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

hide menu

Vandeekree    

Rank #7963 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Online
Send mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:10/31/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7963
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3820 total,  5647 ,  1827
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 92% (92/100)
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1682
FJ Points:3518

latest user's comments

#7 - This is exactly my brother an I playing Diablo 3. Through the … 10/21/2013 on Co-op +2
#78 - That was just a joke. I would have actually made it three week… 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +2
#74 - They are the same, you murdered someone. And now you must pay …  [+] (2 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +2
User avatar #75 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
> Two weeks public service.

How about life in prison, the one your victim lived.
User avatar #78 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
That was just a joke. I would have actually made it three weeks AND a hefty fine.
#72 - And I agree. But that doesn't mean that your motive, so long a…  [+] (4 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +2
User avatar #73 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
But if you murder someone,simply because, say they are black,but you murder an asian man because he wronged you, which is worse?
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
They are the same, you murdered someone. And now you must pay the two weeks of public service which is the fair punishment for murder.
User avatar #75 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
> Two weeks public service.

How about life in prison, the one your victim lived.
User avatar #78 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
That was just a joke. I would have actually made it three weeks AND a hefty fine.
#69 - But how do you determine that? IN this example, how do we what… 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +1
#58 - Do we gauge all crimes by motive instead of action like that? …  [+] (8 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +2
User avatar #62 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
Look at it this way: Until you get to know someone, you shouldn't hate them. Hate, envy, greed, these are reasons we murder and those feelings are brought up by something the person has done, or said. If we were to murder only because people were different, because they were a different sexual orientation, skin tone, religion, then it would have no real motive. We don't know who these people are, we don't feel true hate for them, only disgust in the fact they are different, that is a hate crime, that is not justified.
User avatar #72 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
And I agree. But that doesn't mean that your motive, so long as you actual meant that person's death to be the result of your actions, should have any bearing on the punishment. You killed someone so you get the punishment for taking a live that wasn't yours to take.
User avatar #73 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
But if you murder someone,simply because, say they are black,but you murder an asian man because he wronged you, which is worse?
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
They are the same, you murdered someone. And now you must pay the two weeks of public service which is the fair punishment for murder.
User avatar #75 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
> Two weeks public service.

How about life in prison, the one your victim lived.
User avatar #78 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
That was just a joke. I would have actually made it three weeks AND a hefty fine.
User avatar #59 - thegrimreaver (10/21/2013) [-]
Everything really comes down to motive. Take for example, if you came home, and found that some guy had broken in to your house and killed your wife/girlfriend, and in a blind rage, you killed him, you could potentially be charged with just Manslaughter, rather than murder. When you're being charged with something like that, your state of mind is one of the biggest things that is taken in to consideration.
User avatar #69 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
But how do you determine that? IN this example, how do we what the murders of her son were motivated by? Did they do it because they were afraid of the spread of gay culture because they were told to be afraid by someone else? If so should they be given lighter sentences and the person who taught them such things blamed? Did they do it out of hate for the kids because they knew them and knew they were different and so they picked on them? What if it wasn't even about them being gay?

It doesn't make sense to punish someone, not for what they did, but for what they might have been thinking while doing it.

If I killed that guy who broke into my house I still killed him, it wasn't self defense, it wasn't to protect my already dead family. I did not control myself. You can control your emotions, they don't control you, it's no excuse for what I hypothetically did. So I deserve to be put on trial for murder just like he should be put on trial for his murders.

The only differences that should be taken into account when someone kills another, is if they were trying to kill that person or if it was not the goal of their actions.
#51 - There are already laws against murder, so is she saying she wa…  [+] (10 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Steven Fry-Out There +1
User avatar #56 - thegrimreaver (10/21/2013) [-]
There is a difference between a regular homicide, and a hate crime. Hate crimes are more severely punished.
User avatar #58 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
Do we gauge all crimes by motive instead of action like that? Is there murder motivated by hate and murder motivated by greed and murder motivated by anger. It's all intentional murder, is it really a good idea to start making it worse or not so bad to murder someone depending on who they are?
User avatar #62 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
Look at it this way: Until you get to know someone, you shouldn't hate them. Hate, envy, greed, these are reasons we murder and those feelings are brought up by something the person has done, or said. If we were to murder only because people were different, because they were a different sexual orientation, skin tone, religion, then it would have no real motive. We don't know who these people are, we don't feel true hate for them, only disgust in the fact they are different, that is a hate crime, that is not justified.
User avatar #72 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
And I agree. But that doesn't mean that your motive, so long as you actual meant that person's death to be the result of your actions, should have any bearing on the punishment. You killed someone so you get the punishment for taking a live that wasn't yours to take.
User avatar #73 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
But if you murder someone,simply because, say they are black,but you murder an asian man because he wronged you, which is worse?
User avatar #74 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
They are the same, you murdered someone. And now you must pay the two weeks of public service which is the fair punishment for murder.
User avatar #75 - agrofenlas (10/21/2013) [-]
> Two weeks public service.

How about life in prison, the one your victim lived.
User avatar #78 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
That was just a joke. I would have actually made it three weeks AND a hefty fine.
User avatar #59 - thegrimreaver (10/21/2013) [-]
Everything really comes down to motive. Take for example, if you came home, and found that some guy had broken in to your house and killed your wife/girlfriend, and in a blind rage, you killed him, you could potentially be charged with just Manslaughter, rather than murder. When you're being charged with something like that, your state of mind is one of the biggest things that is taken in to consideration.
User avatar #69 - Vandeekree (10/21/2013) [-]
But how do you determine that? IN this example, how do we what the murders of her son were motivated by? Did they do it because they were afraid of the spread of gay culture because they were told to be afraid by someone else? If so should they be given lighter sentences and the person who taught them such things blamed? Did they do it out of hate for the kids because they knew them and knew they were different and so they picked on them? What if it wasn't even about them being gay?

It doesn't make sense to punish someone, not for what they did, but for what they might have been thinking while doing it.

If I killed that guy who broke into my house I still killed him, it wasn't self defense, it wasn't to protect my already dead family. I did not control myself. You can control your emotions, they don't control you, it's no excuse for what I hypothetically did. So I deserve to be put on trial for murder just like he should be put on trial for his murders.

The only differences that should be taken into account when someone kills another, is if they were trying to kill that person or if it was not the goal of their actions.
#21 - Did the pilot survive?  [+] (11 new replies) 10/13/2013 on Alternative energy +256
#179 - nightlynutria (10/13/2013) [-]
I dont know if you heard that joke before or you came up with it, but that was really funny
#93 - jbkubel (10/13/2013) [-]
I may be buried in a sea of red thumbs for this, but I don't see any plane in this .gif
Wasn't it just a flawed turbine that accelerated out of controle and broke or am I completely retartded ?
#101 - tjilaz (10/13/2013) [-]
Is joke
#79 - RipperMan (10/13/2013) [-]
When does the pilot EVER survive?
#58 - bloxicity (10/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #51 - thascomrad (10/13/2013) [-]
Isded
User avatar #47 - berkut (10/13/2013) [-]
pilot is kill. The cabin was crushed dont you see?
#36 - xecoq (10/13/2013) [-]
User avatar #102 - mineymann (10/13/2013) [-]
You. I applaud you. I would thumb you but I can't, sorry
User avatar #106 - psychoticcaleb (10/13/2013) [-]
Just post in nsfw a lot.It fucking works.
#23 - sheathedfang (10/13/2013) [-]
haha this made my day thanks.
#47 - Yeah, but it's not even his, it's his uncle's ride. 10/12/2013 on Teenage drivers +35
#2 - Did you know that more Americans live in the United States tha…  [+] (15 new replies) 10/08/2013 on Muricaland +220
User avatar #128 - timmity (10/09/2013) [-]
wait, so south america, panoma and canada have less than the USA? I doupt it
User avatar #35 - scorchoeljohnny (10/09/2013) [-]
More than the south AMERICANS in brazil or the Central AMERICANS in Mexico?
User avatar #102 - negatrom (10/09/2013) [-]
mexico is north america,
that's because the usa wants mexico to behave, so it made it feel important, didn't change a thing though...
#41 - anon (10/09/2013) [-]
The U.S has over 300 million citizens, most of them are American, so yeah.
#70 - anon (10/09/2013) [-]
Most of them are European....Gets your facts right pheggit
#49 - peanutbitter has deleted their comment.
User avatar #22 - roflstorm (10/09/2013) [-]
I'm calling bullshit as there is no legitimate source of proof to back this up.
#52 - anon (10/09/2013) [-]
Population of United States: 300 million
Population of Canada: 35 million
Population of largest Central American country - Guatemala: 14 million
Population of largest South American country - Brazil: 201 million

You're on the internet, use it.

#114 - pwnmissilereborn (10/09/2013) [-]
Is it a bird? Is it a plane?

No! It's the joke!
#17 - Falkor (10/09/2013) [-]
#23 - pwnmissilereborn (10/09/2013) [-]
Did you know that more Mexicans live in the United States than any other country?
#113 - moorgar (10/09/2013) [-]
They canĀ“t pass the Cartman
#61 - Falkor (10/09/2013) [-]
#10 - ohemgeezus (10/08/2013) [-]
>not posting source
#5 - frogthekermit (10/08/2013) [-]
#109 - Y'all been watch'n too much spongebob. You can just swim back …  [+] (1 new reply) 10/06/2013 on Scariest thing to do under... 0
User avatar #171 - cormy (10/07/2013) [-]
He's wearing weights. He can't swim up, if you watch the full vid you see he actually has to pull himself back up by climbing up the walls of the hole.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQITWbAaDx0
#115 - The Tsar bomb would not be big enough. If you took all the bom…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/02/2013 on Wel way the fuck not +3
User avatar #122 - kaosminett (10/02/2013) [-]
yeah and judging by all the craters on the moon so far, i'm assuming its been pelted to shit by various space debris and its still doing its thing just fine
#113 - I grasp that the moon dictates the tides, that wasn't the part…  [+] (3 new replies) 10/02/2013 on Wel way the fuck not +2
User avatar #114 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
Tsar Bomba. If the Russians could make one with that payload...
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
The Tsar bomb would not be big enough. If you took all the bombs, including that one, that are on Earth, their combined effect on the orbit of the moon would be 0, all they would do is make some relatively small craters on the surface.
User avatar #122 - kaosminett (10/02/2013) [-]
yeah and judging by all the craters on the moon so far, i'm assuming its been pelted to shit by various space debris and its still doing its thing just fine
#111 - That scenario seems realistic in your head huh?  [+] (5 new replies) 10/02/2013 on Wel way the fuck not 0
User avatar #112 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
You... don't really know how the tides work, do you? They're susceptible to the slightest change in the moon's orbit. That's why coastal regions put out warnings if the moon enters a near orbit. Can you imagine what would happen if the moon entered a decaying orbit or was shifted even marginally closer in its patterns? And never mind the huge cloud of radioactive particles blown off the surface that would then rain into our atmosphere.
User avatar #113 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
I grasp that the moon dictates the tides, that wasn't the part I was referring too. The unrealistic part of your scenario is that no nuke, not even all the nukes, could move the moon from orbit. First of all, the moon is huge and nukes are not nearly as big as you probably imagine. Secondly, in order to shift the moon's orbit you have to propel matter out of it's gravity well, otherwise no shift would occur. An explosion such as a nuke wouldn't do that and more than all the nuke tests on Earth have shifted its orbit. It just couldn't happen.
User avatar #114 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
Tsar Bomba. If the Russians could make one with that payload...
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
The Tsar bomb would not be big enough. If you took all the bombs, including that one, that are on Earth, their combined effect on the orbit of the moon would be 0, all they would do is make some relatively small craters on the surface.
User avatar #122 - kaosminett (10/02/2013) [-]
yeah and judging by all the craters on the moon so far, i'm assuming its been pelted to shit by various space debris and its still doing its thing just fine
#22 - Comment deleted 10/02/2013 on Other cultures +1
#108 - It's a good plan, if you can put a missile on the moon you can…  [+] (7 new replies) 10/02/2013 on Wel way the fuck not 0
User avatar #110 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
Except for, you know, the possibility of knocking it out of orbit, messing up the tides and destroying every known marine ecosystem (which feed 70% of the world's population) in one fell swoop.
User avatar #111 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
That scenario seems realistic in your head huh?
User avatar #112 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
You... don't really know how the tides work, do you? They're susceptible to the slightest change in the moon's orbit. That's why coastal regions put out warnings if the moon enters a near orbit. Can you imagine what would happen if the moon entered a decaying orbit or was shifted even marginally closer in its patterns? And never mind the huge cloud of radioactive particles blown off the surface that would then rain into our atmosphere.
User avatar #113 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
I grasp that the moon dictates the tides, that wasn't the part I was referring too. The unrealistic part of your scenario is that no nuke, not even all the nukes, could move the moon from orbit. First of all, the moon is huge and nukes are not nearly as big as you probably imagine. Secondly, in order to shift the moon's orbit you have to propel matter out of it's gravity well, otherwise no shift would occur. An explosion such as a nuke wouldn't do that and more than all the nuke tests on Earth have shifted its orbit. It just couldn't happen.
User avatar #114 - roninneko (10/02/2013) [-]
Tsar Bomba. If the Russians could make one with that payload...
User avatar #115 - Vandeekree (10/02/2013) [-]
The Tsar bomb would not be big enough. If you took all the bombs, including that one, that are on Earth, their combined effect on the orbit of the moon would be 0, all they would do is make some relatively small craters on the surface.
User avatar #122 - kaosminett (10/02/2013) [-]
yeah and judging by all the craters on the moon so far, i'm assuming its been pelted to shit by various space debris and its still doing its thing just fine
#2 - Both of those are jaguars. 10/01/2013 on D'aaaawwhhh! +2
#39 - Alright, you insulted their intelligence, but I was more looki… 09/29/2013 on liberating +2
#34 - Ok, so with as little "you're stupid, isn't it obvious?&q…  [+] (15 new replies) 09/29/2013 on liberating +4
#116 - anon (11/29/2013) [-]
Human beings from their earliest point in conception NEED human contact. The baby in the womb not only grows hearing it's mother's heart beat, her breathing and voice but also hears sounds of (hopefully) it's father & perhaps siblings & other soon to meet relatives. And they feel sensations that would only come through the womb.

Besides that babies that are born severely premature are at great risk of being under-developed in important areas (brain, lungs, spine, etc) that if carried 8 to 9 mos (even to 7 mos) are normally... well, NORMAL and healthy. Raising babies in such a way depicted in this poster would only be putting more infants in potential 'harms way' physically & emotionally.
#117 - anon (11/29/2013) [-]
That blanked out word is supposed to be 'p r e mature' (trying to NOT get it blocked out again). Hope it shows up this time but who knows?
User avatar #90 - useroftheLOLZ (09/30/2013) [-]
I think it has to do with the same reasons why people are so against gene therapy, because YOU PLAYIN GOD, YOU DON KNOW WHAT YUR DOIN, YOUR GUUN KILL MUH CHILDRENS WIT YOUR GENETICALLY ENGINEERED WHEAT THAT GROWS BETTER, PRODUCES MORE, AND HAS MORE NUTRITIONAL VALUE THAN REGULAR WHEAT, BUT SOME HOW IS GOIN TA KILL MUH BABIES. It's generally people being afraid of what they don't fully understand, or cannot envision all the good that can come from such technology.

I fully support Gene therapy, as well as this, as humans have long since reached the point where we stopped evolving. Other creatures will adapt to their environment, humans will change their environment to their liking. We now control our evolution, the merger of man and machine is one possible outcome. The applications that controlled growth and birth are amazing, you can make sure the child will grow up strong, healthy, and free of defects, you can change how they will physically be when they grow up, make sure they don't have asthma, cancer, or have autism, et cetera, as we further map out the human genome, we can figure out which sequences to turn on and off, that will make children to grow up smart, and strong, we can pretty much do anything with this. The only downsides that I can envision are the social, and cultural ones, where society has to come to terms with the fact that maybe the best thing for our children is not regular birth, but a highly controlled environment, or maybe not, we have yet to see.
#75 - anon (09/30/2013) [-]
Children develop attachment to their parents in the womb, and once born are able to recognize their mother's voice and their father's voice if he was involved with the pregnancy. Children respond to stimulation from food, hormones, emotions, and sounds in a human womb that they wouldn't experience in an artificial one. Also pregnancy releases strong attachment hormones like serotonin that help the mother attach to the child (except in cases of post pardem depression where hormones have the opposite effect).
Then there are the moral implications of separating oneself from our human origins to make things more convenient. Pregnancy is one of the most human and important things a person can do, creating someone new, something that science cannot do, and to take that away from people would take something out of the human experience that cannot be replaced.
#42 - cheastnut (09/29/2013) [-]
there is no "Jurassic park effect where no one will bring up the idea of bringing back dinosaurs because it went poorly in a movie once." first of all was Jurassic park bad because you can't put dinosaurs in the wild without fucking up the entire earths ecosystem. dinosaurs where the apex of reptilian evolution, that's why they hardly changed for the 100 mill. years that they were dominate. you could keep the dinosaurs under restraints because of animal rights. in an enclosed environment like Jurassic park would be extremely expensive with little pay off. if you want an example why the picture above is bad read the tags. now lets address their claims.
*Safer/healthier : protected from any ascendents that involve the parents; but what happens if they both die, abortion, adoption? protected from diseases, give antibiotics automatically; creates a dependence on the system and weakens the immune-system; given cures, diseases will mutate so it's not effective.
*more affordable : (you'll be paying for life support, cures, treatments, and perhaps growth hormones) most likely it'd be private companies taking advantage of lazy parents.
*liberation : people, animals and god knows what else have been having kids the natural way for 14 billion years, most of them have them in the wild with risk of being eaten in the weakened state,and humans have have them without pain medicine till about 200-300 years ago and still did their work of survival not just sitting around at your desk. I think you can afford 9 months of caring and 12-20 hours of birth.
sure there are some benefits but the over all effect would hurt humanity as a whole.
#46 - airconditionerman (09/29/2013) [-]
isn't the whole point of advanced technologies to make human's lives easier? for example, i know that it is entirely possible to live without ever using pain medication and that was how humans lived for thousands of years, but why deny it if it is there? If it makes our lives easier and does not subject women to the most intense pains imaginable, then why not use it? And obviously the costs would be exorbitant to start off with, but as with all technology it gets cheaper as the process of creating that technology as well as the cost of developing the tech get progressively lower. also, the argument that antibiotics will eventually become ineffective due to the development of a resistant strain renders all vaccines pointless, since the increased use of vaccines will inevitably lead to the thriving of the diseases which are resistant to those medicines.
User avatar #48 - cheastnut (09/30/2013) [-]
yes, but as i pointed out in the last part of my comment, it shouldn't hurt us later on. this kind of technology would take a way natural influence. the reason why dinosaurs stopped changing was because they were the apex, best the could be, they were good at what they did and they did nothing else. humans are different we strive to do things. that means different things, to adapt. this would keep our births at mechanical efficiency no variation, no change. we'd have no need to evolve, mostly we've created machines to evolve for us. i'm not saying that we shouldn't use medicine, just that some technology is more burden the reward. and you're right about the cures, but we keep on making them. i won't pretend to know why besides the idea that if we kill of all the viruses then we'd have nothing to worry about but there will inevitably be more that come around and they will come after our bodies have become weak. i mean i can under stand the worst of them like cancer or aids, but stuff like the common cold, chicken pox, all seem to be nothing more then an annoyance that helps us later on against something that could be worse.
#50 - airconditionerman (09/30/2013) [-]
glad to be finally having a rational discussion on the internet, i would thumb you if i could. but as for your argument, i do think that there are some cases where something that should be dealt with naturally, like depression (people are sad sometimes. that is no reason to go popping antidepressants every chance you get), but overall i think technology has way more benefits than drawbacks. for example, if we have the ability to genetically alter children to make sure they are free from horrible diseases then i think it is our responsibility to not only relieve their suffering but assure that they will have a normal life. I mean why should we have to deal with these impairments if it is entirely within our power to avoid them?
#54 - cheastnut (09/30/2013) [-]
i know people are so uncivilized now a days. i'll give you some thumbs to help. and yes some things should be stopped if we have the power like birth defects, but the point here is that humans would basically move from being the most advanced animal to just an on going science experiment. it's the same reason parents haven't been done away with and kids just raised by the government. there is a deeply personal bond with parents and child (not that it can't form outside of your blood). this is not parenting it's just pushing off your kids on to some one else.
#55 - airconditionerman (09/30/2013) [-]
thank you for the thumbs sir. so would you be opposed to the privatization of these pods? meaning that the potential 'parents' would own the pods, and they would not be influenced by any government or private entity?
#56 - cheastnut (09/30/2013) [-]
perhaps for parents who can't have kids themselves but there would still be the adoption agencies that would suffer "why go buy someones second hand kids when you can grow your own chia-child".
#59 - airconditionerman (09/30/2013) [-]
yeah i can agree with you there. it shouldnt be as much of a hassle for people in developed nations to adopt from overseas. It's just denying opportunities to children who are in desperate need
#61 - cheastnut (09/30/2013) [-]
this sounded sincere so i'll thumb it up
#37 - uhhyeahfmebaby (09/29/2013) [-]
Small minded people being scared small minded people.
Actually, scratch "people" put "faggots"
User avatar #39 - Vandeekree (09/29/2013) [-]
Alright, you insulted their intelligence, but I was more looking for an explanation of why they feel that way. What about this sets off moral compasses?
#34 - And when they first met Vegeta was the stronger one. But havin… 09/29/2013 on Comparing Childhoods 0
#7 - It's...it's not just mutating with the marine...it's integrati… 09/25/2013 on i'm scared now 0
#8 - No man, you gotta work for it. The pokemon are the reward in h… 09/25/2013 on God to me 0
#6 - Well...he just lost my vote. 09/25/2013 on (untitled) 0
#349 - I am changing nothing, I am looking back at the original text,… 09/22/2013 on I like this. 0
#347 - Ok, so the first one Matthew 15:4 does not mean what you seem … 09/22/2013 on I like this. 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you not have morals? Like seriously do you not have any? You claim that you only do as the bible instructs every time someone asks you about morals, but do you not know right from wrong without religion?

If so perhaps you should learn it. I'm an agnostic and I still know what's right from wrong without a higher entity instructing me on it. If the only thing keeping you from being a moral-less prick is religion then you are probably a psychopath.
User avatar #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Lets just put this here, shall we? Fewer purple lines
User avatar #18 to #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Now I strongly disagree that more studies need to be done in order to come to a consensus. All of the leading bodies which have done research on the subject have found no reason to indicate that gays are naturally more likely through their expression of sexuality to have any types of adverse effects. The only people I have heard calling for more research are the same people claiming that climate change is not a thing or that natural selection doesnt happen. There is a consensus in the scientific community and it is people who are not a part of the community who claim that they cant make conclusions (because they dont like the ones made)
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree ONLINE (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree ONLINE (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - anon (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree ONLINE (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree ONLINE (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree ONLINE (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree ONLINE (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)