x
Click to expand

Petroleum

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Age: 113
Date Signed Up:1/02/2010
Last Login:7/02/2015
Location:Up yours
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8055
Highest Content Rank:#9746
Highest Comment Rank:#216
Content Thumbs: 68 total,  204 ,  136
Comment Thumbs: 14469 total,  18371 ,  3902
Content Level Progress: 20% (1/5)
Level 3 Content: New Here → Level 4 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 1.8% (18/1000)
Level 314 Comments: Wizard → Level 315 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:1
Content Views:11112
Times Content Favorited:20 times
Total Comments Made:6069
FJ Points:14865
Favorite Tags: higurashi (2)
This is a description. Nothing to see. Move along.

Funny Pictures

  • Views: 1496
    Thumbs Up 20 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +16
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 10/21/12
    Laser Kittay Laser Kittay
  • Views: 1525
    Thumbs Up 21 Thumbs Down 7 Total: +14
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 02/11/13
    A person's worth A person's worth
  • Views: 739
    Thumbs Up 14 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +13
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 10/31/11
    Don't you go down a rabbit hole? Don't you go down a rabbit hole?
  • Views: 839
    Thumbs Up 18 Thumbs Down 5 Total: +13
    Comments: 9
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 05/17/10
    Most Most
  • Views: 1321
    Thumbs Up 15 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +11
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 09/19/10
    Trolling Trolling
  • Views: 1065
    Thumbs Up 16 Thumbs Down 8 Total: +8
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 3
    Uploaded: 04/03/11
    Dividing by Zero Dividing by Zero
1 2 > [ 10 ]

YouTube Videos

1 2 > [ 9 ]

latest user's comments

#23 - what the **** just happened. 06/30/2015 on Shovel pass +1
#10 - I don't think he's that bad, sure he makes the same kinda joke… 06/29/2015 on Super comics +7
#200 - Oh my god you know that violas exist? I love you. 06/27/2015 on Coo coo violin +4
#20 - ***** Chinese takeout was developed in ******* A… 06/27/2015 on when SJW meets a SJW 0
#7 - wasn't he an alcoholic for a bit?  [+] (6 new replies) 06/24/2015 on Redcliffe +45
User avatar #40 - thisistheguy (06/25/2015) [-]
C'mon everyone has 1-2 years of being an alcoholic before they get ahold of themselves
#41 - demonicshadowfang (06/25/2015) [-]
Damn.. Guess I need to start working on that then
#47 - Rascal (06/25/2015) [-]
start working on being an alcoholic, or getting ur life together?
User avatar #42 - thisistheguy (06/25/2015) [-]
I only speak from experience, went from drinking maybe 3 drinks max per night IF I drank to drinking about 6-12 a night, maybe 4-5 nights a week last semester. Good news is I cooled off and will probably only get drunk maybe two more times this summer.
User avatar #18 - heartlessrobot (06/24/2015) [-]
That's called being a young adult.
User avatar #9 - kilotech (06/24/2015) [-]
isn't everyone?
#51 - But are the words he is proposing intended to insult or provok…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered -1
User avatar #58 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
they do not call for change, they do not propose a plan, the message does not provide facts. it is not a statement. it is not a question. there is no other verbal category this statement could fit into other than a verbal attack. the new definition of fighting words can put him in prison.
is the only purpose of this sign to case anger? yes! obviously. if you see any other purpose do share.
when somethings only purpose is to cause anger it disrupts the nature peace and provokes violence no exceptions.
#35 - Except they aren't "fighting words", and while those…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered +1
User avatar #45 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
the law prefers the original case that created the fighting words doctrine en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
the decision was: "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

This decision is the primary base of any "fighting words" case. The guy holding the sign is not expressing an idea, or call for change, all he is doing is trying to invoke a very negative and possibly violent reaction.

also on the case you provided:
all that was removed was "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others"
the remained terms are "words intended to insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."
#54 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
You do have a tendecy to confuse Incitement and Fighting words. They have subtle differences but basically are two seperate things.
User avatar #51 - Petroleum (06/24/2015) [-]
But are the words he is proposing intended to insult or provoke violence? Who decides what he intends other than the man proposing the words himself? And you said yourself that in RAV v St Paul that all that was removed was anything that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others" , which is clearly what the sign was meant to be, there was no insult in his message, except maybe when he called someone a fascist faggot, but it was not a provocation of violence, he wasn't saying "Let's go violently rape everyone we see".
User avatar #58 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
they do not call for change, they do not propose a plan, the message does not provide facts. it is not a statement. it is not a question. there is no other verbal category this statement could fit into other than a verbal attack. the new definition of fighting words can put him in prison.
is the only purpose of this sign to case anger? yes! obviously. if you see any other purpose do share.
when somethings only purpose is to cause anger it disrupts the nature peace and provokes violence no exceptions.
#41 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
I agree with you.
#26 - No, no they ******* don't, they only end if you try to …  [+] (7 new replies) 06/24/2015 on 100% Triggered +1
User avatar #33 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
there is a huge difference between saying "blacks are this nations problem" then providing facts to back it up, or suggest a plan to make the situation better and what this guy is doing. What he is doing is considered "fighting words" and is absolutely not protected by the first amendment. There is no movement for change, no plan. just pure hate speech meant purely to anger other people and provoke violence. that type of speech isn't protected. reading the Constitution once doesn't make you an expert of the law. lots of people think "huur durr i can say whatever i want because the first amendment" no, that's fucking false think before you talk.
however rules are much different on the internet, and that type on speech on here wouldn't be nearly as bad (unless you're a student).
User avatar #35 - Petroleum (06/24/2015) [-]
Except they aren't "fighting words", and while those are generally considered unlawful and punishable, they are also very narrowed by definition and often even the bans on them are not seen as constitutional ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul ).
The only time that the fighting words exception comes up is when they are meant to directly incite anger, and even then it's shaky, as seen with the Supreme Court's decision on Brandenburg v. Ohio, where they claimed that "the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action."

In conclusion I'd like to add that despite what I believe in, as in, the man in the video is within his full rights to declare whatever statements he wishes, and it is also within the full rights of anyone else to be offended at his statements, that the guy in the video is still an asshole for having a gigantic sign that says that. Just because people take offense to his words, however, should not deny him his rights to say something like that publicly. Secondly, I also want to thank you for telling me about this "fighting words" clause, something that I would not have known about the First Amendment were it not for you, and thus helping me learn something today.
User avatar #45 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
the law prefers the original case that created the fighting words doctrine en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
the decision was: "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

This decision is the primary base of any "fighting words" case. The guy holding the sign is not expressing an idea, or call for change, all he is doing is trying to invoke a very negative and possibly violent reaction.

also on the case you provided:
all that was removed was "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others"
the remained terms are "words intended to insult, or provoke violence, "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."
#54 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
You do have a tendecy to confuse Incitement and Fighting words. They have subtle differences but basically are two seperate things.
User avatar #51 - Petroleum (06/24/2015) [-]
But are the words he is proposing intended to insult or provoke violence? Who decides what he intends other than the man proposing the words himself? And you said yourself that in RAV v St Paul that all that was removed was anything that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others" , which is clearly what the sign was meant to be, there was no insult in his message, except maybe when he called someone a fascist faggot, but it was not a provocation of violence, he wasn't saying "Let's go violently rape everyone we see".
User avatar #58 - whatareyouon (06/24/2015) [-]
they do not call for change, they do not propose a plan, the message does not provide facts. it is not a statement. it is not a question. there is no other verbal category this statement could fit into other than a verbal attack. the new definition of fighting words can put him in prison.
is the only purpose of this sign to case anger? yes! obviously. if you see any other purpose do share.
when somethings only purpose is to cause anger it disrupts the nature peace and provokes violence no exceptions.
#41 - ByeliVolk (06/24/2015) [-]
I agree with you.
#20 - oh my god i loved that game so ******* much. 06/15/2015 on tales from a firearm... +4
#6 - If yer asking bout where those are from, they're passports fro…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/12/2015 on sets i want +6
User avatar #12 - yodaiam (06/12/2015) [-]
Oh, thanks man.
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #16 - necrid ONLINE (01/29/2015) [-]
So much homosexuality in one person.
User avatar #17 to #16 - homosexuality (01/30/2015) [-]
Close, but I hold most of the gayness here.

I was going to post a reaction image, but over half my folder is filled of chicks with dicks. And while that's appropriate for the subject, I will abstain from posting porn on someone's profile just for being mentioned.
User avatar #14 - goodadventures (10/30/2014) [-]
r u hot
User avatar #15 to #14 - Petroleum (10/30/2014) [-]
wat
#13 - qazlord (09/30/2014) [-]
why is your name so much darker, yet only three months older?
#10 - zameckis (01/04/2013) [-]
greetings
User avatar #12 to #11 - zameckis (01/05/2013) [-]
how do you do on this fine day, sir/madam petroleum?
#2 - jedic (10/13/2012) [-]
www.mangareader.net/960-38182-1/umineko-no-naku-koro-ni-episode-x/chapter -1.html

I suggest reading this, if you haven't already.
#3 to #2 - Petroleum (10/13/2012) [-]
I have, it gave me all kinds of what the **** .
#4 to #3 - jedic (10/13/2012) [-]
The only thing that saddened me was the lack of Rika and Satako vs. Bern and Lambda. I loved Kinzo throughout the entire thing though.
#5 to #4 - Petroleum (10/13/2012) [-]
Yeah, that was disappointing, but hey, I got this picture out of it.
#6 to #5 - jedic (10/13/2012) [-]
Hm, just out of curiosity, have you started/read Higanbana and Rose Guns Days and if so which of the two did you like more? Personally I find RGDs to be a refreshing change from the normal grimdark that he tends to write, although the combination of Ryushiki and new art makes it somewhat laughable. I haven't even been able to get past the first couple pages of Higanbana just because it feels like it's being dark for being dark's sake.
#7 to #6 - Petroleum (10/13/2012) [-]
Nah, I haven't been keeping up with his work, though I might check out Rose Guns Days.
#8 to #7 - jedic (10/13/2012) [-]
Have a nice and wonderful day, good sir.
#9 to #8 - Petroleum (10/13/2012) [-]
Same to you, my good friend.
User avatar #1 - irwincardozo (07/25/2012) [-]
http://hentaitentaclesex.net/pics/tentacle-porn.jpg
 Friends (0)