x
Click to expand

Ruspanic

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Date Signed Up:2/18/2010
Location:United States of America
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#1929
Highest Content Rank:#6104
Highest Comment Rank:#368
Content Thumbs: 92 total,  120 ,  28
Comment Thumbs: 21424 total,  23939 ,  2515
Content Level Progress: 20% (1/5)
Level 6 Content: New Here → Level 7 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 1.1% (11/1000)
Level 320 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:0
Content Views:6465
Times Content Favorited:3 times
Total Comments Made:6020
FJ Points:8585

Funny Pictures

  • Views: 5926
    Thumbs Up 84 Thumbs Down 9 Total: +75
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 11/25/14
    Sexy Twins Sexy Twins
  • Views: 1714
    Thumbs Up 19 Thumbs Down 10 Total: +9
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 3
    Uploaded: 12/11/10
    Troll Math Troll Math

latest user's comments

#159 - Who is actually blaming white people? I'm in Baltimore, I've b…  [+] (1 new reply) 8 hours ago on white privilege -1
#172 - Ken M (7 hours ago) [-]
the media.

archive.is/3xQti

#96 - Such wise creatures 10 hours ago on Zeus +1
#303 - I doubt that anyone will read this, but it seems that of the 6… 22 hours ago on You're only being shown one... 0
#32 - nothing. 05/02/2015 on Hat 0
#26 - The Pakistani ISI (their CIA) is basically a rogue government …  [+] (1 new reply) 05/02/2015 on Hat 0
User avatar #31 - didactus (05/02/2015) [-]
The invasion of Afghanistan doesn't even need justification from 9/11, it was valid for other reasons I agree.
And it was basically in the works anyway. It was a clusterfuck of wars and proxy leading from both the US and the failed war of the Soviets against the Mujaheddin.
#21 - Osama fled to Pakistan. We found him there ten years after w…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/02/2015 on Hat 0
User avatar #22 - didactus (05/02/2015) [-]
That may be true, though they still fucked up, all they had to do was call the right guy in the Pakistani intelligence service and they would've gotten him.
Only reason they found him was because it was leaked he was there.
Pakistan got mad when the US killed him.
Tells you a little about Pakistan harboring terrorists don't it?
User avatar #26 - Ruspanic (05/02/2015) [-]
The Pakistani ISI (their CIA) is basically a rogue government agency. It's not even accountable to the Pakistani government, what makes you think they'd willingly share info with us?
They have been known to harbor, fund and even train terrorists like the Haqqani Network, which would kill NATO troops in Afghanistan. Before 9/11 (and maybe after 9/11) they supported the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan.
In 1998 when Bill Clinton ordered a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan blown up with cruise missiles, the Pakistani government was informed only a few minutes in advance (hey guys, don't mind the missiles flying through your airspace, they're not for you) because we were afraid Pakistan would tip off the terrorists. That is precisely what happened anyway, and bin Laden (who was there, and already wanted in connection with the first World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist attacks) escaped. When we examined the wreckage we found Pakistani ISI among the dead, who had apparently been training terrorists themselves.

The reason they found Bin Laden finally in Pakistan was not because of a leak from the government, but because they captured one of his personal couriers.

Anyway, we can agree that Pakistan's a shitty ally but the invasion of Afghanistan was justified for national security reasons, even if the invasion of Iraq was not.
User avatar #31 - didactus (05/02/2015) [-]
The invasion of Afghanistan doesn't even need justification from 9/11, it was valid for other reasons I agree.
And it was basically in the works anyway. It was a clusterfuck of wars and proxy leading from both the US and the failed war of the Soviets against the Mujaheddin.
User avatar #23 - trolljunkusa (05/02/2015) [-]
There were multiple spottings of Osama in in Afghanistan.
User avatar #24 - didactus (05/02/2015) [-]
Could they be validated?
Body double?
Reliable eyewitnesses?
#19 - Bin Laden and most of the hijackers were Saudi, but it's not a…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/02/2015 on Hat 0
User avatar #29 - vortix (05/02/2015) [-]
butt wait! what does iraq have to do with this?
User avatar #32 - Ruspanic (05/02/2015) [-]
nothing.
User avatar #20 - didactus (05/02/2015) [-]
And then Osama was in Pakistan.
The intelligence people in the american military sure dun didit naow
User avatar #21 - Ruspanic (05/02/2015) [-]
Osama fled to Pakistan. We found him there ten years after we invaded Afghanistan.
User avatar #22 - didactus (05/02/2015) [-]
That may be true, though they still fucked up, all they had to do was call the right guy in the Pakistani intelligence service and they would've gotten him.
Only reason they found him was because it was leaked he was there.
Pakistan got mad when the US killed him.
Tells you a little about Pakistan harboring terrorists don't it?
User avatar #26 - Ruspanic (05/02/2015) [-]
The Pakistani ISI (their CIA) is basically a rogue government agency. It's not even accountable to the Pakistani government, what makes you think they'd willingly share info with us?
They have been known to harbor, fund and even train terrorists like the Haqqani Network, which would kill NATO troops in Afghanistan. Before 9/11 (and maybe after 9/11) they supported the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan.
In 1998 when Bill Clinton ordered a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan blown up with cruise missiles, the Pakistani government was informed only a few minutes in advance (hey guys, don't mind the missiles flying through your airspace, they're not for you) because we were afraid Pakistan would tip off the terrorists. That is precisely what happened anyway, and bin Laden (who was there, and already wanted in connection with the first World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist attacks) escaped. When we examined the wreckage we found Pakistani ISI among the dead, who had apparently been training terrorists themselves.

The reason they found Bin Laden finally in Pakistan was not because of a leak from the government, but because they captured one of his personal couriers.

Anyway, we can agree that Pakistan's a shitty ally but the invasion of Afghanistan was justified for national security reasons, even if the invasion of Iraq was not.
User avatar #31 - didactus (05/02/2015) [-]
The invasion of Afghanistan doesn't even need justification from 9/11, it was valid for other reasons I agree.
And it was basically in the works anyway. It was a clusterfuck of wars and proxy leading from both the US and the failed war of the Soviets against the Mujaheddin.
User avatar #23 - trolljunkusa (05/02/2015) [-]
There were multiple spottings of Osama in in Afghanistan.
User avatar #24 - didactus (05/02/2015) [-]
Could they be validated?
Body double?
Reliable eyewitnesses?
#100 - I don't see why. With a more efficient use of land and resourc… 05/01/2015 on Only a few more bosses 0
#84 - There's already a bloody and violent live-action Mulan movie, … 05/01/2015 on Mulan +1
#83 - I dunno, man. I liked that movie. 05/01/2015 on Mulan 0

items

Total unique items point value: 11910 / Total items point value: 15830
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#37 - Ruspanic (04/16/2014) [-]
This image was flagged 27 minutes ago






This image was flagged 27 minutes ago
User avatar #21 - khl (05/12/2013) [-]
damn the cuteness of your avatar :3
#23 to #22 - khl (05/12/2013) [-]
Go Scrat, show your cuteness   
   
Scrat you fool, you killed someone ¬_¬
Go Scrat, show your cuteness

Scrat you fool, you killed someone ¬_¬
#25 to #24 - khl (05/12/2013) [-]
Quick assemble the Corgi's
Quick assemble the Corgi's
#27 to #26 - khl (05/12/2013) [-]
also can I buy some items ?
also can I buy some items ?
#28 to #27 - Ruspanic (05/12/2013) [-]
Sure whatever, I don't need them.   
   
I'm out of birds :(
Sure whatever, I don't need them.

I'm out of birds :(
#29 to #28 - khl (05/12/2013) [-]
cheers man
cheers man
#30 to #29 - Ruspanic (05/12/2013) [-]
wait nevermind penguins are birds
wait nevermind penguins are birds
User avatar #31 to #30 - khl (05/12/2013) [-]
I sent a request btw :)

Just click items in the top of the screen then go to requests received
#32 to #31 - Ruspanic (05/12/2013) [-]
I meant I was out of bird gifs, not items. But thanks anyway for the pet bird
I meant I was out of bird gifs, not items. But thanks anyway for the pet bird
#33 to #32 - khl (05/12/2013) [-]
Now sloths I have plenty of xD
Now sloths I have plenty of xD
#34 to #33 - Ruspanic (05/12/2013) [-]
Here's an-otter gif
Here's an-otter gif
User avatar #15 - amissingmouse (05/01/2013) [-]
Your name is bluer than mine... I'm jealous.
User avatar #16 to #15 - Ruspanic (05/01/2013) [-]
Stick around for a couple more years and you'll get there.
User avatar #17 to #16 - amissingmouse (05/01/2013) [-]
Eh maybe if I can be bothered to.
So
how are you?
#14 - Ken M (04/18/2013) [-]
User avatar #2 - coloredfolks (02/14/2013) [-]
i'll post here because it was getting confusing.
**
It's true that various experiences can affect your sexual preferences, but I'm pretty sure they won't make you stop being attracted to women and start being attracted to men (reverse for lesbians) - romantic and sexual attraction,**

this kind of relates to my hurried point about what i called "insecurity" (sorry i had class)
i found probably 5 or 6 people on fj that identified as gay (whether open or not in the real world) and i asked them about their childhood, especially middle school years. every one of them had a family problem (sinlge parent, divorced, etc.) and every one of them was not the most popular kid growing up. look all im saying is that what I called insecurity is in relation to this: kids are very fragile and when they are not accepted they turn to other things (i am the oldest of 6- i have seen it with every one of them growing up, they find the things that they can "be good at", they find things that create an identity). all i am saying is that in todays world kids have an option to turn to when they are not accepted or not liked by girls or have a bad home life or whatever. i mean this insecurity of home bleeds into other things. and in todays culture they have the option to be like, "hmm what if im gay?" becasue they see it on tv and kids talk about it.

User avatar #4 to #2 - Ruspanic (02/14/2013) [-]
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
Single parenthood and divorce, unfortunately, is not all that uncommon anymore. Most people raised by single or divorced parents don't turn out gay.
Hell, some 67% of colored folks (c wat i did thar?) who are children live with single parents - compared to 25% for white kids and 17% for Asians. However, the homosexuality rate for both blacks and Asians is higher than for whites.
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx

And for all you know, they were unpopular because they were gay or effeminate.
Or maybe their unpopularity was completely unrelated to their homosexuality, and Funnyjunkers in general tend to introverted or socially unpopular. Or maybe you just chanced upon a particularly unrepresentative sample. Who knows?

I wasn't popular in high school, either. In fact, I was always the short, quiet kid who hung around with the South Asian kids. I'm not and never have been sexually attracted to men, nor have I felt any urge to be.

Why would someone with insecurity or unpopularity problems "decide" to be gay, if that would only increase their chances of being bullied? That doesn't make sense to me.
User avatar #6 to #4 - coloredfolks (02/14/2013) [-]
look, im not saying that the reasons i stated are the only cause behind their respective homosexual tendencies. I also am not saying that it is a binary situation because like you said there are exceptions in all cases (we are talking about humans after all).
BUT i do believe what I said, that if conditions are correct and social pressure is great enough kids have self-doubts and are searching for identites.

in response to your other argument lower down (why must you insist on debating me at 2 different locations haha):

if you look at homosexuality from my point of view (basically that it is an "idea") then you will understand my argument about how marriage is the advancement of their agenda (which i believe is inherently wrong...again my opinion)
User avatar #7 to #6 - Ruspanic (02/14/2013) [-]
Hey, you're the one who posted two comments for me to reply to.

Aaanyway. Yes, some kids are indeed confused about their sexuality, but they typically grow out of that confusion after puberty and come to terms with their sexuality, whether they're straight or gay or bisexual. Mere confusion isn't going to turn a straight kid gay for the rest of his life and make him stop being attracted to women. Kids are malleable, but they're not that malleable.

I referenced the John Money study earlier and I'll say it again. The boy grew up without a penis, was intentionally taught to behave like a girl and treated like a girl until well into puberty, and was even given hormone treatments to induce breast development and feminization. He also believed he was a girl, and so did his peers who treated him accordingly. This went on for years, including the years at which post-birth development is at its fastest and children are most susceptible to outside influences. If all that wasn't enough to make him gay, how can mere insecurity, which every teenager experiences, induce such a drastic change?

No, I think the evidence points to homosexuality being innate. (Consider also that it is found in many non-human species, not just sex but long-term same-sex pair bonds.) You may see it as an "idea", but it's not merely a matter of perspective - there is an objective truth.

Have a read: it's Wikipedia, but it quotes, cites and links many of the reputable original sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Cause

There's also an objective truth about why gay people seek marriage (though in this case it might be better to examine individual motivations, rather than generalize about the collective gay population - it's not a conspiracy, after all).
Judging from what I heard and read about gay people and my personal experiences with them, marriage not typically considered a tool to promote the "gay agenda", but rather a part of the agenda itself.

The "gay agenda" does include "normalization" of homosexuality in the mainstream cultures as a broad goal, but also includes specific goals such as marriage, adoption, military service, protection from workplace discrimination, and so on. If they didn't actually want to get married, they wouldn't seek to.


(Incidentally, I've been focusing on gay males by default, but statistically there are more homosexual women than men. Fun fact.)
User avatar #8 to #7 - coloredfolks (02/15/2013) [-]
i did not know there were more gay females than males. interesting.

The gay agenda is all subjective in my eyes; all those goals have to do with the acceptance of homosexuality I think you can agree, but in light of the fact that it is a deviation attempting to gain acceptance, this "agenda" seems very convenient in my opinion.

i read the wiki (no worries, I use wiki as a jumping off point for most of my research papers) and have a few problems, first of all this quote is just absolutely ridiculous: "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population" I mean, come on.
also, every organization that the article quoted stated that it is a "complex interplay" of social, environmental and interuterine factors. That is exactly what I am saying, although i believe that they are putting more emphasis on the "interuterine factors" than is needed (in my eyes those factors include, but are not limited to being of feminine stature or complexion as a male). the article also got on my nerves about "the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual". I mean how loaded is that "statistic"? how many gay parents are there compared to hetero parents? and in those groups how many have gay children. the numbers should not be compared as "vast majorities".

last thing, your repeated example about the dude that was tried to be raised as a girl does nothing for me in the way of promoting the whole "i am who i am" argument. he ended up being a boy becasue.............HE WAS A BOY. end of story. there is no subtext there. I still firmly believe that homosexuals are a product of their environment just the same way that cool kids and geeks develop. modern culture has allowed homosexuality to become an acceptable alternative.
User avatar #9 to #8 - Ruspanic (02/15/2013) [-]
The statistic makes perfect sense. Since a "vast majority" is a percentage, the actual number of homosexual parents compared to heterosexual parents doesn't matter. Obviously there are far fewer gay parents than straight parents, just as there are far fewer gay people than straight people.
What that is basically saying is that gay kids are not typically raised by gay parents, and gay parents don't usually produce gay kids; that is, gay kids are not "taught" to be gay.

I took "environmental factors" to mean prenatal conditions, which are not part of the child's inherent biology. Some scientists share this view, while others separate uterine conditions from postnatal environmental factors.
I don't understand the evolutionary bit, so I'll withhold judgment on that.
Anyway, the general scientific consensus is that homosexuality is not a choice, and also that "it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change" - the social factors you describe occur too late in development to make a significant impact, except insofar as the acceptability of homosexuality is concerned (social pressures can cause some gay people to repress their desires, as was common in past ages).

My point with the Money study wasn't about gender identity, but about sexual orientation. Yes, the subject was male, but so are gay men.
Part of raising the boy as a girl was pushing him to be attracted to boys, and since his peers thought he was a girl, they would have expected the same of him. I'm saying despite enormous socio-environmental pressure, the subject did not end up being attracted to men (as girls usually are), and kept his innate sexuality.
The social and environmental pressure on him was much greater than on the average teenager, but it still didn't change his sexuality.
Homosexuality isn't just a high school clique, you know. It's a characteristic.

Yes, modern culture has made homosexuality more acceptable than before, but that doesn't mean it creates homosexuality. There were gay people all throughout history, including in times and places where homosexuality was grounds for ostracization and persecution, even execution. You don't hear about them as much because they weren't "out", for obvious reasons. In the literary realm, it's now widely known that Thomas Mann and Oscar Wilde were at least bisexual, possibly straight-up homosexual. Shakespeare is speculated to be bisexual as well. Truman Capote was openly gay in an era where people would commonly be fired for being gay, or considered mentally ill.
User avatar #10 to #9 - coloredfolks (02/15/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link

please read that. i mean just read it. all of it. i think one thing you will get from that, if nothing else, is that the gay agenda has spread so far as to influence studies and even bias their outcomes. it is sad.

he also says he found it strange that parents can influence so many facets of their children's lives -- but not in any way their sexual orientation. hey, im on that side of that argument. that explains why "the general scientific consensus is that homosexuality is not a choice, and also that "it is a human characteristic that is formed early in life, and is resistant to change" - the social factors you describe occur too late in development to make a significant impact, except insofar as the acceptability of homosexuality is concerned (social pressures can cause some gay people to repress their desires, as was common in past ages)."

to me, every single one fo your arguments can be solved by looking at the agenda of those behind the push. i will say it again. it is about the acceptance of a sexual fetish into modern culture. and if it takes marriage and tv shows and mass media behind it, then that is what the gay agenda will get. Because nowadays it is all about tolerance and acceptance and loving people. Those kind of practices lead to doom.

despite enormous socio-environmental pressure, the subject did not end up being attracted to men (as girls usually are), and kept his innate sexuality

all this proves is that sometimes, even with all of your social pressures to be gay and accept your true identity, the real truth still wins out. i know homosexuality is not a clique, but it does function in a similar way. it makes one feel accepted and gives an identity to those who are searching. it absolutely is not a genetic characteristic.

i never said that modern culture created homosexuality. im just saying it is more accessible as an identity.
User avatar #11 to #10 - Ruspanic (02/15/2013) [-]
Thanks for the article, it's an interesting read.
It's to be expected that gay parents will produce more openly gay kids because there would be less pressure to conform to the heterosexual social norms, but that's not a sufficient explanation for such a strong correlation. There are almost certainly not that many non-heterosexuals (open + closeted) in the general population.

I tried to look up responses to this study, but virtually all the results were either clearly pro-gay websites ridiculing it on tenuous grounds, or clearly anti-gay websites using it to bolster their own biases. If you find a reputable, reasonably objective scientific response to it, please let me know. I'd be interested in reading it.

A note about lesbianism: as you may know, female sexuality is somewhat different from male sexuality, in general. Women are less aroused by visual stimuli such as appearance, for example, which is why women don't typically watch porn. Straight women are also less opposed to intimate contact with other women, than men are with other men (whether this is cultural or inherent, I don't know). Therefore lesbianism may in some cases be different in its causes and essence from male homosexuality. That's why some women claim to have "become lesbian" because they hate men, or because women make better partners and friends, or something to that effect. gay men, by contrast, often enjoy the company of the opposite sex while not finding them sexually attractive (no stats here, just experience). Accounting for this form of lesbianism may explain Schumm's study shows especially strong correlations for lesbian parents and female children.

"the gay agenda has spread so far as to influence studies and even bias their outcomes"
No **** . All scientists have some sort of bias, and it's very common to find studies by people who were already partial to one side of the issue. You don't think your side does this as well? Regnerus's study was funded by the anti-gay Witherspoon institute. I'm fairly certain they weren't trying to seek an objective truth.

So this study does appear to contradict my beliefs, as well as the implications of many other studies' findings. I don't know enough about his methods to question them, though, so I'll leave that alone. But since I have no reason to accept this study as more valid than the numerous others on homosexuality, my views remain unchanged.

"it absolutely is not a genetic characteristic."
What makes you think this is so implausible? True, a gay gene hasn't been isolated, but that doesn't rule out the possibility. And there are other biological factors that could play a major role, such as hormones. Hormones do, after all, largely account for the behavior differences between men and women.
As I've said before, the influences you suggest do not seem nearly strong enough to cause such a dramatic change.

"nowadays it is all about tolerance and acceptance and loving people. Those kind of practices lead to doom."
I'm sorry, what? Why?
User avatar #12 to #11 - coloredfolks (02/16/2013) [-]
All scientists have some sort of bias, and it's very common to find studies by people who were already partial to one side of the issue. You don't think your side does this as well?

i hear you loud and clear. and i think we could sit here and cite study after study but in the end it comes down to our opinions for the most part. And like i have said multiple times i will never accept the general opinion or mass consensus.

i mean neither of us is an idiot and we both are educated. It is simply a matter of opinion.

and about the tolerance and acceptance leading to doom, i have a very charged view of that subject. it spreads further than homosexuality into feminine rights, the disintegration of gender roles, family life, the federal governments' involvement and many other things. i appreciate you talking me to like a normal human not simply calling me bigotted or racist. I really am neither. just this morning i hiked a mountain with a gay group and i live with a black kid. i really dont ned to validate myself but sometimes it is good to let people know that I am not just the WASP that i come across as. thanks ruspanic
User avatar #13 to #12 - Ruspanic (02/17/2013) [-]
No worries, bro. It was a fun debate.
User avatar #3 to #2 - coloredfolks (02/14/2013) [-]
Even if they did somehow choose to be gay, what of it? People choose who to marry all the time, and we allow them to make those decisions, even if we disapprove of their choices.
The commitment a gay man makes to his partner, or a lesbian to hers, when getting married is identical to the commitment made by straight couples.


see this is where it gets tricky, its never as clear cut as people want to make it (equal rights for all!), because in todays culture where there are equal rights movements for all kinds of ideologies, homosexuals have gay marriage as a pedestal that they can prop their gay agenda on (acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream america). its not about "love" (i showed you two gay men that had a study that showed that they had open relationships meaning that while they were "committed" one man they enjoyed the benefits of their lifestyle (SEX and lots of it-the reason for homosexuality in the first place)). So marriage is just a tool that they use.
User avatar #5 to #3 - Ruspanic (02/14/2013) [-]
Yes, obviously gay people want homosexuality to be socially acceptable. Don't present this as some nefarious agenda, of course they do! If they're gay, why wouldn't they want to be socially accepted by the mainstream culture?

But marriage is a parallel issue, not a "tool". They want to get married for the same reasons straight people want to get married. I don't understand why that's hard to believe.
 Friends (0)