x
Click to expand

helloyouarereadin

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:1/07/2012
Last Login:7/12/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#10955
Comment Ranking:#26572
Highest Content Rank:#9671
Highest Comment Rank:#5046
Content Thumbs: 208 total,  284 ,  76
Comment Thumbs: 1221 total,  1499 ,  278
Content Level Progress: 90% (9/10)
Level 20 Content: Peasant → Level 21 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 6% (6/100)
Level 212 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:11429
Times Content Favorited:3 times
Total Comments Made:444
FJ Points:1415

Funny Text/Links

Funny Pictures

latest user's comments

#51 - If both parties are drunk; fair game. If the one is drunk …  [+] (29 new replies) 07/12/2015 on Double Standards +2
User avatar #55 - Truth (07/12/2015) [-]
>>#44, this guy brought up something interesting. What if one party deliberately gets drunk with the initial intent to have sex?
Is it still "fair game"?
#72 - lolollo (07/12/2015) [-]
"What if one party deliberately gets drunk to get laid?"

Oh yes...because people go to loud, seedy bars for the fair prices of the drinks and the intellectually stimulating environment. You have to spontaneously think "this might get me laid"
User avatar #94 - Truth (07/13/2015) [-]
You're not very good at understanding the context surrounding my question, that or you just wanted to be entertaining.

Just in case you're the former, I'll elaborate.

Both parties can be drunk and some people will say it is then "fair game" for these two parties to have sex. No one is an asshole in that case. Right? And maybe neither of them is responsible for their own actions because they were both inebriated. Maybe they're both responsible.

However, imagine this if you will: one party (person) is already drunk when another person enters the scene and decides to get drunk in order to get laid. That second person gets shit faced and both parties soon encounter each other and have sex because both persons "agreed" to have sex. Is nobody an asshole then?
Is it no longer "fair game"?
The second person had decided beforehand what his/her own intentions were. Did the first person do the same?
The second person decided, while sober, that he or she was going to to have sex with anyone in the scene including the drunks, which includes the first party/person...probably decided that because of the fact that there being drunk people makes it easier to get laid...or probably because the second person just wanted to get laid and didn't care whether it was easier or not. The difference between those two probabilities is the difference between being a take-advantage-of-him/her jerk or not.
My point is, it's not as simple as saying that you have to be as drunk as the other person for sex between you and the other to be okay.

Now let's make your post relevant. Your comment suggests that anybody who is in a bar (and who is getting drunk, perhaps) is looking to get laid.
Lady is in bar, gets drunk. But she's in the bar because - of course - she already decided that she wanted to get laid, just like everybody else there. Guy walks in bar (oh yes, his intent is already clear). Guy sees drunk lady, gets drunk himself. Guy asks her to go back to his place, she says yes and shortly after arriving they both have sex.
The guy is an asshole because he took advantage of her right?
The guy is not an asshole right? Because the lady supposedly gave her consent beforehand, the moment she went into the bar and/or the moment when she drank herself silly.

But maybe not everyone in the bar is trying to get laid.
And maybe the question I initially posted wasn't about two people in a bar, but rather about one person getting drunk for the heck of it, and another person getting drunk so that when he/she has sex with the first person he/she can claim "fair game".
User avatar #103 - lolollo (07/13/2015) [-]
Then your post doesn't really say much of a point, aside from some hypothetical questions on how to think when two people are drunk. My comment is merely that it's not that farfetched to assume that someone drunk in a bar wants to get laid. It's also not a farfetched idea they did so to get laid. You can do the survey yourself. Go to any bar and ask people why they went there. My doubts that it will be "the drinks are so cheap!"

Who are you trying to say is an asshole in each situation you've presented?
User avatar #107 - Truth (07/13/2015) [-]
You didn't know where my initial questions came from, you assumed you did.

"Who are you trying to say is an asshole in each situation you've presented? "
Who? Person B who gets drunk so as to claim that having had sex with Person A who was already drunk (and who never placed "to get laid" as part of his/her drinking plan) is "fair game".
If Person A never wanted to have sex but drank anyways, and Person B knew this (important), Person B would be an "asshole" for having sex with Person A whether Person B was sober or not.
User avatar #108 - lolollo (07/14/2015) [-]
Youre also presuming people know an aweful lot of information they typically won't know.
User avatar #109 - Truth (07/14/2015) [-]
No, that's what you've done. You did that when you came out of nowhere with your talk about a bar. It had not been mentioned before in the comment that I was replying to.

I presume people will know. There's a difference.

What I presumed was that people would have read what I typed publicly, and if they didn't get it they'd re-read, use context clues, or ask me questions to understand...instead of doing what you did: posting assumptions in an annoying sarcastic form.
User avatar #110 - lolollo (07/14/2015) [-]
I'm not saying I misunderstand your point, I'm saying you're doing a shit job of having any relevant point, and I've already explained why. Youre proposing people refuse to sleep with anyone after going to a bar and getting drunk because "they might be tricked into consenting while drunk!" Which is a needlessly convoluted thought process, even just in general. When I'm shopping, I don't stop my fellow shoppers and say "yes, hello, you're currently shopping, but did you really intend to shop when you left this morning?"

People tend to do, as they're doing it, the things they intend to do. Regrets come with hindsight, after garnering information about the events that occurred they had no way of knowing would happen. Then the argument becomes "what's the safest way to ski?...not ski."
User avatar #112 - Truth (07/14/2015) [-]
You tried to prove that you understood my point, and you failed. And I have failed at making it simple enough for you to grasp.

Understand the hypothetical situation (I make it easier by adding genders) : If John drinks with the sole intent to easily have sex with an already drunken Jane who John knows was not looking for sex, then John is a jerk when he manages to further relax her judgement by persuading drunk-Jane into bed with him.

I was proposing people refuse to sleep with anyone? I hope for your sake you can show me where I proposed just that.
At the most, what I've proposed is the reader should question the idea that having sex is "fair game" (no one turns out to be a jerk) if the persons who are engaging in sex are drunk. Indeed, please question that 1 Horny Drunk + 1 Horny Drunk = "Fair Game" Sex, because the situation I just presented above demonstrates that you can have two drunk people making love yet it is not fair game. That is/was my point. Perhaps I don't have a relevant point in your eyes because you think it is convoluted to come up with a simple argument. I doubt it even took me 10 seconds to think it up after I read comment #51. What is needlessly convoluted is the misconception you have about my point.

And about your "When I'm shopping" example.
My point has nothing to do with people who intend to "shop"/"have sex", but rather it analogically has to do with individuals who intend to simply peruse the mall or shopping-place . Understand this: to those individuals there is no intent to "shop"/have sex. But there is always a potential of having a con artist who will see them as a target, befriend them, and trick them into shopping.
And I wouldn't be stopping anybody to ask them your stupid question either, the answer to which is obvious when understanding your analogy.

I'll make it even more clear. Drunk people in a bar can all have sex with each other, I don't care. We've both assumed that they gave consent to sex, whether sober-on-drunk or drunk-on-drunk sex, the moment they walked in a bar. So drop this scenario, my point was never about drunk people who consented to have sex Again, my point is about a drunk who has not given consent to a wannabe-drunk (who gets shit faced just to claim "oh I'm not an asshole, I didn't take advantage of Jane because I was drunk too!") . I never said it was a farfetched assumption, and so far I've used this scenario of yours just to show you that it had nothing to do with my point.


In regards to the last part of your comment.
My argument is not:
-that a person who is drinking is eventually gonna get horny so they shouldn't drink it all.
My argument is:
- that there's a hole in the idea that "If both parties are drunk; fair game." quote from comment #51 /Double+standards/funny-pictures/5612088/51#51 Because Jane can be out with her friends at an End of the School Year Bash. Jane doesn't want to have sex, just fun, so she drinks to loosen her self up. John is one of her "friends". John plots to have sex with her, doesn't care about her wish for celibacy. John drinks to claim no responsibility for what happens next. Next, John smooth-talks his way into her panties without so much as a struggle. Both parties were drunk, is it still fair game? I don't think so.
User avatar #114 - lolollo (07/14/2015) [-]
Actually, I just thought of another hole in your theory. Youre proposing theres a hole in the idea of "if both are drunk, they're both to blame" with the idea that some people get others drunk with the intent to sleep with people. It still follows because if that person is sober, they're taking advantage of someone who's drunk. If they're drunk themselves, how in the hell can they be in the right mind it would require to pull off such a manipulative act? It still begs the question of how one person can be "too drunk to make their own decisions" but then someone else can be "capable of wildly manipulative action" while drunk themselves? What you typically find in these scenarios is the predator isn't nearly as drunk as the individual theyre preying on, because the one they're preying on is either hopeless blacked out, or the predator capped themselves off ages ago in the party.

Besides, how does the report come out? "I was drunk!"? That's true whether you were intentionally drunk into a stupor, or if you drunk yourself into a stupor, and both an innocent, and a predator will say "We were both drunk.". Unless there's friends present who can adequately vouch, as witnesses, they she was begrugedly drunk into a stupor, its still he said/she said conjecture. It's also why it's in my personal opinion that you don't go to overpriced, seedy bars to "simply have drinks" as any trip to the liquor store will allow you cheaper access to alcohol, and the friends you have there will be the same friends you'd want to talk to exclusively at the bar anyway.
User avatar #116 - Truth (07/14/2015) [-]
1. "Youre proposing theres a hole in the idea of 'if both are drunk, they're both to blame'"

Another misrepresentation. No, it's more along these lines: if they're both drunk then they're both blameless. Someone might disagree, so I'd add that it depends how drunk.

2. "If they're drunk themselves, how in the hell can they be in the right mind it would require to pull off such a manipulative act?"

Finally a better more relevant question. Here is where you can justly attack me for not being more specific.
If the manipulative person is drunk I reckon it'd be a very difficult task to proceed with the plan as expected. But it's not impossible, and it's really up to the person doing it. I should've added this question to my original comment: just how drunk or shit faced does someone have to be to not be the asshole, given the situation? You might say, "they'd have to be really really drunk" but I contend the person would still be an asshole if successful. The malicious intent carried on from sobriety.
It's important that you understand that a person who intends to get drunk to "tackle it from even ground" won't ...

"What you typically find in these scenarios is the predator isn't nearly as drunk as the individual theyre preying on..."

Basically this ^. The person who has already made the plan typically won't get hopelessly drunk, but can later lie that they were extremely drunk so as to not be held responsible.

3. "Besides, how does the report come out? 'I was drunk!'?"

What report? Or do you mean the confrontation between the two main characters? If John's plan was not to be an asshole then I'm sure you can predict what he will say...he will try to claim no responsibility for his actions.
User avatar #118 - lolollo (07/15/2015) [-]
There's still some disconnect between who you're trying to call an asshole. Youre seeming like there's a scenario where we can still judge one of the drunk individuals who "should've known" the other person never wanted sex, but there's still the issue that if both parties are inebriated, then yes neither are to blame. If your argument is that "some people are assholes who prey on drunk chicks" then your argument still doesn't pose any relevance since a) people already knew this and b) its meant to argue the fact that two innocent people will get drunk, have "consensual" sex while drunk, and then because the girl regrets it get the guy in trouble for rape. That's the concern people have in this content. Illegitimate claims of rape.
User avatar #120 - Truth (07/16/2015) [-]
"There's still some disconnect between who you're trying to call an asshole. Youre seeming like there's a scenario where we can still judge one of the drunk individuals who "should've known" the other person never wanted sex, but there's still the issue that if both parties are inebriated, then yes neither are to blame."

The predator's plan to exploit a drunk person was made while sober, and was followed through into inebriation. The drunk predator, then, is no different from a sober predator, who would be the "asshole" in the situation.

"_ If your argument is that "some people are assholes who prey on drunk chicks" then your argument still doesn't pose any relevance since a) people already knew this and b) its meant to argue the fact that two innocent people will get drunk, have "consensual" sex while drunk, and then because the girl regrets it get the guy in trouble for rape. That's the concern people have in this content. Illegitimate claims of rape._ "

3. It's not about the content, it's about the comment I originally replied to. There I am replying relevantly.

2. The predator is not an innocent drunk.

1. Whether the girl regrets it or not, or cries rape, is not my point.
User avatar #122 - lolollo (07/16/2015) [-]
Youre replying to a comment which replied originally to the content. Youre still the one who spontaneously brought up all of this hypothetical irrelevancies which amounts to "but rape happens!" Not only is that not the point of either the content or the comment you replied to originally, no one needs to be reminded of that.
User avatar #113 - lolollo (07/14/2015) [-]
One of these days you'll actually read what the hell I'm saying, because the whole idea is where in the hell is John gonna get this magical information that Jane wasnt there to get sex? These hypothetical aren't realistic, and thus your point is unrealistic. The only realistic scenario with any controversy is if one person is drunk and another isn't. It's pretty unanimous that if both people are drunk, neither gives consent legally and you can't judge either party.

even if by some awkward conversation one person finds out another "didn't go out to get laid" if that other person drinks and decides to try to have sex, then its precisely the same as when both individuals are drunk. Youre trying way to hard to find some scenario where you can point the blame at someone for some shit occurring, only my guess is you figured out how rediculous it is, and now need to try and seem like you were just some "deep thinker" trying to "see every possible angle.". It's still pretty simple, even by your hypothetical situations. There is no "I guess I'm just too deep for you" because even if I hit it right on the head, you'll have to make it seem like I "still just don't get it" by using some other aspect of ambiguity to your argument.

So I'll proper the challenge to you again, only I'll remove any chance for you to try and shroud it in ambiguity: what's the opinion you're trying to get across in one sentence?

User avatar #115 - Truth (07/14/2015) [-]
1. "So I'll proper the challenge to you again, only I'll remove any chance for you to try and shroud it in ambiguity: what's the opinion you're trying to get across in one sentence? "

"If Person A never wanted to have sex but drank anyways, and Person B knew this (important), Person B would be an "asshole" for having sex with Person A whether Person B was sober or not. "
Believe it or not, all you had to do was look back a couple of posts and you'd see it.

Reread this too:
"My argument is:
- that there's a hole in the idea that 'If both parties are drunk; fair game.' "


2. "One of these days you'll actually read what the hell I'm saying, because the whole idea is where in the hell is John gonna get this magical information that Jane wasnt there to get sex? "

Consider this situation: One day the lovely Jane replies to John, "Sorry John, I'm not interested in anyone right now." Perhaps she's not attracted to him. Fast forward to, let's say, the next day. One of Jane's friends says, "Hey Jane we're all going to a party tonight, are you coming with?" She says yes, arrives with her company, and of course John is invited too. You know the rest of the story.
It's not magical.

3. "even if by some awkward conversation one person finds out another "didn't go out to get laid" if that other person drinks and decides to try to have sex, then its precisely the same as when both individuals are drunk."

Are you implying that John, and every other individual who thought like John, never knew the "magical information" beforehand and is therefore not to be criticized? I would agree if that's what you're saying, but still that's not my point. Has nothing to do with it so why bring it up?
Also specify exactly when "one person finds out another 'didn't go out to get laid'.

4. "Youre trying way to hard to find some scenario where you can point the blame at someone for some shit occurring, only my guess is you figured out how rediculous it is, and now need to try and seem like you were just some 'deep thinker' trying to 'see every possible angle.'"

>"trying way to hard".
>and everything else that falls apart because your assumption is false
Really? You're going to claim this after I said it didn't even take me 10 seconds to think up my position?
Because it didn't take deep thought to read comment #44, then read comment #51, and type in response "this guy brought up something interesting" which refers to a point that anyone can clearly see if they read those two comments. Tell me, did you read them?

5. "There is no 'I guess I'm just too deep for you' because even if I hit it right on the head, you'll have to make it seem like I 'still just don't get it' by using some other aspect of ambiguity to your argument."

Let's see, you've misrepresented my point at least once already:
/Double+standards/funny-pictures/5612088/110#110
Is it still me who makes it seem like you don't get it? You made it seem that way yourself. I simply identified it for you, where is the ambiguity in that?

6. The only thing really worth arguing that you've had to say is that my hypothetical is unrealistic. And you said so because you think it involves magic. I've demonstrated above (look for number 2) that there can be a simple situation that isn't farfetched at all. Read comment #37 and #44 and understand their implications if you still don't think it can be real.
User avatar #117 - lolollo (07/15/2015) [-]
It's still pretty magical since Jane is apparently not allowed to change her mind in the span of a day. Shes not interested in anyone, which doesn't automatically mean she never wants to have sex ever again, save for some granduous announcement to the public. You forget, in your own hypothetical she said "right now". So then is John waiting for this magical announcement?

And you're presuming John knows that " not looking for anything right now" automatically means shell never want to sleep with him. The classic usage of that quote is they don't want a relationship, yet it's 100% understandable for someone not looking for romance to be at a party looking for sex. Your hypothetical still falls apart for the very reason I said it would, its entirely unfeasible.
User avatar #119 - Truth (07/16/2015) [-]
"It's still pretty magical since Jane is apparently not allowed to change her mind in the span of a day."

There is no magic involved in somebody who says one thing and has no change of mind about it the next day. Thinking consistently is not a very impressive act, although maybe to you it's on the same level as magic.

"Shes not interested in anyone, which doesn't automatically mean she never wants to have sex ever again, save for some granduous announcement to the public. You forget, in your own hypothetical she said "right now". So then is John waiting for this magical announcement? "

1. I never said or implied she "never wants to have sex ever again". For all you know she could have feelings for John 3 years after he took advantage of her, be in an awesome relationship with him, and get in bed with him, this time consciously. /spoiler
2. "Right now" meaning "at present", meaning the feelings and ideas she has against getting into a relationship with John exist "at present". Those feelings/ideas don't just exist until 2 seconds after she rejects John. You're taking the phrase too literally, ironically "trying to 'see every possible angle.' "
3. What else are you arguing here? John waits for an announcement that (a) I never said would happen, and (b) would knowingly come out as awkward? You're basing your point off the fact that you took the phrase "right now" too literally, and you think she MUST change her mind within one day. She doesn't, and it's not farfetched or magical to think she doesn't.

"And you're presuming John knows that " not looking for anything right now" automatically means shell never want to sleep with him. The classic usage of that quote is they don't want a relationship, yet it's 100% understandable for someone not looking for romance to be at a party looking for sex."

You misquoted me, as you tend to do. And what you're asserting is not absolutely true. But let's take what you're saying as 100% true.
John has been rejected by Jane, so now he thinks Jane just doesn't want a relationship nor is she looking for romance. This excuses John from being an asshole later on at night because Jane gladly accepts sex with John. Yes, even after refusing to be interested in anyone.
That is farfetched. I hope you're a guy like John, so you can try this one out for yourself and record your own success rate.

Let me save us both the trouble. Even if my hypothetical situations haven't fully provided for {"John", "Person B", anybody} being a predator, who is disguised as drunk, I will firmly stand behind the idea that the predator can exist, and this predator, "John", will claim he was too drunk to be rightfully criticized if he's ever caught.
You, on the other hand, are basically trying to argue that there cannot be a predator, because too many magical/unreal circumstances have to occur in order for there to be a predator. Oh, anyone who chose to get drunk was already looking to get laid so it'll never be real. Okay, here's a situation where the lady who chose to get drunk WASN'T looking for sex. Oh, but how does John the predator know she wasn't looking for sex? Well, here's a hypothetical situation where John was pretty much told that she, Jane, wasn't looking to have sex. OH! But the rejection phrase, it means something else!
Okay. Fine. I doubt it does. But I'll give you another hypothetical situation: John the predator was trying to hit on Jane (you know what that means) at a bar, at a party, or whatever; John was rejected, waited till she got drunk, then got drunk himself, and managed to sleep with her. My question: both parties were drunk (maybe Jane more than the John) there, still fair game? No.
User avatar #121 - lolollo (07/16/2015) [-]
The main point I'm getting as is you're adding more and more stipulations to your hypothetical to make it fit your point, yet the more you have to stipulate a hypothetical, the more likely that hypothetical is going to prove unlikely in reality, or in the very least, the more its no longer going to fit your argument at all.

As of now, your hypothetical requires Jane to have conversed with John prior to them both being drunk, the conversation involving Jane expressing a desire not to have sex, Jane holding this mindset throughout the encounter, the both getting drunk, John remembering through his inebriated state Jane didn't want sex, and approaching her anyway where she then someone now wants sex in her now enebrited state. Or her approaching him to say she changed her mind about sex.

Meanwhile, this completely convoluted hypothetical has absolutely no relevance to the point in the content, which is to say that drunkenness goes both ways in a sexual encounter at parties and bars, yet it's grossly unfair that men are the ones required to take responsibility for their actions. Do you understand now?
User avatar #123 - Truth (07/16/2015) [-]
Apart from what I've said earlier, you've additionally been trying to find flaws in the hypothetical situations I post. You've been saying there are instances of them being unrealistic and I showed how they can be realistic to prove my point. Out of the last two "hypotheticals", you chose the latest one, conveniently leaving out the one before it which has been defended.

"John remembering through his inebriated state Jane didn't want sex, and approaching her anyway where she then someone now wants sex in her now enebrited state"
I have to admit it'd be a stretch of the imagination for me to explain how Jane, at that point, could "consent". It was a poorly thought out example on my part. That pretty much goes for most, if not all, of the ones I've provided, otherwise you wouldn't be here pointing out where they can become useless. However, there doesn't have to be any ridiculousness or magic involved. Look to the hypothetical situation before it.

"Meanwhile, this completely convoluted hypothetical"
^For this, the rest of your comment, and the newest comment you posted:
You can call it convoluted or spontaneous all you want. Make it seem like I'm wrong, it still stands as a point.
I understand the message of the content.
>>#122, Just because my questioning opposed the idea behind someone's comment about how 2 drunks having sex is always fair game, doesn't mean it's irrelevant. It means I found a contrary point. Every "hypothetical" that came after it was used to try and support that point, still not making anything irrelevant to the comment.

Maybe next time you see someone stating something as fact, and someone else arguing against it, you should shout out "irrelevant" and realize how senseless you're being.

The true intent behind my original comment wasn't to remind people that rape happens. It was to show someone how they could be wrong.
"If both parties are drunk; fair game ".
I didn't intend to ruin a person's day by reminding them of rape, I expected the other user who I replied to would exercise logic.
>>#37, >>#44, So I'm curious to know. When you read those two comments do you see how my point would stand?
User avatar #124 - lolollo (07/16/2015) [-]
I left out the other one because of its irrelevance. Everyone already knows there are predators, and that they're assholes.
User avatar #125 - Truth (07/16/2015) [-]
You can't be talking about the one related to this comment:
>>#117
That ^^ is the one I'm talking about and it's the same one I'm defending here >>#119

If you're indeed saying that one is irrelevant, I'll have to end this conversation because I know it's not irrelevant and it so far supports my point very well.
User avatar #126 - lolollo (07/16/2015) [-]
"I know its not irrelevant"

And I've already explained how its irrelevant. Luckily for me, discussions aren't based on "I already know I'm right" they're based on proving you're right. If you want to just walk away under that guise then...well...there is a reason you can't play chess with a pigeon.
User avatar #127 - Truth (07/17/2015) [-]
I'm gone for one day, and I see you pull out the card that I expected you would.
I'm not walking away under any guise. Luckily for you, you've been proven wrong in the discussion a few times.

I said "I know it is not irrelevant" because I recently explained why, now I have to show you again in greater detail.

>>#51, the comment I originally replied to, made three statements. I opposed one of those statements in my reply, and in your eyes I had become irrelevant.
How? You attempted to explain here:

"Youre still the one who spontaneously brought up all of this hypothetical irrelevancies which amounts to "but rape happens!" Not only is that not the point of either the content or the comment you replied to originally, no one needs to be reminded of that."

1. Doesn't matter if they were spontaneous or premeditated. I brought up hypothetical situations to back up my opposing stance, which was related to one of the statements of the comment.

2. The so-called "hypotheticals" themselves were relevant to my stance (because they could support it) which was relevant to the comment.

3. Saying "but rape happens!" is not my point. Saying "but two drunks having sex is not always fair game" is my point. The exact purpose of the principal comment might elude me at the moment, but it made three statements. It is no way irrelevant to respond with a comment concerning one of those statements.

4. Your explanation is based on misconceptions, as you can see above. While you might have the ability to do math, if you use the wrong formula you'll always get the wrong answer. In other words, you haven't truly explained how the matter I presented was irrelevant to the comment I replied to.


If you have nothing new to say, then we're done.
User avatar #128 - lolollo (07/18/2015) [-]
I never said you were gonna walk away either, I noted how utterly unhelpful it is the say something which equates to "I think I'm right.". No shit you think you're right, its why we're discussing things. The other thing is no ones really debuting your stance as being wrong, just irrelevant. Someone could walk in and shout "the sun is the Center of the solar system!" And get the same treatment.
#88 - anon (07/13/2015) [-]
That's legit what happens.
It may not have been a seedy bar but clubs are just like that.
#89 - lolollo (07/13/2015) [-]
Where people get drunk for the sake of getting laid? I'll be sure to bring it up at the next "groundbreaking breakthroughs" convention science is holding. The cure for cancer will have to wait. People need to know this is a thing that happens.
#93 - anon (07/13/2015) [-]
Your comments have exceeded acceptable levels of sarcasm.
You are simultaneously wrong and a faggot.
User avatar #102 - lolollo (07/13/2015) [-]
Evidently not
#120 - You're a cutie. 05/02/2015 on A short film - (untitled) 0
#419 - Picture 07/13/2014 on New Worldfilters Up +1
#28 - The prophecy spoke of 'Potter' as a man not a baby and Voldemo… 03/05/2014 on Kevin and Voldemort Discuss... 0
#14 - The admin gifs at the top of the page are seizure enduing for …  [+] (1 new reply) 02/06/2014 on Hyrule's Lawnmower +10
#24 - anon (02/08/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolls 7,342**

Yeah, it's pretty terrible. Someone with an account should do something about it.
#97 - Courtoon, I think 02/05/2014 on QUADRAKILL!! 0
#197 - So, I take the news well 01/28/2014 on WHOOOO! 0
#421 - Picture 01/06/2014 on Cancer 0
#29 - I can't find the video, sorry, mate  [+] (1 new reply) 12/30/2013 on How nice +1
User avatar #30 - darkboss (12/30/2013) [-]
Yeah neither can i, thanks for looking though!
#22 - 'blogtard' in the top corner. So should be something Shaytards…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/30/2013 on How nice +1
User avatar #27 - darkboss (12/30/2013) [-]
I know from the Shaytards but thank for pointing out the 'blogtard' i didnt see that
#29 - helloyouarereadin (12/30/2013) [-]
I can't find the video, sorry, mate
User avatar #30 - darkboss (12/30/2013) [-]
Yeah neither can i, thanks for looking though!

user's friends

User avatar kurodom    

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2350

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)