|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #45 on CommentsLevel 326 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
OfflineSend mail to auryn Block auryn Invite auryn to be your friend
latest user's comments
|#137 - A bit of a shame to see how you immediately want to catagorize…||10/11/2014 on WB got it right||0|
|#10 - 18 is more than enough.||10/11/2014 on War n stuff||+6|
|#84 - No, just no. Nowhere did I even imply the slightest b…||10/11/2014 on WB got it right||+1|
|#28 - >women on period They should ban that **** .||10/10/2014 on Women agree.||0|
|#3 - **auryn rolled image ** Johnny-Cash-eating-cake-in-a-bush-h…||10/10/2014 on is it safe to come back?||0|
|#15 - I have to disagree. That's not what inherent means. … [+] (21 new replies)||10/10/2014 on WB got it right||+52|
#117 - anon (10/11/2014) [-]
im sorry , but there isnt such thing as a right and a wrong, only what you perceive. morally acceptable ? to bad morals don't exists and are a fabrication of man. what im saying is that you can think there's such a thing as morals, but in reality there isnt, unless you believe in a god, then your a special idiot
#105 - anon (10/11/2014) [-]
Oh God, I could take your comment apart for hours on end.
1st of all, I do think there is such a thing as objective truth, and disagree with liberals' solipsistic consensus-based morality and even consensus-based reality.
However, most of what you think is inherent morality actually isn't. Judging from ur comment (given, somewhat presumptiosly) you're a left-leaning liberal douche. So u probably think homosexuality is good and opposition to it is immoral. Same with abortion, right? So consider this: did you hold this position 10 or 15 or 20 years ago b4 the bullying homosexual lobby, that censors everybody who doesn't tow their line and even destroys their careers and livelihoods made this the dominant moral perspective? You almost certainly didn't.
Now tell me this: do u think pedophilia is despicable and abhorrent? Do u think infanticide is horrific and 100 times more inhuman than regular murder? Yeah? Well, that's too f***ing bad son, since these same [cont]
#108 - anon (10/11/2014) [-]
[cont] leftist lobbies that manufacture their twisted "morality" and force you to accept it or starve, and do all your moral thinking for you are now in the process of normalizing and pushing for decriminalization and social acceptance and even celebration of both pedophilia and infanticide. For e.g., in the latest DSM-5, they redefined and rebranded pedophilia from a mental illness to a "sexual orientation" just as they did to homosexuality 30 years ago. With re to infanticide, they're seeking to legalize it as an extension of abortion as "post birth abortion" arguing that newborns have the same "moral status" as unborn fetuses. The left has always been been morally bankrupt and outright batshit insane. Inb4, "hurr durr you're a Christian". I'm an atheist.
Yet, you will, in 20 years at most, almost certainly be fighting "pedophobia" and fighting for "minor-attracted persons' rights" since it's a "sexual orientation", and u will be fighting for women's "inalienable" "right for [cont]
#110 - anon (10/11/2014) [-]
[cont2] "inalienable" "right" to "post-birth abortion" aka infanticide. So don't give any shit about "inherent" or immutable morality you leftist moron.
"There's no wisdom to be found in denigration towards anyone or anything"
"Prejudices are just the product of small-mindedness."
There is wisdom in it if it's based on real data, and real experience. If a demographic has sky-high crime, drug abuse, illegitimacy, etc. rates you are correct in making reasonable, data-based generalizations and treating exceptions as such.
"Prejudices" and stereotypes are born from real patterns. If they weren't and were just randomly assigned to outgroups regardless of that specific outgroup's behavior, why not assign violent crimes to jews instead of blacks, financial industry corruption to blacks instead of jews, gold-digging to Hispanics instead of women, etc?
Here your bias and poor education shows. Making other groups own up to their own shit is "bigotry". Your belief in [cont3]
#111 - anon (10/11/2014) [-]
[cont3] Your belief in "blank slatism" and absolutely no statistical difference in outcomes along racial or sex lines has reached axiomatic status. You do not question it b/c in your mind, it's like questioning that the sun rises in the east. So inb4, "your morality is based on religion". My morality is secular and based on real-world facts. Facts such different groups engage in different socially destructive / undesirable / harmful in significantly higher rates than other groups.
And a realization that whites are just another ethnicity and it is healthy for your very survival to have ingroup bias, and that by the time morons like you have pulled their head out their ass and realized this, whites will be a minority in their own homelands and will suffer the same consequences as other ethnicities do when they become minority or lose power, such as was proven by the anti-white genocide in South Africa, about which you clearly don't give a single fuck.
#80 - anon (10/11/2014) [-]
Ironic that you post a comment supporting the view that whites aren't better than blacks, and should eternally feel guilty for something they personally did not do, but use a picture of a black woman who dyes her hair blonde and bleached her skin to become whiter, but not so white that black people give her a hard time for bleaching it.
#113 - anon (10/11/2014) [-]
#71 - anon (10/11/2014) [-]
I don't think you really grasped what you was trying to say, I supposed it's a matter of opinion but what we view as right and wrong are subjective if you ask me. In ancient Rome it was okay to be gay, it was also okay to murder people for sport. Being gay is still a stigma in much of the world, even places were it's accepted there are people that think it morally reprehensible. You may take issue with his definition of inherent but that's really neither here nor there for the overall point being that it's easy to look back and say people were dumb or ignorant but the fact of the matter is had we been born in that time we would be just the same. Gravity is obvious to us now, but to think that it would occur to you if you lived back when it wasn't is extreme hubris. Today you say that right and wrong is self evident, eternal, and unchanging, you would probably say the same if you lived in the 1920s, you would also probably be a racist that found these cartoons hilarious.
#94 - babyanalraper (10/11/2014) [-]
Yes you can... If your opinion is, say, that murder should be legal. Then I would ask why you think so, and then ask if you want to be murdered, or have one of your friends murdered. I would also ask you what you think about social and technological development, and how you think murder would affect society and essentially your ability to browse FJ all thr day.
You can't assume that you can't argue with opinions while arguing with that guy about your respective opinions...
#91 - Ruspanic (10/11/2014) [-]
The fact that many people disagree on moral issues does not justify moral relativism.
If you have any moral beliefs at all you should apply those standards to everybody, regardless of what time they're from or what culture they live in. Otherwise you're spineless and unprincipled.
You absolutely can argue with other people's opinions, and you should argue if those opinions have negative consequences - for example, if someone thinks "honor killing" their children is okay. And it's possible to support one's moral views with reasoned arguments to justify their superiority over contrary moral views.
#66 - therealtjthemedic (10/11/2014) [-]
Morality is only based on opinion. And morality differs from country to country, religion to religion, and even person to person.
Everyone thinks different things are 'wrong' and 'right'.
Generally, in western civilization, murder and shit are considered 'wrong' by the majority.
In places like the middle east, it is 'right' in some circumstances.
I mean fuck, America still executes people.
#21 - captainfuckitall (10/11/2014) [-]
Oh, is that so? And who are you to decide where wisdom is found? I would say that, generally, the experiences you have toward the majority of something (Ex: all the fire you've touched is hot) reflects the behaviour of all (All the fire in the WORLD is hot) with only some rare outlier being the exception.
And again, who are you to decide what is morally right? Morals have an objective source, then? Because if you think you've found it, every philosopher that ever existed would like to know.
It's 'sheer ignorance' because it wasn't wrong then. It's like calling a child stupid because he's frustrated about a girl he likes or his favourite game isn't working (as those aren't really problems at all as you get older) because he doesn't KNOW any better. Because at the time, those are his biggest problems.
Not at all. Truth does not hold onto ANY morality, and if truth is found in harshness and cruelty it should be followed regardless. It does just as much harm to blindly hate as it does to blindly love.
#97 - Ruspanic (10/11/2014) [-]
It's one thing to judge our ancestors less harshly for the bad things they did because they didn't know any better; it's another thing entirely to claim their bad deeds weren't bad at all.
For example, we now know that witch-burning is an utterly horrible practice and all "witches" who were burned were innocent of witchcraft, because witchcraft doesn't exist. The witch-burners' actions can be explained by their fear of witchcraft, but that doesn't make what they did morally acceptable.
Similarly, even though 100 years ago many good people were racist because racist beliefs were commonly accepted as true, racism was as wrong then as it is now, even though it wasn't considered wrong at the time.
Morality may not have an objective source, but it's not okay to think of it as relative, either. It's not some inconsequential matter of opinion, like whether or not you believe in ghosts, it's something that affects how all humans interact with each other and therefore everyone's quality of life. Morals can and should be defended with reason, and they should be applied universally. That's not "sheer arrogance", that's just being principled.
#121 - captainfuckitall (10/11/2014) [-]
What the hell are you talking about? What kind of Double-Think do you have up your ass to say that morality doesn't have an objective source, but it's not relative either? It can ONLY be one or the other? It's either fact or fiction, real or true, there IS no middle ground. What I'm saying is that you cannot judge someone based on a different set of standards than the times. For example, because 200 years ago people didn't know they should wash their hands, it's arroganr to call them stupid when they didn't just because we know better now.
#133 - Ruspanic (10/11/2014) [-]
When I said there was no objective morality, I meant that morality is not based on some universal natural law. No amount of scientific research will lead to the discovery of "true" morality.
When I said it shouldn't be considered "relative", I meant that we shouldn't assume that all moral codes held by humans are equally correct and valid. I'm not denying that people have differing views on morality, I'm arguing against the attitude of moral relativism.
Let's take your hand-washing example, though it's not strictly about morality. People cannot be blamed for not knowing that disease can be prevented through sanitation. They weren't stupid for not washing their hands, but they WERE still wrong.
For another analogy, take politics. There's no objective truth to politics. There's no objectively perfect way to do things. People have different opinions about virtually everything, but surely you wouldn't argue that they're all equally right? After all, the very fact that you have opinions of your own implies that you think some opinions (yours) are better or "more correct" than opinions that disagree with you.
I strongly believe that slavery is morally wrong. It equally wrong in my home country as it is in Mauritania, where it is still widely practiced. It is as wrong in the 21st century as it was in the 18th century, or the 3rd century. From a historical perspective you can perhaps consider "everyone else was doing it" as an extenuating circumstance when judging the perpetrators, but that does not make the action any less wrong.
#16 - anon (10/11/2014) [-]
A synonym is intrinsic.
in·trin·sic adjective \in-ˈtrin-zik, -ˈtrin(t)-sik\
: belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something
Full Definition 1 a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic worth of a gem> <the intrinsic brightness of a star>
b : being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains
2 a : originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part <an intrinsic metabolic disease>
b : originating and included wholly within an organ or part <intrinsic muscles> — compare extrinsic 1b
— in·trin·si·cal·ly adverb
Its the idea of basic human rights. Life, liberty, etc.
|#31 - Yes.||10/10/2014 on keep small thumbnails or...||0|
|#13 - This is pretty much my cat's reaction when she hears me prepar…||10/10/2014 on The floor is lava||0|
|#2 - Picture||09/30/2014 on Robot 5||0|
|#54 - ******* casuals at it again. If you pore…||09/30/2014 on A Concern I Can't Deal With||-2|
|#60 - I wouldn't mind bees. Now wasps on the other hand..||09/30/2014 on Good idea out of ten||0|
|#831 - **auryn rolled comment #324359 ** : get memed kid Firs…||09/29/2014 on rename anonymous 9/29||0|
|#1 - The first one is reversed.||09/28/2014 on Haircut makes a difference||-3|
|#2 - Best cosplay? This kid hardly got muscle.||09/28/2014 on I wonder if this is against...||+28|
|#1 - Yet.||09/28/2014 on Have you?||+5|
|#1 - >post some kind of eastern european drug addicts >sa… [+] (7 new replies)||09/28/2014 on Jason!||+144|
#25 - anon (09/29/2014) [-]
>one is a culture
>one is an ethnicity
#30 - anon (09/29/2014) [-]
>one is x,
>one is a function of x
"An ethnicity, or ethnic group, is a socially-defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural, or national experience".
|#4 - Picture||09/28/2014 on (untitled)||-1|
|#1 - Coincidentally all the band references mentioned sounds like w… [+] (1 new reply)||09/28/2014 on BOTDF||+7|
|#8 - Don't worry. I'll suck it anyway. Cheers anon.||09/28/2014 on Weak daddy||0|
|#10 - He has the weirdest boner.||09/28/2014 on This kills the mantis||0|
|#7 - There's nowhere close to ALL the sprites of ALL the 784 of…||09/28/2014 on Every SNES Sprite Ever||0|
|#2 - That's a fireplace.||09/28/2014 on An ass in front of, and on...||0|
|#2 - The secret ingredient has been hidden in plain sight all along… [+] (2 new replies)||09/28/2014 on All these nudes||+112|
|#3 - Pretty good. But an important part of philosopy is to…||09/28/2014 on Twins||+12|
|#8 - casuals..||09/28/2014 on (untitled)||+1|