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

hide menu

archangel    

Rank #16067 on Comments
archangel Avatar Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to archangel Block archangel Invite archangel to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:5/14/2009
Last Login:8/27/2014
Location:united kingdom
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#16067
Highest Content Rank:#8952
Highest Comment Rank:#3101
Content Thumbs: 284 total,  433 ,  149
Comment Thumbs: 2606 total,  3314 ,  708
Content Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 28 Content: Peasant → Level 29 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 45% (45/100)
Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:13575
Times Content Favorited:22 times
Total Comments Made:1283
FJ Points:2885
Favorite Tags: Pokemon (3) | a (2) | bad (2) | gonna (2) | internet (2) | Nintendo (2) | of (2) | Religion (2) | Snafu (2) | Truth (2) | Videogames (2) | your (2)

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 10989
    Thumbs Up 273 Thumbs Down 14 Total: +259
    Comments: 21
    Favorites: 15
    Uploaded: 04/17/10
    back hair back hair
  • Views: 1699
    Thumbs Up 26 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +25
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 07/15/10
    3ds 3ds
  • Views: 1016
    Thumbs Up 15 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +11
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 04/19/10
    no silence no silence
  • Views: 523
    Thumbs Up 9 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +6
    Comments: 11
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 08/30/10
    the truth the truth
  • Views: 2492
    Thumbs Up 7 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +4
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/03/10
    mountain climbing mountain climbing
  • Views: 1525
    Thumbs Up 9 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +3
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 08/01/11
    poke rape poke rape
1 2 3 > [ 14 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

latest user's comments

#6 - Jorge Daniel Casanova I think I'll being going out tonight 08/26/2014 on Let's do this 0
#1 - That hair . What is she on her period? 08/18/2014 on That dance u do when her... 0
#21 - I didn't see the third panel, so at first I thought the guy ju… 08/15/2014 on dont judge +1
#156 - Dude the free healthcare is moral imperative we're too advance…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/14/2014 on Britfag 0
User avatar #157 - Yardie (08/14/2014) [-]
If there's a tax then stop calling it free. It's theft. When you say it's free you're just being manipulative.

And there are plenty of ways to provide care for those in need without having to threaten people with prison or death for not paying a tax. If we really are advanced enough as a society to provide care to those in need, then we will damn well do it without putting a gun to everybody's head.

And what do you mean humanity needs to stop clawing over who gets what when you are clearly advocating for the use of violence through the State to get what somebody wants. That's absolute madness. In a free society resources are allocated to those who work for it. That's the product of free trade. The products of the State are lobbyists, politicians and welfare junkies, which is what I assume you mean by "clawing over who gets what."

If I'm a peanut farmer and you're an apple farmer, and I give you a bag of peanuts in exchange for an apple, then you now have a bag of peanuts and I have an apple. We're both happy with the trade, otherwise it would not have happened. Now you want to bring the State into this because you feel that some other guy needs a share of the food. Well, why doesn't he come to me and ask for some peanuts voluntarily? Is he so crippled he can't even do that? If that's the case then there's most likely a charity that caters to his needs and seeks people out like that. Why doesn't he offer to work with me in exchange for a share of the peanuts? Is that too much to ask for?

And it's the same thing for healthcare. If I'm a doctor and you're an apple farmer, and I agree to give you healthcare when you need it in exchange for a bag of apples each month, then we are both better off. However, somebody else does not have the right to put a gun to my head and force me to give them healthcare just because I'm giving you healthcare. They should work for it, or if I'm feeling generous and they ask, I will provide the care for them voluntarily.
#32 - Ministry of magic is having a busy day 08/13/2014 on dumping paper airplanes +1
#154 - I'm sorry bro you just go round in circles. I've given you sev…  [+] (3 new replies) 08/13/2014 on Britfag 0
User avatar #155 - Yardie (08/13/2014) [-]
It's not imperative to provide free healthcare. Healthcare didn't even exist until somebody came up with the idea on the free market during the Industrial Revolution just over 100 years ago while society has been going for well over 5,000 years.

And "Free" Healthcare is an irrational statement. It's simply manipulative language that goes against reality. It's like saying "Free" food. Somebody has to grow it. Having somebody grow "Free" food would be what we call slavery, but even then slavery isn't free because you have to feed the slaves. The logic is incredibly backwards.

And you have not provided a single moral principle that shows the morality of the use of force to provide healthcare. If you're going to argue a moral stance you have to pass it through tests of logic. Otherwise you're just spewing nonsense.
User avatar #156 - archangel (08/14/2014) [-]
Dude the free healthcare is moral imperative we're too advanced as a society to leave the poor to suffer or to die you are the one spewing none sense, if you think I'm advocating not paying doctors or pharmaceutical companies, that's why you have the tax you have been arguing against , and it works check Canada , check Denmark even when it's not great the systems fair. To be honest I tired of trying to reach you because all your arguments advocate greed. We are on two very different ends of the spectrum you just are not capable of understanding . Humanity needs to stop clawing over who gets what, and work together for a better future this can only be proliferated through ethical and fair government practice , hence aNational Health service.
User avatar #157 - Yardie (08/14/2014) [-]
If there's a tax then stop calling it free. It's theft. When you say it's free you're just being manipulative.

And there are plenty of ways to provide care for those in need without having to threaten people with prison or death for not paying a tax. If we really are advanced enough as a society to provide care to those in need, then we will damn well do it without putting a gun to everybody's head.

And what do you mean humanity needs to stop clawing over who gets what when you are clearly advocating for the use of violence through the State to get what somebody wants. That's absolute madness. In a free society resources are allocated to those who work for it. That's the product of free trade. The products of the State are lobbyists, politicians and welfare junkies, which is what I assume you mean by "clawing over who gets what."

If I'm a peanut farmer and you're an apple farmer, and I give you a bag of peanuts in exchange for an apple, then you now have a bag of peanuts and I have an apple. We're both happy with the trade, otherwise it would not have happened. Now you want to bring the State into this because you feel that some other guy needs a share of the food. Well, why doesn't he come to me and ask for some peanuts voluntarily? Is he so crippled he can't even do that? If that's the case then there's most likely a charity that caters to his needs and seeks people out like that. Why doesn't he offer to work with me in exchange for a share of the peanuts? Is that too much to ask for?

And it's the same thing for healthcare. If I'm a doctor and you're an apple farmer, and I agree to give you healthcare when you need it in exchange for a bag of apples each month, then we are both better off. However, somebody else does not have the right to put a gun to my head and force me to give them healthcare just because I'm giving you healthcare. They should work for it, or if I'm feeling generous and they ask, I will provide the care for them voluntarily.
#152 - on top of insurance you still pay taxes and insurances plans .… 08/13/2014 on Britfag 0
#151 - ok take the system out of it . Ok. America is a fairly a chris…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/13/2014 on Britfag 0
User avatar #153 - Yardie (08/13/2014) [-]
Religion is not ethics. Ethics are concrete and objective, religion is about belief and way of life. I never said charity was a bad thing, but theft is immoral, even by biblical standards.

Private education is possible and I believe is much more cost effective and higher quality (no forced unions = no tenure = kids actually being educated by teachers who want to teach). National Defense is difficult but in a Stateless world (I know hurr durr Utopia, but I'm talking about the principle of it) there wouldn't be need for a National Defense because there would be no reason for war if private property is understood.

When you look at ethical principles you have to start small and work bigger. If the philosophy fails and becomes inconsistent with itself or reality at any point throughout the process, you can call it objectively wrong. You can assume there are 20 billion people in the examination, but forcing another to provide healthcare is still wrong because of the fundamentals. That's universality, the scientific method. If gravity doesn't work when you have two rocks but you gather 20 billion rocks and suddenly it works, then you can't say that gravity is universal. In the same way, if the philosophy that it's moral to steal money to pay for healthcare doesn't work on two people, then you can't say that it's a fundamental human right.

And with your example, you are assuming that money comes from thin air. Money comes from exchange of goods or services. If you are not helping somebody out by providing a good or service, then you do not deserve their goods or services. That's reality. If they help you it's out of their own good will then you should be appreciative of that and seek to help them out right back, but you cannot force somebody to give you a good or service and call it morally right.

Also, again, Hippocratic Oath. Doctors take an Oath that they will take in anybody in need. They used to give free service to people in need, but that's changed due to laws.
User avatar #154 - archangel (08/13/2014) [-]
I'm sorry bro you just go round in circles. I've given you seven reasons to sundown why it's moral imperative to provide free health care so the poorest can access it. You have fallen short to dismantle any of those reason other than you should not have to pay taxes which I agree especially when it comes to maintaining such a huge military but education and healthcare I would hold firm. Other than that you try to make the same point unfairness of paying for others for salary reason would be unfair I explain tax brackets cover this. So I guess we have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #155 - Yardie (08/13/2014) [-]
It's not imperative to provide free healthcare. Healthcare didn't even exist until somebody came up with the idea on the free market during the Industrial Revolution just over 100 years ago while society has been going for well over 5,000 years.

And "Free" Healthcare is an irrational statement. It's simply manipulative language that goes against reality. It's like saying "Free" food. Somebody has to grow it. Having somebody grow "Free" food would be what we call slavery, but even then slavery isn't free because you have to feed the slaves. The logic is incredibly backwards.

And you have not provided a single moral principle that shows the morality of the use of force to provide healthcare. If you're going to argue a moral stance you have to pass it through tests of logic. Otherwise you're just spewing nonsense.
User avatar #156 - archangel (08/14/2014) [-]
Dude the free healthcare is moral imperative we're too advanced as a society to leave the poor to suffer or to die you are the one spewing none sense, if you think I'm advocating not paying doctors or pharmaceutical companies, that's why you have the tax you have been arguing against , and it works check Canada , check Denmark even when it's not great the systems fair. To be honest I tired of trying to reach you because all your arguments advocate greed. We are on two very different ends of the spectrum you just are not capable of understanding . Humanity needs to stop clawing over who gets what, and work together for a better future this can only be proliferated through ethical and fair government practice , hence aNational Health service.
User avatar #157 - Yardie (08/14/2014) [-]
If there's a tax then stop calling it free. It's theft. When you say it's free you're just being manipulative.

And there are plenty of ways to provide care for those in need without having to threaten people with prison or death for not paying a tax. If we really are advanced enough as a society to provide care to those in need, then we will damn well do it without putting a gun to everybody's head.

And what do you mean humanity needs to stop clawing over who gets what when you are clearly advocating for the use of violence through the State to get what somebody wants. That's absolute madness. In a free society resources are allocated to those who work for it. That's the product of free trade. The products of the State are lobbyists, politicians and welfare junkies, which is what I assume you mean by "clawing over who gets what."

If I'm a peanut farmer and you're an apple farmer, and I give you a bag of peanuts in exchange for an apple, then you now have a bag of peanuts and I have an apple. We're both happy with the trade, otherwise it would not have happened. Now you want to bring the State into this because you feel that some other guy needs a share of the food. Well, why doesn't he come to me and ask for some peanuts voluntarily? Is he so crippled he can't even do that? If that's the case then there's most likely a charity that caters to his needs and seeks people out like that. Why doesn't he offer to work with me in exchange for a share of the peanuts? Is that too much to ask for?

And it's the same thing for healthcare. If I'm a doctor and you're an apple farmer, and I agree to give you healthcare when you need it in exchange for a bag of apples each month, then we are both better off. However, somebody else does not have the right to put a gun to my head and force me to give them healthcare just because I'm giving you healthcare. They should work for it, or if I'm feeling generous and they ask, I will provide the care for them voluntarily.
#149 - Oh so now he s homeless . So now he would definitely be on wel…  [+] (8 new replies) 08/12/2014 on Britfag 0
User avatar #150 - Yardie (08/12/2014) [-]
I'm trying to give an example of a moral question that puts your moral theory that not paying for healthcare is morally wrong. You keep dodging the question by inserting an organization so either you are ignoring what I'm saying or completely misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make.

Healthcare cannot be a human right unless you concede that slavery is moral. If you have two men on an island one man cannot force the other to provide healthcare to him. They can come to a mutual agreement that if one gets sick the other will take care of them, or one can say they will fish an extra hour in exchange for healthcare from the other, but one cannot force the other to provide healthcare for them and call it moral. However if you concede that slavery is moral then one is allowed to hold a gun to the other's head and make them do whatever he/she wants. I don't believe anybody sane would consider this right.

Also there are plenty of doctors willing to take patients for free out of pity. Have you ever heard of the Hippocratic Oath? However there is almost none of that anymore due to the fact that doctors can be sued or arrested for malpractice for doing so, so they charge for the risk they're taking.
User avatar #152 - archangel (08/13/2014) [-]
on top of insurance you still pay taxes and insurances plans .
you poor person needs treatment and your doctor needs to paid. as a nation are you going to let the poor person suffer, I hope not, but wait you pay taxes and insurance plan firstly the tax for the health care would be about $16 a month compared to what your insurance is worth the average contribution of $250 a month(circa 2009) so you could pay less and indirectly save a life and hell if got in a government that cut spending anything the health care tax could absorbed.
so slavery is not moral but now all you are try ing to do is acquaint a immoral concept with a moral concept to make both concept seem immoral which is a weak argument
its moral concept because it can benefit every one , because it allows the strong to protect the weak , because it allows the same treatment to all , because it allows the poor effectively the same longevity as the rich, because even though you may know that person you are helping them to live.
So my point is this If you have to pay tax then health care is something that should be paid for, so the poor do not have to go without health care. Effectively you'd contributing to everyone having a better safer tomorrow
User avatar #151 - archangel (08/13/2014) [-]
ok take the system out of it . Ok. America is a fairly a christian country, the story of the good samaritan not paying for health care is the equivalent of the people passing the wounded man by in the good samaritan.
tax in of it self could be considered immoral forcing people to pay funds. but you can not have a country with out tax . who would pay for the defence of that country, the education of the country, who would govern the country without tax. So if you have to have tax the one of the most ethical and morally right thing to pay for is health care. because it is immoral to turn a person away from treatment just because they are poor. I even say the health of your populace is more important than defence ,since there are countries that work militia forces .
We are not talking a bout two men though making an agreement. I wish it could be that simple . A whole population can't agree on a single thing that is why we have governments and even they are normally at odds. You can't get so many people to agree to take care of another person because each has a different relationship with that person, plus most people might not have the expertise to treat that person so you need doctors. That doctor needs to get paid but if that person has no money is he meant to be left in their condition, is the doctor meant to turn them away, that would be immoral. look at the man with the 10 stone testicle. So you all have to have insurance but thats expensive not everyone can afford it are they meant to be turned away . even those who can pay for insurance plans a different treatments are not equal a poor family would not have access to the same treatment that your fortune 500 guy had is that fair.
User avatar #153 - Yardie (08/13/2014) [-]
Religion is not ethics. Ethics are concrete and objective, religion is about belief and way of life. I never said charity was a bad thing, but theft is immoral, even by biblical standards.

Private education is possible and I believe is much more cost effective and higher quality (no forced unions = no tenure = kids actually being educated by teachers who want to teach). National Defense is difficult but in a Stateless world (I know hurr durr Utopia, but I'm talking about the principle of it) there wouldn't be need for a National Defense because there would be no reason for war if private property is understood.

When you look at ethical principles you have to start small and work bigger. If the philosophy fails and becomes inconsistent with itself or reality at any point throughout the process, you can call it objectively wrong. You can assume there are 20 billion people in the examination, but forcing another to provide healthcare is still wrong because of the fundamentals. That's universality, the scientific method. If gravity doesn't work when you have two rocks but you gather 20 billion rocks and suddenly it works, then you can't say that gravity is universal. In the same way, if the philosophy that it's moral to steal money to pay for healthcare doesn't work on two people, then you can't say that it's a fundamental human right.

And with your example, you are assuming that money comes from thin air. Money comes from exchange of goods or services. If you are not helping somebody out by providing a good or service, then you do not deserve their goods or services. That's reality. If they help you it's out of their own good will then you should be appreciative of that and seek to help them out right back, but you cannot force somebody to give you a good or service and call it morally right.

Also, again, Hippocratic Oath. Doctors take an Oath that they will take in anybody in need. They used to give free service to people in need, but that's changed due to laws.
User avatar #154 - archangel (08/13/2014) [-]
I'm sorry bro you just go round in circles. I've given you seven reasons to sundown why it's moral imperative to provide free health care so the poorest can access it. You have fallen short to dismantle any of those reason other than you should not have to pay taxes which I agree especially when it comes to maintaining such a huge military but education and healthcare I would hold firm. Other than that you try to make the same point unfairness of paying for others for salary reason would be unfair I explain tax brackets cover this. So I guess we have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #155 - Yardie (08/13/2014) [-]
It's not imperative to provide free healthcare. Healthcare didn't even exist until somebody came up with the idea on the free market during the Industrial Revolution just over 100 years ago while society has been going for well over 5,000 years.

And "Free" Healthcare is an irrational statement. It's simply manipulative language that goes against reality. It's like saying "Free" food. Somebody has to grow it. Having somebody grow "Free" food would be what we call slavery, but even then slavery isn't free because you have to feed the slaves. The logic is incredibly backwards.

And you have not provided a single moral principle that shows the morality of the use of force to provide healthcare. If you're going to argue a moral stance you have to pass it through tests of logic. Otherwise you're just spewing nonsense.
User avatar #156 - archangel (08/14/2014) [-]
Dude the free healthcare is moral imperative we're too advanced as a society to leave the poor to suffer or to die you are the one spewing none sense, if you think I'm advocating not paying doctors or pharmaceutical companies, that's why you have the tax you have been arguing against , and it works check Canada , check Denmark even when it's not great the systems fair. To be honest I tired of trying to reach you because all your arguments advocate greed. We are on two very different ends of the spectrum you just are not capable of understanding . Humanity needs to stop clawing over who gets what, and work together for a better future this can only be proliferated through ethical and fair government practice , hence aNational Health service.
User avatar #157 - Yardie (08/14/2014) [-]
If there's a tax then stop calling it free. It's theft. When you say it's free you're just being manipulative.

And there are plenty of ways to provide care for those in need without having to threaten people with prison or death for not paying a tax. If we really are advanced enough as a society to provide care to those in need, then we will damn well do it without putting a gun to everybody's head.

And what do you mean humanity needs to stop clawing over who gets what when you are clearly advocating for the use of violence through the State to get what somebody wants. That's absolute madness. In a free society resources are allocated to those who work for it. That's the product of free trade. The products of the State are lobbyists, politicians and welfare junkies, which is what I assume you mean by "clawing over who gets what."

If I'm a peanut farmer and you're an apple farmer, and I give you a bag of peanuts in exchange for an apple, then you now have a bag of peanuts and I have an apple. We're both happy with the trade, otherwise it would not have happened. Now you want to bring the State into this because you feel that some other guy needs a share of the food. Well, why doesn't he come to me and ask for some peanuts voluntarily? Is he so crippled he can't even do that? If that's the case then there's most likely a charity that caters to his needs and seeks people out like that. Why doesn't he offer to work with me in exchange for a share of the peanuts? Is that too much to ask for?

And it's the same thing for healthcare. If I'm a doctor and you're an apple farmer, and I agree to give you healthcare when you need it in exchange for a bag of apples each month, then we are both better off. However, somebody else does not have the right to put a gun to my head and force me to give them healthcare just because I'm giving you healthcare. They should work for it, or if I'm feeling generous and they ask, I will provide the care for them voluntarily.
#33 - Why did I hear Olafs voice for the "yeah you"'s … 08/11/2014 on Nice Save 0

user's channels

Join Subscribe bendingtime
Join Subscribe deadpool
Join Subscribe deadpool-time
Join Subscribe deadpooltime
Join Subscribe pokemon
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 850

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#7 - chosencausefuckyou **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #4 - kennyloggins (08/21/2011) [-]
i know this is weird, but i was wondering if you've noticed sabrehunter and his ******** reposts. If so there is a way to stop it. flag it for copyright infringment. and if you would like to, add him and flag his ********
and if your blocked from his profile, then just flag his most recent post, http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/2514319/TIME+FOR+A+CRUSADE/ for copyright infringment.

I definitely know this is weird, but i just wanted an opinion of true funnyjunkers.
You dont have to be part of this, im just sick of it

You can delete these comments if you want
User avatar #5 to #4 - archangel (08/21/2011) [-]
lol
User avatar #6 to #5 - kennyloggins (08/21/2011) [-]
Alright like I said, you dont have to do anything. I just thought people would be pissed of about this like I am. But your not and thats cool.

Thanks for your time
 Friends (0)