Upload
Login or register

sovereignsunkown

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 23
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

#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 - anon (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 - anon (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 - anon (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 - anon (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 - anon (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 - anon (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 - anon (05/10/2013) [-]
rajang, kirin, white fatalis, tigrex, deviljo I believe, Lao-shan, and not sure about the last one.
#102 - anon (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!