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

matthewfuckingmain    

Rank #7961 on Content
matthewfuckingmain Avatar Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to matthewfuckingmain Block matthewfuckingmain Invite matthewfuckingmain to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:6/02/2011
Last Login:7/09/2014
Location:kansas
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#7961
Highest Content Rank:#3462
Highest Comment Rank:#3548
Content Thumbs: 840 total,  966 ,  126
Comment Thumbs: 3098 total,  3917 ,  819
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 78 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 79 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 99% (99/100)
Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Content Views:80623
Times Content Favorited:118 times
Total Comments Made:1120
FJ Points:4065
Favorite Tags: k (4) | funny (3) | morbid (2)
I'm a person =D.

latest user's comments

#17 - Someone was born without an imagination. 06/07/2013 on Single Rights Activist 0
#83 - Picture  [+] (2 new replies) 06/07/2013 on Seriously, don't sweat it +18
#129 - LovegoodJuggalo (06/07/2013) [-]
Have this.
#131 - matthewfuckingmain (06/07/2013) [-]
Thanks!
#36 - Black Lagoon Future Diary Hellsing Hellsing Ultima… 06/07/2013 on 4AM +1
#63 - Picture 06/06/2013 on Mesmerizing +2
#11 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 06/05/2013 on Field cannot be empty. 0
User avatar #12 - sisterblister (06/05/2013) [-]
yaay revy
#25 - Picture 06/05/2013 on Kids +13
#65 - Picture 06/03/2013 on u fokin wot m8? +1
#259 - Of course, I was arguing the principle to the matter, not agai… 06/02/2013 on so this just happened 0
#256 - I'm saying that if you ban someone for posting on your Faceboo…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/02/2013 on so this just happened 0
#257 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
I worded it wrong, I suppose. I was implying that only the government does not have the right to intervene when you are speaking out against something, but if you speak against someone else they are allowed to retaliate in any way that is within the law(Making you get out/Banning you included).
User avatar #259 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
Of course, I was arguing the principle to the matter, not against their right to retaliate.
#258 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
The government and anything else that enforces law*(Police 'n stuff).
#249 - You can go to Taco Bell and say that their food is bad for you…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/02/2013 on so this just happened 0
#253 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
I never said anything about incarcerating people who speak out against fast food. "Of course you can't shout obscenities in a restaurant and not expect to be removed." That's what I've been saying. What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be thinking that this person should be freely allowed to post all over Taco Bell's Facebook page, saying that their food is unhealthy(Whether it's a joke or not), and not expect to be banned for it, but this is the exact same as shouting things inside the physical restaurant. They aren't being banned from Facebook completely, they're being banned from the Facebook page, which could be compared to removing them from a restaurant.
User avatar #256 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
I'm saying that if you ban someone for posting on your Facebook page because they say your food is bad, that's a dick move, and it's also makes it seem like that maybe their food is bad. If he was spamming it, it would make sense. If he just said it once, like it sounds like he did, I don't see the problem. It sounds like that maybe me and you disagree on a fundamental level. If I owned a page, and someone was talking shit about me on it. I probably wouldn't ban them because it wouldn't hurt my feelings. Maybe you feel differently. The only reason while I continued this is because of your first statement about how freedom of speech only applies to when you speak out against the government. It doesn't. Freedom of religion, and protest are main examples. You can protest anything, not just the government. No hard feelings, just a simple disagreement.
#257 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
I worded it wrong, I suppose. I was implying that only the government does not have the right to intervene when you are speaking out against something, but if you speak against someone else they are allowed to retaliate in any way that is within the law(Making you get out/Banning you included).
User avatar #259 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
Of course, I was arguing the principle to the matter, not against their right to retaliate.
#258 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
The government and anything else that enforces law*(Police 'n stuff).
#9 - He admitted in a forum post that he would send nude photos to …  [+] (1 new reply) 06/02/2013 on Star Wars 0
User avatar #46 - greenstrongworld (06/02/2013) [-]
Damn you changed my image of him.
#245 - If you thought it was funny, and your responses was your joke,…  [+] (7 new replies) 06/02/2013 on so this just happened 0
#247 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
So you're saying that someone isn't allowed to remove someone, who is speaking down on them, from their property? Whether it's a joke or not, That's completely fucking reasonable and not against the the established freedom of speech at all.
User avatar #249 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
You can go to Taco Bell and say that their food is bad for you, you can go on the internet and say that Taco Bell is bad for them, because it could be protected under the first amendment. Under your logic, any organization that is against fast food would be in jail. Of course you can't shout obscenities in a restaurant and not expect to be removed. That is ridiculous, and of course I'm not implying that, and if you thought I was, you seem to be overreacting, if you're just trying your hardest to point out flaws in my argument, then you are not very good at this. I honestly think you are misunderstanding the argument. trolling or not, you aren't very intelligent.
#253 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
I never said anything about incarcerating people who speak out against fast food. "Of course you can't shout obscenities in a restaurant and not expect to be removed." That's what I've been saying. What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be thinking that this person should be freely allowed to post all over Taco Bell's Facebook page, saying that their food is unhealthy(Whether it's a joke or not), and not expect to be banned for it, but this is the exact same as shouting things inside the physical restaurant. They aren't being banned from Facebook completely, they're being banned from the Facebook page, which could be compared to removing them from a restaurant.
User avatar #256 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
I'm saying that if you ban someone for posting on your Facebook page because they say your food is bad, that's a dick move, and it's also makes it seem like that maybe their food is bad. If he was spamming it, it would make sense. If he just said it once, like it sounds like he did, I don't see the problem. It sounds like that maybe me and you disagree on a fundamental level. If I owned a page, and someone was talking shit about me on it. I probably wouldn't ban them because it wouldn't hurt my feelings. Maybe you feel differently. The only reason while I continued this is because of your first statement about how freedom of speech only applies to when you speak out against the government. It doesn't. Freedom of religion, and protest are main examples. You can protest anything, not just the government. No hard feelings, just a simple disagreement.
#257 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
I worded it wrong, I suppose. I was implying that only the government does not have the right to intervene when you are speaking out against something, but if you speak against someone else they are allowed to retaliate in any way that is within the law(Making you get out/Banning you included).
User avatar #259 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
Of course, I was arguing the principle to the matter, not against their right to retaliate.
#258 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
The government and anything else that enforces law*(Police 'n stuff).
#229 - "Freedom of speech is toward the government." Ignor…  [+] (9 new replies) 06/02/2013 on so this just happened 0
#236 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
Yeah I thought it was funny you double nigger. The point is that Taco Bell clearly didn't, what happens if someone -does- take his comment seriously and believes that Taco Bell is -actually bad for your health? "The consequence for speaking your mind shouldn't be no longer allowing you to speak it. No matter what platform it's on." He can speak his mind whenever he wants, but not wherever he wants. This doesn't just happen on the internet. You can't just go into Taco Bell and start yelling about how the food is giving you diarrhea and expect them not to tell you to get the fuck out because "You were joking." It's the same shit on facebook. If they don't want you on their turf(Their Facebook page, in this case) yelling retarded shit that could reflect badly, they absolutely have a right to get you the fuck out, not that you don't have a right to say things about them outside of it.
User avatar #245 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
If you thought it was funny, and your responses was your joke, I don't find the comedy in it. I'm not arguing freedom of speech with you, because you have already proven with your first statement you don't understand it. I recommend that you look up a website that has the constitution, so you can easily read it, and understand it. If you don't live in America, then this whole discussion is pointless, because I'm sure we have different laws. Also when trying to make a point, you should refrain from name calling, and racial slurs, because while you have the freedom to say them, it makes you sound like a complete idiot, and thus, discredits your argument, which, was already not to well thought out to begin with.
#247 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
So you're saying that someone isn't allowed to remove someone, who is speaking down on them, from their property? Whether it's a joke or not, That's completely fucking reasonable and not against the the established freedom of speech at all.
User avatar #249 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
You can go to Taco Bell and say that their food is bad for you, you can go on the internet and say that Taco Bell is bad for them, because it could be protected under the first amendment. Under your logic, any organization that is against fast food would be in jail. Of course you can't shout obscenities in a restaurant and not expect to be removed. That is ridiculous, and of course I'm not implying that, and if you thought I was, you seem to be overreacting, if you're just trying your hardest to point out flaws in my argument, then you are not very good at this. I honestly think you are misunderstanding the argument. trolling or not, you aren't very intelligent.
#253 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
I never said anything about incarcerating people who speak out against fast food. "Of course you can't shout obscenities in a restaurant and not expect to be removed." That's what I've been saying. What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be thinking that this person should be freely allowed to post all over Taco Bell's Facebook page, saying that their food is unhealthy(Whether it's a joke or not), and not expect to be banned for it, but this is the exact same as shouting things inside the physical restaurant. They aren't being banned from Facebook completely, they're being banned from the Facebook page, which could be compared to removing them from a restaurant.
User avatar #256 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
I'm saying that if you ban someone for posting on your Facebook page because they say your food is bad, that's a dick move, and it's also makes it seem like that maybe their food is bad. If he was spamming it, it would make sense. If he just said it once, like it sounds like he did, I don't see the problem. It sounds like that maybe me and you disagree on a fundamental level. If I owned a page, and someone was talking shit about me on it. I probably wouldn't ban them because it wouldn't hurt my feelings. Maybe you feel differently. The only reason while I continued this is because of your first statement about how freedom of speech only applies to when you speak out against the government. It doesn't. Freedom of religion, and protest are main examples. You can protest anything, not just the government. No hard feelings, just a simple disagreement.
#257 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
I worded it wrong, I suppose. I was implying that only the government does not have the right to intervene when you are speaking out against something, but if you speak against someone else they are allowed to retaliate in any way that is within the law(Making you get out/Banning you included).
User avatar #259 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
Of course, I was arguing the principle to the matter, not against their right to retaliate.
#258 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
The government and anything else that enforces law*(Police 'n stuff).
#3 - Also sends dick pics to fourteen year old girls. Good with th…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/02/2013 on Star Wars +4
User avatar #8 - kyfvini (06/02/2013) [-]
could you explain that o
User avatar #9 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
He admitted in a forum post that he would send nude photos to underage girls. Besides that, he bans anyone who don't praise his mediocre comics in the forum he owns. Over all, like morelazors said, he is a bit of a cunt.
User avatar #46 - greenstrongworld (06/02/2013) [-]
Damn you changed my image of him.
#181 - Someone hasn't taken their nap today. 06/02/2013 on Protests in Turkey! +1
#185 - Yeah, **** freedom of speech! Even if it was jus…  [+] (11 new replies) 06/02/2013 on so this just happened -2
#228 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
Freedom of speech toward the government you fucking asspie that doesn't mean you can talk shit to whoever you want wherever you want and expect no consequences.
User avatar #229 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
"Freedom of speech is toward the government." Ignoring how dumb you clearly are, I'm commenting on how the person who said that on the taco bell facebook page was probably joking, and how butthurt it made them look. The freedom of speech was in response to how banning people, and not allowing them to make comments, is a pretty asshole thing to do in any situation. The consequence for speaking your mind shouldn't be no longer allowing you to speak it. No matter what platform it's on. Also, I wouldn't consider what he said as talking shit. For being on a site called Funnyjunk, you clearly don't know what funny is.
#236 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
Yeah I thought it was funny you double nigger. The point is that Taco Bell clearly didn't, what happens if someone -does- take his comment seriously and believes that Taco Bell is -actually bad for your health? "The consequence for speaking your mind shouldn't be no longer allowing you to speak it. No matter what platform it's on." He can speak his mind whenever he wants, but not wherever he wants. This doesn't just happen on the internet. You can't just go into Taco Bell and start yelling about how the food is giving you diarrhea and expect them not to tell you to get the fuck out because "You were joking." It's the same shit on facebook. If they don't want you on their turf(Their Facebook page, in this case) yelling retarded shit that could reflect badly, they absolutely have a right to get you the fuck out, not that you don't have a right to say things about them outside of it.
User avatar #245 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
If you thought it was funny, and your responses was your joke, I don't find the comedy in it. I'm not arguing freedom of speech with you, because you have already proven with your first statement you don't understand it. I recommend that you look up a website that has the constitution, so you can easily read it, and understand it. If you don't live in America, then this whole discussion is pointless, because I'm sure we have different laws. Also when trying to make a point, you should refrain from name calling, and racial slurs, because while you have the freedom to say them, it makes you sound like a complete idiot, and thus, discredits your argument, which, was already not to well thought out to begin with.
#247 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
So you're saying that someone isn't allowed to remove someone, who is speaking down on them, from their property? Whether it's a joke or not, That's completely fucking reasonable and not against the the established freedom of speech at all.
User avatar #249 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
You can go to Taco Bell and say that their food is bad for you, you can go on the internet and say that Taco Bell is bad for them, because it could be protected under the first amendment. Under your logic, any organization that is against fast food would be in jail. Of course you can't shout obscenities in a restaurant and not expect to be removed. That is ridiculous, and of course I'm not implying that, and if you thought I was, you seem to be overreacting, if you're just trying your hardest to point out flaws in my argument, then you are not very good at this. I honestly think you are misunderstanding the argument. trolling or not, you aren't very intelligent.
#253 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
I never said anything about incarcerating people who speak out against fast food. "Of course you can't shout obscenities in a restaurant and not expect to be removed." That's what I've been saying. What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be thinking that this person should be freely allowed to post all over Taco Bell's Facebook page, saying that their food is unhealthy(Whether it's a joke or not), and not expect to be banned for it, but this is the exact same as shouting things inside the physical restaurant. They aren't being banned from Facebook completely, they're being banned from the Facebook page, which could be compared to removing them from a restaurant.
User avatar #256 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
I'm saying that if you ban someone for posting on your Facebook page because they say your food is bad, that's a dick move, and it's also makes it seem like that maybe their food is bad. If he was spamming it, it would make sense. If he just said it once, like it sounds like he did, I don't see the problem. It sounds like that maybe me and you disagree on a fundamental level. If I owned a page, and someone was talking shit about me on it. I probably wouldn't ban them because it wouldn't hurt my feelings. Maybe you feel differently. The only reason while I continued this is because of your first statement about how freedom of speech only applies to when you speak out against the government. It doesn't. Freedom of religion, and protest are main examples. You can protest anything, not just the government. No hard feelings, just a simple disagreement.
#257 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
I worded it wrong, I suppose. I was implying that only the government does not have the right to intervene when you are speaking out against something, but if you speak against someone else they are allowed to retaliate in any way that is within the law(Making you get out/Banning you included).
User avatar #259 - matthewfuckingmain (06/02/2013) [-]
Of course, I was arguing the principle to the matter, not against their right to retaliate.
#258 - tehbawz (06/02/2013) [-]
The government and anything else that enforces law*(Police 'n stuff).
#63 - Picture 06/01/2013 on Understanding life 0
#83 - Comment deleted 06/01/2013 on Super Epic Title 0
#223 - Proof that Funnyjunk is a hive mind and can't handle people wh…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/30/2013 on Western Box +1
User avatar #226 - dekyrptonian (05/30/2013) [-]
are you kidding, if you just fucking look at this content you can see everyone writing 3 page rants on it
#92 - All I got. 05/29/2013 on When my content ends up... 0
#91 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 05/29/2013 on When my content ends up... 0
#92 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
All I got.
#90 - Picture  [+] (2 new replies) 05/29/2013 on When my content ends up... +2
#91 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
#92 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
All I got.
#89 - Picture  [+] (3 new replies) 05/29/2013 on When my content ends up... +1
#90 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
#91 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
#92 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
All I got.
#87 - Picture  [+] (4 new replies) 05/29/2013 on When my content ends up... +4
#89 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
#90 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
#91 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
#92 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
All I got.
#86 - Picture  [+] (5 new replies) 05/29/2013 on When my content ends up... +16
#87 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
#89 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
#90 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
#91 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
#92 - matthewfuckingmain (05/29/2013) [-]
All I got.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2100 / Total items point value: 2100

Comments(1):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
No comments!
 Friends (0)