Upload
Login or register

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#590
Highest Content Rank:#8779
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 78892 total,  96883 ,  17991
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 84.3% (843/1000)
Level 367 Comments: FJ Noble → Level 368 Comments: FJ Noble
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10927
Total Comments Made:20812
FJ Points:40047

latest user's comments

#12 - I really dislike how weak Zuko was during the whole series. Ou…  [+] (13 new replies) 09/28/2015 on REKT +9
#80 - thejudgingmoose (09/28/2015) [-]
That was because he was drawing upon anger as a source of his firebending, which is weaker than life and he had little true anger.

After he learned the truth, even then he was only just learning to use it along with Aang.
User avatar
#79 - pocoloco (09/28/2015) [-]
Blue spirit episode? Fukken took a bolt from his father and almost killed him? Survival expert? Hes good. Might not be the best but thats because the avatar kicks ass, Toph is fukken blindand has to compensate and Katara is Katara.
User avatar
#53 - donatelo (09/28/2015) [-]
is that such a bad thing though? if anything it adds to realism in which the power levels of the main heroes is varied, rather than all of them just becoming infinitely stronger.
User avatar
#17 - strum (09/28/2015) [-]
He beat his uncle, who was a high ranked professional, before the show even began.
During one episode he disguised himself and didn't use any of his bending but still infiltrated and basically single handely took down a base full of fire bender soldiers.
Plus there's that whole one on one against Azula rekage thing that happened.
User avatar
#18 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
He didn't beat his Uncle, he beat a Fire-Bending Admiral with advice from his uncle.
He took down the soldiers with his swords.
Azula was suffering a mental breakdown.
User avatar
#71 - fjkabob (09/28/2015) [-]
but the mental breakdown was causing her rage, augmenting her firebending
User avatar
#72 - fjkabob (09/28/2015) [-]
well, actually, it would make her stronger but it made her way less calculating, hence getting rid of her firebending teachers
#68 - detroitshanker (09/28/2015) [-]
Even though Azula was suffering a breakdown, she was considered a fire bending prodigy, even among the rest of the royal family and was always see to be a much more powerful bender than any of the heroes, it was still a achievement for Zuko to beat her.
User avatar
#19 - strum (09/28/2015) [-]
Well than he beat a high ranking officer.
Still beat a base of benders without bending.
And Azula didn't have a breakdown until after she lost.
#20 - kapkap (09/28/2015) [-]
he said that something about her was off, ive watched that agnikai so many times
User avatar
#60 - wersand (09/28/2015) [-]
Nah she was broken before bruh. Rewatch it.
User avatar
#24 - testaburger (09/28/2015) [-]
If I recall correctly, he says that as a reason why it's okay for him to go at her alone (meaning she's weaker than usual)
User avatar
#14 - zenler (09/28/2015) [-]
maybe he was just a weaker fire bender compared to other 'heroes' in the show.

or he never really wanted to kill anyone with his fire
#5 - Spiderman is my favourite hero. Favourite villain would be Dr.Doom.  [+] (8 new replies) 09/28/2015 on Well played, kid, well played. +25
#19 - Stevethewizard (09/28/2015) [-]
But...
Doom was revealed by the Wakandan (probably fucked up the spelling on that) Panther God, who can see not only the future, but all possible futures (and probably can see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch) to be the only possible savior of humanity. Not just "Oh, having Dr. Doom take over the world wold also be a solution to all issues humankind faces," it was "I've seen every possible future, and the only one where humankind doesn't suffer needlessly is the one where Doom rules supreme." I'm not making this shit up.
User avatar
#25 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
I know you're not, he's my favourite for a reason. That same god also judged him pure of heart.

By comic standards, though; he is a villain and his alignment is Neutral/Evil (bouncing back and fourth between them).
User avatar
#63 - slothboner (09/28/2015) [-]
jesus you're both fucking fags
User avatar
#76 - captainfuckitall (09/29/2015) [-]
Wellthat'snotverynice.jpg
#26 - Stevethewizard (09/28/2015) [-]
I wouldn't say he's "evil". He's just kind of a dick. Mostly to people he feels insulted him, like Reed Richards, but also in general.
He's done a lot of good (built a device that detects Skrulls so that he could stop the Secret Invasion... I'd list other things, but I'm tired and cant be bothered to look stuff up), but his ambition is to take over the world. He wants to turn the world into as close to a paradise as possible, but people don't believe his intentions are noble, so they fight against him. This causes people to be prejudiced against him, because he fights against guys like Thor, Spider-Man, and Squirrel Girl, and they're all on our side, so he must be bad.
User avatar
#31 - killugon (09/28/2015) [-]
Yeah, Doom may be a villain, but he has a much stronger ethical code than most heroes, as he never hurts civillians and rarely even kills, and he is for the most part reactive to what the current situation is, so he may wish to protect the human race as aliens and other threats attack, and in what better way than to unite us into a strong and focused force by taking control?
User avatar
#27 - blokrokker (09/28/2015) [-]
Not to mention his name is Doctor Doom. Not exactly a friendly name.
User avatar
#65 - apostolos (09/28/2015) [-]
#66 - If you knew what Q.I was, you'd know it was a great reference.  [+] (10 new replies) 09/28/2015 on History according to tuumblr +5
#77 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
A show meant to entertain, thus when faced with two ambiguous possible truths pick the most amusing one.
User avatar
#78 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
Actually, that's not true. On their website they site all of their sources and tell you exactly how it is, including ambiguous questions, for they will tell you the most likely or logical answer.

Of course they DO include amusing answers, that is the point of the show, but they don't lie to get ratings, that is WHY they are such a popular show.
#80 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
Let's just say a historian won't take a few sources for granted. Secondary sources and descriptive sources from an unfamiliar view don't make for great sources, thus why correctly retelling history is difficult. QI is not the least credible source out there, but using it as a baseline is pretty much like using Wikipedia. The sources are listed, but you don't go to the bone.
User avatar
#81 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
That's funny, considering if Wikipedia was strong for YOUR point, you wouldn't be badmouthing it.

Ever notice that? People only talk bad about Wikipedia when it supports statements and facts they dislike? Well that's completely fine because both their nice little website and Wikipedia site their multiple sources. Would you like me to get them for you?
#82 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
I don't use Wikipedia, though. Usually for small, ongoing things where the article cites the source within the article itself. Tends to be a bit more tidy, but doesn't make it a conclusive source.

Ever notice how certain idiots on this site make presumptions about others by faulty induction? I don't give the slightest fuck about your 'facts' regarding a highly uninteresting, yet beneficial event. I just find it amusing that you consider a quiz show a decent source when all it does is pick the amusing truth out of the hat. Accepting that as a truth is even worse.

Good thing you're defending Wikipedia, because apparently all the other experts call them hogwash. That's why we need brilliant men like you to breathe air into something that was purely invented to be simple, not comprehensive.
User avatar
#83 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
Better than none.

You can find it amusing all you want, it doesn't make it any more incorrect. If you don't care, are you just commenting for the attention?

If by experts you mean internet people who have lost debates, then sure. Professors will tell you not to use it because they want you to do your own research, which can be done quite easily just be reading Wikipedia's sources. That's the great thing about a website built around the spreading of knowledge, if you edit too many articles like an idiot, they ban you from doing it all-together. If you do not cite enough things, they tell you to do it more. If you do not have evidence, they do not put it in, and will even tell you when certain points are inconclusive or ambiguous. Isn't that grand?

But, surely, someone like you who knit-picks about sources and validity would have already known that. Right? So either you didn't and you're talking out of your ass to seem smarter than you are, or you're still here rightly for the attention. You can take your pick, I'm fine with either.
#85 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
Teachers and professors generally don't like the usage of Wikipedia because they generally don't refer to their sources apart from source listing, hence it becomes a hassle to properly source them. Not because they want you to do your own research. Some of their sources are outdated and/or have been proven false, and since you along with the majority who use that site will only cite the Wikipedia article, not go into depths about the studies themselves. Wikipedia is nothing more than cut-and-paste from various articles. As far as editing goes, edits without citation will be marked by administrators, and thus be promptly removed. Provided you source them something, doesn't even have to be relevant, it stays up until someone reports it. Try it out for yourself if you want. That, combined with how very few bother using the proper sources listed, lead to misinformation. Research is done by citing studies, not citing the abridged secondary version of studies.

I'm afraid the truth of it is that you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of how sources work, or you're just awfully apathetic about it. Either one seems to be futile to change. Please, continue citing Wikipedia and QI as much as you wish. No serious researcher or individual with power would take either seriously, so it's not of my concern how you argue pointless things.
User avatar
#86 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
The same listing they do in every sentence or paragraph?

Care to provide evidence that Wikipedia uses false information? Examples?

That's exactly how it's supposed to be. A gathering of all information about a certain thing.

Except it does. What was that author again, who cited himself as a reference for the inspiration of one of his characters, and they refused saying he needed more?

You're saying a lot, but you're not proving any of it. You're making all these claims that Wikipedia's sources are somehow bad or second-hand when you have provided absolutely zero proof of it actually being so. Can you provide it or not?

Then lucky for me, you are neither
#87 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
What is there to prove? That Wikipedia uses multiple sources and list one for the article?If Wikipedia was to involve all sides of a case, their articles wouldn't be abridged to a third the size of a single source listed. All this discussion, and you can't even classify what a secondary source is. I think that just about sums up this discussion. Good luck on your studies I guess.
User avatar
#88 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
Everything you've been saying. If you can't prove it, you're only saying "Wikipedia uses bad sources and citings because I think they do"

Golly gee, that sounds an awful lot like backing out the moment you're asked to provide evidence for a claim, kinda like how you didn't on your other comment either. How funny.
#40 - **** that ****. Ezio doesn't get three just because he's been …  [+] (2 new replies) 09/28/2015 on Assassin's Creed V: White Flag 0
User avatar
#62 - therealrottilargo (09/28/2015) [-]
arno wants answers. he is framed for the death of the man who took him in when his father was murdered. so arno seeks out the conspirators.

assassins creed rogue- shay is looking to destroy the assassin order after discovering they are indifferent to precursor sites destroying cities.
User avatar
#44 - kinchou (09/28/2015) [-]
Cheese. It's there.
bitches maybe? dunno
#62 - Not that I REALLY have to tell anyone, because, you know, Tumb…  [+] (21 new replies) 09/28/2015 on History according to tuumblr +33
User avatar
#115 - timmywankenobi (09/28/2015) [-]
Bathing can be traced back to Babylon long before the jew's existed.
#102 - imho (09/28/2015) [-]
>Bathing is not against any religion I've ever heard of
lol you've never heard of Islam?
#120 - anon (10/03/2015) [-]
Idiot they tell us to bathe every day if we can. And wash out hands feet ad face at least five times a day. And if we don't bathe at least once a month it's literally a sin. So yeah. Unless you don't have water for some reason or you only have a little bit of water, in which case you're encouraged to drink it. But if you have water you have to.
User avatar
#105 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
Eyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
User avatar
#97 - angelious (09/28/2015) [-]
3) jews were generally blamed about everything from the birth of obama to taxes...so its not like that is a surprising fact or untrue...
User avatar
#104 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
They were blamed, but were never thought of as the main 'source' of it, as it was considered a punishment by god. The blaming came from smaller groups and lasted only a fraction of the time the plagues were around.
#95 - hongkonglongdong (09/28/2015) [-]
In fact, to round off just how wrong that post is, good hygiene was one of the main factors in the spread of Black Death. Why? Well, up until this point, most people bathed in communal baths. D'you wanna guess one of the main ways people contracted the disease?
#76 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
The plague was also spread by the Church, sending priests with symptoms to bless the diseased. The outcome was that they spread it instead.
User avatar
#79 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
Got any proof of that?
#65 - anon (09/28/2015) [-]
"I know because I watch quiz shows"
great references there buddy
User avatar
#66 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
If you knew what Q.I was, you'd know it was a great reference.
#77 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
A show meant to entertain, thus when faced with two ambiguous possible truths pick the most amusing one.
User avatar
#78 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
Actually, that's not true. On their website they site all of their sources and tell you exactly how it is, including ambiguous questions, for they will tell you the most likely or logical answer.

Of course they DO include amusing answers, that is the point of the show, but they don't lie to get ratings, that is WHY they are such a popular show.
#80 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
Let's just say a historian won't take a few sources for granted. Secondary sources and descriptive sources from an unfamiliar view don't make for great sources, thus why correctly retelling history is difficult. QI is not the least credible source out there, but using it as a baseline is pretty much like using Wikipedia. The sources are listed, but you don't go to the bone.
User avatar
#81 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
That's funny, considering if Wikipedia was strong for YOUR point, you wouldn't be badmouthing it.

Ever notice that? People only talk bad about Wikipedia when it supports statements and facts they dislike? Well that's completely fine because both their nice little website and Wikipedia site their multiple sources. Would you like me to get them for you?
#82 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
I don't use Wikipedia, though. Usually for small, ongoing things where the article cites the source within the article itself. Tends to be a bit more tidy, but doesn't make it a conclusive source.

Ever notice how certain idiots on this site make presumptions about others by faulty induction? I don't give the slightest fuck about your 'facts' regarding a highly uninteresting, yet beneficial event. I just find it amusing that you consider a quiz show a decent source when all it does is pick the amusing truth out of the hat. Accepting that as a truth is even worse.

Good thing you're defending Wikipedia, because apparently all the other experts call them hogwash. That's why we need brilliant men like you to breathe air into something that was purely invented to be simple, not comprehensive.
User avatar
#83 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
Better than none.

You can find it amusing all you want, it doesn't make it any more incorrect. If you don't care, are you just commenting for the attention?

If by experts you mean internet people who have lost debates, then sure. Professors will tell you not to use it because they want you to do your own research, which can be done quite easily just be reading Wikipedia's sources. That's the great thing about a website built around the spreading of knowledge, if you edit too many articles like an idiot, they ban you from doing it all-together. If you do not cite enough things, they tell you to do it more. If you do not have evidence, they do not put it in, and will even tell you when certain points are inconclusive or ambiguous. Isn't that grand?

But, surely, someone like you who knit-picks about sources and validity would have already known that. Right? So either you didn't and you're talking out of your ass to seem smarter than you are, or you're still here rightly for the attention. You can take your pick, I'm fine with either.
#85 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
Teachers and professors generally don't like the usage of Wikipedia because they generally don't refer to their sources apart from source listing, hence it becomes a hassle to properly source them. Not because they want you to do your own research. Some of their sources are outdated and/or have been proven false, and since you along with the majority who use that site will only cite the Wikipedia article, not go into depths about the studies themselves. Wikipedia is nothing more than cut-and-paste from various articles. As far as editing goes, edits without citation will be marked by administrators, and thus be promptly removed. Provided you source them something, doesn't even have to be relevant, it stays up until someone reports it. Try it out for yourself if you want. That, combined with how very few bother using the proper sources listed, lead to misinformation. Research is done by citing studies, not citing the abridged secondary version of studies.

I'm afraid the truth of it is that you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of how sources work, or you're just awfully apathetic about it. Either one seems to be futile to change. Please, continue citing Wikipedia and QI as much as you wish. No serious researcher or individual with power would take either seriously, so it's not of my concern how you argue pointless things.
User avatar
#86 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
The same listing they do in every sentence or paragraph?

Care to provide evidence that Wikipedia uses false information? Examples?

That's exactly how it's supposed to be. A gathering of all information about a certain thing.

Except it does. What was that author again, who cited himself as a reference for the inspiration of one of his characters, and they refused saying he needed more?

You're saying a lot, but you're not proving any of it. You're making all these claims that Wikipedia's sources are somehow bad or second-hand when you have provided absolutely zero proof of it actually being so. Can you provide it or not?

Then lucky for me, you are neither
#87 - comradewinter (09/28/2015) [-]
What is there to prove? That Wikipedia uses multiple sources and list one for the article?If Wikipedia was to involve all sides of a case, their articles wouldn't be abridged to a third the size of a single source listed. All this discussion, and you can't even classify what a secondary source is. I think that just about sums up this discussion. Good luck on your studies I guess.
User avatar
#88 - captainfuckitall (09/28/2015) [-]
Everything you've been saying. If you can't prove it, you're only saying "Wikipedia uses bad sources and citings because I think they do"

Golly gee, that sounds an awful lot like backing out the moment you're asked to provide evidence for a claim, kinda like how you didn't on your other comment either. How funny.
#15 - That's what you get when your tastes are trash, faget.  [+] (3 new replies) 09/28/2015 on Spy and Scout +5
#16 - drcow (09/28/2015) [-]
#44 - anon (09/28/2015) [-]
stop polluting boards. just die
#45 - exkuto (09/29/2015) [-]
#30 - *Somewhere at Headquarters, coming up with ways to improve the… 09/28/2015 on Keep rollin' 0
#236 - Let me reiterate: What kind of extremist organizations live in… 09/27/2015 on Atheism comp -1
#234 - And who in the first world forces their religious views? …  [+] (2 new replies) 09/27/2015 on Atheism comp 0
#235 - aheael (09/27/2015) [-]
um extremists?

I never said religious people are incapable of doing so. Nowhere did I mention anything ABOUT religious people. If the roles were reversed and the quotes were similarly intellectual, I might like it- I might not. It isn't though so I don't know. ?_? You keep presuming I got something against religion or something.

But you didn't. You gave me two god damn google searches! Equally I can find the opposite going AGAINST it. Oh and let me put something into perspective- you who said those atheists act superior, look at how you're talking to me now. You're slowly spelling it out for me like I'm a child. How ironic.
Oh and one more thing, if you just proved the plague was real then you just proved GOD is real! Do you understand that? If you just said your story is real then you just single-handedly proved G-O-D is real.

ok. you really are just a waste of time.
User avatar
#236 - captainfuckitall (09/27/2015) [-]
Let me reiterate: What kind of extremist organizations live in the first world?

No, I'm presuming you have something FOR Atheists, which you yourself admitted.

I'm sorry, are you so inept that you are unable to click links? I told you why it's google searches, so you wouldn't accuse bias on my part from choosing specific links to look through. Apparently I need to spoon feed you, though.

I'm spelling it out to you like a child because you have the sense of one. It's not a religious thing, it's just that you're stupid.

No I didn't. I proved they happened, whether they happened naturally (which is proved) or by divine hand (which is not proved) remains inconclusive. I only proved your train of thought incorrect, that if one is false, all must be.

I couldn't agree more about you
#233 - Thank you. 09/27/2015 on Atheism comp 0