x
Click to expand

fellatio

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:5/27/2013
Last Login:5/30/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#2851
Comment Ranking:#3877
Highest Content Rank:#2857
Highest Comment Rank:#3815
Content Thumbs: 688 total,  813 ,  125
Comment Thumbs: 1785 total,  2034 ,  249
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 57 Content: Sammich eater → Level 58 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 80% (80/100)
Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:49875
Times Content Favorited:136 times
Total Comments Made:489
FJ Points:2061

Funny Text/Links

Funny Pictures

Funny Videos

Funny Gifs

latest user's comments

#3 - Chris Pratt would say that joke then hand you a drink 05/28/2015 on From Imgur +1
#35 - He takes them directly from Imgur, only 1 in 20 posts he copie… 05/28/2015 on kitchen stories 0
#77 - I'm saying that when he calls himself a slave for being a doct…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/27/2015 on who are you people? +1
User avatar #83 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
Yea I will agree he could have said it better.
He wasn't right, but he wasn't 100% wrong either.

When plugging in common standards to your definition of slavery I realized that forcing someone to work in general is slavery.
Kind of a low burden. I think maybe our society is so repulsed by the idea.
Something could be 99% slavery and we would deny it until it hit 100% as to protect our sensibilities.

The people in 1984 (book) probably didn't realize they were slaves. (And maybe they weren't)

But I digress.
#71 - "a person who is the legal property of another and is for…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/27/2015 on who are you people? 0
User avatar #75 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
A statute (legally) forces someone to be dominated (one definition for Property) and failure to obey results in punishment.

Property could also be defined as having the right to take something and put it in a specified place. You can have some property rights in something.

I dont think this is happening to doctors yet, and it may never.
I'm still arguing that Rand comparing what they are trying to do and slavery is not much of a stretch
#77 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
I'm saying that when he calls himself a slave for being a doctor, and isn't a slave by your or my definition....he isn't a slave and the claim is bogus.

He could compare some aspects of each to be similar but by equating both doctor and slave he is an idiot. I know that is ad hominem yet believing two things are the same when they aren't is just stupid.

He could have said it better but he chose not too and should be called out on it.
User avatar #83 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
Yea I will agree he could have said it better.
He wasn't right, but he wasn't 100% wrong either.

When plugging in common standards to your definition of slavery I realized that forcing someone to work in general is slavery.
Kind of a low burden. I think maybe our society is so repulsed by the idea.
Something could be 99% slavery and we would deny it until it hit 100% as to protect our sensibilities.

The people in 1984 (book) probably didn't realize they were slaves. (And maybe they weren't)

But I digress.
#59 - To be fair when you do boil it down, rand is saying that being…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/27/2015 on who are you people? +1
User avatar #62 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
How far do you creep on a sliding scale before the balancing test shows slave?
Is it Semantics?


At what point is forcing people to do stuff slavery?
Is the word all that matters?
Can you own your house the drive to your masters every morning??
#71 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." I'm going off of the definition, if by becoming a doctor that doesn't happen, he isn't a slave.
User avatar #75 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
A statute (legally) forces someone to be dominated (one definition for Property) and failure to obey results in punishment.

Property could also be defined as having the right to take something and put it in a specified place. You can have some property rights in something.

I dont think this is happening to doctors yet, and it may never.
I'm still arguing that Rand comparing what they are trying to do and slavery is not much of a stretch
#77 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
I'm saying that when he calls himself a slave for being a doctor, and isn't a slave by your or my definition....he isn't a slave and the claim is bogus.

He could compare some aspects of each to be similar but by equating both doctor and slave he is an idiot. I know that is ad hominem yet believing two things are the same when they aren't is just stupid.

He could have said it better but he chose not too and should be called out on it.
User avatar #83 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
Yea I will agree he could have said it better.
He wasn't right, but he wasn't 100% wrong either.

When plugging in common standards to your definition of slavery I realized that forcing someone to work in general is slavery.
Kind of a low burden. I think maybe our society is so repulsed by the idea.
Something could be 99% slavery and we would deny it until it hit 100% as to protect our sensibilities.

The people in 1984 (book) probably didn't realize they were slaves. (And maybe they weren't)

But I digress.
#52 - 45 year old man originally from Canada. Neither liberal or con…  [+] (6 new replies) 05/27/2015 on who are you people? -2
#61 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
"Liberal" and "socialism" are dirty words, and anyone who advocates for the advancement of these ideas doesn't deserve, and isn't mentally equipped to handle, polite and reasonable debate. The debate is over. History has determined the outcome.

Liberalism is the antithesis of freedom, and liberals simply cannot convince people that they should pay higher taxes and be less free by choice. No, they must use the weight of government to force their world-view on everyone else. Regardless, all people are born free, but I don't expect a Canadian to understand the fundamental concept of intrinsic human rights--rights that exist because a person exists, or that these rights are a natural part of creation and do not come from any government body. I do not expect a Canadian to understand the nuance that in the US we do not elect our rulers. We do not elect people to sit in a room and decide what our rights are. No, our rights are absolute, and you could no more separate us from our consciousness than you could our fundamental rights.

We elect people to REPRESENT us and ensure the EXERCISING of our rights is protected. I don't expect a socialist Canadian to understand the difference between a western European government deciding the rights of the governed and a US government tasked with one single function--to keep us free!

Personal freedom cannot be separated from personal responsibility and the possibility of failure, and equal opportunity cannot be separated from unequal results. It is liberals and socialist that use failure and inequality of outcomes as a cudgel to beat desperate people, at their most vulnerable time, into turning their backs on their creators, giving up their rights, and embracing the slavery of the permission to live ones life as they see fit, granted or not, by an elected ruler. You make me sick!

Since you don't understand fundamental human rights you make a mistake. A government decree can't take my rights away. It can only make them harder to exercise, and it's people like you, with terrible ideas the public would reject without your manufactured fear, manipulation, or outright force, that make it harder and harder for the rest of us to use our talents and passions to pursue the life that best suits us.

You don't deserve anything but ridicule. In fact, I think that is a bit soft. You deserve to lose the things you've worked for just like you advocate that others lose the fruits of their labor by force of government in the interest of what's faaaiiirrrr. You deserve a healthy portion of revenge and penalty for your part in perpetuating the specter of socialism. You should be forced to watch your children suffer the consequences of your horrible ideas of fairness.

You are a child. You are a weak man who wants someone else to take away the hardship of life for you. What else could I expect from a 45-year-old man with a name like "fellatio?" You are a typical, limp-wristed, faggot, and you should be reminded of what a pathetic excuse for a man you are everyday. I bet you sit when you pee.
#74 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
Yep liberals sure are the ones removing personal freedoms, not like $1million was just spent average of $20k for republicans
and $9k for democrats to pass a law which greatly restricts personal freedoms and speech....oh wait it just did.
#81 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
Did that make sense in your head?

Exhibit A
User avatar #57 - cdsams (05/27/2015) [-]
Liberals and socialists were never the same thing. The liberals originally wanted more humane treatment for prisoners, foreigners, and the lower class. They helped institute the idea of trial before a jury, innocent until proven guilty, consent of the governed, etcetera.

Socialists on the other hand believe that personal convictions and self righteous motives circumvent human nature while disregarding the achievements and goals of anybody and everybody who lived out side of there fantasy until the world collapses around them. Do not mix them up.
#66 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
I don't know where you are, but in the US they are the same. I am aware of the textbook definition. Regardless, "liberals" in the US can't USUALLY openly say that they are socialists. So they call themselves "liberals," "progressives," or "Democrats" so they can get their candidates into power and start doing the work of socializin'.
User avatar #91 - cdsams (05/27/2015) [-]
denotation = text book definition
connotation = the informal definition
The denotative liberal is a person of specific goals and views who can explain the how and why of their plan with the correct knowledge resources. However, the US democratic party has warped the connotation of "liberal" so badly that you can no longer advocate for liberal goals without being drowned in the unstable fanatic tide of socialism.

The Bill of Rights are found in nature. It is natural for someone to have the freedom of speech and so on; however, it only covers the rights that we think the government should make effort to with hold. One right that the BoR does not cover is the freedom of thought. I can think whatever I want and never be impacted for thinking it unless I do something with it outside of my head. The Democrats believe that they "know" the kind of person you are and how you think so they will shuffle you off into some demographic that they will treat differently and call it "equality".

No, you will never get the opportunity to sign off or sign on to the demographic that they put you in. They will just choose the methods to measure you and then assign some bureaucracy to deal with you. I have the freedom of thought. I know how I act and who I am. I don't need the government to teach me how I think.

If you believe the socialist narrative that your convictions and personal vendetta circumvent human nature and the consent of the governed, I have news for you. Atheist of Indiana USA reporting in. Critique me at will.
#42 - Most democrats want him, because socialism isn't bad when peop…  [+] (8 new replies) 05/27/2015 on who are you people? -1
#51 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
"...because socialism isn't bad when people actually stick with it..."

If I had a nickel for every puddle-deep analysis of western Europe from 20-year-old liberal know-it-alls...

Ever heard of Spain, Portugal, Itally, or France?

Well, at least you admit Democrats aren't just liberals, they are socialists in disguise.

I just can't wait until we start nationalizing businesses. Of course, no one will have any incentive to create anything again so innovation will come to a grinding halt, but at least things will feeeeel like they are faiiiiir.

We could be like Venezuela and live without toilet paper, and everyone could be equally miserable. Yay!

Why is it that the people who produce the least complain the loudest? Ahhh....nevermind. You won't get it.

You have now officially proven that you are to dumb to talk about this. Please don't vote...or breed.
#52 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
45 year old man originally from Canada. Neither liberal or conservative. I see positives from both sides but if you just resort to ad hominem to continue a conversation you may just realized why most people tune out conservatives because they try to make words such as liberal and socialism sound dirty.
#61 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
"Liberal" and "socialism" are dirty words, and anyone who advocates for the advancement of these ideas doesn't deserve, and isn't mentally equipped to handle, polite and reasonable debate. The debate is over. History has determined the outcome.

Liberalism is the antithesis of freedom, and liberals simply cannot convince people that they should pay higher taxes and be less free by choice. No, they must use the weight of government to force their world-view on everyone else. Regardless, all people are born free, but I don't expect a Canadian to understand the fundamental concept of intrinsic human rights--rights that exist because a person exists, or that these rights are a natural part of creation and do not come from any government body. I do not expect a Canadian to understand the nuance that in the US we do not elect our rulers. We do not elect people to sit in a room and decide what our rights are. No, our rights are absolute, and you could no more separate us from our consciousness than you could our fundamental rights.

We elect people to REPRESENT us and ensure the EXERCISING of our rights is protected. I don't expect a socialist Canadian to understand the difference between a western European government deciding the rights of the governed and a US government tasked with one single function--to keep us free!

Personal freedom cannot be separated from personal responsibility and the possibility of failure, and equal opportunity cannot be separated from unequal results. It is liberals and socialist that use failure and inequality of outcomes as a cudgel to beat desperate people, at their most vulnerable time, into turning their backs on their creators, giving up their rights, and embracing the slavery of the permission to live ones life as they see fit, granted or not, by an elected ruler. You make me sick!

Since you don't understand fundamental human rights you make a mistake. A government decree can't take my rights away. It can only make them harder to exercise, and it's people like you, with terrible ideas the public would reject without your manufactured fear, manipulation, or outright force, that make it harder and harder for the rest of us to use our talents and passions to pursue the life that best suits us.

You don't deserve anything but ridicule. In fact, I think that is a bit soft. You deserve to lose the things you've worked for just like you advocate that others lose the fruits of their labor by force of government in the interest of what's faaaiiirrrr. You deserve a healthy portion of revenge and penalty for your part in perpetuating the specter of socialism. You should be forced to watch your children suffer the consequences of your horrible ideas of fairness.

You are a child. You are a weak man who wants someone else to take away the hardship of life for you. What else could I expect from a 45-year-old man with a name like "fellatio?" You are a typical, limp-wristed, faggot, and you should be reminded of what a pathetic excuse for a man you are everyday. I bet you sit when you pee.
#74 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
Yep liberals sure are the ones removing personal freedoms, not like $1million was just spent average of $20k for republicans
and $9k for democrats to pass a law which greatly restricts personal freedoms and speech....oh wait it just did.
#81 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
Did that make sense in your head?

Exhibit A
User avatar #57 - cdsams (05/27/2015) [-]
Liberals and socialists were never the same thing. The liberals originally wanted more humane treatment for prisoners, foreigners, and the lower class. They helped institute the idea of trial before a jury, innocent until proven guilty, consent of the governed, etcetera.

Socialists on the other hand believe that personal convictions and self righteous motives circumvent human nature while disregarding the achievements and goals of anybody and everybody who lived out side of there fantasy until the world collapses around them. Do not mix them up.
#66 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
I don't know where you are, but in the US they are the same. I am aware of the textbook definition. Regardless, "liberals" in the US can't USUALLY openly say that they are socialists. So they call themselves "liberals," "progressives," or "Democrats" so they can get their candidates into power and start doing the work of socializin'.
User avatar #91 - cdsams (05/27/2015) [-]
denotation = text book definition
connotation = the informal definition
The denotative liberal is a person of specific goals and views who can explain the how and why of their plan with the correct knowledge resources. However, the US democratic party has warped the connotation of "liberal" so badly that you can no longer advocate for liberal goals without being drowned in the unstable fanatic tide of socialism.

The Bill of Rights are found in nature. It is natural for someone to have the freedom of speech and so on; however, it only covers the rights that we think the government should make effort to with hold. One right that the BoR does not cover is the freedom of thought. I can think whatever I want and never be impacted for thinking it unless I do something with it outside of my head. The Democrats believe that they "know" the kind of person you are and how you think so they will shuffle you off into some demographic that they will treat differently and call it "equality".

No, you will never get the opportunity to sign off or sign on to the demographic that they put you in. They will just choose the methods to measure you and then assign some bureaucracy to deal with you. I have the freedom of thought. I know how I act and who I am. I don't need the government to teach me how I think.

If you believe the socialist narrative that your convictions and personal vendetta circumvent human nature and the consent of the governed, I have news for you. Atheist of Indiana USA reporting in. Critique me at will.
#39 - So Vermont allowing any citizen to request service from any do…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/27/2015 on who are you people? 0
User avatar #55 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
If by Request you mean the Doctor cant say no as to time or place then Yes.
the "request" does control their schedule at least in part so yes.
Field slaves had no work to do at night, but they were still slaves.

Not really a request if you have to do something
#56 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
Yo butting in, but do you believe that a person choosing to be a doctor is the same as being another person's literal property? If yes then you and rand both think alike and you are horrible people. If no then doctors aren't slaves and rand is wrong
User avatar #58 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
Fellatio knows how to have a real discussion

You fling at me logical fallacies
Ad hominem; false dilemma; and begging the question

I will not respond to you further, and I have no respect for your argument.
#59 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
To be fair when you do boil it down, rand is saying that being a doctor would make him a slave. And it's apparent that since he doesn't become the literal legal property of another person/group he is mistaken
User avatar #62 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
How far do you creep on a sliding scale before the balancing test shows slave?
Is it Semantics?


At what point is forcing people to do stuff slavery?
Is the word all that matters?
Can you own your house the drive to your masters every morning??
#71 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." I'm going off of the definition, if by becoming a doctor that doesn't happen, he isn't a slave.
User avatar #75 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
A statute (legally) forces someone to be dominated (one definition for Property) and failure to obey results in punishment.

Property could also be defined as having the right to take something and put it in a specified place. You can have some property rights in something.

I dont think this is happening to doctors yet, and it may never.
I'm still arguing that Rand comparing what they are trying to do and slavery is not much of a stretch
#77 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
I'm saying that when he calls himself a slave for being a doctor, and isn't a slave by your or my definition....he isn't a slave and the claim is bogus.

He could compare some aspects of each to be similar but by equating both doctor and slave he is an idiot. I know that is ad hominem yet believing two things are the same when they aren't is just stupid.

He could have said it better but he chose not too and should be called out on it.
User avatar #83 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
Yea I will agree he could have said it better.
He wasn't right, but he wasn't 100% wrong either.

When plugging in common standards to your definition of slavery I realized that forcing someone to work in general is slavery.
Kind of a low burden. I think maybe our society is so repulsed by the idea.
Something could be 99% slavery and we would deny it until it hit 100% as to protect our sensibilities.

The people in 1984 (book) probably didn't realize they were slaves. (And maybe they weren't)

But I digress.
#37 - Yet literally owning someone, and having anyone request your s…  [+] (11 new replies) 05/27/2015 on who are you people? -1
User avatar #38 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
I consider forced serfdom about the same
Its just how I see it, and apparently how Paul sees it as well.

If you cant control how you make money, and cant control where you can make money, that limits a large portion of what an adult is able to do not only in their work, but also personal life. Doctors are on call too.
#39 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
So Vermont allowing any citizen to request service from any doctor they choose.....is the equivalent of every single aspect of the doctors life from when they sleep to when they wake up to what they eat and everything in between... Because the first is making healthcare a right, the second is actual serfdom
User avatar #55 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
If by Request you mean the Doctor cant say no as to time or place then Yes.
the "request" does control their schedule at least in part so yes.
Field slaves had no work to do at night, but they were still slaves.

Not really a request if you have to do something
#56 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
Yo butting in, but do you believe that a person choosing to be a doctor is the same as being another person's literal property? If yes then you and rand both think alike and you are horrible people. If no then doctors aren't slaves and rand is wrong
User avatar #58 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
Fellatio knows how to have a real discussion

You fling at me logical fallacies
Ad hominem; false dilemma; and begging the question

I will not respond to you further, and I have no respect for your argument.
#59 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
To be fair when you do boil it down, rand is saying that being a doctor would make him a slave. And it's apparent that since he doesn't become the literal legal property of another person/group he is mistaken
User avatar #62 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
How far do you creep on a sliding scale before the balancing test shows slave?
Is it Semantics?


At what point is forcing people to do stuff slavery?
Is the word all that matters?
Can you own your house the drive to your masters every morning??
#71 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." I'm going off of the definition, if by becoming a doctor that doesn't happen, he isn't a slave.
User avatar #75 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
A statute (legally) forces someone to be dominated (one definition for Property) and failure to obey results in punishment.

Property could also be defined as having the right to take something and put it in a specified place. You can have some property rights in something.

I dont think this is happening to doctors yet, and it may never.
I'm still arguing that Rand comparing what they are trying to do and slavery is not much of a stretch
#77 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
I'm saying that when he calls himself a slave for being a doctor, and isn't a slave by your or my definition....he isn't a slave and the claim is bogus.

He could compare some aspects of each to be similar but by equating both doctor and slave he is an idiot. I know that is ad hominem yet believing two things are the same when they aren't is just stupid.

He could have said it better but he chose not too and should be called out on it.
User avatar #83 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
Yea I will agree he could have said it better.
He wasn't right, but he wasn't 100% wrong either.

When plugging in common standards to your definition of slavery I realized that forcing someone to work in general is slavery.
Kind of a low burden. I think maybe our society is so repulsed by the idea.
Something could be 99% slavery and we would deny it until it hit 100% as to protect our sensibilities.

The people in 1984 (book) probably didn't realize they were slaves. (And maybe they weren't)

But I digress.
#35 - Economics, not jobs. He says a flat tax rate for all Americans…  [+] (13 new replies) 05/27/2015 on who are you people? +1
User avatar #36 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
I agree with the parallel

Forcing someone to be somewhere and to do something is a type of slavery
A doctor would basically be a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

I understand why it upsets peoples sensibilities
#37 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
Yet literally owning someone, and having anyone request your service are two totay different things
User avatar #38 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
I consider forced serfdom about the same
Its just how I see it, and apparently how Paul sees it as well.

If you cant control how you make money, and cant control where you can make money, that limits a large portion of what an adult is able to do not only in their work, but also personal life. Doctors are on call too.
#39 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
So Vermont allowing any citizen to request service from any doctor they choose.....is the equivalent of every single aspect of the doctors life from when they sleep to when they wake up to what they eat and everything in between... Because the first is making healthcare a right, the second is actual serfdom
User avatar #55 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
If by Request you mean the Doctor cant say no as to time or place then Yes.
the "request" does control their schedule at least in part so yes.
Field slaves had no work to do at night, but they were still slaves.

Not really a request if you have to do something
#56 - Absolute Madman (05/27/2015) [-]
Yo butting in, but do you believe that a person choosing to be a doctor is the same as being another person's literal property? If yes then you and rand both think alike and you are horrible people. If no then doctors aren't slaves and rand is wrong
User avatar #58 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
Fellatio knows how to have a real discussion

You fling at me logical fallacies
Ad hominem; false dilemma; and begging the question

I will not respond to you further, and I have no respect for your argument.
#59 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
To be fair when you do boil it down, rand is saying that being a doctor would make him a slave. And it's apparent that since he doesn't become the literal legal property of another person/group he is mistaken
User avatar #62 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
How far do you creep on a sliding scale before the balancing test shows slave?
Is it Semantics?


At what point is forcing people to do stuff slavery?
Is the word all that matters?
Can you own your house the drive to your masters every morning??
#71 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
"a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." I'm going off of the definition, if by becoming a doctor that doesn't happen, he isn't a slave.
User avatar #75 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
A statute (legally) forces someone to be dominated (one definition for Property) and failure to obey results in punishment.

Property could also be defined as having the right to take something and put it in a specified place. You can have some property rights in something.

I dont think this is happening to doctors yet, and it may never.
I'm still arguing that Rand comparing what they are trying to do and slavery is not much of a stretch
#77 - fellatio (05/27/2015) [-]
I'm saying that when he calls himself a slave for being a doctor, and isn't a slave by your or my definition....he isn't a slave and the claim is bogus.

He could compare some aspects of each to be similar but by equating both doctor and slave he is an idiot. I know that is ad hominem yet believing two things are the same when they aren't is just stupid.

He could have said it better but he chose not too and should be called out on it.
User avatar #83 - MuahahaOfLore (05/27/2015) [-]
Yea I will agree he could have said it better.
He wasn't right, but he wasn't 100% wrong either.

When plugging in common standards to your definition of slavery I realized that forcing someone to work in general is slavery.
Kind of a low burden. I think maybe our society is so repulsed by the idea.
Something could be 99% slavery and we would deny it until it hit 100% as to protect our sensibilities.

The people in 1984 (book) probably didn't realize they were slaves. (And maybe they weren't)

But I digress.

user's friends

items

Total unique items point value: 50 / Total items point value: 50
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - joshlol (05/22/2015) [-]
interesting name
#2 to #1 - fellatio (05/22/2015) [-]
honestly I was really surprised no one took it before
 Friends (0)