|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #5960 on SubscribersLevel 15 Content: New Here
OfflineSend mail to boogeymanboy Block boogeymanboy Invite boogeymanboy to be your friend
latest user's comments
|#157 - 1.Kiss 2. Blackops 2 3. Goon i think i would be in…||02/02/2013 on Your team...||0|
|#4 - here's the link [+] (22 new replies)||01/31/2013 on golfers have had enough of...||+37|
#117 - blackandwhitegod (02/01/2013) [-]
There very much are right and wrong opinions. Some things are general consensus, some things are logic but either way opinions can be wrong.
I wouldn't tell someone their opinion in their favorite color is wrong, or if they enjoy chocolate cake. Shit even people who want to waste their life. But there are some things that need to be black and white, right and wrong, not because they are cultural but because they are programmed into humans through nature.
#118 - atma (02/01/2013) [-]
What's an example of a right or a wrong opinion? How does the one above me reflect that?
I agree that the golfers took it way too far; I'd be pissed as well, but to raise a golf club against somebody because of a prank that offset your game a bit (it appeared to be a game between two friends, I'm sure they could have agreed on a fair way to rewind)? That's kind of fucking scary. No sport interference deserves actual human violence.
#126 - blackandwhitegod (02/01/2013) [-]
He didn't actually hit him. He was trying to scare them. I've seen enough fights and enough bullies, and while these people aren't exactly SUPER bullies they still are bullies, so he did the sensible thing and broke it up with a threat. Sometimes if you make someone think you are going to kill them or hurt them you can avoid a conflict entirely. Especially since the "pranksters" are the ones engaging in the first place, both parties were going to fight the older ones did the right thign. If the guy with the club wanted to hit him, he had a chance in the very beginning. His swings are wide and meant to scare. Plus if you push anyone logn enough verbal or otherwise you get another Zangiff Kid.
If you want an example, let's look at your general consensus. What is a general consensus? The majority of society agrees on something right? Like if something is red or blue, etc. Now how does that apply to morals? Laws? General consensus decides social norms, which on a certain scale means something is right or wrong. Of course you could argue morals and philosophy, which breaks down the idea of society and structure. Now if you want a more concrete example look at science. There are instances in history where people have had conflicting opinions on where we came from, how old earth is, if the earth is flat or circular, if the earth rotates the sun or vice versa. However because we have evidence we are able to defend one opinion, and by being able to defend it better than the other opinion it becomes a fact. Same thing applies to morals, Hitler thought he was a hero in some ways or at the very least he didn't see himself as /evil/ but based on evidence and comparison we agree he is evil. Of course there are people who defend him, but because they are unable to do so it is agreed they are in wrong. Of course there are arguments you can make for Hitler, he saved Germany which played a major roll in bringing the world out of the depression but thats another argument entirely.
#132 - atma (02/01/2013) [-]
That's fair. I guess I find a weird double standard, like looking at the videos of Remi Gaillard, who puts a lot more time into his pranks but they boil down to the same structure of annoying people to spur a reaction. I suppose he gets a pass from me because his videos make me laugh until I can't breathe, but he's constantly hailed like a hero. Are the factors of humor and effort the only thing differentiating this video from Remi's?
I'm all for questioning truths... A lot of people would agree that blindly accepting information is the point when humanity starts to degrade in its acquisition of knowledge. But I still don't understand the concept of a "wrong" opinion. Maybe I'm not absorbing something that you've said, I'm honestly not the best reader (god damn I try), but there is a line between fact and opinion. Fact is dictated by study and repetitive proof year after year.
Doesn't that erase the idea of right and wrong opinions, though? Doesn't that mean that since facts are constantly being challenged, that opinion should never be dismissed?
#136 - blackandwhitegod (02/01/2013) [-]
Think of opinions as water. If you boil it long enough you are left with something else entirely. The concepts of opinions aren't always black and white, but there are instances when they are. Opinions can become facts and vice versa, but some opinions will never be either. Some things just are. Other times you are forced to remove things until you are left with the raw element of truth. The human mind is complex and for all intensive purposes the majority of the world will always learn things through group mentality, that sort of mob mindset. It is for that reason we are so adjusted to change in politics, the average person will grumble about a law but won't do anything to change it because he has a certain fog of freedom about him. He doesn't want too much freedom, he wants enough freedom to be comfortable but not enough where he has to bear too much responsibility. This makes the idea of opinions tricky so most people will say opinions are neither right nor wrong, but that in itself is an opinion which leads to some sort of black hole of circular logic. In order to break that circle we have to apply rules to opinions and that is to say we require our opinions to be defended, and by doing so we turn opinions into facts. What if someone says blue is the best color? Maybe it is to them but then we do some research and we find that the color green is more "calming and relaxing" than blue, but blue increases longevity. So at which side do you take? Well both are obviously good in their own ways, but which is best changes. And that is the essence of general conscence. I believe however the right opinion is the one we always come back to.
I've seen a lot of Remi's work, some of his stuff is funny but in other scenes he's a dick. Some of his fun is harmless but like you said its mostly annoying. People enjoy it from a third perspective, but what if he was a snail in front of your car? What if he did that everyday? Maybe it was funny once but after a while it loses chrm