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

hide menu

sovereignsunkown

Rank #32308 on Subscribers
sovereignsunkown Avatar Level 175 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Offline
Send mail to sovereignsunkown Block sovereignsunkown Invite sovereignsunkown to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:6/27/2012
Last Login:2/09/2014
Location:Canada
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 105 total,  122 ,  17
Comment Thumbs: 751 total,  950 ,  199
Content Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 10 Content: New Here → Level 11 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 175 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 176 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:2
Content Views:14546
Total Comments Made:358
FJ Points:906

latest user's comments

#178 - listen to Lykathea Aflame. all of their songs are about how aw… 08/22/2013 on metal fonts -1
#62 - not to be an asshole or anything, but dinosaurs are technicall… 08/17/2013 on Blue whale 0
#306 - upside down crosses aren't anti-religious. it's the mark of St… 07/10/2013 on Freedom of religion 0
#41 - this is why i prefer the Radiance games and Sacred stones to awakening 06/30/2013 on Fire emblem 0
#13 - monuments aren't all that good really, or that complex. i'd ra…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/16/2013 on 8 strings you cunt 0
#14 - lhsleepz (06/16/2013) [-]
but they play more interesting groves than one incessant note
#10 - 8 strings are just unnecessary. when you tune that low, your t…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/16/2013 on 8 strings you cunt 0
#12 - lhsleepz (06/16/2013) [-]
Monuments

Otherwise i'd agree with you
User avatar #13 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
monuments aren't all that good really, or that complex. i'd rather listen to stuff like Blotted Science, Gordian Knot, Exivious and Obscura thanks
#14 - lhsleepz (06/16/2013) [-]
but they play more interesting groves than one incessant note
#9 - i don't understand this bizarre need to tune that low. anythin… 06/16/2013 on 8 strings you cunt 0
#98 - replace "intelligent and educated" with "too ri… 06/16/2013 on How democracy really works.. +1
#96 - i play with a bunch of angry metalheads (and am one myself). i… 06/16/2013 on Title 0
#93 - succubi have never been a problem for my character. then a… 06/16/2013 on Title 0
#92 - that's terrifying, and also not even close to the best solutio… 06/16/2013 on Title 0
#63 - Grievous used lightsabers he stole from the various jedi he mu… 06/16/2013 on Anakin +7
#617 - but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#621 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that logic is a fact, which it is most certainly not. logic is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can. how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#595 - that's semantics though. logic does not require there to b…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#608 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
But through reasoning requires strict validity of arguments. Look up the definition of logic. Belief in one thing does not grant the ideology strict validity. And look up the definition of paradox. It is inconsistency within logic, you're toying with words here. Anyhow, if we play by the rules of relativism, I am correct in thinking that the Judeo-Christian God does exist because that is my worldview. And by continually trying to prove that relativism is completely absolute, you are further passing the boundaries of relativism by making it an absolute truth.
User avatar #617 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that morality is a fact,
which it is most certainly not. morality is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can.
how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#621 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that logic is a fact, which it is most certainly not. logic is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can. how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#587 - well, relativity sort of applies, you know, to everything. …  [+] (5 new replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#591 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
So to conclude, you argue with the principles of relativism so i assume you believe in those principles. Relativism is not logical because it states that there is no absolute truth, and if there is no absolute truth then relativism can also not be absolutely true thus creating a paradox
User avatar #595 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
that's semantics though.
logic does not require there to be an absolute, logic simply requires something to be the most reasonable.
therefore, it is most reasonable to believe that there are different perspectives that are "right" to different individuals, which can be supported by observation consistently.
by that reasoning, the fact that different political ideologies exist simultaneously with their followers all believing them to be the most correct is also a paradox.
#608 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
But through reasoning requires strict validity of arguments. Look up the definition of logic. Belief in one thing does not grant the ideology strict validity. And look up the definition of paradox. It is inconsistency within logic, you're toying with words here. Anyhow, if we play by the rules of relativism, I am correct in thinking that the Judeo-Christian God does exist because that is my worldview. And by continually trying to prove that relativism is completely absolute, you are further passing the boundaries of relativism by making it an absolute truth.
User avatar #617 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that morality is a fact,
which it is most certainly not. morality is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can.
how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#621 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that logic is a fact, which it is most certainly not. logic is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can. how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#585 - I WILL SUCK YOUR DICK 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#584 - yes, it does. altruisitic behaviour between members of a …  [+] (1 new reply) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#611 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
And if you believe that wiping out your entire species except you will benefit yourself, what then? Where is your boundaries for an altruistic nature? Either you can be altruistic to all or you can get so specific that by titling humanity altruistic you are selfish.
#580 - right, rephrase: "morals" are a human concept to exp…  [+] (7 new replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#586 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
If that is your ideology then you should have constructed your first response differently. Secondly, from your above statement "because he believed what he did benefitted his people, he was morally right by his own standards". You're describing the laws of relativism which I said you're being butt hurt about. And yes, I am the same person.
User avatar #587 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
well, relativity sort of applies, you know, to everything.
plus, you can't exactly deny that everyone generally believes their own actions to be morally right, especially when they use the Machiavellian "for the greater good" argument as a justification.
Hitler believed himself to be moral, Stalin belived himself to be Moral, Churchill believed himself to be moral...how do we decide who was right? history is written by the victors
#591 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
So to conclude, you argue with the principles of relativism so i assume you believe in those principles. Relativism is not logical because it states that there is no absolute truth, and if there is no absolute truth then relativism can also not be absolutely true thus creating a paradox
User avatar #595 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
that's semantics though.
logic does not require there to be an absolute, logic simply requires something to be the most reasonable.
therefore, it is most reasonable to believe that there are different perspectives that are "right" to different individuals, which can be supported by observation consistently.
by that reasoning, the fact that different political ideologies exist simultaneously with their followers all believing them to be the most correct is also a paradox.
#608 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
But through reasoning requires strict validity of arguments. Look up the definition of logic. Belief in one thing does not grant the ideology strict validity. And look up the definition of paradox. It is inconsistency within logic, you're toying with words here. Anyhow, if we play by the rules of relativism, I am correct in thinking that the Judeo-Christian God does exist because that is my worldview. And by continually trying to prove that relativism is completely absolute, you are further passing the boundaries of relativism by making it an absolute truth.
User avatar #617 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that morality is a fact,
which it is most certainly not. morality is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can.
how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#621 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that logic is a fact, which it is most certainly not. logic is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can. how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#575 - it's all of them at once. you're simply having trouble underst…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#579 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
You state that animals are altruistic in nature as to not destroy their species, communities to benefit communities, and tribes to benefit their own tribes. Your first argument doesn't correspond with your other two.
User avatar #584 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
yes, it does.
altruisitic behaviour between members of a species benefits the survival of said species, and to ensure the success of your genes, which "your" genes believe are the most beneficial to your species (anthropomorphic explanation, of course), by ensuring that your specific group survives, you are doing what your genes treat as "best" for your species.
#611 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
And if you believe that wiping out your entire species except you will benefit yourself, what then? Where is your boundaries for an altruistic nature? Either you can be altruistic to all or you can get so specific that by titling humanity altruistic you are selfish.
#568 - do i really have to explain why this argument is retarded? …  [+] (9 new replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#576 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
You're previous argument was that there not be a moral law giver if there is a moral law, not that there is a moral law. Please follow the frameworks of the debate. But now that's all done now, if you don't believe in an absolute moral law, then I'm assuming you're a post modernist and you don't believe that humans have a purpose?
User avatar #580 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
right, rephrase: "morals" are a human concept to explain "beneficial" behaviors. these do not need a moral law giver to exist because they fundamentally MUST exist for any sort of functional social group to exist.
i believe human beings have a purpose in the same sense that other animals have a purpose: eat, reproduce, survive.
on a more philosophical note, i personally believe the purpose of sentience is for the universe to "know itself". if one is sentient, one's prime directive (on top of eat, reproduce, survive) should be "further the available knowledge of the universe to yourself and other beings of sentience".
#586 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
If that is your ideology then you should have constructed your first response differently. Secondly, from your above statement "because he believed what he did benefitted his people, he was morally right by his own standards". You're describing the laws of relativism which I said you're being butt hurt about. And yes, I am the same person.
User avatar #587 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
well, relativity sort of applies, you know, to everything.
plus, you can't exactly deny that everyone generally believes their own actions to be morally right, especially when they use the Machiavellian "for the greater good" argument as a justification.
Hitler believed himself to be moral, Stalin belived himself to be Moral, Churchill believed himself to be moral...how do we decide who was right? history is written by the victors
#591 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
So to conclude, you argue with the principles of relativism so i assume you believe in those principles. Relativism is not logical because it states that there is no absolute truth, and if there is no absolute truth then relativism can also not be absolutely true thus creating a paradox
User avatar #595 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
that's semantics though.
logic does not require there to be an absolute, logic simply requires something to be the most reasonable.
therefore, it is most reasonable to believe that there are different perspectives that are "right" to different individuals, which can be supported by observation consistently.
by that reasoning, the fact that different political ideologies exist simultaneously with their followers all believing them to be the most correct is also a paradox.
#608 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
But through reasoning requires strict validity of arguments. Look up the definition of logic. Belief in one thing does not grant the ideology strict validity. And look up the definition of paradox. It is inconsistency within logic, you're toying with words here. Anyhow, if we play by the rules of relativism, I am correct in thinking that the Judeo-Christian God does exist because that is my worldview. And by continually trying to prove that relativism is completely absolute, you are further passing the boundaries of relativism by making it an absolute truth.
User avatar #617 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that morality is a fact,
which it is most certainly not. morality is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can.
how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#621 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
but throughout all of this, you are making the assumption that logic is a fact, which it is most certainly not. logic is a perspective and can't be quantified, therefore cannot be scrutinized under the same standards such as something that can. how can you treat a concept that only exists within the human brain the same as something that is obviously external to it?
#563 - STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE  [+] (2 new replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
User avatar #582 - captainpatters (06/16/2013) [-]
FIGHT ME IRL FAGOT
#585 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
I WILL SUCK YOUR DICK
#559 - atheism isn't stating that there is no god conclusively, athei… 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#556 - i'd like to point out that atheism is a religion in the same w… 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#552 - because humans are tribalists. we do not act on what is benefi…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#569 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
By your logic then, the holocaust was justified because Hitler believed what he was doing was good for his people. You're jumping on your points here, from animals, to communities, then to tribes being altruistic. Which is it?
User avatar #575 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
it's all of them at once. you're simply having trouble understanding that each jump i've made has been explaining more and more specific behaviours.
social animals act in ways that benefit the group over the individual.
in a community, what is deemed "right" is usually what benefits the community.
human beings originally existed in tribes of around 200 individuals. what was "right" was what helped that tribe survive.
why do people always bring up hitler? because he believed what he did benefitted his people, he was morally right by his own standards. the rest of the world believed that killing large numbers of people is NOT beneficial to people as a whole, namely the people being killed/conquered, so it is deemed "immoral" by everyone else.
had the nazi's won world war 2, we would possibly be agreeing with hitler right now
#579 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
You state that animals are altruistic in nature as to not destroy their species, communities to benefit communities, and tribes to benefit their own tribes. Your first argument doesn't correspond with your other two.
User avatar #584 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
yes, it does.
altruisitic behaviour between members of a species benefits the survival of said species, and to ensure the success of your genes, which "your" genes believe are the most beneficial to your species (anthropomorphic explanation, of course), by ensuring that your specific group survives, you are doing what your genes treat as "best" for your species.
#611 - anonymous (06/16/2013) [-]
And if you believe that wiping out your entire species except you will benefit yourself, what then? Where is your boundaries for an altruistic nature? Either you can be altruistic to all or you can get so specific that by titling humanity altruistic you are selfish.
#549 - this is because of the law of unfalisfiablity. if somethin… 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)