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

hide menu

Krystoking

Rank #315 on Subscribers
Krystoking Avatar Level 263 Content: Pure Win
Offline
Send mail to Krystoking Block Krystoking Invite Krystoking to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Youtube Channel: Krystoking
Consoles Owned: Ps3, Wii
Video Games Played: Everything
PSN: Krystoking
Date Signed Up:1/04/2010
Last Login:12/26/2014
Location:Krystonia
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#6347
Comment Ranking:#21286
Highest Content Rank:#67
Highest Comment Rank:#465
Content Thumbs: 64017 total,  71234 ,  7217
Comment Thumbs: 5260 total,  6425 ,  1165
Content Level Progress: 98.2% (982/1000)
Level 263 Content: Pure Win → Level 264 Content: Pure Win
Comment Level Progress: 47% (47/100)
Level 252 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 253 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:240
Content Views:240264
Times Content Favorited:4271 times
Total Comments Made:1981
FJ Points:69260
Favorite Tags: epic (68) | win (66) | The Game (65) | comic (55) | fuck (2) | funny (2)
Add me if you want, I respond to every message :D
I'm also on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001761102045

latest user's comments

#164 - It's not weird, it makes perfect sense. They already have sta… 03/28/2013 on Against Gay Marriage 0
#159 - There is nothing wrong with a culture that would define same s…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/28/2013 on Against Gay Marriage -1
#163 - jiltist (03/28/2013) [-]
And with that, your argument became very weak.

"On the political level, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman."
Politics change all the time.

As for the toast argument, there is something wrong with it. I'd have to think harder to point it out in detail, but a comparison should suffice. In America, "Man" used to mean Caucasians. Now it is an umbrella term for all who are physically male, and sometimes even women.
User avatar #169 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Politics change, defintions rarely do. And yes, the definition of "Man" was changed, because it was discriminatory in the sense that blacks for example were not considered of the same species, although they are. Marriage, however, is a concept. It is not discriminatory, it simply is what it is. Its been defined in the US as bonding between man and woman, and it doesn't have to be changed. Bonding between two of the same sexes is different from bonding between two of the opposite sex. Marriage has been defined as one of those, why not make a concept to define the other?
#689 - Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no… 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -1
#676 - Thats why I'm saying that they can install federal level civil…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -1
User avatar #680 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't see why it really matters so much and people are SO hung up on the idea that there MUST be one vagina and one penis in a marriage
You probably wouldn't know how it feels, but to the LGBT community it is discriminatory, offensive, and unfair to have to be set aside as this whole different group of humans that cannot play the game like everyone else can. We just have to be this whole different group.
That's what unequality is. Thats what people are fighting for. The red picture with the = sign. EQUALITY
User avatar #689 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no reason to find it discriminatory, offensive or unfair. Its like the jewish community started feeling discriminated that everyone else eats pork and they dont, and they started pushing towards changing the definition of pork from "meat from a pig" to "meat", JUST so they can say that they too, like everyone else, eat pork. Same thing happening here, changing the definition of marriage JUST to say that they are married. Its pointless and unnecessary.
#665 - I'm not saying anything will happen, but I can ask you the sam…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -2
User avatar #669 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Because i may just want to marry a girl someday and have the same beneficial benefits as everyone else?
Prick.
User avatar #670 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Lol i meant Financial benefits
User avatar #676 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Thats why I'm saying that they can install federal level civil unions. State level ones already exist, and the state financial benefits are equal to those of a married couple. If they were to install a federal level one, the financial benefits of a civil union would be the same as those of a marriage, without changing the definition of marriage.
User avatar #680 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't see why it really matters so much and people are SO hung up on the idea that there MUST be one vagina and one penis in a marriage
You probably wouldn't know how it feels, but to the LGBT community it is discriminatory, offensive, and unfair to have to be set aside as this whole different group of humans that cannot play the game like everyone else can. We just have to be this whole different group.
That's what unequality is. Thats what people are fighting for. The red picture with the = sign. EQUALITY
User avatar #689 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no reason to find it discriminatory, offensive or unfair. Its like the jewish community started feeling discriminated that everyone else eats pork and they dont, and they started pushing towards changing the definition of pork from "meat from a pig" to "meat", JUST so they can say that they too, like everyone else, eat pork. Same thing happening here, changing the definition of marriage JUST to say that they are married. Its pointless and unnecessary.
#663 - There are certain things that make a marriage unique on the fe… 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today 0
#22 - I remember those days... Dsend, mundo, bingthedinosaur, good times....  [+] (9 new replies) 03/28/2013 on Made me smile +3
User avatar #56 - phoenix grinder (03/29/2013) [-]
bingthedinosaur was the shit
#33 - tittylovin has deleted their comment.
User avatar #38 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Some still make comics, but most just sort of stopped posting, mostly due to lack of ideas. I used to post many comics myself, but I stopped when they started becoming stale.
#47 - tittylovin has deleted their comment.
User avatar #53 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Yep, it all just faded away.... I'm glad actually, the less drama the better
User avatar #36 - aerosol (03/28/2013) [-]
I think most of them got sick of their status as a "celebrity". Well, the bad side of it at least.
#32 - aerosol (03/28/2013) [-]
indeed they were
User avatar #35 - kyrill (03/28/2013) [-]
i hated those so much.. none of the comics had any funny jokes in my opinion. They just tried real hard to draw well, and tried to post as often as possible instead of high quality but rarely. Shit hasen't gone down since albinoblacksheep left us in the days of green.
#37 - aerosol (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't know. Kody's stuff wasn't half bad.
Anyhow, I think the central reason that I liked it was because they weren't just any old comics. They were our comics. At least it felt like that sometimes. Just my opinion I guess.
#660 - Again, and i CAN'T stress this enough, its not about "leg…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -1
User avatar #661 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
The thing is technically nowadays marriage is nothing but a contract.
User avatar #663 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
There are certain things that make a marriage unique on the federal level still, i don't know the details, but for example i kno9w taxes are different. All I'm saying is that the traditional definition of marriage does not need to be changed
#658 - I'm not against gay marriage, I'm saying " gay marriag…  [+] (7 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today 0
User avatar #662 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
but why do you care?
if some random gay guy got married what would you do about it?
you dont like it, okay, but what are you gonna do, just sit there and whine about it?
nothing will happen to you if gay people marry each other
nothing
User avatar #665 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm not saying anything will happen, but I can ask you the same, why do you care? Why do gay people NEED the definition of marriage to be changed? Why do they care? Nothing will trully happen whether the definition is changed or not. All I'm saying is I believe in tradition, and traditionally in the US, marriage is defined between a man and a woman. It doesn't need to be changed, so why change it.
User avatar #669 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Because i may just want to marry a girl someday and have the same beneficial benefits as everyone else?
Prick.
User avatar #670 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Lol i meant Financial benefits
User avatar #676 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Thats why I'm saying that they can install federal level civil unions. State level ones already exist, and the state financial benefits are equal to those of a married couple. If they were to install a federal level one, the financial benefits of a civil union would be the same as those of a marriage, without changing the definition of marriage.
User avatar #680 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't see why it really matters so much and people are SO hung up on the idea that there MUST be one vagina and one penis in a marriage
You probably wouldn't know how it feels, but to the LGBT community it is discriminatory, offensive, and unfair to have to be set aside as this whole different group of humans that cannot play the game like everyone else can. We just have to be this whole different group.
That's what unequality is. Thats what people are fighting for. The red picture with the = sign. EQUALITY
User avatar #689 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no reason to find it discriminatory, offensive or unfair. Its like the jewish community started feeling discriminated that everyone else eats pork and they dont, and they started pushing towards changing the definition of pork from "meat from a pig" to "meat", JUST so they can say that they too, like everyone else, eat pork. Same thing happening here, changing the definition of marriage JUST to say that they are married. Its pointless and unnecessary.
#653 - Kind of irrelevant, but ok  [+] (13 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -1
User avatar #656 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
The government is ignoring more and more crap that it was supposed to be built on so why not stick legalizing gay marriage into the pile of change.
User avatar #660 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Again, and i CAN'T stress this enough, its not about "legalizing gay marriage", its about changing the very definition of marriage. The government should install a federal level of civil union for same sex lovers which would give the union the same rights as a married couple, but by no means do we need call a same sex union a "marriage". That would just be breaking tradition that doesnt need to be broken.
User avatar #661 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
The thing is technically nowadays marriage is nothing but a contract.
User avatar #663 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
There are certain things that make a marriage unique on the federal level still, i don't know the details, but for example i kno9w taxes are different. All I'm saying is that the traditional definition of marriage does not need to be changed
User avatar #655 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
Not really. You say you're against gay marriage in the US because that was part of the value system it was built on, when the US government has already completely ignored an even bigger part of it's foundation (The Constitution).
User avatar #658 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm not against gay marriage, I'm saying "gay marriage" doesnt make sense. The argument is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) Theres a difference between law and the constitution, and tradition and 2) just because the US is accused of ignoring its constitution, doesnt mean it should start ignoring other traditions of which it was built upon.
User avatar #662 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
but why do you care?
if some random gay guy got married what would you do about it?
you dont like it, okay, but what are you gonna do, just sit there and whine about it?
nothing will happen to you if gay people marry each other
nothing
User avatar #665 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm not saying anything will happen, but I can ask you the same, why do you care? Why do gay people NEED the definition of marriage to be changed? Why do they care? Nothing will trully happen whether the definition is changed or not. All I'm saying is I believe in tradition, and traditionally in the US, marriage is defined between a man and a woman. It doesn't need to be changed, so why change it.
User avatar #669 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Because i may just want to marry a girl someday and have the same beneficial benefits as everyone else?
Prick.
User avatar #670 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Lol i meant Financial benefits
User avatar #676 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Thats why I'm saying that they can install federal level civil unions. State level ones already exist, and the state financial benefits are equal to those of a married couple. If they were to install a federal level one, the financial benefits of a civil union would be the same as those of a marriage, without changing the definition of marriage.
User avatar #680 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't see why it really matters so much and people are SO hung up on the idea that there MUST be one vagina and one penis in a marriage
You probably wouldn't know how it feels, but to the LGBT community it is discriminatory, offensive, and unfair to have to be set aside as this whole different group of humans that cannot play the game like everyone else can. We just have to be this whole different group.
That's what unequality is. Thats what people are fighting for. The red picture with the = sign. EQUALITY
User avatar #689 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no reason to find it discriminatory, offensive or unfair. Its like the jewish community started feeling discriminated that everyone else eats pork and they dont, and they started pushing towards changing the definition of pork from "meat from a pig" to "meat", JUST so they can say that they too, like everyone else, eat pork. Same thing happening here, changing the definition of marriage JUST to say that they are married. Its pointless and unnecessary.
#651 - Its simply that people consider not believing in " gay m… 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today +1
#650 - That may be true, I don't know of such cultures but i won't de…  [+] (15 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -2
User avatar #652 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
Well the US was also built on the Constitution but we all know how important that thing is nowadays.
User avatar #653 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Kind of irrelevant, but ok
User avatar #656 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
The government is ignoring more and more crap that it was supposed to be built on so why not stick legalizing gay marriage into the pile of change.
User avatar #660 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Again, and i CAN'T stress this enough, its not about "legalizing gay marriage", its about changing the very definition of marriage. The government should install a federal level of civil union for same sex lovers which would give the union the same rights as a married couple, but by no means do we need call a same sex union a "marriage". That would just be breaking tradition that doesnt need to be broken.
User avatar #661 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
The thing is technically nowadays marriage is nothing but a contract.
User avatar #663 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
There are certain things that make a marriage unique on the federal level still, i don't know the details, but for example i kno9w taxes are different. All I'm saying is that the traditional definition of marriage does not need to be changed
User avatar #655 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
Not really. You say you're against gay marriage in the US because that was part of the value system it was built on, when the US government has already completely ignored an even bigger part of it's foundation (The Constitution).
User avatar #658 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm not against gay marriage, I'm saying "gay marriage" doesnt make sense. The argument is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) Theres a difference between law and the constitution, and tradition and 2) just because the US is accused of ignoring its constitution, doesnt mean it should start ignoring other traditions of which it was built upon.
User avatar #662 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
but why do you care?
if some random gay guy got married what would you do about it?
you dont like it, okay, but what are you gonna do, just sit there and whine about it?
nothing will happen to you if gay people marry each other
nothing
User avatar #665 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm not saying anything will happen, but I can ask you the same, why do you care? Why do gay people NEED the definition of marriage to be changed? Why do they care? Nothing will trully happen whether the definition is changed or not. All I'm saying is I believe in tradition, and traditionally in the US, marriage is defined between a man and a woman. It doesn't need to be changed, so why change it.
User avatar #669 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Because i may just want to marry a girl someday and have the same beneficial benefits as everyone else?
Prick.
User avatar #670 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Lol i meant Financial benefits
User avatar #676 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Thats why I'm saying that they can install federal level civil unions. State level ones already exist, and the state financial benefits are equal to those of a married couple. If they were to install a federal level one, the financial benefits of a civil union would be the same as those of a marriage, without changing the definition of marriage.
User avatar #680 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't see why it really matters so much and people are SO hung up on the idea that there MUST be one vagina and one penis in a marriage
You probably wouldn't know how it feels, but to the LGBT community it is discriminatory, offensive, and unfair to have to be set aside as this whole different group of humans that cannot play the game like everyone else can. We just have to be this whole different group.
That's what unequality is. Thats what people are fighting for. The red picture with the = sign. EQUALITY
User avatar #689 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no reason to find it discriminatory, offensive or unfair. Its like the jewish community started feeling discriminated that everyone else eats pork and they dont, and they started pushing towards changing the definition of pork from "meat from a pig" to "meat", JUST so they can say that they too, like everyone else, eat pork. Same thing happening here, changing the definition of marriage JUST to say that they are married. Its pointless and unnecessary.
#115 - You don't understand, marriage is defined between a man and a …  [+] (4 new replies) 03/28/2013 on Against Gay Marriage +1
#153 - jiltist (03/28/2013) [-]
So would you be against the marriage of two men by a pastor that approves gay marriage?
User avatar #159 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
There is nothing wrong with a culture that would define same sex union as marriage as well, what I'm saying is that on the political level, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. The goverment can install a federal level civil union for same sex unions to give them the same benefits as a marriage gets, but theres no reason to change the political traditional definition of marriage. Using my previous "toast" example, you can say in regular conversation that something is "toasty" to replace warm, but it doesn't change the definition of toast in itself. Therefore, a gay couple married by a pastor can call themselves married, but dont have to change the federal definition of marriage, since they'll be politically recognised as a civil union, giving them the same status as a married couple without stating them as married.
#163 - jiltist (03/28/2013) [-]
And with that, your argument became very weak.

"On the political level, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman."
Politics change all the time.

As for the toast argument, there is something wrong with it. I'd have to think harder to point it out in detail, but a comparison should suffice. In America, "Man" used to mean Caucasians. Now it is an umbrella term for all who are physically male, and sometimes even women.
User avatar #169 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Politics change, defintions rarely do. And yes, the definition of "Man" was changed, because it was discriminatory in the sense that blacks for example were not considered of the same species, although they are. Marriage, however, is a concept. It is not discriminatory, it simply is what it is. Its been defined in the US as bonding between man and woman, and it doesn't have to be changed. Bonding between two of the same sexes is different from bonding between two of the opposite sex. Marriage has been defined as one of those, why not make a concept to define the other?
#103 - I said this before and I'll say it again. This is not a batt…  [+] (22 new replies) 03/28/2013 on Against Gay Marriage +5
User avatar #403 - Seventeen (03/28/2013) [-]
that's what we have in england.
User avatar #414 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Does it work?
User avatar #422 - Seventeen (03/28/2013) [-]
it allows gay couples who are in a 'civil union' the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple with regards to taxes and stuff. i think it works and most people seem to be happy with it but like anywhere and with anything, there will always be people who aren't happy. there are gay couples who want to be 'married' not be in a civil partnership purely based on the word 'marriage' since they have the same benefits. in the same breath, i read about one straight couple who wanted to be allowed to have a civil union. shit's crazy man. as far as i am concerned though, i'm glad that gay couples are afforded the same rights as straight couples but now that has been given to them, continuing to campaigne for 'marriage' just seems like splitting hairs.
User avatar #432 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
That's why I think they should install this system in the US. It gives them the same rights, and doesn't change the definition of marriage. Just like you said, its just splitting hairs. Thank you for telling me
User avatar #259 - defensive (03/28/2013) [-]
Why keep the definition of marriage the same if it doesn't accommodate the needs of everyone? People should be allowed to marry anyone who they choose, EQUAL RIGHTS MOTHAFUCKA! You keep saying that marriage would no longer be marriage but just a union. This makes no sense to me, there is no reason to change what it is called, just change who people can get married to. Unless you are gay yourself then gay marriage has nothing to do with your daily life, or any part of your life for that matter. So why try to stop it? 'Hur Dur, gay marriage is going to ruin marriage for everyone'. That is what you sound like.
User avatar #272 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Lmao no, I never said it would ruin everything, I'm asking why try to change the definition of marriage? Bonding between man and woman is defined as marriage, and such a bonding is different from a same sex bonding. Same sex bonding should have the same political status as marriage, but the definition of marriage doesn't need to be changed
User avatar #277 - defensive (03/28/2013) [-]
A bonding between a man and a woman is the christian definition of marriage. Why create a whole new system for gays to use that has the exact same principals of marriage, if you could just change what we already have. Why do you want to keep the definition so Christian, quite a lot of people aren't religious and would appreciate it if you stop trying to force your beliefs onto the rest of the world.
User avatar #279 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
For your info, I'm an atheist. The Point is that us culture was structured around the christian religion, and therefore has always defined marriage as a bond between man and woman. I believe tradition is important, and since that is the traditional definition of marriage, and it doesn't hurt anybody, why change it? Its not creating a whole new system, its simply calling it something other than marriage.
User avatar #280 - defensive (03/28/2013) [-]
Because sticking to tradition is what helps the human race advance isn't it? If a tradition becomes redundant, then change it. I don't see the point in calling it something else, if it is going to be the same thing then just add it to what we already have.
User avatar #282 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
But its not the same thing. One is a bond between same sex, the other between opposite sex.
User avatar #290 - defensive (03/28/2013) [-]
You keep talking about the Christian definition of marriage. Marriage is not a Christian born tradition. I don't see why you are so adamant to stick to a flawed system, if it doesn't accommodate modern ideals then change the bloody thing.
User avatar #424 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
It's not christian born, but in its modern state, its christian adapted. The origin of something is negated upon its acceptance into a new culture, as it becomes a new separate entity.

Marriage used to be the owning of a woman as property. That's where it started.

Want to go back to origins? Fight for that, see how far you get.
User avatar #440 - defensive (03/29/2013) [-]
I don't remember ever saying to go back to the origins. I remember saying to break traditions in order to advance our culture though.
User avatar #294 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
The debate is revolving around us politics, and the us culture is based of off the christian religion. If within another culture the definition of marriage accommadates same sex marriage, that's fine, but in the us it doesn't, so I ask again, why change it? I'm going to sleep now, so don't exect a rely till tomorrow
User avatar #302 - defensive (03/28/2013) [-]
Change it because it needs to be changed to account for modern times. But I'm sure you follow all christian traditions don't you?
User avatar #410 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
How doesn't it account for modern times? Its the concept of a man bonding with a woman, does that no longer happen? And no, I don't follow christian traditions, because I'm not christian. Stop making this about bashing religion, because this is not what its about.
#109 - honeybadgercares has deleted their comment.
User avatar #115 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
You don't understand, marriage is defined between a man and a woman. Saying "gay marriage" doesnt make sense in the traditional definition of marriage. For example, lets take the word "toast". By definition, toast is heating up a piece of bread, therefore you cant say "I am toasting my soup", because that wouldnt make sense. Again, gays have the right to marry, but if its same sex, its not marriage by definition.
#153 - jiltist (03/28/2013) [-]
So would you be against the marriage of two men by a pastor that approves gay marriage?
User avatar #159 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
There is nothing wrong with a culture that would define same sex union as marriage as well, what I'm saying is that on the political level, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. The goverment can install a federal level civil union for same sex unions to give them the same benefits as a marriage gets, but theres no reason to change the political traditional definition of marriage. Using my previous "toast" example, you can say in regular conversation that something is "toasty" to replace warm, but it doesn't change the definition of toast in itself. Therefore, a gay couple married by a pastor can call themselves married, but dont have to change the federal definition of marriage, since they'll be politically recognised as a civil union, giving them the same status as a married couple without stating them as married.
#163 - jiltist (03/28/2013) [-]
And with that, your argument became very weak.

"On the political level, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman."
Politics change all the time.

As for the toast argument, there is something wrong with it. I'd have to think harder to point it out in detail, but a comparison should suffice. In America, "Man" used to mean Caucasians. Now it is an umbrella term for all who are physically male, and sometimes even women.
User avatar #169 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Politics change, defintions rarely do. And yes, the definition of "Man" was changed, because it was discriminatory in the sense that blacks for example were not considered of the same species, although they are. Marriage, however, is a concept. It is not discriminatory, it simply is what it is. Its been defined in the US as bonding between man and woman, and it doesn't have to be changed. Bonding between two of the same sexes is different from bonding between two of the opposite sex. Marriage has been defined as one of those, why not make a concept to define the other?
#621 - Its not about a sociatal group, its about how the goverment re…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today +2
#744 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Hear, hear! Marriage is the change of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Let's keep it this way forever.
#601 - The difference is that gay s have the same amount of rights a…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today +1
#639 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
That's actually the best argument I've ever heard. Sadly, most of the gay marriage supporters will fail to understand it. Let's face it, most of them think that if you do not support gay marriage, you're a Nazi.
User avatar #651 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Its simply that people consider not believing in "gay marriage" equivalant to not believing in gay rights. They fail to realize its an argument of definition, not rights.
User avatar #610 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Because society is already divided into too many little pointless groups, we don't need any more of them. If you don't get it, you just don't get it. I'm going to sleep now, have a good one.


PS: I'm totes toasting my water from now on.
User avatar #621 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Its not about a sociatal group, its about how the goverment recognizes their unions. I respect your views, I just think the traditional defintion of marriage doesnt need to be changed.

PS: I know, i regret using it as an example, toasting water sounds much better
#744 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Hear, hear! Marriage is the change of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Let's keep it this way forever.
#559 - Theres a difference between those kinds of traditions and the …  [+] (13 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today +1
User avatar #730 - finni (03/28/2013) [-]
It's good to see an Atheist defend tradition. Not that I'm against gay marriage, but I like that you defend tradition. I find that too many Atheist think too liberal, but that's perhaps because in America, the Conservative politicians are really close to the edge of totally religious interference.
User avatar #738 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
In america , the republican party has become the general represantation of the right wing, even though true conservatism has nothing to do with any religion.
User avatar #742 - finni (03/28/2013) [-]
Conservatism and religion are closely related. I wouldn't say that they aren't related at all, but conservatism is about preserving what's old and not just throw everything in the garbage, and in that section of "old" religion comes in when it comes to values and tradition, but there's nothing in The Bible that says you HAVE to keep these traditions that man have created (except for perhaps Eucharist), it's just that there are those who want to preserve the old religious traditions.

So I wouldn't say they are unrelated, but I'd say they are closely linked, even though you don't have to be Christian to be a conservative. But as an example, abortion. Conservatives don't like the idea of taking away a life that hasn't gotten a chance to do anything yet, that goes for the religious Christians as well.
I for example, feel badly about taking away an unborn life, but that's got nothing or little to do with my faith, it's just that I think it's wrong in general, but I don't think that I would have changed my mind on it if I was an Atheist.

TL;DR Religion and conservative philosophy are very related, but not bound in bond together.
User avatar #746 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I mispoke, by true conservatism I meant true right wing. My political views are for an individual to have as many freedoms as possible, for example less taxes so that an individual has more freedom of choice of what haens with his money, but at the same time abortions should be available for certain cases. But I'm too tired at this point to discuss politics, its 4 am
User avatar #748 - finni (03/28/2013) [-]
Hehe I see. Yeah I agree, I am for personal freedom and more freedom for the individual to choose.

When it comes to abortion, I think that it should be allowed up to 12 month, but I want to do everything that doesn't conflict personal freedom, to make the woman not have an abortion or for her to have to take an abortion. Make condoms more available, especially for youth, and encourage giving the shield away for adoption and things like that, but let the choice be the woman's in the end.

Anyway, if you're tired you can either ignore or wait until your feeling well rested and reply then. The latter may be a problem if you're a werewolf though.
User avatar #580 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Why is there a difference? Please tell me cause I'm really finding it hard to believe that there is a rational, logical difference between these things. It's all about equal rights for individuals (well not the Darwin one), and it should be a right to get married to whoever you want - it's a principle more than anything, an acknowledgement of equality.

I honestly can't see why you don't get this, I really don't. Where I come from, gay marriage is and has been legal for quite a while. Guess what? Nothing horrifying happened. I'm an atheist myself too, but I have more faith in individuality than I have in tradition.
#737 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is a religious institution.
Voting is a governmental institution.
If the government changes the government, that's progress.
If the government changes a religion, that's tyranny.
That's the difference.
User avatar #601 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
The difference is that gays have the same amount of rights as anyone. Its the definition of marriage thats being changed, not their rights. gay people are allowed to marry to the opposite sex, but marriage is defined between a man and a woman, therefore if a man loves a man, they cant marry by the traditional definition of marriage. As I said before, a civil union on a federal level would give them all the same benefits of marriage, it just simply wouldnt be marriage. Let me give you and example: when water heats up, it boils. When bread does, it toasts. But trying to change the definition of toast so that it applies to water too is pointless. Why say water toasts when you can already say it boils? I'm not saying anything horrifying would happen if the definition of marriage were changed, but why change it if instead we can push to having gays and lesbians legally form unions on the federal level.
#639 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
That's actually the best argument I've ever heard. Sadly, most of the gay marriage supporters will fail to understand it. Let's face it, most of them think that if you do not support gay marriage, you're a Nazi.
User avatar #651 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Its simply that people consider not believing in "gay marriage" equivalant to not believing in gay rights. They fail to realize its an argument of definition, not rights.
User avatar #610 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Because society is already divided into too many little pointless groups, we don't need any more of them. If you don't get it, you just don't get it. I'm going to sleep now, have a good one.


PS: I'm totes toasting my water from now on.
User avatar #621 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Its not about a sociatal group, its about how the goverment recognizes their unions. I respect your views, I just think the traditional defintion of marriage doesnt need to be changed.

PS: I know, i regret using it as an example, toasting water sounds much better
#744 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Hear, hear! Marriage is the change of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Let's keep it this way forever.
#463 - Its not about the freedom of who to marry, its about the defin…  [+] (35 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -4
User avatar #640 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
Problem: marriage is not a christian-only thing. There have been plenty of cultures throughout history where marriage between two people of the same gender was considered completely okay.
User avatar #650 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
That may be true, I don't know of such cultures but i won't deny it either. However, since this is revolving around US politics, thats what I'm basing it off of. The US was built on a christian culture, therefore its always defined marriage as between a man and a woman. If a culture exists today with same sex marriages, and its always defined marriage in such a way to make it possible, then they should by no means change it. Its simply that changing the definition of marriage in the US is changing a tradition of which the US was built upon, its pointless.
User avatar #652 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
Well the US was also built on the Constitution but we all know how important that thing is nowadays.
User avatar #653 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Kind of irrelevant, but ok
User avatar #656 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
The government is ignoring more and more crap that it was supposed to be built on so why not stick legalizing gay marriage into the pile of change.
User avatar #660 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Again, and i CAN'T stress this enough, its not about "legalizing gay marriage", its about changing the very definition of marriage. The government should install a federal level of civil union for same sex lovers which would give the union the same rights as a married couple, but by no means do we need call a same sex union a "marriage". That would just be breaking tradition that doesnt need to be broken.
User avatar #661 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
The thing is technically nowadays marriage is nothing but a contract.
User avatar #663 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
There are certain things that make a marriage unique on the federal level still, i don't know the details, but for example i kno9w taxes are different. All I'm saying is that the traditional definition of marriage does not need to be changed
User avatar #655 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
Not really. You say you're against gay marriage in the US because that was part of the value system it was built on, when the US government has already completely ignored an even bigger part of it's foundation (The Constitution).
User avatar #658 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm not against gay marriage, I'm saying "gay marriage" doesnt make sense. The argument is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) Theres a difference between law and the constitution, and tradition and 2) just because the US is accused of ignoring its constitution, doesnt mean it should start ignoring other traditions of which it was built upon.
User avatar #662 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
but why do you care?
if some random gay guy got married what would you do about it?
you dont like it, okay, but what are you gonna do, just sit there and whine about it?
nothing will happen to you if gay people marry each other
nothing
User avatar #665 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm not saying anything will happen, but I can ask you the same, why do you care? Why do gay people NEED the definition of marriage to be changed? Why do they care? Nothing will trully happen whether the definition is changed or not. All I'm saying is I believe in tradition, and traditionally in the US, marriage is defined between a man and a woman. It doesn't need to be changed, so why change it.
User avatar #669 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Because i may just want to marry a girl someday and have the same beneficial benefits as everyone else?
Prick.
User avatar #670 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Lol i meant Financial benefits
User avatar #676 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Thats why I'm saying that they can install federal level civil unions. State level ones already exist, and the state financial benefits are equal to those of a married couple. If they were to install a federal level one, the financial benefits of a civil union would be the same as those of a marriage, without changing the definition of marriage.
User avatar #680 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't see why it really matters so much and people are SO hung up on the idea that there MUST be one vagina and one penis in a marriage
You probably wouldn't know how it feels, but to the LGBT community it is discriminatory, offensive, and unfair to have to be set aside as this whole different group of humans that cannot play the game like everyone else can. We just have to be this whole different group.
That's what unequality is. Thats what people are fighting for. The red picture with the = sign. EQUALITY
User avatar #689 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no reason to find it discriminatory, offensive or unfair. Its like the jewish community started feeling discriminated that everyone else eats pork and they dont, and they started pushing towards changing the definition of pork from "meat from a pig" to "meat", JUST so they can say that they too, like everyone else, eat pork. Same thing happening here, changing the definition of marriage JUST to say that they are married. Its pointless and unnecessary.
User avatar #510 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Progress in society is always made by breaking traditions. This one should have been broken a long, long time ago. What if we didn't break the tradition to only let men vote? Or that good ol' ''whites are superior to blacks'' thing? Or what if Darwin didn't ''feel right'' about expanding the understanding of how we all came to be?


I get that marriage is supposed to be some sacred thing, but why does it HAVE to be between a man and a woman? In the end it's all abut the love between two people, it shouldn't matter even if it has been like that for centuries. You are fighting for a battle that you are doomed to lose, I'm guessing within the next 20 years or so. You can either prepare yourself for the changes or stick to being close minded - I don't really care, it's your choice.

Oh and I respect your opinon, I just disagree with it. Don't take it too hard. Discussion is healthy, anyways.
User avatar #559 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Theres a difference between those kinds of traditions and the tradition of a definition. Why change the definition of marriage? Is it really hurting people to have a civil union instead of a marriage? Thats why I support making civil unions legal on a federal level (in the states, from what i know, its on the state level. I'm canadian) Marriage is a tradition that doesnt have to be broken, so I believe it shouldnt be. Im an atheist btw, so I have no religious bias, I just strongly believe in tradition.
User avatar #730 - finni (03/28/2013) [-]
It's good to see an Atheist defend tradition. Not that I'm against gay marriage, but I like that you defend tradition. I find that too many Atheist think too liberal, but that's perhaps because in America, the Conservative politicians are really close to the edge of totally religious interference.
User avatar #738 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
In america , the republican party has become the general represantation of the right wing, even though true conservatism has nothing to do with any religion.
User avatar #742 - finni (03/28/2013) [-]
Conservatism and religion are closely related. I wouldn't say that they aren't related at all, but conservatism is about preserving what's old and not just throw everything in the garbage, and in that section of "old" religion comes in when it comes to values and tradition, but there's nothing in The Bible that says you HAVE to keep these traditions that man have created (except for perhaps Eucharist), it's just that there are those who want to preserve the old religious traditions.

So I wouldn't say they are unrelated, but I'd say they are closely linked, even though you don't have to be Christian to be a conservative. But as an example, abortion. Conservatives don't like the idea of taking away a life that hasn't gotten a chance to do anything yet, that goes for the religious Christians as well.
I for example, feel badly about taking away an unborn life, but that's got nothing or little to do with my faith, it's just that I think it's wrong in general, but I don't think that I would have changed my mind on it if I was an Atheist.

TL;DR Religion and conservative philosophy are very related, but not bound in bond together.
User avatar #746 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I mispoke, by true conservatism I meant true right wing. My political views are for an individual to have as many freedoms as possible, for example less taxes so that an individual has more freedom of choice of what haens with his money, but at the same time abortions should be available for certain cases. But I'm too tired at this point to discuss politics, its 4 am
User avatar #748 - finni (03/28/2013) [-]
Hehe I see. Yeah I agree, I am for personal freedom and more freedom for the individual to choose.

When it comes to abortion, I think that it should be allowed up to 12 month, but I want to do everything that doesn't conflict personal freedom, to make the woman not have an abortion or for her to have to take an abortion. Make condoms more available, especially for youth, and encourage giving the shield away for adoption and things like that, but let the choice be the woman's in the end.

Anyway, if you're tired you can either ignore or wait until your feeling well rested and reply then. The latter may be a problem if you're a werewolf though.
User avatar #580 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Why is there a difference? Please tell me cause I'm really finding it hard to believe that there is a rational, logical difference between these things. It's all about equal rights for individuals (well not the Darwin one), and it should be a right to get married to whoever you want - it's a principle more than anything, an acknowledgement of equality.

I honestly can't see why you don't get this, I really don't. Where I come from, gay marriage is and has been legal for quite a while. Guess what? Nothing horrifying happened. I'm an atheist myself too, but I have more faith in individuality than I have in tradition.
#737 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is a religious institution.
Voting is a governmental institution.
If the government changes the government, that's progress.
If the government changes a religion, that's tyranny.
That's the difference.
User avatar #601 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
The difference is that gays have the same amount of rights as anyone. Its the definition of marriage thats being changed, not their rights. gay people are allowed to marry to the opposite sex, but marriage is defined between a man and a woman, therefore if a man loves a man, they cant marry by the traditional definition of marriage. As I said before, a civil union on a federal level would give them all the same benefits of marriage, it just simply wouldnt be marriage. Let me give you and example: when water heats up, it boils. When bread does, it toasts. But trying to change the definition of toast so that it applies to water too is pointless. Why say water toasts when you can already say it boils? I'm not saying anything horrifying would happen if the definition of marriage were changed, but why change it if instead we can push to having gays and lesbians legally form unions on the federal level.
#639 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
That's actually the best argument I've ever heard. Sadly, most of the gay marriage supporters will fail to understand it. Let's face it, most of them think that if you do not support gay marriage, you're a Nazi.
User avatar #651 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Its simply that people consider not believing in "gay marriage" equivalant to not believing in gay rights. They fail to realize its an argument of definition, not rights.
User avatar #610 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Because society is already divided into too many little pointless groups, we don't need any more of them. If you don't get it, you just don't get it. I'm going to sleep now, have a good one.


PS: I'm totes toasting my water from now on.
User avatar #621 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Its not about a sociatal group, its about how the goverment recognizes their unions. I respect your views, I just think the traditional defintion of marriage doesnt need to be changed.

PS: I know, i regret using it as an example, toasting water sounds much better
#744 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Hear, hear! Marriage is the change of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Let's keep it this way forever.
#520 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
So, polygamy and incest would be progress?
User avatar #555 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
That would be reverting back to old traditions, not the other way around. And gays can't make retarded babies, brothers and sisters can. Get some fucking perspecitive.
User avatar #560 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Come to think of it, retarded babies can happen either way but you get the point. Agh, who am I kidding you probably don't.
#79 - I dunno if thats true. A lot of people say they are religiou… 02/23/2013 on athiesm +1
#520 - It would depend on all the metal and minerals that make up the… 02/22/2013 on planet and shit 0
#399 - Nevermind, im retarded, the post says 7 times the mass 02/21/2013 on planet and shit +1
#393 - That's assuming that the density is equal to the earths, the g…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/21/2013 on planet and shit -1
User avatar #511 - Maroon (02/22/2013) [-]
well, it's a solid planet so I doubt the density would be that far off.
User avatar #520 - Krystoking (02/22/2013) [-]
It would depend on all the metal and minerals that make up the planet, but i guess it wouldnt be too far off
User avatar #399 - Krystoking (02/21/2013) [-]
Nevermind, im retarded, the post says 7 times the mass
#41 - is that cho gath fan art? looks pretty cool 02/20/2013 on This guy... +3
#1312 - gotcha 02/19/2013 on Puberty 0
#1310 - ?  [+] (2 new replies) 02/19/2013 on Puberty 0
User avatar #1311 - theflamingfire (02/19/2013) [-]
I'm just looking at what funnyjunk used to been like.
User avatar #1312 - Krystoking (02/19/2013) [-]
gotcha
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 7147 / Total items point value: 7652

Comments(475):

[ 475 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #478 - indiekid (11/17/2014) [-]
Hey buddy!!!! Haha that's awesome you're still using the avatar i made you
User avatar #479 to #478 - Krystoking (11/17/2014) [-]
haha yeah its a pretty good avatar
User avatar #480 to #479 - indiekid (11/17/2014) [-]
That was like 3 years ago haha. Crazy
User avatar #481 to #480 - Krystoking (11/17/2014) [-]
ya i havent really been updating my account since then, havent posted a comic in a while either
User avatar #482 to #481 - indiekid (11/17/2014) [-]
Yeah me neither. It's crazy how much my life was consumed by fj for a few years. Good memories though
User avatar #483 to #482 - Krystoking (11/17/2014) [-]
ya i just hang around to kill time
User avatar #477 to #476 - Krystoking (06/21/2014) [-]
thank you
#468 - anonymous (01/03/2013) [-]
why did you stop making comics. just why.
you're a legend :'(
User avatar #469 to #468 - Krystoking (01/03/2013) [-]
too busy
#470 to #469 - anonymous (01/04/2013) [-]
www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4344599/Quality/
zombified is a faggot reposter. If I was you, I would leave a comment on that repost
User avatar #471 to #470 - Krystoking (01/04/2013) [-]
i dont mind people reposting my stuff, he didnt claim it was his so i dont care that much lol
User avatar #472 to #471 - optimos (01/04/2013) [-]
okay then :D
I couldn't react as you do, seriously. it would piss me off if someone steals my content.
btw I was anon
User avatar #473 to #472 - Krystoking (01/04/2013) [-]
its a way to share the content youve made, in reality the thumbs you get on your profile dont mean anything, its the fact that your content was shared and enjoyed, so ya i dont care unless someone takes credit for something they didnt make
User avatar #474 to #473 - optimos (01/04/2013) [-]
True. One of my comics was reposted by an user from 9gag, and even when he didn't take credit of it people made comments thinking the comic was made by him. It annoys a bit, but it's really good to see that people have enjoyed reading it.
Good to talk to you man :)
and I hope you can make a new comic some day
User avatar #475 to #474 - Krystoking (01/04/2013) [-]
good to talk to you too, and maybe i will one day, if an idea strikes, we shall see
#466 - xreiko (10/26/2012) [-]
I'm dead.
I'm dead.
#449 - SonicTeam (09/22/2012) [-]
Ok, this comic is what I want. I wanna see more versions of this. It doesn't have to be pony, but whatever you want. I have a Slenderman version and a Sonic version. You can do whatever cartoon show you want or your own idea. All I ask is the ending face to be the same.
User avatar #450 to #449 - Krystoking (09/22/2012) [-]
Uh sure, ill get on it, when do you want it done?
User avatar #451 to #450 - SonicTeam (09/22/2012) [-]
Before 09/28/12
User avatar #452 to #451 - Krystoking (09/22/2012) [-]
you mean 28/09/12, and ok
User avatar #453 to #452 - SonicTeam (09/22/2012) [-]
UK eh? lol.
User avatar #454 to #453 - Krystoking (09/22/2012) [-]
Canada actually, eh?
#455 to #454 - SonicTeam (09/22/2012) [-]
I love Canada
#456 to #455 - Krystoking (09/22/2012) [-]
I should hope so
I should hope so
#457 to #456 - SonicTeam (09/22/2012) [-]
It's where I had sex with a 10 year old when I was 13.
#459 to #458 - SonicTeam (09/22/2012) [-]
Here's a picture of her and me.
User avatar #460 to #459 - Krystoking (09/22/2012) [-]
That looks even younger than 10!!

you disgust me
#461 to #460 - SonicTeam (09/22/2012) [-]
Her parents didn't seem to mind.
#462 to #461 - Krystoking (09/22/2012) [-]
That's because they were dead.
That's because they were dead.
#463 to #462 - SonicTeam (09/22/2012) [-]
Exactly. I even threw a party for it.
#464 to #463 - Krystoking (09/22/2012) [-]
mfw this thread
mfw this thread
#465 to #464 - SonicTeam (09/22/2012) [-]
Such a lovely kitty
User avatar #441 - irwincardozo (07/02/2012) [-]
MAKE MORE COMICS!
User avatar #442 to #448 - Krystoking (07/02/2012) [-]
I WANT TO but I'm out of ideas. I might start up again soon though.
User avatar #440 - irwincardozo (06/20/2012) [-]
new comic up in 20 mins buddy ;) check it out if u get the time
User avatar #437 - SonicTeam (05/18/2012) [-]
Actually, my girl and I went there. We were the customers. I blocked out the name just for somewhat security purposes cause the guy was funny and I didn't feel the need of people bugging him.
User avatar #438 to #444 - Krystoking (05/18/2012) [-]
Oh ok, well, I know your general location lol
User avatar #439 to #445 - SonicTeam (05/18/2012) [-]
However, I'll be at The Cannery this weekend
#435 - thealmightyj (05/08/2012) [-]
I found this and it reminded me of racism and I like racism
#433 - seelcudoom has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #434 to #440 - Krystoking (04/13/2012) [-]
Ya, and thanks for letting me know
#427 - ikillerwhale **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #428 to #434 - Krystoking (12/31/2011) [-]
You're not on facebook anymore...
#429 to #435 - ikillerwhale **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #430 to #436 - Krystoking (12/31/2011) [-]
Not replying though
#431 to #437 - ikillerwhale **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #416 - iAmAmerican (12/26/2011) [-]
Greetins, Krystoking.
User avatar #417 to #423 - Krystoking (12/26/2011) [-]
Happy Christmas, iAmAmerican
User avatar #418 to #424 - iAmAmerican (12/26/2011) [-]
How was your Christmas?
User avatar #419 to #425 - Krystoking (12/26/2011) [-]
Quite good, finally got Skyrim, you?
User avatar #420 to #426 - iAmAmerican (12/26/2011) [-]
That's good. I don't really care about the Elder Scrolls series, but I got a new phone, a keyboard piano, and Fallout 3. I've never played any of the Fallout games but I'm trying it out.
User avatar #421 to #427 - Krystoking (12/26/2011) [-]
Ive never gotten into fallout, but I heard that it's basically elder scrolls with guns. What kinda phone? And honestly, I wasn't a fan of oblivion when I first played it, but I gave it another chance, now I'm really into the series. What do you play it on?
User avatar #422 to #428 - iAmAmerican (12/26/2011) [-]
I wouldn't say. They're both role-playing action games though, but Fallout 3 is set in a post-apocalyptic world and is set in 2277, and Skyrim is set in the medieval times, I think, I don't really know lol. It's a Cricket ZTE Score Android phone. I'm considering getting Skyrim, but I really don't feel like buying it lol. I play Fallout 3 on my computer.
User avatar #423 to #429 - Krystoking (12/27/2011) [-]
I think they're considered similar because they share a similar engine. And nice, I recently got a Blackberry Bold, which is probably not as good lol. I'm pretty sure you can torrent skyrim, just not sure of the quality of the product.
User avatar #424 to #430 - iAmAmerican (12/27/2011) [-]
Yeah they're both made by Bethesda. Bolds aren't that half bad, but it is nice to have an Android phone, they're pretty boss. I haven't tried yet. But I torrented Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and it lagged horribly, and I torrented BF3 and just got an error. Guess I'll try those again some time, after I finish playing Fallout 3.
User avatar #425 to #431 - Krystoking (12/27/2011) [-]
Alright makes sense, make a new comic soon!
User avatar #426 to #432 - iAmAmerican (12/27/2011) [-]
I'm probably just going to merge together 3 un-uploaded comics. Together, they'll be funny. I'm pretty stumped on ideas, and I haven't really tried to come up with anything. Pretty bored of this site lol. I'm just here pretty much to talk to friends now :)
User avatar #412 - Obscurity (12/24/2011) [-]
Make more comics and I'll advertise :P
User avatar #413 to #419 - Krystoking (12/24/2011) [-]
I will and thanks :D
BTW, if you make any more comics, can you post them in my new channel?
User avatar #414 to #420 - Obscurity (12/24/2011) [-]
I have been actually, which chan?
User avatar #415 to #421 - Krystoking (12/25/2011) [-]
It's called oc-comics. My most recent post has a link.
#406 - nommas (12/21/2011) [-]
Yeah uh... I like Immunology too...
#407 to #413 - Krystoking (12/21/2011) [-]
Don't know what you mean by that, but I'm okay with it.
Don't know what you mean by that, but I'm okay with it.
User avatar #408 to #414 - nommas (12/21/2011) [-]
Hint hint, check the link in that MM you sent.
User avatar #410 to #416 - nommas (12/21/2011) [-]
Well I understood none of it.

And +1 thumb on that comic too
User avatar #411 to #417 - Krystoking (12/21/2011) [-]
I don't understand much of it either lol. Thanks for the thumb.
#383 - bobJML (11/04/2011) [-]
Can you do a barrel roll one last time, for me?
#384 to #390 - Krystoking (11/04/2011) [-]
I'll do anything for you bob.

But just so you know, I'm not leaving, just not making comics anymore
#385 to #391 - bobJML (11/04/2011) [-]
Oh...well that's good I guess. You just don't find it worth it to make comics for Funnyjunk anymore?
#386 to #392 - Krystoking (11/04/2011) [-]
I just don't have the time anymore... Takes a lot of time to make these comics...
#387 to #393 - bobJML (11/04/2011) [-]
I'm not saying your drawing style is bad, but it's so simple, which I love. How could it take a lot of time? I mean, my comics take me 2-5 hours in total to draw. Yours looks like it could take around an hour if you don't mess around.
#388 to #394 - Krystoking (11/04/2011) [-]
Most of the time is spent thinking of a comic, when I should be thinking of other things.  And I do mess around.
Most of the time is spent thinking of a comic, when I should be thinking of other things. And I do mess around.
#389 to #395 - bobJML (11/04/2011) [-]
Getting a comic idea isn't difficult.
>Think of something random
>Ask 1 or 2 people what they think
>Draw it
>Show 3-5 people a preview of it
>Make sure you are somewhat close and the people are trustworthy
>Post it
>???
>Profit
#391 to #396 - Krystoking (11/04/2011) [-]
Ya I guess...  If anything I will come back, but it won't be for a while.  I won't even have much time to browse FJ starting next week.
Ya I guess... If anything I will come back, but it won't be for a while. I won't even have much time to browse FJ starting next week.
#393 to #398 - bobJML (11/04/2011) [-]
Is it because of skool?
#394 to #400 - Krystoking (11/04/2011) [-]
That and other.... Personal stuff....
That and other.... Personal stuff....
#395 to #401 - bobJML (11/04/2011) [-]
Masturbation is the key to success!
#396 to #402 - Krystoking (11/04/2011) [-]
So true my friend, so true...
So true my friend, so true...
#397 to #403 - bobJML (11/04/2011) [-]
Forever Alone Party!
#398 to #404 - Krystoking (11/04/2011) [-]
I'm in!
I'm in!
#399 to #405 - bobJML (11/04/2011) [-]
There should be 2 people there.
#392 to #398 - bobJML has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #390 to #396 - bobJML (11/04/2011) [-]
they are*
#367 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
#368 to #374 - Krystoking (11/02/2011) [-]
Why hello there.
Why hello there.
#369 to #375 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
#370 to #376 - Krystoking (11/02/2011) [-]
Not much, working on my last comic.
Not much, working on my last comic.
#371 to #377 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
#372 to #378 - Krystoking (11/02/2011) [-]
I've been on here for two years, and I just don't have the time anymore.  I'll probably come back, but it'll be a hwhile.
I've been on here for two years, and I just don't have the time anymore. I'll probably come back, but it'll be a hwhile.
#373 to #379 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
#374 to #380 - Krystoking (11/02/2011) [-]
Thanks. It used to be mine, I've just been posting here for too long.
#375 to #381 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
#376 to #382 - Krystoking (11/02/2011) [-]
Too much time lost.
Too much time lost.
#377 to #383 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
#378 to #384 - Krystoking (11/02/2011) [-]
I do at the moment, maybe I won't anymore and I'll be able to come back.
I do at the moment, maybe I won't anymore and I'll be able to come back.
User avatar #380 to #385 - Krystoking (11/02/2011) [-]
One day*
#379 to #385 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
#381 to #386 - Krystoking (11/04/2011) [-]
Hello again Sunset. I know you like commenting on new uploads, so here: http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/2829461/The+Lost+Comics/
#382 to #388 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
#362 - cubanwhiteman (10/22/2011) [-]
At first I lolled at your rank,



But then I lolled again when I saw your level.
#364 to #370 - cubanwhiteman (10/22/2011) [-]
That's a ******* win, if I ever seen one.
User avatar #365 to #371 - Krystoking (10/22/2011) [-]
Ill have to save that, thanks for pointing it out
User avatar #355 - thealmightyj (10/10/2011) [-]
Hey check out my new oc
User avatar #354 - thealmightyj (10/09/2011) [-]
Y U NO POST NEW COMICS
User avatar #356 to #359 - Krystoking (10/18/2011) [-]
IM SO SORRY!!! Really busy with school
User avatar #357 to #361 - thealmightyj (10/18/2011) [-]
It's cool. I completely understand. I'm always stressed with stupid homework and projects.
User avatar #358 to #362 - Krystoking (10/18/2011) [-]
When I have some time, I'll work on some comics, I promise
User avatar #360 to #363 - thealmightyj (10/18/2011) [-]
PS: I uploaded a clever story.
User avatar #361 to #365 - Krystoking (10/18/2011) [-]
I checked it out, pretty funny
#359 to #363 - thealmightyj (10/18/2011) [-]
I screen capped that so you better keep that promise  
  
*glares*  
picture unrelated
I screen capped that so you better keep that promise

*glares*
picture unrelated
User avatar #352 - indiekid (09/11/2011) [-]
YOU HAVENT BEEN ON IN SOOOO FRIGGIN LONG KRYSTOKING
User avatar #353 to #357 - Krystoking (09/15/2011) [-]
IM SORRY I HAVE A LOT OF SCHOOL
[ 475 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)