Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:7/02/2013
Last Login:7/11/2013
Comment Thumbs: 435 total,  60 ,  495
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level -244 Comment: mediocre wizard → Level -243 Comment: mediocre wizard
Total Comments Made:21
FJ Points:-435

latest user's comments

#2 - I made it to 15 seconds, did I lose or win?  [+] (1 reply) 07/08/2013 on JUST LISTEN TO THIS PLEASE 0
#4 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
You got banned
#1 - Why is rape prevention always teaching women how to defend the…  [+] (44 replies) 07/05/2013 on Rape prevention -389
User avatar
#287 - articulate (07/07/2013) [-]
Rape isn't about the sex, it's about having power over them. In order to not be raped you have to have more power than the rapist.
User avatar
#286 - iwebby (07/07/2013) [-]
dude what
#285 - Dap (07/07/2013) [-]
"Rapist, no raping!"

User avatar
#283 - scrumdiddlyumpshus (07/06/2013) [-]
That really isn't how it works.

That's like when teachers at school tell children to just say 'no' to a bully and they won't bother them anymore.
User avatar
#225 - funnyjunkianonetwo (07/06/2013) [-]
The penis has more control than the brain.
User avatar
#166 - thedarkestrogue (07/06/2013) [-]
........you clearly have not tried to reason with a psychopath. or me.
#142 - leonjoker (07/06/2013) [-]
Dear nigger.

What the fuck are you saying?

Yours truly, everyone everywhere.
#136 - downtoabsolutezero has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#123 - alltimetens (07/06/2013) [-]
Why the fuck is he getting thumbed down? He makes a valid argument! Instead of teaching women how to protect themselves from rapists, why don't we teach men to walk away if the girl doesn't fucking like you.

But why even bother? This is Funny Junk.
User avatar
#129 - spyisspy (07/06/2013) [-]
because thats not how rape works
User avatar
#130 - alltimetens (07/06/2013) [-]
User avatar
#261 - TheCynic (07/06/2013) [-]
Rape has nothing to do with sexual attraction or gratification. It isn't about, "I want to fuck her but she won't let me." It's about physical dominance over another person. Telling a rapist not to rape someone is like telling a serial killer not to murder someone.
#182 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
Rapists know that rape is bad but they do it anyway because they're messed up in the head.
#68 - TheCynic (07/06/2013) [-]
That's not how rape works.
#44 - chibinobi (07/06/2013) [-]
Exactly, when still aroused just walk way. Done
#36 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
That is one of the reasons people rape, because the victim struggles and doesn't want it. They like to dominate people and feel like they have power.
Source- I'm a criminologist
User avatar
#153 - zorororonoa (07/06/2013) [-]
Yeah i remember learning that in some thing a while back I forget when. But I thought it was interesting that most rape happens not because the person is aroused and needs sex now, but rather because they want to feel like they have power and that they are dominating someone.
#26 - envinite (07/06/2013) [-]
"u rape?"
*walks away*
User avatar
#24 - uzbekistan (07/06/2013) [-]
Yeah because every single rape in the world can be stopped by saying "Rape is bad." Dumbass
User avatar
#179 - treefox (07/06/2013) [-]
According to some dumb bitch politician, that's what happens.
#22 - sumbohde (07/06/2013) [-]
w0t m8
#19 - dcdt (07/06/2013) [-]
User avatar
#16 - emptysuperman (07/06/2013) [-]
Right. Why do we have prisons? Why not just teach people not to be criminals?

User avatar
#9 - cresel (07/06/2013) [-]
rough translation of that last part there

You are horny and need sex but girl no wants u so u dont rape mkay?
User avatar
#8 - thisisdj (07/06/2013) [-]
I want you to go up to a rapist and tell them that.
#3 - emomonster (07/06/2013) [-]
#284 - emomonster (07/06/2013) [-]
User avatar
#189 - plumotje (07/06/2013) [-]
this got 219 thumbs...

#15 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
Rather than teach women what to do when raped
Teach men not to rape

(In feminism terms, realistically teach all motherfuckers not to rape)
User avatar
#296 - rosette (07/26/2013) [-]
That's common sense
#203 - sniperfumbles (07/06/2013) [-]
Yes, men need to be taught not ot rape just like dogs need to put taught how to not shit on the carpet. Fuck you.
User avatar
#93 - xtwinblade (07/06/2013) [-]
Oh yeah because everybody follows the law, thats why there is never any crime commited ever right? its not like somebody would just ignore the rules and do what they wanted right, thats impossible isnt it?
#41 - weenieandthebutt (07/06/2013) [-]
I'm sorry but it's one of the stupidest fucking statements I usually come across from feminists. Men were already taught that rape is a bad thing but unfortunately, the world is filled with bad people. It's not like rapists were misinformed or uneducated, it's that they're usually sociopathic or have some form of a mental disorder where they shouldn't be put amongst the statistics of the rest of the functioning male population. By your logic, we should be able to teach murderers not to murder or niggers not to steal etc.
#161 - jacofhearts (07/06/2013) [-]
There is a recent epidemic though of guys, usually in middle school or high school, knowingly raping a girl that was intoxicated, unconscious, ect, and then taking pictures of it. They are literally documenting themselves having sex with a girl that's clearly unconscious, and in most cases posting it on the internet.

While most people know rape is wrong, it's becoming apparent that a lot of people just don't care.
#294 - anon (07/10/2013) [-]
I will not sleep with an intoxicated girl, even if I have had consensual sex with her before. Too many fucking risks. All a girl has to say is "rape" and if you did it or not YOU FUCKING DID IT! Speaking of rape, why are women raping the word rape? "A guy told me he loved me so I fucked him then he dumped me, I was raped"
#278 - watchesupee (07/06/2013) [-]
I was just about to mention that. I think its scary really because if you didnt learn that while in high school, what makes you think you'll go out of your way to learn it now? People focus so much on telling the women to be careful when they go out and get drunk rather than educating males on what is defined as rape, and thats just stupid to me.
#291 - jacofhearts (07/07/2013) [-]
My first year of college, I was taught "regurgitate, urinate, defecate." As in, if you are in a dangerous situation, and are potentially about to be assaulted, vomit all over yourself, pee yourself, and/or shit your pants.

A lot of women were offended by this, because the men were essentially told "if she's drunk, don't boink her," and we were told to shit ourselves to get out of a situation. I mean, sure, that is decent advice, and it's better to try to do something than to just lay there, but the focus seemed unfairly balanced.
User avatar
#128 - alltimetens (07/06/2013) [-]
Actually, it may sound stupid but developed countries like Switzerland are actually putting rapists, murderers, theifs, etc. in comfortable prisons that aim to teach them right from wrong. Sociopaths can be jailed and put into rehab, and when they leave, they are always back to normal.
#52 - mrcinnamon (07/06/2013) [-]
This is generally true but it has been proven that societal constructions can promote behaviour that can lead to rape in certain people. For example the (thankfully declining) assumption that you should persist in pursuing a woman who has already rejected you in the hope that by doing so she'll change her mind. Picture is related - it's quite apparent in many Bond movies. Or similarly the worrying trend on the internet to get angry at a woman who dolls herself up before going out and then refuses to sleep with any guy who approaches her (a simplification I know but you get what I'm talking about). Point being I do think pretty much every guy would never even dream of rape but some of our cultural assumptions can lend themselves to promoting it among certain people who wouldn't indulge such ideas otherwise.

Also I love your username.
#94 - weenieandthebutt (07/06/2013) [-]
The only case where societal construction promotes rape is in the Middle East and other third world nations. That's because the government condones that shit, they were indoctrinated to impose misogynistic views so therefore, rape is somehow justified. I agree that dressing slutty doesn't necessarily correlate with the chances that someone may get raped, much to some people's beliefs but posters like this (see reaction image) is the kind of shit where people are deluded. Like I reiterated earlier on, rapists are not amongst the statistics of normal functioning men in our society. I'm one of the biggest horny bastards around, I hit on girls like crazy but not once have I ever contemplated on rape. This sort of shit is what offends me as a man since it implies that most male is harshly stereotyped as blood thirsty rapists.
User avatar
#20 - pockyrin (07/06/2013) [-]
Men are taught not to rape already. Like 99% of people with access to public education are taught to be good people, it's nothing to do with lack of teaching. It just comes down to the fact there will always be messed up people in the world, it's not education or one sexes fault.
#2 - icefried (07/06/2013) [-]
User avatar
#4 - treefox (07/06/2013) [-]
I think he is trying to say people shouldn't just rape other people.
User avatar
#27 - zorororonoa (07/06/2013) [-]
Well that is a no brainer
#17 - I think the reason why Europe is all slave like to America is …  [+] (36 replies) 07/05/2013 on King Europe -63
#108 - chainchomp (07/06/2013) [-]
you about forgot WWI too
User avatar
#84 - fonzo (07/05/2013) [-]
I like how people argues wether or not the US "SAVED" Europe.. As if Germany was this big Nigger Destruction 300 Country of DooM who we all needed to be rescued from.
#24 - pellebauss (07/05/2013) [-]
Well.... yes, the americans helped out during WW2, but its actually thanks to the british that we won the war, not the americans...
User avatar
#127 - wtfareu (07/06/2013) [-]
Great Britain would have been destroyed without the us and the soviet Union
#33 - komradkthulu (07/05/2013) [-]
The ignorance in your post is unbelievable. If you truly believe the UK contributed more to the Allied victory than the Soviet Union's (who really won the war) 30 MILLION dead citizens (half of all deaths in the war) or trillions of dollars worth of Lend Lease Aid by North America, bask in your oblivious bliss.
User avatar
#178 - pellebauss (07/06/2013) [-]
im not saying that the UK contributed more than the Soviet Union, because that is not true, but they did way more than the US in the war. The US has taken credit for most of the work that british soldiers did. and while we are at the US helping, lets not forget wich country that dropped a nuclear bomb over Japan instead of just showing them what kind of damage it could do without risking anybodys life!
#179 - komradkthulu (07/06/2013) [-]
You're showing your stupidity again. If you genuinely think the UK did more than the US, read a history book and educate yourself. Please. The US did most of the heavy lifting on the western front once it came into the war, thanks to its huge numerical advantage. It, more or less, single-handedly defeated the Japanese, other than the British roughing it alone in Burma.

The atomic bombing should not be condemned. Especially if the US had "showed what kind of damage it could do" it and the rest of the Allies that were set to invade in November would have killed millions of Japanese civilians and took hundreds of thousands of more casualties. Forcing a surrender with the A-Bomb was the humane decision.

Now, go read a history book or watch a documentary before you open your mouth to me again.

Take care
#152 - niggastolemyname (07/06/2013) [-]
this took me a minute, 30 minutes, great now I won't be able to wake up early...
User avatar
#34 - Hreidmar (07/05/2013) [-]
To be fair, more than half of the Soviet Casualites were caused by the Soviet side. At least the civilian casualties. Victims of the 'not one step back' policy, starvation (read about the Siege of Leningrad) and Stalinist purges.
#35 - komradkthulu (07/05/2013) [-]
To be fair, the only reason the UK stayed afloat was because of American aid. Try to imagine a D-Day without the Americans that comprised 75% of the original force and say that the UK "won" the war for the allies.

I'm not saying the US won it, but to belittle its role is absurdity. Youfeelinme?
User avatar
#36 - Hreidmar (07/05/2013) [-]
I don't get involved in arguments about the US contribution. It very quickly turns into a monkey brawl and a game of 'who can use the most expletives.' The only thing I'll say is that I think the war could still have been won without the US, though it would have taken much, much longer and cost easily twice as many lives total. One of the deciding factors of the war was the cryptography and cryptanalysis effort, which was almost a purely British project. I'm not saying that the US contributed less than other countries, but I am saying that perhaps their involvement in the European front was less crucial. The Pacific and North African fronts are a different matter.
#37 - komradkthulu (07/05/2013) [-]
Quite, the war could have been won in Europe thanks to the Soviets, Germany lost the moment Hitler lead them into the cold death that was Russia. However, it would've taken years longer.
User avatar
#38 - Hreidmar (07/05/2013) [-]
The Soviets AND the British. Don't underestimate the difficulty of conquering an island, even with an industrial machine like Germany's. I honestly doubt Hitler could have taken Britain, though he could have devastated it. Britain was too well prepared, though, again because of the cryptalanysis effort and Bletchley Park. Starting from late 1940 or so they could predict most of Germany's moves and even their submarine fleets were vulnerable.
#80 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
had Hitler cared less about Russia and used its force on Britain....he probably could have taken down Britain. Hitler fucked up when he led his troops into Russia which pretty much made Hitler wide open for an attack.
User avatar
#86 - Hreidmar (07/05/2013) [-]
That's true, the entire German army and industry could have probably taken down Britain. But yes, they were split between two fronts. All I'm saying is that even if America wasn't involved in the European front at all, I think that the split between the USSR and Britain would have rendered Hitler incapable of taking over either of them. Just a hypothetical situation, that's all.
#126 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
This is absolutely ridiculous. WWII would not have been won without the might of the American industrial machine. We went from a 175,000 man military to an 8.2 million man military that was capable of fighting all over the world in a year. Britain could not have fought Germany in main land Europe without the support of the Americans. their military was absolutely devastated at Dunkirk and they never really fully recovered after that. If Hitler had just launched an amphibious assault Britain would have got its ass kicked.

The American war effort was vital in both the Eastern and Western front. I'll start with the West because it is chronologically sooner. The Russians lost most of their military industrial factories in the early German assault. These were located to the west because of the abundance of railroads in that part of the country. The Russians were unable to produce their own ammunition and many of the products required for the military because of this loss.
#130 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]

America provided Russia with almost all of its supplies to fight the war. We sent Half-tracks, scout cars, almost all of their ammunition used, fuel and steel, as well as many other resources. The famous T-34s were constructed using premium American steel as well as the Russian KS-1s and ISU-152 heavy tanks. Even the Russian heavy machine guns were American made as well as almost all the bullets fired by the Russian troops. It wasn't until near the end of the war when Russia recaptured much of its lost territory was it able to begin to produce its own weapons again. Without America Russia would have been fighting the Germans with sticks and never would have held out at Stalingrad or Leningrad and prevented the capture of Moscow.

Now lets look at the actions in northern Africa which were also key into denying Germany victory in both the Western and Eastern front. Britain had been completely defeated by Rommel in Africa and was in a full retreat.
#136 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]

The complete resupply of the British forces and the replacement of the lost armored troops as well as providing our own troops to halt and eventually defeat the German advance across Northern Africa. Rommel would have captured the oil fields in the Middle East which would have been the final nail on the coffin of the Russians in the Eastern front. The Germans had stretched themselves too far in the Eastern front and they began too run dangerously low on oil and gas for their Panzers. I do not think anyone can argue that it was the Americans that denied Germany these vital resources in Africa.

Britain's greatest achievement was during the Battle of Britain when for all intensive purposes the British forces smashed the Luftwaffe. This not only caused the planned German assault on Britain to stall because of the lack of needed air support required of the Amphibious landing, but it also gave the Allies a huge boost during D-Day and on the Eastern Front.

#139 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]

Britain also provided a staging area for the assault on Normandy. Without the island it would have been almost impossible to launch an assault from across the Atlantic and crossing the Alps in northern Italy would also have proven extremely difficult.

The Western front was also key to supporting the Russians in the East. Many of the Wehrmacht's most elite troops and Panzer Divisions were stationed on the Western front for R&R before heading back to the Eastern front. The fighting in the West was actually bloodier than in the East. The Americans and Germans both lost more men in the West per regiment fighting than they did in the East. Meaning that if you were in an American or Russian regiment you actually had a greater chance of living through the war in the Russian Regiments.
#143 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]

In the end you need to ask your self could the war have been won with out the British? Of course it could have, but could the war have been won without America? No chance in hell. Between the complete supply of the Russian Army and the greatest amphibious assault in history the Americans were vital. Everyone always says how it was really the Russians that won WWII, but they definitely could not have done it without bullets or tanks or basically every other resource needed to fight a war. Not to mention we did all of this while fighting Japan in the Pacific and Southeast Asia which without a doubt was much harder than anything we did in Europe.
#48 - scousaj (07/05/2013) [-]
Are you fucking kidding me, we were devastated during that war, Hitler could have easily taken Britain after a few more years of whittling down our navy and then launching a land invasion. Luckily the Soviets pushed Germany back otherwise we'd be fucked. America putting massive pressure on Germany coupled with the unstoppable Soviets is what led to Hitler's downfall - the Soviets won the war.
#26 - buzzzz (07/05/2013) [-]
It was actually the Russians...
#40 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
America did support rebuilding Europe after WWII (Marshal plan) and America did lead the fight against the USSR during the Cold War
User avatar
#27 - pellebauss (07/05/2013) [-]
nope, well, yes, well no, the british did actually way more in WW2 than what they are credited for, but then agian if Henry Tandey shot Hitler in 1918 like he could(without any problems what soever) we hopefully wouldnt have had WW2
#28 - buzzzz (07/05/2013) [-]
I guess that could have avoided war, but the great depression would have lasted way longer.
#76 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
War is good because it gave America more money, essentially.
I somehow question the morality of that assertion.
User avatar
#29 - pellebauss (07/05/2013) [-]
true, and also any other mad man with the ability to speak for himself could have started another war
#30 - buzzzz (07/05/2013) [-]
Indeed. Also, war with the Russians would have been inevitable.
User avatar
#31 - ekseevi (07/05/2013) [-]
Let's just all agree on that everyone did something... Except Sweden who just watched. literally.

#32 - buzzzz (07/05/2013) [-]
#25 - mattymc (07/05/2013) [-]
yeah because the british were totally going to hold their own in that war, the billions of tons of supplies from america were totaly unneccesary, not to mention that the russians did most of the work in europe
#23 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
Well, America saved Europes ass in both world wars actually, as well as the world in WWII when Japan took over half of Asia. As well as most of Europe is fighting in the middle east as well as a america, because Terrorist are suicide bombing all across Europe too.
User avatar
#121 - pottie (07/06/2013) [-]
No. Soviet Union had more of a role in WWII. And to clarify, in both wars, it was an effort from all participating countries, especially the ones which had the war on their door step and woke up to destruction every day!
#51 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
Lol it's not like America was like, "Lets help those guys, because we want to". They were more like, "Let's help them, because we got attacked by the Germans (WW1 when Germans sunk the Lusitania), and when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. Americans were actually being selfish by not helping out in the first place...
User avatar
#77 - hor (07/05/2013) [-]
"God, the Americans have to get involved in everything, don't they have their own problems?"
"God, the Americans are fighting back? Selfish bastards."
#88 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
Lol I think this is different, because mass genocide is being committed...
#5 - I still don't understand how people can deny evolution, just l…  [+] (1 reply) 07/05/2013 on Didn't know people this... +2
User avatar
#24 - EvilWolf (07/06/2013) [-]
i believe evolution is to blame. we became to good with science that natural selection isnt doing so well
#1 - Being smart doesn't automatically make you a good person.  [+] (2 replies) 07/04/2013 on Racist are dum! +6
User avatar
#3 - schnizel (07/04/2013) [-]
Tell me what is good, and what is right?
User avatar
#2 - schnizel (07/04/2013) [-]
It makes you smarter?
[ 21 Total ]