Upload
Login or register

bokkos

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:4/04/2011
Last Login:7/22/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#9901
Highest Content Rank:#6551
Highest Comment Rank:#456
Content Thumbs: 522 total,  635 ,  113
Comment Thumbs: 16365 total,  19197 ,  2832
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 51 Content: Sammich eater → Level 52 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 60% (600/1000)
Level 315 Comments: Wizard → Level 316 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:1
Content Views:37304
Times Content Favorited:44 times
Total Comments Made:3298
FJ Points:16518
Favorite Tags: a (2) | my (2)
Who the fuck writes in these things?

latest user's comments

#39 - My apologies, FJ has me on a bit of a defensive posture with a…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/10/2016 on Why immigration doesn't work -2
User avatar
#41 - samlease (03/10/2016) [-]
No offense taken, btw. We all need to blow off steam sometimes and anons on the internet are a pretty safe way to do it.

Have a good one.
User avatar
#40 - samlease (03/10/2016) [-]
Part of the problem is just human nature. We're far more likely to remember and point out the bad things we've seen even if their re-occurrence is an improbability. The same way that, even though I've been to Taco Bell a ton in my life, I can vividly remember getting a really bad burrito last year but can't remember all the great ones I've had every other time.

FJers are humans (even admin) and humans are silly that way.
#7 - The ISIS part is a lie, unless you count the vehicles and arms… 03/10/2016 on Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS... +1
#34 - And I'm happy to let you keep believing that, if only so peopl…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/10/2016 on Why immigration doesn't work 0
#36 - shadowkingdr (03/10/2016) [-]
I never said human rights were a bad thing, i just wanted to hear other reasons why it would not work.
#49 - flowgo (03/10/2016) [-]
because of the civil wars it would start, most likely leading into a world war which your dumbass would be drawn into. You think theyd just sit there and take sterilization? They'l fight it with any weapons they have. Sterilization isnt an option because its just another way of saying "we're gonna shoot these people because theres no way theyd let us do what we're saying we'l do"

#106 - Fair enough, but I'd always thought a period was for denominat…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/10/2016 on 88% of Mexicans say it's ok... 0
User avatar
#125 - Einsty (03/10/2016) [-]
The US system is vastly different from ours. 12,538 is the same for us as 12.538 which is thousand times smaller than 12 538 . Also, I never saw anyone ommiting leading zeroes, no matter what circumstance. A number written as .8 is a bit confusing, especially if it is said to be in %, meaning divided by 100. That would turn 0.8 into 0.008 .

Using a decimal comma makes for funny situations though, for example when writing down coordinates in 3-dimensional space [10,4,5,5] is confusing if not written using semicolons like [10;4,5;5]. For some reason semicolons are barely used in mathematics in my country, I wish I knew why. Also, on blackboards commas and dots are often hard to tell apart.
#32 - I'll take my chances with that. The funny thing about history,…  [+] (10 new replies) 03/10/2016 on Why immigration doesn't work -1
#75 - tsc (03/10/2016) [-]
Thats just a dumber way of saying that the winner gets to write history and define what is right.
User avatar
#80 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
See, people say that, but historians are quite good at assessing cultural bias in their investigations; in fact, it basically makes up an entire sub-doctrine in historical research.
But furthermore, you've just made a strawman argument. Now that history is basically being recorded at all times, it becomes a lot easier to know who was justified in their actions. Things like gay rights, American neoimperialism No, I'm not an SJW and that is a real phenomenon , and the abolition of slavery fall into very recognizable "good" and "bad" boxes, if those terms have any meaning at all.
#97 - tsc (03/10/2016) [-]
Its not complicated. Beliefs are not smart. I follow the broncos because i was told they were the best by my dad. My brother likes the raiders because my dad said the broncos are the best. My other brother doesn't watch football, nothing wrong with him just not his thing. There could be a badass fucking sport that would exist if not but for football.

As much as you would like to consider your preferences as being the best or even lasting they are not. Eventually people are going to ask why the hell did people ever think it was good. Its just shit you believe as being right. Its why history won't remember any of them.
User avatar
#107 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
So you're saying gay rights is not going to end up on the correct side of history? That's still a false equivalence you're making.
#117 - tsc (03/10/2016) [-]
I didn't say anything about gay rights. I see now you will just see whatever it is you want to see i'm out.
User avatar
#142 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
Hey, that's not true and a copout. You were talking sports teams, I was talking historical events and their relevancy. Whether I approve of gay rights or not is irrelevant, it'll still be viewed as an objectively good thing to advanced nations many years from now.
#33 - shadowkingdr (03/10/2016) [-]
I did, my point still stands
User avatar
#34 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
And I'm happy to let you keep believing that, if only so people will know to steer clear of you.
#36 - shadowkingdr (03/10/2016) [-]
I never said human rights were a bad thing, i just wanted to hear other reasons why it would not work.
#49 - flowgo (03/10/2016) [-]
because of the civil wars it would start, most likely leading into a world war which your dumbass would be drawn into. You think theyd just sit there and take sterilization? They'l fight it with any weapons they have. Sterilization isnt an option because its just another way of saying "we're gonna shoot these people because theres no way theyd let us do what we're saying we'l do"

#30 - Look, if you don't think that human rights, objective morality…  [+] (17 new replies) 03/10/2016 on Why immigration doesn't work -1
User avatar
#69 - masanori (03/10/2016) [-]
I agree with most of your points, but there's no such thing as "objective morality" only generally agreed upon morality that benefits humans and appeals to our emotions.

There's usually no rational reasoning to defend offense, sadness, or anger, unless it takes those things into account in the first place and treats them as fundamental, and most moralistic reasoning does so. Remove empathy and that reasoning becomes irrelevant.
User avatar
#82 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
I'd real Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape"; the central thesis is a bit long to extrapolate on here, but he does generally prove some actions are more correct than others. Also, moral philosophy is very concerned with objective morality. Take this case example; was the Taliban system of government suitable for the flourishing of its populace?
Also, when you say "benefits humans", you're already admitting that you can perform actions of beneficence or harm, which ties back into the idea of an objective framework.
User avatar
#84 - masanori (03/10/2016) [-]
Beneficial from a human perspective, yes, but there's nothing supporting the idea that human perception is objective or of any objective value. One must take an anthropocentric stance to argue that.
User avatar
#85 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
Well it doesn't have to be anthropocentric per se; a lot of the same arguments could be used for non-human animals as well. It has to do with subjective experience of course, but there are objective ways to improve or degrade that experience. Cut off my fingers, and my subjective experience is made all the worse, and you have objectively mutilated me. That's a fairly coarse example, granted, but you could apply the same reasoning for any set of parameters you want; the issue is it becomes increasingly complex as you go along. Harris makes the concession that of course morality only matters to things that experience consciousness; that's basically a prerequisite for the argument.
User avatar
#86 - masanori (03/10/2016) [-]
It is a prerequisite, yes. That's what I was getting at. It's one of the basic assumptions that has to be made for human reasoning to work. Whenever some uses the word "objective" it triggers me a little because I reserve that word for completely basic, rational, unemotional thought. I'll go hang my Fedora back up for now and get a little less euphoric.
#31 - shadowkingdr (03/10/2016) [-]
your making Canadians look bad with that attitude
User avatar
#32 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
I'll take my chances with that. The funny thing about history, is that those who act in the true interest of their fellow man always, and I mean always, end up on the right side.
But why should I care? You didn't even read my comment, so I don't even know why I bother screaming into the abyss that is FJ.
#75 - tsc (03/10/2016) [-]
Thats just a dumber way of saying that the winner gets to write history and define what is right.
User avatar
#80 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
See, people say that, but historians are quite good at assessing cultural bias in their investigations; in fact, it basically makes up an entire sub-doctrine in historical research.
But furthermore, you've just made a strawman argument. Now that history is basically being recorded at all times, it becomes a lot easier to know who was justified in their actions. Things like gay rights, American neoimperialism No, I'm not an SJW and that is a real phenomenon , and the abolition of slavery fall into very recognizable "good" and "bad" boxes, if those terms have any meaning at all.
#97 - tsc (03/10/2016) [-]
Its not complicated. Beliefs are not smart. I follow the broncos because i was told they were the best by my dad. My brother likes the raiders because my dad said the broncos are the best. My other brother doesn't watch football, nothing wrong with him just not his thing. There could be a badass fucking sport that would exist if not but for football.

As much as you would like to consider your preferences as being the best or even lasting they are not. Eventually people are going to ask why the hell did people ever think it was good. Its just shit you believe as being right. Its why history won't remember any of them.
User avatar
#107 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
So you're saying gay rights is not going to end up on the correct side of history? That's still a false equivalence you're making.
#117 - tsc (03/10/2016) [-]
I didn't say anything about gay rights. I see now you will just see whatever it is you want to see i'm out.
User avatar
#142 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
Hey, that's not true and a copout. You were talking sports teams, I was talking historical events and their relevancy. Whether I approve of gay rights or not is irrelevant, it'll still be viewed as an objectively good thing to advanced nations many years from now.
#33 - shadowkingdr (03/10/2016) [-]
I did, my point still stands
User avatar
#34 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
And I'm happy to let you keep believing that, if only so people will know to steer clear of you.
#36 - shadowkingdr (03/10/2016) [-]
I never said human rights were a bad thing, i just wanted to hear other reasons why it would not work.
#49 - flowgo (03/10/2016) [-]
because of the civil wars it would start, most likely leading into a world war which your dumbass would be drawn into. You think theyd just sit there and take sterilization? They'l fight it with any weapons they have. Sterilization isnt an option because its just another way of saying "we're gonna shoot these people because theres no way theyd let us do what we're saying we'l do"

#27 - Because that would be a human rights travesty, when it would b…  [+] (19 new replies) 03/10/2016 on Why immigration doesn't work +1
#28 - shadowkingdr (03/10/2016) [-]
"Aside from "Oh the humanity""
I think someone needs that education you mentioned
User avatar
#30 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
Look, if you don't think that human rights, objective morality, or as you put it "humanity" are important, you can't really claim a stake in the conversation in what to do about humans. Believe me, I was like that; raw objective reasoning, all the time. But no one will listen to you because you'll ultimately come up with pretty sinister ideas, like forced sterilization. Should we sterilize you, because someone makes the argument that internet-dwelling sperglords would be detrimental to their potential offspring? Fuck no, thats a shitty argument, and yours is to.
I live in Alberta, Canada; my government in the 50s actually did forcefully sterilize homeless and poor people. These people were put under for "routine operations" and found out later in life they couldn't have kids, even if their situation had become advantageous. It is a human rights issue; it has to do with the rights of people, and I say human beings have the right to remain sterile and have offspring if they choose to. Don't you believe in liberty? Freedom? Or are you like so many other Americans, and your Constitution only counts when it's convenient?
User avatar
#69 - masanori (03/10/2016) [-]
I agree with most of your points, but there's no such thing as "objective morality" only generally agreed upon morality that benefits humans and appeals to our emotions.

There's usually no rational reasoning to defend offense, sadness, or anger, unless it takes those things into account in the first place and treats them as fundamental, and most moralistic reasoning does so. Remove empathy and that reasoning becomes irrelevant.
User avatar
#82 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
I'd real Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape"; the central thesis is a bit long to extrapolate on here, but he does generally prove some actions are more correct than others. Also, moral philosophy is very concerned with objective morality. Take this case example; was the Taliban system of government suitable for the flourishing of its populace?
Also, when you say "benefits humans", you're already admitting that you can perform actions of beneficence or harm, which ties back into the idea of an objective framework.
User avatar
#84 - masanori (03/10/2016) [-]
Beneficial from a human perspective, yes, but there's nothing supporting the idea that human perception is objective or of any objective value. One must take an anthropocentric stance to argue that.
User avatar
#85 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
Well it doesn't have to be anthropocentric per se; a lot of the same arguments could be used for non-human animals as well. It has to do with subjective experience of course, but there are objective ways to improve or degrade that experience. Cut off my fingers, and my subjective experience is made all the worse, and you have objectively mutilated me. That's a fairly coarse example, granted, but you could apply the same reasoning for any set of parameters you want; the issue is it becomes increasingly complex as you go along. Harris makes the concession that of course morality only matters to things that experience consciousness; that's basically a prerequisite for the argument.
User avatar
#86 - masanori (03/10/2016) [-]
It is a prerequisite, yes. That's what I was getting at. It's one of the basic assumptions that has to be made for human reasoning to work. Whenever some uses the word "objective" it triggers me a little because I reserve that word for completely basic, rational, unemotional thought. I'll go hang my Fedora back up for now and get a little less euphoric.
#31 - shadowkingdr (03/10/2016) [-]
your making Canadians look bad with that attitude
User avatar
#32 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
I'll take my chances with that. The funny thing about history, is that those who act in the true interest of their fellow man always, and I mean always, end up on the right side.
But why should I care? You didn't even read my comment, so I don't even know why I bother screaming into the abyss that is FJ.
#75 - tsc (03/10/2016) [-]
Thats just a dumber way of saying that the winner gets to write history and define what is right.
User avatar
#80 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
See, people say that, but historians are quite good at assessing cultural bias in their investigations; in fact, it basically makes up an entire sub-doctrine in historical research.
But furthermore, you've just made a strawman argument. Now that history is basically being recorded at all times, it becomes a lot easier to know who was justified in their actions. Things like gay rights, American neoimperialism No, I'm not an SJW and that is a real phenomenon , and the abolition of slavery fall into very recognizable "good" and "bad" boxes, if those terms have any meaning at all.
#97 - tsc (03/10/2016) [-]
Its not complicated. Beliefs are not smart. I follow the broncos because i was told they were the best by my dad. My brother likes the raiders because my dad said the broncos are the best. My other brother doesn't watch football, nothing wrong with him just not his thing. There could be a badass fucking sport that would exist if not but for football.

As much as you would like to consider your preferences as being the best or even lasting they are not. Eventually people are going to ask why the hell did people ever think it was good. Its just shit you believe as being right. Its why history won't remember any of them.
User avatar
#107 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
So you're saying gay rights is not going to end up on the correct side of history? That's still a false equivalence you're making.
#117 - tsc (03/10/2016) [-]
I didn't say anything about gay rights. I see now you will just see whatever it is you want to see i'm out.
User avatar
#142 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
Hey, that's not true and a copout. You were talking sports teams, I was talking historical events and their relevancy. Whether I approve of gay rights or not is irrelevant, it'll still be viewed as an objectively good thing to advanced nations many years from now.
#33 - shadowkingdr (03/10/2016) [-]
I did, my point still stands
User avatar
#34 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
And I'm happy to let you keep believing that, if only so people will know to steer clear of you.
#36 - shadowkingdr (03/10/2016) [-]
I never said human rights were a bad thing, i just wanted to hear other reasons why it would not work.
#49 - flowgo (03/10/2016) [-]
because of the civil wars it would start, most likely leading into a world war which your dumbass would be drawn into. You think theyd just sit there and take sterilization? They'l fight it with any weapons they have. Sterilization isnt an option because its just another way of saying "we're gonna shoot these people because theres no way theyd let us do what we're saying we'l do"

#103 - Well who sets the standard? There are international institutio…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/10/2016 on 88% of Mexicans say it's ok... 0
User avatar
#105 - Einsty (03/10/2016) [-]
I was hinting at ISO already having standards for these already. Comma separating digit groups is not recommended as it gets confused with decimal comma, for example. Just like with date, where YYYY-MM-DD makes perfect sense, makes organizing items much more straightforward and when followed with time in 24h format it is a progression from most to least important.
User avatar
#106 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
Fair enough, but I'd always thought a period was for denominating a decimal place. Plus, it really only matters to people like statisticians anyway; I think the average human is smart enough to figure some of these things out. But I've been wrong before...
User avatar
#125 - Einsty (03/10/2016) [-]
The US system is vastly different from ours. 12,538 is the same for us as 12.538 which is thousand times smaller than 12 538 . Also, I never saw anyone ommiting leading zeroes, no matter what circumstance. A number written as .8 is a bit confusing, especially if it is said to be in %, meaning divided by 100. That would turn 0.8 into 0.008 .

Using a decimal comma makes for funny situations though, for example when writing down coordinates in 3-dimensional space [10,4,5,5] is confusing if not written using semicolons like [10;4,5;5]. For some reason semicolons are barely used in mathematics in my country, I wish I knew why. Also, on blackboards commas and dots are often hard to tell apart.
#25 - Oh, I'm sorry, are we talking about immigrants or migrants? Or…  [+] (4 new replies) 03/10/2016 on Why immigration doesn't work -4
User avatar
#35 - samlease (03/10/2016) [-]
I haven't shouted down anybody, friend. No need to be hostile.

Immigrants are people who enter a foreign country with the intent to stay, making that country their new home.
Migrants (or synonym transients when talking about humans that migrate) are people who enter a foreign country, stay for a time, then go home.

Neither of these definitions include motive, though it is assumed that migrants are intending to work (check various definitions, most of them seem to lean towards that motive).

Realistically, the only difference between immigrants and migrants is how long they intend to stay. If you fled a bad situation and found a new place to live and a stable job, would you really go back to that bad situation? If your family was still there, sure. What if your family came with you? Intentions change migrants may swiftly turn into immigrants. Hell, they could totally intend to go back to their home countries but, due to inertia, never quite do it.
User avatar
#39 - bokkos (03/10/2016) [-]
My apologies, FJ has me on a bit of a defensive posture with all the insane ranting that's been going on. Yes, that is all true, although migrants can and do often become immigrants after a set amount of time, but often are forced to migrate due to circumstance. That's not the say that immigrants cannot be forced either, but as you said the motive isn't exactly described. I guess I pair migrants and refugees together under the context of the Europe situation, since both types of people are involved in it. I suppose my only point is to condemn immigrants as lazy or workshy (when there are bankers and stock brokers making mad cash for literally doing nothing but pushing paper) strikes me as being a bit disingenuous, that's all.
User avatar
#41 - samlease (03/10/2016) [-]
No offense taken, btw. We all need to blow off steam sometimes and anons on the internet are a pretty safe way to do it.

Have a good one.
User avatar
#40 - samlease (03/10/2016) [-]
Part of the problem is just human nature. We're far more likely to remember and point out the bad things we've seen even if their re-occurrence is an improbability. The same way that, even though I've been to Taco Bell a ton in my life, I can vividly remember getting a really bad burrito last year but can't remember all the great ones I've had every other time.

FJers are humans (even admin) and humans are silly that way.
#23 - Coming from the liberal side of the tracks although I'd … 03/10/2016 on Why immigration doesn't work 0