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

hide menu

captainfuckitall

Rank #363 on Comments
captainfuckitall Avatar Level 349 Comments: Sold Soul
Offline
Send mail to captainfuckitall Block captainfuckitall Invite captainfuckitall to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#363
Highest Content Rank:#10530
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 34 total,  90 ,  56
Comment Thumbs: 53023 total,  64758 ,  11735
Content Level Progress: 66.1% (39/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 5.3% (53/1000)
Level 349 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 350 Comments: Knight Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:21
Content Views:9742
Times Content Favorited:12 times
Total Comments Made:15430
FJ Points:21278

latest user's comments

#91 - It's not about harsher punishments or hurting people, it's abo…  [+] (6 new replies) 11/20/2014 on Unpopular 0
User avatar #93 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
"the advantages gained from the experimentation would counter-balance the one out of every 10 or 100 or 1000 innocent lives lost. "

" it's about making them useful and making the world a better place."

Choose one.
User avatar #94 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Am I really wrong? Do you honestly believe that the experiments performed on these people WOULDN'T benefit society and eventually the world in significant ways? What about the practical applications to old medicines and newly discovered ones? Could those not be used to help innocent, good people live longer, happier lives?
User avatar #99 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
More innocent people in prison =/= better world.
User avatar #118 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Whoever said I'd be putting innocent people in prison? It's not intentional, just an accident, like how accidents happen in construction or medicine or literally just about any profession or project. Should we stop all those too?
#121 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
I'm done talking to you.
User avatar #125 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
I still love your profile picture
#87 - I mean nature as in life, evolution. I included it because the…  [+] (6 new replies) 11/20/2014 on Unpopular -3
#96 - bluemagebrilly (11/20/2014) [-]
You said alligators, which wasn't relevant to humanity. I also do not mean "you'll be as bad as them", I mean you'll become them. Someone who murders without any reason but his own satisfaction and being killed by a scientist for 'the greater good' is practically the same thing, because they both get satisfaction from it. Yes, the scientist may actually help other people with what he did, but what's stopping him from doing it more? And who's to say the murderer didn't help people by killing off people that could have become criminals themselves?

A bit far fetched, but...

Anywho, if a doctor, even once, sees common people 'as experiments', then it's a problem. Doesn't matter if it doesn't happen often. If it happens once, then it's a problem.

It doesn't matter how much progress can be made by testing on humans. We have rats for that anyways, and willing people who let their bodies be used in science. Progress won't jump as you believe it will, we're on a pretty stable current as is. It /might/ go up if we had more people, but at what cost?

Sure, some people can't be forgiven for their crimes, but so what? You think it's better to just kill them like they were a weed in a field of flowers? It's better to just kill them off and think 'well, it benefits everyone else.' That kind of thinking is dangerous, and too similar to many great tragedy's that have happened. Like the Indians or even the Jews in Germany... It wasn't true for both, obviously, but that was the line of thinking.

I can also understand where you are coming from, but in my opinion if you /really/ want people to be experimented on, then go through it yourself. By your logic, it'll outweigh the consequences of your death.

But I don't want you to die for the sake of 'science', nor do I want anyone to do that. We don't need martyrs, we need humanity, morality. How can we say the future will be great without diseases, if everyone is killing each other to prevent more?
User avatar #115 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
(Part 2)

Except I'm not a criminal and could still be a benefit to society through other means, criminals cannot. If I WAS a criminal, I would happily go through with it (besides, I'm not talking about small time crooks either, only serious crimes such as murder, rape, grand arson, large robberies, ect).

You're blowing this into a bigger problem than it needs to be, old top. I KNOW why you're concerned, but you can't just say "If one officer shoots someone, THEY'LL ALL START SHOOTING INNOCENT PEOPLE INDISCRIMINATELY! Thus we should take away all cops or make them unable to shoot"

User avatar #111 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
It was an example about how nature (I.E. life/evolution) doesn't care about morality.

Are you serious right now? "Being killed to benefit others toward the greater good of humanity and science" and "Being killed for satisfaction" are the SAME? Really? You are still grasping at straws and desperately trying to split hairs in order to justify your arguments, using "What if"'s and "But it could!"'s, but at the end of the day, you operate by what might happen and I operate by what will. My arguments follow practical logic and has solutions that could lead humanity to greater understanding and knowledge while you are afraid that people might enjoy killing criminals (as they probably should) and see everyone as criminals (which, as seen in my previous example of cops and soldiers is highly unlikely).

It is, but so is cancer, and so are brain tumors, and so are millions of other diseases and illnesses and untested machines and millions of other things we are ignorant about regarding the human body, brain, and the effects of what happens to them. My idea solves all of them and potentially causes one, yours potentially stops one and allows the rest. If we're talking in scales of "Problems vs solutions" then my idea is still more practical. Do you also say we should get rid of all guns because "Even if it saves one life it's worth it" ignoring the fact of how MANY people are saved with guns?

Rats are not humans and do not possess the same genes, brain chemistry, physiology, ect. And as a result the subject of experiments done to them is extremely limited.

Indeed, at WHAT cost? You are still cutting at only the potential for more problems caused, while even in the absolute worst scenario of mine, nothing new is learned and we kill off a bunch of useless criminals anyways.

Yes. And indeed it was, and much useful information was gained out of Nazi Germany too. Besides, criminals aren't an ethnic group, they're select members of society who's only requirement is being scum.
#123 - bluemagebrilly (11/20/2014) [-]
I am not going to continue to bother with you after this, mostly because you are refusing to see my side even for a moment. You do not see humans, even if they are criminals, as you see yourself. You see them as something lower than yourself. You even see me as something lower than yourself because I do not agree with you.

Do you get satisfaction out of helping people? Yeah.

Did a murderer get satisfaction from killing people. Yeah, probably.

Not the same? Okay, I guess I'm splitting hairs.

You hold soldiers and cops on a high platform, but it's not uncommon for them to be considered the real 'criminals.' Do you want to test on them? On yourself? No, of course not, only those you see lower than you. Criminals are the same as you, and you only say that you'd go through with it because you /aren't/ one of them.

You can't see people if you only look at the 'greater good', you can't see their horrified faces. I'm not saying anything like 'we should remove guns because they kill people' or even that one person could make everyone else go crazy. But it only takes a small spark to start something big.

I apologize if I upset you, but you are coming off as someone who spouts off what 'should' happen and ignores what could, the opposite of what you are accusing me of. You... well, I'd consider you a criminal myself with how easily you write off human life.

Bad or not, serious or not, it's a crime to think life means nothing. That's why people arrest murderers.
User avatar #136 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
(Part 2)

That's very true, but you and I see different horrified faces. You see the horrified face of a criminal while I see the horrified face of a young woman diagnosed with cancer that could have potentially been cured by medicines developed from my proposed experiments. We have different priorities, old chap; I don't care if you think I'm a monster just so long as I know I'm doing good.

Not at all. We've debated before and you always seem like a very nice and reasonable person, I think I only got frustrated with you once and then apologized soon after. Indeed, I get that a lot, but even you admitted that it's far-fetched that my ideas COULD backfire and some doctor could go crazy from them. In terms of benefits and costs, more benefits means higher chances of getting them, like having a box of 99 red balls and 1 blue ball means a higher chance of getting a red ball, and my idea has a thousand benefits with very little cost.

I understand it concerns you that I am so callous regarding the lives of criminals, but if it makes you feel any better I do NOT see all human lives as equal. Some people do really have more value than others, and I really do see the majority of the human race as valuable, so I would do my best to protect it.

Life means as much as you make of it and DOES have standards. The life of a scientist/doctor/policeman/construction worker/housewife/literally just about anyone is worth more than the life of a slob/druggie/criminal/waste. To be honest, you are doing more to de-value life than I am
User avatar #127 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
I do see your side, but your argument is built on what MIGHT be, which is why I will never take it as seriously as an argument based on what WILL be, such as mine. I do see criminals as lower than myself because they chose to be horrible people while I did not, I do not see you as lower than myself because of a differing opinion, as I support all forms of free speech and debating. If I think myself 'better' than anyone I do it because of the accomplishments I've made throughout my life, as I hope you would too; treating everyone the same regardless of who they are or what they've done devalues when they TRY to be a better person, both realistically and morally.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the comparison between pleasure gained from helping or hindering, aside from the common "It makes me feel good" aspect, the consequences are completely different. One helps people, one hinders, literally. The problem is that you and I are seeing opposite ends of the argument, like a ball of string and you are focused on the ball and I am focused on the string or vice-versa

Indeed, but usually by community college hippies. There's a difference between whether someone is actually a benefit to society and whether you believe they are. Right now you are literally putting people who work their entire lives to help society and people who only hinder and look out for themselves on the same level. Through your view, what's the point of TRYING to be good at all if no credit is gained for it? What's the point of trying to help when you're going to put me on the same level of someone who hinders anyways? In any case I CAN at least promise I am no hypocrite, if I was a criminal worthy of death (as I said before, no small-time guys would be subjected to this) I would happily go through with it, as I would support it if it were my family, friends, or anyone.
#15 - PEOPLE ONLY LIKE HARVEST MOON BECAUSE OF ISABELLE!!!!!  [+] (2 new replies) 11/20/2014 on look at the tags +2
User avatar #16 - gameboyadvance (11/20/2014) [-]
THE WITCH IS BEST WIFE
#19 - stealthnull (11/20/2014) [-]
#13 - Wanna know what's ironic? You being relevant for anything othe…  [+] (4 new replies) 11/20/2014 on look at the tags -5
User avatar #14 - gameboyadvance (11/20/2014) [-]
>Dragon ball z Advanced Adventure.
>Harvest moon.
>Harvest moon.
>HARVEST MOON
User avatar #15 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
PEOPLE ONLY LIKE HARVEST MOON BECAUSE OF ISABELLE!!!!!
User avatar #16 - gameboyadvance (11/20/2014) [-]
THE WITCH IS BEST WIFE
#19 - stealthnull (11/20/2014) [-]
#64 - Nature doesn't care about humanity. An alligator doesn't stop …  [+] (16 new replies) 11/20/2014 on Unpopular 0
User avatar #78 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
1. How is making the punishment harsher in any way going to contribute to rehabilitating people?
2. Harsher punishments don't work.
User avatar #91 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
It's not about harsher punishments or hurting people, it's about being practical. Better than up and killing them off or letting them rot in a cell (also, people subjected to these experiments would all die, so it's not so much a punishment as it is a consequence of actions).

That's very true, but as stated, it's not about hurting people or curing the inmates, it's about making them useful and making the world a better place.
User avatar #93 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
"the advantages gained from the experimentation would counter-balance the one out of every 10 or 100 or 1000 innocent lives lost. "

" it's about making them useful and making the world a better place."

Choose one.
User avatar #94 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Am I really wrong? Do you honestly believe that the experiments performed on these people WOULDN'T benefit society and eventually the world in significant ways? What about the practical applications to old medicines and newly discovered ones? Could those not be used to help innocent, good people live longer, happier lives?
User avatar #99 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
More innocent people in prison =/= better world.
User avatar #118 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Whoever said I'd be putting innocent people in prison? It's not intentional, just an accident, like how accidents happen in construction or medicine or literally just about any profession or project. Should we stop all those too?
#121 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
I'm done talking to you.
User avatar #125 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
I still love your profile picture
#75 - bluemagebrilly (11/20/2014) [-]
Wasn't talking about nature, though?

My point is that using humans, good or bad, as unwilling experiment fodder has been something against real humanity either way. You really think a scientist won't start seeing other humans as nothing more than test subjects after being subjected to watching numerous subjects bleed to death for 'the sake of science'? It happens, and has happened.

It's not a path we want to go down.

I never said we should treat people the same way regardless, I said that all of us are human. The scientist doing the experiment could have just as easily been the one subjected to the testing. People who do bad things /should/ be punished, which is why we have prison, but testing on them...

It just sounds inhumane to me, straight out of a classic horror film.
User avatar #87 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
I mean nature as in life, evolution. I included it because there's no practical reason to be righteous as it gets you nothing but personal satisfaction and often cases costs more for you or others, so saying "But you can't do that otherwise you'll be as bad as them" is a crappy argument.

I know your point, I just don't agree. I know it happens, but not as often or as constantly as you seem to think. A soldier doesn't come home and start seeing everyone 'as a target', nor does a retired police officer see everyone as a criminal. A doctor who's job it is to experiment on horrible people will not suddenly became amoral and kidnap others, at least not nearly often enough for it to be considered a problem.

You're concerned over dozens of things that 'might' happen while I'm concerned over things that WILL happen, that's the difference. If we go about it my way just IMAGINE how much progress could be made, how many cures could be developed, how many supplies could be saved, how many people in general could be saved not just here but all over the world due to knowledge gained from these experiments. You want to give that up out of paranoia? Morality?

And some people cannot be forgiven for their crimes, or they are too vast to be forgiven with just time and using up more supplies and taxes themselves. I understand everyone can be bad, which is why it has such significance for someone to be a truly good person, and those who are not good are not significant and should not be treated the same way good people (or people in general) are.

I understand your concerns, but I still assure you that the benefits of this program would far outweigh any consequences that come of it.
#96 - bluemagebrilly (11/20/2014) [-]
You said alligators, which wasn't relevant to humanity. I also do not mean "you'll be as bad as them", I mean you'll become them. Someone who murders without any reason but his own satisfaction and being killed by a scientist for 'the greater good' is practically the same thing, because they both get satisfaction from it. Yes, the scientist may actually help other people with what he did, but what's stopping him from doing it more? And who's to say the murderer didn't help people by killing off people that could have become criminals themselves?

A bit far fetched, but...

Anywho, if a doctor, even once, sees common people 'as experiments', then it's a problem. Doesn't matter if it doesn't happen often. If it happens once, then it's a problem.

It doesn't matter how much progress can be made by testing on humans. We have rats for that anyways, and willing people who let their bodies be used in science. Progress won't jump as you believe it will, we're on a pretty stable current as is. It /might/ go up if we had more people, but at what cost?

Sure, some people can't be forgiven for their crimes, but so what? You think it's better to just kill them like they were a weed in a field of flowers? It's better to just kill them off and think 'well, it benefits everyone else.' That kind of thinking is dangerous, and too similar to many great tragedy's that have happened. Like the Indians or even the Jews in Germany... It wasn't true for both, obviously, but that was the line of thinking.

I can also understand where you are coming from, but in my opinion if you /really/ want people to be experimented on, then go through it yourself. By your logic, it'll outweigh the consequences of your death.

But I don't want you to die for the sake of 'science', nor do I want anyone to do that. We don't need martyrs, we need humanity, morality. How can we say the future will be great without diseases, if everyone is killing each other to prevent more?
User avatar #115 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
(Part 2)

Except I'm not a criminal and could still be a benefit to society through other means, criminals cannot. If I WAS a criminal, I would happily go through with it (besides, I'm not talking about small time crooks either, only serious crimes such as murder, rape, grand arson, large robberies, ect).

You're blowing this into a bigger problem than it needs to be, old top. I KNOW why you're concerned, but you can't just say "If one officer shoots someone, THEY'LL ALL START SHOOTING INNOCENT PEOPLE INDISCRIMINATELY! Thus we should take away all cops or make them unable to shoot"

User avatar #111 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
It was an example about how nature (I.E. life/evolution) doesn't care about morality.

Are you serious right now? "Being killed to benefit others toward the greater good of humanity and science" and "Being killed for satisfaction" are the SAME? Really? You are still grasping at straws and desperately trying to split hairs in order to justify your arguments, using "What if"'s and "But it could!"'s, but at the end of the day, you operate by what might happen and I operate by what will. My arguments follow practical logic and has solutions that could lead humanity to greater understanding and knowledge while you are afraid that people might enjoy killing criminals (as they probably should) and see everyone as criminals (which, as seen in my previous example of cops and soldiers is highly unlikely).

It is, but so is cancer, and so are brain tumors, and so are millions of other diseases and illnesses and untested machines and millions of other things we are ignorant about regarding the human body, brain, and the effects of what happens to them. My idea solves all of them and potentially causes one, yours potentially stops one and allows the rest. If we're talking in scales of "Problems vs solutions" then my idea is still more practical. Do you also say we should get rid of all guns because "Even if it saves one life it's worth it" ignoring the fact of how MANY people are saved with guns?

Rats are not humans and do not possess the same genes, brain chemistry, physiology, ect. And as a result the subject of experiments done to them is extremely limited.

Indeed, at WHAT cost? You are still cutting at only the potential for more problems caused, while even in the absolute worst scenario of mine, nothing new is learned and we kill off a bunch of useless criminals anyways.

Yes. And indeed it was, and much useful information was gained out of Nazi Germany too. Besides, criminals aren't an ethnic group, they're select members of society who's only requirement is being scum.
#123 - bluemagebrilly (11/20/2014) [-]
I am not going to continue to bother with you after this, mostly because you are refusing to see my side even for a moment. You do not see humans, even if they are criminals, as you see yourself. You see them as something lower than yourself. You even see me as something lower than yourself because I do not agree with you.

Do you get satisfaction out of helping people? Yeah.

Did a murderer get satisfaction from killing people. Yeah, probably.

Not the same? Okay, I guess I'm splitting hairs.

You hold soldiers and cops on a high platform, but it's not uncommon for them to be considered the real 'criminals.' Do you want to test on them? On yourself? No, of course not, only those you see lower than you. Criminals are the same as you, and you only say that you'd go through with it because you /aren't/ one of them.

You can't see people if you only look at the 'greater good', you can't see their horrified faces. I'm not saying anything like 'we should remove guns because they kill people' or even that one person could make everyone else go crazy. But it only takes a small spark to start something big.

I apologize if I upset you, but you are coming off as someone who spouts off what 'should' happen and ignores what could, the opposite of what you are accusing me of. You... well, I'd consider you a criminal myself with how easily you write off human life.

Bad or not, serious or not, it's a crime to think life means nothing. That's why people arrest murderers.
User avatar #136 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
(Part 2)

That's very true, but you and I see different horrified faces. You see the horrified face of a criminal while I see the horrified face of a young woman diagnosed with cancer that could have potentially been cured by medicines developed from my proposed experiments. We have different priorities, old chap; I don't care if you think I'm a monster just so long as I know I'm doing good.

Not at all. We've debated before and you always seem like a very nice and reasonable person, I think I only got frustrated with you once and then apologized soon after. Indeed, I get that a lot, but even you admitted that it's far-fetched that my ideas COULD backfire and some doctor could go crazy from them. In terms of benefits and costs, more benefits means higher chances of getting them, like having a box of 99 red balls and 1 blue ball means a higher chance of getting a red ball, and my idea has a thousand benefits with very little cost.

I understand it concerns you that I am so callous regarding the lives of criminals, but if it makes you feel any better I do NOT see all human lives as equal. Some people do really have more value than others, and I really do see the majority of the human race as valuable, so I would do my best to protect it.

Life means as much as you make of it and DOES have standards. The life of a scientist/doctor/policeman/construction worker/housewife/literally just about anyone is worth more than the life of a slob/druggie/criminal/waste. To be honest, you are doing more to de-value life than I am
User avatar #127 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
I do see your side, but your argument is built on what MIGHT be, which is why I will never take it as seriously as an argument based on what WILL be, such as mine. I do see criminals as lower than myself because they chose to be horrible people while I did not, I do not see you as lower than myself because of a differing opinion, as I support all forms of free speech and debating. If I think myself 'better' than anyone I do it because of the accomplishments I've made throughout my life, as I hope you would too; treating everyone the same regardless of who they are or what they've done devalues when they TRY to be a better person, both realistically and morally.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the comparison between pleasure gained from helping or hindering, aside from the common "It makes me feel good" aspect, the consequences are completely different. One helps people, one hinders, literally. The problem is that you and I are seeing opposite ends of the argument, like a ball of string and you are focused on the ball and I am focused on the string or vice-versa

Indeed, but usually by community college hippies. There's a difference between whether someone is actually a benefit to society and whether you believe they are. Right now you are literally putting people who work their entire lives to help society and people who only hinder and look out for themselves on the same level. Through your view, what's the point of TRYING to be good at all if no credit is gained for it? What's the point of trying to help when you're going to put me on the same level of someone who hinders anyways? In any case I CAN at least promise I am no hypocrite, if I was a criminal worthy of death (as I said before, no small-time guys would be subjected to this) I would happily go through with it, as I would support it if it were my family, friends, or anyone.
#22 - He kicks her down. The whole video is on Liveleak. After he do…  [+] (5 new replies) 11/20/2014 on The immersion is real. +4
#40 - galiogolem (11/21/2014) [-]
I hate this people, and i am completely against immigration and these repugnant fuckers, but what he says is not "all your women belong to us" he says "ça vraiment, c'est du lourd" which means "that shit's heavy!" Don't give bad reasons to enrage people, give them true ones, if not, they'll later doubt themselves when kicking them the fuck out of their countries.
User avatar #41 - captainfuckitall (11/21/2014) [-]
Sorry about that, I'm only repeating what it said in subtitles. I don't speak French.
User avatar #26 - riggyrigs (11/20/2014) [-]
lol, that's true but he doesnt say this in the video. The subtitles are wrong
User avatar #23 - smaaen (11/20/2014) [-]
I am not an advocate for violence at all, but people like that should be flogged, beaten senseless. Regardless if they do it to a man or woman.
User avatar #34 - snoopalldayeverday (11/20/2014) [-]
Telefon numarasını vermek istemeyen kadına taciz found the monkey attack.
#11 - Eh, I haven't actually watched the show, but I still don't app…  [+] (13 new replies) 11/20/2014 on look at the tags +32
#37 - Crisakapsycho (11/21/2014) [-]
I've always been against the the idea of gaying shit up for the sake of gaying shit up, if it doesn't work in the story then don't do it. However I legitemitely 100% want this to happen. In all honesty I just want the bitch to be happy. Asami is the only real person she's apperantly ever felt truly comfortable enough to share her faggot feelings with. Sure friendship is fine and dandy but sometimes when you just need a bit more, like the love and comfort you get from a spouse. One the bitches' problem has been with her feelings of being alone even when she was sorrounded by people that cared about her, what better to remedy this then by having someone you can emotionally, spiritually, and mentally connect with on personal level, to be in a relationship in other words. Korra was only obssesed with Mako for his swaggilicious looks to begin with anyways, what kind of superficial relationship is that?! Why not spend it with someone she legitemitely feels comfortable with like the bitch Asami? It doesn't have to be just about sexual attraction ya dig it can be about emotional attraction. Their personalities already balance each other out perfectly, why not just give the bitch a happy ending by giving her someone she would actually legitemitely seem happy with?
User avatar #29 - hourlyb (11/21/2014) [-]
Yes, thank you. Everytime I try and say this I sound like a cunt.
User avatar #20 - thefates (11/20/2014) [-]
The main problem is that there isn't another suitable love interest since she became interested in Mako rather than Bolin back in season 1.
User avatar #30 - hourlyb (11/21/2014) [-]
Does she need one? That would be different.
Also, I will say that I haven't followed the show religiously, but don't Mako and her break up on good terms? And the main reason they break up is because of their jobs? That sounds like a temporary break up, at least to me.
User avatar #31 - thefates (11/21/2014) [-]
It's not so much that they aren't going to get together again but that their chemistry is lacking to an insane degree and it seems Asami is really the closest person to Korra at the moment. Plus some people like the idea of a lesbian couple in a famous show but that's up for debate.
#33 - hourlyb (11/21/2014) [-]
People have said this before, but why can't they just be friends?
I get the porn, hell, my folder has a few Korra images in there. But to me, this relationship seems to just be forced.
Plus, it looks like they still have 5 episodes to establish chemistry again with Mako, so I don't know.
But I'm not a religious watcher, so I will admit I don't have the best grasp on the series.
User avatar #34 - thefates (11/21/2014) [-]
I don't watch much at all but I totally get how the plots going because I'm sort of reading about it from other people. I'm probably gonna get watching again now that things are finally getting interesting to me.
User avatar #12 - gameboyadvance (11/20/2014) [-]
pretty ironic coming from someone with your username.
User avatar #13 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Wanna know what's ironic? You being relevant for anything other than pokemon or l00d visual novels, gamequeer.
User avatar #14 - gameboyadvance (11/20/2014) [-]
>Dragon ball z Advanced Adventure.
>Harvest moon.
>Harvest moon.
>HARVEST MOON
User avatar #15 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
PEOPLE ONLY LIKE HARVEST MOON BECAUSE OF ISABELLE!!!!!
User avatar #16 - gameboyadvance (11/20/2014) [-]
THE WITCH IS BEST WIFE
#19 - stealthnull (11/20/2014) [-]
#53 - I think that once someone commits a serious crime against soci…  [+] (50 new replies) 11/20/2014 on Unpopular +1
User avatar #195 - Indoknight (11/20/2014) [-]
I really hope you see the error of your thinking. A lot of criminals have had very bad childhoods growing up. In fact, almost any person in their circumstances would end up in criminal activities. Can you really wish torture and misery on someone who has been dealt a bad hand by life?

Sure it is horrible when they do bad things. But shouldn't we be trying to reform and heal them so they don't do these things in future? Would killing or torturing them heal their fucked up psychology or fuck it up even more?
User avatar #203 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Yes, because I understand that no matter what befalls a person or what type of life they had, everyone is responsible for their own actions and that's what separates good people from bad people, the good don't use their suffering as an excuse to put suffering onto others, and everyone DOES suffer, you know. And so I do not make excuses for these same people either.

Indeed we should, which is why I say 'serious' criminals. Murderers, rapists, grand arsonists, that kind of thing. Petty thieves can be rehabilitated, but those people above cannot. Besides, it's nearly common knowledge that, statistically, most people who go to prison will be repeat offenders and the longer you spend in prison the harder it is to re-adjust and more LIKELY to is to repeat offend. So what would you suggest we do? Put them all into therapy? Let them all go? Re-Work our prison system into...what?

I'm not experimenting on them as punishment, but only as a consequence for their actions. They turned their back on society and hindered it, so I am making them useful the only way they can be; simple.
User avatar #425 - Indoknight (11/21/2014) [-]
i agree
#168 - anonymous (11/20/2014) [-]
Good lord, I couldn't agree with you more.

The only people who deserve rights are those who live for the benefit of our society. What else is there to work for in this world but being as practical and efficient as possible? The importance of our vaguely defined concept of the greater good can only be surpassed by the even more vague way we assign arbitrary "values" to lives, e.g. 5 lives are more valuable than 3 because people are nothing more than a statistical figure we should maximize .

I mean really, as tax payers we're supporting people who've done nothing but work against our perfect system which holds the ultimate authority. I, for one, am appalled by the idea, but what get's under my skin the most is when people try to defend offenders, as if criminals act the way they do because of childhood traumas, mental disorders, and neurological defects instead of their own free will.

Video related, our idea would've fit great in season 4 if it wasn't canceled.
User avatar #173 - zilvox (11/20/2014) [-]
People who claim that everyone else should work to benefit "society," really just want everyone else to do things for them. Since society leeches of everything we do, whether we like it or not, we owe it nothing. Especially considering the first third to fifth of our life is spent without any choice in which society we live in.

If you don't like people leeching off of society, you should be courteous enough to stand against society leeching off of individuals, too.
User avatar #176 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
He was being sarcastic and mocking me, actually. He believes the exact opposite of what he wrote there, which of course I disagree with as explained in my reply to him (and thus you too, I suppose). If you so believe society owes you nothing, why are you comfortable receiving the benefits gained from it? It's not as if anyone is forcing you to live here.
User avatar #196 - zilvox (11/20/2014) [-]
Because I can't opt out of taxes, and I'm not wealthy enough to leave. If I have no choice but to give, I'm not going to deny the return on my investment. On the other hand, if there were an option to opt out of both the cost and the benefits I would. I prefer to pay private firms for specific services than to give money to the government that might come back to benefit me, or might not.

Hell, even if it benefited someone else, I'd rather pay for a specific service than to the government. I find the idea of giving money to someone to spend however they will seedy, especially when they claim it's for my own benefit.
User avatar #205 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Ah, wonderful! We both agree on that then. However, it IS possible to get a squatters license and live as an anarchist in the woods, is it not? Many people are doing it, why not get some like-minded individuals and friends and go and make a society for yourself?
User avatar #211 - zilvox (11/20/2014) [-]
Holy shit, you can actually do that? I thought that was illegal.
User avatar #212 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
It is if you don't have a license. A Squatters License (which you should be able to get as easily as a driver's license if not easier) basically means you can live/make a home anywhere you want to so long as it's not on private property (such as farmland) or special conditions (such as endangered wildlife being in the area). So basically you can go into any forest or mountain, build yourself a shack, and nobody can tell you to leave.
User avatar #198 - zilvox (11/20/2014) [-]
I missed a comma in that last sentence, and I wish there were an edit button. Anyway, I meant that I don't trust the government to spend with the citizens interests in mind. I'd rather purchase services, and pitch into community projects, than trust the government to do that spending for me.
User avatar #172 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
I'm overjoyed to hear it!

I'm so glad you see reason, it's much better than giving the same benefits to everyone no matter who they are or what they do, isn't it?

I know, right? Personally I could not understand how someone could live purely for their own pleasure, but hey, some people are just odd. Not us though!

Which is wonderful because both of which are included in this little idea of mine! More people are worth more than less people, but someone smart is worth more than someone stupid, so on, so fourth; luckily people aren't experimented on out of "worth", but only if they are an active detriment to those around them! (This also means if you're a slob who does nothing with their life, have no fear! As long as you don't go around killing people or raping babies, you'll be safe and sound from my judgement).

Mhmm! But it's lucky for us that certainly not ALL criminals are little children emotionally who are without fault and have no responsibility over their actions, what a wonderful world we live in where we are granted the freedom to both act the way we choose and accept the consequences of it! I'm so glad you support such a world, as it would be ludicrous to try to make excuses for the person who, say, raped and murdered your daughter.

All snide mockery aside though, why should you get benefits of something you don't assist? Why should you share your paycheck with someone who doesn't work? Because that's exactly what happens when you reward the benefits of society to someone who turns their back on it. Likewise, lives do have value and that's easily seen; the only people who say it's 'hard' to find the value of lives are people like you who constantly make excuses for failure. Our system may not be perfect or ultimate, but it's better than nothing and certainly provides you with all the benefits you enjoy now Mr.Sit-On-The-Computer-Powered-By-Satellites-Drive-Government-Roads-In-Cars-And- Complain-About-How-Government-Can't-Do-Anything-Right
#178 - anonymous (11/20/2014) [-]
I wasn't complaining about the government dimwit, I was complaining about your fucked worldview, but to move this along let's disregard your generalized utilitarian tripe, how the implementation of your idea would require people as devoid of compassion as the people you were torturing, and the pointlessness of the whole procedure since there would only be several thousand people to subject to the treatment and the vast majority of those would fail and kill the subjects.

Wait, there isn't anything else to talk about. The entire idea isn't practical, would be of no benefit, and would result in nothing but human rights violations.
User avatar #183 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Sure you were: "I mean really, as tax payers we're supporting people who've done nothing but work against our perfect system which holds the ultimate authority"

My world view is just fine. I understand things have flaws and also that things have benefits, I just see both and not just one when an idea makes me uncomfortable

It wouldn't require any such people. Soldiers are not without compassion, nor are police, yet both these people are able to kill if they have to; just like the doctors I would plan to hire. Disregarding the life of someone evil doesn't make you a sociopath, it just means you have common sense

Worst case scenario: Nothing is solved and now we don't have a bunch of criminal wastes running around our prisons, look at that, less taxes to pay.
Best case scenario: We learn something new every day, we are able to import serious criminals after we run out of them here, we are able to help society and the world with our discoveries, an crime is deterred through fear

Now, of course neither of these are likely to happen exactly as we ideal them, but as my idea has more benefits than not, we're likely to GAIN more benefits than problems from it in the same way that if you have a box with 99 red balls and 1 blue ball, you're more likely to get a red one

The idea is practical, there is plenty of benefit, and serious criminals shouldn't have human rights. YOU are just uncomfortable with the idea and so are letting it blind you to the bigger picture

Do you think everyone deserves human rights? Even Nazis, even Terrorists? If my experiments solve nothing so we shouldn't do them, what about prisons? Don't you know that statistically speaking the longer time you spend in a prison the less likely you are to be rehabilitated? Same with mental institutions for the insane. Should we get rid of both and let them all run free? What punishments work for everyone across the board? Should we not punish until we find one that agrees with your ethics?

Well?...
User avatar #144 - zilvox (11/20/2014) [-]
Most people in jail didn't commit a serious crime. The people who did aren't the ones being raped, they're the ones doing the rape.

So we're rewarding the serious criminals with sex, while punishing the minor criminals with a bloody asshole.
User avatar #145 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
That's true, but I also wouldn't be using minor criminals. I'd be taking the serious criminals OUT to experiment on them, you see?
User avatar #149 - zilvox (11/20/2014) [-]
I like the idea in theory, but I'm hesitant to see it in practice. The people who would willingly perform those kinds of experiments are usually sociopaths who are looking for a way to torture people without getting in trouble for it. I'm happy to punish criminals, but when that punishment rewards someone else, there's an incentive to demonize non-criminals for the sake of creating new experiment fodder.

Don't get me wrong, someone who enjoys torturing people for the fun of it deserves a slow, painful death. The problem is administering that punishment without rewarding another criminal sadist.
User avatar #156 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
A few other people have already made that argument, if you look below you can see how it all plays out.

In any case, I understand your concerns; but I highly doubt that would happen and even if it did I don't think it would evolve into a serious problem. Cops do not go home and treat everyone as if they were a criminal, Soldiers do not get leave and then mistake their loved ones for targets, Doctors do not operate after 5 years and mistake the heart for a tumor, likewise, these own doctors would not become insane and try to kidnap others to experiment on them as well. Besides, there would be no NEED to criminalize non-criminals, as there would be plenty of third/second world countries who would be happy to get rid of their criminals and give them to me.

The point of the experiments are for science, not punishment; as a result even though they are not treated as humans, regulations and standards would have to be put in place to maintain accurate results and prevent the subjects from ruining it themselves.
User avatar #159 - zilvox (11/20/2014) [-]
Um... cops have the highest rate of domestic abuse out of any group. Soldiers do have trouble adjusting to civilian life, especially those with ptsd. Doctors don't mistake hearts for tumors, but they do separate themselves from their patients emotionally, so that treating illness isn't so depressing.

The closest real life example to what you're proposing was the nazi experiments during wwII. When you dehumanize a human (whether they deserve it or not) you attract pseudoscientists, sadists, and drive away people who really want to understand the human body better.
User avatar #163 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Do you have any statistics to back your claims up?

I understand soldiers can have trouble adjusting to civilian life, but that doesn't make them dangerous or crazy, it just means after spending years in one lifestyle it takes a while to get used to another, as it is with everyone.
User avatar #171 - zilvox (11/20/2014) [-]
www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/2/

It's not where I originally found the statistic, but it is relevant. Charts on the second page, but the article is worth a read, since it debunks some of the bull around NFL. Like, why are people asking the NFL to stand in for the police to begin with?

womenandpolicing.com/violencefs.asp Article with actual sources, and far less... fluffy. Not as interesting to read, but far more credible.
User avatar #174 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Very interesting, thank you! However it's also worth noting that many Sociologists and Psychologists simply can't pen down what it exactly means to be 'domestically abused'. Some people argue that it's only hitting while others say it goes to things as simple as raising your voice. I'm not going to make excuses for their actions, of course, I'm just saying stress makes for a loud home. If this is the case than this will also be a problem I will work toward solving, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
User avatar #105 - iamthepapercut (11/20/2014) [-]
You'd make a good totalitarian
User avatar #119 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
I don't suppose you mean that as a compliment, but that's alright because I take it as one. It only means I am willing to do what I believe is best so others can sleep well knowing they are more noble and righteous than I am while getting all the benefits of what I do.
User avatar #150 - emiyashirou (11/20/2014) [-]
And then the people you experimented on and slaughtered are found to be innocent and your fascist regime crashes. ggwp no re
User avatar #153 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Are you implying every single person convicted of a serious crime is innocent?

In any case, even if 1 in 1000, or 1 in a 100, or even 1 in 10 (very liberal estimate) are found innocent, the benefits gained from the experiments would far outweigh the innocent live(s?) lost
User avatar #154 - emiyashirou (11/20/2014) [-]
Good that you think so then. Hope you'd be happy if you were framed and painfully experimented on for years while wishing you were dead instead ,because you helped further humanity.
User avatar #157 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
You are splitting hairs and counting on things unlikely to happen in order to prove me wrong. Generally, when convicted over a serious crime, there's indisputable evidence over who actually did it. You need to stop watching so many crime shows and look at actual statistics.
User avatar #137 - iamthepapercut (11/20/2014) [-]
So, did you order the code red?
User avatar #138 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
?
User avatar #139 - iamthepapercut (11/20/2014) [-]
#58 - bluemagebrilly (11/20/2014) [-]
I do not think that should happen, because then we'd be losing our own humanity by treating them like that.

If we did that, then people would eventually start being thrown in jail just to be experiment fodder, not to mention there are plenty of people who are falsely accused of crimes, serious or not, and thrown in jail for a large period of time.

We have to accept that everyone is human and should be treated as such. Good or bad is something any of us can do.
User avatar #64 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Nature doesn't care about humanity. An alligator doesn't stop eating you because you are a righteous person. Besides, it's not about revenge, but just about making them a productive member of society and absolving their crimes the best way we can.

Doubt it. If we needed experiment fodder that bad, we could always import from other countries; I'm sure there are many second and third worlds who would absolutely love to get rid of their prison populations (that's also slippery slope fallacy. If you believe that, then do you believe that if gay marriage is legalized it will lead to bestiality and necrophilia and such?). The falsely accused is really the only logical argument someone could have against this, but I'm betting that as technology advances we will become more and more capable of distinguishing guilt and innocence in otherwise unsolvable crimes, and even if we don't, the advantages gained from the experimentation would counter-balance the one out of every 10 or 100 or 1000 innocent lives lost.

Good or bad IS something any of us can do, but if you treat everyone the same way regardless than there's no reason to do either. Being a good person for the sake of goodness is a wonderful idea, but also idealization and would not work for a bigger or productive world unless everyone thought the same way. You need more, rewards and punishments for being good or bad, punishments included as being killed for the sake of the very humanity the criminal abandoned.
User avatar #78 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
1. How is making the punishment harsher in any way going to contribute to rehabilitating people?
2. Harsher punishments don't work.
User avatar #91 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
It's not about harsher punishments or hurting people, it's about being practical. Better than up and killing them off or letting them rot in a cell (also, people subjected to these experiments would all die, so it's not so much a punishment as it is a consequence of actions).

That's very true, but as stated, it's not about hurting people or curing the inmates, it's about making them useful and making the world a better place.
User avatar #93 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
"the advantages gained from the experimentation would counter-balance the one out of every 10 or 100 or 1000 innocent lives lost. "

" it's about making them useful and making the world a better place."

Choose one.
User avatar #94 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Am I really wrong? Do you honestly believe that the experiments performed on these people WOULDN'T benefit society and eventually the world in significant ways? What about the practical applications to old medicines and newly discovered ones? Could those not be used to help innocent, good people live longer, happier lives?
User avatar #99 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
More innocent people in prison =/= better world.
User avatar #118 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Whoever said I'd be putting innocent people in prison? It's not intentional, just an accident, like how accidents happen in construction or medicine or literally just about any profession or project. Should we stop all those too?
#121 - testaburger (11/20/2014) [-]
I'm done talking to you.
User avatar #125 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
I still love your profile picture
#75 - bluemagebrilly (11/20/2014) [-]
Wasn't talking about nature, though?

My point is that using humans, good or bad, as unwilling experiment fodder has been something against real humanity either way. You really think a scientist won't start seeing other humans as nothing more than test subjects after being subjected to watching numerous subjects bleed to death for 'the sake of science'? It happens, and has happened.

It's not a path we want to go down.

I never said we should treat people the same way regardless, I said that all of us are human. The scientist doing the experiment could have just as easily been the one subjected to the testing. People who do bad things /should/ be punished, which is why we have prison, but testing on them...

It just sounds inhumane to me, straight out of a classic horror film.
User avatar #87 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
I mean nature as in life, evolution. I included it because there's no practical reason to be righteous as it gets you nothing but personal satisfaction and often cases costs more for you or others, so saying "But you can't do that otherwise you'll be as bad as them" is a crappy argument.

I know your point, I just don't agree. I know it happens, but not as often or as constantly as you seem to think. A soldier doesn't come home and start seeing everyone 'as a target', nor does a retired police officer see everyone as a criminal. A doctor who's job it is to experiment on horrible people will not suddenly became amoral and kidnap others, at least not nearly often enough for it to be considered a problem.

You're concerned over dozens of things that 'might' happen while I'm concerned over things that WILL happen, that's the difference. If we go about it my way just IMAGINE how much progress could be made, how many cures could be developed, how many supplies could be saved, how many people in general could be saved not just here but all over the world due to knowledge gained from these experiments. You want to give that up out of paranoia? Morality?

And some people cannot be forgiven for their crimes, or they are too vast to be forgiven with just time and using up more supplies and taxes themselves. I understand everyone can be bad, which is why it has such significance for someone to be a truly good person, and those who are not good are not significant and should not be treated the same way good people (or people in general) are.

I understand your concerns, but I still assure you that the benefits of this program would far outweigh any consequences that come of it.
#96 - bluemagebrilly (11/20/2014) [-]
You said alligators, which wasn't relevant to humanity. I also do not mean "you'll be as bad as them", I mean you'll become them. Someone who murders without any reason but his own satisfaction and being killed by a scientist for 'the greater good' is practically the same thing, because they both get satisfaction from it. Yes, the scientist may actually help other people with what he did, but what's stopping him from doing it more? And who's to say the murderer didn't help people by killing off people that could have become criminals themselves?

A bit far fetched, but...

Anywho, if a doctor, even once, sees common people 'as experiments', then it's a problem. Doesn't matter if it doesn't happen often. If it happens once, then it's a problem.

It doesn't matter how much progress can be made by testing on humans. We have rats for that anyways, and willing people who let their bodies be used in science. Progress won't jump as you believe it will, we're on a pretty stable current as is. It /might/ go up if we had more people, but at what cost?

Sure, some people can't be forgiven for their crimes, but so what? You think it's better to just kill them like they were a weed in a field of flowers? It's better to just kill them off and think 'well, it benefits everyone else.' That kind of thinking is dangerous, and too similar to many great tragedy's that have happened. Like the Indians or even the Jews in Germany... It wasn't true for both, obviously, but that was the line of thinking.

I can also understand where you are coming from, but in my opinion if you /really/ want people to be experimented on, then go through it yourself. By your logic, it'll outweigh the consequences of your death.

But I don't want you to die for the sake of 'science', nor do I want anyone to do that. We don't need martyrs, we need humanity, morality. How can we say the future will be great without diseases, if everyone is killing each other to prevent more?
User avatar #115 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
(Part 2)

Except I'm not a criminal and could still be a benefit to society through other means, criminals cannot. If I WAS a criminal, I would happily go through with it (besides, I'm not talking about small time crooks either, only serious crimes such as murder, rape, grand arson, large robberies, ect).

You're blowing this into a bigger problem than it needs to be, old top. I KNOW why you're concerned, but you can't just say "If one officer shoots someone, THEY'LL ALL START SHOOTING INNOCENT PEOPLE INDISCRIMINATELY! Thus we should take away all cops or make them unable to shoot"

User avatar #111 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
It was an example about how nature (I.E. life/evolution) doesn't care about morality.

Are you serious right now? "Being killed to benefit others toward the greater good of humanity and science" and "Being killed for satisfaction" are the SAME? Really? You are still grasping at straws and desperately trying to split hairs in order to justify your arguments, using "What if"'s and "But it could!"'s, but at the end of the day, you operate by what might happen and I operate by what will. My arguments follow practical logic and has solutions that could lead humanity to greater understanding and knowledge while you are afraid that people might enjoy killing criminals (as they probably should) and see everyone as criminals (which, as seen in my previous example of cops and soldiers is highly unlikely).

It is, but so is cancer, and so are brain tumors, and so are millions of other diseases and illnesses and untested machines and millions of other things we are ignorant about regarding the human body, brain, and the effects of what happens to them. My idea solves all of them and potentially causes one, yours potentially stops one and allows the rest. If we're talking in scales of "Problems vs solutions" then my idea is still more practical. Do you also say we should get rid of all guns because "Even if it saves one life it's worth it" ignoring the fact of how MANY people are saved with guns?

Rats are not humans and do not possess the same genes, brain chemistry, physiology, ect. And as a result the subject of experiments done to them is extremely limited.

Indeed, at WHAT cost? You are still cutting at only the potential for more problems caused, while even in the absolute worst scenario of mine, nothing new is learned and we kill off a bunch of useless criminals anyways.

Yes. And indeed it was, and much useful information was gained out of Nazi Germany too. Besides, criminals aren't an ethnic group, they're select members of society who's only requirement is being scum.
#123 - bluemagebrilly (11/20/2014) [-]
I am not going to continue to bother with you after this, mostly because you are refusing to see my side even for a moment. You do not see humans, even if they are criminals, as you see yourself. You see them as something lower than yourself. You even see me as something lower than yourself because I do not agree with you.

Do you get satisfaction out of helping people? Yeah.

Did a murderer get satisfaction from killing people. Yeah, probably.

Not the same? Okay, I guess I'm splitting hairs.

You hold soldiers and cops on a high platform, but it's not uncommon for them to be considered the real 'criminals.' Do you want to test on them? On yourself? No, of course not, only those you see lower than you. Criminals are the same as you, and you only say that you'd go through with it because you /aren't/ one of them.

You can't see people if you only look at the 'greater good', you can't see their horrified faces. I'm not saying anything like 'we should remove guns because they kill people' or even that one person could make everyone else go crazy. But it only takes a small spark to start something big.

I apologize if I upset you, but you are coming off as someone who spouts off what 'should' happen and ignores what could, the opposite of what you are accusing me of. You... well, I'd consider you a criminal myself with how easily you write off human life.

Bad or not, serious or not, it's a crime to think life means nothing. That's why people arrest murderers.
User avatar #136 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
(Part 2)

That's very true, but you and I see different horrified faces. You see the horrified face of a criminal while I see the horrified face of a young woman diagnosed with cancer that could have potentially been cured by medicines developed from my proposed experiments. We have different priorities, old chap; I don't care if you think I'm a monster just so long as I know I'm doing good.

Not at all. We've debated before and you always seem like a very nice and reasonable person, I think I only got frustrated with you once and then apologized soon after. Indeed, I get that a lot, but even you admitted that it's far-fetched that my ideas COULD backfire and some doctor could go crazy from them. In terms of benefits and costs, more benefits means higher chances of getting them, like having a box of 99 red balls and 1 blue ball means a higher chance of getting a red ball, and my idea has a thousand benefits with very little cost.

I understand it concerns you that I am so callous regarding the lives of criminals, but if it makes you feel any better I do NOT see all human lives as equal. Some people do really have more value than others, and I really do see the majority of the human race as valuable, so I would do my best to protect it.

Life means as much as you make of it and DOES have standards. The life of a scientist/doctor/policeman/construction worker/housewife/literally just about anyone is worth more than the life of a slob/druggie/criminal/waste. To be honest, you are doing more to de-value life than I am
User avatar #127 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
I do see your side, but your argument is built on what MIGHT be, which is why I will never take it as seriously as an argument based on what WILL be, such as mine. I do see criminals as lower than myself because they chose to be horrible people while I did not, I do not see you as lower than myself because of a differing opinion, as I support all forms of free speech and debating. If I think myself 'better' than anyone I do it because of the accomplishments I've made throughout my life, as I hope you would too; treating everyone the same regardless of who they are or what they've done devalues when they TRY to be a better person, both realistically and morally.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the comparison between pleasure gained from helping or hindering, aside from the common "It makes me feel good" aspect, the consequences are completely different. One helps people, one hinders, literally. The problem is that you and I are seeing opposite ends of the argument, like a ball of string and you are focused on the ball and I am focused on the string or vice-versa

Indeed, but usually by community college hippies. There's a difference between whether someone is actually a benefit to society and whether you believe they are. Right now you are literally putting people who work their entire lives to help society and people who only hinder and look out for themselves on the same level. Through your view, what's the point of TRYING to be good at all if no credit is gained for it? What's the point of trying to help when you're going to put me on the same level of someone who hinders anyways? In any case I CAN at least promise I am no hypocrite, if I was a criminal worthy of death (as I said before, no small-time guys would be subjected to this) I would happily go through with it, as I would support it if it were my family, friends, or anyone.
#12 - It's from a Japanese horror movie called Apts 11/20/2014 on Go for the date will give... +1
#19 - Eh, I always maintained that the problem is that many people s… 11/20/2014 on The feels 0
#33 - What is she actually saying, though?  [+] (5 new replies) 11/20/2014 on Talking to your weeaboo friend +4
User avatar #53 - alleksi (11/20/2014) [-]
She's talking about how she doesn't understand a single word he is saying because he's a complete chuuni and says retaraded chuuni stuff. a.pomf.se/nclxts.webm
#51 - natemose (11/20/2014) [-]
In the show he likes english shit, and poetic stuff, gives everything names.
User avatar #34 - flybager (11/20/2014) [-]
If I had to guess I'd say some love-related "I don't get you" shtuff.
User avatar #46 - newbrony (11/20/2014) [-]
Actually she pretty much says what's in the video above. I don't know why they bothered changing it.
User avatar #79 - therealtjthemedic (11/20/2014) [-]
Shit, that's funny as fuck.
#13 - Maybe you shouldn't go for a girl who's not even interes…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/20/2014 on The feels +1
#17 - thecrayzeeman (11/20/2014) [-]
Sometimes you can't help it. Love is a twisted bitch.
User avatar #19 - captainfuckitall (11/20/2014) [-]
Eh, I always maintained that the problem is that many people simply do not know HOW to love, or rather, do not know what loving even is.
#25 - What is it about anime that makes everyone so gay?  [+] (5 new replies) 11/20/2014 on A message to everyone 0
#33 - sugoi (11/20/2014) [-]
Because their dick can't tell the difference and they get confused.
User avatar #47 - soullessminion (11/20/2014) [-]
thats obviously a hideyoshi
#49 - anonymous (11/20/2014) [-]
Not to mention fucking hideyoshi is considered heterosexual, because it's a different sex than yours.
#51 - soullessminion (11/20/2014) [-]
hideyoshi obviously would like everything because it has no other hideyoshi's to mate with
#31 - karvarausku (11/20/2014) [-]
**karvarausku rolled image** not everyone. More like 50% of the people.
#2 - I have a soft spot for Necromancers ever since I played Balder… 11/19/2014 on Confused Necromancer 0
#111 - This was my exact reaction upon seeing these subtitles. 11/19/2014 on Jackie chan's best day +1
#50 - You really do seem to be bias in favour of Batman; though that…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/19/2014 on Green Arrow Is Best Arrow 0
User avatar #52 - tkfourtwoone (11/19/2014) [-]
"but it's completely obvious who the writers believe is right and who they want you to believe is right too; even now, just from your wording, it's easy to tell you favour Batman's side of things and only see the comic as you do because you're SUPPOSED to see it that way"

Well of course it's morally sane to see things that way, because in essence both Superman's & Sinestro's reasoning is reduced to "using an atrocity to justify another", all the while being more and more blinded by the more and more power you get over people

Remember the immigrant lady in the park the Billy was "interviewing"? Do you really believe that IRL dictators didn't rose to power EXACTLY through those premises?
Don't tell me you're actually one of those people who are, completely illogically, rooting for the likes of Saddam or Ghaddafi...

"The more you gain control, the more you're afraid to lose it" - the bane of every totalitarian-wanna be "leader". Which eventually evolves into complete paranoia.

So no, Superman's & Sinestro's reasoning is sound ONLY at first glimpse - because in essence, both have thrown away basically all that they initially stood for (well, Superman more than Sinestro, since Sinestro was pure evil to begin with), morphing from "protector/guardian" to "absolute warden"

Speaking of Sinestro... not "truth warping" at all?? Really now, you think that he didn't believe his own words when he remembers what happened to his wife, when it's made quite obvious to the reader that she did indeed kill herself out of terror of what he'd become?

Both Sinestro's wife and Louis Lane would have NEVER stood for what either of their mate's end up doing - and both of them using their respective wives' death to justify this and that, all the while saying that "I'm doing it for her" IS warping the truth at its lowest, reduced even to tainting the memory of your significant other just to justify your bad deeds, which you resort to simply because... it's easier.
#40 - I am referring to Furgeson, and not only was it more than 'the… 11/19/2014 on Here. We. Go. 0
#9 - I doubt it happened quite that way, but alright. 11/19/2014 on got called gay +1
#23 - I agree. I refuse to have anything to do with the new Marvel u… 11/19/2014 on This show was important +1
#33 - Many of the comments are saying this is justified because the …  [+] (6 new replies) 11/19/2014 on Here. We. Go. +8
#37 - anonymous (11/19/2014) [-]
If when you say "if the past is any indication" you are referring to Ferguson, you really should educate yourself on what's happening there. Save for the very first few days of protests, they HAVE been peaceful.

Anonymous continually stresses how important is it to remain calm and collected at protests in the town, and ostracizes anyone who wants to or tries to cause trouble.
User avatar #40 - captainfuckitall (11/19/2014) [-]
I am referring to Furgeson, and not only was it more than 'the first few days' but it wasn't even rioting out of injustice, it was just straight looting and stealing, just an excuse to get free shit and it would have continued LONGER if there was more to steal.

Anonymous doesn't leave their god damn house, they're an internet group, how they hell are they going to coral an angry mob? I doubt even a single one of those current protesters cares about their opinion or even knows what is going on.

Do some people want justice? Yes. Should there be justice? Yes. But all of this could be resolved if it happened either peacefully, or at least violently toward the right PEOPLE; not at an entire town and certainly not stealing and robbing from people who had nothing to do with it.

Nothing about what's going on is justice and too many use it as an excuse to get back at 'dah white man' which only raises race tensions further. If they truly cared they would actually get into the police force or education programs or even politics and change it themselves.

There's a god damn black president, there is literally no fucking excuse for being a shithead and saying your 'race keeps a bruthuh down'
User avatar #34 - shinyarmor (11/19/2014) [-]
however anonymous is not being immature. they are taking caution to make sure this ends without conflict to what im sure they know is already a disaster.

going to dark side to end with the lesser of two evils i believe is the right choice.
it is a big deal and there are many things wrong with what both sides are doing but.

one side isnt making death threats. and the one who is had proven to go through with said death threats.

i hope it ends in peace.
User avatar #38 - roxasmovess (11/19/2014) [-]
Being a person who lives near Ferguson, I can understand why they would say something along the lines of being willing to defend themselves and their brethren with lethal force if necessary. These protests have overall been anything but peaceful. Buildings have burned, officers have been attacked, and the few who mean to be peaceful end up getting mixed into it as well. It's a stupid situation being reacted to immaturely by people with no idea how to behave and act and only looking for an excuse to riot and loot. People who keep trying to come and defend these "peaceful" protesters annoy me. You don't live here. You know nothing of how these people are really acting and the fear they are causing in wide areas of our community and not just the immediate Ferguson area, so stop spouting off shit like you know the situation. And for the record, most of this is just a rant, and not directed at you specifically, even though I say "you,"
User avatar #45 - shinyarmor (11/19/2014) [-]
shit is scary either way. however i have no effect on it nor do i have the resources to say i can make a difference. but i know for a fact that if i did. i would try to make it better for all at the cost of my own health
User avatar #44 - shinyarmor (11/19/2014) [-]
true. i wish i could understand but its not like people are willing to share emotions of peace. war and hate is so easy to understand
#38 - Where am I wrong? At what point does it allow you to choose si…  [+] (3 new replies) 11/19/2014 on Green Arrow Is Best Arrow +1
User avatar #48 - tkfourtwoone (11/19/2014) [-]
" At what point does it allow you to choose sides with the writers trying to portray Superman as this unrelenting tyrant and Batman as this unsung hero? "

Hell, Sinestro's reasoning is sound enough. If it weren't for the flashbacks from his memory, showing a more accurate version of what he was saying, even the reader might be tempted to believe him.

The whole gist that this comic does very good is warping Truth to suit one's needs or beliefs.

And what you said about Batman, that he apparently never even sympathized with Supes for his loss - at first sight you would be tempted to cheer for Supes, since Bats does come off as being a douche (even though, and this is completely predictable though - Batman is a far more complex character than goody-goody-2 shoes Krypton's Boy Scout; testament to that is how easy it was to break the boy in blue)
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (11/19/2014) [-]
You really do seem to be bias in favour of Batman; though that's not surprising, most people are.

Sinestro's reasoning IS sound, just because he's a bad character doesn't mean it isn't.

Just as well there's no 'truth warping' at all. The POINT of the comic is supposed to be this question of morality and who is right in the end, but it's completely obvious who the writers believe is right and who they want you to believe is right too; even now, just from your wording, it's easy to tell you favour Batman's side of things and only see the comic as you do because you're SUPPOSED to see it that way. Other people who do not share your opinions would not regularly see it that way, but they're not given a choice to disagree. THAT is the problem, don't you get it? The comic is supposed to be as you described, but it's not, there's no wiggle-room to say that Superman is the good guy in all this because he's turning into this mindless berzerker while "Batman was right all along!"
User avatar #52 - tkfourtwoone (11/19/2014) [-]
"but it's completely obvious who the writers believe is right and who they want you to believe is right too; even now, just from your wording, it's easy to tell you favour Batman's side of things and only see the comic as you do because you're SUPPOSED to see it that way"

Well of course it's morally sane to see things that way, because in essence both Superman's & Sinestro's reasoning is reduced to "using an atrocity to justify another", all the while being more and more blinded by the more and more power you get over people

Remember the immigrant lady in the park the Billy was "interviewing"? Do you really believe that IRL dictators didn't rose to power EXACTLY through those premises?
Don't tell me you're actually one of those people who are, completely illogically, rooting for the likes of Saddam or Ghaddafi...

"The more you gain control, the more you're afraid to lose it" - the bane of every totalitarian-wanna be "leader". Which eventually evolves into complete paranoia.

So no, Superman's & Sinestro's reasoning is sound ONLY at first glimpse - because in essence, both have thrown away basically all that they initially stood for (well, Superman more than Sinestro, since Sinestro was pure evil to begin with), morphing from "protector/guardian" to "absolute warden"

Speaking of Sinestro... not "truth warping" at all?? Really now, you think that he didn't believe his own words when he remembers what happened to his wife, when it's made quite obvious to the reader that she did indeed kill herself out of terror of what he'd become?

Both Sinestro's wife and Louis Lane would have NEVER stood for what either of their mate's end up doing - and both of them using their respective wives' death to justify this and that, all the while saying that "I'm doing it for her" IS warping the truth at its lowest, reduced even to tainting the memory of your significant other just to justify your bad deeds, which you resort to simply because... it's easier.
#28 - Eh, honestly I don't like Injustice that much Don't g…  [+] (5 new replies) 11/19/2014 on Green Arrow Is Best Arrow -1
User avatar #31 - tkfourtwoone (11/19/2014) [-]
" It nearly forces the idea that "Superman is absolutely wrong in his actions and Batman is absolutely right" down your throat"

Except that... no. Just no.

If you actually bothered READING the bloody thing, you'd know that in principle... they're both right. Batman DOES feel that without the Joker being around, he'd lose most of his purpose to exist.
Also, Superman IS right that just one death can prevent millions of other people's death... in theory.

And no, Superman isn't a dick because "herp derp he just is" - he becomes a dick because power corrupts. And he's most likely the most powerful being in the whole DC universe.
Also, his descent is gradual, one atrocity at a time... and with each and every one of them it proves that Batman's principles are more genuine and more sound. Even though you can never shake that "what if...?" feeling ("what if Joker WAS killed/executed before committing most of his atrocities?")

P.S.: Not to mention that Superman IS basically right by calling the Bat another loonie. Because he is.
User avatar #38 - captainfuckitall (11/19/2014) [-]
Where am I wrong? At what point does it allow you to choose sides with the writers trying to portray Superman as this unrelenting tyrant and Batman as this unsung hero?

Nowhere in the comic does it show Batman at a loss except when Dick dies, and even then it's just to garner sympathy (although he himself never gave Superman any for his greater loss).

I get what you're trying to say and how you perceive it is fine, but I feel like you're just trying really hard to split hairs and 'read between the lines' to pick up faults for Batman's character in the story while Superman's are forced in front of every person. It's STILL a good comic, I just don't believe they executed it as well as a story like that should have been.
User avatar #48 - tkfourtwoone (11/19/2014) [-]
" At what point does it allow you to choose sides with the writers trying to portray Superman as this unrelenting tyrant and Batman as this unsung hero? "

Hell, Sinestro's reasoning is sound enough. If it weren't for the flashbacks from his memory, showing a more accurate version of what he was saying, even the reader might be tempted to believe him.

The whole gist that this comic does very good is warping Truth to suit one's needs or beliefs.

And what you said about Batman, that he apparently never even sympathized with Supes for his loss - at first sight you would be tempted to cheer for Supes, since Bats does come off as being a douche (even though, and this is completely predictable though - Batman is a far more complex character than goody-goody-2 shoes Krypton's Boy Scout; testament to that is how easy it was to break the boy in blue)
User avatar #50 - captainfuckitall (11/19/2014) [-]
You really do seem to be bias in favour of Batman; though that's not surprising, most people are.

Sinestro's reasoning IS sound, just because he's a bad character doesn't mean it isn't.

Just as well there's no 'truth warping' at all. The POINT of the comic is supposed to be this question of morality and who is right in the end, but it's completely obvious who the writers believe is right and who they want you to believe is right too; even now, just from your wording, it's easy to tell you favour Batman's side of things and only see the comic as you do because you're SUPPOSED to see it that way. Other people who do not share your opinions would not regularly see it that way, but they're not given a choice to disagree. THAT is the problem, don't you get it? The comic is supposed to be as you described, but it's not, there's no wiggle-room to say that Superman is the good guy in all this because he's turning into this mindless berzerker while "Batman was right all along!"
User avatar #52 - tkfourtwoone (11/19/2014) [-]
"but it's completely obvious who the writers believe is right and who they want you to believe is right too; even now, just from your wording, it's easy to tell you favour Batman's side of things and only see the comic as you do because you're SUPPOSED to see it that way"

Well of course it's morally sane to see things that way, because in essence both Superman's & Sinestro's reasoning is reduced to "using an atrocity to justify another", all the while being more and more blinded by the more and more power you get over people

Remember the immigrant lady in the park the Billy was "interviewing"? Do you really believe that IRL dictators didn't rose to power EXACTLY through those premises?
Don't tell me you're actually one of those people who are, completely illogically, rooting for the likes of Saddam or Ghaddafi...

"The more you gain control, the more you're afraid to lose it" - the bane of every totalitarian-wanna be "leader". Which eventually evolves into complete paranoia.

So no, Superman's & Sinestro's reasoning is sound ONLY at first glimpse - because in essence, both have thrown away basically all that they initially stood for (well, Superman more than Sinestro, since Sinestro was pure evil to begin with), morphing from "protector/guardian" to "absolute warden"

Speaking of Sinestro... not "truth warping" at all?? Really now, you think that he didn't believe his own words when he remembers what happened to his wife, when it's made quite obvious to the reader that she did indeed kill herself out of terror of what he'd become?

Both Sinestro's wife and Louis Lane would have NEVER stood for what either of their mate's end up doing - and both of them using their respective wives' death to justify this and that, all the while saying that "I'm doing it for her" IS warping the truth at its lowest, reduced even to tainting the memory of your significant other just to justify your bad deeds, which you resort to simply because... it's easier.
#42 - For those of you wondering, he also has a habit of smoking ani… 11/19/2014 on Admin +1
#12 - This is generally the idea behind Theistic Satanism that views… 11/18/2014 on Facebook +2
#35 - Here's the source! It just seemed to be fro…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/18/2014 on Last night I had the... 0
#36 - angelious (11/18/2014) [-]
that didnt seem SO bad...

Comments(489):

[ 489 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#492 - miia ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
User avatar #494 to #492 - captainfuckitall (12/13/2014) [-]
Well aren't you a sweetheart for helping me get over my fear
#495 to #494 - miia ONLINE (12/13/2014) [-]
im actually about to go to bed but hi
User avatar #496 to #495 - captainfuckitall (12/13/2014) [-]
Well don't let me keep you. Hi back, and feel free to continue the conversation any time.
#497 to #496 - miia ONLINE (20 hours ago) [-]
User avatar #490 - commencingfailure (09/30/2014) [-]
******* retard compares the IS to today's feminists. One could say ignorance is an everspreading cancer, you did your job to increase the spread.
User avatar #491 to #490 - captainfuckitall (09/30/2014) [-]
You seem REALLY mad, friend. Perhaps you should calm down and take some ass ointment before you need to see a doctor
User avatar #489 - myfourthaccount (07/18/2014) [-]
dude, you're like my most favorite person on earth right now haha
User avatar #487 - imvlad (05/04/2014) [-]
you brought shame to your house
User avatar #483 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Have you by chance had an older account here before?
User avatar #484 to #483 - captainfuckitall (04/22/2014) [-]
Yes I have. My first username was Hiimquinn, but it was deleted for some reason I never found, so I just made another.
#485 to #484 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Oh. Never mind then. I saw someone call you Dave and I mistook you for someone else.
User avatar #486 to #485 - captainfuckitall (04/22/2014) [-]
It's fine. It was a joke from a picture a while back where a man was looking out the window and saw a dog and his owner walking down the street. The dog barked at another, bigger dog, and his owner just turned and said "See, this is why you have no ******* mates, Dave".
User avatar #481 - iforgotmyothername (03/20/2014) [-]
you are one cool tempered potato compared to me, bringing my fury upon your wrongness. i salute you, and thumbed up all your comments in the a capella debate.
User avatar #482 to #481 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
It's alright, I apologize for making you upset, but you don't need to thumb my posts up. Thumbs are a way to express positivity or negativity toward any type of comments; if you do not like them, it is perfectly within your right to thumb them down.
User avatar #474 - aherorising (11/20/2013) [-]
you're a really cool bro
#471 - shiifter (10/06/2013) [-]
This still makes me giggle.

Oh and by the way, i never actually thumbed you down. I just said that i did.
User avatar #472 to #471 - captainfuckitall (10/06/2013) [-]
The thing is, the way I found OUT you gave me those thumbs was because of the question mark, which allows people to see who voted on content. I could only KNOW it was you if you had thumbed them down, which you did.

And now you not only prove to be an idiot, but a liar as well.
#473 to #472 - shiifter (10/12/2013) [-]
Wait? You still remembered that? That's hilarious.

By the way, i screencapped this. it's like a trophy.
User avatar #468 - satrenkotheone ONLINE (09/22/2013) [-]
I would just like to say thank you.
#466 - anonymous (08/25/2013) [-]
Due to your pointlessly rude comment on the post "Jesus ain't got time for **** ",

I have gone through 20 of your previous comments and thumbed them all down.

You're also a stupid, unfunny, tryhard feelfag. Exactly the kind of user that this site is infamous for.
User avatar #467 to #466 - captainfuckitall (08/25/2013) [-]
I wasn't pointlessly rude. If you read it more carefully, you would find I am not insulting your god or faith, but rather, the people who spread it about; and even they are just doing it to themselves, while I am mearly making an observation

It's ironic you call me tryhard, considering you just went through the time to thumb-down my last 20 comments as if it would have any effect on me personally or my ranking here. It's also odd you call me stupid, considering you were the one who read it uncorrectly. And I think the fact I have so many comment thumbs anyways (including my own jesus comment) speaks to the point that I am, in fact, quite hilarious. "Feelfag", is that supposed to be a derogatory term for someone who is passionate about certain things? If so, then I take pride in it, as it is only through passion that things grow.

Considering you are pretentious, arrogant, immature, and without a sense of humour; you fit the criteria for '12 year old funnyjunker' far better than I do.
#463 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.   
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.   
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.   
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
User avatar #464 to #463 - captainfuckitall (07/16/2013) [-]
You are just a wonderful person, you know that? Thank you very much for your kind words and appreciation, and I'm glad you have made an account and made many friends here, including myself
#465 to #464 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
You're welcome, good sir.
You're welcome, good sir.
User avatar #461 - potgardener (06/01/2013) [-]
youre pretty ****** in the head if beating a kid is a good idea, parents would need to hit their kids if they taught them what was right and wrong from the beginning
User avatar #462 to #461 - captainfuckitall (06/01/2013) [-]
It's ironic how you talk about avoiding situations, when your very comment isn't needed considering I already explained, about five times now, that I do not mean you must 'abuse' your children in order to get good results. My comment, and all the comments afterwards, were about how when compassion and support fails you must turn to punishment and discipline, including simply smacking your kid upside the head

Perhaps you should read more and get better informed before jumping to opinions, yes?
#459 - bossdelainternet (05/11/2013) [-]
I'd just like to say thank you for created one of the funniest  threads i've seen this year.   
To sum up why i thought it was so funny, a quote...   
"Most people would say 'I lost. I give up.', but you, you just keep trying. You're like the Dominican Republic, always killing the guy in charge and saying 'Ah, this new guy, this new guy's gonna get it right!'." - Family Guy
I'd just like to say thank you for created one of the funniest threads i've seen this year.
To sum up why i thought it was so funny, a quote...
"Most people would say 'I lost. I give up.', but you, you just keep trying. You're like the Dominican Republic, always killing the guy in charge and saying 'Ah, this new guy, this new guy's gonna get it right!'." - Family Guy
User avatar #460 to #459 - captainfuckitall (05/11/2013) [-]
I'm not sure whether I should take that as a compliment or an insult

I choose the former

Thank you, good sir
#453 - WhattheNorris (11/12/2012) [-]
I just thought I'd let you know that I just did an awful thing and quoted your majestic deep words of death wisdom onto my facebook. I gave you credit, but as part of my shame for stealing I thought I'd tell you. That was honestly one of the best things I've ever read.

Which is also why I screencapped it. Don't worry I swear I'm not going to try to get to frontpage with it I just wanted to save it.
User avatar #454 to #453 - captainfuckitall (11/12/2012) [-]
Not at all, I am not concerned with thumbs in the least. If you would like to post it, by all means do so, if you'd like to take credit, do so as well; I care not for material value or fame, as long as comprehend and understand the message
#455 to #454 - WhattheNorris (11/12/2012) [-]
Oh man you just keep getting better:)    
   
But I wouldn't dare steal your credit.
Oh man you just keep getting better:)

But I wouldn't dare steal your credit.
#449 - captainspankmonkey (02/27/2012) [-]
Internet problems
That is why :P
User avatar #450 to #460 - captainfuckitall (02/27/2012) [-]
ahhh, haha, sorry then :P
[ 489 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)