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

tyraxio    

no avatar Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to tyraxio Block tyraxio Invite tyraxio to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/31/2012
Last Login:8/26/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 1902 total,  2299 ,  397
Comment Thumbs: 2594 total,  3938 ,  1344
Content Level Progress: 99% (99/100)
Level 118 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 119 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 29% (29/100)
Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:90781
Times Content Favorited:113 times
Total Comments Made:1501
FJ Points:4387

latest user's comments

#16 - "turned black" They just got another charac… 01/31/2014 on What happens after bustin... 0
#13 - >all other people get sentimental over random deaths &g…  [+] (9 new replies) 01/31/2014 on Artist +17
User avatar #17 - silentark (01/31/2014) [-]
My logic; Do I know them? No? No problem.
#21 - tyraxio (01/31/2014) [-]
Why is tragedy dependent on a relationship to the person? Is a death not equally sad, whether or not you know the person personally? Sure, if you know the person, it is even more tragic, as you have lost a friend or family member, but the death itself, pain even more so, is the same, no matter who is the person in question.

Sure, I own a book called "Strange Deaths" that I have chuckled over slightly myself. It's important to acknowledge, however, that it may seem like the sorroundings of the death (how it happened) are of a humourous nature, but that the dying or the pain associated never is.
User avatar #16 - viperish (01/31/2014) [-]
You're twisting his words. Although I understand where you're coming from and his wording was not the best, you're still making too big of a deal out of nothing.

I think it can be hilarious that a woman got sucked into an escalator, depending on the situation or wording I might have laughed as well. I don't see how that would make me a sociopath, or abnormal.

I also don't understand how people get so strong feelings over a death that happened half way across the world in a city you haven't even heard of, to a person whom you had no idea even existed. I accept it that people get these feels, but I don't understand it. People die every second, I don't have time nor reason to get sentimental over each and every one of them. This does not make me a sociopath or abnormal either.
#22 - tyraxio (01/31/2014) [-]
"Twisting"

Define twisting. I only showed how contradictory his statements were.

It is sociopathic behaviour to be unable to respect the life and death of another person, especially one that you have no idea existed; you had no idea if they were a devil or a saint, which means you owe them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't get strong feelings over every single death I hear of. Some make me sentimental, but I absolutely respect, and expect everyone else to do the same, every person who has died a terrible death. Anything else is the mentality of a military general, to whom a life is just a number.
User avatar #28 - viperish (01/31/2014) [-]
The thing is though, you can't pigeonhole I don't know if this is the correct word, had to check the dictionary. people into sociopaths and not sociopaths. Simply because a person finds hilarity from someones death doesn't make him a sociopath.

So how contradictory are your statements then? By your logic, what you replied to this other guy makes you a sociopath as well yet you claim to absolutely respect, and expect everyone else to do the same, every person who has died a terrible death.

"Sure, I own a book called "Strange Deaths" that I have chuckled over slightly myself."

As you already mentioned, anything else is the mentality of a military general, to whom a life is just a number.
#40 - tyraxio (02/01/2014) [-]
I am referring mainly to the mentality that "I don't know said person, so why ought I to have any emotion towards their death?"

If you actually read my comment, I explained in detail why the "enjoyment" I find in the deaths are different. Also, I do feel guilty for doing it; you are loudly expressing that you are not only not feeling guilty, you are defending your emotions towards it.

I'm not a psychologist, so no, I can't "pigeonhole" anyone as a sociopath. I can only pinpoint your statements and label you based on the statements you express online, and the thought that "someone died in a way that seems funny, I will laugh at them, but feel no sympathy" is pretty much a pretty major indicator of sociopathic behaviour.
User avatar #41 - viperish (02/01/2014) [-]
You're probably intentionally searching news articles about deaths and crying your eyes out like a fucking ten year old because some old man died of cancer last week in Uruguay.

I'd say you're the abnormal kid here. Has a book that puts death into comical light while arguing about how it's immoral to laugh at people dying, proceeds to laugh at them.

The way you're labeling us with little to no knowledge is stupid. I can do that too. It would seem you have a strong case of Bipolar disorder since you laugh at people dying and then feel guilty about it. See how fucking stupid and irrational that is?

You're a fucking prick, bully and an elitist faggot who thinks he's above everyone else.
#43 - tyraxio (02/02/2014) [-]
By the way, before you argue that I am an "abnormal kid", I think you might need to take some time to understand the concept of the tragicomical.
#42 - tyraxio (02/02/2014) [-]
I do not, but what worries me here is the way that you portray the man who died from cancer in Uruguay as something which no one ought to feel sentimental about. I don't cry when I hear about strangers dying, because crying is a very strong emotional reaction, which is not neccesary to feel basic respect for fellow human beings.

I have a book with stories about ironic and odd ways people have died. I don't laugh at the book, but I have smiled slightly of it. Example? A guy tried to kill himself 4 times, everytime he failed. A few days later he died in an accident. I feel bad for the poor guy, but obviously, I can't help but notice the irony of his situation.

So, here is another problem you have. You seem very violently defensive at your position, to the degree that you are accusing me of labelling you, yet you seem to imply that you are in no way labelling me, although you are continuing to do so afterwards. I have my argumentation, being your complete disrespect of other human beings arguing that "I don't know them, so I don't give a shit". Serial killers do not know their victims, so according to your logic, it is only sensible that he doesn't care about killing them. Also, I am in fact dealing with a slight case of bipolar disorder (slash what most people would call dramatical mood swings) and I don't quite think you know what being bipolar means. I agree, the fact that I see humour in deaths is, to start with, a bit out of the ordinary. The difference between you and me is that I still feel the guilt associated, while you have completely abandoned your concept of general respect and love for another person - your morality.

Now, I don't think I am better than anyone else per se, I just value morality and love very highly. I am only disrespecting you guys due to your disrespect of someone else. Although, I guess I could add that I do not know you lads, so according to your logic, I shouldn't feel sorry for you. Contradictions flow in your comments.
#52 - Now, I've never seen this movie, but I've hated it of pure con…  [+] (10 new replies) 01/31/2014 on Nailed -2
#95 - aquamanisbest (01/31/2014) [-]
how would you know if zombies could love or not? they aren't even real. maybe zombies would have feelings.
#102 - tyraxio (02/01/2014) [-]
If zombies have feeling, they wouldn't be zombies.

What is your definition of a zombie? If you believe they may have emotions, we are clearly talking about two different things.

What makes zombies so frightening is exactly that they do not feel. They are mindless killing machines doing everything on instinct.
User avatar #53 - kosicandavid (01/31/2014) [-]
It' s actually a comedy. It should be parody to the Twilight and another gay vampires and werevolves movies and series. And it is actually pretty funny.
#56 - saetonchapelle (01/31/2014) [-]
It's a book thats been made into a movie, nothing to do with Twilight, although I am unsure as to the dates in which it was written.

I loved this movie. Again, never as good as the book (the zombie was actually some mid 20's, early 30's business dude I think), but it was decent and I smiled. :3
User avatar #57 - kosicandavid (01/31/2014) [-]
I don' t knew about this fact that there is book from which was the screenplay took. Does it have the same name as movie ?
#58 - saetonchapelle (01/31/2014) [-]
Yep. I actually picked it up shortly after watching the movie out of curiosity. A lot darker though, which I enjoyed.
User avatar #59 - kosicandavid (01/31/2014) [-]
So you recommend this as a good reading for me sire?
User avatar #76 - ButtonFly (01/31/2014) [-]
I recommend it.
I never saw the movie so I can't quite compare but the book is a sort of satirical retelling of Romeo and Juliette.
It can get a little dark and pretty gory but it's a fun read and can be pretty clever at times.
Plus there's nothing quite like a zombie suddenly thinking in Latin.
#54 - tyraxio (01/31/2014) [-]
Then I'm sorry.

I just saw a lot of people saying they liked it and cried at some scenes.
User avatar #55 - kosicandavid (01/31/2014) [-]
I don' t think they were serious then. This is clearly a comedy from the first minute you see it. It have romance yes but it is mainly a comedy.
#131 - Yeeeeeah, I'm not entirely sure what just happened either. … 01/30/2014 on #justmedievalthings 0
#129 - I agree with you; Genghis Khan killed the highest amount of pe…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/30/2014 on #justmedievalthings 0
#130 - catburglarpenis (01/30/2014) [-]
Did we just agree... in an internet argument?

GET IN THE FALLOUT SHELTER, IT'S HAPPENING.
#131 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
Yeeeeeah, I'm not entirely sure what just happened either.

It should be noted though, that neither Genghis Khan or Mao Zeodong ever came close to Gandhi. That man was a fucking beast.
#127 - Hahahahaha I was just about to get mad at you for being a …  [+] (4 new replies) 01/30/2014 on #justmedievalthings +1
#128 - catburglarpenis (01/30/2014) [-]
My link down below claims 100 million. Total losses due to Genghis's reign could include such things as plagues he left in his wake, etc. This video explains how much good AND bad The Mongols did, and how they did it, plus it's funny and I like it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=szxPar0BcMo

Even if total numbers don't add up, percentage of population will. Something like 30% of the people on Earth at the time, or even more was killed by the direct actions of Genghis Khan, making him almost as deadly as The Black Plague. Notably, if the number DON'T add up, I will be incorrect- but one thing IS clear:

Genghis Khan killed more of the population of Earth than any other human being who ever existed. I'm thinking that you might be right though- I'm seeing more sources for Chairman Mao's number than Genghis's, which warrants you another thumb, and a banana sticker.
#129 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
I agree with you; Genghis Khan killed the highest amount of people in proportion to the amount of people alive at the time.
#130 - catburglarpenis (01/30/2014) [-]
Did we just agree... in an internet argument?

GET IN THE FALLOUT SHELTER, IT'S HAPPENING.
#131 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
Yeeeeeah, I'm not entirely sure what just happened either.

It should be noted though, that neither Genghis Khan or Mao Zeodong ever came close to Gandhi. That man was a fucking beast.
#125 - 1 in 12? There is 0,5 percent chance. That's quite a bit lower…  [+] (6 new replies) 01/30/2014 on #justmedievalthings +1
User avatar #126 - catburglarpenis (01/30/2014) [-]
blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/08/men_have_a_5_ch.php

First of all, you see this link here fuckface? That means you're fucking right. Thumb for you.

Secondly: Genghis Khan killed a verified 40 million people, but it was also easier to kill people back then- the numbers could easily be inflated by those who died of fear or of shock, or of a minor scrape during a battle causing infection- or the verified numbers of the millions of people who surrendered to his armies out of sheer fright... and were murdered anyways. Take a look at the links I posted below in my argument- they're pretty conclusive- he killed a fuckload of people.
#127 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
Hahahahaha I was just about to get mad at you for being a dipshit, but you got me right there. Thumb back to you.

According to wikipedia, Mao assisted in the deaths of somewhere in between 40 and 70 million, though most were due to bad living standards in China.

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html

The Independent claims he killed 45 million people in /four years/ during the Great Leap Forward. I couldn't find other numbers, unfortunately.
#128 - catburglarpenis (01/30/2014) [-]
My link down below claims 100 million. Total losses due to Genghis's reign could include such things as plagues he left in his wake, etc. This video explains how much good AND bad The Mongols did, and how they did it, plus it's funny and I like it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=szxPar0BcMo

Even if total numbers don't add up, percentage of population will. Something like 30% of the people on Earth at the time, or even more was killed by the direct actions of Genghis Khan, making him almost as deadly as The Black Plague. Notably, if the number DON'T add up, I will be incorrect- but one thing IS clear:

Genghis Khan killed more of the population of Earth than any other human being who ever existed. I'm thinking that you might be right though- I'm seeing more sources for Chairman Mao's number than Genghis's, which warrants you another thumb, and a banana sticker.
#129 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
I agree with you; Genghis Khan killed the highest amount of people in proportion to the amount of people alive at the time.
#130 - catburglarpenis (01/30/2014) [-]
Did we just agree... in an internet argument?

GET IN THE FALLOUT SHELTER, IT'S HAPPENING.
#131 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
Yeeeeeah, I'm not entirely sure what just happened either.

It should be noted though, that neither Genghis Khan or Mao Zeodong ever came close to Gandhi. That man was a fucking beast.
#123 - To be fair, quite a few more people were alive during Mao Zeod…  [+] (8 new replies) 01/30/2014 on #justmedievalthings 0
User avatar #124 - catburglarpenis (01/30/2014) [-]
To be fair, Genghis Khan killed enough people to cool the Earth, and raped so many women that you have a 1 in 12 chance of being directly related to his. He also had laser eyes.
#125 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
1 in 12? There is 0,5 percent chance. That's quite a bit lower than 1 in 12.

Dude, look at charts of people alive during time periods. There was less than 3 billion people alive (probably even less than 2 billion, I was too lazy to check) during Genghis Khan, but during the industrialisation, the numbers boomed, meaning it was easier for Mao to kill more people. Also, while Genghis Khan was extremely powerful, Mao had way more force at his disposal.
User avatar #126 - catburglarpenis (01/30/2014) [-]
blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/08/men_have_a_5_ch.php

First of all, you see this link here fuckface? That means you're fucking right. Thumb for you.

Secondly: Genghis Khan killed a verified 40 million people, but it was also easier to kill people back then- the numbers could easily be inflated by those who died of fear or of shock, or of a minor scrape during a battle causing infection- or the verified numbers of the millions of people who surrendered to his armies out of sheer fright... and were murdered anyways. Take a look at the links I posted below in my argument- they're pretty conclusive- he killed a fuckload of people.
#127 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
Hahahahaha I was just about to get mad at you for being a dipshit, but you got me right there. Thumb back to you.

According to wikipedia, Mao assisted in the deaths of somewhere in between 40 and 70 million, though most were due to bad living standards in China.

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html

The Independent claims he killed 45 million people in /four years/ during the Great Leap Forward. I couldn't find other numbers, unfortunately.
#128 - catburglarpenis (01/30/2014) [-]
My link down below claims 100 million. Total losses due to Genghis's reign could include such things as plagues he left in his wake, etc. This video explains how much good AND bad The Mongols did, and how they did it, plus it's funny and I like it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=szxPar0BcMo

Even if total numbers don't add up, percentage of population will. Something like 30% of the people on Earth at the time, or even more was killed by the direct actions of Genghis Khan, making him almost as deadly as The Black Plague. Notably, if the number DON'T add up, I will be incorrect- but one thing IS clear:

Genghis Khan killed more of the population of Earth than any other human being who ever existed. I'm thinking that you might be right though- I'm seeing more sources for Chairman Mao's number than Genghis's, which warrants you another thumb, and a banana sticker.
#129 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
I agree with you; Genghis Khan killed the highest amount of people in proportion to the amount of people alive at the time.
#130 - catburglarpenis (01/30/2014) [-]
Did we just agree... in an internet argument?

GET IN THE FALLOUT SHELTER, IT'S HAPPENING.
#131 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
Yeeeeeah, I'm not entirely sure what just happened either.

It should be noted though, that neither Genghis Khan or Mao Zeodong ever came close to Gandhi. That man was a fucking beast.
#218 - Maybe. Tbh, I don't think it was heated a lot until he started… 01/30/2014 on Son, your new tutor is here! +2
#442 - >compares his dressing habits to Nazi Germany I've… 01/30/2014 on fedoras +1
#441 - Ahh, right. Troll. Good one. 01/30/2014 on fedoras 0
#210 - wat. A tank top, a jumper, a cardigan and a scarf? Is…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/30/2014 on Son, your new tutor is here! +1
#217 - anonymous (01/30/2014) [-]
Well, for being in a heated house it is.
#218 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
Maybe. Tbh, I don't think it was heated a lot until he started using that app.
#97 - Yeah, it's like people think autism is some kind of meme adjec… 01/29/2014 on potoooooooo +2
#549 - Are you afraid of small 720 grams of sugar? 01/29/2014 on Grenadine +1
#431 - I didn't mind your post until you went "i r tall n muscul…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/29/2014 on fedoras +5
User avatar #437 - lazaman (01/30/2014) [-]
You're just mad because you aren't built like a man, instead you are devoid of all testosterone and built like a little twig.
#441 - tyraxio (01/30/2014) [-]
Ahh, right. Troll. Good one.
#128 - >i like younger women Has Pedobear profile picture.  [+] (2 new replies) 01/29/2014 on Dating +1
User avatar #133 - mrgoodlove (01/29/2014) [-]
Old enough to count, old enough to mount
#155 - mohawkwarrior (02/01/2014) [-]
If there's grass on the field, play ball. If not, flip her over and play in the mud.
#285 - ITT: people who refuse to see a point made and defend their ha… 01/29/2014 on Taco cat -1
#116 - That's what makes English easy and German hard... But…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/26/2014 on Best description of the... 0
User avatar #117 - tonytails (01/26/2014) [-]
the only good thing about english is that we dont assign gender to inanimate objects.
the sheer number of words is what makes it so difficult to learn another language, with english as your first. its EASIER to think in english. theres more vocabulary to borrow from when you have something to say. im USED to that.
not having that much material at my disposal makes it harder for me to use a more simplistic language. (and yes, gender assignment is hardest in german, and its what makes german so hard. your entire sentence rides on using the proper gender for certain words. german IS hard. it was just made harder for me because my first language was english.)
english did kind of take the role of international language, but only because its such a broad language. its easy to think in english, and express yourself in english. its just hard to learn as a second language, and as a first language, it makes learning others difficult.
im simply recalling my personal experience with learning german, all the while wishing there was a word or phrase for whatever english i was trying to translate in my head.
german is hard in all the places english is easy, and vice versa.
(oh, and theres some fucking latin in the middle of the english language. how the fuck did that happen? we didnt have a simple enough phrase for "and the other way around," so we borrowed it from latin to widen our vocabulary further. it just creates more within the language to keep up with, in the interest of keeping things simple and expressive.)
#377 - >implying LSD is a dangerous drug >list not includin… 01/26/2014 on The Most Dangerous Drugs In... +4
#92 - You say after commenting. Good on you, mate. 01/26/2014 on the man who arrested justin... 0
#102 - Yeah, I agree. You can't really blame that on the language, th… 01/26/2014 on Best description of the... 0
#101 - lolwat English is a hard language and therefore it ma…  [+] (3 new replies) 01/26/2014 on Best description of the... 0
User avatar #113 - tonytails (01/26/2014) [-]
danish is actually my next language in line. after that, im going to take up japanese.
i can see why german would be difficult for you to learn, as the languages are similar in many aspects, but completely different in others.
english is actually so complex, that its extremely difficult to find the words im looking for in german, because they exist in english, but not german. im used to having so many words at my disposal that when im given so few, i dont know how to properly express what im trying to say. theres just not enough german equivalents to english words and sayings. fluency has made it easier to simply think in german and not worry about equivalencies.
esperanto was far easier, because it was designed to be easy to learn from any perspective. you oughtta give it a try. a solid month of study and youd be fluent.
#116 - tyraxio (01/26/2014) [-]
That's what makes English easy and German hard...

But no, I am not referring to the fact that they are alike, I am referring to the German/Latin etc. use of morphology. You know, akusativ, nominativ, genitiv and all that bullshit. That's what I find hard about German and easy about English; English is easy gramatically and has a lot of words to explain a lot of things. I have periods where I can only express myself and think in English simply because I am better at expressing myself in English.

On an unrelated note, English is a wonderful language because it is not only considered an international language; it IS an international language. It is based around the Germanic languages (modern-day Scandinavia) with some degree of influence by the Irish, Scottish and Druidish (if that's even a word, lol). Later on it acquired a significant amount of words from French and Latin due to invasions, and even today, it is probably the language in the world with the highest amount of words extracted from other languages, like Greek and Indian. I think it makes English the most culturally holistic language in the world, which I think is absolutely great.
User avatar #117 - tonytails (01/26/2014) [-]
the only good thing about english is that we dont assign gender to inanimate objects.
the sheer number of words is what makes it so difficult to learn another language, with english as your first. its EASIER to think in english. theres more vocabulary to borrow from when you have something to say. im USED to that.
not having that much material at my disposal makes it harder for me to use a more simplistic language. (and yes, gender assignment is hardest in german, and its what makes german so hard. your entire sentence rides on using the proper gender for certain words. german IS hard. it was just made harder for me because my first language was english.)
english did kind of take the role of international language, but only because its such a broad language. its easy to think in english, and express yourself in english. its just hard to learn as a second language, and as a first language, it makes learning others difficult.
im simply recalling my personal experience with learning german, all the while wishing there was a word or phrase for whatever english i was trying to translate in my head.
german is hard in all the places english is easy, and vice versa.
(oh, and theres some fucking latin in the middle of the english language. how the fuck did that happen? we didnt have a simple enough phrase for "and the other way around," so we borrowed it from latin to widen our vocabulary further. it just creates more within the language to keep up with, in the interest of keeping things simple and expressive.)
#334 - Ahh, good, you're thinking now. So, here's the deal. … 01/24/2014 on Gay Pride 0
#560 - The map you just showed states that civil unions and same-sex … 01/21/2014 on Makes sence I guess 0
#331 - What. The. **** . Are you ******* …  [+] (2 new replies) 01/21/2014 on Gay Pride 0
User avatar #332 - kingdork (01/22/2014) [-]
You should be asking yourself: what is the agenda of those who supply the money? What interest does a German National Bank have in giving away their money to someone who advocate the changing of education in any way in the United States.

Another GLSEN sponsor is IBM. Am I saying IBM wants Naziism for the globe? No. Am I saying IBM wants the power of governing without borders? You would have to answer that on your own.

IBM also funds Ted Talks, through an IBM created program named Smarter Planet. TED is regularly criticized for censoring speakers from talking about Monsanto.
www.naturalnews.com/042112_TED_conferences_pseudoscience_GMO.html

www.theawl.com/2014/01/what-if-these-seven-famous-ted-talks-are-just-totally-wrong
#334 - tyraxio (01/24/2014) [-]
Ahh, good, you're thinking now. So, here's the deal.

Companies will only ever have two agendae. Money and power. No exceptions. By supporting the LGTB community, IBM and Deutsche Bank has a high chance of getting new customers within the LGTB community. By supporting the LGTB community, I am not supporting IBM and Deutsche Bank directly or indirectly, regardless of whether I like the companies or not.

I am an anti-capitalist, don't think I don't know what companies want. I know Red Bull doesn't sponsor a dude to fall from what is almost outer space to Earth just for shits and giggles, no, they do it to get customers. However, important note, I am also not a stupid conspiricist. I'm not implying Coca Cola wants to take over the Earth. I am accepting that lobbyism exists, and I oppose it like Hell, but I am not going to believe that, in any kind of near future, that companies will take complete control of a country.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 3985 / Total items point value: 5760

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)