Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:4/14/2012
Last Login:7/25/2016
Location:New York USA
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#4010
Highest Content Rank:#12931
Highest Comment Rank:#721
Content Thumbs: 147 total,  287 ,  140
Comment Thumbs: 11531 total,  13225 ,  1694
Content Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 14 Content: New Here → Level 15 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 8% (8/100)
Level 302 Comments: Lord Of Laughs → Level 303 Comments: Lord Of Laughs
Content Views:16675
Times Content Favorited:5 times
Total Comments Made:3186
FJ Points:10446

latest user's comments

#12 - Well, there are pros and cons to both patriarchal and matriarc…  [+] (11 new replies) 03/30/2016 on Survivher +30
#70 - toolazytoname (03/30/2016) [-]
You are basically right, and reason why there is no matriarchal surviving to this day, and why eligitarism sucks, as societal basis if you look at society as mechanism for survival. Sure for an individual life is better, for some time, but in the long run it fails, because it puts individual needs and *feelies* over what's best for society to thrive. Look at West, declining birth rates and overall fuckery with "me no like that" not so long ago, no one gave a shit if you work yourself to death, but if you have 5 kids or more you was good member of society, that of course led to many people being poor, but for society constant influx of new blood more people, more workforce and new ideas from brilliant minds that were born simply because their parents didn't stop fucking after 8th child, was great.

Gays are another example. They were shunned and shamed by society. what did that lead to? they either died alone and hiding their sexuality, OR got married, had children, and had a dick to suck at a side in secret. Since homosexuality is not genetically transferred it also leads to growth of society, with side effect of miserable gay people. Again society benefits while undermining needs of minor number of individuals. It's not fair but society living by these standards will overtake eligitarian, matriarchal societies in leaps over time.

Well that's my view, and of course I am happy that I live in west. I'm simply not optimistic about what is going to happen. if world would be under "one order" I would not have those thoughts because we would all sing songs about piece and love, but West are on this road alone, while China, India, Middle east countries are going "old ways" and we are loosing big time. In my honest opinion, as ridiculous as it sounds, Western civilization, can be saved only by big scale conflict before we get lost in our over-tolerance (if it is not yet too late), that forces us to be competitive again to preserve ourselves. Otherwise we will end up as all other "great civilizations" that were lost in their own greatness, that they didn't notice how they got overrun and brutally, anally raped by barbarians.
#40 - anon (03/30/2016) [-]
what about Norway, aren't they the most egalitarian country?
#62 - thefunnylaughter (03/30/2016) [-]
Fuck everyone This country is going to hell at the speed of sound
User avatar
#15 - tenaciouslee (03/30/2016) [-]
Not to sound completely autismo, but wouldn't, like, England be an example of a matriarchal society? What with the Queen having run it for the last century?

Or is that completely wrong?
#65 - anon (03/30/2016) [-]
The Queen has almost no say in what happens in her country.
The one you want to look at is the Prime Minister, who alothough has talks with the Queen, is the one who holds most of the power. And is a man almost always.

The Royal family are basically tourist attractions but they run like the Mafia, bumping off people they don't like and claiming nothing happened.
#101 - slyblade (03/30/2016) [-]
The queen technically as absolute power if she deemed it necessary for her to use it, but unless she had full support of the people, she'd lose that power very quickly after using it.
#66 - tenaciouslee (03/30/2016) [-]
So that is completely wrong.

Well, at least I tried. Thanks for the info tho.
User avatar
#36 - hwaraam (03/30/2016) [-]
It's not about "being ruled by a man or a woman", but more like " most of the leaders are men/women"
User avatar
#32 - toosexyforyou (03/30/2016) [-]
Autismo? The word you're looking for is retarded and you definitely sounded fucking retarded.
#64 - tenaciouslee (03/30/2016) [-]
Yeah, I figured.
User avatar
#16 - rollertoaster (03/30/2016) [-]
Well, remember that when England was still developing, and when the monarchy had actual governing power, it was mostly ruled by kings, and it was very rare that a queen had total control of the throne. I can think of a couple of queens that had lasting effect on England (Bertha of Kent and Elizabeth I come to mind), but it's mostly kings. Then again, I'm American, so I'm not super well versed on English history.
#9 - >Going to be You poor, sweet summer child 03/29/2016 on life is weird +3
#75 - Don't talk **** about the soldiers who are just doing what the… 03/29/2016 on Bree Olsen: Soldiers are... 0
#70 - Norman Reedus, apparently. 03/29/2016 on Cat +1
#79 - Having high humanity and souls means he's probably very experi…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/29/2016 on Bait +9
#91 - ffinfinity (03/29/2016) [-]
All makes sense now thanks man
#212 - **rollertoaster rolled user checkemninja ** is an attentio… 03/21/2016 on #TRIGGERED 0
#14 - *****. Not everything has to be an attack. 03/18/2016 on WHO DID THIS!? +5
#22 - This is going to far. Also, this is not real.  [+] (1 new reply) 03/18/2016 on St Paddy's Day +1
User avatar
#27 - zipov (03/18/2016) [-]
#12 - It's equivalent to saying "I think this is cool". 03/18/2016 on man made leaf 0