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

hide menu

Deeticky    

Rank #14749 on Comments
Deeticky Avatar Level 281 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Offline
Send mail to Deeticky Block Deeticky Invite Deeticky to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:7/31/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#14749
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2396 total,  2746 ,  350
Comment Thumbs: 8288 total,  9335 ,  1047
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 97% (97/100)
Level 281 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 282 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:106900
Times Content Favorited:164 times
Total Comments Made:2125
FJ Points:528
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#122 - Picture 01/05/2014 on Repost 0
#120 - I'm not trying to be snarky here, friend. I'm sure that since …  [+] (2 new replies) 01/05/2014 on Repost 0
#121 - articulate (01/05/2014) [-]
It's like playing a wordsearch for my name.
#122 - Deeticky (01/05/2014) [-]
#118 - If we want to get really technical here, then karma, in the cl…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/05/2014 on Repost 0
User avatar #119 - penileburglar (01/05/2014) [-]
There are many religious codifications to Karma, such as those of the Hindu faith, but Karma is just a broad term describing the basic principles of cause and effect. At which point, pretty much any story that's not complete nonsense involves Karma.

And the fact that you used 'if we want to get really technical here' means you know that you're just being snarky. If we were to go with Hindu code, then *none* of these are examples of Karma, as it is about the *sum* of your actions, not a single action. It's obvious by the rest of the stories in this chain that what's being referred to is the casual form of Karma, simply meaning that bad actions upon others lead to bad consequences to oneself, and good actions onto others lead to good consequences to oneself. His discovery was not an evil or bad action, it just incidentally lead to his death (as well as the deaths of many others who were as unknowing as he was.)
#120 - Deeticky (01/05/2014) [-]
I'm not trying to be snarky here, friend. I'm sure that since we're on the internet, and you are unable to hear my enunciation or see my body language, the phrase must have sounded different to you when you read it than it did to me when I typed it. That's a pretty common occurrence here on the internet. (Try reading that in a sarcastic voice then try reading it in a genuine friendly voice, and you'll see what I mean)

But yes, you're correct. None of these are examples of true karma. So that would put us on the same page then, eh? That was the whole point of my previous comment; to show that since there are so many definitions of karma, there is no use arguing whether the "accidental killings with an accidental death" is truly karmic or not. In the traditional sense, no it's not, nothing here is, just like you said.

However, I think that your casual form of Karma still applies. If we want to go with this more casual definition, then I would just say that because every "action" you take would travel around the Samsara wheel and come back to you in the form of "reactions", both good and bad, both intentional and unintentional. Also, negligence is a form of guilt. If he failed to see how his discovery could affect people before distributing it widely, then he was negligent, and therefore guilty.

Note: I don't believe in Karma, and I don't believe any "mystical force" weighed this man's deeds and decided to kill him for them. I believe he died accidentally. The reason I'm making all these arguments is because it's fun to debate with someone who can articulate well and doesn't call me names, and also because I believe intelligent debate to be the highest form of learning.
#121 - articulate (01/05/2014) [-]
It's like playing a wordsearch for my name.
#122 - Deeticky (01/05/2014) [-]
#76 - I agree about the suicide one. On the other hand, the lead poi…  [+] (8 new replies) 01/04/2014 on Repost 0
User avatar #115 - penileburglar (01/05/2014) [-]
That's ironic, sure, but Karma doesn't deal in 'accidents.' Karma is about getting what you deserve based on your own actions unto others--I don't think someone 'deserves' to die because they stumbled upon something useful with no idea it would be harmful in the long-run.
#118 - Deeticky (01/05/2014) [-]
If we want to get really technical here, then karma, in the classical Hindu/Buddhist sense, would be the sum of all his actions in this and all "past lives" deciding his fate in terms of a future life. In other words, contrary to the way a lot of us Americans see it, karma doesn't have anywhere near as much of an effect on this life compared to what it would on your "future lives".
User avatar #119 - penileburglar (01/05/2014) [-]
There are many religious codifications to Karma, such as those of the Hindu faith, but Karma is just a broad term describing the basic principles of cause and effect. At which point, pretty much any story that's not complete nonsense involves Karma.

And the fact that you used 'if we want to get really technical here' means you know that you're just being snarky. If we were to go with Hindu code, then *none* of these are examples of Karma, as it is about the *sum* of your actions, not a single action. It's obvious by the rest of the stories in this chain that what's being referred to is the casual form of Karma, simply meaning that bad actions upon others lead to bad consequences to oneself, and good actions onto others lead to good consequences to oneself. His discovery was not an evil or bad action, it just incidentally lead to his death (as well as the deaths of many others who were as unknowing as he was.)
#120 - Deeticky (01/05/2014) [-]
I'm not trying to be snarky here, friend. I'm sure that since we're on the internet, and you are unable to hear my enunciation or see my body language, the phrase must have sounded different to you when you read it than it did to me when I typed it. That's a pretty common occurrence here on the internet. (Try reading that in a sarcastic voice then try reading it in a genuine friendly voice, and you'll see what I mean)

But yes, you're correct. None of these are examples of true karma. So that would put us on the same page then, eh? That was the whole point of my previous comment; to show that since there are so many definitions of karma, there is no use arguing whether the "accidental killings with an accidental death" is truly karmic or not. In the traditional sense, no it's not, nothing here is, just like you said.

However, I think that your casual form of Karma still applies. If we want to go with this more casual definition, then I would just say that because every "action" you take would travel around the Samsara wheel and come back to you in the form of "reactions", both good and bad, both intentional and unintentional. Also, negligence is a form of guilt. If he failed to see how his discovery could affect people before distributing it widely, then he was negligent, and therefore guilty.

Note: I don't believe in Karma, and I don't believe any "mystical force" weighed this man's deeds and decided to kill him for them. I believe he died accidentally. The reason I'm making all these arguments is because it's fun to debate with someone who can articulate well and doesn't call me names, and also because I believe intelligent debate to be the highest form of learning.
#121 - articulate (01/05/2014) [-]
It's like playing a wordsearch for my name.
#122 - Deeticky (01/05/2014) [-]
User avatar #90 - sabcy (01/04/2014) [-]
also the fact that something he created killed him.
User avatar #116 - penileburglar (01/05/2014) [-]
Again, irony, not Karma. It would be Karma if he *knew* it would harm others.
#110 - >Implying she was the one who chose to change her image and…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/04/2014 on Well.... its true 0
#161 - sjhvalks (01/04/2014) [-]
Who's implying that? The last line literally says "whoever decided to make that turn-around".
#139 - anonymous (01/04/2014) [-]
>implying she didn't.
#289 - Depends on your definition of "policing", I guess...… 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. 0
#286 - No one is disputing him getting stabbed. The question is about… 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. 0
#285 - The police aren't obliged to protect you, but the laws are, an… 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. 0
#284 - Yep. Don't know why you're sorry though? That's the case I'm r…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. 0
#287 - tornadomad (01/01/2014) [-]
>police trying to say they don't have to police
User avatar #289 - Deeticky (01/01/2014) [-]
Depends on your definition of "policing", I guess... Some jurisdictions are much more efficient about it than others, that's for sure.
#283 - I never said I didn't believe his story, I just don't like ima… 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. 0
#282 - He is suing the department. Also, I never said I didn't believ… 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. 0
#142 - I'd be happy to explain what I meant. As you know, assaulting …  [+] (2 new replies) 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. 0
#312 - shadowbreech (01/03/2014) [-]
I see... I disagree with that ruling but there's nothing I can really do about it...
Ok, thank you for the explanation.
<- An unrelated Gif gift
#313 - shadowbreech (01/03/2014) [-]
Mfw thats not a Gif...
#77 - Some people are into that stuff.  [+] (1 new reply) 01/01/2014 on You really do get a "hot... 0
User avatar #80 - vatra (01/01/2014) [-]
*dick shriveling intensifies*
#76 - Yeah, according to the image: Happiness+blood to the penis=Love. 01/01/2014 on You really do get a "hot... +4
#75 - Comment deleted 01/01/2014 on You really do get a "hot... 0
#125 - You're right about people doing more when they're upset. I jus… 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. +1
#121 - In law, "duty" is a very important word a very speci… 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. +1
#115 - The guy below is right, it is just a slogan. But "no lega… 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. +1
#114 - Ok guys, I'm going to clarify a couple things for you. …  [+] (24 new replies) 01/01/2014 on I felt responsible. +96
User avatar #273 - cadencee (01/01/2014) [-]
Remember that when it comes between word of mouth the law always win and they have abused this many many times over history. Police officers have gotten away with monstrous behavior and unlawful practices due to this.

Who has more to gain by lying? The man who was brutally assaulted by a serial killer or the police officers?

Let us say that they did help him and he said they didnt, what does he gain? Well, for one he is an ungrateful cunt and a disgusting human being but does he actually gain anything? Not unless he sues them but he would have a really poor case for it.

Let us say that he was telling the truth, suddenly the police are called into question, are they really obligated to protect us? Are they doing their jobs? Are we safe? They HAVE to lie or they lose all credibility (not to mention their jobs) so i am more inclined to believe the man who fought off a serial killer simply with my plagiarism of pascals wager.
User avatar #282 - Deeticky (01/01/2014) [-]
He is suing the department. Also, I never said I didn't believe him. I just don't like un-sourced pictures like this that are just meant to go viral on Facebook instead of actually educating people about anything.
#263 - anonymous (01/01/2014) [-]
If this took place in any other place, I would not be quick to believe it. This is the NYPD we are talking about though.
User avatar #283 - Deeticky (01/01/2014) [-]
I never said I didn't believe his story, I just don't like images like this that are intentionally misleading about the law. Also, yes, the NYPD, like many other big-city police departments have a lot of problems. Please vote for politicians who will do something about it.
User avatar #241 - tornadomad (01/01/2014) [-]
Sorry to do this, but "police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
User avatar #284 - Deeticky (01/01/2014) [-]
Yep. Don't know why you're sorry though? That's the case I'm referring to, and It's exactly what I'm talking about. There is no duty to any individual, but rather the duty is to the laws of the United Sates. Thanks for reminding me of the case's name.
#287 - tornadomad (01/01/2014) [-]
>police trying to say they don't have to police
User avatar #289 - Deeticky (01/01/2014) [-]
Depends on your definition of "policing", I guess... Some jurisdictions are much more efficient about it than others, that's for sure.
User avatar #274 - cadencee (01/01/2014) [-]
If this is true then it should not be illegal to carry knives with you in public as a method of protection. If no one is obligated to protect you then you should have the right to the means of protecting yourself from an armed threat. People think these laws prevent people from getting hurt but really, if someone intends to use the knives to attack people do you really think they will give a shit about what the laws say?
User avatar #285 - Deeticky (01/01/2014) [-]
The police aren't obliged to protect you, but the laws are, and the police are obliged to uphold the laws.
User avatar #208 - ipartywithpedobear (01/01/2014) [-]
1. the guy got fucking stabbed 7 times, and clearly has stab marks. that's not evidence in his side of the story?

2. there's nothing i can really argue with here, so please answer #1
User avatar #286 - Deeticky (01/01/2014) [-]
No one is disputing him getting stabbed. The question is about whether:

A: Did the police just stand there and do nothing while he was being stabbed?

B: Are the police responsible for his injuries do to negligence on the part of the officers?
#227 - anonymous (01/01/2014) [-]
george zimmerman got his head smashed in, and it was pretty blatant but apparently it took like 6 months to figure out that it did indeed happen the way that he said it did
User avatar #230 - ipartywithpedobear (01/01/2014) [-]
that's because the media takes the nigger's side every time simply out of fear of looking racist.


this one literally makes no sense
#187 - afroadam (01/01/2014) [-]
#174 - anonymous (01/01/2014) [-]
This.
#148 - bitchpleaseshutup (01/01/2014) [-]
#132 - shadowbreech (01/01/2014) [-]
I see a contradiction there so I may need clarification... Or I may be calling out bullshit...
"The police are legally required to enforce the laws of the United States and therefore must intervene when something like this happens," doesn't that mean their duty is to protect citizens? More importantly, if cops aren't supposed to protect people, then wtf are they supposed to be doing?!
User avatar #142 - Deeticky (01/01/2014) [-]
I'd be happy to explain what I meant. As you know, assaulting someone with a deadly weapon is illegal. The police were therefore required to intervene is this situation, which they did. However, there is no specific law on the the books saying that an officer must prevent any and all injuries during an attack like this (That would be impossible, obviously.) Mr. Lozito was defending himself from the perpetrator, and then the police arrived and apprehended the suspect. Mr. Lozito is suing the police department, which he a right to do, and the "no duty to protect" argument is their defense. It will be up to the courts to decide who is right.

In summary, there is no specific duty for officers to protect citizens. The supreme court has already ruled on that. However, most laws on the books protect citizens, and the officers have a duty to enforce those laws. Therefore, protecting citizens and enforcing laws more often than not are the same thing.
#312 - shadowbreech (01/03/2014) [-]
I see... I disagree with that ruling but there's nothing I can really do about it...
Ok, thank you for the explanation.
<- An unrelated Gif gift
#313 - shadowbreech (01/03/2014) [-]
Mfw thats not a Gif...
#118 - eminemisthebest (01/01/2014) [-]
yoyomoffo should sticky this
User avatar #117 - playerdous (01/01/2014) [-]
I agree
But I'd like to add that sometimes you need to make people upset enough to do something, not random violence, but enough to get someone to contribute to the betterment of society.
User avatar #125 - Deeticky (01/01/2014) [-]
You're right about people doing more when they're upset. I just wish people would do more research before they get mad.
#152 - *Ten Years. 01/01/2014 on Getting shit done +7
#200 - If it became normal, then men wouldn't stare any more than the… 12/31/2013 on So that's what the French... 0
#13 - No you don't, you don't even know me. 12/29/2013 on Oh Noes. 0
#252 - Hey, you're only human my friend. Thanks for being cool. 12/29/2013 on Can You Imagine +1
#250 - I never claimed that you were saying you were better. Perhaps …  [+] (2 new replies) 12/29/2013 on Can You Imagine 0
User avatar #251 - fenrirwolfe (12/29/2013) [-]
I see. Sorry about that and I agree. We all should stay calm which I kind of am not right now. I'll work on it.
User avatar #252 - Deeticky (12/29/2013) [-]
Hey, you're only human my friend. Thanks for being cool.
#245 - I know I just commented above, but how can you not value human… 12/29/2013 on Can You Imagine 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1870 / Total items point value: 2370

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #7 - atomicman (01/17/2014) [-]
If only we got to meet each other in person. I'm sure we'd be become great friends.
#4 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
**traffy rolls 65**
**traffy rolls 65**
User avatar #1 - CannonFodder (10/26/2012) [-]
I hadn't been on FJ for ~ 1.5 years so I don't know what has/hasn't been done. Just couldn't be fucked studying so drew that instead. Didn't mean to annoy peeps but cheers for the feedback man
User avatar #5 to #1 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
you should shut the fuck up
User avatar #6 to #5 - CannonFodder (01/04/2014) [-]
Lol care
 Friends (0)