Rank #10598 on CommentsLevel 225 Comments: Mind Blower
OfflineSend mail to xsnowbanex Block xsnowbanex Invite xsnowbanex to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||3/16/2012|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#12307|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#3270|
|Content Thumbs:||165 total, 212 , 47|
|Comment Thumbs:||2866 total, 3567 , 701|
|Content Level Progress:|| 40% (4/10) |
Level 16 Content: New Here → Level 17 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 43% (43/100) |
Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower
|Times Content Favorited:||2 times|
|Total Comments Made:||1421|
latest user's comments
|#51 - Yes, you does looks cool||11/19/2015 on You're pretty good||+2|
|#116 - Yup! Equate human lives to candy. It's only logical amirite? …||11/19/2015 on Common Sense||0|
|#65 - 5th image. It's Facebook you're describing…||11/19/2015 on Tumblr Comp #16||0|
|#29 - Damn. Oh well||11/17/2015 on Leg day||0|
|#56 - I find anyone that blares any kind of music obnoxious.||11/17/2015 on badazz||0|
|#100 - Good, thank god I live in Israel. But just in case I don't....…||11/17/2015 on A Friendly PSA On ISIS:||0|
|#33 - I'm really not sure what you're trying to represent here. … [+] (39 new replies)||11/17/2015 on Death to Infidels!||+4|
#76 - bojesus (11/17/2015) [-]
I thinks it's trying to make the point that some Christians in America not all have different standards for what's considered bad based on the religion of the person. For example, I've seen some people on the news saying that we should bomb Iran because of the Iran deal. And yet when it's the other way around and we hear Iranians saying "death to America" they view that as a bad thing.
#80 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
PS Show me the Christians shouting "death to Iran." While we are talking about destroying legitimate MILITARY TARGETS they are talking about the execution of every innocent MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD simply because they are American. You're a fucking disgusting human being.
#77 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
Maybe that's because when Iran gets a nuclear weapon they have said they intend to use it on Israel. So, no, them wanting us to die simply because we exist is NOT the same as debating a preemptive strike to PREVENT genocide. Shove your moral relativism up your leftist ass!
#82 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
No shit. That's why we are trying to stop them. They are very close--probably months not years--away. You understand the meaning of the word "before," right? It would be a little late to try to stop them form building and detonating a nuclear weapon AFTER they have enough material, dipshit.
#83 - bojesus (11/17/2015) [-]
Have you bothered to read the Iran nuclear deal?
#84 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
Okay? So? Yes, that's the deal. So?
#90 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
Regardless, you are moving the goal posts. We weren't arguing about whether or not the people who oppose the deal are correct in the reasoning. Fine. They're wong then. Point conceded. Who cares? So, what?
You equated American Christians with Iranian Muslims shouting "death to America" due to the Iran deal. So? Where are they? Where are the Christians advocating to kill ALL IRANIANS because of the Iran nuclear deal?
Again, you are a disgusting human being. Shove your moral relativism up your leftist ass.
#100 - bojesus (11/17/2015) [-]
And if Iran do cheat the sanctions can easily be put back in place, as detailed in the Iran deal. Also, I apologies if you felt I was trying to change the subject, but your first comment stated that Iran was trying to get nukes to bomb Israel. I was merely stating that the Iran deal prevented them from being able to achieve that. Bear in mind, the deal is based on rigorous inspection, not trust.
To your second point, I explicitly stated SOME Christians were talking about going in and just destroying Iran. Obviously most Christians, and people in general, would only want to deal with extremists. As an example:
Imagine an Iranian politician singing this about America. You would assume they were serious and would be disgusted I'm guessing. An Iranian watching this probably would be too.
#105 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
You are a child.
The fact that you equate this video with thousands chanting "death to America" is more proof that you are a despicable human-shaped pile of shit. I saw a Senator advocating, in a tongue-and-cheek way, for bombing military targets inside Iran. Please show me, for the tenth fucking time...
1) That Senator McCain is a Christian leader
2) Is speaking as a Christian and not as a national security expert
3) Is saying that his faith has brought him to this conclusion
4) That he has ever advocated for killing all Iranians.
Just admit that your bullshit generalization of Christians and moral relativism is wrong. Americans saying we need to bomb LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGETS to prevent genocide and Iranian Muslims calling for the death EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN ARE. NOT. THE. SAME. THING.
Admit it! Admit it! Admit it! I'm done trying to nail Jell-o to a tree. I keep asking the same thing, and you keep saying anything you can to avoid admitting you're wrong. Admit it, or fuck off.
#117 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
HAHA! Screaming "Admit it!" over and over again like a retarded fucking ape is debating like a champ is it? Fucking shit you guys are as mentally retarded as the SJW's...
#157 - anon (11/18/2015) [-]
>Starts by arguing about Iran deal
>"Hey man, you're moving the goalposts!" (fuck, even if they weren't talking about the Iran deal, that's not what the 'moving the goalposts' fallacy is)
>"Wow anon, you sure are great at debating, let me suck your dick for you while you spaz out on the internet"
#147 - djcoldcutz (11/17/2015) [-]
Honestly, not my fight.. Just imagine it's me making the arguments the anon is making. They're sound.
"For example, I've seen some people on the news saying that we should bomb Iran because of the Iran deal. And yet when it's the other way around and we hear Iranians saying "death to America" they view that as a bad thing."
By saying "and yet when it's the other way around..." you're saying these two situations are the same..
#150 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
#149 - bojesus (11/17/2015) [-]
Thanks for the reply. When I talk about the situations being reversed, I mean in terms of their direction, not in terms of their magnitude, but that you for clarifying anyway. However, if you saw an Iranian news anchor say that we should bomb America, would you not interpret that as an attack on America in general?
#153 - djcoldcutz (11/17/2015) [-]
Yea, but it's the magnitude of each situation that elicits the different responses from the Americans in your two examples. They're not being hypocritical and refusing to "take what they're dishing out." The things being dished out are two different things.
If I saw an Iranian news anchor say we should bomb America after our President chanted "Death to America" a whole bunch, I would interpret it as well deserved.
#141 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
#122 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
Creating a third option in which you do neither, and instead, talk in circles, move goal posts, and do the FJ equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "La, la, la! I can't hear you! I can't hear you so I'm not wrong!" just makes you a childish dick.
#108 - bojesus (11/17/2015) [-]
Well first I'd like to know what's wrong with my first statement.
Now, point for point:
-I'm not equating this with thousands chanting death to America.
-If an Iranian politician sang "death to America" in a tongue in cheek way, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, or know that he really meant "death to the people in America who want to bomb us"
-Never said he was a Christian leader.
-Never said he was speaking as a Christian.
-Never said anything about his faith.
-Never said anything about killing "all Iranians" at any point. I have literally no idea why you keep asking me to show that.
-I said SOME Christians, not a generalization.
-I'm not a moral relativist, I think the west is better in almost all ways morally.
-I never said Americans going after military targets and Iranians chanting that are the same thing.
#119 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
#138 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
This post is over. I'm out. Fuck yourself.
#136 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
You said these things were equal. Not me.
PS You don't know what moral relativism is. Look it up. Hint: saying "some" Christians advocating for the bombing of Iranian military targets is as bad as Iranians calling for the death of all Americans is an example of moral relativism.
You've gone from moving goal posts to talking in circles. Now you are being intentionally obtuse.
You: I didn't say the exact words "I saw Christians call for the death of all Iranians" so that's not what I meant when I equated the two things.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle! I'm not playing this game.
And yet, you haven't shown me one Christian saying anything about how their faith has anything to do with their response to the Iran nuclear deal. You showed a Senator and national security expert, that is probably Christian, advocating for the bombing Iran. He didn't mention his faith though. He was talking about national security. So we're still waiting...
#142 - bojesus (11/17/2015) [-]
Look, if you find the part that you interpreted as me saying "Christians advocating for the bombing of Iranian military targets is as bad as Iranians calling for the death of all Americans" then I can tell you what I really meant, but so far I haven't found what you interpreted as that.
As a side note, I think you came into this discussion angry, which caused you to interpret everything I've said in a skewed way. To give you food for though, why is it that when you hear "death to america", you interpret it in its literal, raw form, but when you hear "bomb bomb bomb Iran" you interpret it with much more nuance?
#144 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
"...some Christians in America have different standards for what's considered bad based on the religion of the person. For example, I've seen some people on the news saying that we should bomb Iran because of the Iran deal. And yet when it's the other way around and we hear Iranians saying "death to America" they view that as a bad thing."
There is no other reasonable interpretation of this false equivalence. Stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. You're wrong. Period. Admit it or fuck off.
This post is more than 24 hrs old now. I. AM. DONE. PLAYING. GAMES.
#148 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
#137 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
This post is over. I'm out. Fuck yourself.
|#31 - WhoaTakeItEasyMan.gif||11/17/2015 on That comment.||+2|
|#28 - Whoa man. Gotta elaborate on that [+] (27 new replies)||11/17/2015 on That comment.||+14|
#30 - angelious (11/17/2015) [-]
basically anonymous somehow got a hold of locations and names of all of the big dogs for..i think it was zetas or some other cartel, and were going to publish it.
then the zetas simply replied that if the anonymous posted what they knew online, they would go and slaughter an entire village full of people.
needless to say anonymous backed off..
#66 - angelious (11/17/2015) [-]
isis pales in comparison to cartels in terms of tech savvy and brutality i would claim..
they only beat cartels in size and military might. and even then i wouldnt put it above cartels to be stronger than them since many of the cartels are made out of ex special forces operatives....
#70 - Conquistador (11/17/2015) [-]
As if ISIS doesn't receive training and aid from foreign powers.
Many of the cartels are just tattooed up delinquents who grew up in slums and picked up gun/drug running since it paid and they had no other option.
Though, a lot of cops and politicians are on their pay role.
#165 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
FOREIGN powers? You have a lot to learn about ISIS, boy. They're not some jihad and their funding has been linked back to America at their founding. They've been getting aid from interested republican financial backers. My best guess from those facts is they want to use ISIS as a boogeyman to create political clout.
#72 - angelious (11/17/2015) [-]
actually most of isis is second world citizens with no education.
zetas( the cartel i have been throwing around lately) was made up when a mexican special operatives military group went rogue. they are known for their ruthlesness, and for being completely batfucking insane.
#84 - angelious (11/17/2015) [-]
well thats where it started. anyhow.
and isis with its 200 000+ members isnt as highly trained(not even their original crew was as highly trained) as the zetas are/were. unless you believe the americans training them stuff. but we have no evidence of that...tho i wouldnt be surprised if it was true...
also it isnt "some of them" with zetas. the original crew and the main body of them are literally ex military. thats why they became so notorious, they had the firepower,the skills and the ruthlesness of a professional. quickly establishing themselves as the dominant cartel. or atleast among the big three.
#94 - Conquistador (11/17/2015) [-]
Lol, it doesn't really matter if 1% of them have military training or not. Most of the newer people they recruit are probably what I've said earlier. That's how cartels get big. They tempt poor people to do jobs for them. Very similar to what ISIS does. As for ISIS though, some of the people they recruit are also westerners.
God damn, it's weird yet intriguing how antagonistic people on this site are, even when you're agreeing with them.
#96 - angelious (11/17/2015) [-]
and they also keep hiring experts from around the globe to work for them, specially zetas who have hackers on their payroll. they have a lot more claim to being tech and military savvy than isis does.
and i dont understand the hostility in your add on message? have i insulted you somehow??
#97 - Conquistador (11/17/2015) [-]
Many major criminal/terrorist groups like that hire people like that now. Even if ISIS and Zetas did go to war with each other, ISIS could still be a threat, especially if they displayed they're more than capable of pulling off attacks on other parts of the world like in Paris.
How is that hostile?
#99 - angelious (11/17/2015) [-]
i never said isis isnt a threat. or that they would lose to zetas in combat. in fact i said that isis would win zetas in combat simply because their size(and therefore their predicted threat) is larger than zetas. i however mentioned how isis most likely isnt as militaristically skilled, nor as well equipped as zetas due to their background and location.
seemed to be somewhat passive agressive to me.
#54 - angelious (11/17/2015) [-]
and zetas would have gone and killed everybody in some random village anyway just because there is a chance anonymous was involved.
also anonymous is incognito..i mean the whole point of the whole thing was that you can just put on a mask,not tell your names, and you would be part of it...that was the whole main flaggel about it back in the day...
#57 - powerlesscheese (11/17/2015) [-]
i mean slip the documents to officials without letting the zetas know so they can act before there is even a chance for a massacre. On the other hand this means the Mexican officials would actually have to do something about it which is unlikely given how many are on their payroll.
#59 - angelious (11/17/2015) [-]
that would have worked up until the level where
a)mexican cops show up,a huge shootout happens(seriously taking down a cartel boss is like waging a war these days..) and then they would command their troops to kill another city
b) mexican cops show up, capture the cartel lords, and the cartels go shoot up a city.
ofcourse most likely the zetas went out and destroyed some town anyway...so i think they should have just sent the evidence online... i mean, just an offhand remark from the cartels about killing someone in some town is enough to make the whole town evacuate should tell us that there is no point in fretting about them doing something they already do on daily basis...
|#98 - "Guys, stop blaming all Muslims for DAESH!" &quo… [+] (2 new replies)||11/17/2015 on A Friendly PSA On ISIS:||+1|