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

hide menu

seveer    

Rank #3050 on Subscribers
seveer Avatar Level 245 Comments: Doinitrite
Offline
Send mail to seveer Block seveer Invite seveer to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:10/12/2011
Last Login:6/21/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 7228 total,  7932 ,  704
Comment Thumbs: 4539 total,  5778 ,  1239
Content Level Progress: 10% (10/100)
Level 172 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 173 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 33% (33/100)
Level 245 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:26
Content Views:330683
Times Content Favorited:822 times
Total Comments Made:8020
FJ Points:766
Favorite Tags: comp (3) | joke (2) | jokes (2) | masturbation (2)

latest user's comments

#13665 - Alright then ... 07/11/2013 on Thumb Orgy +12
#17 - But ... lion is kill.  [+] (5 new replies) 07/07/2013 on Mock The Week +34
User avatar #20 - skarrer (07/07/2013) [-]
he is die?
#21 - stegovii (07/07/2013) [-]
#51 - skyissky (07/07/2013) [-]
User avatar #22 - skarrer (07/07/2013) [-]
no
#48 - fuckingtrolls (07/07/2013) [-]
#11 - I often used to wonder why I would feel so tired whenever I go…  [+] (4 new replies) 06/29/2013 on Introverts can relate +64
User avatar #265 - zepi (06/29/2013) [-]
I don't think I even put up a facade, I just show to each set of people what they want to see of me; I end up having different behaviours to different sets of friends and family...and even if you mixed up or added up those different parts of myself, you wouldn't have me as a whole, cause there are still things I won't share with anybody.
I think that if I died my funeral would be the most awkward one, because each person would talk about a different me, that isn't actualy ...me.
#153 - anonymous (06/29/2013) [-]
It's called society, man. No man is an island, and we can't survive alone.

So despite stupid things people say, WE have to deal with THEM. WE aren't part of their "world". We're just stuck in it.

Sucks.
User avatar #150 - ZakisBak (06/29/2013) [-]
Wow, you put me into words like I never realized myself before...especially the lashing out at the family part for not being able to do it 24/7.
User avatar #55 - hingerbinger (06/29/2013) [-]
Oh dude, I am on the same boat!
#23 - I just happen to have this one.  [+] (2 new replies) 06/23/2013 on Don't say it's name +1
User avatar #24 - cjasper (06/23/2013) [-]
It is complete
#29 - zorororonoa (06/23/2013) [-]
But it is in the wrong order!
#13 - Good guess, but I looked up the movie and it doesn't seem to f… 06/22/2013 on Condoms 0
#97 - Smithers is pretty small, did you know anybody that saw it first hand?  [+] (1 new reply) 06/20/2013 on Canada Being Cute 0
User avatar #99 - vengance (06/20/2013) [-]
My friend who works over at starbucks And i guess i cant call it a mall... My other friend and i were just checking his balance at scotiabank
#92 - Haha, I live in Prince George and remember hearing about that.  [+] (3 new replies) 06/20/2013 on Canada Being Cute 0
User avatar #93 - vengance (06/20/2013) [-]
It was a weird day for me :p I was in the mall, it was a little freaky
#97 - seveer (06/20/2013) [-]
Smithers is pretty small, did you know anybody that saw it first hand?
User avatar #99 - vengance (06/20/2013) [-]
My friend who works over at starbucks And i guess i cant call it a mall... My other friend and i were just checking his balance at scotiabank
#234 - **seveer rolled a random image posted in comment #126 at T… 06/16/2013 on Destiny 0
#241 - It does not necessarily constitute jail time ... They would pr…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada 0
#253 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Jail time was my shorthand for being brought before the court system in some way. I don't know the specifics of the laws in Canada. Clearly.

Action vs. enforcement is just terminology. In the end it the mechanisms behind the law operating affirmatively in response to input. Blah, that sounds like legal speak to me and it is way too late in the day for that... I get uncomfortable when I see the potential for tyranny. Even if things are going great in Canada today (and by all signs they are) things might not be good down the road, and that tyrannical potential can be take on a malignant life of its own like the legal cancer that it is.
#237 - You are literally too stupid to insult. You are wrong. End of …  [+] (2 new replies) 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada -2
#239 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Fuck you pal I do what I want.... ^^
#243 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
obvious troll is obvious

to the other guy: stop replying to this asshat
#229 - The metaphor is from the perspective of the Canadian Governmen…  [+] (4 new replies) 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada -1
User avatar #232 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
My metaphor was from the perspective of anyone with half a brain.

Speaking is a metaphor for speaking.

Feelings is a metaphor for feelings.

AND BULLSHIT there's no physical analogy involved..... if it was simply a metaphor on the overextension of speech, then why not just out and say it?

The analogy is simply to compare it to something people agree with restricting more.....hitting people in the face! (Hell even I want to ban that). But it's a bad analogy, no more no less.
#237 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
You are literally too stupid to insult. You are wrong. End of story. If you disagree, then go be smug with self righteousness elsewhere. Regardless, stop replying.
#239 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Fuck you pal I do what I want.... ^^
#243 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
obvious troll is obvious

to the other guy: stop replying to this asshat
#227 - Again, everything is relative and needs to be contextualized. …  [+] (3 new replies) 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada +2
#238 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Believe me, I understand the point you're making. In many cases there are times when I wish there was a way to stop the a-holes from making everyone upset just because they get their jollies out of it. I just don't agree people should go to jail over it.

And please, explicitly mention the US if you feel like it is wrong. I'm not going to thumb you down because you say you think the US operates in a foolish way. The feeling could be mutual, you know. However, selective enforcement of the law is a sign of tyranny, albeit a soft and palatable sign in this case. I might even emotionally agree with it on this particular individual basis.

I don't believe offending people people should translate jail time. That works out for the good most of the time. Most of the time...
User avatar #241 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
It does not necessarily constitute jail time ... They would probably get a fine and/or eviction from the country seeing as they were foreign.

Yes, I think that the way the US government deals with some things is poorly thought out. However, it is selective action (not selective enforcement) that I am advocating. You are right that there is a potential for tyranny, but I honestly do not think that there is much cause for concern with the way our government is run as a whole here in Canada.

Thanks for being reasonable though.
#253 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Jail time was my shorthand for being brought before the court system in some way. I don't know the specifics of the laws in Canada. Clearly.

Action vs. enforcement is just terminology. In the end it the mechanisms behind the law operating affirmatively in response to input. Blah, that sounds like legal speak to me and it is way too late in the day for that... I get uncomfortable when I see the potential for tyranny. Even if things are going great in Canada today (and by all signs they are) things might not be good down the road, and that tyrannical potential can be take on a malignant life of its own like the legal cancer that it is.
#220 - You do not understand how allusions work do you? The metaphor …  [+] (6 new replies) 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada +1
User avatar #224 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
And I think my metaphor was more accurate But besides that, I still think you're wrong for comparing physical blows to being offended. >.>
User avatar #229 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
The metaphor is from the perspective of the Canadian Government.
Raising the hand is a metaphor for speech or protest.
Hitting the nose is a metaphor for over-extension of the right to protest or of freedom of speech.

There is no physical analogy implied. Look at that in the context of the quote. You are clearly wrong, just stop.
User avatar #232 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
My metaphor was from the perspective of anyone with half a brain.

Speaking is a metaphor for speaking.

Feelings is a metaphor for feelings.

AND BULLSHIT there's no physical analogy involved..... if it was simply a metaphor on the overextension of speech, then why not just out and say it?

The analogy is simply to compare it to something people agree with restricting more.....hitting people in the face! (Hell even I want to ban that). But it's a bad analogy, no more no less.
#237 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
You are literally too stupid to insult. You are wrong. End of story. If you disagree, then go be smug with self righteousness elsewhere. Regardless, stop replying.
#239 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Fuck you pal I do what I want.... ^^
#243 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
obvious troll is obvious

to the other guy: stop replying to this asshat
#216 - There is a certain point where offensive speech developed into… 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada 0
#208 - Spelling of the word "mourning" aside, I don't think…  [+] (6 new replies) 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada 0
#221 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
FJ:
>hur dur murica, what freedoms?
>US actually has more freesom in a case
>hur dur well they are stupid for allowing it and this way is better
getting tired of this shit
#214 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Perhaps you have a point in this particular instance. About the spelling of "mourning" that is.

Your conclusion about "absolute" freedom of speech being "stupid" is unfortunate. I'm sure one could make a persuasive argument to the Canadian government that sites like 4chan, FJ, or even YouTube are bastions of hate speech and should be blocked in the country. To use a very tired cliche, it's a slippery slope once you accept the premise that offending people is hate speech and should be prevented.
User avatar #227 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
Again, everything is relative and needs to be contextualized. You don't seem to understand what I am saying, so I will lay it out for you in a series of simple points:

The Canadian government deals with issues like this on an individual basis.
This prevents absolute laws, and the ability for loopholes to be used in conjunction with them to allow people to abuse the legal system.
This allows the best course of action to be determined for each case.
This also allows us to deal with the designation of hate speech without the "slippery slope" of absolutism creating fatuous problems.
For these reasons, I stated that I believe this is a smarter way to deal with things.

An argument like that for a website would be immediately dismissed here in Canada because we actually have some common sense on the matter (unlike a certain country I could mention ...). Anyway, this is a bad example due to the fact that the internet is beyond borders and national regulation.
#238 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Believe me, I understand the point you're making. In many cases there are times when I wish there was a way to stop the a-holes from making everyone upset just because they get their jollies out of it. I just don't agree people should go to jail over it.

And please, explicitly mention the US if you feel like it is wrong. I'm not going to thumb you down because you say you think the US operates in a foolish way. The feeling could be mutual, you know. However, selective enforcement of the law is a sign of tyranny, albeit a soft and palatable sign in this case. I might even emotionally agree with it on this particular individual basis.

I don't believe offending people people should translate jail time. That works out for the good most of the time. Most of the time...
User avatar #241 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
It does not necessarily constitute jail time ... They would probably get a fine and/or eviction from the country seeing as they were foreign.

Yes, I think that the way the US government deals with some things is poorly thought out. However, it is selective action (not selective enforcement) that I am advocating. You are right that there is a potential for tyranny, but I honestly do not think that there is much cause for concern with the way our government is run as a whole here in Canada.

Thanks for being reasonable though.
#253 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Jail time was my shorthand for being brought before the court system in some way. I don't know the specifics of the laws in Canada. Clearly.

Action vs. enforcement is just terminology. In the end it the mechanisms behind the law operating affirmatively in response to input. Blah, that sounds like legal speak to me and it is way too late in the day for that... I get uncomfortable when I see the potential for tyranny. Even if things are going great in Canada today (and by all signs they are) things might not be good down the road, and that tyrannical potential can be take on a malignant life of its own like the legal cancer that it is.
#202 - Picture 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada 0
#201 - This. 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada +1
#196 - You aren't that bright, are you? The metaphor is fine…  [+] (8 new replies) 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada 0
User avatar #218 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
>"Your freedom to swing your arm in the air ends when it touches the end of my nose," <

Fist. Nose.

There is your allusion, or are you just playing stupid?
User avatar #220 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
You do not understand how allusions work do you? The metaphor does not have to be literal.
User avatar #224 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
And I think my metaphor was more accurate But besides that, I still think you're wrong for comparing physical blows to being offended. >.>
User avatar #229 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
The metaphor is from the perspective of the Canadian Government.
Raising the hand is a metaphor for speech or protest.
Hitting the nose is a metaphor for over-extension of the right to protest or of freedom of speech.

There is no physical analogy implied. Look at that in the context of the quote. You are clearly wrong, just stop.
User avatar #232 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
My metaphor was from the perspective of anyone with half a brain.

Speaking is a metaphor for speaking.

Feelings is a metaphor for feelings.

AND BULLSHIT there's no physical analogy involved..... if it was simply a metaphor on the overextension of speech, then why not just out and say it?

The analogy is simply to compare it to something people agree with restricting more.....hitting people in the face! (Hell even I want to ban that). But it's a bad analogy, no more no less.
#237 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
You are literally too stupid to insult. You are wrong. End of story. If you disagree, then go be smug with self righteousness elsewhere. Regardless, stop replying.
#239 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Fuck you pal I do what I want.... ^^
#243 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
obvious troll is obvious

to the other guy: stop replying to this asshat
#188 - It's hate speech, and it actually breaks our laws. If the prot…  [+] (14 new replies) 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada 0
User avatar #191 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
No i got the metaphor, it's just wrongly used.

That is meant to apply to physical violence, hence fist and noses.

Canada's mantra is closer to:

"Your right to speak ends where my feelings begin."
User avatar #199 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
"Your right to speak ends where my feelings begin."

"Your freedom to swing your arm in the air ends when it touches the end of my nose,"


Be honest, which one do you think more closely reflects what the WBC is doing? ^.-
User avatar #196 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
You aren't that bright, are you?

The metaphor is fine, the analogy is that the members of the WBC are harming the citizens of Canada through their intended actions. There is no allusion to physical violence. He is saying that they are abusing the freedom of speech and right to protest that they would have in Canada.
User avatar #218 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
>"Your freedom to swing your arm in the air ends when it touches the end of my nose," <

Fist. Nose.

There is your allusion, or are you just playing stupid?
User avatar #220 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
You do not understand how allusions work do you? The metaphor does not have to be literal.
User avatar #224 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
And I think my metaphor was more accurate But besides that, I still think you're wrong for comparing physical blows to being offended. >.>
User avatar #229 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
The metaphor is from the perspective of the Canadian Government.
Raising the hand is a metaphor for speech or protest.
Hitting the nose is a metaphor for over-extension of the right to protest or of freedom of speech.

There is no physical analogy implied. Look at that in the context of the quote. You are clearly wrong, just stop.
User avatar #232 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
My metaphor was from the perspective of anyone with half a brain.

Speaking is a metaphor for speaking.

Feelings is a metaphor for feelings.

AND BULLSHIT there's no physical analogy involved..... if it was simply a metaphor on the overextension of speech, then why not just out and say it?

The analogy is simply to compare it to something people agree with restricting more.....hitting people in the face! (Hell even I want to ban that). But it's a bad analogy, no more no less.
#237 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
You are literally too stupid to insult. You are wrong. End of story. If you disagree, then go be smug with self righteousness elsewhere. Regardless, stop replying.
#239 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Fuck you pal I do what I want.... ^^
#243 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
obvious troll is obvious

to the other guy: stop replying to this asshat
#195 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
No canadian mantra is
"You have a right to say whatever you want. When you start doing it in a way that you are deliberately abusing others, then their right not to be abused trumps yours to be a dick"
#205 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
"I am offended by the term 'dick' as I am a male and you have demeaned my sex by using the male genitalia as a pejorative. You should be fined and/or imprisoned for offending me."

There is no free speech when laws are based on a person's feelings. Advocating violence and/or being violent are objectively (and measurably) wrong.
User avatar #216 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
There is a certain point where offensive speech developed into hate speech. Once this happens, freedom of speech is gone with respect to the situation and it becomes a criminal act. At least that is how it works in Canada, which is the subject of this situation.
#184 - They were trying to come protest a funeral in Winnipeg, articl… 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada 0
#182 - Government officials response to CBC on the issue: &q…  [+] (53 new replies) 06/16/2013 on Good Guy Canada +3
#200 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Lack of an Oxford comma aside don't you find that response a little disturbing from a civil liberties perspective? Don't get me wrong, I hate everything WBC says, and I hate it when the protest funerals, disrupt a time of morning, and bring hatred to a sad and solemn occasion. The Canadian government's policy is that they don't tolerate all forms of peaceful speech. You don't get to express yourself if you hurt someone's feelings. The KKK, for instance, was the first group declared a terrorist organization by the US government. Yet even they are allowed to hold peaceful demonstrations and espouse their hate filled messages.

My point isn't that Canada isn't allowed to do this; it's a sovereign nation and they can whatever they damn well please within their own borders. It seems the US is more tolerant of all speech, and your quote's have confirmed that.

The WBC purposely says things to offend people, but as far as I know they don't advocate violence nor are they violent. In the US offensive speech doesn't equal hate speech. Therefore, there is a stronger right to free speech in the US than in Canada.
User avatar #208 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
Spelling of the word "mourning" aside, I don't think you completely understand my position on this. Read comment number 192.

Canada actually has some common sense when it comes to this kind of thing, and doesn't use some of the same absolutist enforcement as the US does. It's all about context, and you can't make everything so set in stone and expect it to work well.

I agree, the US does allow more freedom of speech, but I think that the way they follow through with policies is pretty stupid. The way things work in Canada are significantly better. The WBC is spreading hate speech, by every definition I can find, and regardless of whether or not the US government recognizes that, it seems that the Canadian government has.
#221 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
FJ:
>hur dur murica, what freedoms?
>US actually has more freesom in a case
>hur dur well they are stupid for allowing it and this way is better
getting tired of this shit
#214 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Perhaps you have a point in this particular instance. About the spelling of "mourning" that is.

Your conclusion about "absolute" freedom of speech being "stupid" is unfortunate. I'm sure one could make a persuasive argument to the Canadian government that sites like 4chan, FJ, or even YouTube are bastions of hate speech and should be blocked in the country. To use a very tired cliche, it's a slippery slope once you accept the premise that offending people is hate speech and should be prevented.
User avatar #227 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
Again, everything is relative and needs to be contextualized. You don't seem to understand what I am saying, so I will lay it out for you in a series of simple points:

The Canadian government deals with issues like this on an individual basis.
This prevents absolute laws, and the ability for loopholes to be used in conjunction with them to allow people to abuse the legal system.
This allows the best course of action to be determined for each case.
This also allows us to deal with the designation of hate speech without the "slippery slope" of absolutism creating fatuous problems.
For these reasons, I stated that I believe this is a smarter way to deal with things.

An argument like that for a website would be immediately dismissed here in Canada because we actually have some common sense on the matter (unlike a certain country I could mention ...). Anyway, this is a bad example due to the fact that the internet is beyond borders and national regulation.
#238 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Believe me, I understand the point you're making. In many cases there are times when I wish there was a way to stop the a-holes from making everyone upset just because they get their jollies out of it. I just don't agree people should go to jail over it.

And please, explicitly mention the US if you feel like it is wrong. I'm not going to thumb you down because you say you think the US operates in a foolish way. The feeling could be mutual, you know. However, selective enforcement of the law is a sign of tyranny, albeit a soft and palatable sign in this case. I might even emotionally agree with it on this particular individual basis.

I don't believe offending people people should translate jail time. That works out for the good most of the time. Most of the time...
User avatar #241 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
It does not necessarily constitute jail time ... They would probably get a fine and/or eviction from the country seeing as they were foreign.

Yes, I think that the way the US government deals with some things is poorly thought out. However, it is selective action (not selective enforcement) that I am advocating. You are right that there is a potential for tyranny, but I honestly do not think that there is much cause for concern with the way our government is run as a whole here in Canada.

Thanks for being reasonable though.
#253 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Jail time was my shorthand for being brought before the court system in some way. I don't know the specifics of the laws in Canada. Clearly.

Action vs. enforcement is just terminology. In the end it the mechanisms behind the law operating affirmatively in response to input. Blah, that sounds like legal speak to me and it is way too late in the day for that... I get uncomfortable when I see the potential for tyranny. Even if things are going great in Canada today (and by all signs they are) things might not be good down the road, and that tyrannical potential can be take on a malignant life of its own like the legal cancer that it is.
User avatar #186 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
Nobody was swinging their arm though, speech=/= violence.

It really does bother me whenever someone misuses that analogy.
#189 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
Sorry its emotional violence.
Protesting a funeral hurts, horribly, the family of the deceased.
I don't see why canadian government should be alowing crazy abusive foreigners in their country to abuse their citizens.
If americans want to keep tolerating the abuse of families of their dead soldiers, it doesn't mean other countries have to deal with their shit too.
User avatar #190 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
emotional violence? 0.o Since when is that a thing?

#193 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
Since the discovery of sciences like psychology, sociology and anthropology.
Since we discovered that emotional pain can cause deep physical problems.
Since we discovered how devastating something like PTSD can be.
I guess you are about 40 years behind.
User avatar #197 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
Psychology, sociology and anthro aren't sciences.....

They don't have objective standards, rarely do controlled experiments.

And it does your argument no good to strike that tone....

Are you saying it is my responsibility to make sure my neighbor never suffers ANY stress, because that may affect his health adversely? xD
#204 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
Ok first: No, that's not how it works. If your neighbour is offended by you wearing nazi shirts, that's his problem.
If you spend every evening when your neighbour is trying to have dinner and go to sleep, standing just out of his back yard yelling "Die you bastard! I wish nazis killed all of your family in gas chambers. Thank god your child was killed by a drunk driver."
Then you are targeting him for abuse and his rights to live in peace without your abuse trumps your rights to yell whatever you want.

Actually they are sciences. They follow scientific method, they test and publish findings in peer reviewable form and they have been around long enough for us to be able to measure their rate of success.
Especially today when psychology and neurology are working so close and we have ability to actually MEASURE and SEE changes in the brain and how it reacts.
Again, you are about 40 years behind. Ignorance isn't helping your arguments.
#209 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
The intentional infliction of emotional distress IS an actionable tort (civil lawsuit) in the US. However, making those statements IS NOT a criminal matter.
#212 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
And in Canada conspiracy to inflict emotinal distress is a criminal matter.
US laws are not practiced everywhere in the world.
#217 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Nor did I imply they were, or should be. My observation was that the Canadian government's position was "intolerant." My claim was that you have a stronger right to free speech in the US than in Canada.
#234 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
I don't believe its a stronger right to free speech.
I think in USA free speech is pushed on a pedestal and can be used to limit or even hurt other rights people have.
If someone wants to throw a gay pride parade and it offends someone, tough.
If someone wants to throw "protection of marriage" rally and it offends liberals, tough.
But when someone actually targets people for abuse and then hides behind free speech then right of people not to be harrased should be as valued as free speech and they should be protected.
#245 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
"I think in USA free speech is pushed on a pedestal and can be used to limit or even hurt other rights people have."

I don't understand your statement. How can the concept of free speech under the law be used to impede the rights of others? You have the right to say what you want, and I have the right to be offended by it. I also have the right to respond and disagree.

If I interpreted your disagreement as abuse (I know it isn't a perfect analogy to this situation) should you be able to continue to make it or should I have the right to have your speech limited by law?
#248 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
No, because we are having a public discussion, with free exchange of ideas.
We can disagree, actually its good that we disagree, because its from disagreements that new ideas are born.
Even if you hurt my feelings, I can't complain because I freely entered this conversation.
It is completely different from me appearing at your (god forbid) mom's funeral and yell "Your mom is burning in hell" "Thank god for your dead mom". Because I enjoy seeing people suffer, and I enjoy attention.
That is abuse, and should be stopped.
#259 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
I'll use US laws to make my arguments as it is what I am familiar with. As the US and Canada both share a common law legal system the principals behind analogies should more or less be correct even if the specifics differ. Anyways...

The US Supreme Court upheld the WBC's right to protest at someone's funeral. However, the WBC was not yelling out what clearly upsetting statements like you may have thought they were. They were peacefully assembling, making vocal statements that were not violating any noise ordinances, and stood outside the cemetery in public space. The cemetery was private property and they would have been arrested for trespassing if they had entered. In other words they were perfectly within the law and their rights.

How do you know that they would not have done something similar in Canada? This is the Canadian government exercising prior restraint of free speech. In other words, the government shut their mouths before they could say anything. What if the government thought YOU were going to say something and sent you a letter saying there were certain words you were not allowed to utter in earshot of others. Would you be OK with that?
#260 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
Actually, they still chant, and they carry signs. And family of deceased can hear them.

And I'll make this very clear. They are not Canadian citizens.
If my neighbour's kids do shit i don't like, I'm not going to go over the fence and slap them around. But I can say "Yeah, I don't want your kids on my lawn."

Canada didn't restrict their CITIZENS from protesting. They stopped a FOREGIN hate group from spreading their hate inside its boarders.
Every government has a full right to stop foreigners who they find abhorrent from entering their country.
USA does it to Islamic preachers on daily basis, I don't hear any protests on that.
#262 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Yes, they chant and carry signs. As I said, they were perfectly within the noise ordinance laws and in public space.

Obviously they are not Canadian citizens, nor did I ever imply they were. As I have mentioned in another comment Canada is a sovereign nation and was perfectly within its rights to prevent a foreign "hate" group from crossing its borders. What if there was a similar group in Canada that wanted to do what WBC was trying to do? What would happen to them? That is what I'm really trying to get at here.

You have exposed the fundamental difference between the US and Canada. In the US you have the right to express your disgusting opinions in a peaceable manner, and in Canada you don't. It really is simple as that. Besides, if their message really is so abhorrent you should have no fear if they spread it inside your borders unless you actually fear there might be people that agree with them.

Even the US doesn't exercise prior restraint on Islamic preachers. Generally Muslims are allowed into the US unless they have been members of terrorist organizations (and I'm not implying all Muslims are terrorists or anything like that) or are considered ineligible because of some other criteria. Generally speaking advocating for the destruction of the US or the extermination of a group of people will disqualify one from entering. This would be considered hate speech in the US. It is different than the WBC because, to my knowledge, they do actively try to incite physical violence. Reasonable people can disagree.
#274 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
So you are for the restriction of free speech in certain circumstances, if they are muslim and are calling for violence.
America does practice prior restraint. There are over 200 islamic preachers who are on the no entry list in usa. Not because of terrorist connections, but because of hate speech against america.
Canada does not want american hate groups, and in my opinion that does not limit canadian free speech, It just lets them stop american trash in their back yard.
WBC said they will picket a funeral. That is not peaceful disagreement, that is deliberate infliction of emotional pain on a innocent family for their own promotion.
and Canada has full right to protect their citizens from abusive Americans.
If americans don't like it. Tough.
#290 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Can you please cite where I expressed a desire to restrict speech on Muslims calling for violence? No, you cannot. I listed how the US bars entry of those who espouse hate speech. Next argument.

Please cite this list of 200 Islamic preachers. I am interested to know who they are. Again, the US's definition of hate speech is, apparently, very different than Canadian hate speech. In both instances hate speech can, and is restricted. You cannot equate a statement trying to get others to physically harm someone with a desire to emotionally harm them by calling them names. Next argument.

I find the term "american trash" to be offensive as I am an American and I infer from that you are calling me trash. You have intentionally insulted a group of people, who through no fault of their own, are born below the 49th parallel. I find this to be geographic bigotry. Moreover, I might get PTSD. You should be fined under Canadian law as you are presumably a Canadian in Canada. I am going to file a grievance tomorrow. This mentality is ridiculous. See how easy it is to get caught up in it? Next argument.

It isn't the "abusive Americans" you should worry about so much as it is your government. I don't care what Canadians do within their country, but the fact they would so public take a stand like this is troubling for you. If there is a Canadian group that espouses similarly, if not exactly, offensive ideas what happens to them? I think YOU should be worried about YOUR government as it is incontrovertibly taking a stand against free speech. Perhaps one day that will be directed at you.

Reasonable people can disagree.
#314 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
And I call them trash because they ARE trash. They are worst kind of trash.
If they lived in Mexico, they would be Mexican trash. If they lived in Germany they would be German trash.
But they live in America, and they are our American trash, and if other countries don't want them, good for other countries.
#312 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
I'm american, not canadian. I just like canadian laws better.
And people like that are trash. And I have right to express my beliefs, and should, which you keep deliberately ignoring what I'm saying.
I can call someone trash. I have that right, everyone does. And if it offends you, tough.
If I go in front of your house and target you personally, with bunch of abuse, then I'm crossing the line.
And you are sprouting bullshit. Under canadian law canadians CAN say things like that, they can call out people, they can have websites, they can pass leaflets.
THEY JUST CANT TARGET PEOPLE DIRECTLY.
Is that just so hard for you to understand? Do you have a learning disability?
BY CANADIAN LAW GROUPS CAN CALL OTHERS FAGS. THEY CAN HAVE GOD HATES FAGS AND GOD HATES CANADA WEBSITES. THEY CAN HOLD RALLIES AND SPROUT THEIR HATE IN PUBLIC SPACE.
WHAT THEY CANNOT DO IS DIRECTLY TARGET PEOPLE. IT DOES NOT LIMIT SPREAD OF IDEAS, OR EXPRESSING THOSE IDEAS, IT LIMITS ONLY AND SOLEY ATTACKING PEOPLE.
JESUS CHRIST; DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A LEARNING DISABILITY OR WHAT?
User avatar #206 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
Peer review doesn't make it a science, hell even english lit professors peer review things now. And there is NO conceivable way for those disciplines to be sciences.... simply take a look at the methods they employ in their so-called "research".

"Happiness" measurements? How does one measure "happiness" ? How does one measure "stress"? They sugarcoated a bunch of subjective terms with psuedo scientific polling..... but you can't consider that a science.

ALSO: Neurology can measure brain chemical amounts, not psychology.
#219 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
Ok, since you are completely ignorant on the issue.
Happiness is measured by the combination of measuring electrical stimulation of parts of the brain that has been measured and scaned that is being used when people feel "happy" (actually what we consider happiness is in psychology separated in over 40 different categories)
Stress on the other hand has much larger biological response, severly increased adrenalin levels, large defficency in dopamine in the blood, increase in stimulation of sensory parts of the brain, faster heartbeat, higher blood pressure and overstimulated nervous system working beyond normal levels.

We can measure the body, we have been since the seventies. Dude, again, ignorance doesn't prove your point, it just makes you look like an angry yokel.
User avatar #223 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
Those physical measurements AREN'T taken by psychologist though, they are taken by neurologists, cardiologists, or their assistants. NOT Psychologists, and trust me, most of the studies that those guys give usually have the subjects asking THEMSELVES out of 1/10 how happy they are, whenever they aren't too busy describing non reproducible behaviors or trying to describe such vague things as "happiness" or "stress".
#222 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
What makes you happy is different than what makes me happy. Which of our basis for happiness should we base laws on?
#244 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
I'll try to discuss it with you, reginleif is too ignorant to bother.
But i will adress things
There is a science called neuropsychology people who practice it are cross trained psychiatrist/neurologists. Its those people who make measurements and tests. Those tests are fully reproducable and standardized.
There is nothing vague about stress. Stress is a BIOLOGICAL response. It has been fully measured and fully understood for decades.
And no, happiness should not be basis of any laws. But freedom from abuse should be.
This entire discussion started with me stating that there is such thing as emotional abuse and reignleif claimed there isn't.
There is. It has been measured, tested and is well known. Things that WBC does to parents at funerals has before caused PTSD. which is again debiliating neurological disorder.
People have a resonable right to expect their government to protect them from abuse.
#265 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
Of course people respond biologically to words, both positively and negatively. It is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy how someone will react to a statement. What makes you happy is different than what makes me happy. What makes me happy today is different than what makes me happy tomorrow and yesterday. Similarly what I consider abuse today is different than what I consider abuse tomorrow. How can we reasonably formulate laws based on the passing whims of the human psyche? We can't.

Even if what you say is true and some parents experienced PTSD because of the WBC, others didn't get PTSD. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you should make laws based on how someone might react. PTSD is terrible and I wish it on no one, but if I tell someone to go f*** themselves in an argument, and they get PTSD, should I go to jail/get fined/whatever the case may be under Canadian law?
#268 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]

By this logic some people get concussion when punched in the head, and some don't even bruise, so we shouldn't have laws to stop people from punching others in the head?
#287 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
So hurtful words and physical assault are the same? No, they are not. The first is an interpretation of sound waves through an unknowable network of neural wiring based on the formation and experience of the subjects brain. The second is the imparting of physical energy onto the subject.

The impact of words are uncertain while the impact of a punch are much less so. My words do not cause physical harm no matter how emotionally painful they may be to the person at which I direct them. If I walk up to a random person and call them a beaver-butt most people would probably look at me funny or laugh. However to a person with a phobia of beaver butts may get PTSD. Should the term beaver-butt be disallowed? Any conceivable phrase COULD BE INTERPRETED such that the subject gets PTSD, so should we disallow spoken communication? The speaker CANNOT KNOW if, or how, or how severely another will react to spoken word. The criteria are to variable. I cannot know what is in your head. It is a poor way to base laws.

The impact of a punch is much more well understood. I know there is a good chance that I a punch a random person it could result broken blood vessels, trauma, and even death. Moreover, my body is directly influencing yours. No one will ever die as a direct result of an insult but people have died as a direct result of a punch.

In short, your statement is a poor conclusion and a straw man argument. It is a logical fallacy and an unfit conclusion.
User avatar #251 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
You're not seriously coming here and claiming that human behavior is all standardized and reproducible?

That's a mighty big claim for anyone to prove, especially some mook from FJ. But try to argue that.

And I'm curious as to why your all so uppity about neuropsych, when the topic at hand was psychology. And once again I'm pretty confident that the claim that human behaviors are neither reproducible nor standardized still stands.


>There is. It has been measured, tested and is well know<



Please refer me to an article which states how a certain combination of words amounts to x amounts of abuse....

One again you can't people react differently to stressful situations, and it isn't my job to limit myself in order to satisfy the most offended factor.
User avatar #225 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to this fool.

Also the fact that the things that psychologists study aren't REPRODUCIBLE or STANDARDIZED in any way...... they fail to account for cultural difference amongst other things.
User avatar #188 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
It's hate speech, and it actually breaks our laws. If the protest had happened they would have been arrested. They were essentially banned from Canada for conspiracy to disrupt the peace via hate-speech.

It's a metaphor since you didn't seem to understand that.
User avatar #191 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
No i got the metaphor, it's just wrongly used.

That is meant to apply to physical violence, hence fist and noses.

Canada's mantra is closer to:

"Your right to speak ends where my feelings begin."
User avatar #199 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
"Your right to speak ends where my feelings begin."

"Your freedom to swing your arm in the air ends when it touches the end of my nose,"


Be honest, which one do you think more closely reflects what the WBC is doing? ^.-
User avatar #196 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
You aren't that bright, are you?

The metaphor is fine, the analogy is that the members of the WBC are harming the citizens of Canada through their intended actions. There is no allusion to physical violence. He is saying that they are abusing the freedom of speech and right to protest that they would have in Canada.
User avatar #218 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
>"Your freedom to swing your arm in the air ends when it touches the end of my nose," <

Fist. Nose.

There is your allusion, or are you just playing stupid?
User avatar #220 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
You do not understand how allusions work do you? The metaphor does not have to be literal.
User avatar #224 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
And I think my metaphor was more accurate But besides that, I still think you're wrong for comparing physical blows to being offended. >.>
User avatar #229 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
The metaphor is from the perspective of the Canadian Government.
Raising the hand is a metaphor for speech or protest.
Hitting the nose is a metaphor for over-extension of the right to protest or of freedom of speech.

There is no physical analogy implied. Look at that in the context of the quote. You are clearly wrong, just stop.
User avatar #232 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
My metaphor was from the perspective of anyone with half a brain.

Speaking is a metaphor for speaking.

Feelings is a metaphor for feelings.

AND BULLSHIT there's no physical analogy involved..... if it was simply a metaphor on the overextension of speech, then why not just out and say it?

The analogy is simply to compare it to something people agree with restricting more.....hitting people in the face! (Hell even I want to ban that). But it's a bad analogy, no more no less.
#237 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
You are literally too stupid to insult. You are wrong. End of story. If you disagree, then go be smug with self righteousness elsewhere. Regardless, stop replying.
#239 - reginleif (06/16/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Fuck you pal I do what I want.... ^^
#243 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
obvious troll is obvious

to the other guy: stop replying to this asshat
#195 - angelusprimus (06/16/2013) [-]
No canadian mantra is
"You have a right to say whatever you want. When you start doing it in a way that you are deliberately abusing others, then their right not to be abused trumps yours to be a dick"
#205 - comstockload (06/16/2013) [-]
"I am offended by the term 'dick' as I am a male and you have demeaned my sex by using the male genitalia as a pejorative. You should be fined and/or imprisoned for offending me."

There is no free speech when laws are based on a person's feelings. Advocating violence and/or being violent are objectively (and measurably) wrong.
User avatar #216 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
There is a certain point where offensive speech developed into hate speech. Once this happens, freedom of speech is gone with respect to the situation and it becomes a criminal act. At least that is how it works in Canada, which is the subject of this situation.
User avatar #184 - seveer (06/16/2013) [-]
They were trying to come protest a funeral in Winnipeg, article about it is here: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2008/08/08/westboro-protest.html
#74 - John likely isn't dead. POV characters never die when you are … 06/16/2013 on Leaving best friend's house... +2
#192 - Comment deleted 06/16/2013 on I've seen him/her somewhere... +1
#190 - Comment deleted  [+] (2 new replies) 06/16/2013 on I've seen him/her somewhere... +1
#191 - pikininja Comment deleted by seveer
#192 - seveer Comment deleted by seveer
#106 - He is not better than a Bug pokemon though ... In fact Jo… 06/10/2013 on Pokemon Facts -2

Comments(803):

seveer has disabled anonymous comments.
[ 803 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
#1093 - Orc has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1094 to #1093 - seveer (03/10/2014) [-]
Alright ... nice roll.

But why here?
#1095 to #1094 - Orc has deleted their comment [-]
#1096 to #1095 - seveer (03/10/2014) [-]
Those were a long time ago ... how did you come across them?
Those were a long time ago ... how did you come across them?
#1097 to #1096 - Orc has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1092 - seveer (12/13/2013) [-]
akabara64
User avatar #1090 - jingleforth (08/26/2013) [-]
Do you like the bioshock games?
User avatar #1091 to #1090 - seveer (08/26/2013) [-]
Honestly never played any of them. Only thing I have for games is my PC, and I've never gotten that into many games (if they even have it for PC).

I hear that they are really good though.
User avatar #1085 - jingleforth (08/26/2013) [-]
Avatar, nice.
User avatar #1086 to #1085 - seveer (08/26/2013) [-]
You get the reference? Or is it just the spades?
#1087 to #1086 - jingleforth (08/26/2013) [-]
Both.

Pic related, contains spades but also has references
User avatar #1088 to #1087 - seveer (08/26/2013) [-]
Cool, so you've read some homestuck then? Caught up, or just read some of it?
#1089 to #1088 - jingleforth (08/26/2013) [-]
...I don't even like Homestuck.

I just got the reference.
#1083 to #1082 - seveer (08/04/2013) [-]
How's it going?
User avatar #1084 to #1083 - jingleforth (08/21/2013) [-]
Pretty good, just planning some **** .

I'm going to become a billionaire, get a talking, sentient raccoon, a small personalized vehicle that will let me travel through space and on planets promptly named Green Minotaur or Blue Griffin, planning on becoming a head figure for Mars, planning on investing in SpaceX.
User avatar #1077 - jingleforth (05/05/2013) [-]
I love you
#1078 to #1077 - seveer (05/05/2013) [-]
wat?
wat?
#1079 to #1078 - jingleforth (05/05/2013) [-]
How are you today
How are you today
#1080 to #1079 - seveer (05/05/2013) [-]
Busy, and wasting as much time as I possibly can before I dig myself too deep a hole ...   
   
o no, lion is kill
Busy, and wasting as much time as I possibly can before I dig myself too deep a hole ...

o no, lion is kill
#1081 to #1080 - seveer (05/05/2013) [-]
hmm
hmm
User avatar #1071 to #1070 - seveer (04/17/2013) [-]
Don't see a lot of homestuck stuff on here. Saw my avatar I guess?
User avatar #1072 to #1071 - gelflingchey (04/17/2013) [-]
yeah, you guessed it lol.
User avatar #1073 to #1072 - seveer (04/17/2013) [-]
You a Tavros fan or something? I haven't been reading for very long and don't know much about the fandom.
User avatar #1074 to #1073 - gelflingchey (04/17/2013) [-]
yup... and john too. I just started reading a few weeks ago but im getting pretty into it.
User avatar #1075 to #1074 - seveer (04/17/2013) [-]
Ditto for the start time. Some of my friends have been with it for years, and finally got me to read it. Where are you if not completely caught up?
User avatar #1076 to #1075 - gelflingchey (04/17/2013) [-]
right, same. I think i'm around act 7.. so i'm not too far in the reading.
User avatar #1060 - jingleforth (04/07/2013) [-]
Hurr my naem is seveer lelululululul
User avatar #1062 to #1061 - jingleforth (04/07/2013) [-]
I was trying to find a quote from this weird guy, but couldn't find it. So I just gave up and decided to post that.
User avatar #1063 to #1062 - seveer (04/07/2013) [-]
Ok then ... any reason to post in particular? Or just doing it for the sake of it?
User avatar #1064 to #1063 - jingleforth (04/07/2013) [-]
No reason.

lel
#1065 to #1064 - seveer (04/07/2013) [-]
Haha, ok then.
Haha, ok then.
#1059 to #1058 - seveer (03/29/2013) [-]
Yes?
Yes?
User avatar #1027 - codes (03/12/2013) [-]
**codes rolls 1**
User avatar #1025 - donkeyfetus (03/12/2013) [-]
: ((((((((((((((((((((((((((?
User avatar #1026 to #1025 - seveer (03/12/2013) [-]
yup all gone to kagamijay, he is selling for tf2 items
#1022 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1023 to #1022 - seveer (03/11/2013) [-]
Says the guy with almost no significant old rares.
#1024 to #1023 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#1021 - narwhalsnballs **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1017 - turkboy (03/11/2013) [-]
i have a scribe riding a toad for sale?
User avatar #1018 to #1017 - seveer (03/11/2013) [-]
Not interested in that in particular ... but what are you looking to get from me?
User avatar #1019 to #1018 - turkboy (03/11/2013) [-]
not sure
maybe a plant?
User avatar #1020 to #1019 - seveer (03/11/2013) [-]
No thanks.
User avatar #1003 - kuningas (03/10/2013) [-]
sorry
i'm not selling badges
User avatar #1002 to #1001 - seveer (03/10/2013) [-]
Thank you very much!
User avatar #999 - TheElementels (03/10/2013) [-]
Book to Iron Ignots ratio?
User avatar #1000 to #999 - seveer (03/10/2013) [-]
Idk, try sending whatever you think is fair. I just need to keep at least 1.
User avatar #996 - turkboy (03/10/2013) [-]
i gib u 4000 coal 4 deegeetee okayokay?
User avatar #997 to #996 - seveer (03/10/2013) [-]
nah
User avatar #998 to #997 - turkboy (03/10/2013) [-]
i gib u 2500 coal 4 god gem okayokay?
User avatar #995 - spartanian ONLINE (03/09/2013) [-]
hoi send trade then
User avatar #993 - spartanian ONLINE (03/09/2013) [-]
lel

7 in quantity
User avatar #994 to #993 - seveer (03/09/2013) [-]
I don't even like dragons, and its only 5k value. Wouldn't even be significant on profile.
[ 803 comments ]
 Friends (0)