someone would have wanted. He's done a good job at reversing everyones opinion of him, hes just taking it a bit too far if you ask me.
User avatar
#93 - misfitxcreepx (11/21/2015) [-]
That's true, it did likely hurt the author. I know in my experience I've heard the books were far better than the movies (like usual) but most people probably won't have heard that. They'll just see "author of twilight" and be turned off from future/past books by her.

I have been kind of playing devil's advocate here btw. I do think it's rude for him to shit on them so much, but I certainly don't think it hurts the profits for the movies much. The author yes, which is unfortunate, but I do think it's smart for him career wise. And maybe he did take it too far, honestly I don't know. The only times I see him or hear of him talking about it are in these comps. But it is entirely possible that he takes it farther than need be.

I think we've kinda come to an agreement? Of sorts... haha
User avatar
#94 - adplum (11/21/2015) [-]
yeah pretty much.
#51 - But why isn't it just? Most likely he signed a contract for X …  [+] (5 new replies) 11/20/2015 on R-pats on twilight +5
User avatar
#61 - adplum (11/20/2015) [-]
because it would be like an inventor making a product for a company, then publicly saying that product is shit and you shouldnt use it. He's costing them money and customers for something they payed him for. Not only that, literally any time he gets press its him talking about how shitty the movies are. At this point theres not even heart to it, it's just because he wants people to not hate him for doing the movies (which ive never really understood either, it's not like his acting in the movies was shit, it was just not a great series. The fact that people hate him for a role just means he played the role well.)
User avatar
#64 - misfitxcreepx (11/20/2015) [-]
Eh that comparison is shaky. That would be more like the author saying it's shit. He's just a guy that helps (again, by contract) make it. Would be more like a factory worker publicly saying the product is shit. He does his part to make it as good as he can, but he only has so much say in things. Ultimately he can only do what his higher ups want.

These movie contracts usually have a clause about how much they have to talk about the movie to the press. How many times they have to go on whatever talk show thing to promote it. And usually that's the only reason they go to talk to the press. If they were really worried about losing money they could limit that number. Or I'm sure they could have even put in the contract that he can't badmouth the films. But they didn't

And yeah, unfortunately some people see actors as a certain role and get turned off from other movies with that actor. Career wise it probably is smart for him to distance himself from Twilight. He might be turning a few people away from it, but the producers and whatnot have made their money. And tbh most people probably don't know the names of the producers, directors, etc. of it. Shitting on the movie won't turn people away from future movies they make, but a bad movie can turn people away from future movies he makes. What he does helps him far more than it hurts them.
User avatar
#65 - adplum (11/20/2015) [-]
I dont really agree with you on that. Youre painting him like he's not one of the biggest influences in the movie. A large portion of the audience for twilight was the fangirls who loved edward, if you dont remember back when it came out. Sure it wont turn fans away from future movies they make, but it will turn them away from future books and subsequent movies based off those books by the same author (which did seem to happen with the host.) I'm not saying he can't have his own opinion, everyone has their right to that, but he's taken it to the level of being almost preachy about it. He's not payed to say he likes them, youre right, but that doesn't mean he should shout it out to the world that theyre the worst movies ever.
It just seems rude to me. It's like doing someone's yard work and shitting on their lawn after. I dunno, maybe its just business so he can further his career, i mean the movies made him famous but really not in the way someone would have wanted. He's done a good job at reversing everyones opinion of him, hes just taking it a bit too far if you ask me.
User avatar
#93 - misfitxcreepx (11/21/2015) [-]
That's true, it did likely hurt the author. I know in my experience I've heard the books were far better than the movies (like usual) but most people probably won't have heard that. They'll just see "author of twilight" and be turned off from future/past books by her.

I have been kind of playing devil's advocate here btw. I do think it's rude for him to shit on them so much, but I certainly don't think it hurts the profits for the movies much. The author yes, which is unfortunate, but I do think it's smart for him career wise. And maybe he did take it too far, honestly I don't know. The only times I see him or hear of him talking about it are in these comps. But it is entirely possible that he takes it farther than need be.

I think we've kinda come to an agreement? Of sorts... haha
User avatar
#94 - adplum (11/21/2015) [-]
yeah pretty much.
#15 - Same with German: sieben und zwanzig  [+] (2 new replies) 10/30/2015 on Ninety nine 0
User avatar
#18 - lazorman (10/30/2015) [-]
siebundzwanzig is 27,
"sieben und zwanzig" is "7 + 20"
User avatar
#17 - failtolawl (10/30/2015) [-]
in other words it's really not that interesting
#25 - You're* 09/26/2015 on IRONY... +6
#25 - Well you got one thing right. They sure are ******* muppets! 09/25/2015 on A lot of wrong responses 0
#59 - In that instance you can call a "safety" I believe. … 09/16/2015 on Clearing a pool table 0
#34 - NV wasn't Bethesda though 08/07/2015 on Fallout 4 +10