usafperson

Rank #3059 on Comments
usafperson Avatar Level 218 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to usafperson Block usafperson Invite usafperson to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:9/06/2011
Last Login:1/28/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3059
Highest Content Rank:#16394
Highest Comment Rank:#2987
Content Thumbs: 39 total,  69 ,  30
Comment Thumbs: 2063 total,  2465 ,  402
Content Level Progress: 72.88% (43/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 16% (16/100)
Level 218 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 219 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:1
Content Views:25488
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:284
FJ Points:2136

latest user's comments

#19 - Not only is that factually untrue, (refer to first comment) bu…  [+] (23 new replies) 01/22/2015 on (untitled) +163
User avatar #224 - didactus (01/23/2015) [-]
Christopher Hitchens would like to have a word with you about that.
#214 - anonymous (01/23/2015) [-]
At the time the Torah was written, the most advanced people lived in Egypt.

At the time the New Testament and the Quran were written, the most advanced people (at least in the Western Hemisphere) lived in Rome and Greece.
User avatar #203 - babyanalraper (01/23/2015) [-]
China was about equally as advanced at the time
#175 - anonymous (01/23/2015) [-]
that didn't happen tho.
#165 - anonymous (01/23/2015) [-]
im sorry, but this is just incorrect
#159 - anonymous (01/23/2015) [-]
the most advanced civilizations on the planet were under Roman Imperial rule? The best substitute for brains is silence.
User avatar #173 - rockamekishiko (01/23/2015) [-]
Rome didn't come until later. Did you study history? the Sumerians, Egyptians? Mesopotamia? ring a bell?
#194 - anonymous (01/23/2015) [-]
So Romans didn't crucify Jesus? ring a bell? shut the fuck up.
User avatar #75 - YllekNayr (01/23/2015) [-]
>most advanced civilizations of the time
>not China
User avatar #91 - theghostrider (01/23/2015) [-]
Han, Song, Ming and the Tang Dinasty were amazing.
User avatar #121 - wtel (01/23/2015) [-]
Wasn't the tang dynasty fictional?
User avatar #123 - theghostrider (01/23/2015) [-]
I think you could possibly be talking about the Xia Dinasty that is considered semi-fictional.
#69 - anonymous (01/23/2015) [-]
Also remember that since people didn't' have cars and shit, the typical person didn't' travel very far from where they were born.
#64 - comradewinter (01/23/2015) [-]
Well, maybe so while Judaism was made, but Christianity and Islam were created long after Arabia was the greatest.
User avatar #49 - jfbyers (01/23/2015) [-]
it used to be the most advanced place in the world, and then sand-niggers
User avatar #172 - rockamekishiko (01/23/2015) [-]
it was the same people. It's just that their time passed already, then that title went to asia and europe, then the americas
#25 - christhechris (01/22/2015) [-]
"most advanced civilization of the time..."

Funny, I see neither Rome, Greece or China in that little circle.
#134 - innocentbabies (01/23/2015) [-]
He has a very valid point, though. Rome had utter hegemony over the Mediterranean around the time of the New Testament's writing, still has nothing about any part of the Roman Empire outside of Israel iirc.
#48 - anonymous (01/23/2015) [-]
Still the cradle of civilisation, dude
#29 - anonymous (01/22/2015) [-]
Christianity and Islam are the two dominant and still growing religions in the world so I'd say it wasn't pointless. That little area was appearently the best place to start and spread christianity from.
#21 - chocolatepuppy (01/22/2015) [-]
User avatar #50 - sovietsamurai (01/23/2015) [-]
Is there a template? for this one
User avatar #51 - chocolatepuppy (01/23/2015) [-]
paint ma friend...paint
#19 - I can see us just launching a rocket up there to knock down th… 01/22/2015 on 'Murica +10
#6 - As best as I can tell, the ice maker is at the top of the free…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/22/2015 on Comp Simulator 2015 +35
#19 - dangler (01/23/2015) [-]
Usually there is a smell lever above the tray that halts production of ice when lifted up. With no tray, the ice cannot build up to lift the lever until it fills the entire freezer.
User avatar #15 - GmCity (01/23/2015) [-]
I remember in one of my old jobs in a Currys store, we had a demo freezer plugged in and someone broke something that stopped the ice maker (on one of those door mounted ones) and there was a huge pile of ice in the morning that covered and surrounded the whole bottom half of the freezer.
#10 - Some day, on some post, somebody is going to roll that picture. 01/17/2015 on Hitler the penis potato +6
#20 - It's still bad source for an argument because people will see … 01/16/2015 on Copyright Infringement :... +1
#18 - Well I'm not sure it would work as a sole source for an argume…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/16/2015 on Copyright Infringement :... +1
User avatar #20 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
It's still bad source for an argument because people will see that it's Christian and immediately discredit it, but for your own research it's not a bad starting point.
#15 - Well the thing is, although the source given in that instance …  [+] (3 new replies) 01/16/2015 on Copyright Infringement :... +1
#17 - buffalogriller (01/16/2015) [-]
alright, I guess it's a source worth looking at, but nothing to base your argument on.
I just found it ironic that OP used the phrase "fact-check", and then gave a link to a christian website, which are (especially fundamentalists) notoriously bad at dealing with facts. But, after further investigation inspired by your comment, I can say that this is a pretty moderate site, so I guess what that article is worth a consideration. They seem pretty down to earth, but their articles only show their view(e.g. "Critics claim ...", but then there is no explanation what they base it on; the reader gets the feeling that these critic are just making shit up (which might be true, but since there are no sources on these critics, it's hard to determine), while evidence is presented for most of the refutations.).

User avatar #18 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
Well I'm not sure it would work as a sole source for an argument against this, but it's a really good starting point to show the points without going and digging through religious texts from the Ancient Egyptian religion. If you were to write a research paper about it, you should go and do that digging for primary sources for sure.
I don't think it's ironic to use the phrase "fact-check" and link to a Christian website. I know that people love to post things by stupid people and make fun of them on the internet, but many Christians are very well-informed individuals. The fundamentalists and creationists who interpret every part of the bible literally, yeah, but that's not all of us. It's rather unfair to call us "notoriously bad at dealing with facts" when you usually only see the loud stupid ones being posted and reposted on sites like funnyjunk.
And the source of the "critics" might just be things similar to that post on 4chan, in which case there is really no source worth citing. I'm not sure about that, I'm just speculating here.
User avatar #20 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
It's still bad source for an argument because people will see that it's Christian and immediately discredit it, but for your own research it's not a bad starting point.
#12 - Site* 01/16/2015 on Copyright Infringement :... +1
#11 - >implying it's only slightly better than literally zero sou…  [+] (7 new replies) 01/16/2015 on Copyright Infringement :... +3
#13 - buffalogriller (01/16/2015) [-]
refuting bullshit with less bullshitty bullshit is not the way to go, all I'm saying.
You cannot trust a believing christian to tell you correct/complete information on this, since his whole believe system circles around the Bible telling the truth, which is questioned here. Of course, this extends to any person.
your comment was painful to read. Greentext should only be used with 5-10 Word Phrases.
User avatar #15 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
Well the thing is, although the source given in that instance isn't ideal, it's really not bullshit. If you're just criticizing the source itself, that's fine. The thing is, I doubt there is anywhere other than a Christian site that will have all the refutations to this post all set up like that. But the claims made in the post are still bullshit, which it seems like we agree on. So why argue about a source? I know it's bad source for an argument, I'm mainly just defending the claims the source makes and that it is significantly more trustworthy (even if still not very trustworthy). Btw, a source isn't bad just because it comes from a Christian place, as long as they back it up properly. Of course anyone writing anything argumentative is gonna be biased for their cause.
I've seen many a green-text with much longer phrases. Sorry though
#17 - buffalogriller (01/16/2015) [-]
alright, I guess it's a source worth looking at, but nothing to base your argument on.
I just found it ironic that OP used the phrase "fact-check", and then gave a link to a christian website, which are (especially fundamentalists) notoriously bad at dealing with facts. But, after further investigation inspired by your comment, I can say that this is a pretty moderate site, so I guess what that article is worth a consideration. They seem pretty down to earth, but their articles only show their view(e.g. "Critics claim ...", but then there is no explanation what they base it on; the reader gets the feeling that these critic are just making shit up (which might be true, but since there are no sources on these critics, it's hard to determine), while evidence is presented for most of the refutations.).

User avatar #18 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
Well I'm not sure it would work as a sole source for an argument against this, but it's a really good starting point to show the points without going and digging through religious texts from the Ancient Egyptian religion. If you were to write a research paper about it, you should go and do that digging for primary sources for sure.
I don't think it's ironic to use the phrase "fact-check" and link to a Christian website. I know that people love to post things by stupid people and make fun of them on the internet, but many Christians are very well-informed individuals. The fundamentalists and creationists who interpret every part of the bible literally, yeah, but that's not all of us. It's rather unfair to call us "notoriously bad at dealing with facts" when you usually only see the loud stupid ones being posted and reposted on sites like funnyjunk.
And the source of the "critics" might just be things similar to that post on 4chan, in which case there is really no source worth citing. I'm not sure about that, I'm just speculating here.
User avatar #20 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
It's still bad source for an argument because people will see that it's Christian and immediately discredit it, but for your own research it's not a bad starting point.
User avatar #14 - bible (01/16/2015) [-]
Oh boy

This shit again

What is it now?
User avatar #12 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
Site*
#8 - It's still a lot more legitimate than picture reposted from 4c…  [+] (11 new replies) 01/15/2015 on Copyright Infringement :... +15
User avatar #22 - baconnator (01/16/2015) [-]
also bill maher talkes about this in religulous if that helps at all =/
User avatar #38 - lyiat (01/16/2015) [-]
All of which he took from Zeitgiest, a movie that has no fucking clue about what it's talking about. Horus isn't remotely as indicated. Azur doesn't remotely translate to Lazarus, there is absolutely no 'Anup the Baptizer' mentioned anywhere in his mythology, nor was Horus ever baptized... ect ect ect.
#9 - buffalogriller (01/15/2015) [-]
Sure, slightly better, but those are not serious sources. If you want to establish a certain view, and other people do so too, you can just cite each other in a huge circlejerk, like with these christian websites.
I am aware that the creator of the image probably just looked for sources that supported his views. The same can be said for the christian article.

I know you can't always research in peer-reviewed scientific journals with a high impact factor, but using an equally biased article to refute it doesn't add anything valuable to the discussion.
User avatar #11 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
>implying it's only slightly better than literally zero sources on a picture regurgitated from 4chan
>implying atheists don't do the same circle-jerking to attack Christianity
>implying that you could find anything slightly legitimate to support these claims
>implying that if there was no legitimate evidence for or against these claims that it wouldn't be logical to ignore them due to the fact that that religion is written in history and if those things were true we would know about it.
>not realising there probably aren't many if any scholarly articles to combat claims that are based on nothing scholarly
>implying that something coming from a Christian website is just as bad just because they're both biased
>not realizing that a Christian website is probably the only sight that cares enough about shitposting like that to compile refutations to each of it's points

Just sayin. Sorry I wrote this in dumb green-text format. I'm just just way too lazy to be bothered typing proper paragraphs about my points right now.
#13 - buffalogriller (01/16/2015) [-]
refuting bullshit with less bullshitty bullshit is not the way to go, all I'm saying.
You cannot trust a believing christian to tell you correct/complete information on this, since his whole believe system circles around the Bible telling the truth, which is questioned here. Of course, this extends to any person.
your comment was painful to read. Greentext should only be used with 5-10 Word Phrases.
User avatar #15 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
Well the thing is, although the source given in that instance isn't ideal, it's really not bullshit. If you're just criticizing the source itself, that's fine. The thing is, I doubt there is anywhere other than a Christian site that will have all the refutations to this post all set up like that. But the claims made in the post are still bullshit, which it seems like we agree on. So why argue about a source? I know it's bad source for an argument, I'm mainly just defending the claims the source makes and that it is significantly more trustworthy (even if still not very trustworthy). Btw, a source isn't bad just because it comes from a Christian place, as long as they back it up properly. Of course anyone writing anything argumentative is gonna be biased for their cause.
I've seen many a green-text with much longer phrases. Sorry though
#17 - buffalogriller (01/16/2015) [-]
alright, I guess it's a source worth looking at, but nothing to base your argument on.
I just found it ironic that OP used the phrase "fact-check", and then gave a link to a christian website, which are (especially fundamentalists) notoriously bad at dealing with facts. But, after further investigation inspired by your comment, I can say that this is a pretty moderate site, so I guess what that article is worth a consideration. They seem pretty down to earth, but their articles only show their view(e.g. "Critics claim ...", but then there is no explanation what they base it on; the reader gets the feeling that these critic are just making shit up (which might be true, but since there are no sources on these critics, it's hard to determine), while evidence is presented for most of the refutations.).

User avatar #18 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
Well I'm not sure it would work as a sole source for an argument against this, but it's a really good starting point to show the points without going and digging through religious texts from the Ancient Egyptian religion. If you were to write a research paper about it, you should go and do that digging for primary sources for sure.
I don't think it's ironic to use the phrase "fact-check" and link to a Christian website. I know that people love to post things by stupid people and make fun of them on the internet, but many Christians are very well-informed individuals. The fundamentalists and creationists who interpret every part of the bible literally, yeah, but that's not all of us. It's rather unfair to call us "notoriously bad at dealing with facts" when you usually only see the loud stupid ones being posted and reposted on sites like funnyjunk.
And the source of the "critics" might just be things similar to that post on 4chan, in which case there is really no source worth citing. I'm not sure about that, I'm just speculating here.
User avatar #20 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
It's still bad source for an argument because people will see that it's Christian and immediately discredit it, but for your own research it's not a bad starting point.
User avatar #14 - bible (01/16/2015) [-]
Oh boy

This shit again

What is it now?
User avatar #12 - usafperson (01/16/2015) [-]
Site*
[ 283 Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2250

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#10 - datgrass (06/25/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #8 - physicsamurai (09/28/2012) [-]
Thank you.
User avatar #9 to #8 - usafperson (10/01/2012) [-]
You're welcome bro. I feel for you. Let me know how it works out.
#6 - anonymous (05/18/2012) [-]
retard
User avatar #1 - jmezfm (04/07/2012) [-]
Why the add?
User avatar #2 to #1 - usafperson (04/07/2012) [-]
no reason, just thought i would add a a random person as a friend, clicked your username, saw you said you accept requests, added, you accepted, we are here. How do you do?

User avatar #3 to #2 - jmezfm (04/07/2012) [-]
Haha awesome. And I do fine, and yourself?
User avatar #4 to #3 - usafperson (04/07/2012) [-]
quite fine myself, thank you
#5 to #4 - jmezfm (04/07/2012) [-]
This image has expired
You're very welcome, fine sir.
 Friends (0)