Upload
Login or register

Namezone

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:9/17/2010
Last Login:9/29/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#9046
Highest Content Rank:#4850
Highest Comment Rank:#273
Content Thumbs: 544 total,  660 ,  116
Comment Thumbs: 9835 total,  11524 ,  1689
Content Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 53 Content: Sammich eater → Level 54 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 39% (39/100)
Level 288 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 289 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:16
Content Views:15420
Times Content Favorited:4 times
Total Comments Made:3405
FJ Points:9583
Favorite Tags: comics (2) | humon (2)

Text Posts

  • Views: 1080
    Thumbs Up 13 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +10
    Comments: 59
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 10/07/10
    Clothes Confusion Clothes Confusion
  • Views: 732
    Thumbs Up 7 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +6
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 10/08/10
    Hats Hats
  • Views: 4234
    Thumbs Up 13 Thumbs Down 7 Total: +6
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 10/08/10
    Humon Comics: Humon Comics:
  • Views: 1027
    Thumbs Up 7 Thumbs Down 5 Total: +2
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 12/24/14
    I'm Fuhrerious I'm Fuhrerious

latest user's comments

#18 - They were portraying the common cold with these things, so no.…  [+] (6 replies) 09/10/2016 on Virus up close -1
#34 - anon (09/10/2016) [-]
The Common Cold IS a virus.
#46 - abcdxyz (09/10/2016) [-]
It looks more like this however. I'm not aware of any human viruses that look like bacteriophages
#37 - iwilllawlyou (09/10/2016) [-]
It is. But it's ball-like. Not those crawly types.
#41 - anon (09/10/2016) [-]
jimmy's whole body isn't anatomically proportionate to real human, and we discuss about accuracy or drawn virus?
User avatar
#47 - empirennn (09/10/2016) [-]
Because viruses come in distinct shapes and sizes, the one in Jimmy Neutron was the wrong one.

It's like saying a dog is relatively similar to a cat, so if a dog is drawn as a cat it's fine.
#19 - blindruler (09/10/2016) [-]
True enough
#173 - racism is a phenomenon based on a human bias. Applying racist …  [+] (2 replies) 09/08/2016 on Kek kek kekkaroo 0
#203 - anon (09/09/2016) [-]
"racism is a phenomenon based on human bias" - exactly...you state that (correctly) but you're not following to its logical conclusion.

For example, given what you JUST SAID in that statement, how is the fact that blacks tend to do better in the sun racist? It's based on empirical observation, NOT HUMAN BIAS. Your own example doesn't fit your own definition.

The reason for the conclusion determines if it's racist. If you came to the conclusion because of racial prejudice then it's a racist conclusion. If you came to it from empirical observation or rational logic then it is not.
User avatar
#204 - Namezone (09/09/2016) [-]
Racism is any action based solely on race, it's just that mainly humans commit that action. It can't be limited to only human interactions, though.

or at least, that's what I assumed

but "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior" is the actual definition.

which, again, i find rather limiting. I accept that my definition is not the official one, and so I've been wrong. But the official one is altogether too limited and needs to be updated. Hopefully not to the power + prejudice one, but there does need to be a word which describes a phenomenon occurring on a racial axis, regardless of any sapience directing the phenomenon or intentions of that sapience.
#129 - facts are usually racist. But racism isn't a bad thing in and …  [+] (5 replies) 09/08/2016 on Kek kek kekkaroo +1
#169 - anon (09/08/2016) [-]
No, racism is when you have a bias BASED on perception of racial superiority/inferiority.

If it's simply a fact determined logically or through empirical evidence then it's not racist, regardless of whether it results for/against a race.

The reason for the bias is what makes it racist or not.
User avatar
#173 - Namezone (09/08/2016) [-]
racism is a phenomenon based on a human bias. Applying racist as an adjective is totally different though. Something is racist when the response varies based on a racial axis. So, facts can be racist. But that's not a bad thing, it's mostly irrelevant.

Now there isn't enough racial difference to say one is objectively better or worse than any other, but some do have factual advantages. Black people tend to do better in the sunlight. that hinges on race, so can be racist. But that's not something we need to worry about.
#203 - anon (09/09/2016) [-]
"racism is a phenomenon based on human bias" - exactly...you state that (correctly) but you're not following to its logical conclusion.

For example, given what you JUST SAID in that statement, how is the fact that blacks tend to do better in the sun racist? It's based on empirical observation, NOT HUMAN BIAS. Your own example doesn't fit your own definition.

The reason for the conclusion determines if it's racist. If you came to the conclusion because of racial prejudice then it's a racist conclusion. If you came to it from empirical observation or rational logic then it is not.
User avatar
#204 - Namezone (09/09/2016) [-]
Racism is any action based solely on race, it's just that mainly humans commit that action. It can't be limited to only human interactions, though.

or at least, that's what I assumed

but "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior" is the actual definition.

which, again, i find rather limiting. I accept that my definition is not the official one, and so I've been wrong. But the official one is altogether too limited and needs to be updated. Hopefully not to the power + prejudice one, but there does need to be a word which describes a phenomenon occurring on a racial axis, regardless of any sapience directing the phenomenon or intentions of that sapience.
#130 - Namezone has deleted their comment.
#62 - think of it this way: you're playing a game which procedurally…  [+] (2 replies) 09/01/2016 on Look at this cutie +1
#63 - baconfattie (09/01/2016) [-]
Sure, if the planets are infinite, and every 200 thousand one has life, then infinite planets have life.
User avatar
#65 - Namezone (09/01/2016) [-]
Yeah, so there are infinite planets with life in this setting. But there are 2000 times as many that do not. So both points stand. the phrase "Virtually all do not support life" still stands.

below is just a brain dump i had.

Now, in the case of infinite multiverse theory, it can be argued that there are not infinite multiverses, or specifically that there are a limited number of different universes, in other words there are infinite but there are also infinite idendtical copies.

let's suppose that all universes are based off of one "prime" universe, but with a minor change in one event. Then another universe is generated with another change, and so on. There are a limited number of possible ways for any event to occur, even if that number is incalculably large, and a limited number of ways to arrange events even across trillions of years of existence. This means that, eventually, every possible combination of events will occur, and then, identical universes will be generated. Even if there's a time lag between two events, say one universe is an exact copy of another just .0001 nanoseconds behind, even then you'll eventually run out of new universes. The laws of physics can differ, but when it approaches the extremes they all result in the death of that universe, and all dead universes are pretty much the same.

So yeah, there can be a limit to infinity, at least as far as things are demonstrably different.
#49 - -evolved from human, same genetic past. Kinda like if some ask…  [+] (4 replies) 09/01/2016 on Look at this cutie +10
#61 - baconfattie (09/01/2016) [-]
But that's wrong. Even 10^10000000000000000000000000000000th of a part of infinite, is still infinite.
So that statement makes no sense.
User avatar
#62 - Namezone (09/01/2016) [-]
think of it this way: you're playing a game which procedurally generates planets forever. Out of every two hundred thousand of those planets one hosts life. Therefore, virtually all do not support life.
#63 - baconfattie (09/01/2016) [-]
Sure, if the planets are infinite, and every 200 thousand one has life, then infinite planets have life.
User avatar
#65 - Namezone (09/01/2016) [-]
Yeah, so there are infinite planets with life in this setting. But there are 2000 times as many that do not. So both points stand. the phrase "Virtually all do not support life" still stands.

below is just a brain dump i had.

Now, in the case of infinite multiverse theory, it can be argued that there are not infinite multiverses, or specifically that there are a limited number of different universes, in other words there are infinite but there are also infinite idendtical copies.

let's suppose that all universes are based off of one "prime" universe, but with a minor change in one event. Then another universe is generated with another change, and so on. There are a limited number of possible ways for any event to occur, even if that number is incalculably large, and a limited number of ways to arrange events even across trillions of years of existence. This means that, eventually, every possible combination of events will occur, and then, identical universes will be generated. Even if there's a time lag between two events, say one universe is an exact copy of another just .0001 nanoseconds behind, even then you'll eventually run out of new universes. The laws of physics can differ, but when it approaches the extremes they all result in the death of that universe, and all dead universes are pretty much the same.

So yeah, there can be a limit to infinity, at least as far as things are demonstrably different.