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

hide menu

sovereignsunkown    

Rank #32006 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

#546 - i used "fallacies because that is what most of these argu…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/16/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
User avatar #548 - drakevil (06/16/2013) [-]
Take seriously? ON THE INTERNET? Haha, that's was funny!
#541 - i'm sorry, but i don't see how i'm on an "ivory tower&quo…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
User avatar #544 - drakevil (06/16/2013) [-]
You just use the word "fallacies" to look smarter.
I'm sorry, but i can't take you serious.
User avatar #546 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
i used "fallacies because that is what most of these arguments are composed of.
strawman fallacies, argumentum ad hominem, no true scottsman, appeal to authority, i could continue.
yes, i use accurate words that accurately describe my topic just to look smarter instead of trying to be clear. next time, i'll just use vague, non-specific terms so everyone understands me better, and people will take me seriously
User avatar #548 - drakevil (06/16/2013) [-]
Take seriously? ON THE INTERNET? Haha, that's was funny!
#536 - believing in morals does not necessarily mean that there must …  [+] (11 new replies) 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#560 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/16/2013) [-]
The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued.
User avatar #568 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
do i really have to explain why this argument is retarded?
there is no "moral law". there are only behaviours that help a social species succeed, and ones that do not. the concept of "morals" is just a human way of explaining that pattern of behaviour.
#576 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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?
#532 - i enjoy the "no true scotsman fallacy". if some… 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#531 - there's an excellent explanation for this in the selfish gene.…  [+] (7 new replies) 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
#550 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/16/2013) [-]
So you're saying that altruistic behavior is a general guideline for social animals for the benefits of communities? It's a nice theory if it corresponded with history. What if a bunch of civilizations got together and said that they would benefit as a community if the oppressed, killed, or enslaved another? You assume that intrinsically human nature is that which is altruistic, but history shows that human nature is that of dominance. I'm sure I don't need to name any for you to already know much of the discrimination throughout history.
User avatar #552 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
because humans are tribalists. we do not act on what is beneficial for our species on a whole, but what is beneficial for our "tribe". you can observe the same behaviour in chimpanzees, other apes, and other non-human social animals.
#569 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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.
#530 - #9: christians do good things, but they also do bad. good woul…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
User avatar #534 - drakevil (06/15/2013) [-]
It must be really great up this Ivory Tower where you live, hã? Just make everybody a favor and stay in there.
User avatar #541 - sovereignsunkown (06/15/2013) [-]
i'm sorry, but i don't see how i'm on an "ivory tower" for correcting a series of fallacies.
i find it bizarre that people cannot seem to understand that morals predate religion, that altruistic behavior predates religion, and that facts do not care if you find comfort in them.
if you WANT to take a strawman argument seriously, than by all means do so, but don't act appalled when someone refutes it properly
User avatar #544 - drakevil (06/16/2013) [-]
You just use the word "fallacies" to look smarter.
I'm sorry, but i can't take you serious.
User avatar #546 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
i used "fallacies because that is what most of these arguments are composed of.
strawman fallacies, argumentum ad hominem, no true scottsman, appeal to authority, i could continue.
yes, i use accurate words that accurately describe my topic just to look smarter instead of trying to be clear. next time, i'll just use vague, non-specific terms so everyone understands me better, and people will take me seriously
User avatar #548 - drakevil (06/16/2013) [-]
Take seriously? ON THE INTERNET? Haha, that's was funny!
#520 - most of these assumptions are based off of ignorance of scient…  [+] (15 new replies) 06/15/2013 on atheist hypocrites 0
User avatar #530 - sovereignsunkown (06/15/2013) [-]
#9: christians do good things, but they also do bad. good would be done with or without a god to do it in the name of, if people are inherently moral beings, as christians (and biologists) claim. it is more beneficial to do good than evil.

#10: religious people have an annoying tendency to treat any statement of opposing belief as "ramming your beliefs down our throat". the people who use this argument are generally the same sort of people who think there is a war on christianity in america because children are not forced to pray in public school.

#11: most of those people lived in a time in which it was unacceptable to believe that god did not exist, and most opposing theories to creation were not even thought of until the late 1890s, in which the strict structure of belief began to weaken and allow for discourse into the subject. in their time, there was simply no alternatives for people of that culture to openly voice.

#12: argumentum ad hominem. quite a few assumptions there, i must say. it's all in all a very silly and small-minded argument to use. this brings me to the point of "no true scottsman" if someone holding christian beliefs commits an immoral act, they not a "real christian". a weak, silly and fallacious argument

User avatar #534 - drakevil (06/15/2013) [-]
It must be really great up this Ivory Tower where you live, hã? Just make everybody a favor and stay in there.
User avatar #541 - sovereignsunkown (06/15/2013) [-]
i'm sorry, but i don't see how i'm on an "ivory tower" for correcting a series of fallacies.
i find it bizarre that people cannot seem to understand that morals predate religion, that altruistic behavior predates religion, and that facts do not care if you find comfort in them.
if you WANT to take a strawman argument seriously, than by all means do so, but don't act appalled when someone refutes it properly
User avatar #544 - drakevil (06/16/2013) [-]
You just use the word "fallacies" to look smarter.
I'm sorry, but i can't take you serious.
User avatar #546 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
i used "fallacies because that is what most of these arguments are composed of.
strawman fallacies, argumentum ad hominem, no true scottsman, appeal to authority, i could continue.
yes, i use accurate words that accurately describe my topic just to look smarter instead of trying to be clear. next time, i'll just use vague, non-specific terms so everyone understands me better, and people will take me seriously
User avatar #548 - drakevil (06/16/2013) [-]
Take seriously? ON THE INTERNET? Haha, that's was funny!
#529 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/15/2013) [-]
#7: no absolute morality but absolute guidelines if actions endangers a species? and ants kill each other
User avatar #531 - sovereignsunkown (06/15/2013) [-]
there's an excellent explanation for this in the selfish gene. altruistic behaviour is generally seen as the best route for social animals. obviously, it's not always followed, because humans are emotional and don't always act reasonably, and animals often have conflicting interests.
to use your ant example, most ants act for what benefits their community as opposed to what benefits themselves as individuals.
no guidelines are absolute, of course, but they are generally followed and encouraged because it is usually what is best for the species as a whole. this changes as what is most beneficial to the organism/species changes
#550 - xxxsonic fanxxx (06/16/2013) [-]
So you're saying that altruistic behavior is a general guideline for social animals for the benefits of communities? It's a nice theory if it corresponded with history. What if a bunch of civilizations got together and said that they would benefit as a community if the oppressed, killed, or enslaved another? You assume that intrinsically human nature is that which is altruistic, but history shows that human nature is that of dominance. I'm sure I don't need to name any for you to already know much of the discrimination throughout history.
User avatar #552 - sovereignsunkown (06/16/2013) [-]
because humans are tribalists. we do not act on what is beneficial for our species on a whole, but what is beneficial for our "tribe". you can observe the same behaviour in chimpanzees, other apes, and other non-human social animals.
#569 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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.
#5 - well, hypothetically, with a strong enough electromagnetic fie… 06/08/2013 on iGlass 0
#10 - this looks like an ultra-realistic version of the giant warrio… 06/08/2013 on Field cannot be empty +4
#47 - yeah, i notice this too. a lot of vegetarian food is really he… 06/01/2013 on Eat Like A Boss 0
#83 - not if you make the proper reflex save, beat it's grapple and … 05/20/2013 on Jamie's thoughts when... +1
#126 - congrats. most people miss either Lao or Alatreon for some reason  [+] (1 new reply) 05/12/2013 on Pika +1
User avatar #127 - MoooP (05/12/2013) [-]
Maybe they only played MHFU + because Lao Shan is just sorta grey and in the background.
#111 - i like when games have legitimate explanations for bosses beco… 05/10/2013 on Fuck Logic 0
#55 - if you have never heard of monster hunter i suggest looking it…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/10/2013 on Pika 0
User avatar #58 - pixy (05/10/2013) [-]
ok thanks!
#52 - Did someone say POCKET MONSTER HUNTER? (i will thumb the …  [+] (12 new replies) 05/10/2013 on Pika +5
#108 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/10/2013) [-]
Let's see, um...

Rajang, Kirin, Tigrex, Alatreon, White Fatalis, Deviljho, and... is the one in the back a coiled-up Raviente?
#112 - jackflak (05/11/2013) [-]
Nah it's Lao Shan Lung. Raviente would fill up the whole pic.
#104 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/10/2013) [-]
rajang, kirin, white fatalis, tigrex, deviljo I believe, Lao-shan, and not sure about the last one.
#102 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/10/2013) [-]
it took a 'bit' of reminding myself, and i am aware that i am an anon.
i've got four of the seven there, so far theres:
Tigrex
Kirin
Deviljho
Alatreon
and that's the full extent of my knowledge
#79 - porksammich (05/10/2013) [-]
And I am off to go kill Rathalos now
User avatar #73 - MoooP (05/10/2013) [-]
Ashen Lao Shan Lung, White Fatalis, Deviljho, Alatreon, Golden Rajang or a normal Rajang in rage mode, Kirin, Tigrex, and a Pikachu in Acorn Mail.

I hope you didn't want the Japanese names.
User avatar #126 - sovereignsunkown (05/12/2013) [-]
congrats.
most people miss either Lao or Alatreon for some reason
User avatar #127 - MoooP (05/12/2013) [-]
Maybe they only played MHFU + because Lao Shan is just sorta grey and in the background.
#56 - bluemagebrilly (05/10/2013) [-]
I don't know their names, but I've killed all of them.
User avatar #53 - pixy (05/10/2013) [-]
0.0 no idea but this looks epic
User avatar #55 - sovereignsunkown (05/10/2013) [-]
if you have never heard of monster hunter i suggest looking it up immediately.
it's one of the best games ever created, and at LEAST the equal of pokemon in terms of quality
User avatar #58 - pixy (05/10/2013) [-]
ok thanks!
#163 - technically, Gandalf and the Balrog are the same "species… 05/04/2013 on LotR: Just logical people 0
#162 - not overall power, just offensive power. Maiar weren't necessa…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/04/2013 on LotR: Just logical people 0
#177 - baddinn (05/05/2013) [-]
But his powers are limited when he is not in the form of a Maia.
(Also Morgoth and Ungolianth)
#14 - idunno. gandalf's main source of offensive power is the Elven …  [+] (4 new replies) 05/04/2013 on LotR: Just logical people 0
User avatar #16 - baddinn (05/04/2013) [-]
Wouldn't Gandalfs main source of power be the fact that he is a Maia spirit created by Ilúvatar?
User avatar #162 - sovereignsunkown (05/04/2013) [-]
not overall power, just offensive power. Maiar weren't necessarily geared towards combat all the time, and if you hadn't noticed, most of gandalf's Maiar powers shown were crowd control-based, not necessarily for damage
#177 - baddinn (05/05/2013) [-]
But his powers are limited when he is not in the form of a Maia.
(Also Morgoth and Ungolianth)
User avatar #43 - taxation (05/04/2013) [-]
Oh NOW you're just getting nit-picky!
#10 - i'm pretty sure they just thought moria was infested with Orcs…  [+] (10 new replies) 05/04/2013 on LotR: Just logical people 0
User avatar #18 - imsodrunk (05/04/2013) [-]
no gandalf knew
#13 - pwnyking (05/04/2013) [-]
He's right you know...
User avatar #12 - baddinn (05/04/2013) [-]
Yeah i'm just saying why not just kill the oversized octopus?
#117 - angelious (05/04/2013) [-]
well as that one guy the ljxjlos said. the guardian of the lake might have been a little too strong for them.

User avatar #74 - pidgeon (05/04/2013) [-]
They were going through the mines of moria anyway.
User avatar #14 - sovereignsunkown (05/04/2013) [-]
idunno. gandalf's main source of offensive power is the Elven ring of fire, so i'd assume using it would alert Sauron to where they were, and they DID fight it sort of
User avatar #16 - baddinn (05/04/2013) [-]
Wouldn't Gandalfs main source of power be the fact that he is a Maia spirit created by Ilúvatar?
User avatar #162 - sovereignsunkown (05/04/2013) [-]
not overall power, just offensive power. Maiar weren't necessarily geared towards combat all the time, and if you hadn't noticed, most of gandalf's Maiar powers shown were crowd control-based, not necessarily for damage
#177 - baddinn (05/05/2013) [-]
But his powers are limited when he is not in the form of a Maia.
(Also Morgoth and Ungolianth)
User avatar #43 - taxation (05/04/2013) [-]
Oh NOW you're just getting nit-picky!
#14 - no, AVP: three world war it's a comic series by dark horse… 04/28/2013 on It can't be worse than what... 0
#6 - this reminds me so much of that scene in a hitchhiker's guide … 04/28/2013 on GMH +33
#12 - yeah, exactly. but as soon as one got through, then the kn…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/28/2013 on It can't be worse than what... 0
#13 - mattkingg (04/28/2013) [-]
The fucking darleks are like baby squid so that isn't gonna get them anything
And AvP 3? do you mean the movie or the game, could i have a possible link?
#14 - sovereignsunkown (04/28/2013) [-]
no, AVP: three world war
it's a comic series by dark horse in which a subspecies of predator declares war on the "original" predators by setting an army of xenomorphs on them.
well, what if they inherited extra squidy limbs? or bigger brains and better logic skills?
#9 - it would depend, really. daleks have force fields protecting e…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/27/2013 on It can't be worse than what... 0
#11 - mattkingg (04/28/2013) [-]
It depends on whether or not the xeno's could break through the darleks forcefields
User avatar #12 - sovereignsunkown (04/28/2013) [-]
yeah, exactly.
but as soon as one got through, then the knowledge of how to break it would spread to the whole hive immediately.
plus, as soon as a facehugger gets into a dalek suit, game fucking over, the offspring would take on dalek traits and become an extremely deadly weapon against them. just look at what happened in AVP: 3 world war when the predators had to go up against an army of predalien hybrids. not pretty.
#13 - mattkingg (04/28/2013) [-]
The fucking darleks are like baby squid so that isn't gonna get them anything
And AvP 3? do you mean the movie or the game, could i have a possible link?
#14 - sovereignsunkown (04/28/2013) [-]
no, AVP: three world war
it's a comic series by dark horse in which a subspecies of predator declares war on the "original" predators by setting an army of xenomorphs on them.
well, what if they inherited extra squidy limbs? or bigger brains and better logic skills?
#238 - true enough. personally, i think all choices are horrible. you… 04/24/2013 on Which one will you pick? 0
#231 - the average katana needs to be resharpened every 10 swings tho…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/24/2013 on Which one will you pick? 0
User avatar #233 - roninneko (04/24/2013) [-]
I would honestly prefer a machete, but since we're weighing entire options overall the benefits of B outweighed the drawbacks
User avatar #238 - sovereignsunkown (04/24/2013) [-]
true enough. personally, i think all choices are horrible. you'd be better off with a generic handgun that takes common kinds of ammo, a machete, no sort of thrown explosive (they run out, and they're unreliable, plus if not cared for could randomly explode), and a sawed-off shotgun for when there's multiple zombies and you don't care if you're spotted.
that's just me though, other people might have different priorities...overall though, the best thing to have is a large, stable boat you can row far enough offshore to not have to worry about zombies. weapons are not as necessary when you have a boat and a small island with enough resources to last 1-3 people several years

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)