Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

schneidend    

Rank #472 on Comments
schneidend Avatar Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Offline
Send mail to schneidend Block schneidend Invite schneidend to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:12/02/2011
Last Login:11/22/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#472
Highest Content Rank:#5144
Highest Comment Rank:#443
Content Thumbs: 686 total,  875 ,  189
Comment Thumbs: 23324 total,  28429 ,  5105
Content Level Progress: 30% (3/10)
Level 67 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 68 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 40.3% (403/1000)
Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 322 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:3
Content Views:44313
Times Content Favorited:23 times
Total Comments Made:11700
FJ Points:22458
Favorite Tags: the (2)

latest user's comments

#83 - No. The TV hat is in no way awesome. 09/18/2014 on Even MOAR awesome inventions +4
#215 - As it's been explained to me, there's already a *******… 09/18/2014 on Most recent Gamergate... 0
#159 - Consider this: they probably have a similar number of polygons… 09/18/2014 on Video Game characters over... 0
#14 - New Sniper Rifle: The Snapshot  [+] (7 new replies) 09/18/2014 on super sharp shooter +82
User avatar #62 - popkornking (09/18/2014) [-]
Alt-fire, takes a picture of your victim's head exploding. New strange part-number of pictures taken.
User avatar #64 - schneidend (09/18/2014) [-]
Nah, bruh. It just automatically takes screenshots of critical kills.
User avatar #60 - sorenlolz (09/18/2014) [-]
I understand you're joking, but this is what the workshop is for. You could make it.
User avatar #65 - schneidend (09/18/2014) [-]
If I did any Workshop work for TF2, I'd probably make some Pyro and Heavy items first, as those are my favorite classes.

The problem is, I have no ability of how to do the modeling/texture stuff that goes into making a TF2 workshop piece, and have no desire to invest the time to do so. If I did, I'd probably be working on my New Vegas mod that adds unique variants of weapons that have no unique variants, like the "Sharktooth" chainsaw or "Crunchy" the sledgehammer.
#23 - applescryatnight (09/18/2014) [-]
headshots have a blinding effect
+30% attack speed.
-15% damage on bodyshot
User avatar #25 - schneidend (09/18/2014) [-]
Sounds pretty cool, though if it can shoot 30% faster, it's going to need to either do less damage overall, charge more slowly, or something, otherwise a decent Sniper player suddenly starts killing whole teams in seconds.
#15 - worldofwarcraftdog (09/18/2014) [-]
you deserve all the thumbs
#69 - Demon pussy? 09/18/2014 on Losers 4 - Breakfast 0
#326 - Just because she's in a story where she doesn't show her softe… 09/18/2014 on Harley Quinn's Secret 0
#117 - You have defiled the Bravest Warriors with your *******…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/17/2014 on spongebob 0
User avatar #118 - theavatarspupil (09/17/2014) [-]
It was a joke, damn. And I'm not shitposting. If I were, you'd see me all over the front page comments.
#84 - There's pretty clearly no SJWs modding 4chan when so many of t…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/17/2014 on Most recent Gamergate... +1
User avatar #208 - renespar (09/17/2014) [-]
yeah, but post anything about gamergate, Zoe Quinn or Vivian James and your thread will get deleted and people have been getting banned
User avatar #215 - schneidend (09/18/2014) [-]
As it's been explained to me, there's already a shitload of such threads, so they're deleting duplicate threads. Don't get all paranoid, bro.
#79 - This was funny, but then Sasha really wanted that D...  [+] (1 new reply) 09/17/2014 on tinder n shit 0
#88 - scandalouszander (09/17/2014) [-]
heres the gif incase you want it
#108 - Is Kill La Kill streaming in HD anywhere?  [+] (7 new replies) 09/17/2014 on spongebob 0
User avatar #121 - darkangeloffire (09/17/2014) [-]
User avatar #153 - thunderkrux (09/17/2014) [-]
Whadyou mean "dub" who done it?
User avatar #178 - darkangeloffire (09/17/2014) [-]
Aniplex
#114 - theavatarspupil (09/17/2014) [-]
Here you go, man: www.netflix.com
User avatar #117 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
You have defiled the Bravest Warriors with your shitposting. Please die.
User avatar #118 - theavatarspupil (09/17/2014) [-]
It was a joke, damn. And I'm not shitposting. If I were, you'd see me all over the front page comments.
User avatar #113 - tallzed (09/17/2014) [-]
crunchyroll.com and it is legit.
#103 - Paladin weasel thing is best starter. 09/17/2014 on Smash Bros Trivia +2
#199 - The state has sovereignty over its territory. That's the corne… 09/17/2014 on 50% tax in DK 0
#197 - It's only unnatural and "ridiculous" if you're compl…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/17/2014 on 50% tax in DK 0
#200 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your latest comment, for some reason.

I agree that the state maintains control over a certain geographic location; that's what makes it a state. Agreed. On a minor note, while I agree it's the monopoly on power in its area, I wouldn't claim that it has authority, because to me that implies actual ownership rather than just the means to exercise de facto ownership. But you knew that's what I meant...

But again, it's confusing to say that government owns it. For instance, if someone said that a certain family owns a home, and someone asked who they meant by "a family", they would simply have to list off the individuals in this family to whom they were referring. So, who do you mean by "the state"? Does it include every single elected official, or also everyone employed in the public sector, or everyone who pays taxes? And if you can pin down who this person/people are, that only opens up a myriad of other questions.

And I understand that the questions don't mean that it's illogical, but just so many questions that pop up in even defining who owns the country, it serves as an indicator that this may be a faulty line of reasoning. I've heard that before the heliocentric model of the solar system was popularized, in geocentric models it took many pages and pages of extremely intricate circles within circles within circles just to track the locations of the Moon and of Mars each night. It wasn't wrong because it was so complicated, but rather it was complicated because it was wrong, or that they had the fundamentals wrong. And it seems to me the same thing is at work here when adhering to the idea that "the government" (thus unnamed) owns and has the right to all the land within the USA, as if they had the deed in their collective pocket.
User avatar #198 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
World view? I'm just trying to get an answer as to who this person or people are who "own the country". Obviously it's the citizens who each own their plot of land, or farm, or share of an apartment building or whatever. You haven't done anything to convince me of who or what owns it. You defend violence against nonviolent people in the form of the many laws and taxes we have as actually defensive and voluntary, because all 300,000,000 of us are renting land from someone. If you live in a world of words, you can say anything and have it make sense to you. It's like I'm asking you how clouds are formed, and you're responding with "God did it." That solves nothing and only further confuses the issue.
User avatar #199 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The state has sovereignty over its territory. That's the cornerstone of being a state. The government governs and owns the state. No single person needs to have a deed to the country just because you subscribe to the limited individualistic views.
#195 - The country can definitely own property. It's the sovereign te…  [+] (5 new replies) 09/17/2014 on 50% tax in DK 0
User avatar #196 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
That's fine.

I was just trying to illustrate that "the government" can't own anything. People own things. Once we agree on that (which I think makes total sense), you can't really claim that "the government" can. By "the government owns the country", do you mean President Obama himself owns every inch of this land? Everyone who holds public office each owns an equal share of the nation? Who?

Obviously it's a ridiculous thing to claim, and trying to rationalize how some unnamed, conceptual figure owns all this land just leads to confusion. Logical things are easy to understand, or at least to understand the basics of. Once you have to contort your argument into such an unnatural position that you're defending that PersonX owns the land that 300,000,000 Americans pay for and live on, it should be painfully obvious that you've made a wrong turn somewhere.
User avatar #197 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
It's only unnatural and "ridiculous" if you're completely full of shit and intentionally obfuscate things based around your niche world view.
#200 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your latest comment, for some reason.

I agree that the state maintains control over a certain geographic location; that's what makes it a state. Agreed. On a minor note, while I agree it's the monopoly on power in its area, I wouldn't claim that it has authority, because to me that implies actual ownership rather than just the means to exercise de facto ownership. But you knew that's what I meant...

But again, it's confusing to say that government owns it. For instance, if someone said that a certain family owns a home, and someone asked who they meant by "a family", they would simply have to list off the individuals in this family to whom they were referring. So, who do you mean by "the state"? Does it include every single elected official, or also everyone employed in the public sector, or everyone who pays taxes? And if you can pin down who this person/people are, that only opens up a myriad of other questions.

And I understand that the questions don't mean that it's illogical, but just so many questions that pop up in even defining who owns the country, it serves as an indicator that this may be a faulty line of reasoning. I've heard that before the heliocentric model of the solar system was popularized, in geocentric models it took many pages and pages of extremely intricate circles within circles within circles just to track the locations of the Moon and of Mars each night. It wasn't wrong because it was so complicated, but rather it was complicated because it was wrong, or that they had the fundamentals wrong. And it seems to me the same thing is at work here when adhering to the idea that "the government" (thus unnamed) owns and has the right to all the land within the USA, as if they had the deed in their collective pocket.
User avatar #198 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
World view? I'm just trying to get an answer as to who this person or people are who "own the country". Obviously it's the citizens who each own their plot of land, or farm, or share of an apartment building or whatever. You haven't done anything to convince me of who or what owns it. You defend violence against nonviolent people in the form of the many laws and taxes we have as actually defensive and voluntary, because all 300,000,000 of us are renting land from someone. If you live in a world of words, you can say anything and have it make sense to you. It's like I'm asking you how clouds are formed, and you're responding with "God did it." That solves nothing and only further confuses the issue.
User avatar #199 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The state has sovereignty over its territory. That's the cornerstone of being a state. The government governs and owns the state. No single person needs to have a deed to the country just because you subscribe to the limited individualistic views.
#192 - The USA definitely owns its territory. That's not even remotel…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/17/2014 on 50% tax in DK 0
User avatar #194 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
What do you mean, "the USA". There is no person who is "the USA". It's like saying you chopped down a forest, or met a family. While presidents, trees, and family members are real things--governments, forests, and families are really just concepts. I don't mean to get picky or particular, but I think it matters.

Who are you saying actually owns the country? President Obama? He and the five hundred or so representatives and senators? State senators? The Supreme Court? Members of the military? District Court judges? Citizens? "The government" can't own the country. Speaking only in concepts leads to us having a debate over different meanings. How do you define "the USA"?
#193 - douthit has deleted their comment.
User avatar #195 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The country can definitely own property. It's the sovereign territory of the state, recognized not just by itself, but by its allies and enemies. But, anyway, this debate is becoming completely asinine, so I'm done.
User avatar #196 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
That's fine.

I was just trying to illustrate that "the government" can't own anything. People own things. Once we agree on that (which I think makes total sense), you can't really claim that "the government" can. By "the government owns the country", do you mean President Obama himself owns every inch of this land? Everyone who holds public office each owns an equal share of the nation? Who?

Obviously it's a ridiculous thing to claim, and trying to rationalize how some unnamed, conceptual figure owns all this land just leads to confusion. Logical things are easy to understand, or at least to understand the basics of. Once you have to contort your argument into such an unnatural position that you're defending that PersonX owns the land that 300,000,000 Americans pay for and live on, it should be painfully obvious that you've made a wrong turn somewhere.
User avatar #197 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
It's only unnatural and "ridiculous" if you're completely full of shit and intentionally obfuscate things based around your niche world view.
#200 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your latest comment, for some reason.

I agree that the state maintains control over a certain geographic location; that's what makes it a state. Agreed. On a minor note, while I agree it's the monopoly on power in its area, I wouldn't claim that it has authority, because to me that implies actual ownership rather than just the means to exercise de facto ownership. But you knew that's what I meant...

But again, it's confusing to say that government owns it. For instance, if someone said that a certain family owns a home, and someone asked who they meant by "a family", they would simply have to list off the individuals in this family to whom they were referring. So, who do you mean by "the state"? Does it include every single elected official, or also everyone employed in the public sector, or everyone who pays taxes? And if you can pin down who this person/people are, that only opens up a myriad of other questions.

And I understand that the questions don't mean that it's illogical, but just so many questions that pop up in even defining who owns the country, it serves as an indicator that this may be a faulty line of reasoning. I've heard that before the heliocentric model of the solar system was popularized, in geocentric models it took many pages and pages of extremely intricate circles within circles within circles just to track the locations of the Moon and of Mars each night. It wasn't wrong because it was so complicated, but rather it was complicated because it was wrong, or that they had the fundamentals wrong. And it seems to me the same thing is at work here when adhering to the idea that "the government" (thus unnamed) owns and has the right to all the land within the USA, as if they had the deed in their collective pocket.
User avatar #198 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
World view? I'm just trying to get an answer as to who this person or people are who "own the country". Obviously it's the citizens who each own their plot of land, or farm, or share of an apartment building or whatever. You haven't done anything to convince me of who or what owns it. You defend violence against nonviolent people in the form of the many laws and taxes we have as actually defensive and voluntary, because all 300,000,000 of us are renting land from someone. If you live in a world of words, you can say anything and have it make sense to you. It's like I'm asking you how clouds are formed, and you're responding with "God did it." That solves nothing and only further confuses the issue.
User avatar #199 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The state has sovereignty over its territory. That's the cornerstone of being a state. The government governs and owns the state. No single person needs to have a deed to the country just because you subscribe to the limited individualistic views.
#95 - I imagine he means the shooting power, and not actual recoil.  [+] (1 new reply) 09/17/2014 on NERF OR NOTHING! 0
User avatar #97 - fitemeirlbro (09/17/2014) [-]
maybe
#91 - You think you're Wolverine or some **** ? .22 to t…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/17/2014 on NERF OR NOTHING! 0
User avatar #93 - fitemeirlbro (09/17/2014) [-]
yea but firing a .22 has no kick
User avatar #95 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
I imagine he means the shooting power, and not actual recoil.
User avatar #97 - fitemeirlbro (09/17/2014) [-]
maybe
#36 - She means in total at-hand assets. Like, including credit and … 09/17/2014 on The Economy +2
#190 - It's fine and dandy to say you'd let PersonB live as he wants,…  [+] (10 new replies) 09/17/2014 on 50% tax in DK 0
User avatar #191 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
It's not just saying that I'd let PersonB live as they want, I'm saying that I will not initiate violence against another person or violate their property. And I think it's insane that others don't say the same, but claim to be civilized members of society. Respecting property and not using violence (except in defense) is pretty much the closest thing we have to a universal human code of ethics. That's like the two rules we teach kindergartners, for God's sake. We call it a principle that violence is wrong and that it's wrong to take others' stuff, but that's how the entire country is run--make that every country.

When you mention a country that's already established, I don't really agree with the premise. It begs the question, if I'm citing that logical fallacy correctly. Like the old joke of asking, "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" What we call countries today are simply the borders within which each government claims ownership and dominion over, and the government doesn't own this land. Hell, my family was here before this country even existed as the USA. I see so many parallels between nation-states and the mafia. Neither really owns the area they claim to, they just take control and say that it's all theirs, and that the people there must pay rent, or buy "licenses" to sell, or pay protection money. The people living there often want nothing to do with them, but pay up out of fear because they're the richest, most powerful guys on the block, and they employ the guys with the brass knuckles--or in the case of government, the guns and tasers.
User avatar #192 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The USA definitely owns its territory. That's not even remotely debatable.
User avatar #194 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
What do you mean, "the USA". There is no person who is "the USA". It's like saying you chopped down a forest, or met a family. While presidents, trees, and family members are real things--governments, forests, and families are really just concepts. I don't mean to get picky or particular, but I think it matters.

Who are you saying actually owns the country? President Obama? He and the five hundred or so representatives and senators? State senators? The Supreme Court? Members of the military? District Court judges? Citizens? "The government" can't own the country. Speaking only in concepts leads to us having a debate over different meanings. How do you define "the USA"?
#193 - douthit has deleted their comment.
User avatar #195 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The country can definitely own property. It's the sovereign territory of the state, recognized not just by itself, but by its allies and enemies. But, anyway, this debate is becoming completely asinine, so I'm done.
User avatar #196 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
That's fine.

I was just trying to illustrate that "the government" can't own anything. People own things. Once we agree on that (which I think makes total sense), you can't really claim that "the government" can. By "the government owns the country", do you mean President Obama himself owns every inch of this land? Everyone who holds public office each owns an equal share of the nation? Who?

Obviously it's a ridiculous thing to claim, and trying to rationalize how some unnamed, conceptual figure owns all this land just leads to confusion. Logical things are easy to understand, or at least to understand the basics of. Once you have to contort your argument into such an unnatural position that you're defending that PersonX owns the land that 300,000,000 Americans pay for and live on, it should be painfully obvious that you've made a wrong turn somewhere.
User avatar #197 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
It's only unnatural and "ridiculous" if you're completely full of shit and intentionally obfuscate things based around your niche world view.
#200 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your latest comment, for some reason.

I agree that the state maintains control over a certain geographic location; that's what makes it a state. Agreed. On a minor note, while I agree it's the monopoly on power in its area, I wouldn't claim that it has authority, because to me that implies actual ownership rather than just the means to exercise de facto ownership. But you knew that's what I meant...

But again, it's confusing to say that government owns it. For instance, if someone said that a certain family owns a home, and someone asked who they meant by "a family", they would simply have to list off the individuals in this family to whom they were referring. So, who do you mean by "the state"? Does it include every single elected official, or also everyone employed in the public sector, or everyone who pays taxes? And if you can pin down who this person/people are, that only opens up a myriad of other questions.

And I understand that the questions don't mean that it's illogical, but just so many questions that pop up in even defining who owns the country, it serves as an indicator that this may be a faulty line of reasoning. I've heard that before the heliocentric model of the solar system was popularized, in geocentric models it took many pages and pages of extremely intricate circles within circles within circles just to track the locations of the Moon and of Mars each night. It wasn't wrong because it was so complicated, but rather it was complicated because it was wrong, or that they had the fundamentals wrong. And it seems to me the same thing is at work here when adhering to the idea that "the government" (thus unnamed) owns and has the right to all the land within the USA, as if they had the deed in their collective pocket.
User avatar #198 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
World view? I'm just trying to get an answer as to who this person or people are who "own the country". Obviously it's the citizens who each own their plot of land, or farm, or share of an apartment building or whatever. You haven't done anything to convince me of who or what owns it. You defend violence against nonviolent people in the form of the many laws and taxes we have as actually defensive and voluntary, because all 300,000,000 of us are renting land from someone. If you live in a world of words, you can say anything and have it make sense to you. It's like I'm asking you how clouds are formed, and you're responding with "God did it." That solves nothing and only further confuses the issue.
User avatar #199 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The state has sovereignty over its territory. That's the cornerstone of being a state. The government governs and owns the state. No single person needs to have a deed to the country just because you subscribe to the limited individualistic views.
#30 - To be fair, the 40% Scrap Metal could be composed of the Titan… 09/16/2014 on damn straight +1
#29 - Majestic as **** . 09/16/2014 on damn straight 0
#30 - Loki did most of the ******* . It was just that on…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/16/2014 on greek mythology in a nutshell +3
User avatar #34 - icametocomment (09/16/2014) [-]
Nah, I think the only thing he actively fucked was a giantess. Granted, said giantess then gave birth to a giant snake, a giant wolf, and the underworld goddess...
#29 - +8 Culture 09/16/2014 on greek mythology in a nutshell +11
#179 - I'd rather live in serfdom and pay the tax to have the lord's …  [+] (12 new replies) 09/16/2014 on 50% tax in DK 0
User avatar #180 - douthit (09/16/2014) [-]
If you prefer serfdom, obviously you should be free to choose that. A minor point, but I would say that if you voluntarily choose that, then you're really no longer a serf, because serfdom carries the implication of peasants born to a lord and tied to the land as little more than a slave who maintains basic rights. Once it's chosen freely, the implication of force is dropped. If you want that, you and the other willing "serfs" should be free to do as you wish, of course so long as you don't act forcefully against others or their property. But surely you respect the right of others to not be serfs?

That's one point the anarcho-capitalists won me over with: in a free society statists would be free to live under governments, but statist societies can't/won't allow libertarians to live freely. I think that's a strong point in favor of a free society. If PersonA is willing to let PersonB live as he wants, but PersonB want to control how PersonA is to live, then it's clear that by default PersonA's worldview is better.
User avatar #190 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
It's fine and dandy to say you'd let PersonB live as he wants, but he's already doing that, in a country that's already established. The problem with "free society" (loaded nonsense term, btw) folks is that they want to establish their "free society" in the heart of an existing state's sovereign territory, instead of getting the fuck out like they should if they don't want to be a part of that state. You think there's force and violence that pressures you to conform now? If you were squatting and shouting about establishing a "free society" in a REAL lord's fiefdom in the 1300-1500s, he'd send soldiers to chase you out, possibly kill you, and burn your home to the ground. You're being allowed to live freely, within the bounds of laws of the state that you are inhabiting just like everybody else who lives there. And, until that changes, taxes aren't somehow evil because you don't want to pay them.
User avatar #191 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
It's not just saying that I'd let PersonB live as they want, I'm saying that I will not initiate violence against another person or violate their property. And I think it's insane that others don't say the same, but claim to be civilized members of society. Respecting property and not using violence (except in defense) is pretty much the closest thing we have to a universal human code of ethics. That's like the two rules we teach kindergartners, for God's sake. We call it a principle that violence is wrong and that it's wrong to take others' stuff, but that's how the entire country is run--make that every country.

When you mention a country that's already established, I don't really agree with the premise. It begs the question, if I'm citing that logical fallacy correctly. Like the old joke of asking, "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" What we call countries today are simply the borders within which each government claims ownership and dominion over, and the government doesn't own this land. Hell, my family was here before this country even existed as the USA. I see so many parallels between nation-states and the mafia. Neither really owns the area they claim to, they just take control and say that it's all theirs, and that the people there must pay rent, or buy "licenses" to sell, or pay protection money. The people living there often want nothing to do with them, but pay up out of fear because they're the richest, most powerful guys on the block, and they employ the guys with the brass knuckles--or in the case of government, the guns and tasers.
User avatar #192 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The USA definitely owns its territory. That's not even remotely debatable.
User avatar #194 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
What do you mean, "the USA". There is no person who is "the USA". It's like saying you chopped down a forest, or met a family. While presidents, trees, and family members are real things--governments, forests, and families are really just concepts. I don't mean to get picky or particular, but I think it matters.

Who are you saying actually owns the country? President Obama? He and the five hundred or so representatives and senators? State senators? The Supreme Court? Members of the military? District Court judges? Citizens? "The government" can't own the country. Speaking only in concepts leads to us having a debate over different meanings. How do you define "the USA"?
#193 - douthit has deleted their comment.
User avatar #195 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The country can definitely own property. It's the sovereign territory of the state, recognized not just by itself, but by its allies and enemies. But, anyway, this debate is becoming completely asinine, so I'm done.
User avatar #196 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
That's fine.

I was just trying to illustrate that "the government" can't own anything. People own things. Once we agree on that (which I think makes total sense), you can't really claim that "the government" can. By "the government owns the country", do you mean President Obama himself owns every inch of this land? Everyone who holds public office each owns an equal share of the nation? Who?

Obviously it's a ridiculous thing to claim, and trying to rationalize how some unnamed, conceptual figure owns all this land just leads to confusion. Logical things are easy to understand, or at least to understand the basics of. Once you have to contort your argument into such an unnatural position that you're defending that PersonX owns the land that 300,000,000 Americans pay for and live on, it should be painfully obvious that you've made a wrong turn somewhere.
User avatar #197 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
It's only unnatural and "ridiculous" if you're completely full of shit and intentionally obfuscate things based around your niche world view.
#200 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your latest comment, for some reason.

I agree that the state maintains control over a certain geographic location; that's what makes it a state. Agreed. On a minor note, while I agree it's the monopoly on power in its area, I wouldn't claim that it has authority, because to me that implies actual ownership rather than just the means to exercise de facto ownership. But you knew that's what I meant...

But again, it's confusing to say that government owns it. For instance, if someone said that a certain family owns a home, and someone asked who they meant by "a family", they would simply have to list off the individuals in this family to whom they were referring. So, who do you mean by "the state"? Does it include every single elected official, or also everyone employed in the public sector, or everyone who pays taxes? And if you can pin down who this person/people are, that only opens up a myriad of other questions.

And I understand that the questions don't mean that it's illogical, but just so many questions that pop up in even defining who owns the country, it serves as an indicator that this may be a faulty line of reasoning. I've heard that before the heliocentric model of the solar system was popularized, in geocentric models it took many pages and pages of extremely intricate circles within circles within circles just to track the locations of the Moon and of Mars each night. It wasn't wrong because it was so complicated, but rather it was complicated because it was wrong, or that they had the fundamentals wrong. And it seems to me the same thing is at work here when adhering to the idea that "the government" (thus unnamed) owns and has the right to all the land within the USA, as if they had the deed in their collective pocket.
User avatar #198 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
World view? I'm just trying to get an answer as to who this person or people are who "own the country". Obviously it's the citizens who each own their plot of land, or farm, or share of an apartment building or whatever. You haven't done anything to convince me of who or what owns it. You defend violence against nonviolent people in the form of the many laws and taxes we have as actually defensive and voluntary, because all 300,000,000 of us are renting land from someone. If you live in a world of words, you can say anything and have it make sense to you. It's like I'm asking you how clouds are formed, and you're responding with "God did it." That solves nothing and only further confuses the issue.
User avatar #199 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The state has sovereignty over its territory. That's the cornerstone of being a state. The government governs and owns the state. No single person needs to have a deed to the country just because you subscribe to the limited individualistic views.
#176 - Your money isn't taken by threat of violence. You acquiesce it…  [+] (14 new replies) 09/16/2014 on 50% tax in DK 0
User avatar #177 - douthit (09/16/2014) [-]
Citizenship isn't like a union or club. You aren't born into a club and joined into it by default against your will, have dues taken from you until you're 18, and then allowed to leave at 18--leaving your family and entire life, and that's only if another club allows you to become part of theirs and start paying dues immediately for the rest of your life. In that scenario, I would call the collection of club or union dues wrong. And all this is based upon the idea that the government somehow owns the entire area. But that's serfdom. Here's part of Wikipedia's definition of serfdom: "Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the Lord of the Manor who owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence." Sounds a lot like statism to me.

Your second paragraph which discussed why people join together to do things, falls right in line with (philosophical) libertarianism and anarchism. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people joining together to accomplish what an individual can't or won't or doesn't want to take the time for. The only problem I find with it is the force aspect. Gathering money together happens all the time, from church offering plates to benefit dinners for a charitable cause. But they're all done voluntarily. You may argue that force-backed collectivism produces a more pleasurable result, and that's a perfectly sound argument to hold and a good debate to have. However, that's outside the moral sphere I'm discussing here. If you want to say that violence is good because it results in more net happiness for more people, then you're descending to hedonism and disregarding all morality, and can no longer teach kids that it's not okay to hit or take things.
User avatar #179 - schneidend (09/16/2014) [-]
I'd rather live in serfdom and pay the tax to have the lord's soldiers around to deter bandits than trust myself alone with the longsword I keep in the chest at the foot of my bed or the dagger on my belt to protect me when a dozen men come to rape my wife and steal my grain.

And, no, hegemony is the exact sort of thing libertarians and anarchists are against. Anything subtly imprinted on you by societal forces larger than yourself is anathema to the MUH ABSOLUT FREEDOM mentality of either school of thought. Hegemony can only exist when a collective like a proper government (and not some bullshit collection of people living in cabins in the woods not paying taxes) exists long enough that it becomes second nature. To be against hegemony is to have the faith that, without it, we won't just start fucking and eating each other. History proves this isn't the case. Without law, order, and the organization of a higher authority, we never accomplish anything and wipe out disparate groups until a proper authority can be found or formed.
User avatar #180 - douthit (09/16/2014) [-]
If you prefer serfdom, obviously you should be free to choose that. A minor point, but I would say that if you voluntarily choose that, then you're really no longer a serf, because serfdom carries the implication of peasants born to a lord and tied to the land as little more than a slave who maintains basic rights. Once it's chosen freely, the implication of force is dropped. If you want that, you and the other willing "serfs" should be free to do as you wish, of course so long as you don't act forcefully against others or their property. But surely you respect the right of others to not be serfs?

That's one point the anarcho-capitalists won me over with: in a free society statists would be free to live under governments, but statist societies can't/won't allow libertarians to live freely. I think that's a strong point in favor of a free society. If PersonA is willing to let PersonB live as he wants, but PersonB want to control how PersonA is to live, then it's clear that by default PersonA's worldview is better.
User avatar #190 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
It's fine and dandy to say you'd let PersonB live as he wants, but he's already doing that, in a country that's already established. The problem with "free society" (loaded nonsense term, btw) folks is that they want to establish their "free society" in the heart of an existing state's sovereign territory, instead of getting the fuck out like they should if they don't want to be a part of that state. You think there's force and violence that pressures you to conform now? If you were squatting and shouting about establishing a "free society" in a REAL lord's fiefdom in the 1300-1500s, he'd send soldiers to chase you out, possibly kill you, and burn your home to the ground. You're being allowed to live freely, within the bounds of laws of the state that you are inhabiting just like everybody else who lives there. And, until that changes, taxes aren't somehow evil because you don't want to pay them.
User avatar #191 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
It's not just saying that I'd let PersonB live as they want, I'm saying that I will not initiate violence against another person or violate their property. And I think it's insane that others don't say the same, but claim to be civilized members of society. Respecting property and not using violence (except in defense) is pretty much the closest thing we have to a universal human code of ethics. That's like the two rules we teach kindergartners, for God's sake. We call it a principle that violence is wrong and that it's wrong to take others' stuff, but that's how the entire country is run--make that every country.

When you mention a country that's already established, I don't really agree with the premise. It begs the question, if I'm citing that logical fallacy correctly. Like the old joke of asking, "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" What we call countries today are simply the borders within which each government claims ownership and dominion over, and the government doesn't own this land. Hell, my family was here before this country even existed as the USA. I see so many parallels between nation-states and the mafia. Neither really owns the area they claim to, they just take control and say that it's all theirs, and that the people there must pay rent, or buy "licenses" to sell, or pay protection money. The people living there often want nothing to do with them, but pay up out of fear because they're the richest, most powerful guys on the block, and they employ the guys with the brass knuckles--or in the case of government, the guns and tasers.
User avatar #192 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The USA definitely owns its territory. That's not even remotely debatable.
User avatar #194 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
What do you mean, "the USA". There is no person who is "the USA". It's like saying you chopped down a forest, or met a family. While presidents, trees, and family members are real things--governments, forests, and families are really just concepts. I don't mean to get picky or particular, but I think it matters.

Who are you saying actually owns the country? President Obama? He and the five hundred or so representatives and senators? State senators? The Supreme Court? Members of the military? District Court judges? Citizens? "The government" can't own the country. Speaking only in concepts leads to us having a debate over different meanings. How do you define "the USA"?
#193 - douthit has deleted their comment.
User avatar #195 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The country can definitely own property. It's the sovereign territory of the state, recognized not just by itself, but by its allies and enemies. But, anyway, this debate is becoming completely asinine, so I'm done.
User avatar #196 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
That's fine.

I was just trying to illustrate that "the government" can't own anything. People own things. Once we agree on that (which I think makes total sense), you can't really claim that "the government" can. By "the government owns the country", do you mean President Obama himself owns every inch of this land? Everyone who holds public office each owns an equal share of the nation? Who?

Obviously it's a ridiculous thing to claim, and trying to rationalize how some unnamed, conceptual figure owns all this land just leads to confusion. Logical things are easy to understand, or at least to understand the basics of. Once you have to contort your argument into such an unnatural position that you're defending that PersonX owns the land that 300,000,000 Americans pay for and live on, it should be painfully obvious that you've made a wrong turn somewhere.
User avatar #197 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
It's only unnatural and "ridiculous" if you're completely full of shit and intentionally obfuscate things based around your niche world view.
#200 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
It wouldn't let me reply to your latest comment, for some reason.

I agree that the state maintains control over a certain geographic location; that's what makes it a state. Agreed. On a minor note, while I agree it's the monopoly on power in its area, I wouldn't claim that it has authority, because to me that implies actual ownership rather than just the means to exercise de facto ownership. But you knew that's what I meant...

But again, it's confusing to say that government owns it. For instance, if someone said that a certain family owns a home, and someone asked who they meant by "a family", they would simply have to list off the individuals in this family to whom they were referring. So, who do you mean by "the state"? Does it include every single elected official, or also everyone employed in the public sector, or everyone who pays taxes? And if you can pin down who this person/people are, that only opens up a myriad of other questions.

And I understand that the questions don't mean that it's illogical, but just so many questions that pop up in even defining who owns the country, it serves as an indicator that this may be a faulty line of reasoning. I've heard that before the heliocentric model of the solar system was popularized, in geocentric models it took many pages and pages of extremely intricate circles within circles within circles just to track the locations of the Moon and of Mars each night. It wasn't wrong because it was so complicated, but rather it was complicated because it was wrong, or that they had the fundamentals wrong. And it seems to me the same thing is at work here when adhering to the idea that "the government" (thus unnamed) owns and has the right to all the land within the USA, as if they had the deed in their collective pocket.
User avatar #198 - douthit (09/17/2014) [-]
World view? I'm just trying to get an answer as to who this person or people are who "own the country". Obviously it's the citizens who each own their plot of land, or farm, or share of an apartment building or whatever. You haven't done anything to convince me of who or what owns it. You defend violence against nonviolent people in the form of the many laws and taxes we have as actually defensive and voluntary, because all 300,000,000 of us are renting land from someone. If you live in a world of words, you can say anything and have it make sense to you. It's like I'm asking you how clouds are formed, and you're responding with "God did it." That solves nothing and only further confuses the issue.
User avatar #199 - schneidend (09/17/2014) [-]
The state has sovereignty over its territory. That's the cornerstone of being a state. The government governs and owns the state. No single person needs to have a deed to the country just because you subscribe to the limited individualistic views.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 600

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #33 - greedtheavaricious (11/10/2014) [-]
Aye, found a sweet lil glitch.

If you want to do a new pvp character:

-Aqcuire boss soul (Any boss soul)
-Equip
-Do an r1 attack
-Shortly before the animation ends, press X then immediately start
-Use Estus flask
-If done right, it will now ask you to consume boss soul
-Boss soul will be consumed, but is still in your inventory

You can repeat that as much as you want, there is no limit. Same goes for fire keeper souls. ALL the humanity.

I'm level 110 now.
User avatar #30 - greedtheavaricious (11/03/2014) [-]
So, my miracle using thief is at level 31 by now and in NG, heh.

Getting there.
User avatar #31 to #30 - schneidend (11/03/2014) [-]
Nice!
Raising your soul level is much more of a chore when you're actually trying. Before I'd be like "Oh no, I'm already SL 53 and I've only got like 20 Faith" or whatever.
User avatar #32 to #31 - greedtheavaricious (11/03/2014) [-]
Yeah, I really need to be careful what I raise. But hey, the highest I can go is 130 and still get loads of PVP action. 30 faith is enough anyway if you're not going all out on WOG spamming. A bit of vit with fap ring, pump the rest into dex and stamina.
User avatar #23 - greedtheavaricious (10/31/2014) [-]
I'm here to tal about your soul grinding progress.
User avatar #24 to #23 - schneidend (10/31/2014) [-]
Hey dude. Turns out that character doesn't have the silver serpent ring yet, but does have the symbol of avarice. I was farming the forest for a while, but got bored, so I went back to invading. I don't know how feasible it'll be at this point.
User avatar #25 to #24 - greedtheavaricious (10/31/2014) [-]
So.. what's your level so far?
User avatar #26 to #25 - schneidend (10/31/2014) [-]
Like 80 I think.
User avatar #27 to #26 - greedtheavaricious (10/31/2014) [-]
...Okay, I dun completely dumbed.

Are you in NG or NG+? If still NG I gonna grind my new char as soon as possible.

Damn it, I keep forgetting about this kind of stuff... ehehehe... I bet you want to punch me now, eh?
User avatar #28 to #27 - schneidend (10/31/2014) [-]
NG. It's cool, dude.
User avatar #29 to #28 - greedtheavaricious (10/31/2014) [-]
Ehh, it's faster this way anyway, lel.
User avatar #22 - gugek (10/15/2014) [-]
Hey! I hope your day is going well :-] have a great night!
User avatar #16 - valax ONLINE (08/29/2014) [-]
Yo.
User avatar #17 to #16 - schneidend (08/29/2014) [-]
Yo.
User avatar #18 to #17 - valax ONLINE (08/29/2014) [-]
Up to anything? Haha.
User avatar #19 to #18 - schneidend (08/29/2014) [-]
Not really. Who is this?
User avatar #20 to #19 - valax ONLINE (08/29/2014) [-]
No one, really.
We haven't talked before, haha.
User avatar #21 to #20 - schneidend (08/29/2014) [-]
Oh, okay.
#7 - alZii has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #8 to #7 - schneidend (10/04/2012) [-]
Nope.
User avatar #3 - mikenelson (04/11/2012) [-]
You're a ****** .
User avatar #2 - shrike (04/11/2012) [-]
****** , and wtf did that guy post.
User avatar #6 to #3 - schneidend (05/31/2012) [-]
Gore rape with black people, or some **** . I repressed the image already.
#1 - senordick (04/11/2012) [-]
popped your ****** cherry
 Friends (0)