Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

inyourmind    

Rank #12249 on Comments
inyourmind Avatar Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to inyourmind Block inyourmind Invite inyourmind to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:6/24/2011
Last Login:4/17/2014
Location:Arizona
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#12249
Highest Content Rank:#21532
Highest Comment Rank:#5624
Content Thumbs: 20 total,  34 ,  14
Comment Thumbs: 1428 total,  1661 ,  233
Content Level Progress: 40.67% (24/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 12% (12/100)
Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 215 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:1791
Total Comments Made:377
FJ Points:1460

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

latest user's comments

#99 - you know reading over that it looks like that while the U.S. s…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/16/2014 on it's a decent place to live +1
User avatar #136 - vititor (04/16/2014) [-]
>Not knowing about Jaime Roldos Aguilera

Dude your country needs the oil and will do ANYTHING to get it... Thats just plain evil...
#74 - let me start this with i am a gun owner. 1) not in mo…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/13/2014 on Dump Tea & Kill Hipsters -2
User avatar #76 - parcedon (04/13/2014) [-]
whether or not you own a firearm is irrelevant

1. one is too many , and I explicitly used the term "new"

5. but the automatic comparison is silly as neither officers, only SWAT, nor very many civilians have them

cops don't have automatic weapons? I think you are mistaken friend. after all this just happened not even a month ago www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOSCdYr8C8g

"Another thing guns are almost NEVER used in self or home defense."

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[emphasis added]."

literally took me five seconds to find a credible source proving that statement false
#68 - hahaha yeah no. It's called they didn't want to get in a shoot… 04/13/2014 on Dump Tea & Kill Hipsters +3
#70 - Live free in the NC!  [+] (1 new reply) 04/09/2014 on Damn, time to catch them all' 0
#73 - anonymous (04/09/2014) [-]
Rebel scum.
#69 - fictitious? yes. meant to give perspective? sort of... it's me… 04/01/2014 on It's all a matter of the... 0
#68 - troop presence has little effect on terrorist attacks at home … 04/01/2014 on It's all a matter of the... 0
#65 - I know that video. Heavily biased and inaccurate. To make it m…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/01/2014 on It's all a matter of the... +1
User avatar #67 - johnstuartmill (04/01/2014) [-]
How is it biased and inaccurate? It is a fictional situation that is used to gain perspective. It is highly unlikely but it is the closest thing you will experience to the situation in the middle east.
Yes the country was corrupt but the US did not occupy just one country and then leave when the dictatorship was over.
Lets imagine that we had a terrorist cell in America that was anti-China and this cell bombed China and caused it great harm. If the US had no power to stop this cell, like middle eastern countries, and China decided to use drone strikes and military occupation in the US to protect itself like the US is doing now. Then would you say what China is doing is completely justified?
User avatar #69 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
fictitious? yes. meant to give perspective? sort of... it's meant to give the perspective they want you to have.

the tone it's presented in is meant to create a negative reaction. it modifies the scenario to be more provocative (despising the foreigners for what they do, the people of the country they are in actually rising up for example) because these things are fundamental differences between the hypothetical scenario in the video and the real one occurring.

basically the video creates a perspective on something significantly different then what it is supposed to be presenting one on. basically the video is creating a straw man argument.
#64 - So what would the U.S. do sit back and wait for more attacks o…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/01/2014 on It's all a matter of the... +1
User avatar #66 - johnstuartmill (04/01/2014) [-]
Drone strikes themselves are not the answer alone. Since America is already in the mess they have to finish it and taking out a few terrorist through drones does not fix that issue. In the end an attack could come from anywhere and the most important job for the US is to protect its citizens. The US can do many things to try to stop terrorism. Send the troops back into the middle east, unpopular but this is a war. Another is withdraw troops and bolster the nations defense against terror attacks and preventive measures. The border is not secure so sooner or later attacks on American soil will happen.
User avatar #68 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
troop presence has little effect on terrorist attacks at home as they predominantly fight the local militants. The drone strikes have proved effective at reducing/stopping attacks in the western world as they target he organizers/leaders that are required for attacks to be carried out abroad.
#61 - I can see where you're coming from but i have several issues w…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/01/2014 on It's all a matter of the... +1
User avatar #62 - johnstuartmill (04/01/2014) [-]
I do not believe it is the proper way for a country to stop terrorists. The airstrikes do not get rid of terrorist threats because the strikes are used to promote joining terrorist groups. Ron Paul has an example called Chinese soldiers in Texas that gives perspective I will post link below.
Yes the Declaration of war is kind of faulty because the US does not use them even when they do legitimately go to war, but you can not pacify or remove a terrorist group with drone strikes alone.
An issue though is that the US basically created the terror groups that target them. When Afghanistan was occupied by Communist Russia the US aided the citizens to fight them off but after that was said and done the US gave the government, which at the time was oppressive, even more power through foreign aid. The citizens then associated the oppressive government to US and it is the US' fault. The point is that Violence begets more violence.
User avatar #64 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
So what would the U.S. do sit back and wait for more attacks on our soil? The ones we call terrorists are the ones that attacked first and have refused any peaceful result with the United States. Most have been offered forgiveness or been bribed in to peace but the remaining hard line militants refuse to answer to anything but conflict. And over all the number of middles eastern extremists and militants continues to fall. al-qaede for example is down to several hundred members. but don't misunderstand me i would prefer no conflict at all but some of them will not listen to reason.

As for the U.S. creating the terror groups that is basically true but originally the groups wanted to remove Russia and the U.S. merely agreed with that idea and helped it along. But then the groups decided to start the conflict between the U.S. and them. Not like russia who started the conflict with them.
User avatar #66 - johnstuartmill (04/01/2014) [-]
Drone strikes themselves are not the answer alone. Since America is already in the mess they have to finish it and taking out a few terrorist through drones does not fix that issue. In the end an attack could come from anywhere and the most important job for the US is to protect its citizens. The US can do many things to try to stop terrorism. Send the troops back into the middle east, unpopular but this is a war. Another is withdraw troops and bolster the nations defense against terror attacks and preventive measures. The border is not secure so sooner or later attacks on American soil will happen.
User avatar #68 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
troop presence has little effect on terrorist attacks at home as they predominantly fight the local militants. The drone strikes have proved effective at reducing/stopping attacks in the western world as they target he organizers/leaders that are required for attacks to be carried out abroad.
User avatar #63 - johnstuartmill (04/01/2014) [-]
Here is the link to Chinese Soldiers in Texas
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY
User avatar #65 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
I know that video. Heavily biased and inaccurate. To make it more accurate it would not mostly be Americans rising up to fight them but the Mexicans coming up to fight battles for god knows what reason. because the reality is that the majority of the militants the U.S. is fighting are not from the country the U.S. is fighting in.

Next you would need to mention that the country that the foreigners are in was/is horrible corrupt and dictatorial.

And last, and this one is key, is that the locals dislike the foreign soldiers, hate the government, and despise those that fight the foreign soldiers. and while the foreign troops strike fear in to the people that actions that they took are overall viewed as right.
User avatar #67 - johnstuartmill (04/01/2014) [-]
How is it biased and inaccurate? It is a fictional situation that is used to gain perspective. It is highly unlikely but it is the closest thing you will experience to the situation in the middle east.
Yes the country was corrupt but the US did not occupy just one country and then leave when the dictatorship was over.
Lets imagine that we had a terrorist cell in America that was anti-China and this cell bombed China and caused it great harm. If the US had no power to stop this cell, like middle eastern countries, and China decided to use drone strikes and military occupation in the US to protect itself like the US is doing now. Then would you say what China is doing is completely justified?
User avatar #69 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
fictitious? yes. meant to give perspective? sort of... it's meant to give the perspective they want you to have.

the tone it's presented in is meant to create a negative reaction. it modifies the scenario to be more provocative (despising the foreigners for what they do, the people of the country they are in actually rising up for example) because these things are fundamental differences between the hypothetical scenario in the video and the real one occurring.

basically the video creates a perspective on something significantly different then what it is supposed to be presenting one on. basically the video is creating a straw man argument.
#59 - Anwar al-Awlaki - killed by u.s. drone strike September 11 201…  [+] (10 new replies) 03/31/2014 on It's all a matter of the... +1
User avatar #60 - johnstuartmill (03/31/2014) [-]
Using "Enemy combatant" as a justifiable claim to kill a US citizen is actually pretty flawed. The definition used by the military also included anyone who financially supports any terrorist groups so they justify killing anyone who has not even picked up a gun. Of course there is a lot of discourse over whether or not killing someone in the manor the US used is justifiable and in my opinion it is in the moral grey area due to the US's legitimacy of the "WAR on Terror" without ever signing a declaration of war.
User avatar #61 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
I can see where you're coming from but i have several issues with it. first of the 4 3 of them were actively and directly attempting to cause harm to the US be it it's interests or people. drone strikes are arguable the most legitimate way to carry out this conflict in all honesty. drones reduce casualties both civilian and military because there ability to wait for days on end for ideal times to strike. Not saying that collateral damage does not occur but that it is reduced.
As for the whole declaration of war thing, it is honestly unneeded. War is a conflict between 2 countries which is significantly different then what the drones are doing. The drones are doing targeted strikes against threats to the country or its interests not attempting to conquer or repulse a general region of people. Instead they are trying to pacify or remove a small segment of the population which the countries in which they are in either refuse to do or are incapable of doing so.
User avatar #62 - johnstuartmill (04/01/2014) [-]
I do not believe it is the proper way for a country to stop terrorists. The airstrikes do not get rid of terrorist threats because the strikes are used to promote joining terrorist groups. Ron Paul has an example called Chinese soldiers in Texas that gives perspective I will post link below.
Yes the Declaration of war is kind of faulty because the US does not use them even when they do legitimately go to war, but you can not pacify or remove a terrorist group with drone strikes alone.
An issue though is that the US basically created the terror groups that target them. When Afghanistan was occupied by Communist Russia the US aided the citizens to fight them off but after that was said and done the US gave the government, which at the time was oppressive, even more power through foreign aid. The citizens then associated the oppressive government to US and it is the US' fault. The point is that Violence begets more violence.
User avatar #64 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
So what would the U.S. do sit back and wait for more attacks on our soil? The ones we call terrorists are the ones that attacked first and have refused any peaceful result with the United States. Most have been offered forgiveness or been bribed in to peace but the remaining hard line militants refuse to answer to anything but conflict. And over all the number of middles eastern extremists and militants continues to fall. al-qaede for example is down to several hundred members. but don't misunderstand me i would prefer no conflict at all but some of them will not listen to reason.

As for the U.S. creating the terror groups that is basically true but originally the groups wanted to remove Russia and the U.S. merely agreed with that idea and helped it along. But then the groups decided to start the conflict between the U.S. and them. Not like russia who started the conflict with them.
User avatar #66 - johnstuartmill (04/01/2014) [-]
Drone strikes themselves are not the answer alone. Since America is already in the mess they have to finish it and taking out a few terrorist through drones does not fix that issue. In the end an attack could come from anywhere and the most important job for the US is to protect its citizens. The US can do many things to try to stop terrorism. Send the troops back into the middle east, unpopular but this is a war. Another is withdraw troops and bolster the nations defense against terror attacks and preventive measures. The border is not secure so sooner or later attacks on American soil will happen.
User avatar #68 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
troop presence has little effect on terrorist attacks at home as they predominantly fight the local militants. The drone strikes have proved effective at reducing/stopping attacks in the western world as they target he organizers/leaders that are required for attacks to be carried out abroad.
User avatar #63 - johnstuartmill (04/01/2014) [-]
Here is the link to Chinese Soldiers in Texas
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY
User avatar #65 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
I know that video. Heavily biased and inaccurate. To make it more accurate it would not mostly be Americans rising up to fight them but the Mexicans coming up to fight battles for god knows what reason. because the reality is that the majority of the militants the U.S. is fighting are not from the country the U.S. is fighting in.

Next you would need to mention that the country that the foreigners are in was/is horrible corrupt and dictatorial.

And last, and this one is key, is that the locals dislike the foreign soldiers, hate the government, and despise those that fight the foreign soldiers. and while the foreign troops strike fear in to the people that actions that they took are overall viewed as right.
User avatar #67 - johnstuartmill (04/01/2014) [-]
How is it biased and inaccurate? It is a fictional situation that is used to gain perspective. It is highly unlikely but it is the closest thing you will experience to the situation in the middle east.
Yes the country was corrupt but the US did not occupy just one country and then leave when the dictatorship was over.
Lets imagine that we had a terrorist cell in America that was anti-China and this cell bombed China and caused it great harm. If the US had no power to stop this cell, like middle eastern countries, and China decided to use drone strikes and military occupation in the US to protect itself like the US is doing now. Then would you say what China is doing is completely justified?
User avatar #69 - inyourmind (04/01/2014) [-]
fictitious? yes. meant to give perspective? sort of... it's meant to give the perspective they want you to have.

the tone it's presented in is meant to create a negative reaction. it modifies the scenario to be more provocative (despising the foreigners for what they do, the people of the country they are in actually rising up for example) because these things are fundamental differences between the hypothetical scenario in the video and the real one occurring.

basically the video creates a perspective on something significantly different then what it is supposed to be presenting one on. basically the video is creating a straw man argument.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1460 / Total items point value: 2560
Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #3 - instakill ONLINE (09/21/2012) [-]
**instakill rolls 69** comment cherry popped
User avatar #1 - fukkendragonite (09/21/2012) [-]
**fukkendragonite rolls 11**
User avatar #4 to #1 - fukkendragonite (09/21/2012) [-]
**fukkendragonite rolled user midboe **
User avatar #5 to #4 - instakill ONLINE (09/21/2012) [-]
YOU NIGNOG!
User avatar #8 to #5 - instakill ONLINE (09/21/2012) [-]
well... back to social it is
 Friends (0)