Click to expand
Rank #2315 on CommentsLevel 226 Comments: Mind Blower
OfflineSend mail to fogglebeast Block fogglebeast Invite fogglebeast to be your friend flag avatar
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||11/23/2011|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#2225|
|Comment Thumbs:||3376 total, 3811 , 435|
|Content Level Progress:|| 6.77% (4/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 9% (9/100) |
Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 227 Comments: Mind Blower
|Total Comments Made:||304|
latest user's comments
|#7 - It could mean that we travel by 'pixel', if you know what I me… [+] (5 new replies)||02/22/2015 on Infinity Explain: Zeno's...||0|
#9 - infinityexplain (02/22/2015) [-]
Also. Because of the nature of evolution. A very large amount of our DNA doesn't do anything at all. 98% of our DNA is Noncoding DNA Except recent reports suggest that 20% of the "noncoding DNA" actually just regulates the 2% , it's only there because it's the left overs from all the other species we came from. That's why we're about 50% the same as a Banana
#8 - infinityexplain (02/22/2015) [-]
Space acts a lot like a 3 dimensional grid. For reasons I will explain later, the amount of points between "units" is called an "uncountable infinity." Don't worry about it too much. But in the mathematical world, there would never exist a "pixel" like there exists on a computer screen.
And what classifies humans as humans is the ability to reproduce with each other. For example, if we sent humans to Mars (and the laws of natural selection actually applied to us), then that population of Humans will slowly evolve to a different species. The moment that that population can't reproduce with the people on Earth, then it's a totally new species.
I know a lot about Biology as well
No. Being impotent does not make you not human. It's just if the general population can't reproduce with another population.
#33 - fogglebeast (02/22/2015) [-]
"And what classifies humans as humans is the ability to reproduce with each other." But that can't be the case. Each individual on that paint drawing thing would be able to reproduce with the one on the left and right, making a chain all the way back to the first stage of evolution to the left. 'B' and 'C' would be able to reproduce, but since 'A' is so close to 'B', that would surely be able to reproduce with it, too, but not with 'C'. There can't just be a point in the evolution where such a sudden and dramatic change happens causing the next generation to just become unable to breed with the previous one.
#35 - infinityexplain (02/22/2015) [-]
Well yeah. That's the entire point of Evolution.
Evolution goes about many generations. There wasn't a single moment in time where an animal with gills suddenly gave birth to an animal with lungs. It's just constant evolution throughout.
For example, the transition between Homo heidelbergensis and Homo Sapien (us), took about 400 thousand years. Each generation was nearly identical to the previous. But traits were steadily being selected as favorable. And eventually. The entire population of Homo heidelbergensis either died out, or evolved into Homo Sapiens.
#36 - fogglebeast (02/22/2015) [-]
But that's exactly what I mean - the change is so gradual that the point in which they become 'true humans' just seems arbitrary. As you say, Homo heidelbergensis slowly became Homo Sapien, but the small change that happened from the last generation of the former to the first generation of the latter is the same tiny amount of change that happened the generation before that, also. Who draws the line between species and why?
|#25 - "Center"||02/17/2015 on PUT THAT TEA DOWN||-3|
|#104 - I believe that wasn't a case of marriage saving the day, but r…||02/12/2015 on Westboro Baptist Feminism||+2|
|#10 - I find marriage to be a strange concept for modern times. Why … [+] (6 new replies)||02/12/2015 on Westboro Baptist Feminism||+1|
#44 - lissiexoxobear (02/12/2015) [-]
My husband and I got married right before our daughter was born, 3 weeks before. Shortly after I got really sick with a horrible infection and almost died. They spent over an hour trying to get blood from me and put in an IV. I was in complete agony. I had a very common infection for new moms, but the doctor refused to treat it or listen to me at all until I had a nurse confirm it for him, because he didn't know what it was. All I needed was water, tylenol, and antibiotics. They left me writhing in pain and threatened to take my daughter from me for over 12 hours, refusing to treat me the whole time. All I did was decline the IV and ask for the antibiotics in pill or shot form. Which was perfectly reasonable. If it wasn't for my husband also refusing the IV for me (they claimed I was incompetent and tried to get him to consent for me), I would have been committed to a mental hospital, forcibly tied down and treated against my will, and I would never see my daughter again... as the wonderful nurse said to me to try and 'change my mind'. It was honestly the most abusive and horrible experience I've ever been through, but if I wasn't legally married, I have no doubt it would have been much, much worse. I love my husband so much and I love having that sense of security knowing that if something bad happens to me, he will make the right choice as opposed to some doctor or nurse who barely glanced at my chart.
#104 - fogglebeast (02/12/2015) [-]
I believe that wasn't a case of marriage saving the day, but rather a case of a tremendously flawed system that had you in a position you really shouldn't have been. As you said, your request was completely reasonable and it sounds to me like they were definitely in the wrong. I appreciate the reply.
#37 - TheMather (02/12/2015) [-]
It's strange because there's 3 sides to it.
On the romantic side, it's supposed to be a vow of commitment.
On the legal side, it's there to distribute rights.
On the religious side, it's there to make a pact it the eye of god (or the gods, whatever).
And these three sides never fully agree. We'd probably be better off splitting the definitions entirely, and disassociate legal partnership from marriage entirely. Make it so that religious marriages don't automatically include tax benefits and redistribution of property on divorce/death, and they'd have to get a legal partnership as well to get those.
#36 - benjamino (02/12/2015) [-]
Your points are completely right, and yet I still want to get married some day
I think from my point of view, it's like, not so much a contract of not trusting each other, but like, a way to commit to each other fully. Like, here's everything I have, half of it's yours.
#15 - maresh (02/12/2015) [-]
Legal benefits, i can't be assed to write them.
#35 - lickidysplit (02/12/2015) [-]
As well as the legal benefits, it's just nice. The ring is a symbol of your love, and that little piece of paper you both sign shows you trust and love this person enough to be willing to spend your life with them. If you look at it logically it doesn't make a lot of sense, but looking at it for the symbols and what it represents means a lot to a lot of people.
Unless you're a Kardashian, and then who gives a damn about love when you can get millions from a divorce
|#247 - I made this one myself a short while ago - I hope you enjoy. …||02/12/2015 on Help me bruvahs (check desc)||0|
|#8 - That's because sometimes you have to try to be scared. That … [+] (5 new replies)||02/11/2015 on Horror Games||+57|
#9 - drl (02/11/2015) [-]
silent hill was scary
resident evil was scary
the shlock that comes out now is not scary
its just a shit games that they add darkness and a half baked monster to
freddies sucked and the game mechanics where terrible ... it may have been alright as a free game
slender was shit
it has gotten to the point where horror games are just
fucking tedius item collecting
with a horror theme
it would be like if i took the shit game ET replaced him with a little boy and the scientists with monsters
congrats i got a game on par with the other shit horror titles
#17 - ecomp (02/11/2015) [-]
I personally found Slender, Amnesia, and Five Nights at Freddies much scarier than Resident Evil, haven't played Silent Hill. Horror games lose their potency when they give the player control and power. A monster isn't scary when you can shoot it in the face. A monster is scary when you can't do anything to it. That's the reason why Slender was so popular when it came out, and that's why Five Nights ar Freddies was so popular.
The mechanics aren't what make horror games scary, it's the story. People don't play horror games for the mechanics, they play horror games to get scared.
#11 - rknight (02/11/2015) [-]
I used to think resident evil was scary. Then I played Silent Hill. SH makes RE look like a friendly romp thru Candy-Land.
I played Silent Hill 1 when I was 18. It actually gave me a nightmare that I still remember to this very day. I hadn't had a legit nightmare since I was 12.
RE tries to scare you/spook you. SH takes your mind into a dark back alley and fucks it in every hole and even makes a few.
|#21 - Don't fret, old bean - I'm English. We are united under one ba… [+] (6 new replies)||02/11/2015 on royal ass||+4|
|#13 - Then I suppose you're no true Scotsman, then. [+] (19 new replies)||02/11/2015 on royal ass||+94|
#69 - fefe (02/11/2015) [-]
#70 - compared (02/11/2015) [-]
I don't wish to have a debate over it because I don't want to make people mad, I made a joke and you're taking it too seriously. I'm as free as I wish to be, and due to my current circumstances if the yes vote had won it would have caused a lot of hassle for me. I had good personal reason to vote no.
|#41 - I've heard that theory, but I don't think it's the case. Gyara…||02/09/2015 on Dragonite||0|
|#23 - Dragonair's elegant; Dragonite's fat and derpy. I wonder why i… [+] (5 new replies)||02/08/2015 on Dragonite||+3|
|#10 - Buildings were destroyed and people died; I fail to see what w… [+] (1 new reply)||02/08/2015 on In that moment of time XXV||+14|
|#5 - I hate Matryoshka dolls. They're just so full o… [+] (2 new replies)||02/01/2015 on the other side||+124|
|#39 - Laying in bed.||01/31/2015 on Horror Stories #1||+2|
|#8 - Laying: Fitting - The laying of carpet Prepa…||01/25/2015 on (untitled)||-2|
|#26 - You have to see it, then. Reading the quotes may make him seem…||01/25/2015 on FJ Crowd?||+2|
|#9 - Nulls these arguments? I'm not arguing anything - I'm merely s…||01/22/2015 on I don't need feminism||+1|
|#7 - Damn gremlins. Yeah, I seem to have the dates wrong -… [+] (1 new reply)||01/22/2015 on I don't need feminism||0|
|#5 - I'm bored, so here are some interesting informations in regard… [+] (5 new replies)||01/22/2015 on I don't need feminism||+2|
#8 - civilizedwasteland (01/22/2015) [-]
Yes but you also have to take into account the advancement of technology, which essentially nulls these arguments.
A huge amount of jobs were rather labor intensive in this era and as a result men were already in shape to obligations such as fighting a war. Now it can be done in a chair from the other side of earth.
Advances like rivet guns and drill presses for instance made jobs much less physically demanding, making a man's pay that much more enticing to a woman.
I dont think today there would be any economic benefit of having purely woman stay at home and do nothing but care for a family( not including at least a standard education). Especially not when the birth rate of the country is only two children per family.
|#18 - When I see someone who names their Sandslash/Hippowdon/Excadri…||01/22/2015 on songname?||+1|
|#53 - There is a banana there for scale. That's how big it is.||01/22/2015 on Damn You Big Africa!||0|
|#35 - Lacrimosa by Mozart.||01/17/2015 on dank WebM compilation (pt...||+20|
|#30 - The English chap has been represented in a rather dapper fashi…||01/16/2015 on Old National lampoon drawings||+3|
|#5 - Picture||01/13/2015 on CHEEKI BREEKI COMPLATION||0|
|#11 - I just ******* spit out my juice as an involuntary reac…||01/12/2015 on Bro?||+6|
|#13 - Color [+] (8 new replies)||01/09/2015 on What goes on in Her...||+77|
#58 - fefe (01/09/2015) [-]
He has a point, why downvote him?
#63 - assassindash (01/09/2015) [-]
Because simplicity breeds stupidity and inefficiency. Complex endeavors build the mind and it's flexibility. It's one of the reasons why the general citizen in America is so hilariously stupid. They're bred in a time where complex thinking is for cannon fodder, unless it's in a specific subject they're learning in. Common sense is slowly dying, and it's painful for everyone involved.
And before you say, "Well i'm smart, and i'm great!" Guess what, you're the minority, or you're in denial.
That is, if you're a US citizen.... Or other places with really stupid or bad education.... We got the case of the stupid education. It's not bad, it's just ineffective.
I mean, sure, there are things that SHOULD be simple, like microwaves and such. Don't want to get your dick caught in the exhaust pipe or something.
#87 - thewulfman (01/09/2015) [-]
While I agree that the average American citizen is pretty fucking stupid, having lived among them all my life I think I'm qualified to make that statement, having a more efficient language isn't what is making us less intelligent. The removal of redundant and unnecessary letters in no way impedes the collective wisdom.