Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:1/27/2013
Last Login:9/03/2016
Comment Ranking:#22365
Highest Content Rank:#5621
Highest Comment Rank:#4296
Content Thumbs: 379 total,  1420 ,  1041
Comment Thumbs: 1881 total,  3153 ,  1272
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 36 Content: Peasant → Level 37 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 1% (1/100)
Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Comments: Comedic Genius
Content Views:154956
Times Content Favorited:26 times
Total Comments Made:2170
FJ Points:1965
Favorite Tags: doctor (3) | HORMONES (2) | im (2) | Not (2) | tran (2) | trans (2) | Transgender (2)

latest user's comments

#10 - And I guess Sideshow Don, the reality show clown is better? A…  [+] (9 replies) 06/22/2016 on not so cringy, rather stupid 0
#13 - migueldecervantes (06/22/2016) [-]
I beg of you...

Tell me you're not referring to the oft-debunked Keynesian economic policies...
#14 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
Honestly not sure what you're talking about, I'm referring to the Roosevelt policies that put millions of Americans back to work and helped jumpstart the economy.
#16 - anon (06/22/2016) [-]
the depression didn't end until 46 when the war ended and congress rejected truman's economic policies. communism doesn't fucking work.
#17 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
Who the fuck is talking about Truman and communism? I'm talking about the democratic socialist, who held 3 consecutive terms in office until his death. But I guess whatever backwater school you came from left out Roosevelt, right? Don't want people thinking socialism is a viable system, after all, lest people realize it's already worked economically for the vast majority of modern europe
User avatar
#11 - civilizedwasteland (06/22/2016) [-]
Not like a war did that or anything
#12 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
the war was part of it, but that only really kicked the manufacturing sector into high gear. People tend to forget that socialistic policies brought our economy back from the brink of total destruction before we joined the war
User avatar
#15 - civilizedwasteland (06/22/2016) [-]
ya but imagine how long it would have lasted if people still had no jobs to work in
#46 - anon (06/22/2016) [-]
Imagine if you were born with a dick u dumb fuck
User avatar
#58 - civilizedwasteland (06/22/2016) [-]
i dont have to
#11 - ^despite having no documentable effect on combat readiness  [+] (19 replies) 06/22/2016 on War..... war never changes -5
User avatar
#12 - elerosse (06/22/2016) [-]
It's an identity disorder, so yeah it's not a good thing
#13 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
An identity issue that is resolved in this case, a trans person allowed to live as themselves isn't really an issue. Give me a solid reason trans people affect combat readiness. Meanwhile, more than 20 first world nation military forces would be happy to back me up on this
User avatar
#16 - elerosse (06/22/2016) [-]
It is not resolved. Imagining yourself as another person, or another gender is a serious mental problem. Would you entrust your life to someone that isn't all there mentally?

Someone with an unhealthy mind in combat will worsen the situation for them. What are you going to celebrate next? Schizophrenic and proud? Homosexuality and bisexuality are natural, they are found in nature with other animals. But transsexualism is an illness that should be addressed as such
#20 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
And on that note, I know people on this site are likely thinking "but trans is a recent condition, only found in society during the past 50 years or so. Interesting point, people living their entire lives as the opposite sex can be documented in basically every world culture dating back tens of thousands of years. By your logic, we'd have to deny service to more than half the military for one problem or another. No soldiers with autism, no psychopaths, nobody with PTSD, service connected or not, no depression, no criminal background whatsoever, just mentally perfect symbols of American perfection, since those are in such high supply. Seriously, name a specific, condition related issue that, long term, would cause problems with unit cohesion and readiness.

Like I said, 20+ first world nations are already allowing trans military service, and their units are reporting no related issues whatsoever
User avatar
#22 - elerosse (06/22/2016) [-]
Someone with autism cannot be a soldier.
Someone with psychopathic tendencies cannot be a soldier (if diagnosed in entrance process.)
Someone with a felony cannot become a soldier.
Are you talking about treatment in the civilian world? Of course we should take care of people with PTSD, with depression, with anxiety, people who identify as something theyre not, etc. All of those are examples of people with mental problems.
#25 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
You say someone with autism can't be a soldier, yet I know autistic people who served long, distinct careers with multiple combat tours. You claim psychopaths can't get in, yet we hear stories all the time about the ones who deeply enjoy what they do, American Sniper Chris Kyle included. True, a felon can't enter, but someone with a misdemeanor conviction, even jail time, can still serve. The simple fact is, if you can meet standards that ACTUALLY determine readiness (physical, marksmanship, and proper mental pualification), and you want to stand up to protect your home, you have the right to do so. And military policy aside, you still have yet to give an actual qualifying aspect that trans people can't meet purely because they're trans. That said, why do I get the feeling the only person in this conversation with any actual military service is the trans person?
User avatar
#43 - elerosse (06/22/2016) [-]
You say you know an ex soldier thats autistic? The only possible explanation is that he lied at MEPS, cause that is very clearly a mental disorder.

You say I'm biased but then you speak of yourself being trans, and wanting to be or have been in the military as a trans person. Who is biased here?

#46 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
So I guess we're going for the mentally and physically perfect military, then? Alright, let's let about half the military know they're fired, then bring back the draft because we just cut our military forces in half.
#17 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
Fun fact, through nearly two decades of neurobiological research, it has been determined that the brains of transgender individuals are developed more similarly to the desired gender than the birth sex. Alongside this, said development differences can be traced back to hormonal imbalances in the womb. To make a long story short, gender dysphoria is verifiably natural, people just tend to ignore any scientific fact that disagrees with their personal biases.
#37 - anon (06/22/2016) [-]
Also, there's nothing fucking natural about that. You are delusional.

And the truth is, nothing anyone says or does will ever change your mind any other way, because you have a mental condition. You will always put all your faith in that one tiny little bit of bullshit "evidence" to justify your own beliefs about gender dysphoria, or whatever the hell you called it.
#36 - anon (06/22/2016) [-]
Bull fucking shit. People create false evidence all the time.
#34 - anon (06/22/2016) [-]
post source
User avatar
#19 - elerosse (06/22/2016) [-]
Yeahhhhh no.
The mind is molded by experiences and teachings. Two healthy parents will most likely raise a healthy child.

You can mold your mind to believe you are someone else, but does that seem healthy? There was a story of a 50+ year old man that decided he wanted to be a 6 year old girl or something and was adopted by a couple. Does that seem healthy? Does that seem legal?

I don't care what someone does with their mind if it doesn't harm anyone else, but advertising it as something normal and not at all fucking detrimental is wrong. I can spend my whole life thinking I'm a large bottle of Heinz Ketchup, I will never be ketchup
#21 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
You just gave away your bias clear as day. You don't care about military readiness, you just want to keep them trannies out of your once proud military, right?
User avatar
#28 - zenler (06/22/2016) [-]
>a transgender using the word "trannies"


anywho how is it in the military, i got no clue haha.
User avatar
#23 - elerosse (06/22/2016) [-]
I'm not trans-phobic, I don't hate them, I wouldn't be mean to them. I'm saying they need help. But there is a reason the military sets standards, to ensure the quality of the recruit, to ensure their effectiveness in a battlefield and to ensure the safety of those around them.
#24 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
Standard? Oh no, not the standards, whatever shall we do? It's not as if there are 15000+ trans people already serving honorably, meeting literally every other standard and doing their time with distinction, right? Nah, trans people can't meet any standards at all, and aren't able to join, right?

See, here's the funny thing. There really are, as of the last national trans survey, 15000+ trans people already serving in the military. We meet the same standards, we wear the same uniforms, we shoot the same weapons, and many of us make it to high rank positions. Actually, one of the members of SEAL team 6, Chris Beck, transitioned after he retired, and is living as a woman as we speak. Running for congress, too, in fact.

What, exactly, makes a trans person unfit for service? Do you really think we're so wrapped up in our identities we're totally oblivious to the world around us? What, exactly, are you afraid is going to happen if trans people are allowed on the battlefield?
User avatar
#44 - elerosse (06/22/2016) [-]
So ex SEAL Chris Beck hid his condition during the enlistment process or he had identity issues during his service. Again, you can do whatever you want with your mind, but you will never change biology.

Of course, people will bend the rules and cheat the system and get into the military without the Department of Defense finding out.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. What makes a trans person unfit for service is their mental state. You wouldn't send someone with, lets say, major depression, into a battlefield.
#45 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
See, the whole point of the Chris Beck thing was that, despite having this supposed crippling disorder that supposedly makes you unqualified for military service, Beck made it into the Navy fucking SEALS. So, what? Being trans is fine, but living it out is the problem?
#72 - Really? Cause I'm pretty sure combat experience counts, too, …  [+] (3 replies) 06/22/2016 on /k/onceal carry -2
User avatar
#103 - Dropkicksxxx (06/22/2016) [-]
That's kind of why they have a beaver tail, but you did what in the military? Run the store? Or did you serve food?
#99 - lordcampbell (06/22/2016) [-]
**lordcampbell used "*roll picture*"**
**lordcampbell rolled image**Also dude we get it, you like to pretend you used to serve in the armed forces. Thanks for your service. too bad you're a cunt
#101 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
Keep telling yourself that, dickwad
#70 - Fun fact time: The AR-15 shoots .223 ammunion. Your …  [+] (10 replies) 06/22/2016 on /k/onceal carry 0
User avatar
#80 - captainprincess (06/22/2016) [-]
Well I mean
I call it "high powered" on the basis that it put 50 people in the ground and 50+ more on the doorstep

That fits MY criteria for something being "high powered"
but thats just me probably
User avatar
#94 - medexplain (06/22/2016) [-]
If a firearm's power level (LOL) is determined by body count, then rifles are slingshots and handguns are nukes. Handguns kill FAR more people than rifles.

By your definition, ALL guns are high powered. And if all guns are high-powered, calling them high-powered is redundant and the only reason to use the descriptor is because buzzword.
User avatar
#105 - captainprincess (06/22/2016) [-]
no calling the high powered has the purpose of calling them high powered
i.e not weak, not low powered, not harmless, actually dangerous, something to be at the very least concerned about if not outright afraid or worried

Im not interested in some bullshit comparison game where you try to downplay a firearm's harmful potential by reminding us that its not a nuclear missile

no shit
everyone knows that
we're less afraid of nukes infact because they're less likely to be fired at a gay club downtown on a random night

a nuke being fired is something we usually see coming, something we have some warning for and can prepare for and we understand the monumental threat
There's no squad of missile-lovers out there trying to proclaim how super safe nukes actually are and how every household should have a nuke for protection against other nukes and how the criminals all have nukes anyway and are just gonna blow us all up if we dont have our own nukes

atleast not on the civilian level international politics might have some degree of that idk

but here you are
I assume trying to tell me assault rifles aren't dangerous

because if not that then i struggle to understand what your melodramatic overreaction is for
User avatar
#111 - medexplain (06/22/2016) [-]
You completely missed the point, and you need to learn that analogies are not meant to be taken literally. That's why they're fucking analogies.

If we're saying something is high-powered based off body count, then handguns are FAR more powerful than rifles. The number of people killed by handguns every year is dozens, if not hundreds of times the number of people killed by rifles. If we're going by body count, then rifles are extremely low-powered. To the point of comparing a slingshot to a nuke.

If you're defining high-powered as simple the ability to kill multiple people in a short span, then ALL GUNS are high-powered. And if all guns are high-powered, why use the term?

My point was that saying that something is high powered is implying there's something of lower power. Saying that something's very wet implies that there's something else that's less wet.

But by your definition, all guns are high-powered. It's like saying, "Very wet water." In this context, "very wet" is a completely meaningless adjective, since all water is going to be wet. It's fucking water. That's just what it do. Adding "very wet" to that statement is completely redundant.

Since we're defined "high powered" as the ability to kill multiple people. All guns are high powered. That's what they do. Adding "high powered" to that statement is completely redundant.

The only reason to include such a redundant term would be because it's a buzzword. Or because you like to walk around talking about how you're enjoying your cup of nice, cold, very wet water. Since I don't think you're a retard who would do the latter, I can only assume you're buzzword-ing as an appeal to emotion since "high powered" is scary to the masses.
User avatar
#112 - captainprincess (06/22/2016) [-]
yeah Im not interested in analogies here though
Youre pitching a fit over my use of the term "high powered" and you want to bring in this ridiculous comparison as some means to correct my language or something

But Ive told you my criteria for using the term
I didnt tell you to use the term, I told you why I do
Im not interested in "BUT NUKES!!!1!"

an assault rifle is higher-powered than a handgun, yes I know the overall bodycount is higher over time, but you try and murder 50+ people in a single night with a handgun, all in the same room
A handgun doesnt completely unwravel the 'safety in numbers' idea like an assault rifle does

nukes are not involved at all
nukes are not relevant at all
nukes have no reason to be introduced into this conversation outside of an attempt to downplay the danger of firearms to appease your own sense of self-righteousness because you just HAVE to come flying to the defense of weaponry

Noone is allowed to dislike dangerous weaponry, not on your watch
no sir, gotta stamp that right out, all will love guns, theyre totally safe and not dangerous for real you guise
#113 - medexplain (06/22/2016) [-]
You need to go back to reading comprehension 101 because at no point did I compare a rifle to a nuke. I compared a slingshot to a nuke. As an analogy. Where a handgun is the nuke.

Seriously. You couldn't mess this up harder if you tried. Try actually reading.

I'l literally not concerned with a nuke at all, if you actually read. I'm comparing the destructiveness (as defined by bodycount) of handguns and rifles. And handguns are vastly more destructive than the rifles in this scenario. The same way a nuke is vastly more destructive than a slingshot. Notice how I'm not comparing rifles to nukes? Or is the concept of an analogy still completely beyond your grasp?

And your safety in numbers argument is completely and utterly wrong.

First off, if the numbers had swarmed him, he would have gone down regardless of it being a rifle or a handgun. Problem is that not enough did.

Second, the ammo capacity of a standard AR-15 is 30 rounds. The ammo capacity of a Glock-19 (a pistol which was used in the virginia tech shooting) is 17 rounds. A rifle takes two hands to reliably operate. A pistol takes one. 2x17=34. Walking into a room as crowded as a dance club with two pistols would have be equally devastating.

The body count of this event being so high compared to previous events has nothing to do with gun type. Just target density. In a room as crowded as a dance club, you don't even have to aim. It would be harder to miss, honestly.

And if you actually took the time to read anything I've said to you, you'd notice I never once said that you're wrong to dislike weaponry.

I never said they weren't dangerous. In fact, I said the exact opposite. I explicitly said that all weapons are dangerous, and that they're all capable of killing multiple people quickly.

My criticism has been your use of buzzwords and fearmongering rather than facts.

My criticism has been that you do more damage to your own cause than good because you rely on appeal to emotion to try to make a point rather than facts.

My criticism has been that you try to divert arguments to some imaginary argument where we're talking about nukes vs rifles instead of handguns vs rifles.

My criticism has been that you twist words and fact to better suit your agenda.

My criticism has been that you don't read opposing points of view, but instead block your ears and refuse to listen to any viewpoint that doesn't match your own.

Debating further with someone like you is pointless. Good day sir.
User avatar
#114 - captainprincess (06/22/2016) [-]
bitch bitch moan moan waah you dont like guns waah you said high powered when I dont think you should
#108 - twentyten (06/22/2016) [-]
Assault rifles are slightly more dangerous than nukes by your logic.

"we're less afraid of nukes infact because they're less likely to be fired at a gay club downtown on a random night".

How often do you hear or see assault rifles being used in massacres in the US since the assault rifle ban? And tell me, what kind of gun is not harmless in the wrong hands? a .22 can kill as well, might as well call them high power while you're at it. Something to be concerned about is subjective.
User avatar
#110 - captainprincess (06/22/2016) [-]
yes I know in the same post Im saying assault rifles are more dangerous and then nukes are more dangerous

I goofed
my b
User avatar
#109 - captainprincess (06/22/2016) [-]
Well yeah
they are

they pose more of a threat to my safety on a consistent and daily basis than nuclear missiles do thats for sure

And no gun is not harmless ever
even in the right hands

but I bet a .22 cant down a room full of about a hundred people before someone's able to do something about it

Thats what the "high powered" is for
So yeah, before you say, I would consider nuclear missiles to be far more than "high powered"
And more dangerous

But I dont worry that anyone I meet could bust into a place Im at and fire a fucking nuke just like that
I can go to a club or a bar without having to be worried about nukes, for the most part
And until recently I couldve said the same for assault rifles
But now that's a little less true isn't it
Certainly for those 50+ survivors, those people are likely to be VERY concerned about assault weapons for the forseeable future

They werent mangled by nukes, their world wasnt turned on it's head by a nuclear missile, their friends and loved ones werent vaporized by a thug with a nuke
Theyve got a very real and tangible reason to be afraid of assault weapons, and considering Im a member of the overall group, the gays, I've got a nasty little inkling that I should be somewhat concerned too
There could be a bullet out there with my name on it, and as of late Ive been made all too aware of that possibility
#68 - People like you make the rest of the gun owners out there look…  [+] (3 replies) 06/22/2016 on /k/onceal carry -6
User avatar
#89 - zombifier (06/22/2016) [-]
All of you are making no sense
#90 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
Which shows us what, exactly? It shows us you have no fucking firearms training whatsoever, if basically everybody else on here who does disagrees with you gun nut
User avatar
#91 - zombifier (06/22/2016) [-]
4 years infantry and 2 years as a firearm instructor begs to differ

if you carry for self defense, you carry at condition 1
#67 - And it takes all of what, two seconds, to chamber a round? On…  [+] (11 replies) 06/22/2016 on /k/onceal carry -4
User avatar
#76 - lordcampbell (06/22/2016) [-]
Found the guy who has never been to literally any firearms training.
#77 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
15 years of shooting experience, I got my hunter's safety card when I was 13. Went into the military at 18, and still shoot recreationally to this day. But nah, you're right, no training whatsoever
User avatar
#100 - Dropkicksxxx (06/22/2016) [-]
None you payed attention to apparently
#78 - lordcampbell (06/22/2016) [-]
**lordcampbell used "*roll picture*"**
**lordcampbell rolled image** Nice! Then you obviously know to chamber a fucking round or get shot first! It takes way less time to pull and shoot than to pull, chamber, shoot.
#86 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
Hey asshole, there's a difference between moving in a convoy, where you could be shot or blown up in less than a second, and walking down the street with a pistol on your hip. In combat, your rifle is in your hand, ready to shoot at a moment's notice the entire time you're off base.

But that aside, lets look at the situation for a moment:

If someone corners you in an alley, and has a gun pointed at your head, and you try to reach for your own gun, what, exactly, do you think is going to happen? You still have to deal with the time it takes to unholster your pistol, set the safety, and aim. In that roughly 3 seconds, you can pretty easily add in the chambering, The guy is still going to shoot you in the head before you get your gun up. If he has a knife, that round in the chamber isn't going to mean a whole lot, people tend to flee for their life when they have a gun pointed at their head, they don't typically have time to see if it's loaded.

And I assume, if somebody breaks into your home in the middle of the night and wakes you up enough to shoot him, chances are you have the 2 seconds it takes to chamber a round before either he gets to your bedroom, or you find him.

Point is, there's no real valid reason to keep your gun loaded and ready to shoot 24/7 unless you're actively on duty in a combat zone with absolutely no base time whatsoever.
User avatar
#98 - lordcampbell (06/22/2016) [-]
Like I said.. "Then you obviously know to chamber a fucking round or get shot first! It takes way less time to pull and shoot than to pull, chamber, shoot."
Didn't you know? If you aren't Muslim, the first world IS a combat zone!
User avatar
#71 - Dropkicksxxx (06/22/2016) [-]
If you go to a training, ever, at any point in time, you'll find out you're wrong. Range safety and CC are completely different.
#72 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
Really? Cause I'm pretty sure combat experience counts, too, and the longest it's ever, in 15 years of shooting, taken me to chamber a round was less than 3 seconds. And that's including the 1911 that you seem to be such an expert on.
User avatar
#103 - Dropkicksxxx (06/22/2016) [-]
That's kind of why they have a beaver tail, but you did what in the military? Run the store? Or did you serve food?
#99 - lordcampbell (06/22/2016) [-]
**lordcampbell used "*roll picture*"**
**lordcampbell rolled image**Also dude we get it, you like to pretend you used to serve in the armed forces. Thanks for your service. too bad you're a cunt
#101 - phoenixactual (06/22/2016) [-]
Keep telling yourself that, dickwad
#147 - Literally everything in that picture looks photoshopped, inclu…  [+] (2 replies) 03/27/2016 on Bernie is a Disney Princess +20
User avatar
#198 - leonhardt (03/27/2016) [-]
Ya think so?
User avatar
#183 - dreygur (03/27/2016) [-]
I do wonder why