Upload
Login or register

wertologist

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:7/10/2011
Last Login:7/30/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#2091
Highest Content Rank:#956
Highest Comment Rank:#397
Content Thumbs: 4891 total,  5832 ,  941
Comment Thumbs: 20766 total,  23077 ,  2311
Content Level Progress: 60% (60/100)
Level 142 Content: Faptastic → Level 143 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 47.2% (472/1000)
Level 316 Comments: Wizard → Level 317 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:100
Content Views:358607
Times Content Favorited:577 times
Total Comments Made:5794
FJ Points:20622
Favorite Tags: sims (3) | Minecraft (2) | OC (2)
Wertologist or Wert107

latest user's comments

#52 - They lost all aspects of humanity. They resemble nothing of th…  [+] (5 new replies) 07/14/2016 on Fuck yea Canada 0
User avatar
#53 - dndxplain (07/14/2016) [-]
it's basically the same argument for euthanizing alzheimer patients. Do they have to be "people" to be human, or does the fact thath they are a member of our species trump that.
User avatar
#54 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
Killing Alzheimer patients is not in any way comparable. They are still living and people. Zombies are lacking any qualities a person has and will attack anything living without caring of the dangers or morality. Alzheimer patients severity varies, but some can still resemble their former selves. Unless they are drooling vegetables, they still are people who can interact, have emotions, feel pain, etc. Zombies only can interact in the ways of relentlessly trying to eat living things. No emotions, no morality, no remorse. Just mindless killing machines.
User avatar
#55 - dndxplain (07/14/2016) [-]
the entire point of C.U.R.E.s existence in DR is to promote that delimah. try to get off your high horse.
User avatar
#57 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
I just found this on the wiki.

"In Dead Rising 3, a museum exhibit revealed that at some point scientists who were studying zombies revealed that the brain of a zombie is completely in control of a parasite, and whoever that person was is completely gone. This may have resulted in CURE losing followers and possibly shutting down, due to no mention of it in the game."

The zombies don't even have control. They are puppets of a parasite. Without the parasite, they would drop dead. They are just dead meat suits.
User avatar
#56 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
Again, this isn't a debate about yours and my views on their stance. The debate was on their motives. They do want more accessible Zombrex, but their main goal is zombie rights. It's even in their name.

C.U.R.E: Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality.

There is no question on what their main goal is. It's even kind of funny because they don't want experiments to be done on them, but also want zombrex to be cheaper. Without experimenting, they will never find a definite cure and they would only ever have a limited supply of zombrex. The whole scheme of the Fortune City outbreak was to harvest queens so they could keep making zombrex. Without queens, there is no zombrex. Without zombrex, people will turn. C.U.R.E is like peta. They have good intentions, but often do more harm than good and don't understand the consequences of getting what they want.

>get off your high horse
This isn't a superiority complex. That doesn't even make sense in this.

There is no dilemma either. Throughout all of two, it completely destroys any defense C.U.R.E had for "zombies are people too!". Zombies literally do not feel any emotion. They do not think. They only kill. They only resemble people because they were once people. They lost all humanity when they turned.

Again, this isn't a debate on our views on their stance. Stop trying to change the subject. It is completely irrelevant what our views are. The debate was what they protested for.
#50 - They were mainly fighting for zombie rights though. They were …  [+] (7 new replies) 07/14/2016 on Fuck yea Canada 0
User avatar
#51 - dndxplain (07/14/2016) [-]
I mean inarguably zombies are still people. they're just really sick, incurable people
User avatar
#52 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
They lost all aspects of humanity. They resemble nothing of their former selves. Just like how rabies would turn people feral. They are only the bodies of humans, but have no humanity which is arguably what makes people "people". They are figuratively and somewhat literally dead people which doesn't make them people.

Still a little off topic. C.U.R.E mostly supports zombie rights. Whether you view zombies as people or not is irrelevant. That's just what they stand for.
User avatar
#53 - dndxplain (07/14/2016) [-]
it's basically the same argument for euthanizing alzheimer patients. Do they have to be "people" to be human, or does the fact thath they are a member of our species trump that.
User avatar
#54 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
Killing Alzheimer patients is not in any way comparable. They are still living and people. Zombies are lacking any qualities a person has and will attack anything living without caring of the dangers or morality. Alzheimer patients severity varies, but some can still resemble their former selves. Unless they are drooling vegetables, they still are people who can interact, have emotions, feel pain, etc. Zombies only can interact in the ways of relentlessly trying to eat living things. No emotions, no morality, no remorse. Just mindless killing machines.
User avatar
#55 - dndxplain (07/14/2016) [-]
the entire point of C.U.R.E.s existence in DR is to promote that delimah. try to get off your high horse.
User avatar
#57 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
I just found this on the wiki.

"In Dead Rising 3, a museum exhibit revealed that at some point scientists who were studying zombies revealed that the brain of a zombie is completely in control of a parasite, and whoever that person was is completely gone. This may have resulted in CURE losing followers and possibly shutting down, due to no mention of it in the game."

The zombies don't even have control. They are puppets of a parasite. Without the parasite, they would drop dead. They are just dead meat suits.
User avatar
#56 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
Again, this isn't a debate about yours and my views on their stance. The debate was on their motives. They do want more accessible Zombrex, but their main goal is zombie rights. It's even in their name.

C.U.R.E: Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality.

There is no question on what their main goal is. It's even kind of funny because they don't want experiments to be done on them, but also want zombrex to be cheaper. Without experimenting, they will never find a definite cure and they would only ever have a limited supply of zombrex. The whole scheme of the Fortune City outbreak was to harvest queens so they could keep making zombrex. Without queens, there is no zombrex. Without zombrex, people will turn. C.U.R.E is like peta. They have good intentions, but often do more harm than good and don't understand the consequences of getting what they want.

>get off your high horse
This isn't a superiority complex. That doesn't even make sense in this.

There is no dilemma either. Throughout all of two, it completely destroys any defense C.U.R.E had for "zombies are people too!". Zombies literally do not feel any emotion. They do not think. They only kill. They only resemble people because they were once people. They lost all humanity when they turned.

Again, this isn't a debate on our views on their stance. Stop trying to change the subject. It is completely irrelevant what our views are. The debate was what they protested for.
#32 - It's pretty clear he didn't do it for greed. He was just frust…  [+] (7 new replies) 07/14/2016 on wuyah 0
User avatar
#33 - professorjaded (07/14/2016) [-]
I meant greed as in he was being selfish. He doesn't care about the luxury because he finds out what he considers most important is his friendship. In a sense, it's more like he didn't know what he actually wanted until he didn't have it anymore.
On another note, greed isn't limited to money or possessions. It's about doing things for yourself even at the cost of other people.
User avatar
#34 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
I know what greed is. I think you may want to give those episodes another watch. He did it because he was frustrated. Greed had nothing to do with it. He did throw it all away in the end to save the world, but his motivation to go dark wasn't greed. Even the wiki said he did it because of his temper. He never shows any sign of greed when going dark. He showed signs of frustration and resentment though and that's what pushed him.

There was nothing he was trying to get(neither a material possession or non-material). He desired nothing. That illusion Wuya created was his dream, but a dream isn't the same as greed. Greed is an intense desire for selfish gain. He didn't have an intense desire for anything. He was just angry.
User avatar
#35 - professorjaded (07/14/2016) [-]
I dunno, potentially endangering the entire world and betraying your friends over something petty seems kind of selfish. "greed isn't limited to money or possessions. It's about doing things for yourself even at the cost of other people."

I also don't get the false dichotomy here, are you saying you can't be simultaneously selfish and upset at the same time?
User avatar
#36 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
That wasn't selfishness. He was just pissed. His motivation was anger and it was pretty clear. You can be greedy and angry, but he wasn't. Just anger, man. Trust me, I've seen every episode more times than I can count.

Remember when Hannibal tries to get him to turn again? He sees Guan treating him like shit and Hannibal saw history repeating itself(even though it was an elaborate hoax).

Acting out in anger isn't greed or being selfish. It's far closer to wrath.
#37 - professorjaded (07/14/2016) [-]
Ok, it should be said acting out of anger is an action motivated in order to make yourself feel better. Since he sided with the bad guys precisely because he felt he wasn't being treated fairly, he's also risking the world and being a Benedict Arnold to his friends by proxy.

If this is the case then his motivation at the time was exactly for himself at the cost of other people, therefore the logical conclusion would be to suggest his motivation at the time has to also be selfish.

If you can be upset and selfish at the same time then do you think it would be right or wrong to say the conclusion in this case would be accurate?
User avatar
#39 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
self·ish/ˈselfiSH/
adjective

(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

He had no desire for gain. He was just angry. Acting on anger isn't selfish. It's just acting on anger. By your logic I'd be selfish for kicking a puppy because I was mad.

Stop trying in to twist it. It's not that complex. He did it because of anger. Not greed or selfishness. His motivation was anger. When Wuya took over the world, he started to feel bad because he betrayed his friends.

Acting on anger isn't selfishness. Even if it makes you feel better, it's not being selfish. What you are confusing selfishness for is wrath.
#40 - professorjaded (07/14/2016) [-]
You should probably read the definition you searched up and take a minute or 2 to consider whether or not it actually invalidates my argument.

"By your logic I'd be selfish for kicking a puppy because I was mad." -Wert

This appears to be pretty selfish, according to the definition of selfishness. Relieving stress by kicking a puppy sounds like an action concerning your own pleasure.
-Riposte


"Even if it makes you feel better," -Wert
"concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. " -Wert
"You can be greedy and angry" -Wert

"risking the world and being a Benedict Arnold to his friends by proxy. "
We already established you can be upset or angry and still take actions that are selfish by definition, since his betrayal at the time was motivated because he was upset and thought joining the bad guys would make him feel better even at the cost of other people.
If selling out the world and your friends because you wanted to feel better does not fit within the category of selfish actions then that seems silly to me.
#77 - My favorite HM was Another Wonderful Life. Did they ever make …  [+] (2 new replies) 07/13/2016 on The law of physics doesn't... 0
User avatar
#84 - aquaekk (07/13/2016) [-]
This is Stardew Valley.
User avatar
#88 - psychosamm (07/14/2016) [-]
Which is a rip off of Harvest moon, the house layout is almost exactly the same.
#48 - I haven't played 3, but they made it pretty clear that you cou…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/13/2016 on Fuck yea Canada 0
User avatar
#49 - dndxplain (07/13/2016) [-]
treatable, not curable. sorry.
#63 - My bad. I swear I remember seeing it listed somewhere, but I g… 07/12/2016 on batman 0
#27 - He didn't do it for greed. He did it because he was pissed off…  [+] (9 new replies) 07/12/2016 on wuyah +1
User avatar
#31 - professorjaded (07/14/2016) [-]
Well he might have did it due to greed, but unintentionally. In the same arc, Raimundo later realizes what he values most are actually his friends.
User avatar
#32 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
It's pretty clear he didn't do it for greed. He was just frustrated and angry. Then Wuya came up and tempted him. The luxury was not why he did it. There really isn't anything that says he did it for greed. The luxury was just a perk. I thought it was pretty clear. If he did it for greed, he wouldn't have given it up.
User avatar
#33 - professorjaded (07/14/2016) [-]
I meant greed as in he was being selfish. He doesn't care about the luxury because he finds out what he considers most important is his friendship. In a sense, it's more like he didn't know what he actually wanted until he didn't have it anymore.
On another note, greed isn't limited to money or possessions. It's about doing things for yourself even at the cost of other people.
User avatar
#34 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
I know what greed is. I think you may want to give those episodes another watch. He did it because he was frustrated. Greed had nothing to do with it. He did throw it all away in the end to save the world, but his motivation to go dark wasn't greed. Even the wiki said he did it because of his temper. He never shows any sign of greed when going dark. He showed signs of frustration and resentment though and that's what pushed him.

There was nothing he was trying to get(neither a material possession or non-material). He desired nothing. That illusion Wuya created was his dream, but a dream isn't the same as greed. Greed is an intense desire for selfish gain. He didn't have an intense desire for anything. He was just angry.
User avatar
#35 - professorjaded (07/14/2016) [-]
I dunno, potentially endangering the entire world and betraying your friends over something petty seems kind of selfish. "greed isn't limited to money or possessions. It's about doing things for yourself even at the cost of other people."

I also don't get the false dichotomy here, are you saying you can't be simultaneously selfish and upset at the same time?
User avatar
#36 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
That wasn't selfishness. He was just pissed. His motivation was anger and it was pretty clear. You can be greedy and angry, but he wasn't. Just anger, man. Trust me, I've seen every episode more times than I can count.

Remember when Hannibal tries to get him to turn again? He sees Guan treating him like shit and Hannibal saw history repeating itself(even though it was an elaborate hoax).

Acting out in anger isn't greed or being selfish. It's far closer to wrath.
#37 - professorjaded (07/14/2016) [-]
Ok, it should be said acting out of anger is an action motivated in order to make yourself feel better. Since he sided with the bad guys precisely because he felt he wasn't being treated fairly, he's also risking the world and being a Benedict Arnold to his friends by proxy.

If this is the case then his motivation at the time was exactly for himself at the cost of other people, therefore the logical conclusion would be to suggest his motivation at the time has to also be selfish.

If you can be upset and selfish at the same time then do you think it would be right or wrong to say the conclusion in this case would be accurate?
User avatar
#39 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
self·ish/ˈselfiSH/
adjective

(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

He had no desire for gain. He was just angry. Acting on anger isn't selfish. It's just acting on anger. By your logic I'd be selfish for kicking a puppy because I was mad.

Stop trying in to twist it. It's not that complex. He did it because of anger. Not greed or selfishness. His motivation was anger. When Wuya took over the world, he started to feel bad because he betrayed his friends.

Acting on anger isn't selfishness. Even if it makes you feel better, it's not being selfish. What you are confusing selfishness for is wrath.
#40 - professorjaded (07/14/2016) [-]
You should probably read the definition you searched up and take a minute or 2 to consider whether or not it actually invalidates my argument.

"By your logic I'd be selfish for kicking a puppy because I was mad." -Wert

This appears to be pretty selfish, according to the definition of selfishness. Relieving stress by kicking a puppy sounds like an action concerning your own pleasure.
-Riposte


"Even if it makes you feel better," -Wert
"concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. " -Wert
"You can be greedy and angry" -Wert

"risking the world and being a Benedict Arnold to his friends by proxy. "
We already established you can be upset or angry and still take actions that are selfish by definition, since his betrayal at the time was motivated because he was upset and thought joining the bad guys would make him feel better even at the cost of other people.
If selling out the world and your friends because you wanted to feel better does not fit within the category of selfish actions then that seems silly to me.
#27 - They exist in the Dead Rising universe.  [+] (14 new replies) 07/12/2016 on Fuck yea Canada +10
User avatar
#37 - dndxplain (07/12/2016) [-]
that's kind of an unfair example though because zombism can be cured in the dead rising universe.
User avatar
#48 - wertologist (07/13/2016) [-]
I haven't played 3, but they made it pretty clear that you couldn't cure it. Zombrex had to be taken every 24 hours or you'd turn. Unless there was a cure that showed up in 3, there is only zombrex.

In DR1, Frank had made a "cure" with the girl, but it's safe to assume it was the predecessor of zombrex and not a full cure. I think Frank needs to take zombrex.
User avatar
#49 - dndxplain (07/13/2016) [-]
treatable, not curable. sorry.
User avatar
#41 - patentoverwriten (07/13/2016) [-]
Can't it only be cured if they haven't turned yet? I thought the DR activists cared about all zombies, not just the people who've been bit, but still have that window of cureability.
User avatar
#42 - dndxplain (07/13/2016) [-]
DR activests are fighting for pharmex to lower the prices of Zombrex if I recall
User avatar
#50 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
They were mainly fighting for zombie rights though. They were protesting TiR which has nothing to do with the price of Zombrex. They viewed zombies as people still. They fought for more accessible Zombrex too, but mostly for zombie rights.
User avatar
#51 - dndxplain (07/14/2016) [-]
I mean inarguably zombies are still people. they're just really sick, incurable people
User avatar
#52 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
They lost all aspects of humanity. They resemble nothing of their former selves. Just like how rabies would turn people feral. They are only the bodies of humans, but have no humanity which is arguably what makes people "people". They are figuratively and somewhat literally dead people which doesn't make them people.

Still a little off topic. C.U.R.E mostly supports zombie rights. Whether you view zombies as people or not is irrelevant. That's just what they stand for.
User avatar
#53 - dndxplain (07/14/2016) [-]
it's basically the same argument for euthanizing alzheimer patients. Do they have to be "people" to be human, or does the fact thath they are a member of our species trump that.
User avatar
#54 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
Killing Alzheimer patients is not in any way comparable. They are still living and people. Zombies are lacking any qualities a person has and will attack anything living without caring of the dangers or morality. Alzheimer patients severity varies, but some can still resemble their former selves. Unless they are drooling vegetables, they still are people who can interact, have emotions, feel pain, etc. Zombies only can interact in the ways of relentlessly trying to eat living things. No emotions, no morality, no remorse. Just mindless killing machines.
User avatar
#55 - dndxplain (07/14/2016) [-]
the entire point of C.U.R.E.s existence in DR is to promote that delimah. try to get off your high horse.
User avatar
#57 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
I just found this on the wiki.

"In Dead Rising 3, a museum exhibit revealed that at some point scientists who were studying zombies revealed that the brain of a zombie is completely in control of a parasite, and whoever that person was is completely gone. This may have resulted in CURE losing followers and possibly shutting down, due to no mention of it in the game."

The zombies don't even have control. They are puppets of a parasite. Without the parasite, they would drop dead. They are just dead meat suits.
User avatar
#56 - wertologist (07/14/2016) [-]
Again, this isn't a debate about yours and my views on their stance. The debate was on their motives. They do want more accessible Zombrex, but their main goal is zombie rights. It's even in their name.

C.U.R.E: Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality.

There is no question on what their main goal is. It's even kind of funny because they don't want experiments to be done on them, but also want zombrex to be cheaper. Without experimenting, they will never find a definite cure and they would only ever have a limited supply of zombrex. The whole scheme of the Fortune City outbreak was to harvest queens so they could keep making zombrex. Without queens, there is no zombrex. Without zombrex, people will turn. C.U.R.E is like peta. They have good intentions, but often do more harm than good and don't understand the consequences of getting what they want.

>get off your high horse
This isn't a superiority complex. That doesn't even make sense in this.

There is no dilemma either. Throughout all of two, it completely destroys any defense C.U.R.E had for "zombies are people too!". Zombies literally do not feel any emotion. They do not think. They only kill. They only resemble people because they were once people. They lost all humanity when they turned.

Again, this isn't a debate on our views on their stance. Stop trying to change the subject. It is completely irrelevant what our views are. The debate was what they protested for.
User avatar
#43 - patentoverwriten (07/13/2016) [-]
Oh, well hell yeah in that case. Go activists.
#121 - Personally, I preferred it when Mew was the sole creator.  [+] (3 new replies) 07/12/2016 on Pokemon Origins +4
#130 - bluemagebrilly (07/12/2016) [-]
I personally still think he is. I think he created Arceus and is the true ancestor of all Pokemon.

Because he's stronger, physically at least, compared to Arceus. Mew can use any move and change to any type. Arceus needs tools for it. While this could point towards Arceus using all his tools to make Mew, it still heavily implies Mew itself was the one who created all the common Pokemon.
#143 - anon (07/13/2016) [-]
Alright, let's go for a middle ground.

Mew is the reincarnation of Arceus.

He is now Pokemon Jesus.
#135 - dooraddiction (07/13/2016) [-]
I believe that mew is the first Pokemon but arceus came first and was a God and made the space time and dark matter gods then made mew, the first true Pokemon and all others stemmed from it
#55 - Not many do. It wasn't too popular and I think only lasted one season.  [+] (2 new replies) 07/12/2016 on batman 0
#61 - anon (07/12/2016) [-]
There was never a flash animated series. Included is a list of animated DC TV shows from BTAS onward. I have no idea what you are talking about?
User avatar
#63 - wertologist (07/12/2016) [-]
My bad. I swear I remember seeing it listed somewhere, but I guess not.