Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Triskiller    

Triskiller Avatar Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to Triskiller Block Triskiller Invite Triskiller to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:11/16/2010
Last Login:7/24/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 1940 total,  2334 ,  394
Comment Thumbs: 2840 total,  3619 ,  779
Content Level Progress: 39% (39/100)
Level 119 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 120 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 41% (41/100)
Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 229 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:83784
Times Content Favorited:69 times
Total Comments Made:3920
FJ Points:5089
Favorite Tags: the (3) | are (2) | meme (2) | tags (2) | These (2) | trains (2)

latest user's comments

#23238 - Welp, you caught me. I'm actually a rapist and I would like to…  [+] (3 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... -1
User avatar #23353 - lecherouslad (02/10/2013) [-]
The rapist himself was probably a victim himself, it's a vicious cycle.

It's difficult to maintain a position on this, because if you opine that the woman SHOULD not just defend herself, but exceed necessity and KILL her attacker, are you not saying that the value of life is meretricious, and submissive to revenge?

But if there is no way to rehabilitate the wounded attacker, to correct his behavior and he becomes a recidivist, isn't it better to annihilate the threat to society Before? slippery slope...
User avatar #23278 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
Look, the rape stats weigh heavily towards man on woman. Men, on average, are FAR stronger than women. There has to be some equalizer, and until we come up with a semi-automatic magazine-fed Tazer, women are only really left with lethal options as an almost reliable way to defend themselves against a physically stronger adversary.

I'm all for the preservation of life, but ugly choices have to be made. The world is filled with beautiful, amazing things, but it isn't perfect. There are people out there who do bad things. There are some straight-up bad people.
User avatar #23276 - akkere (02/10/2013) [-]
I don't see what I said to make you cause your first sentence; the only one twisting things is you.

You did exactly say she should "deal with it" in perfect context, and I even brought it up the first comment I made as a chance for you to clarify what that means, and you just simply said "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.."

Restating it as "the situation should be dealt with" does absolutely nothing to clarify it even further, and just circles it back to the original point: How can she deal with it if she does not have the ability to do so other than simply sit through and go through the memory constanty
OR, what if she can't deal with it at all because the rapist now has the ability to freely kidnap the said victim at hand and use them for their desires wherever they keep them?
Saying "the situation should be dealt with" is NOT an answer to that.

Again, you push this "human life" nonsense, but you never expound on what exactly makes the human life so relevant to allow someone to live in a world as much as a child would. This is someone that has gone out of their way to treat the value of someone else's life (sound familiar?) as nothing more than a toy for their desires.

It's not a matter of the fact it's an act of misconduct, it's the DEGREE of the misconduct performed; this is why a shop lifter doesn't get shot on the premises without having people look at the shooter going "What the fuck man?" unless they were doing so violently.
Likewise, this is a rape, an offense, the manipulation of someone else's body in a negative manner that often causes the victim to fall prisoner to their assailant, and if they do not have the capability to defend themselves in any other manner, then they cannot "deal" with it.

Just saying "it's a human life" is completely irrational and a total fallacy, and you doing nothing but putting your hands up does NOTHING to help your case. So go ahead and "be done", if that's the most you can give to this discussion, then so be it.
#23236 - I'm not insinuating she shouldn't use a gun to defend herself,…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... -2
User avatar #23265 - aceofshadows (02/10/2013) [-]
Anybody who would do something as disgusting as raping a woman has no value.

I would consider it a duty for any woman being raped to wipe the fucker off the face of the earth.
User avatar #23237 - akkere (02/09/2013) [-]
You seem to be under the belief that a rapist is still entitled to being valued as a normal, innocent human being, even after violating someone in a sexual manner for their own crude desires.

And actually, yeah, you are saying she should take it like a pro when you said she should just "deal with it". If she can't defend herself because she does not have the physical ability to finesse to do so without being armed, she's left at the mercy of someone who could very well make the rape longer than just 30 seconds, nevermind if the rapist decides to turn around and kidnap her for more than just one session.

Does the rapist have the same value as the woman he raped, then? Or even, the same value as a child?
User avatar #23238 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Welp, you caught me. I'm actually a rapist and I would like to be valued as a human being and not be killed when I try to get my sexual kicks.

I never said she should "deal with it." I said the situation should be dealt with, you automatically imply that I mean the rapee should just deal with it.

Just stop twisting my point into something it's not. I'm saying rape does not necessitate murder. And I hold on to that belief. The fact that this is even being discussed in this manner is quite disgusting to me.

A rapist is by no means an innocent man, but it does not devalue a human life to indulge in an act of disconduct. It's still a human life. Get that through your head.

I'm very much done discussing this issue, because you are no doubt going to not take anything I previously said into account and put words in my mouth that I did not say. After that you are going to attack me for saying that specific thing which I did not say and then you are going to make assumptions on that notion that have no connection to my statements whatsoever.
User avatar #23353 - lecherouslad (02/10/2013) [-]
The rapist himself was probably a victim himself, it's a vicious cycle.

It's difficult to maintain a position on this, because if you opine that the woman SHOULD not just defend herself, but exceed necessity and KILL her attacker, are you not saying that the value of life is meretricious, and submissive to revenge?

But if there is no way to rehabilitate the wounded attacker, to correct his behavior and he becomes a recidivist, isn't it better to annihilate the threat to society Before? slippery slope...
User avatar #23278 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
Look, the rape stats weigh heavily towards man on woman. Men, on average, are FAR stronger than women. There has to be some equalizer, and until we come up with a semi-automatic magazine-fed Tazer, women are only really left with lethal options as an almost reliable way to defend themselves against a physically stronger adversary.

I'm all for the preservation of life, but ugly choices have to be made. The world is filled with beautiful, amazing things, but it isn't perfect. There are people out there who do bad things. There are some straight-up bad people.
User avatar #23276 - akkere (02/10/2013) [-]
I don't see what I said to make you cause your first sentence; the only one twisting things is you.

You did exactly say she should "deal with it" in perfect context, and I even brought it up the first comment I made as a chance for you to clarify what that means, and you just simply said "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.."

Restating it as "the situation should be dealt with" does absolutely nothing to clarify it even further, and just circles it back to the original point: How can she deal with it if she does not have the ability to do so other than simply sit through and go through the memory constanty
OR, what if she can't deal with it at all because the rapist now has the ability to freely kidnap the said victim at hand and use them for their desires wherever they keep them?
Saying "the situation should be dealt with" is NOT an answer to that.

Again, you push this "human life" nonsense, but you never expound on what exactly makes the human life so relevant to allow someone to live in a world as much as a child would. This is someone that has gone out of their way to treat the value of someone else's life (sound familiar?) as nothing more than a toy for their desires.

It's not a matter of the fact it's an act of misconduct, it's the DEGREE of the misconduct performed; this is why a shop lifter doesn't get shot on the premises without having people look at the shooter going "What the fuck man?" unless they were doing so violently.
Likewise, this is a rape, an offense, the manipulation of someone else's body in a negative manner that often causes the victim to fall prisoner to their assailant, and if they do not have the capability to defend themselves in any other manner, then they cannot "deal" with it.

Just saying "it's a human life" is completely irrational and a total fallacy, and you doing nothing but putting your hands up does NOTHING to help your case. So go ahead and "be done", if that's the most you can give to this discussion, then so be it.
#23229 - Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.. Do you even re…  [+] (8 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... -2
User avatar #23233 - akkere (02/09/2013) [-]
No, that's exactly what you're saying, because you're insinuating that she shouldn't use a gun to defend herself if it's going to lead to the death of the rapist, because apparently the death of a rapist is worse than the rape of an innocent woman.

Do you even listen to your own logic?
User avatar #23236 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
I'm not insinuating she shouldn't use a gun to defend herself, I'm outright saying it. You're insinuating I mean she shouldn't defend herself. The death of a rapist is still the death of a human being, how fucking hard is dat to understand? It's not like I'm asking the rapist to rape her, it's not like I'm telling her to just take it like a pro. I'm saying that rape does no justify murder, neither should it.

You really have a hard time grasping the concept of the value of a human life over there in America, even if it is a rapist.
User avatar #23265 - aceofshadows (02/10/2013) [-]
Anybody who would do something as disgusting as raping a woman has no value.

I would consider it a duty for any woman being raped to wipe the fucker off the face of the earth.
User avatar #23237 - akkere (02/09/2013) [-]
You seem to be under the belief that a rapist is still entitled to being valued as a normal, innocent human being, even after violating someone in a sexual manner for their own crude desires.

And actually, yeah, you are saying she should take it like a pro when you said she should just "deal with it". If she can't defend herself because she does not have the physical ability to finesse to do so without being armed, she's left at the mercy of someone who could very well make the rape longer than just 30 seconds, nevermind if the rapist decides to turn around and kidnap her for more than just one session.

Does the rapist have the same value as the woman he raped, then? Or even, the same value as a child?
User avatar #23238 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Welp, you caught me. I'm actually a rapist and I would like to be valued as a human being and not be killed when I try to get my sexual kicks.

I never said she should "deal with it." I said the situation should be dealt with, you automatically imply that I mean the rapee should just deal with it.

Just stop twisting my point into something it's not. I'm saying rape does not necessitate murder. And I hold on to that belief. The fact that this is even being discussed in this manner is quite disgusting to me.

A rapist is by no means an innocent man, but it does not devalue a human life to indulge in an act of disconduct. It's still a human life. Get that through your head.

I'm very much done discussing this issue, because you are no doubt going to not take anything I previously said into account and put words in my mouth that I did not say. After that you are going to attack me for saying that specific thing which I did not say and then you are going to make assumptions on that notion that have no connection to my statements whatsoever.
User avatar #23353 - lecherouslad (02/10/2013) [-]
The rapist himself was probably a victim himself, it's a vicious cycle.

It's difficult to maintain a position on this, because if you opine that the woman SHOULD not just defend herself, but exceed necessity and KILL her attacker, are you not saying that the value of life is meretricious, and submissive to revenge?

But if there is no way to rehabilitate the wounded attacker, to correct his behavior and he becomes a recidivist, isn't it better to annihilate the threat to society Before? slippery slope...
User avatar #23278 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
Look, the rape stats weigh heavily towards man on woman. Men, on average, are FAR stronger than women. There has to be some equalizer, and until we come up with a semi-automatic magazine-fed Tazer, women are only really left with lethal options as an almost reliable way to defend themselves against a physically stronger adversary.

I'm all for the preservation of life, but ugly choices have to be made. The world is filled with beautiful, amazing things, but it isn't perfect. There are people out there who do bad things. There are some straight-up bad people.
User avatar #23276 - akkere (02/10/2013) [-]
I don't see what I said to make you cause your first sentence; the only one twisting things is you.

You did exactly say she should "deal with it" in perfect context, and I even brought it up the first comment I made as a chance for you to clarify what that means, and you just simply said "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.."

Restating it as "the situation should be dealt with" does absolutely nothing to clarify it even further, and just circles it back to the original point: How can she deal with it if she does not have the ability to do so other than simply sit through and go through the memory constanty
OR, what if she can't deal with it at all because the rapist now has the ability to freely kidnap the said victim at hand and use them for their desires wherever they keep them?
Saying "the situation should be dealt with" is NOT an answer to that.

Again, you push this "human life" nonsense, but you never expound on what exactly makes the human life so relevant to allow someone to live in a world as much as a child would. This is someone that has gone out of their way to treat the value of someone else's life (sound familiar?) as nothing more than a toy for their desires.

It's not a matter of the fact it's an act of misconduct, it's the DEGREE of the misconduct performed; this is why a shop lifter doesn't get shot on the premises without having people look at the shooter going "What the fuck man?" unless they were doing so violently.
Likewise, this is a rape, an offense, the manipulation of someone else's body in a negative manner that often causes the victim to fall prisoner to their assailant, and if they do not have the capability to defend themselves in any other manner, then they cannot "deal" with it.

Just saying "it's a human life" is completely irrational and a total fallacy, and you doing nothing but putting your hands up does NOTHING to help your case. So go ahead and "be done", if that's the most you can give to this discussion, then so be it.
#23199 - Do you have an inherent problem with me because I dislike the … 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#23197 - So what's the exchange rate on rape for murder these days? …  [+] (1 new reply) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #23275 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
Neither is rape.

That shit can ruin lives.
#23196 - But it does work. India used peaceful protest to get rid of th…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... -1
User avatar #23282 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
How did Tiananmen Square start out again?
#23193 - No, she is not. Rape is a delicate issue in and of itself. Sex…  [+] (10 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... -3
User avatar #23212 - akkere (02/09/2013) [-]
"She should just deal with being raped" is basically what you're saying.
User avatar #23229 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying..

Do you even read the things you reply to? I'm saying rape does not justify murder, I'm not saying she should let herself get raped.
User avatar #23233 - akkere (02/09/2013) [-]
No, that's exactly what you're saying, because you're insinuating that she shouldn't use a gun to defend herself if it's going to lead to the death of the rapist, because apparently the death of a rapist is worse than the rape of an innocent woman.

Do you even listen to your own logic?
User avatar #23236 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
I'm not insinuating she shouldn't use a gun to defend herself, I'm outright saying it. You're insinuating I mean she shouldn't defend herself. The death of a rapist is still the death of a human being, how fucking hard is dat to understand? It's not like I'm asking the rapist to rape her, it's not like I'm telling her to just take it like a pro. I'm saying that rape does no justify murder, neither should it.

You really have a hard time grasping the concept of the value of a human life over there in America, even if it is a rapist.
User avatar #23265 - aceofshadows (02/10/2013) [-]
Anybody who would do something as disgusting as raping a woman has no value.

I would consider it a duty for any woman being raped to wipe the fucker off the face of the earth.
User avatar #23237 - akkere (02/09/2013) [-]
You seem to be under the belief that a rapist is still entitled to being valued as a normal, innocent human being, even after violating someone in a sexual manner for their own crude desires.

And actually, yeah, you are saying she should take it like a pro when you said she should just "deal with it". If she can't defend herself because she does not have the physical ability to finesse to do so without being armed, she's left at the mercy of someone who could very well make the rape longer than just 30 seconds, nevermind if the rapist decides to turn around and kidnap her for more than just one session.

Does the rapist have the same value as the woman he raped, then? Or even, the same value as a child?
User avatar #23238 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Welp, you caught me. I'm actually a rapist and I would like to be valued as a human being and not be killed when I try to get my sexual kicks.

I never said she should "deal with it." I said the situation should be dealt with, you automatically imply that I mean the rapee should just deal with it.

Just stop twisting my point into something it's not. I'm saying rape does not necessitate murder. And I hold on to that belief. The fact that this is even being discussed in this manner is quite disgusting to me.

A rapist is by no means an innocent man, but it does not devalue a human life to indulge in an act of disconduct. It's still a human life. Get that through your head.

I'm very much done discussing this issue, because you are no doubt going to not take anything I previously said into account and put words in my mouth that I did not say. After that you are going to attack me for saying that specific thing which I did not say and then you are going to make assumptions on that notion that have no connection to my statements whatsoever.
User avatar #23353 - lecherouslad (02/10/2013) [-]
The rapist himself was probably a victim himself, it's a vicious cycle.

It's difficult to maintain a position on this, because if you opine that the woman SHOULD not just defend herself, but exceed necessity and KILL her attacker, are you not saying that the value of life is meretricious, and submissive to revenge?

But if there is no way to rehabilitate the wounded attacker, to correct his behavior and he becomes a recidivist, isn't it better to annihilate the threat to society Before? slippery slope...
User avatar #23278 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
Look, the rape stats weigh heavily towards man on woman. Men, on average, are FAR stronger than women. There has to be some equalizer, and until we come up with a semi-automatic magazine-fed Tazer, women are only really left with lethal options as an almost reliable way to defend themselves against a physically stronger adversary.

I'm all for the preservation of life, but ugly choices have to be made. The world is filled with beautiful, amazing things, but it isn't perfect. There are people out there who do bad things. There are some straight-up bad people.
User avatar #23276 - akkere (02/10/2013) [-]
I don't see what I said to make you cause your first sentence; the only one twisting things is you.

You did exactly say she should "deal with it" in perfect context, and I even brought it up the first comment I made as a chance for you to clarify what that means, and you just simply said "Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.."

Restating it as "the situation should be dealt with" does absolutely nothing to clarify it even further, and just circles it back to the original point: How can she deal with it if she does not have the ability to do so other than simply sit through and go through the memory constanty
OR, what if she can't deal with it at all because the rapist now has the ability to freely kidnap the said victim at hand and use them for their desires wherever they keep them?
Saying "the situation should be dealt with" is NOT an answer to that.

Again, you push this "human life" nonsense, but you never expound on what exactly makes the human life so relevant to allow someone to live in a world as much as a child would. This is someone that has gone out of their way to treat the value of someone else's life (sound familiar?) as nothing more than a toy for their desires.

It's not a matter of the fact it's an act of misconduct, it's the DEGREE of the misconduct performed; this is why a shop lifter doesn't get shot on the premises without having people look at the shooter going "What the fuck man?" unless they were doing so violently.
Likewise, this is a rape, an offense, the manipulation of someone else's body in a negative manner that often causes the victim to fall prisoner to their assailant, and if they do not have the capability to defend themselves in any other manner, then they cannot "deal" with it.

Just saying "it's a human life" is completely irrational and a total fallacy, and you doing nothing but putting your hands up does NOTHING to help your case. So go ahead and "be done", if that's the most you can give to this discussion, then so be it.
#23191 - Then that's an entirely different argument to be had. I agree …  [+] (2 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #23198 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
yes, who are you indeed.
you need to go to a shooting range and have some fun.
User avatar #23199 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Do you have an inherent problem with me because I dislike the use of guns?

I have been to a shooting range, not my cup of tea.
#23187 - And she would be. Again, weighing those things against each ot…  [+] (4 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... -5
User avatar #23194 - pebar (02/09/2013) [-]
Actually it does, if the person getting raped has reason to believe her life is in danger or she is at risk of serious injury, she can legally kill her attacker (assuming the attack is still going on and she doesn't shoot him in the back while he's leaving).
User avatar #23197 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
So what's the exchange rate on rape for murder these days?

I jest.

I did not mean to imply that the woman getting raped deserves to be raped, I'm just saying I don't agree with rape constituting murder. Murder is not a thing to take lightly.
User avatar #23275 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
Neither is rape.

That shit can ruin lives.
User avatar #23190 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
rape is murder as far as i'm concerned.
psychologically devastating.
#23186 - You still have the right to defend yourself, just not with let…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #23188 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
i'll kill anyone that breaks into my home.
they took the risk when they broke in.
When concealed carrying a gun, if you pull it, you have to kill them.
or shoot to kill.
#23184 - Well, it's factual that 30 seconds is a lot shorter than... we…  [+] (6 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... -4
User avatar #23185 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
it's calling her a murderer if she kills her attacker.
User avatar #23187 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
And she would be. Again, weighing those things against each other is stupid in and of itself. Rape does not justify murder.
User avatar #23194 - pebar (02/09/2013) [-]
Actually it does, if the person getting raped has reason to believe her life is in danger or she is at risk of serious injury, she can legally kill her attacker (assuming the attack is still going on and she doesn't shoot him in the back while he's leaving).
User avatar #23197 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
So what's the exchange rate on rape for murder these days?

I jest.

I did not mean to imply that the woman getting raped deserves to be raped, I'm just saying I don't agree with rape constituting murder. Murder is not a thing to take lightly.
User avatar #23275 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
Neither is rape.

That shit can ruin lives.
User avatar #23190 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
rape is murder as far as i'm concerned.
psychologically devastating.
#23183 - I haven't seen any charts on knife related incidents in the UK…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #23345 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
There are two words I hate in that last line: "... will not ..."

All of these scenarios are "What if?"s. You can argue that someone would be able to defend themselves just as easily as you can argue that they couldn't. They are inherently unknowable, because every encounter has multiple unknowable factors at play. That's the nature of the future. You can't use the prospect of a possible futility to justify stripping someone of a means of POTENTIALLY protecting themselves.
#23181 - Where do you think those weapons in Mexico come from? I'd say … 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#23178 - Peaceful whom band together vocally, speaking out to the world… 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... -1
#23177 - So resistance in general is futile, don't we live in a dreamy … 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#23175 - Resorting to insults, how nice. You're not trying to …  [+] (3 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... -1
User avatar #23179 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
no, it was set forth as a human right to defend himself.

do you think the chinese have the same rights?
can they own guns? of course they can't.
their government fears revolution.
User avatar #23186 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
You still have the right to defend yourself, just not with lethal force. Because killing a man because he wants to hurt you is a bit silly to me.
User avatar #23188 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
i'll kill anyone that breaks into my home.
they took the risk when they broke in.
When concealed carrying a gun, if you pull it, you have to kill them.
or shoot to kill.
#23172 - This black and white way of looking at the problem at hand is …  [+] (3 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#23180 - pebar (02/09/2013) [-]
If there were no guns, people would choose the next most popular weapon, which would be knives (like in the UK where knife crimes are off the charts). In that case you could run, but there's a good chance the attacker could just chase you down. If you stand your ground, which a lot of states have laws that say you can, then it would become a battle of skill, in which case the attacker would probably win.

Guns are considered to be "the great equalizer." If a 100 lb woman is attacked and raped by a 250 lb man, she could defend herself with a gun; you can't really do that with any other weapon.
User avatar #23183 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
I haven't seen any charts on knife related incidents in the UK being off the charts, so I'm not going to comment on that. I know that they have a lot of violent crime, on par with the USA, but they have lot less deaths related to them. The higher consequence of death is one thing that guns add to normal crime rates.

If a 100lb woman is attacked by a 250lb man she will not be able to protect herself with a gun, if he takes her by surprise. That gun will only add to the likelihood of her getting killed herself.
User avatar #23345 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
There are two words I hate in that last line: "... will not ..."

All of these scenarios are "What if?"s. You can argue that someone would be able to defend themselves just as easily as you can argue that they couldn't. They are inherently unknowable, because every encounter has multiple unknowable factors at play. That's the nature of the future. You can't use the prospect of a possible futility to justify stripping someone of a means of POTENTIALLY protecting themselves.
#23170 - Different times. We're talking about this day and age. A day a…  [+] (2 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar #23174 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
tell that to the people in egypt and syria.
User avatar #23178 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Peaceful whom band together vocally, speaking out to the world, trying to protect their basic human rights without violating those of others? It might take a while, but look at India and that peaceful protest, and how that ended. A lot better than another bloody revolt.
#23168 - In a time where the second amendment is outdated, yes.  [+] (5 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #23173 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
i can't stand that retarded argument.
the 2A will always be as relevant as the First, or any other.
the second was meant to defend the rest.
if the 2a is removed, whats stopping anyone from changing the rest?
no more free speech.
no more right to a fair trial.
no more privacy in your own home.

oh, but all that is out dated anyway.
who needs to speak freely, or have any privacy in this day and age?
User avatar #23175 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Resorting to insults, how nice.

You're not trying to have a normal conversation with me, you're using straw man arguments to pull this discussion in your favor. Human rights are protected by more than just the constitution, those will stay in place no matter what. Freedom to speech, freedom to fair trial, freedom to privacy (though we have very little this day and age). They will not be contested.

Though owning guns is not one of those basic human rights, it's a privillage that's no longer necessary.
User avatar #23179 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
no, it was set forth as a human right to defend himself.

do you think the chinese have the same rights?
can they own guns? of course they can't.
their government fears revolution.
User avatar #23186 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
You still have the right to defend yourself, just not with lethal force. Because killing a man because he wants to hurt you is a bit silly to me.
User avatar #23188 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
i'll kill anyone that breaks into my home.
they took the risk when they broke in.
When concealed carrying a gun, if you pull it, you have to kill them.
or shoot to kill.
#23167 - I see loads of smart people on both sides of the fence, loads …  [+] (5 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... +1
#23171 - pebar (02/09/2013) [-]
I think this explains it well enough
User avatar #23172 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
This black and white way of looking at the problem at hand is what's keeping this debate going. There is not just two ways to shield yourself from an attack, there are also many variables that come with an attack. These variables include whether the culprit is likely to carry a gun. If the culprit takes you by surprise, which is highly likely because otherwise you could just run away, you aren't very likely to shoot him either.
#23180 - pebar (02/09/2013) [-]
If there were no guns, people would choose the next most popular weapon, which would be knives (like in the UK where knife crimes are off the charts). In that case you could run, but there's a good chance the attacker could just chase you down. If you stand your ground, which a lot of states have laws that say you can, then it would become a battle of skill, in which case the attacker would probably win.

Guns are considered to be "the great equalizer." If a 100 lb woman is attacked and raped by a 250 lb man, she could defend herself with a gun; you can't really do that with any other weapon.
User avatar #23183 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
I haven't seen any charts on knife related incidents in the UK being off the charts, so I'm not going to comment on that. I know that they have a lot of violent crime, on par with the USA, but they have lot less deaths related to them. The higher consequence of death is one thing that guns add to normal crime rates.

If a 100lb woman is attacked by a 250lb man she will not be able to protect herself with a gun, if he takes her by surprise. That gun will only add to the likelihood of her getting killed herself.
User avatar #23345 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
There are two words I hate in that last line: "... will not ..."

All of these scenarios are "What if?"s. You can argue that someone would be able to defend themselves just as easily as you can argue that they couldn't. They are inherently unknowable, because every encounter has multiple unknowable factors at play. That's the nature of the future. You can't use the prospect of a possible futility to justify stripping someone of a means of POTENTIALLY protecting themselves.
#23162 - You're precisely the type that legeslation should be put in to…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #23165 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
oh, because i'll be using it for the purpose the 2A was written.
User avatar #23168 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
In a time where the second amendment is outdated, yes.
User avatar #23173 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
i can't stand that retarded argument.
the 2A will always be as relevant as the First, or any other.
the second was meant to defend the rest.
if the 2a is removed, whats stopping anyone from changing the rest?
no more free speech.
no more right to a fair trial.
no more privacy in your own home.

oh, but all that is out dated anyway.
who needs to speak freely, or have any privacy in this day and age?
User avatar #23175 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Resorting to insults, how nice.

You're not trying to have a normal conversation with me, you're using straw man arguments to pull this discussion in your favor. Human rights are protected by more than just the constitution, those will stay in place no matter what. Freedom to speech, freedom to fair trial, freedom to privacy (though we have very little this day and age). They will not be contested.

Though owning guns is not one of those basic human rights, it's a privillage that's no longer necessary.
User avatar #23179 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
no, it was set forth as a human right to defend himself.

do you think the chinese have the same rights?
can they own guns? of course they can't.
their government fears revolution.
User avatar #23186 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
You still have the right to defend yourself, just not with lethal force. Because killing a man because he wants to hurt you is a bit silly to me.
User avatar #23188 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
i'll kill anyone that breaks into my home.
they took the risk when they broke in.
When concealed carrying a gun, if you pull it, you have to kill them.
or shoot to kill.
#23159 - If the government tries to take your guns away, will you use y…  [+] (15 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #23166 - pebar (02/09/2013) [-]
A lot of people would. The battle of Lexington and Concord, the battle that started the revolutionary war, was started when the British were given orders to seize all military arms in order to quell what was then a simple rebellion.
User avatar #23220 - CapnInterwebz (02/09/2013) [-]
I hadn't realized a rebellion was at hand
User avatar #23222 - pebar (02/09/2013) [-]
Have you seen Texas and the Utah sheriff's department?
User avatar #23170 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Different times. We're talking about this day and age. A day and age where the people can speak up to their leaders, but taking up arms is futile.
User avatar #23174 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
tell that to the people in egypt and syria.
User avatar #23178 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Peaceful whom band together vocally, speaking out to the world, trying to protect their basic human rights without violating those of others? It might take a while, but look at India and that peaceful protest, and how that ended. A lot better than another bloody revolt.
User avatar #23161 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
yep.
"OMG RIGHT WING PSYCHOPATH!!!"
i don't care. i'll die in a shoot out with ATF agents.
User avatar #23162 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
You're precisely the type that legeslation should be put in to place for, to keep you away from guns.
User avatar #23165 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
oh, because i'll be using it for the purpose the 2A was written.
User avatar #23168 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
In a time where the second amendment is outdated, yes.
User avatar #23173 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
i can't stand that retarded argument.
the 2A will always be as relevant as the First, or any other.
the second was meant to defend the rest.
if the 2a is removed, whats stopping anyone from changing the rest?
no more free speech.
no more right to a fair trial.
no more privacy in your own home.

oh, but all that is out dated anyway.
who needs to speak freely, or have any privacy in this day and age?
User avatar #23175 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Resorting to insults, how nice.

You're not trying to have a normal conversation with me, you're using straw man arguments to pull this discussion in your favor. Human rights are protected by more than just the constitution, those will stay in place no matter what. Freedom to speech, freedom to fair trial, freedom to privacy (though we have very little this day and age). They will not be contested.

Though owning guns is not one of those basic human rights, it's a privillage that's no longer necessary.
User avatar #23179 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
no, it was set forth as a human right to defend himself.

do you think the chinese have the same rights?
can they own guns? of course they can't.
their government fears revolution.
User avatar #23186 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
You still have the right to defend yourself, just not with lethal force. Because killing a man because he wants to hurt you is a bit silly to me.
User avatar #23188 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
i'll kill anyone that breaks into my home.
they took the risk when they broke in.
When concealed carrying a gun, if you pull it, you have to kill them.
or shoot to kill.
#23157 - Look at it this way: You can spare those 300 people the troubl…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #23163 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
i won't look at it that way, because that is fucking retarded.
most of that 300, in a NATION OF MILLIONS were killed by hunting-type guns
#23156 - The second amendment was put into place in different times, th…  [+] (7 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... +2
User avatar #23160 - pebar (02/09/2013) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ8L7nqL1rs
Watch this video. This guy wrote a book about it. He is a well-respected economist with a PhD so he knows his stuff.
User avatar #23167 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
I see loads of smart people on both sides of the fence, loads of documents, loads of studies, loads of everything pointing both ways, but that really doesn't matter to me at this point. I watched the video, mostly, and he seems like a reasonable man, but I'm not trying to say you're not reasonable. I just fail to see how guns, weapons, freely accesible to the public can make anyone feel safe.
#23171 - pebar (02/09/2013) [-]
I think this explains it well enough
User avatar #23172 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
This black and white way of looking at the problem at hand is what's keeping this debate going. There is not just two ways to shield yourself from an attack, there are also many variables that come with an attack. These variables include whether the culprit is likely to carry a gun. If the culprit takes you by surprise, which is highly likely because otherwise you could just run away, you aren't very likely to shoot him either.
#23180 - pebar (02/09/2013) [-]
If there were no guns, people would choose the next most popular weapon, which would be knives (like in the UK where knife crimes are off the charts). In that case you could run, but there's a good chance the attacker could just chase you down. If you stand your ground, which a lot of states have laws that say you can, then it would become a battle of skill, in which case the attacker would probably win.

Guns are considered to be "the great equalizer." If a 100 lb woman is attacked and raped by a 250 lb man, she could defend herself with a gun; you can't really do that with any other weapon.
User avatar #23183 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
I haven't seen any charts on knife related incidents in the UK being off the charts, so I'm not going to comment on that. I know that they have a lot of violent crime, on par with the USA, but they have lot less deaths related to them. The higher consequence of death is one thing that guns add to normal crime rates.

If a 100lb woman is attacked by a 250lb man she will not be able to protect herself with a gun, if he takes her by surprise. That gun will only add to the likelihood of her getting killed herself.
User avatar #23345 - Zarke (02/10/2013) [-]
There are two words I hate in that last line: "... will not ..."

All of these scenarios are "What if?"s. You can argue that someone would be able to defend themselves just as easily as you can argue that they couldn't. They are inherently unknowable, because every encounter has multiple unknowable factors at play. That's the nature of the future. You can't use the prospect of a possible futility to justify stripping someone of a means of POTENTIALLY protecting themselves.
#23153 - "Because I want it, and it's my right to have it." …  [+] (3 new replies) 02/09/2013 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #23155 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
because you're an idiot and you don't understand our 2A rights.
every year, about 300 people are killed with long guns.
a fraction of that are scary assault weapons.
so, by banning them, what are you achieving besides infringing on my rights?
User avatar #23157 - Triskiller (02/09/2013) [-]
Look at it this way: You can spare those 300 people the trouble of dying by giving up your right to own a weapon you don't need.
User avatar #23163 - paintbucket (02/09/2013) [-]
i won't look at it that way, because that is fucking retarded.
most of that 300, in a NATION OF MILLIONS were killed by hunting-type guns
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 650

Comments(165):

[ 165 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #194 - nekoyas (01/04/2014) [-]
< 3
User avatar #196 to #195 - nekoyas (01/04/2014) [-]
whats good
User avatar #197 to #196 - Triskiller (01/04/2014) [-]
Pretty much everything, how about you?
User avatar #184 - indiaan (04/14/2013) [-]
**indiaan rolls 83** dubs
User avatar #185 to #184 - Triskiller (04/14/2013) [-]
**Triskiller rolls 904,319,439** Do you even roll?
User avatar #186 to #185 - indiaan (04/14/2013) [-]
**indiaan rolls 97** tips
User avatar #187 to #186 - Triskiller (04/14/2013) [-]
**Triskiller rolls 7,699,019**

This random assortiment of numbers will form a coherent order.
User avatar #188 to #187 - indiaan (04/14/2013) [-]
**indiaan rolls 48** quads
User avatar #189 to #188 - Triskiller (04/14/2013) [-]
**Triskiller rolls 7777**

Shrektacular.
User avatar #190 to #189 - indiaan (04/14/2013) [-]
**indiaan rolls 63** Quints
User avatar #178 - anonmos (02/03/2013) [-]
When can I expect some new stories/poems/writings?

Still loving them!
#180 to #178 - Triskiller (02/10/2013) [-]
I wrote something, though it's not yet on my deviantart, it will be in the next few days. Thanks for being patient, and thanks for still being very enthousiastic about my writing!
User avatar #181 to #180 - anonmos (02/10/2013) [-]
Ah, I've been meaning to ask you about them again, though I know you can't force someone to write...Can't wait!
User avatar #182 to #181 - Triskiller (02/13/2013) [-]
I posted two new pieces on my deviantart. Hope you enjoy. ;)
User avatar #179 to #178 - Triskiller (02/03/2013) [-]
I don't know when, I write in bursts. But I'm sure you can expect some in the coming month.
User avatar #165 - nekoyas (10/15/2012) [-]
Ohai <3
User avatar #166 to #165 - Triskiller (10/15/2012) [-]
Hello! How are you?
User avatar #167 to #166 - nekoyas (10/16/2012) [-]
I'm fine, kinda tired but it's just 8AM atm
And how are you?
User avatar #168 to #167 - Triskiller (10/16/2012) [-]
Fine, thanks for asking. How come you're tired? Haven't had much sleep?
User avatar #169 to #168 - nekoyas (10/16/2012) [-]
Nah, I'm getting at least 5 hours of sleep every night
User avatar #170 to #169 - Triskiller (10/16/2012) [-]
5 hours is not much, but it's enough to keep you on your feet.

Anything cool happen the past weeks?
User avatar #171 to #170 - nekoyas (10/16/2012) [-]
I'm going to show my drawings in a gallery so I've been drawing a lot lately
User avatar #172 to #171 - Triskiller (10/16/2012) [-]
That's nice! Will you post them on you DeviantArt too? Or am I gonna have to come to Sweden to check them out? :P
User avatar #173 to #172 - nekoyas (10/16/2012) [-]
I can post them if you'd like to

here's the ones who's done
www.funnyjunk.com/user_pictures/phantoma/3983084/MLP+Friendly+Board/1257517#1257517
User avatar #174 to #173 - Triskiller (10/16/2012) [-]
Those look fantastic! Very good. :)
User avatar #175 to #174 - nekoyas (10/16/2012) [-]
Thanks c:
User avatar #176 to #175 - Triskiller (10/16/2012) [-]
You're welcome, young artist-chan. (Or something like that.)
#177 to #164 - indiaan (11/03/2012) [-]
bump
bump
#162 - indiaan (09/25/2012) [-]
ITT: Your mum
User avatar #161 to #160 - Triskiller (09/12/2012) [-]
Nevar!
#158 - elguso (09/09/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #159 to #158 - Triskiller (09/09/2012) [-]
wut, why?
#156 - indiaan (09/06/2012) [-]
Romeo dies
so does everyone else
#154 - indiaan (09/06/2012) [-]
Boromir dies
User avatar #157 to #155 - indiaan (09/06/2012) [-]
dunno lol
#153 - indiaan (09/06/2012) [-]
Darth Vader is Anakin skywalker
#127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #144 to #127 - Triskiller (08/19/2012) [-]
Nice dump, thanks.
#142 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#141 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#140 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#139 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#138 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#137 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#136 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #143 to #136 - Triskiller (08/19/2012) [-]
This. I like.
#135 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#134 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#133 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#132 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#131 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#130 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#129 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#128 to #127 - thecannonman **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #97 - elguso (08/15/2012) [-]
im strugiling with the clopfic im writing for you, do you want to help me out or do you wan't to wait for it to be finished
User avatar #98 to #97 - Triskiller (08/15/2012) [-]
You mean about Gregory? You're writing that for me? Bad news, I don't really enjoy clopfic. I just though Gregory was a cool name. :P
User avatar #99 to #98 - elguso (08/15/2012) [-]
me ether
i was doing it for you
strange
User avatar #100 to #99 - Triskiller (08/15/2012) [-]
Well this was a strange turn of events.

You can always just use Gregory the tentacle monster for a normal story. :)
#101 to #100 - elguso (08/15/2012) [-]
ill stick with the clopfic,
it will be very disturbing outcome. it will be for trolling pourposes
User avatar #102 to #101 - Triskiller (08/15/2012) [-]
Ok, cool. :)
#95 - santanicaus (08/12/2012) [-]
Here's your OC Anthro'd

Hope you enjoy!
User avatar #96 to #95 - Triskiller (08/12/2012) [-]
Looks good! Thanks. :)
User avatar #89 - indiaan (08/10/2012) [-]
Pyramidhead confrontatie was cool, alleen daarna dood gegaan op de confrontatie met Maria :S maar goed dat doe ik later wel opnieuw
User avatar #90 to #89 - Triskiller (08/10/2012) [-]
Ah, confrontatie met Maria. Dus je hebt die ending. Cool. Beste ending naar mijn mening.
User avatar #87 - indiaan (08/01/2012) [-]
Triskiller, if I were to mention you on your profile, will you get two notifictions?
User avatar #88 to #87 - Triskiller (08/01/2012) [-]
Yes. Indiaan.
User avatar #86 to #85 - Triskiller (07/26/2012) [-]
I am herp and what is this?
#81 - indiaan (07/19/2012) [-]
>mfw people use a meme wrong
User avatar #82 to #81 - Triskiller (07/19/2012) [-]
Fuck you.
#84 to #83 - Triskiller (07/19/2012) [-]
Ain't even mad.
#78 - indiaan (07/11/2012) [-]
**indiaan rolls 012** Trips
User avatar #80 to #107 - Triskiller (07/11/2012) [-]
AWWW, zo schattig.
[ 165 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)