Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 26
Date Signed Up:6/05/2012
Last Login:7/25/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#14248
Highest Comment Rank:#14116
Comment Thumbs: 122 total,  203 ,  81
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level 66 Comments: FJ Cultist → Level 67 Comments: FJ Cultist
Total Comments Made:149
FJ Points:122

latest user's comments

#39 - I'm going to back this up. Yes there were other races than whi… 06/30/2016 on Niggas in WW1 +2
#34 - You're welcome 05/23/2016 on Bucky +1
#32 - Civil war spoilers north wins but really its th…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/23/2016 on Bucky +13
#56 - imjared (05/24/2016) [-]
>north wins
User avatar
#33 - kingoftheanonymous (05/23/2016) [-]
Ah, thank you very much!
#34 - xtheherox (05/23/2016) [-]
You're welcome
#12 - **xtheherox used "*roll 1, 1-1000000*"** **xtheherox rolls … 04/05/2016 on Commence seizure now +1
#35 - It's a justification but not religion. Things like those crime… 06/07/2015 on Neckbeard Rank III 0
#27 - "then the rational person who understands history", …  [+] (2 new replies) 06/07/2015 on Neckbeard Rank III +3
User avatar
#31 - whitie (06/07/2015) [-]
True, but nobody sees themself as the bad guy, people have to be able to live with theselves after committing murder, theft, rape etc during war time, religion is an easy justification, without a religous doctrine, its difficult to unilaterally convince people to commit to a conflict, and as history has taught us, unpopular wars don't last long, and therefore (in theory) each individual war causes less death when religion is taken out of the equation
#35 - xtheherox (06/07/2015) [-]
It's a justification but not religion. Things like those crimes are done for personal gain and blaming it on religion won't change that. Out of the number of wars how many of them were based on religion to start with? From the beginning its been those guys have that stuff, we want that stuff. Religion didn't drive Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Bismark, Hitler, Hussein, and Bush for example. Religion is just a dressing up, yes it is abused by those who want power to use people but that isn't religion. So you can't blame religion for wars it didn't start.
#87 - I'm pretty sure he would gain power in practically any place. … 05/21/2015 on hitlers speech still haunts me +20
#12 - Dude battlefront looks pretty good. 05/12/2015 on Got him! 0
#20 - But who cares if you're famous, you're a scientist. That's fun…  [+] (11 new replies) 05/09/2015 on comp 4 +3
#37 - billburr (05/09/2015) [-]
This chart could not be more wrong. Being an actor/ musician/ professional athlete require a lot more skill than being a professional scientist! Nothing against scientists but if you get a doctorate in psych or bio you could be a professional scientist in 10 years.
Look up some stats on success rates for musicians and athletes, it's unbelievable
User avatar
#58 - thesoulseeker (05/09/2015) [-]
My friend the problem is that you don't understand how graphs work.
The graph says that to be a *famous* scientist you need to be pretty much the best in your field.
But to be a famous actor you don't need to be the very best actor, just a good one.

That said the graph is bullshit on many levels.
#60 - billburr (05/09/2015) [-]
No the graph show level of skill vs. level of fame. Seeing as there is an implied zero point on both axes it is unreasonable to presume any level of either as a prerequisite
User avatar
#63 - thesoulseeker (05/09/2015) [-]
Well yeah, but that wasn't my point really.
The graph says that a scientist of skill A will be a lot less famous than actor of skill A etc.
It doesn't say how much skill any of the jobs require.
Also I wouldn't say it's easier or harder to be a scientist compared to an actor/musician/athlete because those things require different skillsets and mindsets. It really is comparing apples to oranges. Plus a fame isn't really something that matters too much to scientists, while for the others it's very important.
#66 - billburr (05/09/2015) [-]
I agree that they're difficult to compare but I think the point they're trying to make is that it's really hard to become a scientist but you never get any credit, as opposed to all of the famous musicians, actors, and athletes who are super famous but not as skilled.
I just think it's wrong. It's a lot easier to become a professional scientist than a professional athlete
User avatar
#104 - thesoulseeker (05/10/2015) [-]
Well yeah the point is that you need far more skill to become a famous scientist than you need to become a famous actor etc.
And yes that's fucking wrong.
#106 - billburr (05/11/2015) [-]
I'm glad you agree! It seems like an unpopular opinion around here but it's really really hard to become a celebrity! And I'd say a solid 5-10% of people could become a scientist if they worked at it, based on the people i know anyways
User avatar
#107 - thesoulseeker (05/11/2015) [-]
Well a lot of people can, and are, actors, musicians, scientists etc. But few of them are famous.
#108 - billburr (05/11/2015) [-]
Yeah, I was kind of assuming they meant professionally but at an amateur level I am personally a musician, actor, and scientist so the graph might not mean much
User avatar
#41 - idkwhatthatmeans (05/09/2015) [-]
Yeah idk if i would say its easy to become a scientist, but its definitely not easy to become a professional athlete of any variety. Those guys put in almost every hour of their life to be good at what they do lol
#52 - billburr (05/09/2015) [-]
And even with all that work most of them never make it!
I think the issue is that people don't know what a scientist is, I know several scientists. If you go to university, you too will know several scientists.
You don't have to have frizzy hair and solve the mysteries of the universe, you just need a research grant. Nothing against scientists, they're very important, and undercelebrated except now, when it's cool to pretend to be a nerd but they are also very numerous
#52 - I'm going to call major BS on that. During the first half of O…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/07/2015 on /b/ breaks character 0
#179 - pyrusd (05/08/2015) [-]
100% true and something everyone loves to forget.

Hitler turned inward and focused on his country (adopted country) and got out of the destroyed economy. Obama comes out and says NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY has turning inward ever helped an economy. Really? Never huh? We still have people alive today that went through it and saw how quickly it could fix things. And as you stated with a complete Majority they easily could've implemented a "Democrat" way of life and yet, didn't. Probably because some of those democrats went....yeah this is awful we shouldn't do this.
[ 146 Total ]