x
Click to expand

pizzapastasaurous

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 18
Steam Profile: marshallbritannic
Date Signed Up:6/25/2011
Last Login:5/27/2015
Location:England
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#9682
Highest Content Rank:#5615
Highest Comment Rank:#2988
Content Thumbs: 152 total,  238 ,  86
Comment Thumbs: 1649 total,  2756 ,  1107
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 14 Content: New Here → Level 15 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 59% (59/100)
Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:8907
Times Content Favorited:30 times
Total Comments Made:1218
FJ Points:1704
Five foot ten, black straight hair, blue eyes and pale skin.
>inb4 NEET

At University at the moment, studying Psychology and Philosophy; ayy.

latest user's comments

#100 - You think your BA is **** . Mine is in philosophy and ps… 03/18/2015 on Doublethink +1
#65 - I will continue to say that elves are just special snowflake H… 03/17/2015 on How To D&D: Races 0
#35 - They couldn't be released because Germany fought to the end to…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/16/2015 on Random Interesting Facts... +1
#37 - gerfox (03/16/2015) [-]
I was about to write a lengthy comment about how the mass-extinction started before they started losing, but then I re-read your comment thank god.

Thats a fair point, but they never had a huge shortage of food in Germany during WW2 from what I've read. It was worse with fuel and other military supplies. They had enough food, and the guards at the concentration camps had only two tasks. Prevent the prisoners from escaping and treat them according to the Geneva conventions. The fact that the last one was often not fulfilled for a lot of prisoners is not the result of lacking resources, but rather lacking will.
#25 - Yeah thats why I attribute the vast majority of claimed fatali…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/16/2015 on Random Interesting Facts... 0
#33 - gerfox (03/16/2015) [-]
There's a little gap between not having enough food to feed prisoners, and killing them because they are inferior and need to be removed. If you can't feed them, then you can actually release them.
User avatar #35 - pizzapastasaurous (03/16/2015) [-]
They couldn't be released because Germany fought to the end to stave off defeat. To mass-release prisoners would only demoralize a losing army.
#37 - gerfox (03/16/2015) [-]
I was about to write a lengthy comment about how the mass-extinction started before they started losing, but then I re-read your comment thank god.

Thats a fair point, but they never had a huge shortage of food in Germany during WW2 from what I've read. It was worse with fuel and other military supplies. They had enough food, and the guards at the concentration camps had only two tasks. Prevent the prisoners from escaping and treat them according to the Geneva conventions. The fact that the last one was often not fulfilled for a lot of prisoners is not the result of lacking resources, but rather lacking will.
#23 - There are some serious inconsistencies in the common rhetoric.…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/16/2015 on Random Interesting Facts... -1
#24 - ciacheczko (03/16/2015) [-]
Jews like to make big deal out of themselves. That's a fact as undeniable, as the occurrence of Holocaust.

You see the side of the stick where Jews are being assholes who use the Holocaust to assert their dominance.
The "Holocaust never happened" idiots are the other side of that stick, ignorant and sometimes fanatically Nazi part of society.

But there's also a notable part of the stick in between these sides that holds the truth - the Holocaust happened and it was horrible as fuck. But it wasn't as horrible as self-centered Jews like to claim, attempting to milk this fact for all its worth and a little more.

I unno, it's the only semi-related gif I have.
User avatar #25 - pizzapastasaurous (03/16/2015) [-]
Yeah thats why I attribute the vast majority of claimed fatalities to the German War-machine and civil government being in its death throes.

WW2 was a horrible war for all sides involved, every side committed war crimes at some point. Unfortunately Germany, who was the losing side. Also had the biggest majority of POW and prisoners in general; which they were expected to care for even when plumbing, infrastructure and basic medical care got literally bombed into oblivion.
#33 - gerfox (03/16/2015) [-]
There's a little gap between not having enough food to feed prisoners, and killing them because they are inferior and need to be removed. If you can't feed them, then you can actually release them.
User avatar #35 - pizzapastasaurous (03/16/2015) [-]
They couldn't be released because Germany fought to the end to stave off defeat. To mass-release prisoners would only demoralize a losing army.
#37 - gerfox (03/16/2015) [-]
I was about to write a lengthy comment about how the mass-extinction started before they started losing, but then I re-read your comment thank god.

Thats a fair point, but they never had a huge shortage of food in Germany during WW2 from what I've read. It was worse with fuel and other military supplies. They had enough food, and the guards at the concentration camps had only two tasks. Prevent the prisoners from escaping and treat them according to the Geneva conventions. The fact that the last one was often not fulfilled for a lot of prisoners is not the result of lacking resources, but rather lacking will.
#18 - So did/still do my entire family. 03/12/2015 on 90s kids dont know what a... 0
#23 - I thought the reason why she was giving her clothes was that t… 03/11/2015 on The Cornerwitch 0
#3 - What animu is this? 03/08/2015 on It's Raining 0
#4 - Scud launcher, poised to strike! 03/07/2015 on Command and Conquer +1
#175 - The word slave in the English language originates from the Mid…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/04/2015 on Where can I get one +1
#177 - anonymous (03/04/2015) [-]
damn, thats a lot of words originating from eachother
thanks for clearing this up for me man
#13 - The word "slavery" is derived from the Slavs. - A wh…  [+] (9 new replies) 03/04/2015 on Where can I get one +42
#173 - anonymous (03/04/2015) [-]
dont the word "slav" come from the word "slava", which means glory?
im confused now
User avatar #175 - pizzapastasaurous (03/04/2015) [-]
The word slave in the English language originates from the Middle English sclav, which comes from the Old French esclave, which in turn comes from the Medieval Latin sclavus, which originates from the early Greek sklabos, from sklabenoi Slavs, of Slavic origin; akin to Old Russian Slovene, an East Slavic tribe. The Latin term sclavus originally referred to the Slavs of Eastern and Central Europe , as many of these people had been captured and then sold as slaves.
#177 - anonymous (03/04/2015) [-]
damn, thats a lot of words originating from eachother
thanks for clearing this up for me man
#130 - anonymous (03/04/2015) [-]
you got that on backwards, dumbass, the romans called them slaves and the name stuck.
#145 - gisuar (03/04/2015) [-]
roman for slave is servus though serve comes from the latin word servus
#86 - anonymous (03/04/2015) [-]
Its actually the other way around. The people who would be known as Slavs were so often slaves that the name developed
#60 - anonymous (03/04/2015) [-]
Read/Learn more.
#52 - hillbillypowpow (03/04/2015) [-]
"sub" is right
User avatar #32 - nought (03/04/2015) [-]
another irrelevant comment

while we're at it let's talk about the etymology of other buzzwords
#7 - Thanks for the run down - senpai. 02/27/2015 on They Did a Thing 0
#6 - Yep IQ does not measure intelligence for two reasons. …  [+] (10 new replies) 02/27/2015 on DIABETUS +4
User avatar #19 - runescapewasgood (02/27/2015) [-]
Not to mention any IQ test also tests:
-how well you were educated to think
-how hard you're trying on the test

stats would tend to be higher in asians and indians than whites and lower in other races. just a fact because those 2 things are highly contributing factors
#13 - haeckal (02/27/2015) [-]
I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Intelligence is a well-defined concept (basically how powerful and efficient your brain is at processing information and solving problems) and IQ tests accurately measure it. IQ is also important - having a high IQ is one of the best predictors of doing well in school, getting a job and succeeding in the workplace, staying out of prison, not dying in an accident, etc. IQ tests are also not biased - they predict academic and professional success all over the world.

www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/04/what_do_sat_and_iq_tests_measure_general_intelligence_predicts_school_and.single.html
User avatar #26 - Ruspanic (02/27/2015) [-]
How do you explain the Flynn effect, that average IQ test scores have been increasing so rapidly that people a century ago had an average IQ of 70 by modern standards?
Surely this doesn't mean our ancestors were retarded?
User avatar #40 - haeckal (02/27/2015) [-]
The Flynn effect is a genuine mystery in intelligence research. It's especially strange considering that people with lower IQs have been reproducing more than those with higher IQs for a century. Whether the Flynn effect is a real gain in intelligence, and what causes it, has not yet been adequately determined to my knowledge.

Richard Lynn believes that genotypic IQ has been gradually decreasing, but that an increase in phenotypic IQ (the Flynn effect) has temporarily masked that during the 20th century (probably due to better nutrition and education). Lynn goes on to say that the Flynn effect appears to have stopped in some countries and may be going in reverse.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000463

Here's another interesting article about intelligence and the Flynn effect arguing that intelligence and scientific innovation rates peaked in the 19th century and has since gone into decline, but that we should still see improvements in economic development due to the Flynn effect:

www.gwern.net/docs/algernon/2012-woodley.pdf
User avatar #58 - Ruspanic (02/27/2015) [-]
I find James Flynn's own explanation for the effect to be convincing.

What we think of as "intelligence" today has a lot to do with certain types of thinking, namely critical thinking, reasoning from abstraction, and categorization. These are skills and habits that can be taught and are not acquired in a vacuum. Flynn cited the psychologist Luria's studies on Russian peasants in the 1920s, where subjects were asked questions like "what do a fish and a crow have in common" or "If there are no camels in Germany, are there camels in [German city]?". The answers given were, respectively, along the lines of "nothing, a crow flies and a fish swims/I can eat a fish but not a crow" and "It depends on the size of the city". These answers are based on pragmatism and empiricism and would fail an IQ test. They'd also be considered "stupid" by modern observers, including me.
By contrast, a modern Westerner asked these questions would say "they're both animals" and "No", which would correct answers on an IQ test.

Flynn says that the Russian peasants did not take the hypothetical seriously, which is a key requirement to do well on IQ tests. Taking the hypothetical seriously, or classifying things by abstract similarities, are habits and skills that are learned and improved through environmental stimulation, like education, reading, etc. Since the skills have become more important and education has improved in quality and access, people's average IQ scores have also improved.

The Russian peasants' answers remind me of another study I heard about (but can't remember the name of) that tried to create culturally-unbiased IQ tests for West African tribes and found that they still scored low. Flynn would say that while the tests did not require any Western-specific knowledge, they did require skills that the tribal people had never acquired through education or experience.

IQ is a good indicator of innate intelligence if we assume, for simplicity's sake, that everyone in a given modern society receives the same level of intellectual stimulation (and nutrition) from childhood - which is not true of people from different time periods. Given a fixed level of stimulation, high IQ scores can be attributed to genetic advantages. But we know that even in the same society, people do not receive the same amount of stimulation from home, school or their peers, and that American society in particular is quite segregated de facto, with black Americans being much more likely to grow up in poor, violent neighborhoods with shitty schools and unhealthy subcultures.
User avatar #22 - rainbowrush (02/27/2015) [-]
IQ tests doesn't measure how intelligent you are by a long shot. It's all about patterns, explained in simple terms. I scored ridiculously high, for instance, and I can assure you that I'm not some otherwordly genious.


Of course official, proper IQ tests have value, and they do show some strengths, but it's more a confidence booster than anything. For me, it served no more as something to boast about as a child.
#80 - anonymous (02/27/2015) [-]
Re read his comment fucktard.
#33 - anonymous (02/27/2015) [-]
Having a high IQ score is like having good genetics for sick gainz. Just because you can score high doesn't make you an Einstein. It shows how well you recognize patterns which is correlated to how fast you can learn things in general and how well you retain them. You have to practice things to get better at them
User avatar #117 - techjoker (02/27/2015) [-]
That's what intelligence is though - how quickly and easily you can learn new things and solve problems.
User avatar #18 - Shiny (02/27/2015) [-]
Well, IQ originated as an academic placement system, so it makes sense that it correlates with success. People who try harder to succeed to better at tests like these. I had to take an APA approved testing regimen twice at a psychiatric office for medical reasons and I was so, so much better at it the second time.
#9 - I've never followed a fan-base of a show. I make my own conclu…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/25/2015 on old but gold +8
User avatar #10 - cptcanada (02/25/2015) [-]
nope it means pairing characters with each other but still equally crappy
#6 - Picture 02/25/2015 on Before it was cool +2
#19 - No thats just how he acts in the comics. The creators had to n…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/24/2015 on Weaknesses +11
User avatar #29 - rhc (02/24/2015) [-]
that is so silly
#17 - No the point is that he can choose to demolectularize certain …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/24/2015 on Weaknesses +32
User avatar #32 - envinite (02/24/2015) [-]
It always impress me when people try to explain a fictional stuffs in the most logical way possible.
#20 - luddethebunny (02/24/2015) [-]
what you explained, i see it
thanks bubby
#32 - Saxon invader family. I know that feeling bro 02/23/2015 on White People +3
#26 - The intention was psychological damage ;-; 02/22/2015 on Hidden Skyrim Bosses +31
#25 - It was a joke how the Euro-Union is corrupt and broken. …  [+] (1 new reply) 02/19/2015 on map of the world 0
#27 - kanedam (02/19/2015) [-]
#23 - Does the Euro-zone mean anything to you?  [+] (3 new replies) 02/19/2015 on map of the world 0
#24 - kanedam (02/19/2015) [-]
emotionally or what?
User avatar #25 - pizzapastasaurous (02/19/2015) [-]
It was a joke how the Euro-Union is corrupt and broken.

The site need a rhetoric or sarcastic font desperately.
#27 - kanedam (02/19/2015) [-]
#26 - Nope, its one of those conspiracies that has been gaining a lo… 02/19/2015 on Hitler is not kill. -2
#33 - Except I have never been able to replicate myself in any game.. 02/18/2015 on master race gets more ass +1
#130 - Hence the phrase "luck of the Irish" heh. But in fai… 02/16/2015 on wouldn't it be funny if.. 0
#13 - The Monarch is the Head of State, and protector of the realm. …  [+] (22 new replies) 02/15/2015 on wouldn't it be funny if.. +9
User avatar #28 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
I thought it was to the point that she was just a figure head
#71 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
That is a very common misconception. You see, the monarchy possesses an incredible amount of power, but chooses not to use most of their powers (so as not to come into conflict with parliament) and instead just live the good life. If they wished to use them, The monarchy of the United Kingdom has the following powers (among others):

They can suspend or call parliament into session
sign all statutes into law (or refuse to do so, voiding the law)
appoint and remove all ministers (including the prime minister), the queen generally appoints the person who'd have the most support in the House of Commons
Can declare war as they choose
The Monarchy is literally above the law, and so cannot be prosecuted or made the target of civil actions
The Monarch can issue royal pardons, thus exonerating any convicted person they choose
The Monarch is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces, and all soldiers swear their oaths not to the UK, but to Her Majesty.
Probably her most commonly used power is that of granting honours, she can give anyone peerages (lordships) or knighthoods.

So yeah, while she is not a dictator like Putin or others, and has many of the traditional monarch powers restricted by judges or parliament, she is still the most powerful person in the UK and of course is wealthy beyond imagining (her total wealth-holdings) dwarfs Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The Windsor's just are not corrupt and choose not to use their power, which is one of the reasons they are so beloved.
User avatar #73 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
Holy crap that gave me a ton of respect for the queen
User avatar #117 - questionableferret (02/16/2015) [-]
Respect the Queen, sure, and the young Princes, but the generation between them have gotten up to some really awful shit that we're not allowed to know about but we totally do, child Sex-abuse being one of them.

Lizzie is a damn fine gal but her kids, her cousins and their kids and some of their grandkids, have really pushed the extent of how people in the humungous commonwealth are willing to care for them.

By enlarge we're still fine with having the Royal Family. They're part of the identity and history of the commonwealth and have turned from vicious conquerers into regal figureheads that bring people joy. There is always still that looming axe above our necks though of the powers still vested in the crown (note, that phrase comes from the idea that the British Monarchy are given the divine right to rule by God, and that right is invested not in the King, but in the crown, which isn't the actual crown, but a general bulk of power that is considered to be in the hands of whoever is the monarch at the time) but so long as those powers aren't abused there's no reason to get rid of them.

In the US there's flags and founding fathers, in the Commonwealth there's the Monarchy. This has the added bonus of our national icons not being dead or inanimate objects.
#78 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Oh yeah, I have nothing but respect for the Royal Family (I'm an American but got my graduate degree in England and lived here for 8 years). To be fair though, a lot of her reigning her powers in is also done in self-interest. Obviously, if she became a despot, her family would be overthrown like they have been in the past. Still, it takes a lot of self-control to let your ministers handle everything and take a back seat.

1 more thing, since you're curious, there are important governmental powers the monarch does NOT have anymore.
-They cannot raise their own personal army (bad things have happened when they were allowed to do that)
-They cannot raise taxes
-While they can void the law by not signing it (but haven't done so since Queen Anne), they cannot create new laws because British Common Law is determined by judges.
User avatar #82 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
What has happened with their own personal armies
#89 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Well, there were the three English Civil Wars, where parliament (headed by Oliver Cromwell) fought a very bloody war against King Charles I's own army and then it expanded to engulf all of the UK and Ireland. In those three, England lost 4% of its entire population, Scotland lost 6-8%, and Ireland was hit brutally, losing 616,000 of it's 1.5 million people (41%). In 1688, William of Orange also led a bloody civil war (The Glorious Revolution) against King James II. But yeah, That's why the Irish have always despised Cromwell and why Parliament and the judges removed that particular power from the Royal Family.
User avatar #91 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
pore Ireland
User avatar #130 - pizzapastasaurous (02/16/2015) [-]
Hence the phrase "luck of the Irish" heh. But in fairness; in pre-medieval Britain the Irish were nothing but cunts.

They actually staged mass-immigration invasions of Pictland and Wales. And for 100s of years after they raided the English Kingdoms, Wales and Pictland.

Most people view the Irish as oppressed and undeserving of their punishment. But by God they certainly gave the English cause to attack them.
#93 - montykarl (02/16/2015) [-]
Yeah, Ireland's always gotten fucked over throughout time. Must be why they love their drink.
User avatar #65 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
Here in Australia we still sign contracts and stuff under the Queen's name.

When you buy a house the contract do have a term in there that kinda specifies that you are borrowing a piece of land from the royal family indefinitely and can be taken back if the monarch wishes.
User avatar #68 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
so she could like take your house if she wanted it?
User avatar #70 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
According to all Australian contracts, not the house as we built the house, but the land, if she wishes it would belong to her.
User avatar #74 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
Its good she is not evil and corrupt then
User avatar #75 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
They wouldn't want to be corrupt. We would declare independence.
User avatar #76 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
But you are your own country
User avatar #77 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
We are an independent country.
But we still have a link to UK, which is that our Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II and our laws are based on British constitution and all our laws specifies absolute power to the Queen.

We could have a referendum to have that changed if it gets bad. But Australians like the royal family.
User avatar #80 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
its strange to me cuz im American ge
User avatar #83 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
The Queen is still the head of state of your neighbour; Canada
User avatar #84 - revansfirst (02/16/2015) [-]
She has so much reach. jesus
User avatar #88 - akirasatou (02/16/2015) [-]
As of current days, only Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a handful of islands are part of the commonwealth realm but it's still enormous
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#43 - desacabose ONLINE (03/26/2015) [-]
User avatar #39 - loopymoomoo (03/22/2015) [-]
dis ***** doesnt like dank webm comps
User avatar #40 to #39 - pizzapastasaurous (03/22/2015) [-]
Watchu talking about f00l?
User avatar #37 - Falkor (02/09/2015) [-]
User avatar #34 - gugek (11/22/2014) [-]
Hi! I hope you have a great night, and a fantastic day tomorrow!
User avatar #35 to #34 - pizzapastasaurous (11/22/2014) [-]
Yo, thanks dawg. You alright
User avatar #36 to #35 - gugek (11/22/2014) [-]
Thanks homie.
#33 - evilhomer ONLINE (06/22/2014) [-]
 Friends (0)