x
Click to expand

didactus

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Steam Profile: Bazzelicious
Consoles Owned: Xbox 360
Video Games Played: CS:GO, AoE II
X-box Gamertag: Jiraiyadude
Interests: Muay Thai, Physics, Books.
Date Signed Up:12/03/2012
Last Login:3/28/2015
Location:Karlshamn Sweden
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5240
Highest Content Rank:#5821
Highest Comment Rank:#1438
Content Thumbs: 111 total,  133 ,  22
Comment Thumbs: 5703 total,  6727 ,  1024
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 72% (72/100)
Level 249 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 250 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:0
Content Views:11362
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:1408
FJ Points:5111
Git gud.


Funny Text/Links

latest user's comments

#8 - I thought it was 2015 but ok 2012 it is. 12 hours ago on White Is Right -2
#11 - Ace?  [+] (4 new replies) 12 hours ago on One Piece Comp 0
User avatar #15 - talonwooten (9 hours ago) [-]
DAMMIT. That's what I get for clicking a spoiler
#12 - crosskill (10 hours ago) [-]
I know that Ace and Whitebeard dies, but people who we are otherwise lead to believe are dead, somehow turn up alive in later chapters.
#14 - anonymous (10 hours ago) [-]
the idea is luffy doesnt kill anyone its different then everyone else
and the main cast wont die maybe 1 person by the end
it be cool if everyone ever met had some part in some final battle
User avatar #23 - angelious (5 hours ago) [-]
and then we have the hawk man in alabusta or something who survived a nuke via "what thats my grave"


also every crew member has some sort of "i believe in friendship and dreams" dude who dies so they can be all sad and broody until luffy does the friendship punch on the guy who killed the guy who killed the i believe in friendship and dreams dude
#10 - I just don't like the idea of being ordered to love, call me f…  [+] (1 new reply) 12 hours ago on Controversy -1
User avatar #14 - thepizzadevourer (8 hours ago) [-]
This is really directed towards other Christians, so I'm really not preaching at you or anything. But if you want the Christian stance on the issue, we believe that humans are naturally selfish, so any love that we have will ultimately be self-serving in nature. God commands us to love because He wants us to grow closer to Him, so we can show His unconditional, unselfish, sacrificial love to others, rather than our own, inadequate love.

Also don't feel bad about expressing your opinions on an issue as long as it's done respectfully, if I can't handle that it's my problem not yours.
#8 - Last time I checked most newsstations across the arab world is… 12 hours ago on Aloha Snackbar +5
#62 - This is basically what Miley Cyrus does.  [+] (1 new reply) 03/25/2015 on [Inarticulate Yelling] 0
#66 - watshisface (03/25/2015) [-]
Ikr
#6 - Even more disturbing is that the mirror is directly opposite t…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/25/2015 on Geez mom +3
#7 - watshisface (03/25/2015) [-]
Haha hahaha my mom has one of those, I have to look intensely at myself while im violently expelling my bowels


Mfw
#4 - My mom is the opposite, she accused me of jizzing on the bathr…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/25/2015 on Geez mom +6
#5 - watshisface (03/25/2015) [-]
What the actual fuck.

Just cuz ur mum gets off to herself in the mirror doesn't mean its normal for everybody else
User avatar #6 - didactus (03/25/2015) [-]
Even more disturbing is that the mirror is directly opposite to the toilet, meaning I have to watch myself shit and jack of no matter how I sit or look, I don't have a picture since I'm not living at home anymore (Uni).
#7 - watshisface (03/25/2015) [-]
Haha hahaha my mom has one of those, I have to look intensely at myself while im violently expelling my bowels


Mfw
#14 - "it was hit by a piece yes" Was it only one? …  [+] (6 new replies) 03/25/2015 on (untitled) +5
User avatar #34 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
p.s that picture looks nothing like what the building looks like in the videos ... which are real eyes on the prize not a made up computer simulation that anyone can change once the building is already gone you fuckwit
User avatar #33 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
The guy got a $7 billion payout from around a $25million investment... im sure he can wait for the money....and the links and ties to all federal agencies and major fraud investigations going on in wtc 7 was enough to want it gone.
User avatar #30 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]

9/11 Truth: What Happened to Building 7
9/11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open
9/11 Pentagon Footage - 9/11 Pentagon Attack Video
oh and read this : www.911truth.org/the-911-commission-report-a-571-page-lie/



since when would a pilot risk the lives of thousands of people , dying in the process in a horrific crash because a guy with a box cutter threatened him... the plane had tons of passengers, your telling me that not one though fuck this ima stop this guy because its only a fucking box cutter and i dont wanna die in a flaming metal box while killing thousands of other people .... yea of course that happened 4 times in the same day with no video tapes of the boarding or names of the hijackers on the flight manifestos.....because logic.
User avatar #31 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
User avatar #32 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
oh and remember the pentagon :

9/11  CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
More proof a plane did not hit PENTAGON
9/11 Video Clips Dan Rather Would Rather Not Show You
User avatar #27 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
trusting a simulation instead of eye witness accounts and video footage. Logic.
Ive not said anything about who did it or why...And honestly don't care about it.
Paper fires make steel constructed high rise buildings collapse in perfect free fall....Ok logical.... Never before happened and not happened since even in really shitty constructed buildings in India.
America have false flagged before to profit from war and they will do it again....the official report was a complete sshambles.
#11 - WTC 7 was hit by massive chunks of debris from the other tower…  [+] (11 new replies) 03/24/2015 on (untitled) +13
#28 - deadfed (03/25/2015) [-]
I still doubt the debris was enough to cause the building to collapse in an absolute freefall. Not a partial freefall, but true freefall. Just random attacks on the supports would have the building fall unevenly, so how in the actual fuck did both buildings fall straight to the ground? Controlled demolition.
User avatar #13 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
it was hit by a piece yes, but not a piece big enough to flatten it you fucking idiot, the building was quite obviously pre rigged for demolition, your telling me that while the two largest buildings in the city full of people are burning and about to fall they went about rigging a smaller building to be blown up.... for what reason....WTC7 was still fine it had a piece of the trade centre hit the roof, not a massive piece that would cause a complete structural collapse.... or are you just baiting
User avatar #25 - YllekNayr (03/25/2015) [-]
>calls someone a fucking idiot
>believe tinfoil conspiracy theories and gets mad when other don't

top fucking kek
User avatar #20 - nywrestler (03/25/2015) [-]
The building wasn't rigged with explosives before, during or after the attacks. It collapsed due to the first 20 stories of it being caved in by a falling piece of the twin towers, followed by structural fires that raged inside of it for the entire day up until its collapse.
#14 - didactus (03/25/2015) [-]
"it was hit by a piece yes"
Was it only one?
Was it too small? According to what calculations?
"the building was quite obviously pre rigged for demolition"
You're stating it as a fact, you have no sources, nothing to back your claim.
"it had a piece of the trade centre hit the roof"
Prove it.
"not a massive piece that would cause a complete structual collapse"
According to what calculations? Evidence? Sources?
Even if the official story has flaws it in no way supports the view that it was a controlled explosion. It's the fallacy of replacing a theory with another one out of convenience either due too lack of understanding or because of agenda (see intelligent design argumentation).
And only using half-truths in their arguments like the idea that the guy who owned the towers would profit from it. He didn't until 2014 and that must also mean according to conspiracy theorists he was in on the plan along with the government. But that is inconsistent with the conspiracy itself since the aim of the theory is to prove it was done for geopolitical and military purposes, not monetary gain of a businessman.
And furthermore, why did NO ONE who supposedly knew about this spill the beans on the government? No whistleblower no government official no one. You expect me to believe that the government who couldn't.
This is the simulation of WTC 7 after being hit and before collapse. The simulation has both first hand accounts and mathematics to back its legitimacy.
But please, continue to alienate your reasoning skills by being intellectually dishonest by omitting details or relevant information for your own agenda.
User avatar #34 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
p.s that picture looks nothing like what the building looks like in the videos ... which are real eyes on the prize not a made up computer simulation that anyone can change once the building is already gone you fuckwit
User avatar #33 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
The guy got a $7 billion payout from around a $25million investment... im sure he can wait for the money....and the links and ties to all federal agencies and major fraud investigations going on in wtc 7 was enough to want it gone.
User avatar #30 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]

9/11 Truth: What Happened to Building 7
9/11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open
9/11 Pentagon Footage - 9/11 Pentagon Attack Video
oh and read this : www.911truth.org/the-911-commission-report-a-571-page-lie/



since when would a pilot risk the lives of thousands of people , dying in the process in a horrific crash because a guy with a box cutter threatened him... the plane had tons of passengers, your telling me that not one though fuck this ima stop this guy because its only a fucking box cutter and i dont wanna die in a flaming metal box while killing thousands of other people .... yea of course that happened 4 times in the same day with no video tapes of the boarding or names of the hijackers on the flight manifestos.....because logic.
User avatar #31 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
User avatar #32 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
oh and remember the pentagon :

9/11  CNN Pentagon Report - NO PLANE - Only Aired Once
More proof a plane did not hit PENTAGON
9/11 Video Clips Dan Rather Would Rather Not Show You
User avatar #27 - kaiserdjg (03/25/2015) [-]
trusting a simulation instead of eye witness accounts and video footage. Logic.
Ive not said anything about who did it or why...And honestly don't care about it.
Paper fires make steel constructed high rise buildings collapse in perfect free fall....Ok logical.... Never before happened and not happened since even in really shitty constructed buildings in India.
America have false flagged before to profit from war and they will do it again....the official report was a complete sshambles.
#8 - Yes, it's exaggerated and a social critique of the american/we… 03/24/2015 on Polygon... +3

user's friends

items

Total unique items point value: 2370 / Total items point value: 5720
Latest users (1): didactus, anonymous(2).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
I'm responding here because it's become a ***********
@50
>And that's not to say everyone will go vegan overnight. Veganism will grow slowly.

We can say it won't happen if the world goes vegan because we can already measure the resources that will go into crops. the resources that go into meat is wildly inefficient. the resources that go into crops are provably, measurably, sustainable.

what's more, the crops we grow for cows and such are already wildly overgrown. we put resources into them. We will stop putting said resources in if we stop growing them.

@51
veganbodybuilding.com/
It's also provable we don't need supplement in a vegan diet. In fact it's been shown vegans get more than adequate protein intake. you can get everything you need from a vegan diet with moderate planning, as shown by lifelong vegans, vegan atheletes, so on and so forth. it's the opinion of many professional medical outlet that vegan diets are fine for all walks of life
in fact the conservative American Dietetic Association acknowledges "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
At most, we would need b12 pills but even then we don't need that if we grow the right crops.
User avatar #2 to #1 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
The highest protein source I found for non meat product was at 39% for soybeans, one of the most pesticide ridden crops in all the world, where they cut down trees in south america to grow more. And moreover infants can't live on vegan diets they need meat no matter how you put it, because they grow. Otherwise they become malnourished.
User avatar #3 to #2 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
We deforest for soybean crops because we grow them to feed animals.
what's more, how much protein the crop has by itself is irrelevant. the question was can we have adequate vegan diets. and the answer is provably, yes. in fact many americans get too much protein.

what's more, what are you basing your idea that you can't feed infants vegan off of? A few articles about vegan parents that had malnourished kids? that's mere annecdote. I wouldn't say omnivorous diets malnourish infants because a few omnivore parents had malnourished kids.

There are ways to feed infants vegan. Again, with adequate planning, as you would need with an omnivore diet.
www.vrg.org/nutshell/kids.php
User avatar #4 to #3 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
I wasn't talking about the animal crop, I was talking about the crop humans eat has 39% protein. And judging by the article, it's mentioned that they should take soy formula.
www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/why-soy-formula-even-organic-is-so-dangerous-for-babies/
They NEED protein it's non debatable, they don't need a balanced diet, they need an increasing diet to sustain their growth.
And yes a simple case does not mean the whole group is the same. And that many people get too much protein, I won't argue that because it's true, I mentioned earlier about wanting to decrease the need on meat, which we should it's both a massive waste in the industry aswell as we eat too much, but we shouldn't eliminate it from our diets. Having non meat days is fine, I see no reason as to why you can't cut down on meat that way.
User avatar #6 to #4 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
And the question of simply 'cutting down' on meat brings us back to the question of
1) can we justify hurting animals unnecessarily
[which many people agree and say no]
2) should we really continue to eat meat when it's currently contributing more to global warming than all forms of transportation combined?
User avatar #10 to #6 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
1) No, we can't justify it. but we can do it so that it doesn't feel unnecessary pain.
2) www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html, We can cut down by alot. But we shouldn't eliminate it.
User avatar #12 to #10 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
it's impossible to kill an animal without it feeling pain. to suggest an animal doesn't value it's life is irrational. it's like suggesting an animal with eyes doesn't have an interest in seeing. Can we likewise suggest a human being with the mentality of a cow [or equivalent too] wouldn't be suffering if we killed it?

We should very much eliminate it. Switching to a vegan diet is actually more of an environmentally contribution than buying an smart car
User avatar #14 to #12 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
Animals suffer regardless if we stop eating meat or not and they will suffer a different pain if we choose to stop eating them. They will die neglected instead, does that shift the burden of responsibility to something else?, I stick with the idea we should make it more humane, but to suggest it's strictly bad to kill for meat is something many carnivores disagrees about.
User avatar #16 to #14 - theluppijackal (11/15/2014) [-]
Also, again thank you for actually partaking in a fruitful discussion rather than shutting your ears and screeching 'bacon'
that puts you head and shoulders above many people here.
User avatar #15 to #14 - theluppijackal (11/15/2014) [-]
Humans will suffer regardless of our own interference. Why shouldn't we still act to minimize human suffer?
Animals needn't suffer at our hands if we don't demand their meat, so why not seize demanding meat?

Also, again, carnivores are irrelevant. We don't refer to the lions in terms of any social or moral behavior. Humans are omnivores. Not carnivores.
User avatar #5 to #4 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
I wasn't arguing they didn't need protein.
Again, it wasn't a question of how much protein it has, the question was can we have adequate vegan diets. and the answer is yes

I wasn't debating as to whether they needed protein. you said infants can't be vegan. i went out of my way to show otherwise.
It's not a question of the diet, it's a question of making sure the infant gets adequate nutrition, which they can with a vegan diet.
User avatar #7 to #5 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
The thing is, you can't exchange protein with more food, just because you can find other sources doesn't mean the baby can just take a larger amount of food. Yet alone process it. I never suggested you thought they didn't need protein, but vegan food doesn't give adequate nutrition for the amount a baby usually eats to satisfy it's needs.
User avatar #9 to #7 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
Also, i need to go to work. I'm happy to respond to whatever you say when I get back.
this has been a lot more fruitful of a discussion than most and you seem mostly rational about this [which isn't a shot against you. I had the same mentality. i didn't want to give up my sushi]
User avatar #11 to #9 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
Fair enough.
User avatar #8 to #7 - theluppijackal (11/14/2014) [-]
Earlier you suggested
>They need an increasing diet to sustain their growth.
Unless I'm misreading what you're saying


Also, you seem to keep pressing that you simply can't have vegan infants.
www.veganhealth.org/articles/realveganchildren
User avatar #13 to #8 - didactus (11/14/2014) [-]
I did say that yes, but I fail to see how that corresponds to me telling you that you suggested protein was unnecessary.
 Friends (0)