Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:3/05/2012
Last Login:7/17/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 4086 total,  4571 ,  485
Comment Thumbs: 18741 total,  21163 ,  2422
Content Level Progress: 62% (62/100)
Level 140 Content: Faptastic → Level 141 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 76.8% (768/1000)
Level 317 Comments: Wizard → Level 318 Comments: Wizard
Content Views:174777
Times Content Favorited:111 times
Total Comments Made:2641
FJ Points:21231
Favorite Tags: a (2) | mum (2) | pun (2) | tumblr (2) | your (2)
I'm a genetics student at the University of Glasgow. I like to think I'm funny, and like to laugh, so here I am

latest user's comments

#13 - Haha. Still 4 years away, yet ;) 06/03/2015 on I passed +1
#10 - Good luck what do you study?  [+] (3 new replies) 06/03/2015 on I passed +2
#11 - trollsbetrollin (06/03/2015) [-]
User avatar
#14 - martycamp (06/03/2015) [-]
Best of luck with the rest of your degree too
#15 - trollsbetrollin (06/03/2015) [-]
#9 - I'm sure Heriot Watt isn't so bad. Apart from, you know, being…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/03/2015 on I passed +1
User avatar
#20 - samthediv (06/03/2015) [-]
I live here in Edinburgh so it's pretty convenient for me, apart from the nightlife here being absolute trash.
I was wanting to move away simply for the freedom of it, but it should be nice not needing a loan.
User avatar
#22 - martycamp (06/03/2015) [-]
I spent my first year staying at home in Largs, which basically took me 1hr30 to get into uni. I hated it because I had to get up a 6.30 evey day, and could never stay out late. Then I moved out, and it was the best decision I made, not only for getting to do stuff but also for the freedom from my parents. I'd recommend moving out, even though it won't be as bad for you. It's worth it.
#8 - Lab work, mostly. There are a vast array of possible areas I c…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/03/2015 on I passed +1
User avatar
#29 - themassivefail (06/03/2015) [-]
Synthetic biology? Creating alternate-life and messing with cells? Or creating things to turn us into cyborgs?
User avatar
#33 - martycamp (06/03/2015) [-]
Pretty much the first one. Essentially, it's rebranded biotechnology because biotech and GMOs scare people :p
#4 - I was going to start with Pokemon, but I'll get there eventually 06/02/2015 on I passed 0
#9 - As a Scotsman, I feel like I have to point out that it's the e…  [+] (4 new replies) 06/01/2015 on Damn Loch Ness +10
User avatar
#58 - mudkipfucker (06/01/2015) [-]
I always accept them, yet customers hate it when i give them Scottish money as change
User avatar
#13 - samthediv (06/01/2015) [-]
Not technically legal tender.
Theyre legal currency.
Thats why theyre allowed to not accept them
#33 - consoles (06/01/2015) [-]
No where has to accept any currency, anything is legal currency so long as it is accepted between traders
User avatar
#11 - daisydinsaurr (06/01/2015) [-]
Thats what i meant
I'm scottish
#65 - GMOs have been around for over fifty years. Look up Japanese d… 05/31/2015 on GMOs 0
#4 - Problem with the last one - many soldiers came home with PTSD,…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/30/2015 on Billy Gardell 0
User avatar
#14 - klick (05/30/2015) [-]
I think they called it Shell Shock back then
User avatar
#7 - catpisseverdeen (05/30/2015) [-]
Audie Murphy was so fucked up, he ended up shooting his alarm clock.
#12 - The right GMOs will help save the planet. Anti-GMOers are as r…  [+] (13 new replies) 05/30/2015 on GMOs +23
#45 - anon (05/30/2015) [-]
**anonymous used "*roll picture*"**
**anonymous rolled image** Between now and 2050, we need to double the food supply. We can feed the world in 2050 if we change course and if we stop focusing only on producing more agricultural commodities. That has never solved the hunger problem. Instead, let’s increase the availability of land and food by reducing biofuel production, get more of the food we grow to the dinner table by reducing food waste, and invest in the most important food producers in the world: small-scale and family farmers.
#21 - endospore (05/30/2015) [-]
As someone who fully supports GMOs, I totally understand why people don't support GMOs. They're still incredibly new and people don't want to be test subjects. Also, there's the whole shady business side. Is it ethical to sell corn that gets ten times the yield but doesn't germinate, forcing farmers to keep buying their seed year after year in order to stay in business?
User avatar
#65 - martycamp (05/31/2015) [-]
GMOs have been around for over fifty years. Look up Japanese dwarf wheat. The difference is that today we are deliberately changing one or two genes instead of randomly mutating everything. Not to mention, it's literally impossible for any of the genes we use to harm anyone.

Besides, all farmers buy seeds. They don't want to store them. If they get their own seed, they have to store them - expensive - and if something goes wrong, they're fucked. If they buy seeds and nothing grows, they get compensated by the company.
User avatar
#29 - TheMather (05/30/2015) [-]
The farmers still have the option of using regular corn. The reason they wouldn't is because it's more profitable to get 10x the yield and buy seeds every year.
#30 - endospore (05/30/2015) [-]
They don't really have the option. They would go bankrupt in less than one season. Supply and demand doesn't work with farming by its very nature thanks to seasons and food rotting. It's literally all about volume thanks in part to the fact that government subsidies are the only reason pretty much ANY farmer manages to avoid bankruptcy. Farming in America is in a very, very bad state and has been since FDR.

Organic is the only way for farmers to make money, but that requires maintaining organic practices for years before you can call your food organic, which requires a huge upfront investment. Couple that with the fact that most farmers live in a terrible cycle of debt thanks to the need to rebuy seed every year and the fact that all of their income for an entire year comes in at once, it's easy to see how difficult that is.
User avatar
#31 - TheMather (05/30/2015) [-]
Economics have no place in ethics discussion.
#48 - anon (05/30/2015) [-]
Are you being serious?
User avatar
#49 - TheMather (05/30/2015) [-]
Yes. Ethics and economics are oil and water. For the entirety of human history, every economical power has stemmed from exploitation of the less fortunate.
So to say the ethical option has to be economically viable, that goes against what economics is. Economics and ethics have nothing to do with eachother and they have no place within eachother, because they fundamentally reject the relevance of the other.
#62 - anon (05/30/2015) [-]
Based on this comment, I can assume you don't understand three things: economics, ethics, and how to have a discussion.

I can also assume you've never taken an economics or ethics class anywhere with a respectable education standard.

Also, let's ignore the fact that a few comments ago in your "ethics"(???) discussion, you used the phrase "it's more profitable..."

So discussing profit is ethics, and not economics, but supply and demand, bankruptcy, volume, subsidies, organic farming, debt and income are all irrelevant to ethics? Do you read what you type?
User avatar
#63 - TheMather (05/30/2015) [-]
The farmers don't care about the ethics of GMO, they care about what puts money in their pocket. Here you see economics ruling out ethics, not a combination of the two.

But to say GMO then is unethical because it's not economically viable not to use it, that is trying to combine economics and ethics.

You either go:
"I don't care about the ethics, this is more profitable."
"I don't care about the profits, this is more ethical."

You don't go:
*sob sob* "He makes more profit than me, that is unethical!"
#64 - anon (05/30/2015) [-]
You're attempting to argue a point that no one is making... Someone earning more profit than someone else is not unethical in and of itself, and no one is saying that. You're committing two fatal logical fallacies: strawman (because you are building up a moot point just to knock it down) and red herring (you're attempting to lead the original discussion in a completely different direction in order to avoid actually addressing the issue that was being discussed.)

I suggest you go and read over the comments from the user you were actually speaking with and make an attempt to understand what they are saying. Then you should try again to formulate a response that is more than essentially nothing, which is what you originally provided.

And I will reiterate, economics and ethics should be, and indeed are, discussed along side each other. Just because people don't always make the ethical decision, and just because you think the ethical decision is somehow never economically viable (which is false, just so you know) doesn't mean that an ethical discussion should ignore economic considerations and that an economics discussion should ignore ethical considerations. That is such a narrow minded viewpoint that I'm nearly dumbfounded.

tl;dr, You need to reread the discussion instead of ignoring it completely. Ethics and economics can be and have been combined. You are wallowing in ignorance, misconceptions, and assumed lackluster reading comprehension.
#32 - endospore (05/30/2015) [-]
#17 - anon (05/30/2015) [-]
emphasis on RIGHT GMOs
#10 - Nah man, I just have a girlfriend. 05/26/2015 on A bloody good time 0