x
Click to expand

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#331
Highest Content Rank:#8779
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 64303 total,  78732 ,  14429
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 5% (50/1000)
Level 357 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk → Level 358 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10923
Total Comments Made:17624
FJ Points:29282

latest user's comments

#42 - Alright then, do you think it's SMART to hate and criticize ev…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/06/2015 on george carlin R.I.P 0
#43 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
I think it's not smart to say that other people's opinions are wrong because they disagree with you.
User avatar #45 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
How many calories did you burn dodging that question?
User avatar #47 - mvtjets (07/06/2015) [-]
>criticize everything
That doesn't even mean anything because that's impossible, be specific on what he got wrong.
#46 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
It wasn't really that hard.
#40 - When have I said mine was right?  [+] (6 new replies) 07/06/2015 on george carlin R.I.P 0
#41 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
Well claiming that someone else's views are objectively stupid kinda implies that you believe yours are right.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Alright then, do you think it's SMART to hate and criticize everything?
#43 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
I think it's not smart to say that other people's opinions are wrong because they disagree with you.
User avatar #45 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
How many calories did you burn dodging that question?
User avatar #47 - mvtjets (07/06/2015) [-]
>criticize everything
That doesn't even mean anything because that's impossible, be specific on what he got wrong.
#46 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
It wasn't really that hard.
#78 - Yet you DID state your opinion. "Bad is subjective",… 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes +1
#76 - ALL bad is subjective? Wouldn't that mean all good is subjecti…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes 0
#77 - adamks (07/06/2015) [-]
(I wouldn't take brain surgeries for free, sounds like an absolutely terrible idea)

Again, I'm not stating what my opinion is, which you for some reason can't really comprehend, that said, cultural goodness is something different, cultural goodness is based on values already established, so no I would not call a child rapist as good. But why should a person die if they can't abide by the cultural values established by other people. One thing is locking him up so that no one has to suffer by his twisted ideals, but a whole nother thing is killing him because of his opposing values.
User avatar #78 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Yet you DID state your opinion. "Bad is subjective", or are you only imposing that as some sort of rule while not believing it yourself? If that's the case, aren't you just putting out false boundaries to FORCE me to agree with you? You can break down my beliefs and cross-examine them all you like, but you can't state something as 'true' if you do not believe it. You can't just say "Bad is subjective, not for ME, but right now, for you, it is".

Once more, you are putting up boundaries. "Locking them up means nobody else has to suffer, but killing them is ONLY the result of them not having the same beliefs as you" when in reality, it could be as true for one as it is the other.

At the end of the day, you would not call them good, we agree they are bad people, and bad people who act on their bad desires should be punished. If morality is objective, then those who commit acts of evil and cruelty are automatically in the wrong and should face punishment. If morality is subjective but determined by cultural boundaries, those who follow the culture should be rewarded while those who don't should be punished; or rather, not 'should', but WILL be punished as a result of going against the society others worked so hard to establish; if they don't want a part in it, they can leave. And finally, if morality is subjective and determined by the individual, you must agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with raping, murdering, and devouring a small child because you can.
#53 - So how do you split it? If someone comes from a bad h…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes 0
#65 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
The difference is choice.

In both of those opportunities, a crime was still committed. The criminal weighed the options and decided that the possible rewards outweighed the risks and he may or may not face the consequences. A family takes two people. If the criminal was a single father, the mother chose to leave the kids with the criminal, the father chose to keep the kids. If they're together, the spouse chose to stick with that life. They may be shitty choices, but they are all choices. Freak accidents suck - that's why we have safety regulations - to prevent as many as possible. Someone getting killed by a drunk driver still requires the drunk driver to make a choice, and he's punished accordingly for taking someone's life with no good reason.

There is ALWAYS a choice - except in the case of a wrongfully convicted man denied appeal and forced to either get executed or undergo medical experimentation. The only possibility there would be for the man to be able to see the future and be able to avoid the situation in the first place.

How can you possibly justify that being fair?
#49 - Alright then, so it's only luck-based experiences that you are…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes 0
#51 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
No, there's lots of other things I'm against, but saying that someone should die through no fault of their own simply because they were unlucky and society is better off not worrying about it is definitely one thing I am against.
#54 - anon (07/06/2015) [-]
The majority of people on this planet will die due to nothing more than bad luck, innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time, happened to contract this or that disease, that's how the world works, you're drawing an link between whether or not someone deserves to die, but such a link is arbitrary, defined by the fact that you believe humans to intrinsically not deserve to die but the truth is, no one cares, and mine or your life is a worthless as the next persons.
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
So how do you split it?

If someone comes from a bad household with little opportunity and commits a crime, do you punish them or society?

If someone's family is starving, so the bread-winner goes out and mugs someone for their money only to accidentally kill them, what happens?

Are these people at fault for their positions in life? Should they be punished for their bad luck and choices because of said luck?
#65 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
The difference is choice.

In both of those opportunities, a crime was still committed. The criminal weighed the options and decided that the possible rewards outweighed the risks and he may or may not face the consequences. A family takes two people. If the criminal was a single father, the mother chose to leave the kids with the criminal, the father chose to keep the kids. If they're together, the spouse chose to stick with that life. They may be shitty choices, but they are all choices. Freak accidents suck - that's why we have safety regulations - to prevent as many as possible. Someone getting killed by a drunk driver still requires the drunk driver to make a choice, and he's punished accordingly for taking someone's life with no good reason.

There is ALWAYS a choice - except in the case of a wrongfully convicted man denied appeal and forced to either get executed or undergo medical experimentation. The only possibility there would be for the man to be able to see the future and be able to avoid the situation in the first place.

How can you possibly justify that being fair?
#16 - Not really. There's nothing inherently more right about hating…  [+] (10 new replies) 07/06/2015 on george carlin R.I.P -3
#48 - heydany (07/06/2015) [-]
I agree with you, comedians who do nothing but criticize get really tiring to watch. Even if I agree with what they say, it just stops being funny after a while.
#39 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
"His opinion is dumb and mine is right."
okay
User avatar #40 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
When have I said mine was right?
#41 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
Well claiming that someone else's views are objectively stupid kinda implies that you believe yours are right.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Alright then, do you think it's SMART to hate and criticize everything?
#43 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
I think it's not smart to say that other people's opinions are wrong because they disagree with you.
User avatar #45 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
How many calories did you burn dodging that question?
User avatar #47 - mvtjets (07/06/2015) [-]
>criticize everything
That doesn't even mean anything because that's impossible, be specific on what he got wrong.
#46 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
It wasn't really that hard.
#37 - Elk (07/06/2015) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image**
>be you
>be right
>get thumbed down

lel okie guys
#42 - You misunderstand. I don't advocate for the death of …  [+] (6 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes 0
#44 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
That's an incredibly false analogy. Someone has to make a choice to become a lumberjack. Someone just has to be unlucky to be convicted for a crime they didn't commit. You're effectively saying it's okay to totally screw people over through no fault of their own and for no immediate or direct benefit as long as society as a whole stays happy. And then you go on to say that it's inevitable that it might happen, so we might as well embrace it instead of trying to do something to fix it.
User avatar #49 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Alright then, so it's only luck-based experiences that you are against?
#51 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
No, there's lots of other things I'm against, but saying that someone should die through no fault of their own simply because they were unlucky and society is better off not worrying about it is definitely one thing I am against.
#54 - anon (07/06/2015) [-]
The majority of people on this planet will die due to nothing more than bad luck, innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time, happened to contract this or that disease, that's how the world works, you're drawing an link between whether or not someone deserves to die, but such a link is arbitrary, defined by the fact that you believe humans to intrinsically not deserve to die but the truth is, no one cares, and mine or your life is a worthless as the next persons.
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
So how do you split it?

If someone comes from a bad household with little opportunity and commits a crime, do you punish them or society?

If someone's family is starving, so the bread-winner goes out and mugs someone for their money only to accidentally kill them, what happens?

Are these people at fault for their positions in life? Should they be punished for their bad luck and choices because of said luck?
#65 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
The difference is choice.

In both of those opportunities, a crime was still committed. The criminal weighed the options and decided that the possible rewards outweighed the risks and he may or may not face the consequences. A family takes two people. If the criminal was a single father, the mother chose to leave the kids with the criminal, the father chose to keep the kids. If they're together, the spouse chose to stick with that life. They may be shitty choices, but they are all choices. Freak accidents suck - that's why we have safety regulations - to prevent as many as possible. Someone getting killed by a drunk driver still requires the drunk driver to make a choice, and he's punished accordingly for taking someone's life with no good reason.

There is ALWAYS a choice - except in the case of a wrongfully convicted man denied appeal and forced to either get executed or undergo medical experimentation. The only possibility there would be for the man to be able to see the future and be able to avoid the situation in the first place.

How can you possibly justify that being fair?
#39 - Nonsense! That's not what I stand for at all! I totally suppor…  [+] (8 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes 0
#40 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Clearly you don't support freedom and individualism when you advocate forced medical experimentation on innocent people. You did say you don't care if innocent people get executed so long as criminals get punished along with them.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
You misunderstand.

I don't advocate for the death of ANY innocent people, I just accept that it's probable some will die on this path I want to take.

What you're saying I could turn back against you: "Clearly you don't support freedom and individualism when you advocate the raising of buildings, seeing as how most have some form of food in them and lumberjacking is one of the most dangerous jobs there is". No, of course that doesn't make sense, because even though innocent people may die in pursuit of what we hold near and dear, we do not WANT them too, nor is their death our aim; we just accept it as inevitability.
#44 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
That's an incredibly false analogy. Someone has to make a choice to become a lumberjack. Someone just has to be unlucky to be convicted for a crime they didn't commit. You're effectively saying it's okay to totally screw people over through no fault of their own and for no immediate or direct benefit as long as society as a whole stays happy. And then you go on to say that it's inevitable that it might happen, so we might as well embrace it instead of trying to do something to fix it.
User avatar #49 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Alright then, so it's only luck-based experiences that you are against?
#51 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
No, there's lots of other things I'm against, but saying that someone should die through no fault of their own simply because they were unlucky and society is better off not worrying about it is definitely one thing I am against.
#54 - anon (07/06/2015) [-]
The majority of people on this planet will die due to nothing more than bad luck, innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time, happened to contract this or that disease, that's how the world works, you're drawing an link between whether or not someone deserves to die, but such a link is arbitrary, defined by the fact that you believe humans to intrinsically not deserve to die but the truth is, no one cares, and mine or your life is a worthless as the next persons.
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
So how do you split it?

If someone comes from a bad household with little opportunity and commits a crime, do you punish them or society?

If someone's family is starving, so the bread-winner goes out and mugs someone for their money only to accidentally kill them, what happens?

Are these people at fault for their positions in life? Should they be punished for their bad luck and choices because of said luck?
#65 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
The difference is choice.

In both of those opportunities, a crime was still committed. The criminal weighed the options and decided that the possible rewards outweighed the risks and he may or may not face the consequences. A family takes two people. If the criminal was a single father, the mother chose to leave the kids with the criminal, the father chose to keep the kids. If they're together, the spouse chose to stick with that life. They may be shitty choices, but they are all choices. Freak accidents suck - that's why we have safety regulations - to prevent as many as possible. Someone getting killed by a drunk driver still requires the drunk driver to make a choice, and he's punished accordingly for taking someone's life with no good reason.

There is ALWAYS a choice - except in the case of a wrongfully convicted man denied appeal and forced to either get executed or undergo medical experimentation. The only possibility there would be for the man to be able to see the future and be able to avoid the situation in the first place.

How can you possibly justify that being fair?
#35 - Why?  [+] (10 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes 0
#37 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Because happiness isn't a zero sum game. Because it essentially strips personal liberty and responsibility in exchange for the greater good, which goes against literally everything i stand for. It removes the idea of individuality and personal happiness as long as society as a whole is happy. Who cares if Anthony Porter was wrongfully executed as long as it made someone else happier than his death made him sad?
User avatar #39 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Nonsense! That's not what I stand for at all! I totally support freedom and individualism; what I am saying right now is that it would be better to experiment on criminals in order to get more medicine and scientific advancement at a faster pace.
#40 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Clearly you don't support freedom and individualism when you advocate forced medical experimentation on innocent people. You did say you don't care if innocent people get executed so long as criminals get punished along with them.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
You misunderstand.

I don't advocate for the death of ANY innocent people, I just accept that it's probable some will die on this path I want to take.

What you're saying I could turn back against you: "Clearly you don't support freedom and individualism when you advocate the raising of buildings, seeing as how most have some form of food in them and lumberjacking is one of the most dangerous jobs there is". No, of course that doesn't make sense, because even though innocent people may die in pursuit of what we hold near and dear, we do not WANT them too, nor is their death our aim; we just accept it as inevitability.
#44 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
That's an incredibly false analogy. Someone has to make a choice to become a lumberjack. Someone just has to be unlucky to be convicted for a crime they didn't commit. You're effectively saying it's okay to totally screw people over through no fault of their own and for no immediate or direct benefit as long as society as a whole stays happy. And then you go on to say that it's inevitable that it might happen, so we might as well embrace it instead of trying to do something to fix it.
User avatar #49 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Alright then, so it's only luck-based experiences that you are against?
#51 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
No, there's lots of other things I'm against, but saying that someone should die through no fault of their own simply because they were unlucky and society is better off not worrying about it is definitely one thing I am against.
#54 - anon (07/06/2015) [-]
The majority of people on this planet will die due to nothing more than bad luck, innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time, happened to contract this or that disease, that's how the world works, you're drawing an link between whether or not someone deserves to die, but such a link is arbitrary, defined by the fact that you believe humans to intrinsically not deserve to die but the truth is, no one cares, and mine or your life is a worthless as the next persons.
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
So how do you split it?

If someone comes from a bad household with little opportunity and commits a crime, do you punish them or society?

If someone's family is starving, so the bread-winner goes out and mugs someone for their money only to accidentally kill them, what happens?

Are these people at fault for their positions in life? Should they be punished for their bad luck and choices because of said luck?
#65 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
The difference is choice.

In both of those opportunities, a crime was still committed. The criminal weighed the options and decided that the possible rewards outweighed the risks and he may or may not face the consequences. A family takes two people. If the criminal was a single father, the mother chose to leave the kids with the criminal, the father chose to keep the kids. If they're together, the spouse chose to stick with that life. They may be shitty choices, but they are all choices. Freak accidents suck - that's why we have safety regulations - to prevent as many as possible. Someone getting killed by a drunk driver still requires the drunk driver to make a choice, and he's punished accordingly for taking someone's life with no good reason.

There is ALWAYS a choice - except in the case of a wrongfully convicted man denied appeal and forced to either get executed or undergo medical experimentation. The only possibility there would be for the man to be able to see the future and be able to avoid the situation in the first place.

How can you possibly justify that being fair?
#15 - "Back in the day" Come on, man. There's no …  [+] (4 new replies) 07/06/2015 on v +72
#17 - mrcroc (07/06/2015) [-]
This is a waifu friendly enviornment
#35 - vegasstoner (07/06/2015) [-]
a waifu is for laifu.
#108 - captainghotiman (07/07/2015) [-]
"a waifu is for laifu"
#109 - vegasstoner (07/07/2015) [-]
#32 - And what makes your personal values overtake mine? Wh…  [+] (5 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes +9
#75 - adamks (07/06/2015) [-]
I'm not actually expressing any of my personal values. You think your personal values, and your reasons for killing is more important than the man who killed his wife. Most people would agree with you, but what gives you the right to chose which values are more important? Why is it ok for you to kill but not for him? And "Because he is bad" is not a reason, since bad is subjective.
User avatar #76 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
ALL bad is subjective? Wouldn't that mean all good is subjective too?

If that's the case, you believe that a child rapist is on the same level of cultural goodness as a man who donates his time to charity, or a woman who performs brain surgeries for free?
#77 - adamks (07/06/2015) [-]
(I wouldn't take brain surgeries for free, sounds like an absolutely terrible idea)

Again, I'm not stating what my opinion is, which you for some reason can't really comprehend, that said, cultural goodness is something different, cultural goodness is based on values already established, so no I would not call a child rapist as good. But why should a person die if they can't abide by the cultural values established by other people. One thing is locking him up so that no one has to suffer by his twisted ideals, but a whole nother thing is killing him because of his opposing values.
User avatar #78 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Yet you DID state your opinion. "Bad is subjective", or are you only imposing that as some sort of rule while not believing it yourself? If that's the case, aren't you just putting out false boundaries to FORCE me to agree with you? You can break down my beliefs and cross-examine them all you like, but you can't state something as 'true' if you do not believe it. You can't just say "Bad is subjective, not for ME, but right now, for you, it is".

Once more, you are putting up boundaries. "Locking them up means nobody else has to suffer, but killing them is ONLY the result of them not having the same beliefs as you" when in reality, it could be as true for one as it is the other.

At the end of the day, you would not call them good, we agree they are bad people, and bad people who act on their bad desires should be punished. If morality is objective, then those who commit acts of evil and cruelty are automatically in the wrong and should face punishment. If morality is subjective but determined by cultural boundaries, those who follow the culture should be rewarded while those who don't should be punished; or rather, not 'should', but WILL be punished as a result of going against the society others worked so hard to establish; if they don't want a part in it, they can leave. And finally, if morality is subjective and determined by the individual, you must agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with raping, murdering, and devouring a small child because you can.
#45 - duudegladiator (07/06/2015) [-]
#30 - Eh, if it were my choice I would re-work the justice system en…  [+] (12 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes +1
#34 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Oh, so you're just a utilitarianist. I pretty strongly disagree with that line of thought, but that's a whole other argument.
User avatar #35 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Why?
#37 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Because happiness isn't a zero sum game. Because it essentially strips personal liberty and responsibility in exchange for the greater good, which goes against literally everything i stand for. It removes the idea of individuality and personal happiness as long as society as a whole is happy. Who cares if Anthony Porter was wrongfully executed as long as it made someone else happier than his death made him sad?
User avatar #39 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Nonsense! That's not what I stand for at all! I totally support freedom and individualism; what I am saying right now is that it would be better to experiment on criminals in order to get more medicine and scientific advancement at a faster pace.
#40 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Clearly you don't support freedom and individualism when you advocate forced medical experimentation on innocent people. You did say you don't care if innocent people get executed so long as criminals get punished along with them.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
You misunderstand.

I don't advocate for the death of ANY innocent people, I just accept that it's probable some will die on this path I want to take.

What you're saying I could turn back against you: "Clearly you don't support freedom and individualism when you advocate the raising of buildings, seeing as how most have some form of food in them and lumberjacking is one of the most dangerous jobs there is". No, of course that doesn't make sense, because even though innocent people may die in pursuit of what we hold near and dear, we do not WANT them too, nor is their death our aim; we just accept it as inevitability.
#44 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
That's an incredibly false analogy. Someone has to make a choice to become a lumberjack. Someone just has to be unlucky to be convicted for a crime they didn't commit. You're effectively saying it's okay to totally screw people over through no fault of their own and for no immediate or direct benefit as long as society as a whole stays happy. And then you go on to say that it's inevitable that it might happen, so we might as well embrace it instead of trying to do something to fix it.
User avatar #49 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Alright then, so it's only luck-based experiences that you are against?
#51 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
No, there's lots of other things I'm against, but saying that someone should die through no fault of their own simply because they were unlucky and society is better off not worrying about it is definitely one thing I am against.
#54 - anon (07/06/2015) [-]
The majority of people on this planet will die due to nothing more than bad luck, innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time, happened to contract this or that disease, that's how the world works, you're drawing an link between whether or not someone deserves to die, but such a link is arbitrary, defined by the fact that you believe humans to intrinsically not deserve to die but the truth is, no one cares, and mine or your life is a worthless as the next persons.
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
So how do you split it?

If someone comes from a bad household with little opportunity and commits a crime, do you punish them or society?

If someone's family is starving, so the bread-winner goes out and mugs someone for their money only to accidentally kill them, what happens?

Are these people at fault for their positions in life? Should they be punished for their bad luck and choices because of said luck?
#65 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
The difference is choice.

In both of those opportunities, a crime was still committed. The criminal weighed the options and decided that the possible rewards outweighed the risks and he may or may not face the consequences. A family takes two people. If the criminal was a single father, the mother chose to leave the kids with the criminal, the father chose to keep the kids. If they're together, the spouse chose to stick with that life. They may be shitty choices, but they are all choices. Freak accidents suck - that's why we have safety regulations - to prevent as many as possible. Someone getting killed by a drunk driver still requires the drunk driver to make a choice, and he's punished accordingly for taking someone's life with no good reason.

There is ALWAYS a choice - except in the case of a wrongfully convicted man denied appeal and forced to either get executed or undergo medical experimentation. The only possibility there would be for the man to be able to see the future and be able to avoid the situation in the first place.

How can you possibly justify that being fair?
#9 - Wait, didn't Seath rip OFF his scales after the war began as a…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/06/2015 on Seath the scaleless +1
User avatar #11 - billycakes (07/11/2015) [-]
born without them.
#26 - Perhaps because my individual values aren't based around selfi…  [+] (7 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes +8
#31 - adamks (07/06/2015) [-]
Surely punishment is needed, but not killing.
User avatar #32 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
And what makes your personal values overtake mine?

Why not killing?
#75 - adamks (07/06/2015) [-]
I'm not actually expressing any of my personal values. You think your personal values, and your reasons for killing is more important than the man who killed his wife. Most people would agree with you, but what gives you the right to chose which values are more important? Why is it ok for you to kill but not for him? And "Because he is bad" is not a reason, since bad is subjective.
User avatar #76 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
ALL bad is subjective? Wouldn't that mean all good is subjective too?

If that's the case, you believe that a child rapist is on the same level of cultural goodness as a man who donates his time to charity, or a woman who performs brain surgeries for free?
#77 - adamks (07/06/2015) [-]
(I wouldn't take brain surgeries for free, sounds like an absolutely terrible idea)

Again, I'm not stating what my opinion is, which you for some reason can't really comprehend, that said, cultural goodness is something different, cultural goodness is based on values already established, so no I would not call a child rapist as good. But why should a person die if they can't abide by the cultural values established by other people. One thing is locking him up so that no one has to suffer by his twisted ideals, but a whole nother thing is killing him because of his opposing values.
User avatar #78 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Yet you DID state your opinion. "Bad is subjective", or are you only imposing that as some sort of rule while not believing it yourself? If that's the case, aren't you just putting out false boundaries to FORCE me to agree with you? You can break down my beliefs and cross-examine them all you like, but you can't state something as 'true' if you do not believe it. You can't just say "Bad is subjective, not for ME, but right now, for you, it is".

Once more, you are putting up boundaries. "Locking them up means nobody else has to suffer, but killing them is ONLY the result of them not having the same beliefs as you" when in reality, it could be as true for one as it is the other.

At the end of the day, you would not call them good, we agree they are bad people, and bad people who act on their bad desires should be punished. If morality is objective, then those who commit acts of evil and cruelty are automatically in the wrong and should face punishment. If morality is subjective but determined by cultural boundaries, those who follow the culture should be rewarded while those who don't should be punished; or rather, not 'should', but WILL be punished as a result of going against the society others worked so hard to establish; if they don't want a part in it, they can leave. And finally, if morality is subjective and determined by the individual, you must agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with raping, murdering, and devouring a small child because you can.
#45 - duudegladiator (07/06/2015) [-]
#25 - The Death Penalty only costs more because its court cases are …  [+] (24 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes +5
#28 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
That would be all well and good, but here's the thing. There's always an element of uncertainty to convicting someone. Are you seriously advocating the removal of our entire justice system in the case of murders? Or are you just saying that if it's a slam dunk case, then they don't get an appeal? That's still advocating the removal of a good chunk of our justice system to please your emotions. It is completely unreasonable to say that we have a right to a fair trial, we have a right to appeals and an attorney - unless you commit murder. I cannot understand how a person would consider it reasonable to remove rights from someone like that when there are dozens of cases of appeals working because the person did not actually commit the crime.

Here's a list of exonerated death row inmates. Apparently, the number is 152 since 1973. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates In your world, every single one of those innocent people would be dead. All I can think is that you believe that the death of these people is worth it because punishing criminals, 'feeling better,' and revenge matter so much more to you than logic.

And here's five more citations for the death penalty not reducing murder rate.
www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence
www.aclu.org/case-against-death-penalty
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/30/theres-still-no-evidence-that-executions-deter-criminals/
www.debate.org/opinions/does-the-death-penalty-deter-crime
nccadp.org/issues/deterrence/
User avatar #62 - shieldanvil (07/06/2015) [-]
Neat! Now show me the graph of alive known murders in Death Penalty states vs Non-death penalty states
#68 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Shifting the burden of proof, cherry picking, Like when saying that when you ban guns, gun murders go down while conveniently ignoring that the murder rate in its entirety goes up and appeal to emotion Hur, but they deserve to die to make me feel better! What does it matter if they're in prison, never to hurt anyone again? all wrapped up in one! Congrats, a hat trick is rare.
User avatar #69 - shieldanvil (07/06/2015) [-]
burden of proof shifing, okay sure
cherry picking, i.e. pointing to individual cases, didn't do that but good try.
emotional appeal, even if I had this would not undercut the argument.

you attacking the argument instead of what is said, typical.
#74 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
I'm attacking the argument because you provided literally no argument. "Yeah, but murderers are alive somewhere!" So? They're being punished, they're locked up, they're not murdering anyone any more, so give me one valid reason - backed up by actual facts and not just an "I think" or "Probably" why that's bad. Pointing to individual cases means nothing. You have to look at the big picture to get any meaning. Why does the number of inactive murderers matter when the number of murders clearly goes down? Clearly, all you want to do is to punish people and get revenge instead of, you know, making the world safer by lowering the homicide rate.

And then you go on to say that "muh emotions!" are a valid argument. I don't think anyone is going to gain anything if I actually debate you.
#36 - lostabyss (07/06/2015) [-]
the only problem i have with this data is that states with the death penalty often take 10-30 years to execute someone. how could that possibly be a deterrent if it takes that long?
#38 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Because appeals and due process exist. If it happened too quickly, at least 152 people would be dead for crimes they didn't commit.
#41 - lostabyss (07/06/2015) [-]
yes appeals exist. but all of the convictions happened before dna evidence could be used. i think only like 1 happened after but it was still not completely common
#46 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
DNA evidence was first used in 86. Out of that wikipedia list, 20 people out of 39 were originally convicted more recently than that. DNA isn't magic. And please at least look at the evidence I give you before saying "I think..." and then saying something that is immediately contradicted by a link I already gave you.
#48 - lostabyss (07/06/2015) [-]
dna evidence was first first used in 86. that does not mean that every city/town/whatever instantly had free access to dna testing for every single case.
literally took decades and our system is STILL backlogged
#50 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
We're not talking about all cases, we're talking specifically about murder - the only crime that carries the death penalty. As shown here www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Use%20of%20Forensic%20DNA%20in%20Prosecutors%27%20Offices.pdf only 22 percent of murder cases do NOT use DNA evidence in some capacity. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to look up every single overturned case, but I can say with statistical certainty that at least some of the overturned cases used DNA evidence in their original conviction.
User avatar #30 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Eh, if it were my choice I would re-work the justice system entirely and make criminals who commit crimes that you cannot repair (Murder, grand arson, rape) to be stripped of their rights and sent to have medical tests done on them until they die.

All minor criminals would just work community service.

Yes I am totally willing to deal with the loss of those innocent people in exchange for punishing the thousands of more guilty ones and the knowledge we may gain from it.
#34 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Oh, so you're just a utilitarianist. I pretty strongly disagree with that line of thought, but that's a whole other argument.
User avatar #35 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Why?
#37 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Because happiness isn't a zero sum game. Because it essentially strips personal liberty and responsibility in exchange for the greater good, which goes against literally everything i stand for. It removes the idea of individuality and personal happiness as long as society as a whole is happy. Who cares if Anthony Porter was wrongfully executed as long as it made someone else happier than his death made him sad?
User avatar #39 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Nonsense! That's not what I stand for at all! I totally support freedom and individualism; what I am saying right now is that it would be better to experiment on criminals in order to get more medicine and scientific advancement at a faster pace.
#40 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
Clearly you don't support freedom and individualism when you advocate forced medical experimentation on innocent people. You did say you don't care if innocent people get executed so long as criminals get punished along with them.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
You misunderstand.

I don't advocate for the death of ANY innocent people, I just accept that it's probable some will die on this path I want to take.

What you're saying I could turn back against you: "Clearly you don't support freedom and individualism when you advocate the raising of buildings, seeing as how most have some form of food in them and lumberjacking is one of the most dangerous jobs there is". No, of course that doesn't make sense, because even though innocent people may die in pursuit of what we hold near and dear, we do not WANT them too, nor is their death our aim; we just accept it as inevitability.
#44 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
That's an incredibly false analogy. Someone has to make a choice to become a lumberjack. Someone just has to be unlucky to be convicted for a crime they didn't commit. You're effectively saying it's okay to totally screw people over through no fault of their own and for no immediate or direct benefit as long as society as a whole stays happy. And then you go on to say that it's inevitable that it might happen, so we might as well embrace it instead of trying to do something to fix it.
User avatar #49 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Alright then, so it's only luck-based experiences that you are against?
#51 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
No, there's lots of other things I'm against, but saying that someone should die through no fault of their own simply because they were unlucky and society is better off not worrying about it is definitely one thing I am against.
#54 - anon (07/06/2015) [-]
The majority of people on this planet will die due to nothing more than bad luck, innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time, happened to contract this or that disease, that's how the world works, you're drawing an link between whether or not someone deserves to die, but such a link is arbitrary, defined by the fact that you believe humans to intrinsically not deserve to die but the truth is, no one cares, and mine or your life is a worthless as the next persons.
User avatar #53 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
So how do you split it?

If someone comes from a bad household with little opportunity and commits a crime, do you punish them or society?

If someone's family is starving, so the bread-winner goes out and mugs someone for their money only to accidentally kill them, what happens?

Are these people at fault for their positions in life? Should they be punished for their bad luck and choices because of said luck?
#65 - endospore (07/06/2015) [-]
The difference is choice.

In both of those opportunities, a crime was still committed. The criminal weighed the options and decided that the possible rewards outweighed the risks and he may or may not face the consequences. A family takes two people. If the criminal was a single father, the mother chose to leave the kids with the criminal, the father chose to keep the kids. If they're together, the spouse chose to stick with that life. They may be shitty choices, but they are all choices. Freak accidents suck - that's why we have safety regulations - to prevent as many as possible. Someone getting killed by a drunk driver still requires the drunk driver to make a choice, and he's punished accordingly for taking someone's life with no good reason.

There is ALWAYS a choice - except in the case of a wrongfully convicted man denied appeal and forced to either get executed or undergo medical experimentation. The only possibility there would be for the man to be able to see the future and be able to avoid the situation in the first place.

How can you possibly justify that being fair?
#23 - Yet why should we appreciate the life of someone who doesn't a…  [+] (9 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Hate Crimes +11
#24 - adamks (07/06/2015) [-]
No one is asking you to appreciate him. But how can you be a better person than him if you kill him based on your individual values, and he killed another person based on his? Why are your values more real than his?
User avatar #26 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Perhaps because my individual values aren't based around selfishness or harming innocent people for personal gain? Something like that, probably.

Making that argument, I could say that it's part of my 'values' that you give me all the money you have, and if you do not comply you are a horrible person and certainly not better than me.

Finally, you are acting as if I care if I'm better than him. Frankly, I don't. Whether you think I am or not doesn't bother me, what bothers me is the idea of someone going through their life without receiving proper punishment for their crimes.
#31 - adamks (07/06/2015) [-]
Surely punishment is needed, but not killing.
User avatar #32 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
And what makes your personal values overtake mine?

Why not killing?
#75 - adamks (07/06/2015) [-]
I'm not actually expressing any of my personal values. You think your personal values, and your reasons for killing is more important than the man who killed his wife. Most people would agree with you, but what gives you the right to chose which values are more important? Why is it ok for you to kill but not for him? And "Because he is bad" is not a reason, since bad is subjective.
User avatar #76 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
ALL bad is subjective? Wouldn't that mean all good is subjective too?

If that's the case, you believe that a child rapist is on the same level of cultural goodness as a man who donates his time to charity, or a woman who performs brain surgeries for free?
#77 - adamks (07/06/2015) [-]
(I wouldn't take brain surgeries for free, sounds like an absolutely terrible idea)

Again, I'm not stating what my opinion is, which you for some reason can't really comprehend, that said, cultural goodness is something different, cultural goodness is based on values already established, so no I would not call a child rapist as good. But why should a person die if they can't abide by the cultural values established by other people. One thing is locking him up so that no one has to suffer by his twisted ideals, but a whole nother thing is killing him because of his opposing values.
User avatar #78 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Yet you DID state your opinion. "Bad is subjective", or are you only imposing that as some sort of rule while not believing it yourself? If that's the case, aren't you just putting out false boundaries to FORCE me to agree with you? You can break down my beliefs and cross-examine them all you like, but you can't state something as 'true' if you do not believe it. You can't just say "Bad is subjective, not for ME, but right now, for you, it is".

Once more, you are putting up boundaries. "Locking them up means nobody else has to suffer, but killing them is ONLY the result of them not having the same beliefs as you" when in reality, it could be as true for one as it is the other.

At the end of the day, you would not call them good, we agree they are bad people, and bad people who act on their bad desires should be punished. If morality is objective, then those who commit acts of evil and cruelty are automatically in the wrong and should face punishment. If morality is subjective but determined by cultural boundaries, those who follow the culture should be rewarded while those who don't should be punished; or rather, not 'should', but WILL be punished as a result of going against the society others worked so hard to establish; if they don't want a part in it, they can leave. And finally, if morality is subjective and determined by the individual, you must agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with raping, murdering, and devouring a small child because you can.
#45 - duudegladiator (07/06/2015) [-]
#8 - He WAS funny in his earlier years, but in his later ones he ju…  [+] (14 new replies) 07/06/2015 on george carlin R.I.P -22
#23 - samxdaxman (07/06/2015) [-]
Most comedians are bitter and criticize everything.
User avatar #49 - ZenMacros (07/07/2015) [-]
Yeah but in his later years he seemed to do it in less of a comedic fashion and more of a condescending fashion.
#15 - pallepis (07/06/2015) [-]
Hard to face the truth?
User avatar #16 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Not really. There's nothing inherently more right about hating everything, it's just stupid.
#48 - heydany (07/06/2015) [-]
I agree with you, comedians who do nothing but criticize get really tiring to watch. Even if I agree with what they say, it just stops being funny after a while.
#39 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
"His opinion is dumb and mine is right."
okay
User avatar #40 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
When have I said mine was right?
#41 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
Well claiming that someone else's views are objectively stupid kinda implies that you believe yours are right.
User avatar #42 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
Alright then, do you think it's SMART to hate and criticize everything?
#43 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
I think it's not smart to say that other people's opinions are wrong because they disagree with you.
User avatar #45 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
How many calories did you burn dodging that question?
User avatar #47 - mvtjets (07/06/2015) [-]
>criticize everything
That doesn't even mean anything because that's impossible, be specific on what he got wrong.
#46 - hillbillypowpow (07/06/2015) [-]
It wasn't really that hard.
#37 - Elk (07/06/2015) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image**
>be you
>be right
>get thumbed down

lel okie guys
#29 - You misunderstand. YOU said, that by losing, you lose…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/06/2015 on Unpopular opinion -1
User avatar #30 - Mickeyboi (07/06/2015) [-]
War is ugly. The winners get to decide whatever terms they wish because they are the victors of a fight to the death. It can be right or wrong, but war is wrong from the start. The native Americans weren't forced to stop practicing their culture systematically, the culture died out because the people themselves were killed. They never lost their "rights" as much as they lost their lives. The native Americans weren't "defeated", they were slaughtered. The South encouraged war because it wanted independence from a nation it was apart of. War was declared and the terms of the war were clear. The native Americans didn't choose war, it was brought to them. They were here, living in perfect harmony with the environment, then European settlers came and started industrializing. The native Americans that did survive is now apart of America, they're Americans now. They can still celebrate their culture and heritage,but they still must follow the laws and rules of the dominant power, the federal government. They can still have land, but they must get it the same way all their fellow Americans do, they must buy it. Two different cultures can't survive together when one is massively more powerful than the other. Everyone still has their rights.
#27 - And what about those who didn't surrender? Who instead escaped…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Unpopular opinion -1
User avatar #28 - Mickeyboi (07/06/2015) [-]
Yes they can, it's not illegal to hold the flag. You can put it on your truck, your shirt, your house, even tattoo it on your forehead. Everyone has a right to land in America these days. You have to right to live on any land you purchase, native Americans included. If you're referring to the native American Holocaust back in the 18th and 19th centuries then yes they had rights to the land, but it was taken from them. Most were killed and their culture was almost completely lost or destroyed, so the few dozen thousand that descended from the survivors are still living in America now, but they didn't have a flag.
User avatar #29 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
You misunderstand.

YOU said, that by losing, you lose rights to hold the flag/ideals that symbolized conflict toward the winning nation.

So, by defeating the Indians, do they also lose all rights to hold the land and culture they had beforehand?

Either EVERYONE gets to keep their flag/land/rights/whatever and have business being there outside of a state capital building or office, or NOBODY can. ANY form of ethical compromise is hypocritical.
User avatar #30 - Mickeyboi (07/06/2015) [-]
War is ugly. The winners get to decide whatever terms they wish because they are the victors of a fight to the death. It can be right or wrong, but war is wrong from the start. The native Americans weren't forced to stop practicing their culture systematically, the culture died out because the people themselves were killed. They never lost their "rights" as much as they lost their lives. The native Americans weren't "defeated", they were slaughtered. The South encouraged war because it wanted independence from a nation it was apart of. War was declared and the terms of the war were clear. The native Americans didn't choose war, it was brought to them. They were here, living in perfect harmony with the environment, then European settlers came and started industrializing. The native Americans that did survive is now apart of America, they're Americans now. They can still celebrate their culture and heritage,but they still must follow the laws and rules of the dominant power, the federal government. They can still have land, but they must get it the same way all their fellow Americans do, they must buy it. Two different cultures can't survive together when one is massively more powerful than the other. Everyone still has their rights.
#25 - I can, I can completely see "You lost, so you can no long…  [+] (5 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Unpopular opinion -1
User avatar #26 - Mickeyboi (07/06/2015) [-]
When war was declared the terms of the war are decided by the victors. When blood is spilled on both sides, the losing party doesn't really get to make demands when they're surrendering. Its more like we fight to the death because of a shirt and I beat you and get ready to deal the killing blow, but then I drop my sword and let you live if you agree not to wear it anymore.

People waving and wearing the flag is not a problem, as long as it has nothing to do with the government, but that flag has no business being flown outside of the state capital building or any official building.
User avatar #27 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
And what about those who didn't surrender? Who instead escaped, or died for their beliefs, are their children allowed to hold the flag high?

So then Indians have no rights to land, considering they lost?
User avatar #28 - Mickeyboi (07/06/2015) [-]
Yes they can, it's not illegal to hold the flag. You can put it on your truck, your shirt, your house, even tattoo it on your forehead. Everyone has a right to land in America these days. You have to right to live on any land you purchase, native Americans included. If you're referring to the native American Holocaust back in the 18th and 19th centuries then yes they had rights to the land, but it was taken from them. Most were killed and their culture was almost completely lost or destroyed, so the few dozen thousand that descended from the survivors are still living in America now, but they didn't have a flag.
User avatar #29 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
You misunderstand.

YOU said, that by losing, you lose rights to hold the flag/ideals that symbolized conflict toward the winning nation.

So, by defeating the Indians, do they also lose all rights to hold the land and culture they had beforehand?

Either EVERYONE gets to keep their flag/land/rights/whatever and have business being there outside of a state capital building or office, or NOBODY can. ANY form of ethical compromise is hypocritical.
User avatar #30 - Mickeyboi (07/06/2015) [-]
War is ugly. The winners get to decide whatever terms they wish because they are the victors of a fight to the death. It can be right or wrong, but war is wrong from the start. The native Americans weren't forced to stop practicing their culture systematically, the culture died out because the people themselves were killed. They never lost their "rights" as much as they lost their lives. The native Americans weren't "defeated", they were slaughtered. The South encouraged war because it wanted independence from a nation it was apart of. War was declared and the terms of the war were clear. The native Americans didn't choose war, it was brought to them. They were here, living in perfect harmony with the environment, then European settlers came and started industrializing. The native Americans that did survive is now apart of America, they're Americans now. They can still celebrate their culture and heritage,but they still must follow the laws and rules of the dominant power, the federal government. They can still have land, but they must get it the same way all their fellow Americans do, they must buy it. Two different cultures can't survive together when one is massively more powerful than the other. Everyone still has their rights.
#19 - Isn't the American Flag itself a flag of treason considering i…  [+] (7 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Unpopular opinion -1
User avatar #24 - Mickeyboi (07/06/2015) [-]
It's not about the treason, it's about losing the war. The winners decide the terms. America won that war. So it won the right to fly its flag. If we lost the war then we'd still wave the other flag. How can you not see this?
User avatar #25 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
I can, I can completely see "You lost, so you can no longer have these things or these ideas", but that doesn't make it any less douchy.

That's like me disliking your shirt and fighting you over it, and then when you lose you're not allowed to wear those shirts anymore. It's retarded.
User avatar #26 - Mickeyboi (07/06/2015) [-]
When war was declared the terms of the war are decided by the victors. When blood is spilled on both sides, the losing party doesn't really get to make demands when they're surrendering. Its more like we fight to the death because of a shirt and I beat you and get ready to deal the killing blow, but then I drop my sword and let you live if you agree not to wear it anymore.

People waving and wearing the flag is not a problem, as long as it has nothing to do with the government, but that flag has no business being flown outside of the state capital building or any official building.
User avatar #27 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
And what about those who didn't surrender? Who instead escaped, or died for their beliefs, are their children allowed to hold the flag high?

So then Indians have no rights to land, considering they lost?
User avatar #28 - Mickeyboi (07/06/2015) [-]
Yes they can, it's not illegal to hold the flag. You can put it on your truck, your shirt, your house, even tattoo it on your forehead. Everyone has a right to land in America these days. You have to right to live on any land you purchase, native Americans included. If you're referring to the native American Holocaust back in the 18th and 19th centuries then yes they had rights to the land, but it was taken from them. Most were killed and their culture was almost completely lost or destroyed, so the few dozen thousand that descended from the survivors are still living in America now, but they didn't have a flag.
User avatar #29 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
You misunderstand.

YOU said, that by losing, you lose rights to hold the flag/ideals that symbolized conflict toward the winning nation.

So, by defeating the Indians, do they also lose all rights to hold the land and culture they had beforehand?

Either EVERYONE gets to keep their flag/land/rights/whatever and have business being there outside of a state capital building or office, or NOBODY can. ANY form of ethical compromise is hypocritical.
User avatar #30 - Mickeyboi (07/06/2015) [-]
War is ugly. The winners get to decide whatever terms they wish because they are the victors of a fight to the death. It can be right or wrong, but war is wrong from the start. The native Americans weren't forced to stop practicing their culture systematically, the culture died out because the people themselves were killed. They never lost their "rights" as much as they lost their lives. The native Americans weren't "defeated", they were slaughtered. The South encouraged war because it wanted independence from a nation it was apart of. War was declared and the terms of the war were clear. The native Americans didn't choose war, it was brought to them. They were here, living in perfect harmony with the environment, then European settlers came and started industrializing. The native Americans that did survive is now apart of America, they're Americans now. They can still celebrate their culture and heritage,but they still must follow the laws and rules of the dominant power, the federal government. They can still have land, but they must get it the same way all their fellow Americans do, they must buy it. Two different cultures can't survive together when one is massively more powerful than the other. Everyone still has their rights.
#8 - When is it not? Yeah, you can be idealistic and live in the mo…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/06/2015 on Here... have some fucking... +1
#10 - swagbot (07/06/2015) [-]
1. "The ONLY people I ever heard talking about seriously following dreams and chasing the stars and giving it all for that one big moment are millionaires who can afford the loss, or people SO broke that they have nothing to lose."

Perhaps the only reason you've heard the rich people talk about it, is because they're the only one that people choose to quote, based on their popular notoriety.

What you don't hear about are the people who are working with moderate, comfortable wealth / livings, who decided to exit a rat-race job and begin doing what they loved. You don't hear about people who were absolutely in the dumps (depression, general life aimlessness, etc) who decided to begin doing what they loved, and now may not be millionaires, but have moved from a bad situation to a comfortable situation. This even seems to work for resolving some sicknesses, as stress, boredom, and discontentment result in physiological effects that begin destroying the body through hormonal channels.

2. "Then what happens when nobody buys it?"

The subtext in all of Bill Murray's quotes are "...if what you want to do is a productive thing."

> If all a person wants to do is eat bon-bons and get fat, then there is a diminishing chance that they can achieve that dream.

> If nobody likes your art, then you aren't creating anything of value, so you are not being 'productive'.

I'll repeat what i said in the original comment:

"The degree to which you should have to "Do stuff that is Shitty" is ONLY directly proportional to the degree to which doing shitty stuff is your only option [i.e. your only option to support yourself] in the situation that you're in."

If you have the option of supporting yourself with the enterprises that you love, you should almost ALWAYS choose to do that.

If a person is not an 'enterprising person', they will not be able to support themselves period, so that's a moot criticism of Murray's comments.

3. Bill's comments have an important, overarching point that would only flower if it's employed by MANY people at the same time:

There are many, MANY reasonable, constructive human beings, currently working soul-sucking jobs in the bowels of companies that produce nothing.

If we stopped buying into this charade, got over our fear of 'not having stuff = failure', and tried to rebuild our lives on a foundation of "Being TRULY Happy", then very, VERY good things would begin happening to this world.
#31 - I desire source too.  [+] (1 new reply) 07/06/2015 on Tomo-chan wa Onna no ko! pt.2 +2
#4 - Eh, no offense to him, but "Just do what makes you happy&…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/06/2015 on Here... have some fucking... +17
#7 - swagbot (07/06/2015) [-]
No.

It's the best advice at any stage in life.

The degree to which you should have to "Do stuff that is Shitty" is ONLY directly proportional to the degree to which doing shitty stuff is your only option in the situation that you're in.
User avatar #8 - captainfuckitall (07/06/2015) [-]
When is it not? Yeah, you can be idealistic and live in the moment, but that doesn't stop you from having to live for the next 60 years either.

"I wanna travel the world!"
"Well you don't need money for that! Just go with some pocket money and work your way around!"

And then what? What happens when they come back and have zero references on their resume because they only worked for the meal of the day before moving on? What happens when they come back with the same amount of money as before and 10 years has gone by? Where's their job security? Pension? Housing?

"I want to devote myself to my artwork!"

Then what happens when nobody buys it? Nobody cares? Nobody wants to put it into a gallery? What if you had to choose between becoming a hit and sacrificing part of the fundamentals of what makes you enjoy your work?

"I want to run my own business!"

Then what happens if it gets run into the ground and they have no insurance or stable income?

Yeah, living in an idealistic world is fantastic for the day and fantastic for your dreams; but guess what, the only people who can live an idealistic life are those who can afford to lose half their paycheck and take it as an inconvenience while most people depend upon it to survive. THAT'S the shitty part.

The ONLY people I ever heard talking about seriously following dreams and chasing the stars and giving it all for that one big moment are millionaires who can afford the loss, or people SO broke that they have nothing to lose.
#10 - swagbot (07/06/2015) [-]
1. "The ONLY people I ever heard talking about seriously following dreams and chasing the stars and giving it all for that one big moment are millionaires who can afford the loss, or people SO broke that they have nothing to lose."

Perhaps the only reason you've heard the rich people talk about it, is because they're the only one that people choose to quote, based on their popular notoriety.

What you don't hear about are the people who are working with moderate, comfortable wealth / livings, who decided to exit a rat-race job and begin doing what they loved. You don't hear about people who were absolutely in the dumps (depression, general life aimlessness, etc) who decided to begin doing what they loved, and now may not be millionaires, but have moved from a bad situation to a comfortable situation. This even seems to work for resolving some sicknesses, as stress, boredom, and discontentment result in physiological effects that begin destroying the body through hormonal channels.

2. "Then what happens when nobody buys it?"

The subtext in all of Bill Murray's quotes are "...if what you want to do is a productive thing."

> If all a person wants to do is eat bon-bons and get fat, then there is a diminishing chance that they can achieve that dream.

> If nobody likes your art, then you aren't creating anything of value, so you are not being 'productive'.

I'll repeat what i said in the original comment:

"The degree to which you should have to "Do stuff that is Shitty" is ONLY directly proportional to the degree to which doing shitty stuff is your only option [i.e. your only option to support yourself] in the situation that you're in."

If you have the option of supporting yourself with the enterprises that you love, you should almost ALWAYS choose to do that.

If a person is not an 'enterprising person', they will not be able to support themselves period, so that's a moot criticism of Murray's comments.

3. Bill's comments have an important, overarching point that would only flower if it's employed by MANY people at the same time:

There are many, MANY reasonable, constructive human beings, currently working soul-sucking jobs in the bowels of companies that produce nothing.

If we stopped buying into this charade, got over our fear of 'not having stuff = failure', and tried to rebuild our lives on a foundation of "Being TRULY Happy", then very, VERY good things would begin happening to this world.

items

Total unique items point value: 0 / Total items point value: 0

Comments(509):

[ 509 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#517 - falloutsurvivor (07/12/2015) [-]
mfw using the bathroom after captain
#515 - mcburd ONLINE (02/20/2015) [-]
#513 - anon (02/16/2015) [-]
I thought I'd waste some time also, and FIX yo' thumbs ;)
#514 to #513 - anon (02/16/2015) [-]
Love, luluwho
#505 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
Man, I think I love you
Man, I think I love you
User avatar #506 to #505 - captainfuckitall (01/26/2015) [-]
Haha, where the hell did that come from?
User avatar #507 to #506 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
I saw that kind of argument that you had and I liked not only what you said but the way you said it, I think you did it pretty cool and everything

if you meant the gif it's from Soul Eater
User avatar #508 to #507 - captainfuckitall (01/26/2015) [-]
That's the first time I heard that. Generally, my abrasive and blunt speech drives most people to dislike me, not give me affection. You're a sweetheart, though.

Haha, no, I did not mean the gif.
User avatar #509 to #508 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
I feel the same way about myself, I have to say that if those speeches were used against me I would feel a little bit upset, but you ask for clear answers and sources, and you try to make the other person think before they speak, I like that in general, not just mindless bashing ahaha
User avatar #510 to #509 - captainfuckitall (01/26/2015) [-]
Well I'm certainly glad you can see the good in my speaking skills. Frankly, I do it to get to the point. I hate having my time wasted for any reason, and so I extend that courtesy to others and try not to waste anyone else's time either; which leads me to being very blunt and brutal in my words so that they cannot be confused or misheard. Though I admit I was frustrated in that debate.
User avatar #511 to #510 - thediablo (01/26/2015) [-]
most of them are frustrating anyway

and yeah, it sucks when people start to get offtrack because of a single comment that you used as an example or something, it's proof that they are desperately trying to derail the conversation to their favor
User avatar #512 to #511 - captainfuckitall (01/26/2015) [-]
Oh well. When you get into a debate with someone, the point should be because you are trying to change your own views, not theirs.

If someone doesn't want to believe something, they won't. End of story. You could use all the proof you want to tell someone the colour of the sky is blue, but if they want it to be green, it will be and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Thus, the only person you should be focused on changing in a debate is yourself, and only do so to get more perspective on the issues important to you.
User avatar #498 - gugek (12/30/2014) [-]
Hey! Good afternoon. I hope the rest of your day is awesome and tomorrow is freaking fantastic!
#492 - miia ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
User avatar #494 to #492 - captainfuckitall (12/13/2014) [-]
Well aren't you a sweetheart for helping me get over my fear
#495 to #494 - miia ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
im actually about to go to bed but hi
User avatar #499 to #495 - aurumleo (01/08/2015) [-]
Who's the artist? Sauce?
User avatar #500 to #499 - miia ONLINE (01/08/2015) [-]
i dont remember and its too late for me to find out
reverse search it
#501 to #500 - aurumleo (01/08/2015) [-]
I found it! The artist's nukomasu. Thanks, Miia. If it weren't for that image, I won't find it.
User avatar #496 to #495 - captainfuckitall (12/13/2014) [-]
Well don't let me keep you. Hi back, and feel free to continue the conversation any time.
User avatar #503 to #502 - captainfuckitall (01/09/2015) [-]
Hello again.
#504 to #503 - miia ONLINE (01/09/2015) [-]
hello

i am exhausted
User avatar #490 - commencingfailure (09/30/2014) [-]
******* retard compares the IS to today's feminists. One could say ignorance is an everspreading cancer, you did your job to increase the spread.
User avatar #491 to #490 - captainfuckitall (09/30/2014) [-]
You seem REALLY mad, friend. Perhaps you should calm down and take some ass ointment before you need to see a doctor
User avatar #489 - myfourthaccount (07/18/2014) [-]
dude, you're like my most favorite person on earth right now haha
User avatar #487 - imvlad (05/04/2014) [-]
you brought shame to your house
User avatar #483 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Have you by chance had an older account here before?
User avatar #484 to #483 - captainfuckitall (04/22/2014) [-]
Yes I have. My first username was Hiimquinn, but it was deleted for some reason I never found, so I just made another.
#485 to #484 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Oh. Never mind then. I saw someone call you Dave and I mistook you for someone else.
User avatar #486 to #485 - captainfuckitall (04/22/2014) [-]
It's fine. It was a joke from a picture a while back where a man was looking out the window and saw a dog and his owner walking down the street. The dog barked at another, bigger dog, and his owner just turned and said "See, this is why you have no ******* mates, Dave".
User avatar #481 - iforgotmyothername (03/20/2014) [-]
you are one cool tempered potato compared to me, bringing my fury upon your wrongness. i salute you, and thumbed up all your comments in the a capella debate.
User avatar #482 to #481 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
It's alright, I apologize for making you upset, but you don't need to thumb my posts up. Thumbs are a way to express positivity or negativity toward any type of comments; if you do not like them, it is perfectly within your right to thumb them down.
User avatar #474 - aherorising (11/20/2013) [-]
you're a really cool bro
#471 - shiifter (10/06/2013) [-]
This still makes me giggle.

Oh and by the way, i never actually thumbed you down. I just said that i did.
User avatar #472 to #471 - captainfuckitall (10/06/2013) [-]
The thing is, the way I found OUT you gave me those thumbs was because of the question mark, which allows people to see who voted on content. I could only KNOW it was you if you had thumbed them down, which you did.

And now you not only prove to be an idiot, but a liar as well.
#473 to #472 - shiifter (10/12/2013) [-]
Wait? You still remembered that? That's hilarious.

By the way, i screencapped this. it's like a trophy.
User avatar #468 - satrenkotheone (09/22/2013) [-]
I would just like to say thank you.
#466 - anon (08/25/2013) [-]
Due to your pointlessly rude comment on the post "Jesus ain't got time for **** ",

I have gone through 20 of your previous comments and thumbed them all down.

You're also a stupid, unfunny, tryhard feelfag. Exactly the kind of user that this site is infamous for.
User avatar #467 to #466 - captainfuckitall (08/25/2013) [-]
I wasn't pointlessly rude. If you read it more carefully, you would find I am not insulting your god or faith, but rather, the people who spread it about; and even they are just doing it to themselves, while I am mearly making an observation

It's ironic you call me tryhard, considering you just went through the time to thumb-down my last 20 comments as if it would have any effect on me personally or my ranking here. It's also odd you call me stupid, considering you were the one who read it uncorrectly. And I think the fact I have so many comment thumbs anyways (including my own jesus comment) speaks to the point that I am, in fact, quite hilarious. "Feelfag", is that supposed to be a derogatory term for someone who is passionate about certain things? If so, then I take pride in it, as it is only through passion that things grow.

Considering you are pretentious, arrogant, immature, and without a sense of humour; you fit the criteria for '12 year old funnyjunker' far better than I do.
[ 509 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)