Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

mynameishiiiiiiiii    

no avatar Level 206 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to mynameishiiiiiiiii Block mynameishiiiiiiiii Invite mynameishiiiiiiiii to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/17/2010
Last Login:7/07/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 509 total,  663 ,  154
Comment Thumbs: 1070 total,  1500 ,  430
Content Level Progress: 90% (9/10)
Level 50 Content: Sammich eater → Level 51 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 90% (9/10)
Level 206 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 207 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:3262
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:442
FJ Points:1664

latest user's comments

#38 - Well in Truth Islam IS a peaceful religion. But lately the med…  [+] (16 new replies) 09/16/2012 on Good parenting +2
#179 - chickeniscrazy (09/16/2012) [-]
Well it's not difficult when thousands of muslims are rioting in over 20 countries around the world
User avatar #63 - thepyras (09/16/2012) [-]
The religion itself doesn't seem very peaceful, not to say that its followers aren't. Many or perhaps the majority of Muslims are very peaceful people, and it is true that the extremists tend to stand out, but it isn't exactly difficult to find a text in the Koran which incites violence.
User avatar #98 - gentlememe (09/16/2012) [-]
The thing is, most of those texts have a very strict historical context that needs to be taken into account. The problem is when people looking to paint Islam as a violent religion (whether for anti-Islamic purposes, or the way terrorists use it to recruit people) take those things out of context. Modern scholars, and I mean real Islamic muftis and sheikhs that know their shit, will never interpret Qur'anic verses without taking their historical context into account. For example, verse 4:89 which you cited below was revealed during wartime, in a war initiated by the early Muslims' non-Muslim enemies. (The other two verses are referring to punishment in the afterlife and not inciting Muslims to take any violent action in this world.) I always find it interesting when people cite 4:89, because they'll rarely ever cite the verse that comes right after that, which changes its meaning significantly:
(4:90) - "Except those who join a group, between you and whom there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with their breasts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Had Allâh willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allâh has opened no way for you against them."

I'm not going to say the Qur'an can't be read as a violent text; it constantly is by Islamophobes and terrorists alike. (I guess politics does make interesting bedfellows.) But most Muslims and scholars who know what they're talking about don't see it that way. I think it IS a religion of peace. That being said, I think in a lot of cases Muslims themselves can be violent people, and it doesn't take much to get those in Muslim countries really riled up. (Muslims in Western countries are a bit of a different story.) I still have a hard time understanding just why it is the Muslim world gets so irrationally butthurt at petty things like that film.
User avatar #112 - nycdood (09/16/2012) [-]
Alright, the problem is that Koran is considered the word of god. How the fuck would you not expect nut jobs to take something that's suppose to be the word of god out of context, when they could read catcher in the rye and use that as a pretext for murder? And why the hell does Islam (a peaceful religion) have violent passages in the that need proper context?

You see, this is the problem with Islam in the modern world. I'm not trolling you, btw.
User avatar #332 - gentlememe (09/16/2012) [-]
There are always going to be extreme fanatics, regardless of the source material. The theory of evolution, for example, was the inspiration for some of the worst crimes against humanity (i.e. the Holocaust). There are plenty of other examples of violence sparked by non-religious sources. Conflict and violence are, unfortunately, part of human nature, and those looking to promote it will look to whatever sources they can to justify it, religious or otherwise. But we wouldn't say Nazism reflects poorly on Darwin, nor should we be taking people who misinterpret Islam as a reflection of the religion itself.

The reason there are references to violence in the Qur'an is because while Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not a pacifist religion. What I mean by that is more or less summarized in the aforementioned verses 4:89-90: seek peace and don't attack anyone for no reason, but when someone attacks you fight them back with everything you have. That's more or less the foreign policy of every modern state, and I don't think it's unreasonable. Like I said, there are just as many verses promoting peace with non-Muslims as there are verses about violence, and in the case of verses like 4:89 I don't think it's too much to ask that people at least read the verse that literally comes right after it when interpreting it.
User avatar #347 - nycdood (09/17/2012) [-]
Yeah, but the theory of evolution can objectively be proven, whilst Islam is most likely bullshit.

Also, the holocaust was inspired by eugenics, not the theory of evolution per se; And eugenics actually makes sense, it's just that at this point in history, humans don't have all the information needed to make the right choices of which genes to keep, and which to breed out.

If humans are so prone to violence, shouldn't we remove religions that exacerbate such qualities? I mean that whole "defend yourself if your attacked" part seems too loosely worded. If I speak out against Islam in any way, is that attacking it? You see how you could use such loosely worded terms to incite violence?

P. S. How can something be peaceful when it talks about violence in the face of violence?
#261 - anonymous (09/16/2012) [-]
just like the bible. fuck religions
#68 - anonymous (09/16/2012) [-]
i would LOVE to see you finding 1 thing in the Quran that incites violence
#81 - natedizzie (09/16/2012) [-]
User avatar #69 - thepyras (09/16/2012) [-]
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority"
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
User avatar #155 - Chuckaholic (09/16/2012) [-]
The first one is threatening people with hell, not inciting violence. Allah will punish them, not the followers. The second one is similar.
The third one is saying that if non believers attack you first, spare no one, and is followed by a sentence you missed out saying that if they approach you without the intention to fight you must offer them peace, regardless of their beliefs.
User avatar #93 - ifiwereayoungman (09/16/2012) [-]
And what's the bet you got this translation from a website against Islam? Interpreting a religious text is not such an easy thing (sometimes the meanings are not meant to be taken literally).

However unfortunately the extremists and biased people who want to prove how violent a religion is take those literal meanings or misinterpret the text in other ways to suit their own agendas.

Don't be so easily convinced by things found on the internet. Instead if you truly want to increase your knowledge about something make an effort get more involved first hand.

Usually it is not the religion which is bad but certain followers of those religions who want to use it's teaching for their own selfish purposes.

And this is not coming from a Muslim.
User avatar #140 - robertolee (09/16/2012) [-]
I'm sorry but when you look at that how the fuck do you not take that literally? Also that would take some serious mistranslations to mess that up. I agree some people just lie about religion and will make things up but you can't read 'The Word of God' and say "Nahhh he didn't mean it that way!" That is arrogant in its own assuming you know what 'God' meant.
User avatar #174 - ifiwereayoungman (09/16/2012) [-]
you are talking about the translation. but the key thing is that those above statements have been translated and the original meaning may be vastly different from the translated one. also as one of the above posters pointed out you also have to look at the quotes in context of what was said and not just in isolation. `

Quoting another poster: "For example, verse 4:89 which you cited below was revealed during wartime, in a war initiated by the early Muslims' non-Muslim enemies. (The other two verses are referring to punishment in the afterlife and not inciting Muslims to take any violent action in this world.)"

Now the smart people would look at that and see that those particular quotes are not inciting violence against westerners but the extremists would take them literally and misinterpret them to fuel their own cause. So in effect the religious teachings were not bad but rather some of the ignorant followers are bad.
#75 - MrDeadiron (09/16/2012) [-]
awww shit
User avatar #67 - thepyras (09/16/2012) [-]
If anyone found this offensive, I didn't mean it toward Muslim people, just the texts themselves. Most Islamic people are very much peaceful.
#36 - Well, let's not forget that not everyone in the religion is li…  [+] (23 new replies) 09/16/2012 on Good parenting +39
User avatar #37 - diablojoe (09/16/2012) [-]
Honestly I only mentioned it because it reminded me of something a friend of mine told me a few days ago. He spent a good hour explaining that Islam was a peaceful religion and that cases of extremist violence were rare. Later that night a news report came on saying that a US embassy had been bombed by extremists
User avatar #151 - bronytarek (09/16/2012) [-]
America seems to bomb the shit out of any country, including 1.6m innocent Iraqis. There's a lot of hatred and resentment against the U.S. because of that. If you ask people around the Middle East, they don't have anything against France, but they do hate the U.S. because of your foreign policy. Canada also has a good reputation (which is kinda being spoiled by the current Prime Minister).
User avatar #57 - gentlememe (09/16/2012) [-]
American drone attacks in Pakistan kill countless people on a regular basis. NATO's bombed Afghanistan and basically destroyed Iraq. But these things don't mean Christianity isn't a peaceful religion. I'm Muslim too and I'm fed up with all the bullshit my co-religionists are taking to in response to one stupid video, but please don't take that as an indication of what all of us are like.
User avatar #72 - RequieminMortis (09/16/2012) [-]
Not really the best comparison, my friend. The strikes you mentioned weren't done in the name of Christianity the way the terror attacks and embassy raids were done in the name of Islam.
User avatar #141 - robertolee (09/16/2012) [-]
George Bush "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq" Seems Christian motivated to me. You can break all the international laws you want! as long as you know 'God' is on your side
User avatar #89 - gentlememe (09/16/2012) [-]
That's debatable in the case of the American kim jongistration that went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Anyway, there are plenty of historical and modern examples of Christian violence. My point is that doesn't make Christianity a religion of violence or Christians inherently violent people. You're taking these very context-specific events and applying them to an entire religious group. There are lots of factors that went into the attacks in Tripoli, the protests around the Middle East, and this boy holding that sign, respectively, with Islam being only a part of it. But as an outsider you probably don't appreciate the diversity that exists within the Muslim community, so you take them all as one unitary, monolithic phenomenon and throw the whole religion and community in there with them. But from an insider's perspective there's clearly more at play here. It would be sort of like a eurofag looking at the Westboro Baptist Church and concluding, "Gee, Americans sure hate gay people," when obviously that's a massive generalization. But the more distanced you are from a particular group the more you'll allow one particularly remarkable event to disproportionately inform your view of the whole group. An American right now might think all Muslims are violent barbarians the same way a Muslim might think all Americans are anti-Muslim bigots. But those are both inaccurate views.

tl;dr preach love, not hate
#38 - mynameishiiiiiiiii (09/16/2012) [-]
Well in Truth Islam IS a peaceful religion. But lately the media and the most recent events have really contradicted our truth.....
#179 - chickeniscrazy (09/16/2012) [-]
Well it's not difficult when thousands of muslims are rioting in over 20 countries around the world
User avatar #63 - thepyras (09/16/2012) [-]
The religion itself doesn't seem very peaceful, not to say that its followers aren't. Many or perhaps the majority of Muslims are very peaceful people, and it is true that the extremists tend to stand out, but it isn't exactly difficult to find a text in the Koran which incites violence.
User avatar #98 - gentlememe (09/16/2012) [-]
The thing is, most of those texts have a very strict historical context that needs to be taken into account. The problem is when people looking to paint Islam as a violent religion (whether for anti-Islamic purposes, or the way terrorists use it to recruit people) take those things out of context. Modern scholars, and I mean real Islamic muftis and sheikhs that know their shit, will never interpret Qur'anic verses without taking their historical context into account. For example, verse 4:89 which you cited below was revealed during wartime, in a war initiated by the early Muslims' non-Muslim enemies. (The other two verses are referring to punishment in the afterlife and not inciting Muslims to take any violent action in this world.) I always find it interesting when people cite 4:89, because they'll rarely ever cite the verse that comes right after that, which changes its meaning significantly:
(4:90) - "Except those who join a group, between you and whom there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with their breasts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Had Allâh willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allâh has opened no way for you against them."

I'm not going to say the Qur'an can't be read as a violent text; it constantly is by Islamophobes and terrorists alike. (I guess politics does make interesting bedfellows.) But most Muslims and scholars who know what they're talking about don't see it that way. I think it IS a religion of peace. That being said, I think in a lot of cases Muslims themselves can be violent people, and it doesn't take much to get those in Muslim countries really riled up. (Muslims in Western countries are a bit of a different story.) I still have a hard time understanding just why it is the Muslim world gets so irrationally butthurt at petty things like that film.
User avatar #112 - nycdood (09/16/2012) [-]
Alright, the problem is that Koran is considered the word of god. How the fuck would you not expect nut jobs to take something that's suppose to be the word of god out of context, when they could read catcher in the rye and use that as a pretext for murder? And why the hell does Islam (a peaceful religion) have violent passages in the that need proper context?

You see, this is the problem with Islam in the modern world. I'm not trolling you, btw.
User avatar #332 - gentlememe (09/16/2012) [-]
There are always going to be extreme fanatics, regardless of the source material. The theory of evolution, for example, was the inspiration for some of the worst crimes against humanity (i.e. the Holocaust). There are plenty of other examples of violence sparked by non-religious sources. Conflict and violence are, unfortunately, part of human nature, and those looking to promote it will look to whatever sources they can to justify it, religious or otherwise. But we wouldn't say Nazism reflects poorly on Darwin, nor should we be taking people who misinterpret Islam as a reflection of the religion itself.

The reason there are references to violence in the Qur'an is because while Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not a pacifist religion. What I mean by that is more or less summarized in the aforementioned verses 4:89-90: seek peace and don't attack anyone for no reason, but when someone attacks you fight them back with everything you have. That's more or less the foreign policy of every modern state, and I don't think it's unreasonable. Like I said, there are just as many verses promoting peace with non-Muslims as there are verses about violence, and in the case of verses like 4:89 I don't think it's too much to ask that people at least read the verse that literally comes right after it when interpreting it.
User avatar #347 - nycdood (09/17/2012) [-]
Yeah, but the theory of evolution can objectively be proven, whilst Islam is most likely bullshit.

Also, the holocaust was inspired by eugenics, not the theory of evolution per se; And eugenics actually makes sense, it's just that at this point in history, humans don't have all the information needed to make the right choices of which genes to keep, and which to breed out.

If humans are so prone to violence, shouldn't we remove religions that exacerbate such qualities? I mean that whole "defend yourself if your attacked" part seems too loosely worded. If I speak out against Islam in any way, is that attacking it? You see how you could use such loosely worded terms to incite violence?

P. S. How can something be peaceful when it talks about violence in the face of violence?
#261 - anonymous (09/16/2012) [-]
just like the bible. fuck religions
#68 - anonymous (09/16/2012) [-]
i would LOVE to see you finding 1 thing in the Quran that incites violence
#81 - natedizzie (09/16/2012) [-]
User avatar #69 - thepyras (09/16/2012) [-]
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority"
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
User avatar #155 - Chuckaholic (09/16/2012) [-]
The first one is threatening people with hell, not inciting violence. Allah will punish them, not the followers. The second one is similar.
The third one is saying that if non believers attack you first, spare no one, and is followed by a sentence you missed out saying that if they approach you without the intention to fight you must offer them peace, regardless of their beliefs.
User avatar #93 - ifiwereayoungman (09/16/2012) [-]
And what's the bet you got this translation from a website against Islam? Interpreting a religious text is not such an easy thing (sometimes the meanings are not meant to be taken literally).

However unfortunately the extremists and biased people who want to prove how violent a religion is take those literal meanings or misinterpret the text in other ways to suit their own agendas.

Don't be so easily convinced by things found on the internet. Instead if you truly want to increase your knowledge about something make an effort get more involved first hand.

Usually it is not the religion which is bad but certain followers of those religions who want to use it's teaching for their own selfish purposes.

And this is not coming from a Muslim.
User avatar #140 - robertolee (09/16/2012) [-]
I'm sorry but when you look at that how the fuck do you not take that literally? Also that would take some serious mistranslations to mess that up. I agree some people just lie about religion and will make things up but you can't read 'The Word of God' and say "Nahhh he didn't mean it that way!" That is arrogant in its own assuming you know what 'God' meant.
User avatar #174 - ifiwereayoungman (09/16/2012) [-]
you are talking about the translation. but the key thing is that those above statements have been translated and the original meaning may be vastly different from the translated one. also as one of the above posters pointed out you also have to look at the quotes in context of what was said and not just in isolation. `

Quoting another poster: "For example, verse 4:89 which you cited below was revealed during wartime, in a war initiated by the early Muslims' non-Muslim enemies. (The other two verses are referring to punishment in the afterlife and not inciting Muslims to take any violent action in this world.)"

Now the smart people would look at that and see that those particular quotes are not inciting violence against westerners but the extremists would take them literally and misinterpret them to fuel their own cause. So in effect the religious teachings were not bad but rather some of the ignorant followers are bad.
#75 - MrDeadiron (09/16/2012) [-]
awww shit
User avatar #67 - thepyras (09/16/2012) [-]
If anyone found this offensive, I didn't mean it toward Muslim people, just the texts themselves. Most Islamic people are very much peaceful.
#112 - What.. it's for ps3 dude.  [+] (1 new reply) 09/06/2012 on Buuuuuuurrrrrrrnnnnnn 0
User avatar #126 - xsjrrubedo (09/06/2012) [-]
correction, the new sly cooper game is for both crossplay playing, its to introduce the new crossplay bought game system where vita and ps3 can share both 1 game; ie: buy game on ps3, can download it onto your ps vita and play it on the go, come back home, play it on ps3.

to me its pretty neet.
#136 - I don't know man, she looks "stuffed" to me. 09/04/2012 on Taking her out for a swim... +3
#165 - Hmm, normally I'm not okay with comment spams....but your spam… 09/04/2012 on English +1
#241 - Normally, pony pictures with the Mane 6 in war make me Shake m… 09/03/2012 on please help. read description +1
#91 - **** I READ IT IN HIS VOICE. 08/28/2012 on Bike +7
#192 - They nailed the arab one. You can't say **** abou… 08/20/2012 on Deplomacy at its finest +2
#667 - WELL, when I said I didn't think it was a shooter. I kind of … 08/19/2012 on Old but still 0
#661 - you are very welcome.  [+] (1 new reply) 08/19/2012 on Old but still 0
#663 - aragothofdagobah (08/19/2012) [-]
Here have this awesome GIF
#658 - Well that IS all from your point of view. Just because you're … 08/19/2012 on Old but still 0
#657 - holy **** dude CALM DOWN. I was just stating my o…  [+] (5 new replies) 08/19/2012 on Old but still +1
#666 - bobbysnobby (08/19/2012) [-]
Funny image but my irritation is that peoples issues seem to be about Symantecs words have meanings that are not opinion driven a first person shooter is a description of a gameplay style the context of the game doesnt matter if the description still fits. Im not angry I just find it Odd that people seem to think their opinion is relevant on a descriptive term it is a lot like me talking to a chemist saying "Well I dont think gold is an element because its in wedding rings and i dont see wedding rings on this periodic table" He would prob wonder to him self what that has to do with anything.
#667 - mynameishiiiiiiiii (08/19/2012) [-]
WELL, when I said I didn't think it was a shooter. I kind of fucked up by not explaining what I meant. You see there are a few branches I like to have.
First person Shooter
- Zombie survival
- Shooter ( I consider a "Shooter" to be something like CoD, no story or area to get to, just stuff like Capture the flag and team deathmatch)
- etc
So I always thought that Zombie survival and Shooter were two different branches of the same genre.
#659 - aragothofdagobah (08/19/2012) [-]
That pic made my day. Thank you.
#661 - mynameishiiiiiiiii (08/19/2012) [-]
you are very welcome.
#663 - aragothofdagobah (08/19/2012) [-]
Here have this awesome GIF
#639 - I love the list, but Tf2 isn't for casuals. And I don't think …  [+] (8 new replies) 08/19/2012 on Old but still +1
#650 - bobbysnobby (08/19/2012) [-]
Also I dont see how you think L4D doesnt count as a shooter, saying its a zombie survival game so its not a shooter is much like saying this banana is not a fruit because it is yellow, they are not mutually elusive terms seeing as you use a gun and are in first person by definition it is a first person shooter.
#657 - mynameishiiiiiiiii (08/19/2012) [-]
holy shit dude CALM DOWN. I was just stating my opinion.
yfw I responded to your original post.
#666 - bobbysnobby (08/19/2012) [-]
Funny image but my irritation is that peoples issues seem to be about Symantecs words have meanings that are not opinion driven a first person shooter is a description of a gameplay style the context of the game doesnt matter if the description still fits. Im not angry I just find it Odd that people seem to think their opinion is relevant on a descriptive term it is a lot like me talking to a chemist saying "Well I dont think gold is an element because its in wedding rings and i dont see wedding rings on this periodic table" He would prob wonder to him self what that has to do with anything.
#667 - mynameishiiiiiiiii (08/19/2012) [-]
WELL, when I said I didn't think it was a shooter. I kind of fucked up by not explaining what I meant. You see there are a few branches I like to have.
First person Shooter
- Zombie survival
- Shooter ( I consider a "Shooter" to be something like CoD, no story or area to get to, just stuff like Capture the flag and team deathmatch)
- etc
So I always thought that Zombie survival and Shooter were two different branches of the same genre.
#659 - aragothofdagobah (08/19/2012) [-]
That pic made my day. Thank you.
#661 - mynameishiiiiiiiii (08/19/2012) [-]
you are very welcome.
#663 - aragothofdagobah (08/19/2012) [-]
Here have this awesome GIF
#642 - bobbysnobby (08/19/2012) [-]
Like I said I played TF2 in ESLs TF2 league its still miles away from playing in Quake, Tribes, or CS 1.6 not even close.

TF2 takes skills other than shooter skills you still need precision point and click but if you think the skill set needed for succeeding at TF2 is the same as what you need for CS 1.6 you are quite ignorant of the competitive scene.
#346 - ....ya....I guess I am being a hypocrite......hmmm. 08/18/2012 on my hero 0
#32 - Post this a while ago. Get 17 thumbs. See this today. *…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/18/2012 on my hero 0
#53 - anonymous (08/18/2012) [-]
BTW the comic was posted wayyyy before you. So stop trying to make him look like a reposting faggot because you are too, ya hypocrite.
#346 - mynameishiiiiiiiii (08/18/2012) [-]
....ya....I guess I am being a hypocrite......hmmm.
#130 - Sport can be badass, if you're a big football (soccer) junky … 08/18/2012 on Went better than expected +1
#28 - Ha ha... put this into google translate guys. It's actually pr… 08/16/2012 on Am I doing it right 0
#217 - Franky was the first person I thought of when I saw this. :D  [+] (1 new reply) 08/16/2012 on A True Legend +1
User avatar #612 - FourchansChosenone (08/16/2012) [-]
Then you are awesome :D
#68 - Road to El Dorado. You can thank me later. 08/16/2012 on Dammit Dovahkiin! +3
#50 - **mynameishiiiiiiiii rolls 39** The Prostitute Raper. 08/15/2012 on The Savanna -3
#166 - No the guy killed Redmond while he was technically dead and th… 08/15/2012 on Mann VS Machine 0
#307 - Psst. You're better with out her. Trust me. If a girl even con… 08/15/2012 on best advice my dad gave me 0
#78 - It's funny because if Johnny Bravo was real. He wouldn't be ab… 08/15/2012 on bad title. +7
#304 - ha ha. NICE. you get mad props for that. Plus, You said that s…  [+] (2 new replies) 08/15/2012 on best advice my dad gave me 0
User avatar #306 - uranoob (08/15/2012) [-]
No. I just put Pinkie Pie as my avatar as a joke and I just never changed it. But I never connected them. All I know is, she's done, and he won't be messing with me or anyone i'm with from here on out.
#307 - mynameishiiiiiiiii (08/15/2012) [-]
Psst. You're better with out her. Trust me. If a girl even considers cheating. You shouldn't put a ring on Dat.
#300 - Wow, he really did deserve it. Still though, he might call the…  [+] (4 new replies) 08/15/2012 on best advice my dad gave me 0
User avatar #302 - uranoob (08/15/2012) [-]
Nope. I went to visit him. Even his parents say he deserved it. So it's all good.
#304 - mynameishiiiiiiiii (08/15/2012) [-]
ha ha. NICE. you get mad props for that. Plus, You said that she always was joking and laughing. She's like Pinkie. But now you hate Pinkie Pie huh?
User avatar #306 - uranoob (08/15/2012) [-]
No. I just put Pinkie Pie as my avatar as a joke and I just never changed it. But I never connected them. All I know is, she's done, and he won't be messing with me or anyone i'm with from here on out.
#307 - mynameishiiiiiiiii (08/15/2012) [-]
Psst. You're better with out her. Trust me. If a girl even considers cheating. You shouldn't put a ring on Dat.

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #1 - fatemah (10/06/2012) [-]
You're arab :o ;)
 Friends (0)