Upload
Login or register

immune to u

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 113
Date Signed Up:10/24/2009
Last Login:2/20/2016
Location:cranston
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 2693 total,  3406 ,  713
Comment Thumbs: 613 total,  931 ,  318
Content Level Progress: 91% (91/100)
Level 126 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 127 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 30% (3/10)
Level 160 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 161 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:12
Content Views:225042
Times Content Favorited:22 times
Total Comments Made:406
FJ Points:3317

  • Views: 10214
    Thumbs Up 245 Thumbs Down 9 Total: +236
    Comments: 11
    Favorites: 6
    Uploaded: 02/12/12
    Duck Hunt Duck Hunt
  • Views: 2527
    Thumbs Up 81 Thumbs Down 7 Total: +74
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 05/04/12
    FB Twat FB Twat
  • Views: 5464
    Thumbs Up 61 Thumbs Down 16 Total: +45
    Comments: 20
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 12/05/12
    FB Slut FB Slut
  • Views: 1501
    Thumbs Up 49 Thumbs Down 11 Total: +38
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 04/08/12
    Easter Easter
  • Views: 2285
    Thumbs Up 33 Thumbs Down 11 Total: +22
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 3
    Uploaded: 01/15/13
    Well Well
  • Views: 1735
    Thumbs Up 29 Thumbs Down 8 Total: +21
    Comments: 6
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 12/21/12
    So. So.
  • Views: 807
    Thumbs Up 6 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +5
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 08/06/10
    Jessi Slaughtered Jessi Slaughtered
  • Views: 818
    Thumbs Up 6 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +2
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 08/02/11
    LOL LOL
  • Views: 492
    Thumbs Up 2 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +1
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 07/21/10
    Mad Mad Mario Mad Mad Mario
  • Views: 432
    Thumbs Up 1 Thumbs Down 1 Total: 0
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 08/06/10
    Bad Hair Day Bad Hair Day
  • Views: 1233
    Thumbs Up 3 Thumbs Down 6 Total: -3
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/28/10
    Rolling Cat Rolling Cat

latest user's comments

#103 - Clinton will win. Why? If Trump doesn't get the GOP nomination… 09/02/2015 on For the non-US people -2
#81 - They're never going to stop terrorizing France. 03/27/2015 on too soon 0
#19 - That's a ******* airsoft gun.  [+] (5 new replies) 03/12/2015 on My dream come true 0
#36 - anon (03/12/2015) [-]
It's also a terrible attempt at the gun. The magazine is located in a stupid as fuck position. For this rifle to function the bolt would have to be pulled back a fucking foot to chamber a round.
User avatar
#56 - bensho (03/12/2015) [-]
Most airsoft rifles put the mag there just because it makes sense. Airsoft is only 95% looks. That 5% is sacrificed to making the guns work.
#51 - anon (03/12/2015) [-]
Holy fuck man. Its a damn replica of something in a video game. Guys probably not a professional fucking gunsmith. Fucking gun-autists are just as bad as all the other kinds of autists.
User avatar
#57 - shadowpieman (03/12/2015) [-]
I highly doubt the OP BUILT that airsoft gun. He simply bought and painted it.
User avatar
#22 - hourlyb (03/12/2015) [-]
Astute observation.
#51 - Have you ever read about how orcas are basically being torture… 03/01/2015 on 10 Times the zoo sucked 0
#38 - SeaWorld, The only place where you capture a wild animal, it k…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/01/2015 on 10 Times the zoo sucked +4
#47 - Ethshar (03/01/2015) [-]
"It killed some people,better release it"
#51 - immune to u (03/01/2015) [-]
Have you ever read about how orcas are basically being tortured by being in captivity. In the wild they swim an amount of ocean equal to 100x their tank size EVERY DAY. Not to mention the fact that collapsed dorsal fins in the wild are almost unheard of, while in captivity it is the norm due to their lack of space to swim.
#514 - Maybe if he actually knew something about the theology behind …  [+] (1 new reply) 01/31/2015 on Stephen Fry ladies and... +3
User avatar
#751 - nigeltheoutlaw (01/31/2015) [-]
epik rebuttal m8000 :^)
#32 - You quoted parts of the article completely out of context. Loo…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/28/2015 on Ammo 0
User avatar
#33 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
not out of context...i used the authors definition. if you dont care then why did you ask if i had read the article? also if you want me to see empirical data than refer me to the data, not an opinion piece. i think the article is flawed because it starts by showing the statistics for women who reported "rape" as the traditional definition, comparing it to the same one for men, and thats it. one must ask if women were also asked about "sex by coercion, and it so..where is the data in the article? if women were not, then this is already misleading statistics.
#28 - Did you even read the ******* article? **** it, not worth my time.  [+] (4 new replies) 01/28/2015 on Ammo 0
User avatar
#31 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
i even quoted it lol
#32 - immune to u (01/28/2015) [-]
You quoted parts of the article completely out of context. Look at the empirical data. I don't give a shit what the author thinks, whether he believes in fairies or unicorns. The data doesn't lie.
User avatar
#33 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
not out of context...i used the authors definition. if you dont care then why did you ask if i had read the article? also if you want me to see empirical data than refer me to the data, not an opinion piece. i think the article is flawed because it starts by showing the statistics for women who reported "rape" as the traditional definition, comparing it to the same one for men, and thats it. one must ask if women were also asked about "sex by coercion, and it so..where is the data in the article? if women were not, then this is already misleading statistics.
User avatar
#30 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
yea i read the article
#24 - I'll leave this here.  [+] (8 new replies) 01/28/2015 on Ammo 0
User avatar
#27 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
shit again..
#26 - anon (01/28/2015) [-]
shit accidently posted as anonymous
#25 - anon (01/28/2015) [-]
first, this is an opnion article. also the line "rape by sexual coercion" used as a supplement to the writers argument, can easily be applied to women. Also, since you separated the rape statistic and the forced to penetrate statistic, then we must also do the same for women. the forced to sex as defined by the author as "lies or false promises, threats to end a relationship or spread negative gossip, or “making repeated requests” can be applied to women. since the author specified that this was a different subsection for men meanwhile generalizing the reports of women, then we must assume that women also reported on this separately.
#28 - immune to u (01/28/2015) [-]
Did you even read the fucking article? Fuck it, not worth my time.
User avatar
#31 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
i even quoted it lol
#32 - immune to u (01/28/2015) [-]
You quoted parts of the article completely out of context. Look at the empirical data. I don't give a shit what the author thinks, whether he believes in fairies or unicorns. The data doesn't lie.
User avatar
#33 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
not out of context...i used the authors definition. if you dont care then why did you ask if i had read the article? also if you want me to see empirical data than refer me to the data, not an opinion piece. i think the article is flawed because it starts by showing the statistics for women who reported "rape" as the traditional definition, comparing it to the same one for men, and thats it. one must ask if women were also asked about "sex by coercion, and it so..where is the data in the article? if women were not, then this is already misleading statistics.
User avatar
#30 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
yea i read the article
#20 - And rape is defined as forced penetration, which most likely m…  [+] (10 new replies) 01/28/2015 on Ammo 0
User avatar
#23 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
are you saying that men get raped more than women? tf?
#24 - immune to u (01/28/2015) [-]
time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

I'll leave this here.
User avatar
#27 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
shit again..
#26 - anon (01/28/2015) [-]
shit accidently posted as anonymous
#25 - anon (01/28/2015) [-]
first, this is an opnion article. also the line "rape by sexual coercion" used as a supplement to the writers argument, can easily be applied to women. Also, since you separated the rape statistic and the forced to penetrate statistic, then we must also do the same for women. the forced to sex as defined by the author as "lies or false promises, threats to end a relationship or spread negative gossip, or “making repeated requests” can be applied to women. since the author specified that this was a different subsection for men meanwhile generalizing the reports of women, then we must assume that women also reported on this separately.
#28 - immune to u (01/28/2015) [-]
Did you even read the fucking article? Fuck it, not worth my time.
User avatar
#31 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
i even quoted it lol
#32 - immune to u (01/28/2015) [-]
You quoted parts of the article completely out of context. Look at the empirical data. I don't give a shit what the author thinks, whether he believes in fairies or unicorns. The data doesn't lie.
User avatar
#33 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
not out of context...i used the authors definition. if you dont care then why did you ask if i had read the article? also if you want me to see empirical data than refer me to the data, not an opinion piece. i think the article is flawed because it starts by showing the statistics for women who reported "rape" as the traditional definition, comparing it to the same one for men, and thats it. one must ask if women were also asked about "sex by coercion, and it so..where is the data in the article? if women were not, then this is already misleading statistics.
User avatar
#30 - donatelo (01/28/2015) [-]
yea i read the article

channels owned

Subscribe fb-sluts