Upload
Login or register

xkikokikox

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:12/29/2010
Last Login:6/27/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#21273
Highest Comment Rank:#11642
Comment Thumbs: 242 total,  248 ,  6
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 123 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:19
FJ Points:246

latest user's comments

#118 - I don't see how my points really support or is comparable to a…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/11/2016 on Black Widow Vs Scorpion 0
User avatar
#120 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2016) [-]
In your entire argument you mentioned 'democracy', or rather, majority opinion twice, historical context once, and societal values twice. As such, I applied them to other scenarios such as discrimination and genocide, that if everyone was okay with it, it was fine, and if a society is okay with it, it is fine. Obviously you do not agree with these points, so your arguments are moot.

It's been fun. Have a wonderful day.
#88 - Are we really doing this? In the real world, some things …  [+] (3 new replies) 04/11/2016 on Black Widow Vs Scorpion +1
User avatar
#106 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2016) [-]
Instead you are pushing the belief that "This life has value because we think it does", which is also fine. I'm not criticizing you or your views either, old chap, but 'inherent value' would be independent of social climates. What you are arguing in your first paragraph is because we held them in a certain regard throughout history (even going so far as to adapt along with them), AND that the majority believes a certain thing, it is so, and if that is so, it is absolutely alright to hate Arabs for being Arabs given past offenses and current social climate. But you wouldn't argue that; instead you would argue that all beings have a certain 'right' to life and to separate themselves from stereotypes.

Once more, this goes back to what I said before that the term 'inherent' would imply a certain value that is independent and static regardless of what it gives. If what you are saying applies, then it is absolutely okay to feed a puppy to a boa if it does NOT give you (or anyone, hypothetically) pleasure or increase your joy.

If your thoughts veer toward democracy and social climate being the 'end all' of argument, then once more that goes back to, say, it being okay to murder Buddhists (in a certain time of history) because Chairman Mao and most of China hated them at a certain time in history.

It works just fine. I don't practice vegetarianism/veganism, nor do I cry every time my snake is fed, but I see that life has an inherent value, nor do I push that everyone SHOULD practice a certain diet. It is only that, all pomp and flair aside, to say "This animal's life is worth more because we decided it is" is no less idiotic or dickish than "I killed this animal because I thought its life was worthless.
#118 - xkikokikox (04/11/2016) [-]
I don't see how my points really support or is comparable to arguing on the murder of Buddhists or discrimination of human races (I'm only arguing on animals right now, and I don't believe in being able to always generalize or hold my points as absolutes for a large ranges of issues.)
But hey, we're on the internet. We're on fj. We're trying to have a debate. We've both already lost. Thanks for playing! I'm probably not going to reply if you decide to put in a last word; you may take that how you want.

Me: 0 You: 0 Wasted Time: 51mins
User avatar
#120 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2016) [-]
In your entire argument you mentioned 'democracy', or rather, majority opinion twice, historical context once, and societal values twice. As such, I applied them to other scenarios such as discrimination and genocide, that if everyone was okay with it, it was fine, and if a society is okay with it, it is fine. Obviously you do not agree with these points, so your arguments are moot.

It's been fun. Have a wonderful day.
#73 - "Only the Sith believe in absolutes." - some guy …  [+] (7 new replies) 04/11/2016 on Black Widow Vs Scorpion +2
User avatar
#75 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2016) [-]
I have a snake and I feed it live food, I also have some very controversial views, there is no high horse, but there IS an absolute.

Unless you can think of a better reason why the life of a puppy is worth more than the life of a rabbit, or mouse, or insects.

Is it intelligence? I'm sure the owners of these animals would disagree and bend your ear talking about how smart they can be. Personality? The exact same. Productivity? Then you value life based on its usefulness.

Come on, I'd like to hear your justifications.
#111 - anon (04/11/2016) [-]
Ever heard the saying: " a dog is a man's best freind..."
User avatar
#112 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2016) [-]
Ever heard the saying "Better dead than red"?
#88 - xkikokikox (04/11/2016) [-]
Are we really doing this?
In the real world, some things are more important to our lives than other things. Domestication of animals has played a large role in the development of our human values [1]. Many animals were held in high esteem and even though of as sacred by our ancestors. Through societal evolution, these animals that have served to develop our values today now hold different spots in the hierarchy of importance in our lives. Since the prevailing morality is that different animals have different importance to our lives, and we live a democracy, to function in the real world requires acceptance that although there are those who value all life as sacred, the majority of people do not equate the life of an insect to a dog. Neither am I meaning to put down those who believe all life is sacred nor am I pushing this agenda onto others as a demand; the only demand I made in my previous comment was that you get off your high horse in pushing your agenda onto others, stating "you must believe that either all lief has inherent value or none does..."

We can also talk about "usefulness", or perhaps you call it "productivity." In the example of feeding a pet boa, obviously one has made the choice to own a boa as a pet and must take care of its needs, like food. So one has to choose what sort of food to give it, be it insects, mice, rabbits, dogs, babies, etc. However, one reason why holding this absolute on life is questionable with this example is that there is an obvious differences between how much joy and enrichment each of those animals could provide to someone else if it had not been used as a food source for the pet snake. Statistically speaking, someone out there would have loved to have a puppy and have raised it in a loving home for 10 or so years, whereas there are less who would care so for a bug [3]. Life-span wise, they are different as well; balancing quality of life, life-span, and increased quality of life for their human caretakers, my thoughts would lead me to feed mice to a pet snake (I haven't owned a snake but I doubt they eat insects).

Touching briefly on consciousness, extensive studies have only shown that animals in general have very simplistic conscious thoughts and feelings, with few studies providing any significant evidence for any set hierarchy of consciousness [2]. So with that I can't use consciousness as any justification.

Another real world example is human's choice on meat consumptions. Surely I don't need a source to say that dogs are eaten less frequently than other animals like cows or chicken. But there are also those who condemn this and choose to eat only plants. If we follow an absolute set of morals in the value of life, then unfortunately we cannot have a varied diet; either vegetarianism or carnivorism will be forced upon everyone. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

Again, all I am putting forth is that an absolute mindset does not work with our current societal values and structures. You are free to believe all life has inherent and equal value, but others, like me, see differently. When I say get off your high horse, I really mean stop pushing your values on everyone when there is good reason for our values to coexist.


[1] Hodges, J. Animals and Values in Society www.lrrd.org/lrrd11/3/hod113.htm
[2] Griffin, D.R. et al. New evidence of animal consciousness postcog.ucd.ie/files/fulltext.pdf Anim. Cogn. 2004
[3] U.S. Pet Ownership Statistics www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Statistics/Pages/Market-research-statistics-US-pet-ownership.aspx
User avatar
#106 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2016) [-]
Instead you are pushing the belief that "This life has value because we think it does", which is also fine. I'm not criticizing you or your views either, old chap, but 'inherent value' would be independent of social climates. What you are arguing in your first paragraph is because we held them in a certain regard throughout history (even going so far as to adapt along with them), AND that the majority believes a certain thing, it is so, and if that is so, it is absolutely alright to hate Arabs for being Arabs given past offenses and current social climate. But you wouldn't argue that; instead you would argue that all beings have a certain 'right' to life and to separate themselves from stereotypes.

Once more, this goes back to what I said before that the term 'inherent' would imply a certain value that is independent and static regardless of what it gives. If what you are saying applies, then it is absolutely okay to feed a puppy to a boa if it does NOT give you (or anyone, hypothetically) pleasure or increase your joy.

If your thoughts veer toward democracy and social climate being the 'end all' of argument, then once more that goes back to, say, it being okay to murder Buddhists (in a certain time of history) because Chairman Mao and most of China hated them at a certain time in history.

It works just fine. I don't practice vegetarianism/veganism, nor do I cry every time my snake is fed, but I see that life has an inherent value, nor do I push that everyone SHOULD practice a certain diet. It is only that, all pomp and flair aside, to say "This animal's life is worth more because we decided it is" is no less idiotic or dickish than "I killed this animal because I thought its life was worthless.
#118 - xkikokikox (04/11/2016) [-]
I don't see how my points really support or is comparable to arguing on the murder of Buddhists or discrimination of human races (I'm only arguing on animals right now, and I don't believe in being able to always generalize or hold my points as absolutes for a large ranges of issues.)
But hey, we're on the internet. We're on fj. We're trying to have a debate. We've both already lost. Thanks for playing! I'm probably not going to reply if you decide to put in a last word; you may take that how you want.

Me: 0 You: 0 Wasted Time: 51mins
User avatar
#120 - captainfuckitall (04/11/2016) [-]
In your entire argument you mentioned 'democracy', or rather, majority opinion twice, historical context once, and societal values twice. As such, I applied them to other scenarios such as discrimination and genocide, that if everyone was okay with it, it was fine, and if a society is okay with it, it is fine. Obviously you do not agree with these points, so your arguments are moot.

It's been fun. Have a wonderful day.
#9 - For anyone who wants to know, this is from Yuusha Yoshihiko to…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/20/2014 on (untitled) +26
User avatar
#65 - butteredhamster (06/20/2014) [-]
Is the whole show this funny? Or is this just a small rare moment?
#39 - fatinthehat (06/20/2014) [-]
AKA The Hero Yoshihiko
#9 - Picture 12/06/2013 on Dammit Venus, be more like... +1
#19 - DEC35 12/02/2013 on All your base are belong to us +11
#20 - I knew him, Horatio * sorry 06/28/2013 on Nobody Noticed This? +1
#4 - Number 9 doesn't actually seem that bad.... It sounds like it'… 01/03/2013 on highschool papers +13
#11 - rainbow's fw  [+] (1 new reply) 12/14/2012 on SCARY BUTT FUN +9
#14 - finalkai (12/15/2012) [-]
#3 - Not much of a pain relief clinic for Santa 12/14/2012 on Well then +16
[ 19 Total ]