x
Click to expand

Vandeekree

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:8/01/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7089
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 5358 total,  7454 ,  2096
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 85% (85/100)
Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 247 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:1
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:2064
FJ Points:4611

latest user's comments

#332 - I know. It's hard not to become biter when someone is taken fr…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Justice Served -1
User avatar #356 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
I want to assume no one is a bad person. I really do, but when someone says they killed someone because they wanted to. That is evil. I did feel pity for him a little at one point, most of my pity went to his family, but when he killed himself, it was all gone.
User avatar #361 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
He was a messed up person with many personal problems. I don't see how you can look at a person like that and not feel pity and want to help them.
User avatar #365 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
Try having a close family member taken from you because they did not get mental help a year earlier when their family tried to give it to them. Then see if you still pity them.
User avatar #373 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I believe I still would. And it would light a fire in me to get active in the medical community that deals with metal illness. There isn't enough awareness about the signs of metal instability and people don't take strong enough action before it's too late. I think it would only strengthen my desire to help those people. Both the unstable ones and their potential victims.
User avatar #383 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
The problem was not the medical community. It was the laws that prevented his parents from doing anything because he was 18 and he did not want to get help. He would have had to do something that would have caused a court to order him to go.

Also, many people think they would do something in certain situations, but in all honesty most of them would not do what they think they would do. In other words, "talk is cheap"
User avatar #386 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
But that is a medical issue. You see, the courts could do anything till he did something to prove he was unstable. But if medical science advanced enough to produce a reliable test to show that he was on the verge of something violent then they could court order him to seek treatment.

And yes, talk is cheap and so are bullets.
User avatar #390 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
All I am saying is. It is a lot harder to feel bad for someone when they ripped a loved one out of your life for no reason. I don't really want to talk about this anymore.
User avatar #401 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Fair enough. Maybe it's not my place to say but I think love is a better way to heal than hate. Wish you the best man.
#329 - We definitely have the resources. And yes, it would take work …  [+] (58 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Justice Served -1
User avatar #333 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Sometimes morality has to take a back seat to utility. Morality is subjective. Utility is objective. You have to take care of objective needs before subjective ones. You can't put humans up on a pedestal like we're all somehow beautiful flowers. We're not. A lot of us are ugly weeds that will choke out everything around us if not pulled up.
User avatar #343 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Never never should morality take a back seat to utility. Even if you are starving it's not ok to murder a man for his bread. It is better to die than break morality.

And no, morality is subjective and absolute but only in the context of religion. If you have no religion then yes, everything is subjective and there is no morality anyway.

Humans may be weeds that will choke everything around us, but only if we are not helped first. You can take even the most broken mind and rehabilitate them. But first you have to see them as worthy of rehabilitation and help. It's easy to dismiss someone as a monster and just kill them to get rid of them. But make no mistake. Those who hurt others for their own gain are sick and in need of help like a child in need of a mother.
User avatar #376 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
but in such a scenario, wouldn't it also be correct to say the man with the bread broke morality by not sharing the bread and allowing you to die?
User avatar #381 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Yes, but this assumes that the starving man didn't ask for help before stealing. If he had asked and the man with bread didn't help then that too would wrong. But one should never focus on the immoralities of others. You should primarily worry about making sure you do no wrong even while those around you hurt you.
User avatar #564 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
i will assume you are probably vegan because if not, you're a huge hypocrite. as there is no reply room, i had to move my reply here. it is also wrong to have opulence while others live in poverty, that does not mean it isn't going to happen. in your idealistic happy world there would be no need to carry a gun, because nothing would need to be killed. there would also be no need for psychological help because everyone would be born of fit mind and body. this is not a perfect world, we do need to kill people as incredibly harsh and bad as it sounds, it is a necessary evil. to address religions, most of them have hypocrisy in their scriptures and dogmas. things that could not be possible in the world today are in most if not all religious scriptures, and most religions preach unfair things such as going to hell, or that religion's equivalent if you do not pray to their god. religion cannot be looked at the same way as anything else because there is nothing else like it. it says you're being watched and judged at all times, that you were created to follow these sets of rules but you can choose not to at the same time. it's nonsensical at best.
User avatar #574 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I'm not vegan and am not sure why that makes my a hypocrite honestly.

And I don't mind guns at all. What I mind is carrying them for the purpose of killing other people, even those who threaten you. I also don't think anyone would be born prefect, that's why I was advocating that we improve medical science to get help to those who need it rather than preparing to kill those who we allowed to threaten us. And I find it hard to believe that we NEED to kill anyone. Not with modern resources and technology.

And I agree. Most religions do have hypocrisy and flaws. I haven't found any of that in Christianity though. Hell is perfectly fair. You get sent there for being bad and then at the end of time it is cast into the second fire for the second death and you cease to exist. And the miracles and stuff that are impossible are only impossible for humans, not really impossible for a god. And I'm not sure why you think it's unfair that you have to pray to God for forgiveness, how else are you supposed to show you messed up and acknowledge it and plan to try better in the future?

I guess I can't argue it being nonsense i cal sense that's your opinion but it doesn't look nonsensical to me. It's the only thing that makes sense. Atheism is what seems to defy logic to me. Why would you believe in nothing? How can anything with a limit exist without a creator? Why would you accept an ideal that has no possible reward for believing it?
User avatar #599 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
you say that taking from someone is wrong, yet by eating meat of any sort, you take from the creature you eat, taking their entire life just to keep you alive for a little while longer.
you can spout how it isn't the same, the fact remains you took a life to keep yourself alive, a basic wrong. yes there are people who NEED to die in order to keep this world safe. if a terrorist group got a hold of nuclear weaponry and planned to launch them at various cities around the world, they would need to be killed in order to preserve the lives of thousands of others, and the destruction of cities. impossible for a human but not for a god? well throw that impossibilities portion of your previous response out because by that astounding logic, nothing is impossible. hell is not fair, what of the people who were born before christianity existed? i think it's unfair to pray to god for forgiveness when i haven't even done anything wrong. if i followed the bible, then i would need to pray for forgiveness because i thought my married neighbor is pretty good looking (and a nice person) and her husband is a lucky son of a bitch for being able to find someone like that. i don't believe in intelligent design or a creator because honestly humans are not intelligently designed, and whoever thought putting the breathing tube where food goes through, and putting a playground next to a toxic waste factory should probably be fired for incompetence.
i suppose why i accept an ideal that has no possibility for reward at the end of it is because i don't really need to. why do you believe in an eternal life after death?
User avatar #621 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Someone, meaning a person, a human. Not an animal. Not sure where you got that I was saying that.

Before Christianity there was Judaism and you don't have to pry when you did nothing wrong, only when you did. There really an answer for everything in the bible.

I believe in eternal life after death because life is very short and pointless without it.

We can continue this later if you like but I'm going to have to go so you might not get a reply for a while. Thanks for the debate though, was fun.
User avatar #662 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
it is rather fun debating with you, but it looks like there's some people giving us red thumbs because of our opinions, but whatever. the thought of eternal life scares me, because if we have an infinite amount of time to do whatever, we'll grow bored or it eventually. life is so very special to me and others because it lacks permanence. if eternal life existed this life would be meaningless, as what could a day here do to even compare to a day in heaven? although come to think of it, no casual sex would be kind of weird, but wouldn't affect my current sexlife
User avatar #388 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
now how about this for a scenario, you're in a large group of people, and you're concealed carrying a handgun when a man with a rifle starts shooting people in the crowd. so do you absolutely ignore your morality and attempt to kill the man, or try a couple of nonlethal shots?
User avatar #399 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Depending on ho close I am to him I would always go for the non lethal shots. Perhaps some intentionally missed covering fire till people can run and to show him I have a gun so he better focus on me. But that's irrelevant because I don't plan to ever carry a gun. If someone wants to kill them then I either I did something to provoke it or it's random chance, and I prevent random chance by trying to help as many mentally ill as I can before hand, not by being ready to kill them if they snap.
User avatar #408 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
continuing this scenario, you'd probably end up shot, and the rampage would most likely continue. and not everyone in the world can be "helped." some refuse any sort of treatment, and others don't show signs of needing it before it's too late
User avatar #414 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
They do show signs, medical science just can't test or or pick up on those signs yet. And if I give up my life trying to stop the massacre then so be it. The point is purely your intentions. How can you care for all the strangers being shot at but not care about the stranger doing the shooting? Clearly they are the ones in need of more help than anyone. Sure, some of those victims will die but they will die innocent, the shooter is the one doing wrong and has a mark on his record.
User avatar #435 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
but you didn't stop the massacre, and more people are dead for it. by not ending a murderer's life, you have ended several innocent people's lives. i respect your belief that everybody is entitled to life, but morality and life itself isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. also, once you are dead, why does it matter if you have a "mark" on your record? you wouldn't be alive to care, same as if you died "innocent."
User avatar #448 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Ah but it is that black and white. You see, it's better to avoid doing wrong yourself than it is to do any amount of good. Let me change the scenario. There is a bad guy, he is a stain on humanity and has done tons of bad things. You have the choice to kill him and use his organs to prolong the life of 5 other people. Is it ok for you to kill one person to help 5 others?
I say no, because more important than prolonging other people's lives is not hurting this one man.

And when you die you will be judged by what you do in life. Though if you believe that nothing happens after life and there is no God then none of this even matters sense morality doesn't exist. It's all just relative and no morality is absolute. It doesn't matter how many people that guy kills or you save.
User avatar #470 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
let me preface this by saying "morality without god is meaningless/doesn't exist" is a tired and overdone argument and is really not even worth giving more attention than i already have, if you want to discuss that particular thing, you can find a ton of youtube videos saying the same things we would both say. with that out of the way, i would end the life of 1 to save 5 others. that man has proven himself a burden upon society, and unless those other 5 were just like him, i would have no problem with the decision. i would rather have an "innocent" person around, than someone with several "marks." and what if there are no pearly gates awaiting us after we die? besides just believing that there is a heaven and all the good people will go there, we don't have any knowledge of what happens to us after death. well other than we start to smell incredibly bad, and are no fun at parties. eternal life after death is as far as we know not there as in, we cannot perceive it in any matter, but i do not discount it totally so we should endeavor to make it enjoyable for as many people as we can, kind of like a party. and if someone wants to be a party pooper and ruin the whole thing for a lot of people, we kick him out.
User avatar #481 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
If you don't want to get into how there is no morality without God then that's fine. But we certainly do know something about death. And that is that there either is nothing or there is something. If there is nothing then it doesn't matter what we do in life really, it ends the same. If there is something then that life after death is either fair or unfair. If it's unfair, once again, it doesn't matter because it's unfair, we might not have been told about it which is unfair, we might not have had a chance to do what is right which is unfair. So that leaves only one option. If you want what you do on Earth to matter, it has to follow the rules of a fair afterlife dogma. So you either are religious and get either something or nothing or you're not religious and get either punishment or nothing. And while there are different religions, once again, if there is a fair afterlife, then anyone who seeks the right one will eventually find it.

As for you killing 1 to save 5, that is very wrong on so many levels. That means that you should start stealing from the rich to give to the poor because it would make the poor happy. After all, all you care about is cold numbers.
User avatar #490 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
and what if there is a god, but it isn't the one you pray to? you say there is only two options, either there is no god and nothing happens, or there is and something happens. truth is, there are so many other factors to put into that, like there being a god but no afterlife because the soul is a temporary thing. and what if there is an afterlife, but it isn't fair? what if it's only for believers in the "right" god? and yes i would take from those that can afford it, to give to those who need it. i would rather have a million smiling children, given a chance at life and happiness, than someone who is only happy having mass amounts of material wealth. and to say i only care about cold numbers because i would have five people have a shot at continuing life is about as wrong as it gets. what do you say to the person who would allow five people to die to let one person continue living?
User avatar #492 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I addressed if the god one worships isn't the right one. That's the part about how if you seek out the true religion you will find it, but only if you search. If you never look beyond your book then you won't likely notice.

And you clearly didn't read what I said. A god but no afterlife falls into the "unfair afterlife" category.

But only those who took the time to find the right god is a fair afterlife but only if God put the ability for everyone to find his way, which the Christian god did at least.

I would say that allowing someone to die is perfectly fine. You allow thousands to die per day simply because you didn't go into the medical field and possibly find a cure for yet uncured disease. You let thousands die because you don't send your excess money to be used to buy food for those in need. All you can do is your best but no one can be expected to save everyone or even to save everyone possible to be saved. Prolonging life is a pitiful example of doing good. It would be far better to enrich a life than to prolong it.
User avatar #543 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
but how is our stain on humanity's quality of life improved in any way? assuming all these bad things he has done would net him in prison, probably for a life sentence if he has murders under his belt. would you be able to walk in a room with those five dying people, look them in the eyes and tell them they have death to look forwards to, while some lowlife thug gets to spend the rest of his life in prison? you do have a point about me not reading what you said, i was entirely too busy focusing on someone telling me i care only about "cold numbers" to completely focus on the complexities of a fair and unfair afterlife, so allow me to offer a rebuttal to your comment here, and to the one i rather shamefully ignored: if you convert to Christianity, and your brother/other family member converts to Islam, who has the wrong religion? obviously both parties will feel it is the right one, and if you both went looking for the truth and found it in two different ways, who is wrong?
most religions do what you say the christian god does, they offer salvation if you only accept that their god(s) are the true ones.
User avatar #553 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Everyone has death to look forward to. But it's wrong to take from someone else for your gain. It's just a basic wrong thing that I'm surprised you can't see.

And it doesn't matter who it is following a religion, it is the two religions that need to be compared. Islam vs Christianity is a good example. You have to look at them and compare why one might be superior to the other. Study them to make sure you know which one(if either) is right. Do they have contradictions? Impossibilities? Is what they preach unfair? Are there holes in the dogma? Is there anything "divine" about their holy books? It all has to be taken into account the same way you would look at anything else.
User avatar #346 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Okay; while you live in hippy-dippy land, I'll be alive and breeding.
User avatar #345 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Clearly you've never had a conversation with a cannibalistic sociopath. I have. I was a volunteer therapy worker in an Ontario prison for 2 years. That fucker liked being the way he was.
User avatar #347 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Oh I know. My brother is a psychologist and we talk about his encounters and study all the time. But certainly you would agree that that sociopath was mentally ill, right? And would you agree that if the world were to make a good effort towards finding treatments and causes of such things we would be able to cure such people and give them a more normally functioning brain with which to see morality?

And I will continue to live this way. I will do my best to help and save those around me until it eventually kills me.
User avatar #357 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And if helping and saving those around you includes having to take the life of an unjustly violent person? Will you simply die holding the moral high ground (which serves you fuck-all in death) and let them have their way with the innocents around you?
Sorry, but if one psychotic fuck threatens the lives of the ten people in his immediate vicinity, I'm snapping that motherfucker's neck without a second thought. That's not just moral; that's math.

Finding treatments takes time. It's like calling the police when there's someone in your house: by the time the cops get there, the intruder can have killed you, made and eaten a sandwich, and left for a leisurely stroll home. That doesn't mean we disband the police department, but it also means we don't rely on them for split-second solutions to the problem.

Sure, there might be a cure for violent psychosis in ten years. But that's not really going to help me if some nutjob walks into the coffee shop tomorrow morning with an illegal Uzi while I'm buying my morning java, is it?
User avatar #367 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
You can't tell me that in the time you could break his neck you couldn't have subdued him too. You're looking at it that the person threatening someone else is no longer a person, only a threat. The moral thing to do is to try to save everyone even at your own expense.

But what are you going to do if someone walks in with a uzi? They have the intent to kill. If they want to kill they will. Now you can either carry a gun and protect yourself form this one or you can invest money in research to treat those in need and make it so no one ever get to the the point of psychotic murder again.
User avatar #371 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And that would be why I am part of 7 different lobbying groups pushing for the right to Concealed Carry firearms in Canada. As it stands, I carry two knives and a collapsible baton pretty much everywhere I go.

You can worry about moral qualms after the safety of all innocents has been secured. When seconds count, the lives of the innocent take priority over the lives of the guilty. Taking the guilty party alive is not the gold standard; it is a bonus. The gold standard is eliminating the threat to innocents, whatever the cost to the guilty. When beating hearts are on the line, you don't have time to ponder morality. You have time for math. Period.
User avatar #379 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That seems like a short sighted way of thinking. I have always asserted that the best cure of disease is prevention. To stop someone from ever getting to the point that they would kill another human being on an urge is infinitely preferable to giving everyone a gun to protect themselves. I think if you really wanted to make a difference that both protected you and helped others you would go into mental medicine and help progress it towards being able to eliminate the mentally ill's problems.
User avatar #384 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
It's not a question of either-or. You have to be ready for both at the same time. A cure in ten years will be awesome in ten years; however, it's not gonna help the family of four that will get sprayed down tomorrow morning if someone isn't ready to give the murderer - who is a problem not ten years later, but right that second - two in the chest and one in the head.

You can seek a cure, but that does not mean that you abandon the practice of triage in the meantime.
User avatar #393 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
You seem to think that there are millions of psychos just waiting around every corner with a gun. It's rare, very rare. And while you might possibly someday be able to use that open carry gun, you are so much more likely to be threatened by statically more likely things. House fires, car crashes, carbon monoxide poisoning, but you'll spend money on a gun before you'll buy safety measures against things that kill far more people per year. You're afraid of your fellow human being and it kills your empathy.
User avatar #417 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And another thing: it doesn't take millions of psychos. All it takes is one, in the right place, at the right time.
User avatar #423 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
And all it takes it one person to realize this person is distressed who is in the right place at the right time.
User avatar #425 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
That's a big fucking if.
User avatar #430 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I know, and yet you still prepare for it like it's certain.
User avatar #465 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #461: Clearly you've never been outside your first-world bubble. That is literally the only explanation that I can think of for why you are so brain-dead naive. If the world was a beautiful place, we wouldn't need police or militaries or courts of law. We have those things precisely because the world is a fucked-up place with fucked-up people that will spit you out dead with zero warning if they aren't kept in check.

Your world may be nice. The world - the real, tangible, empirically-observable world that exists outside your own shallow impression of how things work - is not. There are points of light, but mostly it's a place of criminalized homosexual love, Korean death camps, witch-burnings of Central African albinos, honour killings of women in the Middle East for making eye contact with a boy, and on and on and on.
User avatar #472 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It's true. I grew up in the bible belt America where neighbors have each other over, where churches compete to have given the most to charity, and where Jesus was sued to shame my brothers and I into never doing drugs, stealing, and making us care about other people. But do you know why? Because we are the haves. We want for very little. We don't have fear and thus we are happy to give to one another.

It seems you have been watching the news a lot. All it shows you are wars and famine. But the majority of the world lives in peace. You are only focusing on the bad spots. Spots where poverty causes conflict. All of it could be avoided were these people to simply not fear they won't get to eat the next day.

The world is not fucked up. The world is getting better and better. No longer do governments invade on a whim, they are now accountable to their people. No longer can atrocities throughout the world go unseen. The media now covers them and it prompts action. The formation of charities to delver food and organizations to police rogue areas.

You have a very bleak outlook on life and it smells of fear. I may be naive but communism was stopped by condition free donations of money to the poor countries who were embracing it for a reason.
User avatar #456 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #452: Got news for ya, buddy. The world is not a happy or welcoming place. Get used to it.

I think the worse for those who fail to demonstrate that they deserve the benefit of the doubt. If I die today because I refused to pull the trigger because I wanted to try and defend my own precious moral high ground, that means that I won't be alive tomorrow to resuscitate someone who goes into cardiac arrest at the bus stop.
User avatar #461 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
The world is a wonderful place but only if you love those around you. Be nice to those you love and nicer to those who hate you. Don't be afraid to lose what you have, your possessions, your loved ones, your life, they will all disappear eventually into inevitable death. Love them while they are here and do not fear their loss.

And yes. I think there is nothing better than to die while doing what you believe to be right. Do you think people have morals simply because it makes us feel better about ourselves? It allows us to think we are better than other people?
User avatar #442 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Better to be prepared than not. Which is why I majored in psychology and sociology, AND never go anywhere unarmed.

What is hippies' obsession with false dichotomies and either-or tactics?
User avatar #452 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It just bothers me to see someone living in fear like that. To walk around constantly armed. To think the worse of your fellow man. It feels cold.
User avatar #413 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Just because the fire department exists doesn't mean I don't keep a fire extinguisher, carbon monoxide alarm, smoke alarm, and trauma kit in my house. I have a pocket first aid kit that I also carry everywhere I go.
You assume that because I am ready to take a life in defence of others that I have no empathy. This is an unfair assumption, and a misguided one that judges an individual by a fallacious artificial standard. It could be argued that the fact that I am willing to sacrifice my mental health - nights waking up screaming in a cold sweat, panic attacks when reminded of the life I took, inability to face those who witnessed the event - all for the sake of guaranteeing that others live to see another sunset takes as much selflessness as subduing the killer. I will not argue that point, but it has been done.

The question is, when the threat is real, are you comfortable with mere 90% certainty? In the real world, you work with what you know and you keep the amount of information you have to process simple. Simple is fast is alive. Complicated is slow is dead. You will have time for soul-searching after those who are innocent are guaranteed their safety.
User avatar #421 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
The difference is you have empathy for the victims but not the criminal. Who is really in need of help here? Even if the victims die they die innocent, but the shooter is the one who is at risk of killing himself and others. He is messed up and has problems. He is bitter or insane. So the way I see it, if you kill him then there is a 100 percent chance that someone who might not have had to die died.
User avatar #424 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And that is why, out of the two of us, you will be dead and I will be breeding.
User avatar #427 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Probably, but if I did my job right I will have saved someone else. My purpose in life isn't to survive nor pass on my genes. It's to help others.
User avatar #511 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #502: ... You don't have much of a survival instinct, do you?

The benefit of the doubt is slow. In a life-or-death situation, slow gets you dead. You can't help anyone when you're dead. And honestly, that's the last I'm gonna say on the matter. Have fun with your moral high ground if you're ever in a position like this where you might have to take a life to save others - which, by the way, I am in every weekend because I work as bar security in the most violent city in my province. I hope I never have to, but if someone in my bar pulls a TT-33, I'm not giving them a chance to use it. They've signed their life away. The lives of the innocent cannot afford to wait with bated breath for the slim chance of a morally pure salvation.
User avatar #524 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I admit I don't. I'm pretty content and not all that afraid to die. Maybe that's stupid but I can't help how I feel. I've had a very good life with both parents and close brothers. I can only describe my life as warm and fulfilling so far so I don't worry about bad things happening to me much at all.

But how often do you encounter life or death situations? I mean realistically they happen but surely not on the daily. I've heard big cities can be rough but not that rough.

I think a little bit of love and trust will serve you more through your life than a lifetime of preparing for threats that might never even happen.
User avatar #493 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #488:

You seem to think it's either "yourself" or "everyone". You preclude the possibility that the most logical approach is "you and as many people as is reasonably feasible". If that happens to include the fuckwit, so be it. If it doesn't, then too bad for the fuckwit.

In a situation with
> limited knowledge (you don't know why they're a threat, only that they ARE a threat),
> limited threat-elimination options of varying likelihoods of success (non-intervention which is most likely to fail, peaceful intervention which is about even, and violent intervention which has the highest statistical chance of success), and
>costs of infinite size (until we know for sure that there's an afterlife, we have to assume that being killed equates to the obliteration of an entire existence),
the only reasonable option is to pick the option that has the lowest potential cost and the highest chance of success. In the case of a violent individual, the option that fits these criteria is violent intervention and, as an extension, lethal intervention. A corpse can't decide to kill.

Even just by simple cost-benefit analysis, the appropriate response to lethal violence is lethal violence. That is the only way, within the context of the situation, that you can guarantee the lowest cost with the highest chance of success. Sure, you could try to talk them down, but if the odds of success are pitifully low, it is not reasonable to select that option in terms of saving as many as is possible.

You can't save everyone. Period. So you'd better be ready to triage if you want anyone to have a chance of getting out alive.
User avatar #502 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's the point I was making. You have to try and empathize with everyone. That likely doesn't mean everyone in the world, but everyone you can reach with the attempt of making it everyone in the world.

But what you're doing there is not giving that person the benefit of the doubt. You assume the worst instead of the best. That they are a bad person, not a person who is in need of help.

And no, I don't see why you would assume there is no afterlife until proven otherwise. It makes more sense to assume there is an afterlife until it's proven there isn't. That way you might get a reward and if you're wrong you get nothing like everyone else.

And once again, no, your cost analysis is only weighing your own survival and the survival of a number of people. But you can't tell me it's cost effective when we think two different things are valuable. You think life length is valuable while I think helping someone to become a good person is important.

And I know you can't save everyone. But I will go so far as to give my life in the attempt. You keep worrying about you and you will definitely survive until you die.
User avatar #478 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #475: Who said anything about justice? It's about survival.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Physiological > safety > love/belonging > esteem > self-actualization.

Notice how safety comes before all the pretty moral shit? That's because if you're dead, you're not exactly capable of pursuing the pretty moral shit.

When someone's a trigger-pull away from ending an innocent life, you don't have time to question motives. That's too many steps of prevention versus too few steps to failure. You have time to eliminate the threat. End of story. Safety comes first; morality comes after. A corpse can't serve the common good, but it is prevented from harming the common good. If intent to harm the common good is presented, that's the end of the line. Nothing else matters until the threat is gone.
User avatar #488 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
And I agree, but only if that model is facing outwards. What I mean is, if you are saying "Your Physiological > Your safety > Your love/belonging > Your esteem > Your self-actualization" then it is a selfish model.
But if you are saying "Everyone's Physiological > Everyone's safety > Everyone's love/belonging > Everyone's esteem > Everyone's self-actualization" then it lines up perfectly to what I am asserting.

It all comes down to who you care about. Your survival or everyone's survival.

When you see someone kill someone else you have to stop and think about what would be best to do. You can't act on rage or instant like a simple animal. You are a thinking rational being and you must use that for moral purposes. Safety does come first, but everyone's, not just yours, not just the people you like, everyone.

But you see an outside threat to the greater good, I see an inside threat. Like a man thinking of taking his own life. You can't kill someone to stop them from killing themselves. You can't save people by killing people. You might prolong someone's life that way, but there is a difference between keeping someone alive and saving someone's life.
User avatar #468 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #464: You're goddamned right, I'd plug a fucker if he threatened someone who had shown no signs of deserving it. Forfeiture of respect for fellow man without justification constitutes forfeiture of one's own humanity.

Guilty fucker tries to hurt an innocent, I'd rather see the guilty fucker dead - I'd rather make the guilty fucker dead - than see the innocent die. Innocent takes priority over guilty. How's that for moral high ground?
User avatar #475 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I agree. And you forfeit your respect for someone because of their actions without looking to see what caused those actions.

And I agree. The guilty deserve to be punished but punished fairly. Do you know why that person pulled a gun and shot that innocent? Sane people don't do that. People who can provide for themselves don't do that. Something caused him to do that. But instead of judging him on everything, you judge him on his single action to die. That is not justice, that is your fear controlling you.
User avatar #460 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #455:

Again with the false dichotomy. It's not a case of either-or. It's a case of exercising all options simultaneously. It is possible to support research into treatments while also being ready with the next best thing until those treatments are ready.

Take tree pests, for example. Asian long-horned beetles are decimating certain species of trees all across North America. There are researchers trying to come up with a way to kill of the bugs without harming the trees. However, in the meantime, trees that are already infected are destroyed in order to slow the spread and prevent other trees from dying.

It's not a question of either finding a cure or scorched-earth eradication: you use both at once, each where appropriate. A cure in ten years is not going to save the trees on your block tomorrow, but chopping down and burning the one infected tree will.
User avatar #464 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
And I would agree but only where using the next best thing does not sacrifice morality. It's simply not ok to kill anymore. If you truly cared about other human's lives you would carry a taser but not something lethal. It's just an utter lack of empathy for anyone who threatens you.

The beetle scenario is a good one but I think it shows your mentality. You picture a threat attacking victims. But if you had empathy for all human kind you would see that it's more akin to a brother hurting his brother. Sure that brother deserves punishment but if he is your brother as well do you pull the trigger to save your other brother? Or do you do everything you can to save them both because you love them both?
User avatar #451 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #440 (the reply button is gone): yep. And that moral high ground is really gonna be a comfort to the families of the dead innocents.

"Oh, my 5-year-old daughter drowned in her own blood over the course of seven minutes from the wound through her lung while also asphyxiating as the irreperably-torn left ventricle of her heart pumped blood into her chest cavity until her diaphragm couldn't move? Well, as long as the failed pretend-therapist got to feel good about himself as he died, it's okay."
User avatar #455 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Does it not? Do you not constantly see on the news about people who are venerated because they gave their lives to save someone else? The high moral ground is always right. And once again, would it not have been better to have worked to help that gun toting murdered before he ever degraded to the point of wanting to kill? If someone had cared enough about him he might not have snapped. If someone had noticed. But no one did, they all bought guns to protect themselves and let him do his own thing.
User avatar #434 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Again: that is a colossal fucking if. Too big to count on.
User avatar #440 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
But so long as that was my intent, so long as I tried then there is no if. I did my best, and that was the right thing to do, guaranteed. Even if the end result was me face down in the mud with bullet holes.
#323 - That is a real shame. It's that distancing yourself from other…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Justice Served -1
#693 - Cathun (04/23/2015) [-]
I applaud you devotion to the Lord, but i have to point out that there are instances in the Bible where killing another human being is justified. Murder on the other hand is not.
Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. "

Numbers 35:29-31(KJV)
29 So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

28 If a bull gores a man or a woman so that either dies, then the ox must surely be stoned and its flesh must not be eaten; but the owner of the bull will be acquitted. 29 But if the bull had the habit of goring, and its owner was warned, and he did not take the necessary precautions, and then it killed a man or a woman, the bull must be stoned and the man must be put to death (Exodus 21:28-29)

David was a man after Gods own heart, even with all the killing that he did. It wasnt until David sent Uriah to BE killed that the Lord got upset.
User avatar #714 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's all old testament. Not only is it no longer law but it's for a time when there weren't the resources available to deal with people who need help. They were a threat, now the only reason they are a threat is because they aren't helped soon enough.
User avatar #328 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
In any case, it certainly gives me inspiration for some characters in my short films.

Strangely enough though, every time I'm outside and I see all the possible things that can go wrong around me, I feel responsible. I feel that I have to constantly help people, and that I would be willing to give my life up for complete strangers if it would save them.

In addition to that, I'd just be sitting around, minding my own business when I would get a sudden urge to get into a fight, to get hurt, get beaten up, but above all to let go. It's strange. But maybe that's why I'm thankfully not put in any position over anyone's life.
#315 - That's because you don't hold all humans as "close to you."  [+] (5 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Justice Served -1
User avatar #317 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
No, I really don't. In fact, I'm finding it more and more difficult to care about people recently.
User avatar #323 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
That is a real shame. It's that distancing yourself from others and being unable to feel empathy that creates a disconnect. It makes you able to exploit others and not feel bad about their pain or misfortune. If that were to go to the extreme you might get to the point where you see it as ok to take from others on a whim. Hurting them for your pleasure like a pedo raping a small child.
#693 - Cathun (04/23/2015) [-]
I applaud you devotion to the Lord, but i have to point out that there are instances in the Bible where killing another human being is justified. Murder on the other hand is not.
Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. "

Numbers 35:29-31(KJV)
29 So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

28 If a bull gores a man or a woman so that either dies, then the ox must surely be stoned and its flesh must not be eaten; but the owner of the bull will be acquitted. 29 But if the bull had the habit of goring, and its owner was warned, and he did not take the necessary precautions, and then it killed a man or a woman, the bull must be stoned and the man must be put to death (Exodus 21:28-29)

David was a man after Gods own heart, even with all the killing that he did. It wasnt until David sent Uriah to BE killed that the Lord got upset.
User avatar #714 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's all old testament. Not only is it no longer law but it's for a time when there weren't the resources available to deal with people who need help. They were a threat, now the only reason they are a threat is because they aren't helped soon enough.
User avatar #328 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
In any case, it certainly gives me inspiration for some characters in my short films.

Strangely enough though, every time I'm outside and I see all the possible things that can go wrong around me, I feel responsible. I feel that I have to constantly help people, and that I would be willing to give my life up for complete strangers if it would save them.

In addition to that, I'd just be sitting around, minding my own business when I would get a sudden urge to get into a fight, to get hurt, get beaten up, but above all to let go. It's strange. But maybe that's why I'm thankfully not put in any position over anyone's life.
#313 - I agree...if this were the bronze age. But now we have resourc…  [+] (60 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Justice Served -1
User avatar #321 - roninneko (04/22/2015) [-]
We don't have resources, frankly. We have the potential to have such resources, but it would take decades to restructure the penal system and adjust the sentiments of the populace away from retributive justice.

Not only that, but there's the old truth: good people don't rape, and bad people don't care. Sometimes, you've just gotta take the route that's going to save the most pain and suffering in the long run.
User avatar #329 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
We definitely have the resources. And yes, it would take work to setup systems to take care of these broken people. But if you look at the mile high buildings of big cities and the acres and acres of land molded to produce food it would be hard to argue people aren't capable of hard work.

And no. I disagree utterly with that. There are not good people nor bad people. Everyone is capable of both. And you can say "save the most pain in the long run" because that's subjective. Who's to say that letting the murderer live wouldn't have allowed him to reform and start talking to school kids about safety and responsibility? That argument lacks empathy and seems to be based on what is best for you and yours, not everyone.
User avatar #333 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Sometimes morality has to take a back seat to utility. Morality is subjective. Utility is objective. You have to take care of objective needs before subjective ones. You can't put humans up on a pedestal like we're all somehow beautiful flowers. We're not. A lot of us are ugly weeds that will choke out everything around us if not pulled up.
User avatar #343 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Never never should morality take a back seat to utility. Even if you are starving it's not ok to murder a man for his bread. It is better to die than break morality.

And no, morality is subjective and absolute but only in the context of religion. If you have no religion then yes, everything is subjective and there is no morality anyway.

Humans may be weeds that will choke everything around us, but only if we are not helped first. You can take even the most broken mind and rehabilitate them. But first you have to see them as worthy of rehabilitation and help. It's easy to dismiss someone as a monster and just kill them to get rid of them. But make no mistake. Those who hurt others for their own gain are sick and in need of help like a child in need of a mother.
User avatar #376 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
but in such a scenario, wouldn't it also be correct to say the man with the bread broke morality by not sharing the bread and allowing you to die?
User avatar #381 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Yes, but this assumes that the starving man didn't ask for help before stealing. If he had asked and the man with bread didn't help then that too would wrong. But one should never focus on the immoralities of others. You should primarily worry about making sure you do no wrong even while those around you hurt you.
User avatar #564 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
i will assume you are probably vegan because if not, you're a huge hypocrite. as there is no reply room, i had to move my reply here. it is also wrong to have opulence while others live in poverty, that does not mean it isn't going to happen. in your idealistic happy world there would be no need to carry a gun, because nothing would need to be killed. there would also be no need for psychological help because everyone would be born of fit mind and body. this is not a perfect world, we do need to kill people as incredibly harsh and bad as it sounds, it is a necessary evil. to address religions, most of them have hypocrisy in their scriptures and dogmas. things that could not be possible in the world today are in most if not all religious scriptures, and most religions preach unfair things such as going to hell, or that religion's equivalent if you do not pray to their god. religion cannot be looked at the same way as anything else because there is nothing else like it. it says you're being watched and judged at all times, that you were created to follow these sets of rules but you can choose not to at the same time. it's nonsensical at best.
User avatar #574 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I'm not vegan and am not sure why that makes my a hypocrite honestly.

And I don't mind guns at all. What I mind is carrying them for the purpose of killing other people, even those who threaten you. I also don't think anyone would be born prefect, that's why I was advocating that we improve medical science to get help to those who need it rather than preparing to kill those who we allowed to threaten us. And I find it hard to believe that we NEED to kill anyone. Not with modern resources and technology.

And I agree. Most religions do have hypocrisy and flaws. I haven't found any of that in Christianity though. Hell is perfectly fair. You get sent there for being bad and then at the end of time it is cast into the second fire for the second death and you cease to exist. And the miracles and stuff that are impossible are only impossible for humans, not really impossible for a god. And I'm not sure why you think it's unfair that you have to pray to God for forgiveness, how else are you supposed to show you messed up and acknowledge it and plan to try better in the future?

I guess I can't argue it being nonsense i cal sense that's your opinion but it doesn't look nonsensical to me. It's the only thing that makes sense. Atheism is what seems to defy logic to me. Why would you believe in nothing? How can anything with a limit exist without a creator? Why would you accept an ideal that has no possible reward for believing it?
User avatar #599 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
you say that taking from someone is wrong, yet by eating meat of any sort, you take from the creature you eat, taking their entire life just to keep you alive for a little while longer.
you can spout how it isn't the same, the fact remains you took a life to keep yourself alive, a basic wrong. yes there are people who NEED to die in order to keep this world safe. if a terrorist group got a hold of nuclear weaponry and planned to launch them at various cities around the world, they would need to be killed in order to preserve the lives of thousands of others, and the destruction of cities. impossible for a human but not for a god? well throw that impossibilities portion of your previous response out because by that astounding logic, nothing is impossible. hell is not fair, what of the people who were born before christianity existed? i think it's unfair to pray to god for forgiveness when i haven't even done anything wrong. if i followed the bible, then i would need to pray for forgiveness because i thought my married neighbor is pretty good looking (and a nice person) and her husband is a lucky son of a bitch for being able to find someone like that. i don't believe in intelligent design or a creator because honestly humans are not intelligently designed, and whoever thought putting the breathing tube where food goes through, and putting a playground next to a toxic waste factory should probably be fired for incompetence.
i suppose why i accept an ideal that has no possibility for reward at the end of it is because i don't really need to. why do you believe in an eternal life after death?
User avatar #621 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Someone, meaning a person, a human. Not an animal. Not sure where you got that I was saying that.

Before Christianity there was Judaism and you don't have to pry when you did nothing wrong, only when you did. There really an answer for everything in the bible.

I believe in eternal life after death because life is very short and pointless without it.

We can continue this later if you like but I'm going to have to go so you might not get a reply for a while. Thanks for the debate though, was fun.
User avatar #662 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
it is rather fun debating with you, but it looks like there's some people giving us red thumbs because of our opinions, but whatever. the thought of eternal life scares me, because if we have an infinite amount of time to do whatever, we'll grow bored or it eventually. life is so very special to me and others because it lacks permanence. if eternal life existed this life would be meaningless, as what could a day here do to even compare to a day in heaven? although come to think of it, no casual sex would be kind of weird, but wouldn't affect my current sexlife
User avatar #388 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
now how about this for a scenario, you're in a large group of people, and you're concealed carrying a handgun when a man with a rifle starts shooting people in the crowd. so do you absolutely ignore your morality and attempt to kill the man, or try a couple of nonlethal shots?
User avatar #399 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Depending on ho close I am to him I would always go for the non lethal shots. Perhaps some intentionally missed covering fire till people can run and to show him I have a gun so he better focus on me. But that's irrelevant because I don't plan to ever carry a gun. If someone wants to kill them then I either I did something to provoke it or it's random chance, and I prevent random chance by trying to help as many mentally ill as I can before hand, not by being ready to kill them if they snap.
User avatar #408 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
continuing this scenario, you'd probably end up shot, and the rampage would most likely continue. and not everyone in the world can be "helped." some refuse any sort of treatment, and others don't show signs of needing it before it's too late
User avatar #414 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
They do show signs, medical science just can't test or or pick up on those signs yet. And if I give up my life trying to stop the massacre then so be it. The point is purely your intentions. How can you care for all the strangers being shot at but not care about the stranger doing the shooting? Clearly they are the ones in need of more help than anyone. Sure, some of those victims will die but they will die innocent, the shooter is the one doing wrong and has a mark on his record.
User avatar #435 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
but you didn't stop the massacre, and more people are dead for it. by not ending a murderer's life, you have ended several innocent people's lives. i respect your belief that everybody is entitled to life, but morality and life itself isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. also, once you are dead, why does it matter if you have a "mark" on your record? you wouldn't be alive to care, same as if you died "innocent."
User avatar #448 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Ah but it is that black and white. You see, it's better to avoid doing wrong yourself than it is to do any amount of good. Let me change the scenario. There is a bad guy, he is a stain on humanity and has done tons of bad things. You have the choice to kill him and use his organs to prolong the life of 5 other people. Is it ok for you to kill one person to help 5 others?
I say no, because more important than prolonging other people's lives is not hurting this one man.

And when you die you will be judged by what you do in life. Though if you believe that nothing happens after life and there is no God then none of this even matters sense morality doesn't exist. It's all just relative and no morality is absolute. It doesn't matter how many people that guy kills or you save.
User avatar #470 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
let me preface this by saying "morality without god is meaningless/doesn't exist" is a tired and overdone argument and is really not even worth giving more attention than i already have, if you want to discuss that particular thing, you can find a ton of youtube videos saying the same things we would both say. with that out of the way, i would end the life of 1 to save 5 others. that man has proven himself a burden upon society, and unless those other 5 were just like him, i would have no problem with the decision. i would rather have an "innocent" person around, than someone with several "marks." and what if there are no pearly gates awaiting us after we die? besides just believing that there is a heaven and all the good people will go there, we don't have any knowledge of what happens to us after death. well other than we start to smell incredibly bad, and are no fun at parties. eternal life after death is as far as we know not there as in, we cannot perceive it in any matter, but i do not discount it totally so we should endeavor to make it enjoyable for as many people as we can, kind of like a party. and if someone wants to be a party pooper and ruin the whole thing for a lot of people, we kick him out.
User avatar #481 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
If you don't want to get into how there is no morality without God then that's fine. But we certainly do know something about death. And that is that there either is nothing or there is something. If there is nothing then it doesn't matter what we do in life really, it ends the same. If there is something then that life after death is either fair or unfair. If it's unfair, once again, it doesn't matter because it's unfair, we might not have been told about it which is unfair, we might not have had a chance to do what is right which is unfair. So that leaves only one option. If you want what you do on Earth to matter, it has to follow the rules of a fair afterlife dogma. So you either are religious and get either something or nothing or you're not religious and get either punishment or nothing. And while there are different religions, once again, if there is a fair afterlife, then anyone who seeks the right one will eventually find it.

As for you killing 1 to save 5, that is very wrong on so many levels. That means that you should start stealing from the rich to give to the poor because it would make the poor happy. After all, all you care about is cold numbers.
User avatar #490 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
and what if there is a god, but it isn't the one you pray to? you say there is only two options, either there is no god and nothing happens, or there is and something happens. truth is, there are so many other factors to put into that, like there being a god but no afterlife because the soul is a temporary thing. and what if there is an afterlife, but it isn't fair? what if it's only for believers in the "right" god? and yes i would take from those that can afford it, to give to those who need it. i would rather have a million smiling children, given a chance at life and happiness, than someone who is only happy having mass amounts of material wealth. and to say i only care about cold numbers because i would have five people have a shot at continuing life is about as wrong as it gets. what do you say to the person who would allow five people to die to let one person continue living?
User avatar #492 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I addressed if the god one worships isn't the right one. That's the part about how if you seek out the true religion you will find it, but only if you search. If you never look beyond your book then you won't likely notice.

And you clearly didn't read what I said. A god but no afterlife falls into the "unfair afterlife" category.

But only those who took the time to find the right god is a fair afterlife but only if God put the ability for everyone to find his way, which the Christian god did at least.

I would say that allowing someone to die is perfectly fine. You allow thousands to die per day simply because you didn't go into the medical field and possibly find a cure for yet uncured disease. You let thousands die because you don't send your excess money to be used to buy food for those in need. All you can do is your best but no one can be expected to save everyone or even to save everyone possible to be saved. Prolonging life is a pitiful example of doing good. It would be far better to enrich a life than to prolong it.
User avatar #543 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
but how is our stain on humanity's quality of life improved in any way? assuming all these bad things he has done would net him in prison, probably for a life sentence if he has murders under his belt. would you be able to walk in a room with those five dying people, look them in the eyes and tell them they have death to look forwards to, while some lowlife thug gets to spend the rest of his life in prison? you do have a point about me not reading what you said, i was entirely too busy focusing on someone telling me i care only about "cold numbers" to completely focus on the complexities of a fair and unfair afterlife, so allow me to offer a rebuttal to your comment here, and to the one i rather shamefully ignored: if you convert to Christianity, and your brother/other family member converts to Islam, who has the wrong religion? obviously both parties will feel it is the right one, and if you both went looking for the truth and found it in two different ways, who is wrong?
most religions do what you say the christian god does, they offer salvation if you only accept that their god(s) are the true ones.
User avatar #553 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Everyone has death to look forward to. But it's wrong to take from someone else for your gain. It's just a basic wrong thing that I'm surprised you can't see.

And it doesn't matter who it is following a religion, it is the two religions that need to be compared. Islam vs Christianity is a good example. You have to look at them and compare why one might be superior to the other. Study them to make sure you know which one(if either) is right. Do they have contradictions? Impossibilities? Is what they preach unfair? Are there holes in the dogma? Is there anything "divine" about their holy books? It all has to be taken into account the same way you would look at anything else.
User avatar #346 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Okay; while you live in hippy-dippy land, I'll be alive and breeding.
User avatar #345 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Clearly you've never had a conversation with a cannibalistic sociopath. I have. I was a volunteer therapy worker in an Ontario prison for 2 years. That fucker liked being the way he was.
User avatar #347 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Oh I know. My brother is a psychologist and we talk about his encounters and study all the time. But certainly you would agree that that sociopath was mentally ill, right? And would you agree that if the world were to make a good effort towards finding treatments and causes of such things we would be able to cure such people and give them a more normally functioning brain with which to see morality?

And I will continue to live this way. I will do my best to help and save those around me until it eventually kills me.
User avatar #357 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And if helping and saving those around you includes having to take the life of an unjustly violent person? Will you simply die holding the moral high ground (which serves you fuck-all in death) and let them have their way with the innocents around you?
Sorry, but if one psychotic fuck threatens the lives of the ten people in his immediate vicinity, I'm snapping that motherfucker's neck without a second thought. That's not just moral; that's math.

Finding treatments takes time. It's like calling the police when there's someone in your house: by the time the cops get there, the intruder can have killed you, made and eaten a sandwich, and left for a leisurely stroll home. That doesn't mean we disband the police department, but it also means we don't rely on them for split-second solutions to the problem.

Sure, there might be a cure for violent psychosis in ten years. But that's not really going to help me if some nutjob walks into the coffee shop tomorrow morning with an illegal Uzi while I'm buying my morning java, is it?
User avatar #367 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
You can't tell me that in the time you could break his neck you couldn't have subdued him too. You're looking at it that the person threatening someone else is no longer a person, only a threat. The moral thing to do is to try to save everyone even at your own expense.

But what are you going to do if someone walks in with a uzi? They have the intent to kill. If they want to kill they will. Now you can either carry a gun and protect yourself form this one or you can invest money in research to treat those in need and make it so no one ever get to the the point of psychotic murder again.
User avatar #371 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And that would be why I am part of 7 different lobbying groups pushing for the right to Concealed Carry firearms in Canada. As it stands, I carry two knives and a collapsible baton pretty much everywhere I go.

You can worry about moral qualms after the safety of all innocents has been secured. When seconds count, the lives of the innocent take priority over the lives of the guilty. Taking the guilty party alive is not the gold standard; it is a bonus. The gold standard is eliminating the threat to innocents, whatever the cost to the guilty. When beating hearts are on the line, you don't have time to ponder morality. You have time for math. Period.
User avatar #379 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That seems like a short sighted way of thinking. I have always asserted that the best cure of disease is prevention. To stop someone from ever getting to the point that they would kill another human being on an urge is infinitely preferable to giving everyone a gun to protect themselves. I think if you really wanted to make a difference that both protected you and helped others you would go into mental medicine and help progress it towards being able to eliminate the mentally ill's problems.
User avatar #384 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
It's not a question of either-or. You have to be ready for both at the same time. A cure in ten years will be awesome in ten years; however, it's not gonna help the family of four that will get sprayed down tomorrow morning if someone isn't ready to give the murderer - who is a problem not ten years later, but right that second - two in the chest and one in the head.

You can seek a cure, but that does not mean that you abandon the practice of triage in the meantime.
User avatar #393 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
You seem to think that there are millions of psychos just waiting around every corner with a gun. It's rare, very rare. And while you might possibly someday be able to use that open carry gun, you are so much more likely to be threatened by statically more likely things. House fires, car crashes, carbon monoxide poisoning, but you'll spend money on a gun before you'll buy safety measures against things that kill far more people per year. You're afraid of your fellow human being and it kills your empathy.
User avatar #417 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And another thing: it doesn't take millions of psychos. All it takes is one, in the right place, at the right time.
User avatar #423 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
And all it takes it one person to realize this person is distressed who is in the right place at the right time.
User avatar #425 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
That's a big fucking if.
User avatar #430 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I know, and yet you still prepare for it like it's certain.
User avatar #465 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #461: Clearly you've never been outside your first-world bubble. That is literally the only explanation that I can think of for why you are so brain-dead naive. If the world was a beautiful place, we wouldn't need police or militaries or courts of law. We have those things precisely because the world is a fucked-up place with fucked-up people that will spit you out dead with zero warning if they aren't kept in check.

Your world may be nice. The world - the real, tangible, empirically-observable world that exists outside your own shallow impression of how things work - is not. There are points of light, but mostly it's a place of criminalized homosexual love, Korean death camps, witch-burnings of Central African albinos, honour killings of women in the Middle East for making eye contact with a boy, and on and on and on.
User avatar #472 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It's true. I grew up in the bible belt America where neighbors have each other over, where churches compete to have given the most to charity, and where Jesus was sued to shame my brothers and I into never doing drugs, stealing, and making us care about other people. But do you know why? Because we are the haves. We want for very little. We don't have fear and thus we are happy to give to one another.

It seems you have been watching the news a lot. All it shows you are wars and famine. But the majority of the world lives in peace. You are only focusing on the bad spots. Spots where poverty causes conflict. All of it could be avoided were these people to simply not fear they won't get to eat the next day.

The world is not fucked up. The world is getting better and better. No longer do governments invade on a whim, they are now accountable to their people. No longer can atrocities throughout the world go unseen. The media now covers them and it prompts action. The formation of charities to delver food and organizations to police rogue areas.

You have a very bleak outlook on life and it smells of fear. I may be naive but communism was stopped by condition free donations of money to the poor countries who were embracing it for a reason.
User avatar #456 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #452: Got news for ya, buddy. The world is not a happy or welcoming place. Get used to it.

I think the worse for those who fail to demonstrate that they deserve the benefit of the doubt. If I die today because I refused to pull the trigger because I wanted to try and defend my own precious moral high ground, that means that I won't be alive tomorrow to resuscitate someone who goes into cardiac arrest at the bus stop.
User avatar #461 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
The world is a wonderful place but only if you love those around you. Be nice to those you love and nicer to those who hate you. Don't be afraid to lose what you have, your possessions, your loved ones, your life, they will all disappear eventually into inevitable death. Love them while they are here and do not fear their loss.

And yes. I think there is nothing better than to die while doing what you believe to be right. Do you think people have morals simply because it makes us feel better about ourselves? It allows us to think we are better than other people?
User avatar #442 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Better to be prepared than not. Which is why I majored in psychology and sociology, AND never go anywhere unarmed.

What is hippies' obsession with false dichotomies and either-or tactics?
User avatar #452 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It just bothers me to see someone living in fear like that. To walk around constantly armed. To think the worse of your fellow man. It feels cold.
User avatar #413 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Just because the fire department exists doesn't mean I don't keep a fire extinguisher, carbon monoxide alarm, smoke alarm, and trauma kit in my house. I have a pocket first aid kit that I also carry everywhere I go.
You assume that because I am ready to take a life in defence of others that I have no empathy. This is an unfair assumption, and a misguided one that judges an individual by a fallacious artificial standard. It could be argued that the fact that I am willing to sacrifice my mental health - nights waking up screaming in a cold sweat, panic attacks when reminded of the life I took, inability to face those who witnessed the event - all for the sake of guaranteeing that others live to see another sunset takes as much selflessness as subduing the killer. I will not argue that point, but it has been done.

The question is, when the threat is real, are you comfortable with mere 90% certainty? In the real world, you work with what you know and you keep the amount of information you have to process simple. Simple is fast is alive. Complicated is slow is dead. You will have time for soul-searching after those who are innocent are guaranteed their safety.
User avatar #421 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
The difference is you have empathy for the victims but not the criminal. Who is really in need of help here? Even if the victims die they die innocent, but the shooter is the one who is at risk of killing himself and others. He is messed up and has problems. He is bitter or insane. So the way I see it, if you kill him then there is a 100 percent chance that someone who might not have had to die died.
User avatar #424 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And that is why, out of the two of us, you will be dead and I will be breeding.
User avatar #427 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Probably, but if I did my job right I will have saved someone else. My purpose in life isn't to survive nor pass on my genes. It's to help others.
User avatar #511 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #502: ... You don't have much of a survival instinct, do you?

The benefit of the doubt is slow. In a life-or-death situation, slow gets you dead. You can't help anyone when you're dead. And honestly, that's the last I'm gonna say on the matter. Have fun with your moral high ground if you're ever in a position like this where you might have to take a life to save others - which, by the way, I am in every weekend because I work as bar security in the most violent city in my province. I hope I never have to, but if someone in my bar pulls a TT-33, I'm not giving them a chance to use it. They've signed their life away. The lives of the innocent cannot afford to wait with bated breath for the slim chance of a morally pure salvation.
User avatar #524 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I admit I don't. I'm pretty content and not all that afraid to die. Maybe that's stupid but I can't help how I feel. I've had a very good life with both parents and close brothers. I can only describe my life as warm and fulfilling so far so I don't worry about bad things happening to me much at all.

But how often do you encounter life or death situations? I mean realistically they happen but surely not on the daily. I've heard big cities can be rough but not that rough.

I think a little bit of love and trust will serve you more through your life than a lifetime of preparing for threats that might never even happen.
User avatar #493 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #488:

You seem to think it's either "yourself" or "everyone". You preclude the possibility that the most logical approach is "you and as many people as is reasonably feasible". If that happens to include the fuckwit, so be it. If it doesn't, then too bad for the fuckwit.

In a situation with
> limited knowledge (you don't know why they're a threat, only that they ARE a threat),
> limited threat-elimination options of varying likelihoods of success (non-intervention which is most likely to fail, peaceful intervention which is about even, and violent intervention which has the highest statistical chance of success), and
>costs of infinite size (until we know for sure that there's an afterlife, we have to assume that being killed equates to the obliteration of an entire existence),
the only reasonable option is to pick the option that has the lowest potential cost and the highest chance of success. In the case of a violent individual, the option that fits these criteria is violent intervention and, as an extension, lethal intervention. A corpse can't decide to kill.

Even just by simple cost-benefit analysis, the appropriate response to lethal violence is lethal violence. That is the only way, within the context of the situation, that you can guarantee the lowest cost with the highest chance of success. Sure, you could try to talk them down, but if the odds of success are pitifully low, it is not reasonable to select that option in terms of saving as many as is possible.

You can't save everyone. Period. So you'd better be ready to triage if you want anyone to have a chance of getting out alive.
User avatar #502 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's the point I was making. You have to try and empathize with everyone. That likely doesn't mean everyone in the world, but everyone you can reach with the attempt of making it everyone in the world.

But what you're doing there is not giving that person the benefit of the doubt. You assume the worst instead of the best. That they are a bad person, not a person who is in need of help.

And no, I don't see why you would assume there is no afterlife until proven otherwise. It makes more sense to assume there is an afterlife until it's proven there isn't. That way you might get a reward and if you're wrong you get nothing like everyone else.

And once again, no, your cost analysis is only weighing your own survival and the survival of a number of people. But you can't tell me it's cost effective when we think two different things are valuable. You think life length is valuable while I think helping someone to become a good person is important.

And I know you can't save everyone. But I will go so far as to give my life in the attempt. You keep worrying about you and you will definitely survive until you die.
User avatar #478 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #475: Who said anything about justice? It's about survival.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Physiological > safety > love/belonging > esteem > self-actualization.

Notice how safety comes before all the pretty moral shit? That's because if you're dead, you're not exactly capable of pursuing the pretty moral shit.

When someone's a trigger-pull away from ending an innocent life, you don't have time to question motives. That's too many steps of prevention versus too few steps to failure. You have time to eliminate the threat. End of story. Safety comes first; morality comes after. A corpse can't serve the common good, but it is prevented from harming the common good. If intent to harm the common good is presented, that's the end of the line. Nothing else matters until the threat is gone.
User avatar #488 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
And I agree, but only if that model is facing outwards. What I mean is, if you are saying "Your Physiological > Your safety > Your love/belonging > Your esteem > Your self-actualization" then it is a selfish model.
But if you are saying "Everyone's Physiological > Everyone's safety > Everyone's love/belonging > Everyone's esteem > Everyone's self-actualization" then it lines up perfectly to what I am asserting.

It all comes down to who you care about. Your survival or everyone's survival.

When you see someone kill someone else you have to stop and think about what would be best to do. You can't act on rage or instant like a simple animal. You are a thinking rational being and you must use that for moral purposes. Safety does come first, but everyone's, not just yours, not just the people you like, everyone.

But you see an outside threat to the greater good, I see an inside threat. Like a man thinking of taking his own life. You can't kill someone to stop them from killing themselves. You can't save people by killing people. You might prolong someone's life that way, but there is a difference between keeping someone alive and saving someone's life.
User avatar #468 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #464: You're goddamned right, I'd plug a fucker if he threatened someone who had shown no signs of deserving it. Forfeiture of respect for fellow man without justification constitutes forfeiture of one's own humanity.

Guilty fucker tries to hurt an innocent, I'd rather see the guilty fucker dead - I'd rather make the guilty fucker dead - than see the innocent die. Innocent takes priority over guilty. How's that for moral high ground?
User avatar #475 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I agree. And you forfeit your respect for someone because of their actions without looking to see what caused those actions.

And I agree. The guilty deserve to be punished but punished fairly. Do you know why that person pulled a gun and shot that innocent? Sane people don't do that. People who can provide for themselves don't do that. Something caused him to do that. But instead of judging him on everything, you judge him on his single action to die. That is not justice, that is your fear controlling you.
User avatar #460 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #455:

Again with the false dichotomy. It's not a case of either-or. It's a case of exercising all options simultaneously. It is possible to support research into treatments while also being ready with the next best thing until those treatments are ready.

Take tree pests, for example. Asian long-horned beetles are decimating certain species of trees all across North America. There are researchers trying to come up with a way to kill of the bugs without harming the trees. However, in the meantime, trees that are already infected are destroyed in order to slow the spread and prevent other trees from dying.

It's not a question of either finding a cure or scorched-earth eradication: you use both at once, each where appropriate. A cure in ten years is not going to save the trees on your block tomorrow, but chopping down and burning the one infected tree will.
User avatar #464 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
And I would agree but only where using the next best thing does not sacrifice morality. It's simply not ok to kill anymore. If you truly cared about other human's lives you would carry a taser but not something lethal. It's just an utter lack of empathy for anyone who threatens you.

The beetle scenario is a good one but I think it shows your mentality. You picture a threat attacking victims. But if you had empathy for all human kind you would see that it's more akin to a brother hurting his brother. Sure that brother deserves punishment but if he is your brother as well do you pull the trigger to save your other brother? Or do you do everything you can to save them both because you love them both?
User avatar #451 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #440 (the reply button is gone): yep. And that moral high ground is really gonna be a comfort to the families of the dead innocents.

"Oh, my 5-year-old daughter drowned in her own blood over the course of seven minutes from the wound through her lung while also asphyxiating as the irreperably-torn left ventricle of her heart pumped blood into her chest cavity until her diaphragm couldn't move? Well, as long as the failed pretend-therapist got to feel good about himself as he died, it's okay."
User avatar #455 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Does it not? Do you not constantly see on the news about people who are venerated because they gave their lives to save someone else? The high moral ground is always right. And once again, would it not have been better to have worked to help that gun toting murdered before he ever degraded to the point of wanting to kill? If someone had cared enough about him he might not have snapped. If someone had noticed. But no one did, they all bought guns to protect themselves and let him do his own thing.
User avatar #434 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Again: that is a colossal fucking if. Too big to count on.
User avatar #440 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
But so long as that was my intent, so long as I tried then there is no if. I did my best, and that was the right thing to do, guaranteed. Even if the end result was me face down in the mud with bullet holes.
#13 - I disagree. We form entire societies where the violent sorts a…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Deep thoughts that keep me... 0
User avatar #14 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
well that depends on a personal standpoint some people have to fight just to survive because the world can't help them or refuses to. I live in Chicago and I got jumped on,got a chipped tooth, and I still need a root canal. At the end of the day I blamed myself for being to weak and could you say I was wrong?
User avatar #15 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It's definitely that we choose not to help those in need. There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone but we have to share.

And yes, I agree that you were too weak. But the way you were weak isn't the way you are thinking. It's not that you didn't have enough muscle or a weapon, it's that you valued your personal possessions. If you are ready to give away everything you have at a moments notice then being mugged doesn't matter. The only thing you should feel is worry for that mugger. Why is he forced to resort to mugging? Is he in need? Is he addicted to drugs? Could I help him?
User avatar #16 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have actually been trying to think like that understanding people's emotions and actions but a long time ago I knew the world was cruel and you must find ways to defend yourself I believe strength is an emotional, physical, and mental thing and you must have all three to live a fulfilling life. I at the same time do believe that humans are naturally violent and find ways to control it but for some people they need a ring to fight in. People are different like that some like me need chaos to feel comfortable they need the madness around them to make sure the life they have hasn't gone stale.
User avatar #17 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That sounds like you have a void in your life you're trying to fill
User avatar #18 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
In a way yes I find life very empty at times I can understand looking at the good things at life but ever since I had to deal with college and other life choices I feel as if the world is standing still and I'm moving in circles. Trying to find my way in a world corrupt like this is hard.
User avatar #19 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I know exactly how you feel. I'm a college student too and have felt that helplessness to the bad things in the world around me. So please don't take this the wrong way but the bible addresses that emptiness and guides on how to handle it. All I know is it always cures that feeling of doubt in me to read it.
User avatar #20 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have been looking into Buddhism
User avatar #21 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's not a bad one. I disagree with a lot of things they assert but on the scale of "good religions" I would probably put it second only to Christianity. But the important thing is you're exploring and branching out instead of letting yourself stagnate in unpleasant feelings.
#305 - I'm not sure I would use incarcerated criminal as examples of …  [+] (7 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Justice Served -1
User avatar #311 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
I hold a very biased viewpoint on justice, which is why I would make a terrible judge. I believe that there are certain acts (rape for instance) which forfeits a person's right to humanity. That being said, I can argue morals and ethics all day, but someone hurts someone close to me beyond reproach, and I will feel no mercy.
User avatar #315 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
That's because you don't hold all humans as "close to you."
User avatar #317 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
No, I really don't. In fact, I'm finding it more and more difficult to care about people recently.
User avatar #323 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
That is a real shame. It's that distancing yourself from others and being unable to feel empathy that creates a disconnect. It makes you able to exploit others and not feel bad about their pain or misfortune. If that were to go to the extreme you might get to the point where you see it as ok to take from others on a whim. Hurting them for your pleasure like a pedo raping a small child.
#693 - Cathun (04/23/2015) [-]
I applaud you devotion to the Lord, but i have to point out that there are instances in the Bible where killing another human being is justified. Murder on the other hand is not.
Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. "

Numbers 35:29-31(KJV)
29 So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

28 If a bull gores a man or a woman so that either dies, then the ox must surely be stoned and its flesh must not be eaten; but the owner of the bull will be acquitted. 29 But if the bull had the habit of goring, and its owner was warned, and he did not take the necessary precautions, and then it killed a man or a woman, the bull must be stoned and the man must be put to death (Exodus 21:28-29)

David was a man after Gods own heart, even with all the killing that he did. It wasnt until David sent Uriah to BE killed that the Lord got upset.
User avatar #714 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's all old testament. Not only is it no longer law but it's for a time when there weren't the resources available to deal with people who need help. They were a threat, now the only reason they are a threat is because they aren't helped soon enough.
User avatar #328 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
In any case, it certainly gives me inspiration for some characters in my short films.

Strangely enough though, every time I'm outside and I see all the possible things that can go wrong around me, I feel responsible. I feel that I have to constantly help people, and that I would be willing to give my life up for complete strangers if it would save them.

In addition to that, I'd just be sitting around, minding my own business when I would get a sudden urge to get into a fight, to get hurt, get beaten up, but above all to let go. It's strange. But maybe that's why I'm thankfully not put in any position over anyone's life.
#11 - To have real respect for a foe is to not fight them at all but…  [+] (10 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Deep thoughts that keep me... 0
User avatar #12 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
Humanity is not a kind enough race for that
User avatar #13 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I disagree. We form entire societies where the violent sorts are both rare and shunned by greater society. This is exactly what human kind is most suited for.
User avatar #14 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
well that depends on a personal standpoint some people have to fight just to survive because the world can't help them or refuses to. I live in Chicago and I got jumped on,got a chipped tooth, and I still need a root canal. At the end of the day I blamed myself for being to weak and could you say I was wrong?
User avatar #15 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It's definitely that we choose not to help those in need. There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone but we have to share.

And yes, I agree that you were too weak. But the way you were weak isn't the way you are thinking. It's not that you didn't have enough muscle or a weapon, it's that you valued your personal possessions. If you are ready to give away everything you have at a moments notice then being mugged doesn't matter. The only thing you should feel is worry for that mugger. Why is he forced to resort to mugging? Is he in need? Is he addicted to drugs? Could I help him?
User avatar #16 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have actually been trying to think like that understanding people's emotions and actions but a long time ago I knew the world was cruel and you must find ways to defend yourself I believe strength is an emotional, physical, and mental thing and you must have all three to live a fulfilling life. I at the same time do believe that humans are naturally violent and find ways to control it but for some people they need a ring to fight in. People are different like that some like me need chaos to feel comfortable they need the madness around them to make sure the life they have hasn't gone stale.
User avatar #17 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That sounds like you have a void in your life you're trying to fill
User avatar #18 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
In a way yes I find life very empty at times I can understand looking at the good things at life but ever since I had to deal with college and other life choices I feel as if the world is standing still and I'm moving in circles. Trying to find my way in a world corrupt like this is hard.
User avatar #19 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I know exactly how you feel. I'm a college student too and have felt that helplessness to the bad things in the world around me. So please don't take this the wrong way but the bible addresses that emptiness and guides on how to handle it. All I know is it always cures that feeling of doubt in me to read it.
User avatar #20 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have been looking into Buddhism
User avatar #21 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's not a bad one. I disagree with a lot of things they assert but on the scale of "good religions" I would probably put it second only to Christianity. But the important thing is you're exploring and branching out instead of letting yourself stagnate in unpleasant feelings.
#299 - I'm sorry but that sounds like the opinion of someone living …  [+] (9 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Justice Served -1
User avatar #301 - tzukaza (04/22/2015) [-]
yes, you simply do not do such acts, not even other criminals like child molesters, there is a reason they usually get murdered in prison if they dont recieve extra security
User avatar #305 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I'm not sure I would use incarcerated criminal as examples of paragons of justice but alright. And I agree you shouldn't do such things. A normal person wouldn't. But these people aren't normal, they are in need of help. It takes a damaged mind to do something so heinous.
User avatar #311 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
I hold a very biased viewpoint on justice, which is why I would make a terrible judge. I believe that there are certain acts (rape for instance) which forfeits a person's right to humanity. That being said, I can argue morals and ethics all day, but someone hurts someone close to me beyond reproach, and I will feel no mercy.
User avatar #315 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
That's because you don't hold all humans as "close to you."
User avatar #317 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
No, I really don't. In fact, I'm finding it more and more difficult to care about people recently.
User avatar #323 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
That is a real shame. It's that distancing yourself from others and being unable to feel empathy that creates a disconnect. It makes you able to exploit others and not feel bad about their pain or misfortune. If that were to go to the extreme you might get to the point where you see it as ok to take from others on a whim. Hurting them for your pleasure like a pedo raping a small child.
#693 - Cathun (04/23/2015) [-]
I applaud you devotion to the Lord, but i have to point out that there are instances in the Bible where killing another human being is justified. Murder on the other hand is not.
Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. "

Numbers 35:29-31(KJV)
29 So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

28 If a bull gores a man or a woman so that either dies, then the ox must surely be stoned and its flesh must not be eaten; but the owner of the bull will be acquitted. 29 But if the bull had the habit of goring, and its owner was warned, and he did not take the necessary precautions, and then it killed a man or a woman, the bull must be stoned and the man must be put to death (Exodus 21:28-29)

David was a man after Gods own heart, even with all the killing that he did. It wasnt until David sent Uriah to BE killed that the Lord got upset.
User avatar #714 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's all old testament. Not only is it no longer law but it's for a time when there weren't the resources available to deal with people who need help. They were a threat, now the only reason they are a threat is because they aren't helped soon enough.
User avatar #328 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
In any case, it certainly gives me inspiration for some characters in my short films.

Strangely enough though, every time I'm outside and I see all the possible things that can go wrong around me, I feel responsible. I feel that I have to constantly help people, and that I would be willing to give my life up for complete strangers if it would save them.

In addition to that, I'd just be sitting around, minding my own business when I would get a sudden urge to get into a fight, to get hurt, get beaten up, but above all to let go. It's strange. But maybe that's why I'm thankfully not put in any position over anyone's life.
#288 - Everyone deserves to live. Why did that man rape a child? Do y…  [+] (33 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Justice Served -1
#326 - stonetomcat (04/22/2015) [-]
I don't give a shit who you are, there's no excuse to fuck a five-year-old. That's one of the very few instances where I feel no pity or remorse, even for the dead.
A rough childhood doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
User avatar #338 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Of course not. But it can mess up a mind and cause someone to do bad things. That's why that person needs help. Killing them is the easy way out. It would take effort to cure them of their problems until they aren't a sexual deviant to the point of being a rapist. It requires you to see them as a person and want to help them. But I agree, it's much easier just to say "That person is a monster, kill him"
#392 - stonetomcat (04/23/2015) [-]
As you said, we don't know what his life was like. Your ideals are more just than mine, and I respect that. I partially agree with "Everyone deserves a chance at life", but I still hold my belief that there are some who don't.

For instance, if he regretted it, Truly regretted it as an action, not just because the father pummeled him he would have deserved another chance. However, if he legit enjoys it, there's just no excuse for him to live.

However, we ain't all the same people. Having different ideals is what makes us human. And your ideals, as I said earlier in this comment, are much more just than mine. You'd make a damn fine judge.

What I'm basically saying is I don't fully agree, but I respect you.
As if my respect matters, considering that we'll probably forget each other's usernames by morning
User avatar #407 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's very nice of you to say. Thank you. But I have trouble understanding how you can see a way of thinking as more just than your way of thinking but still decide not to change your way of thinking.
#438 - stonetomcat (04/23/2015) [-]
You know, I don't know either.
Perhaps it's just a bit of subconscious stubbornness. Perhaps I'm a dick at heart. I'll try to figure it out.
But either way, here's my favorite gif.
I like to use it when I rant about little things. Like when the post is about some guy about to get his ass kicked, I'll rant about something like how his name is Kendall
User avatar #449 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Your favorite gif is pooh
User avatar #453 - stonetomcat (04/23/2015) [-]
User avatar #324 - manter (04/22/2015) [-]
I used to believe everyone deserves to live, but last year my cousin was brutally murdered. This guy walked into his class, shot him multiple times, and then stabbed him repeatedly. I believe he said something like he did because he felt like it. He was going to be sent to prison for like 50 and be able to get out early on good behavior. He ended up killing himself in prison. When I heard this for the first time in my life, I did not feel sad about someone's death. I had no pity for him. My only regret is that he got to go out on his own terms.

After all that I find it really hard to say everyone deserves to live.
#336 - stonetomcat (04/23/2015) [-]
That's tragic, but I have my doubts on the legitimacy.
Maybe it's just because I refuse to believe that there are people like that, but your story sounds...
off...
Not dissing you or anything, just asking if it's legit.
User avatar #344 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
What I mean is, yes. Andrew was my cousin, and he was murdered by Cody Cousins,
User avatar #375 - stonetomcat (04/23/2015) [-]
Ah, yes, I remember now. I think it made national news, either that or I found a link to it.
Well, I give you condolences. That's all I can really do from here
User avatar #377 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
Thank you for that.
User avatar #340 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
google: Cody Cousins, Andrew Boldt, or Perdue shooting
User avatar #332 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I know. It's hard not to become biter when someone is taken from you. But that's only because you loved one and not the other. I believe you should love everyone as much as you can. If you did then it would feel like one brother killed another of your bothers. If that were the case you would try to figure out why he did what he did. You would want to understand and not just hate him and assume he is a bad person.
User avatar #356 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
I want to assume no one is a bad person. I really do, but when someone says they killed someone because they wanted to. That is evil. I did feel pity for him a little at one point, most of my pity went to his family, but when he killed himself, it was all gone.
User avatar #361 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
He was a messed up person with many personal problems. I don't see how you can look at a person like that and not feel pity and want to help them.
User avatar #365 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
Try having a close family member taken from you because they did not get mental help a year earlier when their family tried to give it to them. Then see if you still pity them.
User avatar #373 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I believe I still would. And it would light a fire in me to get active in the medical community that deals with metal illness. There isn't enough awareness about the signs of metal instability and people don't take strong enough action before it's too late. I think it would only strengthen my desire to help those people. Both the unstable ones and their potential victims.
User avatar #383 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
The problem was not the medical community. It was the laws that prevented his parents from doing anything because he was 18 and he did not want to get help. He would have had to do something that would have caused a court to order him to go.

Also, many people think they would do something in certain situations, but in all honesty most of them would not do what they think they would do. In other words, "talk is cheap"
User avatar #386 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
But that is a medical issue. You see, the courts could do anything till he did something to prove he was unstable. But if medical science advanced enough to produce a reliable test to show that he was on the verge of something violent then they could court order him to seek treatment.

And yes, talk is cheap and so are bullets.
User avatar #390 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
All I am saying is. It is a lot harder to feel bad for someone when they ripped a loved one out of your life for no reason. I don't really want to talk about this anymore.
User avatar #401 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Fair enough. Maybe it's not my place to say but I think love is a better way to heal than hate. Wish you the best man.
User avatar #294 - tzukaza (04/22/2015) [-]
there is people i will never forgive, child rapists/molesters and feminazis to name two
no i wont feel pity for anyone like that i dont care how hard their childhood was
User avatar #299 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I'm sorry but that sounds like the opinion of someone living in fear. You can't let yourself hate people like that. What about the child that that man abused? If he or she grows up to become a child molester too will you have no pity for that child?
User avatar #301 - tzukaza (04/22/2015) [-]
yes, you simply do not do such acts, not even other criminals like child molesters, there is a reason they usually get murdered in prison if they dont recieve extra security
User avatar #305 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I'm not sure I would use incarcerated criminal as examples of paragons of justice but alright. And I agree you shouldn't do such things. A normal person wouldn't. But these people aren't normal, they are in need of help. It takes a damaged mind to do something so heinous.
User avatar #311 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
I hold a very biased viewpoint on justice, which is why I would make a terrible judge. I believe that there are certain acts (rape for instance) which forfeits a person's right to humanity. That being said, I can argue morals and ethics all day, but someone hurts someone close to me beyond reproach, and I will feel no mercy.
User avatar #315 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
That's because you don't hold all humans as "close to you."
User avatar #317 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
No, I really don't. In fact, I'm finding it more and more difficult to care about people recently.
User avatar #323 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
That is a real shame. It's that distancing yourself from others and being unable to feel empathy that creates a disconnect. It makes you able to exploit others and not feel bad about their pain or misfortune. If that were to go to the extreme you might get to the point where you see it as ok to take from others on a whim. Hurting them for your pleasure like a pedo raping a small child.
#693 - Cathun (04/23/2015) [-]
I applaud you devotion to the Lord, but i have to point out that there are instances in the Bible where killing another human being is justified. Murder on the other hand is not.
Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. "

Numbers 35:29-31(KJV)
29 So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

28 If a bull gores a man or a woman so that either dies, then the ox must surely be stoned and its flesh must not be eaten; but the owner of the bull will be acquitted. 29 But if the bull had the habit of goring, and its owner was warned, and he did not take the necessary precautions, and then it killed a man or a woman, the bull must be stoned and the man must be put to death (Exodus 21:28-29)

David was a man after Gods own heart, even with all the killing that he did. It wasnt until David sent Uriah to BE killed that the Lord got upset.
User avatar #714 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's all old testament. Not only is it no longer law but it's for a time when there weren't the resources available to deal with people who need help. They were a threat, now the only reason they are a threat is because they aren't helped soon enough.
User avatar #328 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
In any case, it certainly gives me inspiration for some characters in my short films.

Strangely enough though, every time I'm outside and I see all the possible things that can go wrong around me, I feel responsible. I feel that I have to constantly help people, and that I would be willing to give my life up for complete strangers if it would save them.

In addition to that, I'd just be sitting around, minding my own business when I would get a sudden urge to get into a fight, to get hurt, get beaten up, but above all to let go. It's strange. But maybe that's why I'm thankfully not put in any position over anyone's life.
#9 - There's no such thing as fighting with honor. There are rules …  [+] (12 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Deep thoughts that keep me... 0
User avatar #10 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
well the idea may seem more realistic in a different type of society or like in a movie where two generals face off without any type of interference, but I mean if it came to two opponents face to face like UFC then I can't enjoy it and I would never participate in a fight like that unless it was unavoidable having respect for a fallen foe is something everyone should have. I wouldn't mind if someone calls me a fool or naiive for that but it goes against my beliefs and lifestyle to do something like that and those without the resolve to live behind their beliefs are a bit lacking in character.
User avatar #11 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
To have real respect for a foe is to not fight them at all but work to find a way to make peace. That's real strength.
User avatar #12 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
Humanity is not a kind enough race for that
User avatar #13 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I disagree. We form entire societies where the violent sorts are both rare and shunned by greater society. This is exactly what human kind is most suited for.
User avatar #14 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
well that depends on a personal standpoint some people have to fight just to survive because the world can't help them or refuses to. I live in Chicago and I got jumped on,got a chipped tooth, and I still need a root canal. At the end of the day I blamed myself for being to weak and could you say I was wrong?
User avatar #15 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It's definitely that we choose not to help those in need. There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone but we have to share.

And yes, I agree that you were too weak. But the way you were weak isn't the way you are thinking. It's not that you didn't have enough muscle or a weapon, it's that you valued your personal possessions. If you are ready to give away everything you have at a moments notice then being mugged doesn't matter. The only thing you should feel is worry for that mugger. Why is he forced to resort to mugging? Is he in need? Is he addicted to drugs? Could I help him?
User avatar #16 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have actually been trying to think like that understanding people's emotions and actions but a long time ago I knew the world was cruel and you must find ways to defend yourself I believe strength is an emotional, physical, and mental thing and you must have all three to live a fulfilling life. I at the same time do believe that humans are naturally violent and find ways to control it but for some people they need a ring to fight in. People are different like that some like me need chaos to feel comfortable they need the madness around them to make sure the life they have hasn't gone stale.
User avatar #17 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That sounds like you have a void in your life you're trying to fill
User avatar #18 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
In a way yes I find life very empty at times I can understand looking at the good things at life but ever since I had to deal with college and other life choices I feel as if the world is standing still and I'm moving in circles. Trying to find my way in a world corrupt like this is hard.
User avatar #19 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I know exactly how you feel. I'm a college student too and have felt that helplessness to the bad things in the world around me. So please don't take this the wrong way but the bible addresses that emptiness and guides on how to handle it. All I know is it always cures that feeling of doubt in me to read it.
User avatar #20 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have been looking into Buddhism
User avatar #21 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's not a bad one. I disagree with a lot of things they assert but on the scale of "good religions" I would probably put it second only to Christianity. But the important thing is you're exploring and branching out instead of letting yourself stagnate in unpleasant feelings.
#7 - Perhaps sports are a more refined type of competition for a mo…  [+] (14 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Deep thoughts that keep me... 0
User avatar #8 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
well UFC fights are like that but they aren't refined enough K-1 tournaments and the such are my type of fights. I don't like this you can hold a man and be declared a winner or stomp him out on the ground. I prefer than men fight with honor on their feet.
User avatar #9 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
There's no such thing as fighting with honor. There are rules to each kind of fighting and so long as you stay within those rules then you can win. It's smart to use what is easiest to win. You would be a fool to stop using arrows in battle because the enemy says they are the weapon of a coward. But when it comes to sports there is no honor, that's a made up social thing just the same as when COD players whine about someone camping as though it means something.
User avatar #10 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
well the idea may seem more realistic in a different type of society or like in a movie where two generals face off without any type of interference, but I mean if it came to two opponents face to face like UFC then I can't enjoy it and I would never participate in a fight like that unless it was unavoidable having respect for a fallen foe is something everyone should have. I wouldn't mind if someone calls me a fool or naiive for that but it goes against my beliefs and lifestyle to do something like that and those without the resolve to live behind their beliefs are a bit lacking in character.
User avatar #11 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
To have real respect for a foe is to not fight them at all but work to find a way to make peace. That's real strength.
User avatar #12 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
Humanity is not a kind enough race for that
User avatar #13 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I disagree. We form entire societies where the violent sorts are both rare and shunned by greater society. This is exactly what human kind is most suited for.
User avatar #14 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
well that depends on a personal standpoint some people have to fight just to survive because the world can't help them or refuses to. I live in Chicago and I got jumped on,got a chipped tooth, and I still need a root canal. At the end of the day I blamed myself for being to weak and could you say I was wrong?
User avatar #15 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It's definitely that we choose not to help those in need. There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone but we have to share.

And yes, I agree that you were too weak. But the way you were weak isn't the way you are thinking. It's not that you didn't have enough muscle or a weapon, it's that you valued your personal possessions. If you are ready to give away everything you have at a moments notice then being mugged doesn't matter. The only thing you should feel is worry for that mugger. Why is he forced to resort to mugging? Is he in need? Is he addicted to drugs? Could I help him?
User avatar #16 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have actually been trying to think like that understanding people's emotions and actions but a long time ago I knew the world was cruel and you must find ways to defend yourself I believe strength is an emotional, physical, and mental thing and you must have all three to live a fulfilling life. I at the same time do believe that humans are naturally violent and find ways to control it but for some people they need a ring to fight in. People are different like that some like me need chaos to feel comfortable they need the madness around them to make sure the life they have hasn't gone stale.
User avatar #17 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That sounds like you have a void in your life you're trying to fill
User avatar #18 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
In a way yes I find life very empty at times I can understand looking at the good things at life but ever since I had to deal with college and other life choices I feel as if the world is standing still and I'm moving in circles. Trying to find my way in a world corrupt like this is hard.
User avatar #19 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I know exactly how you feel. I'm a college student too and have felt that helplessness to the bad things in the world around me. So please don't take this the wrong way but the bible addresses that emptiness and guides on how to handle it. All I know is it always cures that feeling of doubt in me to read it.
User avatar #20 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have been looking into Buddhism
User avatar #21 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's not a bad one. I disagree with a lot of things they assert but on the scale of "good religions" I would probably put it second only to Christianity. But the important thing is you're exploring and branching out instead of letting yourself stagnate in unpleasant feelings.
#273 - I have always been of the opinion that you should never kill s…  [+] (97 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Justice Served -1
User avatar #309 - roninneko (04/22/2015) [-]
Let me phrase tzukaza's #285 in a more utilitarian manner: some people are just too much of a liability to the health and safety of the general population to be allowed to live.
User avatar #313 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I agree...if this were the bronze age. But now we have resources to spare on helping and treating these people. Through teaching them how to act, therapies, or even medical treatments for mental illness.
User avatar #321 - roninneko (04/22/2015) [-]
We don't have resources, frankly. We have the potential to have such resources, but it would take decades to restructure the penal system and adjust the sentiments of the populace away from retributive justice.

Not only that, but there's the old truth: good people don't rape, and bad people don't care. Sometimes, you've just gotta take the route that's going to save the most pain and suffering in the long run.
User avatar #329 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
We definitely have the resources. And yes, it would take work to setup systems to take care of these broken people. But if you look at the mile high buildings of big cities and the acres and acres of land molded to produce food it would be hard to argue people aren't capable of hard work.

And no. I disagree utterly with that. There are not good people nor bad people. Everyone is capable of both. And you can say "save the most pain in the long run" because that's subjective. Who's to say that letting the murderer live wouldn't have allowed him to reform and start talking to school kids about safety and responsibility? That argument lacks empathy and seems to be based on what is best for you and yours, not everyone.
User avatar #333 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Sometimes morality has to take a back seat to utility. Morality is subjective. Utility is objective. You have to take care of objective needs before subjective ones. You can't put humans up on a pedestal like we're all somehow beautiful flowers. We're not. A lot of us are ugly weeds that will choke out everything around us if not pulled up.
User avatar #343 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Never never should morality take a back seat to utility. Even if you are starving it's not ok to murder a man for his bread. It is better to die than break morality.

And no, morality is subjective and absolute but only in the context of religion. If you have no religion then yes, everything is subjective and there is no morality anyway.

Humans may be weeds that will choke everything around us, but only if we are not helped first. You can take even the most broken mind and rehabilitate them. But first you have to see them as worthy of rehabilitation and help. It's easy to dismiss someone as a monster and just kill them to get rid of them. But make no mistake. Those who hurt others for their own gain are sick and in need of help like a child in need of a mother.
User avatar #376 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
but in such a scenario, wouldn't it also be correct to say the man with the bread broke morality by not sharing the bread and allowing you to die?
User avatar #381 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Yes, but this assumes that the starving man didn't ask for help before stealing. If he had asked and the man with bread didn't help then that too would wrong. But one should never focus on the immoralities of others. You should primarily worry about making sure you do no wrong even while those around you hurt you.
User avatar #564 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
i will assume you are probably vegan because if not, you're a huge hypocrite. as there is no reply room, i had to move my reply here. it is also wrong to have opulence while others live in poverty, that does not mean it isn't going to happen. in your idealistic happy world there would be no need to carry a gun, because nothing would need to be killed. there would also be no need for psychological help because everyone would be born of fit mind and body. this is not a perfect world, we do need to kill people as incredibly harsh and bad as it sounds, it is a necessary evil. to address religions, most of them have hypocrisy in their scriptures and dogmas. things that could not be possible in the world today are in most if not all religious scriptures, and most religions preach unfair things such as going to hell, or that religion's equivalent if you do not pray to their god. religion cannot be looked at the same way as anything else because there is nothing else like it. it says you're being watched and judged at all times, that you were created to follow these sets of rules but you can choose not to at the same time. it's nonsensical at best.
User avatar #574 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I'm not vegan and am not sure why that makes my a hypocrite honestly.

And I don't mind guns at all. What I mind is carrying them for the purpose of killing other people, even those who threaten you. I also don't think anyone would be born prefect, that's why I was advocating that we improve medical science to get help to those who need it rather than preparing to kill those who we allowed to threaten us. And I find it hard to believe that we NEED to kill anyone. Not with modern resources and technology.

And I agree. Most religions do have hypocrisy and flaws. I haven't found any of that in Christianity though. Hell is perfectly fair. You get sent there for being bad and then at the end of time it is cast into the second fire for the second death and you cease to exist. And the miracles and stuff that are impossible are only impossible for humans, not really impossible for a god. And I'm not sure why you think it's unfair that you have to pray to God for forgiveness, how else are you supposed to show you messed up and acknowledge it and plan to try better in the future?

I guess I can't argue it being nonsense i cal sense that's your opinion but it doesn't look nonsensical to me. It's the only thing that makes sense. Atheism is what seems to defy logic to me. Why would you believe in nothing? How can anything with a limit exist without a creator? Why would you accept an ideal that has no possible reward for believing it?
User avatar #599 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
you say that taking from someone is wrong, yet by eating meat of any sort, you take from the creature you eat, taking their entire life just to keep you alive for a little while longer.
you can spout how it isn't the same, the fact remains you took a life to keep yourself alive, a basic wrong. yes there are people who NEED to die in order to keep this world safe. if a terrorist group got a hold of nuclear weaponry and planned to launch them at various cities around the world, they would need to be killed in order to preserve the lives of thousands of others, and the destruction of cities. impossible for a human but not for a god? well throw that impossibilities portion of your previous response out because by that astounding logic, nothing is impossible. hell is not fair, what of the people who were born before christianity existed? i think it's unfair to pray to god for forgiveness when i haven't even done anything wrong. if i followed the bible, then i would need to pray for forgiveness because i thought my married neighbor is pretty good looking (and a nice person) and her husband is a lucky son of a bitch for being able to find someone like that. i don't believe in intelligent design or a creator because honestly humans are not intelligently designed, and whoever thought putting the breathing tube where food goes through, and putting a playground next to a toxic waste factory should probably be fired for incompetence.
i suppose why i accept an ideal that has no possibility for reward at the end of it is because i don't really need to. why do you believe in an eternal life after death?
User avatar #621 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Someone, meaning a person, a human. Not an animal. Not sure where you got that I was saying that.

Before Christianity there was Judaism and you don't have to pry when you did nothing wrong, only when you did. There really an answer for everything in the bible.

I believe in eternal life after death because life is very short and pointless without it.

We can continue this later if you like but I'm going to have to go so you might not get a reply for a while. Thanks for the debate though, was fun.
User avatar #662 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
it is rather fun debating with you, but it looks like there's some people giving us red thumbs because of our opinions, but whatever. the thought of eternal life scares me, because if we have an infinite amount of time to do whatever, we'll grow bored or it eventually. life is so very special to me and others because it lacks permanence. if eternal life existed this life would be meaningless, as what could a day here do to even compare to a day in heaven? although come to think of it, no casual sex would be kind of weird, but wouldn't affect my current sexlife
User avatar #388 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
now how about this for a scenario, you're in a large group of people, and you're concealed carrying a handgun when a man with a rifle starts shooting people in the crowd. so do you absolutely ignore your morality and attempt to kill the man, or try a couple of nonlethal shots?
User avatar #399 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Depending on ho close I am to him I would always go for the non lethal shots. Perhaps some intentionally missed covering fire till people can run and to show him I have a gun so he better focus on me. But that's irrelevant because I don't plan to ever carry a gun. If someone wants to kill them then I either I did something to provoke it or it's random chance, and I prevent random chance by trying to help as many mentally ill as I can before hand, not by being ready to kill them if they snap.
User avatar #408 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
continuing this scenario, you'd probably end up shot, and the rampage would most likely continue. and not everyone in the world can be "helped." some refuse any sort of treatment, and others don't show signs of needing it before it's too late
User avatar #414 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
They do show signs, medical science just can't test or or pick up on those signs yet. And if I give up my life trying to stop the massacre then so be it. The point is purely your intentions. How can you care for all the strangers being shot at but not care about the stranger doing the shooting? Clearly they are the ones in need of more help than anyone. Sure, some of those victims will die but they will die innocent, the shooter is the one doing wrong and has a mark on his record.
User avatar #435 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
but you didn't stop the massacre, and more people are dead for it. by not ending a murderer's life, you have ended several innocent people's lives. i respect your belief that everybody is entitled to life, but morality and life itself isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. also, once you are dead, why does it matter if you have a "mark" on your record? you wouldn't be alive to care, same as if you died "innocent."
User avatar #448 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Ah but it is that black and white. You see, it's better to avoid doing wrong yourself than it is to do any amount of good. Let me change the scenario. There is a bad guy, he is a stain on humanity and has done tons of bad things. You have the choice to kill him and use his organs to prolong the life of 5 other people. Is it ok for you to kill one person to help 5 others?
I say no, because more important than prolonging other people's lives is not hurting this one man.

And when you die you will be judged by what you do in life. Though if you believe that nothing happens after life and there is no God then none of this even matters sense morality doesn't exist. It's all just relative and no morality is absolute. It doesn't matter how many people that guy kills or you save.
User avatar #470 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
let me preface this by saying "morality without god is meaningless/doesn't exist" is a tired and overdone argument and is really not even worth giving more attention than i already have, if you want to discuss that particular thing, you can find a ton of youtube videos saying the same things we would both say. with that out of the way, i would end the life of 1 to save 5 others. that man has proven himself a burden upon society, and unless those other 5 were just like him, i would have no problem with the decision. i would rather have an "innocent" person around, than someone with several "marks." and what if there are no pearly gates awaiting us after we die? besides just believing that there is a heaven and all the good people will go there, we don't have any knowledge of what happens to us after death. well other than we start to smell incredibly bad, and are no fun at parties. eternal life after death is as far as we know not there as in, we cannot perceive it in any matter, but i do not discount it totally so we should endeavor to make it enjoyable for as many people as we can, kind of like a party. and if someone wants to be a party pooper and ruin the whole thing for a lot of people, we kick him out.
User avatar #481 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
If you don't want to get into how there is no morality without God then that's fine. But we certainly do know something about death. And that is that there either is nothing or there is something. If there is nothing then it doesn't matter what we do in life really, it ends the same. If there is something then that life after death is either fair or unfair. If it's unfair, once again, it doesn't matter because it's unfair, we might not have been told about it which is unfair, we might not have had a chance to do what is right which is unfair. So that leaves only one option. If you want what you do on Earth to matter, it has to follow the rules of a fair afterlife dogma. So you either are religious and get either something or nothing or you're not religious and get either punishment or nothing. And while there are different religions, once again, if there is a fair afterlife, then anyone who seeks the right one will eventually find it.

As for you killing 1 to save 5, that is very wrong on so many levels. That means that you should start stealing from the rich to give to the poor because it would make the poor happy. After all, all you care about is cold numbers.
User avatar #490 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
and what if there is a god, but it isn't the one you pray to? you say there is only two options, either there is no god and nothing happens, or there is and something happens. truth is, there are so many other factors to put into that, like there being a god but no afterlife because the soul is a temporary thing. and what if there is an afterlife, but it isn't fair? what if it's only for believers in the "right" god? and yes i would take from those that can afford it, to give to those who need it. i would rather have a million smiling children, given a chance at life and happiness, than someone who is only happy having mass amounts of material wealth. and to say i only care about cold numbers because i would have five people have a shot at continuing life is about as wrong as it gets. what do you say to the person who would allow five people to die to let one person continue living?
User avatar #492 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I addressed if the god one worships isn't the right one. That's the part about how if you seek out the true religion you will find it, but only if you search. If you never look beyond your book then you won't likely notice.

And you clearly didn't read what I said. A god but no afterlife falls into the "unfair afterlife" category.

But only those who took the time to find the right god is a fair afterlife but only if God put the ability for everyone to find his way, which the Christian god did at least.

I would say that allowing someone to die is perfectly fine. You allow thousands to die per day simply because you didn't go into the medical field and possibly find a cure for yet uncured disease. You let thousands die because you don't send your excess money to be used to buy food for those in need. All you can do is your best but no one can be expected to save everyone or even to save everyone possible to be saved. Prolonging life is a pitiful example of doing good. It would be far better to enrich a life than to prolong it.
User avatar #543 - goodguygary (04/23/2015) [-]
but how is our stain on humanity's quality of life improved in any way? assuming all these bad things he has done would net him in prison, probably for a life sentence if he has murders under his belt. would you be able to walk in a room with those five dying people, look them in the eyes and tell them they have death to look forwards to, while some lowlife thug gets to spend the rest of his life in prison? you do have a point about me not reading what you said, i was entirely too busy focusing on someone telling me i care only about "cold numbers" to completely focus on the complexities of a fair and unfair afterlife, so allow me to offer a rebuttal to your comment here, and to the one i rather shamefully ignored: if you convert to Christianity, and your brother/other family member converts to Islam, who has the wrong religion? obviously both parties will feel it is the right one, and if you both went looking for the truth and found it in two different ways, who is wrong?
most religions do what you say the christian god does, they offer salvation if you only accept that their god(s) are the true ones.
User avatar #553 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Everyone has death to look forward to. But it's wrong to take from someone else for your gain. It's just a basic wrong thing that I'm surprised you can't see.

And it doesn't matter who it is following a religion, it is the two religions that need to be compared. Islam vs Christianity is a good example. You have to look at them and compare why one might be superior to the other. Study them to make sure you know which one(if either) is right. Do they have contradictions? Impossibilities? Is what they preach unfair? Are there holes in the dogma? Is there anything "divine" about their holy books? It all has to be taken into account the same way you would look at anything else.
User avatar #346 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Okay; while you live in hippy-dippy land, I'll be alive and breeding.
User avatar #345 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Clearly you've never had a conversation with a cannibalistic sociopath. I have. I was a volunteer therapy worker in an Ontario prison for 2 years. That fucker liked being the way he was.
User avatar #347 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Oh I know. My brother is a psychologist and we talk about his encounters and study all the time. But certainly you would agree that that sociopath was mentally ill, right? And would you agree that if the world were to make a good effort towards finding treatments and causes of such things we would be able to cure such people and give them a more normally functioning brain with which to see morality?

And I will continue to live this way. I will do my best to help and save those around me until it eventually kills me.
User avatar #357 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And if helping and saving those around you includes having to take the life of an unjustly violent person? Will you simply die holding the moral high ground (which serves you fuck-all in death) and let them have their way with the innocents around you?
Sorry, but if one psychotic fuck threatens the lives of the ten people in his immediate vicinity, I'm snapping that motherfucker's neck without a second thought. That's not just moral; that's math.

Finding treatments takes time. It's like calling the police when there's someone in your house: by the time the cops get there, the intruder can have killed you, made and eaten a sandwich, and left for a leisurely stroll home. That doesn't mean we disband the police department, but it also means we don't rely on them for split-second solutions to the problem.

Sure, there might be a cure for violent psychosis in ten years. But that's not really going to help me if some nutjob walks into the coffee shop tomorrow morning with an illegal Uzi while I'm buying my morning java, is it?
User avatar #367 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
You can't tell me that in the time you could break his neck you couldn't have subdued him too. You're looking at it that the person threatening someone else is no longer a person, only a threat. The moral thing to do is to try to save everyone even at your own expense.

But what are you going to do if someone walks in with a uzi? They have the intent to kill. If they want to kill they will. Now you can either carry a gun and protect yourself form this one or you can invest money in research to treat those in need and make it so no one ever get to the the point of psychotic murder again.
User avatar #371 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And that would be why I am part of 7 different lobbying groups pushing for the right to Concealed Carry firearms in Canada. As it stands, I carry two knives and a collapsible baton pretty much everywhere I go.

You can worry about moral qualms after the safety of all innocents has been secured. When seconds count, the lives of the innocent take priority over the lives of the guilty. Taking the guilty party alive is not the gold standard; it is a bonus. The gold standard is eliminating the threat to innocents, whatever the cost to the guilty. When beating hearts are on the line, you don't have time to ponder morality. You have time for math. Period.
User avatar #379 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That seems like a short sighted way of thinking. I have always asserted that the best cure of disease is prevention. To stop someone from ever getting to the point that they would kill another human being on an urge is infinitely preferable to giving everyone a gun to protect themselves. I think if you really wanted to make a difference that both protected you and helped others you would go into mental medicine and help progress it towards being able to eliminate the mentally ill's problems.
User avatar #384 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
It's not a question of either-or. You have to be ready for both at the same time. A cure in ten years will be awesome in ten years; however, it's not gonna help the family of four that will get sprayed down tomorrow morning if someone isn't ready to give the murderer - who is a problem not ten years later, but right that second - two in the chest and one in the head.

You can seek a cure, but that does not mean that you abandon the practice of triage in the meantime.
User avatar #393 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
You seem to think that there are millions of psychos just waiting around every corner with a gun. It's rare, very rare. And while you might possibly someday be able to use that open carry gun, you are so much more likely to be threatened by statically more likely things. House fires, car crashes, carbon monoxide poisoning, but you'll spend money on a gun before you'll buy safety measures against things that kill far more people per year. You're afraid of your fellow human being and it kills your empathy.
User avatar #417 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And another thing: it doesn't take millions of psychos. All it takes is one, in the right place, at the right time.
User avatar #423 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
And all it takes it one person to realize this person is distressed who is in the right place at the right time.
User avatar #425 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
That's a big fucking if.
User avatar #430 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I know, and yet you still prepare for it like it's certain.
User avatar #465 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #461: Clearly you've never been outside your first-world bubble. That is literally the only explanation that I can think of for why you are so brain-dead naive. If the world was a beautiful place, we wouldn't need police or militaries or courts of law. We have those things precisely because the world is a fucked-up place with fucked-up people that will spit you out dead with zero warning if they aren't kept in check.

Your world may be nice. The world - the real, tangible, empirically-observable world that exists outside your own shallow impression of how things work - is not. There are points of light, but mostly it's a place of criminalized homosexual love, Korean death camps, witch-burnings of Central African albinos, honour killings of women in the Middle East for making eye contact with a boy, and on and on and on.
User avatar #472 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It's true. I grew up in the bible belt America where neighbors have each other over, where churches compete to have given the most to charity, and where Jesus was sued to shame my brothers and I into never doing drugs, stealing, and making us care about other people. But do you know why? Because we are the haves. We want for very little. We don't have fear and thus we are happy to give to one another.

It seems you have been watching the news a lot. All it shows you are wars and famine. But the majority of the world lives in peace. You are only focusing on the bad spots. Spots where poverty causes conflict. All of it could be avoided were these people to simply not fear they won't get to eat the next day.

The world is not fucked up. The world is getting better and better. No longer do governments invade on a whim, they are now accountable to their people. No longer can atrocities throughout the world go unseen. The media now covers them and it prompts action. The formation of charities to delver food and organizations to police rogue areas.

You have a very bleak outlook on life and it smells of fear. I may be naive but communism was stopped by condition free donations of money to the poor countries who were embracing it for a reason.
User avatar #456 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #452: Got news for ya, buddy. The world is not a happy or welcoming place. Get used to it.

I think the worse for those who fail to demonstrate that they deserve the benefit of the doubt. If I die today because I refused to pull the trigger because I wanted to try and defend my own precious moral high ground, that means that I won't be alive tomorrow to resuscitate someone who goes into cardiac arrest at the bus stop.
User avatar #461 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
The world is a wonderful place but only if you love those around you. Be nice to those you love and nicer to those who hate you. Don't be afraid to lose what you have, your possessions, your loved ones, your life, they will all disappear eventually into inevitable death. Love them while they are here and do not fear their loss.

And yes. I think there is nothing better than to die while doing what you believe to be right. Do you think people have morals simply because it makes us feel better about ourselves? It allows us to think we are better than other people?
User avatar #442 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Better to be prepared than not. Which is why I majored in psychology and sociology, AND never go anywhere unarmed.

What is hippies' obsession with false dichotomies and either-or tactics?
User avatar #452 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It just bothers me to see someone living in fear like that. To walk around constantly armed. To think the worse of your fellow man. It feels cold.
User avatar #413 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Just because the fire department exists doesn't mean I don't keep a fire extinguisher, carbon monoxide alarm, smoke alarm, and trauma kit in my house. I have a pocket first aid kit that I also carry everywhere I go.
You assume that because I am ready to take a life in defence of others that I have no empathy. This is an unfair assumption, and a misguided one that judges an individual by a fallacious artificial standard. It could be argued that the fact that I am willing to sacrifice my mental health - nights waking up screaming in a cold sweat, panic attacks when reminded of the life I took, inability to face those who witnessed the event - all for the sake of guaranteeing that others live to see another sunset takes as much selflessness as subduing the killer. I will not argue that point, but it has been done.

The question is, when the threat is real, are you comfortable with mere 90% certainty? In the real world, you work with what you know and you keep the amount of information you have to process simple. Simple is fast is alive. Complicated is slow is dead. You will have time for soul-searching after those who are innocent are guaranteed their safety.
User avatar #421 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
The difference is you have empathy for the victims but not the criminal. Who is really in need of help here? Even if the victims die they die innocent, but the shooter is the one who is at risk of killing himself and others. He is messed up and has problems. He is bitter or insane. So the way I see it, if you kill him then there is a 100 percent chance that someone who might not have had to die died.
User avatar #424 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
And that is why, out of the two of us, you will be dead and I will be breeding.
User avatar #427 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Probably, but if I did my job right I will have saved someone else. My purpose in life isn't to survive nor pass on my genes. It's to help others.
User avatar #511 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #502: ... You don't have much of a survival instinct, do you?

The benefit of the doubt is slow. In a life-or-death situation, slow gets you dead. You can't help anyone when you're dead. And honestly, that's the last I'm gonna say on the matter. Have fun with your moral high ground if you're ever in a position like this where you might have to take a life to save others - which, by the way, I am in every weekend because I work as bar security in the most violent city in my province. I hope I never have to, but if someone in my bar pulls a TT-33, I'm not giving them a chance to use it. They've signed their life away. The lives of the innocent cannot afford to wait with bated breath for the slim chance of a morally pure salvation.
User avatar #524 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I admit I don't. I'm pretty content and not all that afraid to die. Maybe that's stupid but I can't help how I feel. I've had a very good life with both parents and close brothers. I can only describe my life as warm and fulfilling so far so I don't worry about bad things happening to me much at all.

But how often do you encounter life or death situations? I mean realistically they happen but surely not on the daily. I've heard big cities can be rough but not that rough.

I think a little bit of love and trust will serve you more through your life than a lifetime of preparing for threats that might never even happen.
User avatar #493 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #488:

You seem to think it's either "yourself" or "everyone". You preclude the possibility that the most logical approach is "you and as many people as is reasonably feasible". If that happens to include the fuckwit, so be it. If it doesn't, then too bad for the fuckwit.

In a situation with
> limited knowledge (you don't know why they're a threat, only that they ARE a threat),
> limited threat-elimination options of varying likelihoods of success (non-intervention which is most likely to fail, peaceful intervention which is about even, and violent intervention which has the highest statistical chance of success), and
>costs of infinite size (until we know for sure that there's an afterlife, we have to assume that being killed equates to the obliteration of an entire existence),
the only reasonable option is to pick the option that has the lowest potential cost and the highest chance of success. In the case of a violent individual, the option that fits these criteria is violent intervention and, as an extension, lethal intervention. A corpse can't decide to kill.

Even just by simple cost-benefit analysis, the appropriate response to lethal violence is lethal violence. That is the only way, within the context of the situation, that you can guarantee the lowest cost with the highest chance of success. Sure, you could try to talk them down, but if the odds of success are pitifully low, it is not reasonable to select that option in terms of saving as many as is possible.

You can't save everyone. Period. So you'd better be ready to triage if you want anyone to have a chance of getting out alive.
User avatar #502 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's the point I was making. You have to try and empathize with everyone. That likely doesn't mean everyone in the world, but everyone you can reach with the attempt of making it everyone in the world.

But what you're doing there is not giving that person the benefit of the doubt. You assume the worst instead of the best. That they are a bad person, not a person who is in need of help.

And no, I don't see why you would assume there is no afterlife until proven otherwise. It makes more sense to assume there is an afterlife until it's proven there isn't. That way you might get a reward and if you're wrong you get nothing like everyone else.

And once again, no, your cost analysis is only weighing your own survival and the survival of a number of people. But you can't tell me it's cost effective when we think two different things are valuable. You think life length is valuable while I think helping someone to become a good person is important.

And I know you can't save everyone. But I will go so far as to give my life in the attempt. You keep worrying about you and you will definitely survive until you die.
User avatar #478 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #475: Who said anything about justice? It's about survival.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Physiological > safety > love/belonging > esteem > self-actualization.

Notice how safety comes before all the pretty moral shit? That's because if you're dead, you're not exactly capable of pursuing the pretty moral shit.

When someone's a trigger-pull away from ending an innocent life, you don't have time to question motives. That's too many steps of prevention versus too few steps to failure. You have time to eliminate the threat. End of story. Safety comes first; morality comes after. A corpse can't serve the common good, but it is prevented from harming the common good. If intent to harm the common good is presented, that's the end of the line. Nothing else matters until the threat is gone.
User avatar #488 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
And I agree, but only if that model is facing outwards. What I mean is, if you are saying "Your Physiological > Your safety > Your love/belonging > Your esteem > Your self-actualization" then it is a selfish model.
But if you are saying "Everyone's Physiological > Everyone's safety > Everyone's love/belonging > Everyone's esteem > Everyone's self-actualization" then it lines up perfectly to what I am asserting.

It all comes down to who you care about. Your survival or everyone's survival.

When you see someone kill someone else you have to stop and think about what would be best to do. You can't act on rage or instant like a simple animal. You are a thinking rational being and you must use that for moral purposes. Safety does come first, but everyone's, not just yours, not just the people you like, everyone.

But you see an outside threat to the greater good, I see an inside threat. Like a man thinking of taking his own life. You can't kill someone to stop them from killing themselves. You can't save people by killing people. You might prolong someone's life that way, but there is a difference between keeping someone alive and saving someone's life.
User avatar #468 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #464: You're goddamned right, I'd plug a fucker if he threatened someone who had shown no signs of deserving it. Forfeiture of respect for fellow man without justification constitutes forfeiture of one's own humanity.

Guilty fucker tries to hurt an innocent, I'd rather see the guilty fucker dead - I'd rather make the guilty fucker dead - than see the innocent die. Innocent takes priority over guilty. How's that for moral high ground?
User avatar #475 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I agree. And you forfeit your respect for someone because of their actions without looking to see what caused those actions.

And I agree. The guilty deserve to be punished but punished fairly. Do you know why that person pulled a gun and shot that innocent? Sane people don't do that. People who can provide for themselves don't do that. Something caused him to do that. But instead of judging him on everything, you judge him on his single action to die. That is not justice, that is your fear controlling you.
User avatar #460 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #455:

Again with the false dichotomy. It's not a case of either-or. It's a case of exercising all options simultaneously. It is possible to support research into treatments while also being ready with the next best thing until those treatments are ready.

Take tree pests, for example. Asian long-horned beetles are decimating certain species of trees all across North America. There are researchers trying to come up with a way to kill of the bugs without harming the trees. However, in the meantime, trees that are already infected are destroyed in order to slow the spread and prevent other trees from dying.

It's not a question of either finding a cure or scorched-earth eradication: you use both at once, each where appropriate. A cure in ten years is not going to save the trees on your block tomorrow, but chopping down and burning the one infected tree will.
User avatar #464 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
And I would agree but only where using the next best thing does not sacrifice morality. It's simply not ok to kill anymore. If you truly cared about other human's lives you would carry a taser but not something lethal. It's just an utter lack of empathy for anyone who threatens you.

The beetle scenario is a good one but I think it shows your mentality. You picture a threat attacking victims. But if you had empathy for all human kind you would see that it's more akin to a brother hurting his brother. Sure that brother deserves punishment but if he is your brother as well do you pull the trigger to save your other brother? Or do you do everything you can to save them both because you love them both?
User avatar #451 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Reply to #440 (the reply button is gone): yep. And that moral high ground is really gonna be a comfort to the families of the dead innocents.

"Oh, my 5-year-old daughter drowned in her own blood over the course of seven minutes from the wound through her lung while also asphyxiating as the irreperably-torn left ventricle of her heart pumped blood into her chest cavity until her diaphragm couldn't move? Well, as long as the failed pretend-therapist got to feel good about himself as he died, it's okay."
User avatar #455 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Does it not? Do you not constantly see on the news about people who are venerated because they gave their lives to save someone else? The high moral ground is always right. And once again, would it not have been better to have worked to help that gun toting murdered before he ever degraded to the point of wanting to kill? If someone had cared enough about him he might not have snapped. If someone had noticed. But no one did, they all bought guns to protect themselves and let him do his own thing.
User avatar #434 - roninneko (04/23/2015) [-]
Again: that is a colossal fucking if. Too big to count on.
User avatar #440 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
But so long as that was my intent, so long as I tried then there is no if. I did my best, and that was the right thing to do, guaranteed. Even if the end result was me face down in the mud with bullet holes.
User avatar #285 - tzukaza (04/22/2015) [-]
some people just dont deserve to live
User avatar #288 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
Everyone deserves to live. Why did that man rape a child? Do you think he lived a normal healthy life up till the moment he chose to say "I think I'll commit an atrocity today!"

I guarantee you his life was hard from childhood. He may have even been molested himself as pedos often are. Don't make monsters of men. That's what the media and even society trains you to do but it's wrong.

Every person, no matter how bad the things they do, is a human being who struggles with morality. The things that have to happen to a man to make him be able to justify doing that as alright should make you feel pity for him, not hate.
#326 - stonetomcat (04/22/2015) [-]
I don't give a shit who you are, there's no excuse to fuck a five-year-old. That's one of the very few instances where I feel no pity or remorse, even for the dead.
A rough childhood doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
User avatar #338 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Of course not. But it can mess up a mind and cause someone to do bad things. That's why that person needs help. Killing them is the easy way out. It would take effort to cure them of their problems until they aren't a sexual deviant to the point of being a rapist. It requires you to see them as a person and want to help them. But I agree, it's much easier just to say "That person is a monster, kill him"
#392 - stonetomcat (04/23/2015) [-]
As you said, we don't know what his life was like. Your ideals are more just than mine, and I respect that. I partially agree with "Everyone deserves a chance at life", but I still hold my belief that there are some who don't.

For instance, if he regretted it, Truly regretted it as an action, not just because the father pummeled him he would have deserved another chance. However, if he legit enjoys it, there's just no excuse for him to live.

However, we ain't all the same people. Having different ideals is what makes us human. And your ideals, as I said earlier in this comment, are much more just than mine. You'd make a damn fine judge.

What I'm basically saying is I don't fully agree, but I respect you.
As if my respect matters, considering that we'll probably forget each other's usernames by morning
User avatar #407 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's very nice of you to say. Thank you. But I have trouble understanding how you can see a way of thinking as more just than your way of thinking but still decide not to change your way of thinking.
#438 - stonetomcat (04/23/2015) [-]
You know, I don't know either.
Perhaps it's just a bit of subconscious stubbornness. Perhaps I'm a dick at heart. I'll try to figure it out.
But either way, here's my favorite gif.
I like to use it when I rant about little things. Like when the post is about some guy about to get his ass kicked, I'll rant about something like how his name is Kendall
User avatar #449 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Your favorite gif is pooh
User avatar #453 - stonetomcat (04/23/2015) [-]
User avatar #324 - manter (04/22/2015) [-]
I used to believe everyone deserves to live, but last year my cousin was brutally murdered. This guy walked into his class, shot him multiple times, and then stabbed him repeatedly. I believe he said something like he did because he felt like it. He was going to be sent to prison for like 50 and be able to get out early on good behavior. He ended up killing himself in prison. When I heard this for the first time in my life, I did not feel sad about someone's death. I had no pity for him. My only regret is that he got to go out on his own terms.

After all that I find it really hard to say everyone deserves to live.
#336 - stonetomcat (04/23/2015) [-]
That's tragic, but I have my doubts on the legitimacy.
Maybe it's just because I refuse to believe that there are people like that, but your story sounds...
off...
Not dissing you or anything, just asking if it's legit.
User avatar #344 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
What I mean is, yes. Andrew was my cousin, and he was murdered by Cody Cousins,
User avatar #375 - stonetomcat (04/23/2015) [-]
Ah, yes, I remember now. I think it made national news, either that or I found a link to it.
Well, I give you condolences. That's all I can really do from here
User avatar #377 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
Thank you for that.
User avatar #340 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
google: Cody Cousins, Andrew Boldt, or Perdue shooting
User avatar #332 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I know. It's hard not to become biter when someone is taken from you. But that's only because you loved one and not the other. I believe you should love everyone as much as you can. If you did then it would feel like one brother killed another of your bothers. If that were the case you would try to figure out why he did what he did. You would want to understand and not just hate him and assume he is a bad person.
User avatar #356 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
I want to assume no one is a bad person. I really do, but when someone says they killed someone because they wanted to. That is evil. I did feel pity for him a little at one point, most of my pity went to his family, but when he killed himself, it was all gone.
User avatar #361 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
He was a messed up person with many personal problems. I don't see how you can look at a person like that and not feel pity and want to help them.
User avatar #365 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
Try having a close family member taken from you because they did not get mental help a year earlier when their family tried to give it to them. Then see if you still pity them.
User avatar #373 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I believe I still would. And it would light a fire in me to get active in the medical community that deals with metal illness. There isn't enough awareness about the signs of metal instability and people don't take strong enough action before it's too late. I think it would only strengthen my desire to help those people. Both the unstable ones and their potential victims.
User avatar #383 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
The problem was not the medical community. It was the laws that prevented his parents from doing anything because he was 18 and he did not want to get help. He would have had to do something that would have caused a court to order him to go.

Also, many people think they would do something in certain situations, but in all honesty most of them would not do what they think they would do. In other words, "talk is cheap"
User avatar #386 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
But that is a medical issue. You see, the courts could do anything till he did something to prove he was unstable. But if medical science advanced enough to produce a reliable test to show that he was on the verge of something violent then they could court order him to seek treatment.

And yes, talk is cheap and so are bullets.
User avatar #390 - manter (04/23/2015) [-]
All I am saying is. It is a lot harder to feel bad for someone when they ripped a loved one out of your life for no reason. I don't really want to talk about this anymore.
User avatar #401 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
Fair enough. Maybe it's not my place to say but I think love is a better way to heal than hate. Wish you the best man.
User avatar #294 - tzukaza (04/22/2015) [-]
there is people i will never forgive, child rapists/molesters and feminazis to name two
no i wont feel pity for anyone like that i dont care how hard their childhood was
User avatar #299 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I'm sorry but that sounds like the opinion of someone living in fear. You can't let yourself hate people like that. What about the child that that man abused? If he or she grows up to become a child molester too will you have no pity for that child?
User avatar #301 - tzukaza (04/22/2015) [-]
yes, you simply do not do such acts, not even other criminals like child molesters, there is a reason they usually get murdered in prison if they dont recieve extra security
User avatar #305 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I'm not sure I would use incarcerated criminal as examples of paragons of justice but alright. And I agree you shouldn't do such things. A normal person wouldn't. But these people aren't normal, they are in need of help. It takes a damaged mind to do something so heinous.
User avatar #311 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
I hold a very biased viewpoint on justice, which is why I would make a terrible judge. I believe that there are certain acts (rape for instance) which forfeits a person's right to humanity. That being said, I can argue morals and ethics all day, but someone hurts someone close to me beyond reproach, and I will feel no mercy.
User avatar #315 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
That's because you don't hold all humans as "close to you."
User avatar #317 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
No, I really don't. In fact, I'm finding it more and more difficult to care about people recently.
User avatar #323 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
That is a real shame. It's that distancing yourself from others and being unable to feel empathy that creates a disconnect. It makes you able to exploit others and not feel bad about their pain or misfortune. If that were to go to the extreme you might get to the point where you see it as ok to take from others on a whim. Hurting them for your pleasure like a pedo raping a small child.
#693 - Cathun (04/23/2015) [-]
I applaud you devotion to the Lord, but i have to point out that there are instances in the Bible where killing another human being is justified. Murder on the other hand is not.
Exodus 21:12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. "

Numbers 35:29-31(KJV)
29 So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

28 If a bull gores a man or a woman so that either dies, then the ox must surely be stoned and its flesh must not be eaten; but the owner of the bull will be acquitted. 29 But if the bull had the habit of goring, and its owner was warned, and he did not take the necessary precautions, and then it killed a man or a woman, the bull must be stoned and the man must be put to death (Exodus 21:28-29)

David was a man after Gods own heart, even with all the killing that he did. It wasnt until David sent Uriah to BE killed that the Lord got upset.
User avatar #714 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's all old testament. Not only is it no longer law but it's for a time when there weren't the resources available to deal with people who need help. They were a threat, now the only reason they are a threat is because they aren't helped soon enough.
User avatar #328 - ScottP (04/22/2015) [-]
In any case, it certainly gives me inspiration for some characters in my short films.

Strangely enough though, every time I'm outside and I see all the possible things that can go wrong around me, I feel responsible. I feel that I have to constantly help people, and that I would be willing to give my life up for complete strangers if it would save them.

In addition to that, I'd just be sitting around, minding my own business when I would get a sudden urge to get into a fight, to get hurt, get beaten up, but above all to let go. It's strange. But maybe that's why I'm thankfully not put in any position over anyone's life.
#5 - If sports doesn't test skill, tenacity, and power then what ar…  [+] (16 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Deep thoughts that keep me... 0
User avatar #6 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
I see your point I guess the main difference is that there is not violence in it I enjoy boxing and the such but other sports just feels meh and by violence I mean violence that can be graceful yet brutal you can't say other sports can showcase that
User avatar #7 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
Perhaps sports are a more refined type of competition for a more civil and morally minded society. Though we could always go back to fights to the death in coliseums if you want. The new MMA fights are getting pretty close to that as is.
User avatar #8 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
well UFC fights are like that but they aren't refined enough K-1 tournaments and the such are my type of fights. I don't like this you can hold a man and be declared a winner or stomp him out on the ground. I prefer than men fight with honor on their feet.
User avatar #9 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
There's no such thing as fighting with honor. There are rules to each kind of fighting and so long as you stay within those rules then you can win. It's smart to use what is easiest to win. You would be a fool to stop using arrows in battle because the enemy says they are the weapon of a coward. But when it comes to sports there is no honor, that's a made up social thing just the same as when COD players whine about someone camping as though it means something.
User avatar #10 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
well the idea may seem more realistic in a different type of society or like in a movie where two generals face off without any type of interference, but I mean if it came to two opponents face to face like UFC then I can't enjoy it and I would never participate in a fight like that unless it was unavoidable having respect for a fallen foe is something everyone should have. I wouldn't mind if someone calls me a fool or naiive for that but it goes against my beliefs and lifestyle to do something like that and those without the resolve to live behind their beliefs are a bit lacking in character.
User avatar #11 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
To have real respect for a foe is to not fight them at all but work to find a way to make peace. That's real strength.
User avatar #12 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
Humanity is not a kind enough race for that
User avatar #13 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I disagree. We form entire societies where the violent sorts are both rare and shunned by greater society. This is exactly what human kind is most suited for.
User avatar #14 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
well that depends on a personal standpoint some people have to fight just to survive because the world can't help them or refuses to. I live in Chicago and I got jumped on,got a chipped tooth, and I still need a root canal. At the end of the day I blamed myself for being to weak and could you say I was wrong?
User avatar #15 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It's definitely that we choose not to help those in need. There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone but we have to share.

And yes, I agree that you were too weak. But the way you were weak isn't the way you are thinking. It's not that you didn't have enough muscle or a weapon, it's that you valued your personal possessions. If you are ready to give away everything you have at a moments notice then being mugged doesn't matter. The only thing you should feel is worry for that mugger. Why is he forced to resort to mugging? Is he in need? Is he addicted to drugs? Could I help him?
User avatar #16 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have actually been trying to think like that understanding people's emotions and actions but a long time ago I knew the world was cruel and you must find ways to defend yourself I believe strength is an emotional, physical, and mental thing and you must have all three to live a fulfilling life. I at the same time do believe that humans are naturally violent and find ways to control it but for some people they need a ring to fight in. People are different like that some like me need chaos to feel comfortable they need the madness around them to make sure the life they have hasn't gone stale.
User avatar #17 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That sounds like you have a void in your life you're trying to fill
User avatar #18 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
In a way yes I find life very empty at times I can understand looking at the good things at life but ever since I had to deal with college and other life choices I feel as if the world is standing still and I'm moving in circles. Trying to find my way in a world corrupt like this is hard.
User avatar #19 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I know exactly how you feel. I'm a college student too and have felt that helplessness to the bad things in the world around me. So please don't take this the wrong way but the bible addresses that emptiness and guides on how to handle it. All I know is it always cures that feeling of doubt in me to read it.
User avatar #20 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have been looking into Buddhism
User avatar #21 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's not a bad one. I disagree with a lot of things they assert but on the scale of "good religions" I would probably put it second only to Christianity. But the important thing is you're exploring and branching out instead of letting yourself stagnate in unpleasant feelings.
#175 - Having power over nature and humans sounds pretty all powerful… 04/22/2015 on Spy Hard 0
#13 - Only from the waist up! Wait, I mean from the penis down...wai… 04/22/2015 on Cheer Up 0
#8 - This is blatant exploitation of every man's secret turtle figh… 04/22/2015 on so manly *swoon* 0
#77 - Funny, only now do I realize why I disliked this show. It's ab…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Hey Arnold was deep.. +3
User avatar #84 - thathorse (04/22/2015) [-]
I lived in New York City when I was younger and would watch this show cause shit like this actually happened in my life man
User avatar #81 - hetzerdk (04/22/2015) [-]
Depends on how big the city is.
#3 - Nato simply because America is friendlier with them than Russi… 04/22/2015 on WWIII 0
#14 - Picture 04/22/2015 on I'd carry them in my ass +16
#25 - But it does. He said God and that is a definable term. Gods ha…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Spy Hard 0
User avatar #85 - emiyashirou (04/22/2015) [-]
god, /ɡɒd/, (n): a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Does it mention anywhere in there that a god is an all-powerful immortal being?
User avatar #175 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
Having power over nature and humans sounds pretty all powerful. It's also called a spirit, does a spirit not sound like an immortal intangible being? So yes, immortal all powerful fits that definition. Spirits can be immortal, if you have power of nature, seeing how nature encompasses pretty much everything, that sounds like all powerful.
#3 - "I don't get why men have manly fantasies about winning a…  [+] (18 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Deep thoughts that keep me... +1
User avatar #4 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
I meant it more of a way as in I can't get why men enjoy watching other men run around and sweaty and tossing balls around it just doesn't seem enjoyable to me bloody war on the other hand tests skill, tenacity, and power
User avatar #5 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
If sports doesn't test skill, tenacity, and power then what are you watching? Professional bingo?
User avatar #6 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
I see your point I guess the main difference is that there is not violence in it I enjoy boxing and the such but other sports just feels meh and by violence I mean violence that can be graceful yet brutal you can't say other sports can showcase that
User avatar #7 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
Perhaps sports are a more refined type of competition for a more civil and morally minded society. Though we could always go back to fights to the death in coliseums if you want. The new MMA fights are getting pretty close to that as is.
User avatar #8 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
well UFC fights are like that but they aren't refined enough K-1 tournaments and the such are my type of fights. I don't like this you can hold a man and be declared a winner or stomp him out on the ground. I prefer than men fight with honor on their feet.
User avatar #9 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
There's no such thing as fighting with honor. There are rules to each kind of fighting and so long as you stay within those rules then you can win. It's smart to use what is easiest to win. You would be a fool to stop using arrows in battle because the enemy says they are the weapon of a coward. But when it comes to sports there is no honor, that's a made up social thing just the same as when COD players whine about someone camping as though it means something.
User avatar #10 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
well the idea may seem more realistic in a different type of society or like in a movie where two generals face off without any type of interference, but I mean if it came to two opponents face to face like UFC then I can't enjoy it and I would never participate in a fight like that unless it was unavoidable having respect for a fallen foe is something everyone should have. I wouldn't mind if someone calls me a fool or naiive for that but it goes against my beliefs and lifestyle to do something like that and those without the resolve to live behind their beliefs are a bit lacking in character.
User avatar #11 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
To have real respect for a foe is to not fight them at all but work to find a way to make peace. That's real strength.
User avatar #12 - strawhatmatthew (04/22/2015) [-]
Humanity is not a kind enough race for that
User avatar #13 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
I disagree. We form entire societies where the violent sorts are both rare and shunned by greater society. This is exactly what human kind is most suited for.
User avatar #14 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
well that depends on a personal standpoint some people have to fight just to survive because the world can't help them or refuses to. I live in Chicago and I got jumped on,got a chipped tooth, and I still need a root canal. At the end of the day I blamed myself for being to weak and could you say I was wrong?
User avatar #15 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
It's definitely that we choose not to help those in need. There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone but we have to share.

And yes, I agree that you were too weak. But the way you were weak isn't the way you are thinking. It's not that you didn't have enough muscle or a weapon, it's that you valued your personal possessions. If you are ready to give away everything you have at a moments notice then being mugged doesn't matter. The only thing you should feel is worry for that mugger. Why is he forced to resort to mugging? Is he in need? Is he addicted to drugs? Could I help him?
User avatar #16 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have actually been trying to think like that understanding people's emotions and actions but a long time ago I knew the world was cruel and you must find ways to defend yourself I believe strength is an emotional, physical, and mental thing and you must have all three to live a fulfilling life. I at the same time do believe that humans are naturally violent and find ways to control it but for some people they need a ring to fight in. People are different like that some like me need chaos to feel comfortable they need the madness around them to make sure the life they have hasn't gone stale.
User avatar #17 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That sounds like you have a void in your life you're trying to fill
User avatar #18 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
In a way yes I find life very empty at times I can understand looking at the good things at life but ever since I had to deal with college and other life choices I feel as if the world is standing still and I'm moving in circles. Trying to find my way in a world corrupt like this is hard.
User avatar #19 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
I know exactly how you feel. I'm a college student too and have felt that helplessness to the bad things in the world around me. So please don't take this the wrong way but the bible addresses that emptiness and guides on how to handle it. All I know is it always cures that feeling of doubt in me to read it.
User avatar #20 - strawhatmatthew (04/23/2015) [-]
I have been looking into Buddhism
User avatar #21 - Vandeekree (04/23/2015) [-]
That's not a bad one. I disagree with a lot of things they assert but on the scale of "good religions" I would probably put it second only to Christianity. But the important thing is you're exploring and branching out instead of letting yourself stagnate in unpleasant feelings.
#23 - That's the point. If it's smaller than God than it's not God, …  [+] (4 new replies) 04/22/2015 on Spy Hard +1
User avatar #24 - pokemonstheshiz (04/22/2015) [-]
The quote is referring to what we/he believes is God. Whether or not there is one higher or it isn't "a true God" or whatever is irrelevant. He's referencing what he believes is his creator, and wondering if that creator lives in fear of what he created, like him. God is what he labels it. Whether the label fits your own criteria has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
User avatar #25 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
But it does. He said God and that is a definable term. Gods have always been all powerful immortal beings. So if you were to find something "above" humans that created us but didn't fit the definition of God then it would merely be a thing we thought was God but weren't looking high enough. The question presumes that God exists and the only uncertainty is if he fears his creations of Earth.
That's why the question is self defeating. Even if we mistake aliens for gods above us there is still room for a "true god" to be above them. You seem to be trying to interpret the words to mean "Is there a God at all? And if not, is whatever created us weaker than us?"
User avatar #85 - emiyashirou (04/22/2015) [-]
god, /ɡɒd/, (n): a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Does it mention anywhere in there that a god is an all-powerful immortal being?
User avatar #175 - Vandeekree (04/22/2015) [-]
Having power over nature and humans sounds pretty all powerful. It's also called a spirit, does a spirit not sound like an immortal intangible being? So yes, immortal all powerful fits that definition. Spirits can be immortal, if you have power of nature, seeing how nature encompasses pretty much everything, that sounds like all powerful.
#3 - Yeah, regardless of their intent, this comes off as malicious to me. 04/22/2015 on SAVE THEM!!! 0
#20 - You did when you said what if God is just aliens. That means t… 04/22/2015 on Spy Hard -1

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#27 - fedexman (05/09/2015) [-]
We need more people like you on FJ
We need more people like you on FJ
User avatar #28 to #27 - Vandeekree (05/09/2015) [-]
Thanks, might I ask what brought this comment about?
User avatar #29 to #28 - fedexman (05/09/2015) [-]
Just appreciate what you say, too many ignorant people these days,keep it up man.
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you not have morals? Like seriously do you not have any? You claim that you only do as the bible instructs every time someone asks you about morals, but do you not know right from wrong without religion?

If so perhaps you should learn it. I'm an agnostic and I still know what's right from wrong without a higher entity instructing me on it. If the only thing keeping you from being a moral-less prick is religion then you are probably a psychopath.
User avatar #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Lets just put this here, shall we? Fewer purple lines
User avatar #18 to #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Now I strongly disagree that more studies need to be done in order to come to a consensus. All of the leading bodies which have done research on the subject have found no reason to indicate that gays are naturally more likely through their expression of sexuality to have any types of adverse effects. The only people I have heard calling for more research are the same people claiming that climate change is not a thing or that natural selection doesnt happen. There is a consensus in the scientific community and it is people who are not a part of the community who claim that they cant make conclusions (because they dont like the ones made)
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - anon (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)