Upload
Login or register

TheElementels

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:4/27/2010
Last Login:7/26/2016
Location:Nevada
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7368
Highest Content Rank:#3627
Highest Comment Rank:#2208
Content Thumbs: 1332 total,  1476 ,  144
Comment Thumbs: 1729 total,  2355 ,  626
Content Level Progress: 31% (31/100)
Level 113 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 114 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 85% (85/100)
Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:19984
Times Content Favorited:42 times
Total Comments Made:2604
FJ Points:1567
Favorite Tags: funny (25) | meme (6) | comic (5) | Pokemon (4) | Boobs (3) | game (2) | the (2)

  • Views: 24592
    Thumbs Up 987 Thumbs Down 41 Total: +946
    Comments: 171
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 05/28/10
    3 Wishes 3 Wishes
  • Views: 6480
    Thumbs Up 125 Thumbs Down 9 Total: +116
    Comments: 12
    Favorites: 11
    Uploaded: 05/30/10
    Bikes Bikes
  • Views: 1681
    Thumbs Up 29 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +28
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 8
    Uploaded: 05/25/10
    White Baby White Baby
  • Views: 1671
    Thumbs Up 27 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +25
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 09/21/10
    Tits Tits
  • Views: 3700
    Thumbs Up 22 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +21
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 11/07/10
    Rule 34 Rule 34
  • Views: 10856
    Thumbs Up 20 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +18
    Comments: 15
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 05/26/10
    Mindfuck Mindfuck
  • Views: 820
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 0 Total: +8
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 05/05/10
    Go Cops Go Cops

latest user's comments

#7 - *Dead 06/21/2016 on han 0
#12 - Seeing that he was naked and how big the dog is, I think him f… 05/21/2016 on Dammit scooby doo +121
#39 - That's a bad ass dog, thanks! 05/14/2016 on New Erma comic. 0
#37 - Haven't been on here in a while and the last Erma comic I saw …  [+] (2 new replies) 05/14/2016 on New Erma comic. 0
User avatar
#38 - remotecalamity (05/14/2016) [-]
turns out the dog can regenerate from anything. it just coughed up the three bullets it took.
User avatar
#39 - TheElementels (05/14/2016) [-]
That's a bad ass dog, thanks!
#18 - I just moved to Phoenix 3 months ago and I work outside, I'm n… 02/09/2016 on shitposts 0
#17 - He is atheist and that is his segue into more jokes about religion  [+] (40 new replies) 01/14/2016 on America has a "learning... +14
User avatar
#31 - lolollo (01/14/2016) [-]
Kinda ironic, considering his line on "taking a nice idiot over a smart asshole any day" just 20 seconds prior. It's good to have the insight to make the kind of callouts he was making, but to then give in to personal biases is just emotionally unintelligent.
#50 - migueldecervantes (01/14/2016) [-]
I do not think he considers it a personal bias, though. You, an amateur psychologist, ought to understand that about people.
#73 - lolollo (01/14/2016) [-]
And what makes you think I don't know that about him? The majority of people think their personal biases are perfectly justified. The lack of emotional intelligence if the fact that you'll give in to that. The ability to realize when something is a part of your own bias is a really good indication of intelligence.

Also, I realize you weren't actually serious with your comment, and were just looking to take a personal stab at me, but couldn't think of anything with any substance to note on, I just figured you ought to know about your gross misunderstanding.
#121 - migueldecervantes (01/14/2016) [-]
My entire point is that it is much more difficult to judge/realize one's own personal bias, than that of others. He would as easily say that you have a personal bias for religion and that he is just being a rational person. In his point-of-view, religion is a very dumb thing for "dumb cunts" after all.

I'm not sure he should be swayed by any arguments you could provide, unless they are actually reasoned-out and pertain to the subject of religion instead of just taking for granted that your stance is the correct one and that anyone who disagrees with you is biased and emotionally unintelligent.

And no, I was not just trying to make a stab at you. Do not try to dismiss my claims with that excuse--that would be very unfair. I genuinely think that you are wrong, and that it is a shame that someone who studies psychology is so incapable of understanding the mental states of other people.
User avatar
#123 - lolollo (01/14/2016) [-]
Calculus is difficult as shit to, but people seem to figure it out. Do you know what we call these people? "Smart". If he wants to presume that just because I can see he's being a dumb cunt that I must hold the equally extreme, yet opposite viewpoint, he can, but that just makes him a dumb cunt. He's gonna goad over "a difficulty to learn is the definition of stupidity" but lets turn it around. If hes unable to learn how to set his personal biases aside when dealing with moral ambiguity, he fits that definition.

You can understand all you want why or where the biases are coming from, but they don't excuse them.
#124 - migueldecervantes (01/14/2016) [-]
Calculus is actually pretty easy when you get to the very complex stuff that makes up advanced theoretical physics. But that is unimportant. It is a very strange opening to your paragraph--very incoherent with the rest of your point.

You ARE holding a position. Your position is that religion is not inherently idiotic; his is that it is. In your view, his position is extreme, and yes, in his view your position is extreme too. That only makes him a dumb cunt to the same extent that it makes you a dumb cunt--which is not at all. There is no point in comparing your stances that way, and you were wrong in doing that in the first place.

Do you not understand that he could say everything you have just said about him right back at you? And do you not understand that you are supposed to offer an argument for why your stance is right?

You are still presuming (quite ironically...) that he is biased. I repeat: he will not consider these as biases and would rather consider you biased in favor of religion. There is but one way to escape this cycle lest it ends with both parties flinging horse manure at each other: to provide a logical argument that pertains to the main actual point of the debate.

You will not provide that argument, of course, for two reasons. The first one, the reasonable one, so to speak, is that the bigoted idiot is not here to rebut your criticisms. The second and last one, the not-so-reasonable one, is that you do not have an argument in the first place since I am pretty convinced that you would have had made it already so as not to appear as a bigoted idiot yourself.
User avatar
#126 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
My point isn't incoherent just because you can't understand it, guy, it just means you have poor reading comprehension.

I'll make this simple for you:

I understand why he has bias. I can even give you a million and a half theories for where it came from. I know precisely where his mindset is at. My point is that his mindset is that of a dumb cunt for the reason that it gives in to personal biases. You can understand where bias comes from while still realizing that to give in to it is to have the mindset of a dumb cunt.

Further, not finding religion idiotic isnt extreme, its neutral. I don't find religion highly intelligent either. I find it neutral. It gives in to fallacy to serve a functional social purpose. I get that he might find my opinion to be extreme, but it would be under a fallicious premice, that just because it's counter to his, its the other extreme. I get why he would make the claim, but its still wrong.

Savvy?
#130 - migueldecervantes (01/15/2016) [-]
It is funny that you accuse me of having poor reading comprehension while failing to comprehend what I myself wrote. I said that your opening was incoherent with your main point, not that your main point is itself incoherent. Incongruous might be the correct word, but at any rate...

As long as you understand that he would probably retort to your first comment with the exact same claims that you are making, I guess you understand my point.

What I was saying, and you would have understood it if you had been willing enough to read and not so impatient to respond, was that the deciding factor in your stances would be the most logical argument, not the accusation that the other side is biased. If you ever want a net clarification of this, I would suggest you try using this in court.

"The defense is biased, your Honor. I rest my case."

You don't have to give me a "million and a half" theories for why he is biased--since that is as circular as your first comment--but you ought indeed to offer a well-substantiated argument for why he is wrong.

User avatar
#132 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
You misunderstand. An argument isn't wrong because its biased. Your bias can lead you to a false positive. An argument simply isn't correct because of bias. He's making the value judgment that you need to be a dumb cunt in order to give in to religion, which is incorrect because you can show a wide number of "intelligent" people who give in to religion. Granted, you could then just go deeper into the rabbit hole and try to say "youre a dumb cunt for giving in to religion because only dumb cunts give in to religion" which then turns into a circular argument, because it blurs thebline between where the causal nature is. Are you a dumb cunt because you're religious, or do you give in to religion because you're a dumb cunt.

I'm calling him out because his argument is presumptuous on being a dumb cunt, and religious. I'm then saying that the presumptions come from personal biases.

By the way, you totally can use biases in court. Prejudice is a bias. If you can prove bias in a case, you can even go so far as you get evidence thrown out, or "prove" that a cop was acting irrationally when performing some action, calling to question his or her ability to perform as a cop.

I know you were being sarcastic, but that is a valid thing.
#133 - migueldecervantes (01/15/2016) [-]
Oh, yes, you are totally right about using bias in that way in court. I meant that it would not work insofar as claiming that your opposition is biased against you. It not only adds nothing to the discussion/debate, but also is an incredible feat of redundancy.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, especially not in a mean way. I was only trying to give you an absurd exaggeration of an example so as to illustrate my point.

I really don't think that you are stupid person--quite the contrary, actually. I only think that you are wrong in assessing his bias in the way you did.

Explaining it as you did just now in your first paragraph is exactly what one ought to do when responding to someone, and it is what I was trying to get at. Even if the bigot in the video were here and reading your comments, you still ought not to claim that he is biased in your assessment of his statements about religion. To put it plainly: it simply does not help.

If "[a]n argument isn't wrong because its [sic] biased" and nor is "[a]n argument simply [...] correct because of bias", then I really do not see what kind of value a discussion of bias can have when assessing someone's argument.

In a sense, it really almost seems to be fallacy that tries to redirect attention without actually giving any data/claims that are of intellectual worth/substance.
User avatar
#134 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
I'm not going to ask this with any sort of answer in mind, but because I'm sincerely curious. Your argument isn't that I should drop it because it would just be a classic case of "you can't convince a pigeon you've beaten it in chess." is it? Or more that this simply is a case of that and you're ensuring I understand that?
#135 - migueldecervantes (01/15/2016) [-]
I really don't understand how I could be clearer than how I already have been throughout this conversation. I guess I shall simply sum up my overall point in as concise a sentence-statement as possible:

In a discussion or a debate, one ought not use the accusation of bias as criticism against another's stance, since such an accusation is intrinsically unable to add anything substantial to the debate.

As such, I do not think that my argument is the pigeon tautology. Nor am I patronizing enough to only be ensuring that you understand something so simple--well, I hope so anyway.

No. I am rather trying to get your opinion on this matter. If you refer to the underlined portion of this comment only, would you agree or disagree with me?
User avatar
#136 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
I would disagree with the shit out of that. Bias is a fallacy. Pointing at bias is the same as pointing out any logical fallacy used in an opposition, to say "that doesn't automatically make it correct" or more accurately "your stance is wrong because X, but the reason you think its right is because of bias" when the opposition then insists on their stance.

I also don't know why you're being so aggressive still, considering the entire reason I noted the entire first sentence of my comment was to try and cue you in to the fact that I was trying to shift gears away from the aggression of earlier comment.

If anything, pointing at bias is a cue to the opposite of what you were talking about before, on "not understanding where someones mindset is coming from".
#137 - migueldecervantes (01/15/2016) [-]
What!?

When was I aggressive? Maybe it is that you think I am being sarcastic or something... I'm not sure, but I can assure you that I am not trying to display any kind or form of aggression whatsoever.

I'm genuinely sorry if I come out as such. I have no idea why it is that you interpret my demeanor in that way...

But to address your point in the first paragraph:

I guess I see what you mean. Maybe I'm just getting tired of ten year old kids claiming everything to be a fallacy all over the internet. It makes me react negatively even to those who have an actual reason for pointing out bias/fallacies.

As long as we agree that bias does not make you inherently wrong (just as a fallacy does not make one inherently wrong, either), then I think we should be good.
User avatar
#138 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
That's the ironic thing about fallacies, its a fallacy to say that someone is wrong because they made a fallacy. A fallacy simply states that the conclusion can't be made that the argument is correct, not that it then has to be wrong. I would be able to tell you the specific name of the fallacy, but I took philosophy as a diversity credit...
#139 - migueldecervantes (01/15/2016) [-]
It's the fallacy fallacy.

Do you not think that philosophy is an important subject to study?
User avatar
#140 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
To study? Yes. To major in? God no...

It's important to have under your belt in the same way its important to know your own body. It's crucial to you as a person. Granted, I hear a lot of philosophy majors will get picked up by businesses for things like contractual process control, but then they might go more for the guy who majored in business and minored in philosophy.
#141 - migueldecervantes (01/15/2016) [-]
In my view, one ought only to major in something that either necessitates a diploma or anything, provided that they are already rich as fuck.

Subjects like art, music, philosophy and literature should, I think, be learned by oneself--be it for professional usage or simply as an amateur interest. These subjects require either a lot of thinking (philosophy and literature) or a lot of learning theory and practicing (art and music). The latter criteria require full attention (which a college education simply cannot provide entirely) and the only evaluation that matters in the end (for monetary gain, I mean) is public appraisal. The former criterion requires thinking and reading (as in, thinking and internet...) so there really is no need for a college education in any way. Also, thinking requires keeping an open mind, and thus not listening to professors who are, it seems to me, often biased.

Fields like psychology, biology, law, engineering, physics, chemistry, and others as such require college attendance because the jobs require a diploma... It's that simple, I'm afraid.
User avatar
#142 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
I'm in agreement in all of that...granted...we share the same unpopular opinion with respect to psychology. I could go on and on with everything wrong with what this site would have to say about anything psychology related, though, so there's that.
User avatar
#131 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
You misunderstand. An argument isn't wrong because its biased. Your bias can lead you to a false positive. An argument simply isn't correct because of bias. He's making the value judgment that you need to be a dumb cunt in order to give in to religion, which is incorrect because you can show a wide number of "intelligent" people who give in to religion. Granted, you could then just go deeper into the rabbit hole and try to say "youre a dumb cunt for giving in to religion because only dumb cunts give in to religion" which then turns into a circular argument, because it blurs thebline between where the causal nature is. Are you a dumb cunt because you're religious, or do you give in to religion because you're a dumb cunt.

I'm calling him out because his argument is presumptuous on being a dumb cunt, and religious. I'm then saying that the presumptions come from personal biases.

By the way, you totally can use biases in court. Prejudice is a bias. If you can prove bias in a case, you can even go so far as you get evidence thrown out, or "prove" that a cop was acting irrationally when performing some action, calling to question his or her ability to perform as a cop.

I know you were being sarcastic, but that is a valid thing.
#143 - migueldecervantes (01/15/2016) [-]
What exactly are you studying? General psychology? Or are you in a more specific field such as psychoanalysis or even psychiatry? Cognitive science, maybe (my personal favorite)?
User avatar
#144 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
I recently got my BA in general track Psychology with a minor in Biology and Chemistry. My interest is in behavioral analysis, and potential applications with forensic psychology. This upcoming semester, I was gonna see about going back to grad school to pursue it further.
#145 - migueldecervantes (01/15/2016) [-]
Oh, wow. That's really nice. How's the job market? Are you employed?
User avatar
#146 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
I'm working security right now, but psychology is one of those fields where you need to go for a doctorate to do anything relevant to your interests.
#147 - migueldecervantes (01/15/2016) [-]
Yes... Well, I hope everything turns out well for you. I can definitely understand your interest in human behavior, and forensic psychology is probably the most useful field currently that is linked to psychology overall.

I'm very interested in human behavior, as well, yet in a different way from yours. Actually, I have studied all these subjects extensively...

Physics, to understand the basic, quanitiable laws that govern our world; chemistry, to understand how energy forms the matter that in turn makes everything that exists in our world; biology--now that is a fascinating field; I still remember learning about evolution by natural selectionI was in awe. It is such a formidable, elegant concept. One must be a genius to figure this out, I thought; psychology, to see what science can say about human agency; and even sociology...

Yeah.

I kind of really fucking hated sociology, though. It was just stupid and useless.

I regret learning sociology.

Well, at any rate... But all these only serve my end goal which is to write better screenplays/stories/essays. I feel like I am more of a humanist than a scientist--despite my having studied sciences much more extensively. I derive much more joy in reading a good novel that makes me think, than from reading the cognitive analyses of the craziest criminal minds.

I think that psychology really rests somewhere right in the middle between pure sciences and pure humanities. Thus, I can kind of understand FJ folks if they consider psychology to be a stupid major choice.

But if the field requires a PhD to find any kind of desirable work, then they are wrong. In that case, then, you shouldn't really give a fuck about their opinions in the first place.
User avatar
#148 - lolollo (01/15/2016) [-]
The only discernable problem with psychology is that it inherently involves subjectivity, who h is why people call it a "soft science", but my original interest was in Biology, which goes over concepts like instinct and social evolution. Humanity is only as unpredictable as the separate nature of consciousness (which is still pretty fucken true) but to say that humanity is absolutely unpredictable is just not true. Plenty of professions rely on predicting human behavior to function. Hopefully you get what you're looking at though. Behaviorism tends to look a little counterproductive at times with respect to hypothesis and observation.
User avatar
#18 - mondprinzessin (01/14/2016) [-]
well i got that he was an atheist, but i dont understand why atheists always have to bring religion into their act. Its not like it hasnt been done before by every atheist comedian. And with the exception of dane cook, ive never heard someone religious bash atheism
#36 - kangawk (01/14/2016) [-]
It's kinda like how religious people talk shit about other religions being wrong, except this time it's happening to you and you don't like it.
User avatar
#47 - mondprinzessin (01/14/2016) [-]
huh.. i dont talk about other people's religions. I dont even talk about other forms of Christianity.
im not talking shit about anything, im wondering why his act took suck an unnecessary turn
#79 - kangawk (01/14/2016) [-]
Sorry I got a bit out of line there. There are a lot of religious people out there who will tell other religious people that they're wrong time and time again, but as soon as Ricky starts having a go at them they can't take it. The double standard kinda deal. My apologies I thought you were one of those.
User avatar
#127 - mondprinzessin (01/15/2016) [-]
fuck man my computer has crashed twice now while i was typing, so im pretty much just goina say my thing and be done:

Everyone gets a shot at heaven, jews, christians, athiests, unitologists, gays & murderers. Because humanity has fucked pretty much everything up. From the very beggining (Adam and Eve may or may not be just a symbolic event, its an irrelevant subject) and there is nothing we can do to fix things. That is what Jesus did, he is the only reason any of us can go to heaven (and that goes throughout time, not just the people after his thing). Now the people that scream shit will get their slap on the wrist or whatever, but understand that god loves everyone and we'll prolly all end of together in the end.
#25 - comradvlad (01/14/2016) [-]
Spends first part of video insulting Americans... top LEL.... mentions religion... owwww my feelings.
User avatar
#125 - mondprinzessin (01/15/2016) [-]
imagine it like this: you go to an ice cream parlor, buy some ice cream, and then the guy that gives you the ice cream that you bought with your money, comes around the counter and dick punches you, for no real reason.

he is an entertainer, so this is why i dont understand why he would attack some peoples faith
User avatar
#26 - mondprinzessin (01/14/2016) [-]
basically :T
#20 - anon (01/14/2016) [-]
just things to joke about, you don't have to listen to it man.
User avatar
#21 - mondprinzessin (01/14/2016) [-]
yeah, but most of the time it doesnt feel like a joke, more like an attack on religion ya know?
there are some jokes that can absolutely slam on religion that i find hilarious, because the comedian can tell them in a humorous way.

Daniel Tosh: Completely Serious - Heaven
User avatar
#30 - ecthelion (01/14/2016) [-]
He's an aggressive comedian. Sorta like George Carlin or Jimmy Carr. Everyone laughs until suddenly his focus is on them.
#41 - oubliette (01/14/2016) [-]
**oubliette used "*roll picture*"**
**oubliette rolled image**
no, i can take a joke about religion/racism/sexism /etc that shits hilarious
but when comedians get a little too serious with their jokes and try to push an agenda thats when im like "cmon man"
#29 - afrosheep (01/14/2016) [-]
If it bothers you then maybe you're not getting the point of religion in modern society. Religion today is not the faith or belief that God made you from the Earth and all that non sense; it's about the morals that dictate that non sense in the first place. So when someone bashes your religion, don't take that to heart, Jesus wouldn't, he probably forgive your transgressions and all that jazz.
#27 - afrosheep has deleted their comment.
#11 - I saw a Burger King burn down that I pass on the way to work s… 01/09/2016 on Show Up 0
#20 - What song is in the first one? Or is it just that small of a s…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/03/2016 on Small TR-8R Comp 0
#29 - What's funny about the rock one is that it's from a real song,… 11/28/2015 on hue +2
#35 - Reminded me of this  [+] (5 new replies) 09/28/2015 on REKT +17
#50 - anotherhaloguy (09/28/2015) [-]
User avatar
#39 - shadowkingdr (09/28/2015) [-]
but omega groudon fucks up alpha kyogre everytime
#42 - zepherius (09/28/2015) [-]
1 Turn solarbeams OP as fuck.
User avatar
#81 - welliguessitsaname (09/28/2015) [-]
No, because Groudon has bad SpA, and Groudon's Solar Beam is effectively useless against Kyogre's huge SpD
#91 - zepherius (09/28/2015) [-]
At that point you could catch it multiple times until it has decent ev's and natures to get around that which would make it just average, either way you are right though. Doesnt mean a 1 turn solar beam cant be OP, double duels with a spA partner and groudons ability makes for a very deadly move.