Upload
Login or register

skrasnic

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:11/07/2012
Last Login:7/24/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#14637
Highest Content Rank:#6073
Highest Comment Rank:#4993
Content Thumbs: 689 total,  1273 ,  584
Comment Thumbs: 778 total,  1014 ,  236
Content Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 64 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 65 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 90% (9/10)
Level 156 Comments: Faptastic → Level 157 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:0
Content Views:90549
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:989
FJ Points:1214

Text Posts

latest user's comments

#26 - Trump wants you to believe he isn't a politician. Because poli… 07/23/2016 on RNC Flight 2016 +2
#33 - Haha yeah. **** those people who didn't have the same experien…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/23/2016 on Random Pokemon GO Comp -5
User avatar
#35 - dbqpdb (07/23/2016) [-]
He means that all those people who treated him like shit for liking pokemon as an adult are now hypocritically talking about how much they suddenly love it with Go being out. It's an understandable complaint.
User avatar
#37 - josemanuelcenteno (07/23/2016) [-]
That´s why I took the gym right in front of their fucking face and smiled
#160 - And gun control laws have been the reason there hasn't been a …  [+] (1 new reply) 06/15/2016 on Hillary Gun Logic 101 0
User avatar
#162 - ninjaspartan (06/15/2016) [-]
You say that, but you also have to think about how there's no record of any of those fifty or so victims or any victims in any shooting aside from law enforcement being armed for self defense. Not that there would be, media won't cover that kind of issue. So in a way, you're right, there is an imbalance. As a country who supports firearms, there may just need to be more people carrying. Unfortunately, forcing people to buy guns may in a way also infringe on the idea of it being a right. But nonetheless, it simply goes to show our vulnerability as a country. I would rather be more prepared to defend against a potential threat than cross my fingers on the promise that I would be protected by someone else that I can't rely on. We've had a lot of mass shootings in America recently but that doesn't make me forget how recent Paris was, either.
#88 - Yeah of course. Our society can't just have another legal syst…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/15/2016 on Which flag should be banned? -1
User avatar
#90 - skfdkfkehdgurdk (06/15/2016) [-]
If it has potential to cause harm to an existing society be it theirs or ours, then sharia law isn't just a vauge boogey man
#100 - slothboner (06/15/2016) [-]
**slothboner used "*roll picture*"**
**slothboner rolled image**Your moms thrusting her vagus nerve against the boogy man, fgt
#84 - Oh no! It's the big spooky Sharia Law Boogie Man. …  [+] (18 new replies) 06/15/2016 on Which flag should be banned? +18
#210 - anon (06/16/2016) [-]
Thanks for Paris man...
#139 - anon (06/16/2016) [-]
Sharia law dictates something called jizya dictated by the Quran is is a tax levied on non Muslims of monotheistic religions. polytheistic religions have a diffrent deal if dictates that 50% of the fruits of their laboratory go to Islam if you say you won't pay jizya you are not under protection and you are free to be enslaved torture raped and killed if you don't convert or pay Up

So you are the one who understands little an think it is a religion it is not it is a political system so banning it is aloud
User avatar
#87 - skfdkfkehdgurdk (06/15/2016) [-]
But the main focus I think is how sharia law is a law which is bound with religion, if sharia law was to be implemented within a non-muslim populace, the situation would be far from ideal if not disastrous
#158 - nightgazer (06/16/2016) [-]
>says that Sharia law is bounded by religion
>ignored the fact that Sharia law ONLY applies to fellow Muslims

Congratulation mate
#164 - skfdkfkehdgurdk (06/16/2016) [-]
>Sharia law is a divine law
>Sharia law differentiates muslims and non-muslims
>absolutely democratic
When a muslim and non-muslim interacts and are at times where laws are needed to solve conflict, two legal boundaries conflict

for example according to Sharia law, killing a Muslim is treated more severely than killing a non-Muslim. Now tell me again how sharia law applies ONLY to muslims
#165 - nightgazer (06/16/2016) [-]
>Killing a Muslim is treated more severely than killing a non muslim

Yeah,what did you expect? The Muslim (should) treat each other as brothers or sisters,that is what the Qur'an dictate. That is why a Muslim should not kill another Muslim without a concrete justification. I fail to see why that invalidate my earlier point
User avatar
#171 - skfdkfkehdgurdk (06/16/2016) [-]
>non-muslim killing a muslim treated more severly
>one group of people more valuable than the other
>everyone is not equal
>people give more shits if you are in a certain religion
>they want this laws to have legal jurisdiction

I bet you're the type of person who looks at socialism and says it hasn't worked properly because a perfect practice of the theory hasn't worked yet. Sharia law may have all the moral reasons for a muslim to be held so mighty, but in practice it goes against all the struggle the entire world has gone through to diminish class differences, religious discrimination, as well as barbaric punishments.
#186 - nightgazer (06/16/2016) [-]
Wait,now that I read it over,I think we may have some sort of misunderstanding,my point is,if a Muslim kills another Muslim,they will be subjected to harsher punishment than for killing a non muslim.

#189 - skfdkfkehdgurdk (06/16/2016) [-]
and that makes it any better how?
So people should become muslims so that their perpetrators will be punished justly?
So killing a non-muslim is okay since you'll only get a lighter penalty for it?

All I see here is discrimination and supremacy of a religion
#193 - nightgazer (06/16/2016) [-]
That's my friend is where the other misunderstanding is,if the punishment for a Muslim for killing a non muslim is...let's say,normal level...then the punishment for killing another Muslim is nightmare level
#181 - nightgazer (06/16/2016) [-]
Now,I'm going to lay some core foundation of Sharia law for you.

First, for the law to work,the goverment have to give the "Go ahead",that is why it is implemented only in a Muslim majority countries,take Indonesia for example,they don't implement the Sharia law,why? Because their goverment don't give the "Go ahead".

Second,if you're part of the minority but you still want to implement said law,then those who are subjected to it are only those that agree to be bound by it. That mean even if your neighbors are Muslim but they don't agree to be bound by it in the meeting, you have no right to enforce the Sharia law unto them,they will be subjected to the nation's law.

Third, the Sharia law are,in essence, effectiveness over mercy in term of punishment,thinking this over logically, why should you deprive a person of their time by locking them up in jail and also waste resource if you can just remind them harshly why they shouldn't do it again. E.g : If someone is found guilty of stealing,why deprive them of their time when you can just cut one of their arm and be done with it? "But that's inhumane!",yes,that's one way to view it,but think it over,how long does a person have to serve in jail for stealing? Can you guarantee that they won't commit it again when they are let out? Think of all the things that could go wrong for them and their family when they are still locked up! Isn't it better to just cut their arm as a reminder for not doing it again, meanwhile they can use supposed "serving" time more efficient than just being a weight in the nation's finance? There's also the warning factor that is more effective than just the threat of being put to jail
User avatar
#188 - skfdkfkehdgurdk (06/16/2016) [-]
1.
>how is this the core foundation of sharia law

2.
>this has got nothing to do with the core foundation of sharia law

3.
>Islam is a religion of peace!
>practicality is the core foundation of sharia!
>rather than rehabilitate criminals and show them what they have done wrong we should punish them in inhumane ways for the sake of efficiency!

yeah thats why even if someone steals bread in a hardcore muslim country they can probably be poor for the rest of their lives since they won't be able to work to earn their bread right?

like hell you're not even trying to defend sharia law and you're not making any point whatsoever at this point
#191 - nightgazer (06/16/2016) [-]
Do tell me why locking someone up for extended period of time is more..."humane" than punishing them and be done with it? There is an infinite amount of possibilities even in a limited amount of time,have you ever thought of that? Say,what prevent their business from bankruptcy if their not there to manage it? What prevent their loved ones from parting ways if they're not there for them? What prevent their family from financial crisis if they're not there to tend to it?

It is such a simple fact that prison time tend to destroy one's life

>Cutting one of their limb makes them unable to earn anything anymore :'(
Sinnce when does such simple disability prevented anyone from making a living if they actually tries?
User avatar
#195 - skfdkfkehdgurdk (06/16/2016) [-]
so are you saying the government is always right?
so rehabilitation is absolutely useless and bodily mutilations as a way of branding a criminal is way better?

prison destroys lives but stoning and beheadings are absolutely a-okay?
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaahaha try harder

thievery is most commonly committed when one's survival is at stake, if the economy only allows for labor jobs which most likely be the most common situation for a person to steal, then cutting off arms would only make their lives even harder. Also if the government could not protect the people from poverty, what gives them the right to chop their arms off?

Are you even Muslim? a Muslim from where I lived could probably come up with a better argument than this. pathetic effort m9
#206 - nightgazer (06/16/2016) [-]
First,you didn't answer my question.

Second,never have I said that the government is always right, I just said that for the Sharia law to take nation wide effect,it will require the government's consent.

Third,never have I said that rehabilitation efforts are useless, I just imply that it is inefficient. People learn from their and others mistake, why waste resource and both your and their time (and also risk a false repentance) when you can just give them a reminder of the consequence of their crime?

Fourth,Must we resort to such childish act?

Fifth,consider this,which one will you trust more? Someone that is found guilty and have served their time in jail, or those that has a visible proof of punishment? Not counting the illegal activities and corruption that is,considerably,rampant in jail that can further degrade their morales,I think we don't need a genius to tell us that,do we?
User avatar
#88 - skrasnic (06/15/2016) [-]
Yeah of course. Our society can't just have another legal system introduced, especially one so radically different.

I just wanted to make a point about how people just used 'Sharia Law' as a vague dangerous boogey man.
User avatar
#90 - skfdkfkehdgurdk (06/15/2016) [-]
If it has potential to cause harm to an existing society be it theirs or ours, then sharia law isn't just a vauge boogey man
#100 - slothboner (06/15/2016) [-]
**slothboner used "*roll picture*"**
**slothboner rolled image**Your moms thrusting her vagus nerve against the boogy man, fgt
#147 - Let's take the stupid train one stop further. **** i…  [+] (9 new replies) 06/15/2016 on Hillary Gun Logic 101 0
User avatar
#178 - mvtjets (06/16/2016) [-]
It's a shame everything HAS to be a right wing besides gay rights opinion or it gets thumb bombarded
#151 - anon (06/15/2016) [-]
Or, or

or

Maybe we don't have to draw a line on firearm type, but around legal distribution?

Terrorists used planes to kill millions. We never stopped and said, "Maybe we shouldn't allow certain types of planes to be flown because that's what will prevent future terrorist attacks." We stepped the fuck up and tightened our goddamn security. There are a billion reasons why owning firearms more powerful than a goddamn pistol is important, just because you don't think that citizens will need to defend themselves from more than one homicidal maniac or will need to have power to overrule governmental tyranny one day is a plausible cause for ownership doesn't mean it nullifies the need to defend oneself as efficiently as active military. "Shall not be infringed" is the reason there have been NO wars on U.S. soil since the goddamn Civil War.
User avatar
#160 - skrasnic (06/15/2016) [-]
And gun control laws have been the reason there hasn't been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996.
Meanwhile in America there have been 5 mass shooting since Orlando, resulting in 4 dead and 24 injured. www.massshootingtracker.org/data

It's not solid evidence, I know. It's only one case.

I just think risk/reward needs to be balanced. I think it is too risky having automatic weapons in general population.
It's like the cold war. If everyone has a gun then nobody's going to shoot. But it isn't true peace. Everyone is ready to shoot the moment someone else does. It has a massive risk.
There's also the issue, that once a gun has been sold, there is no control over what happens to it. Mr Smith, a gardener, could easily sell his fire arm to Mr Jones, a drug dealer.
Similarly, a drunk/high person can't drive a car. We have police testing this. But a drunk person can easily carry a concealed firearm, without police noticing.

While there are billions of uses for fire arms stronger than pistols there are also billions of risks.
User avatar
#162 - ninjaspartan (06/15/2016) [-]
You say that, but you also have to think about how there's no record of any of those fifty or so victims or any victims in any shooting aside from law enforcement being armed for self defense. Not that there would be, media won't cover that kind of issue. So in a way, you're right, there is an imbalance. As a country who supports firearms, there may just need to be more people carrying. Unfortunately, forcing people to buy guns may in a way also infringe on the idea of it being a right. But nonetheless, it simply goes to show our vulnerability as a country. I would rather be more prepared to defend against a potential threat than cross my fingers on the promise that I would be protected by someone else that I can't rely on. We've had a lot of mass shootings in America recently but that doesn't make me forget how recent Paris was, either.
#152 - ninjaspartan (06/15/2016) [-]
I agree with this man right here.


Mainly because that's me who forgot to log in.
#154 - lgninjaleetful (06/15/2016) [-]
i agree with this man right here.

Mainly because he is sexy and right
#158 - ninjaspartan (06/15/2016) [-]
I agree with this individual for agreeing with me and for being sexy.
#159 - lgninjaleetful (06/15/2016) [-]
aww, you
#149 - lgninjaleetful (06/15/2016) [-]
sorry dont agree with that, but im not going to be a fucking retard and thumb down and be an asshole to those that disagree with me.

have nice day
#12823 - Some combat can't just be beaten with brawn. An invisible enem…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/30/2016 on /tabletop/ 0
User avatar
#12824 - drldrl (04/30/2016) [-]
I'm having some trouble fitting that into the campaign though. Most of the enemies will be elementals, as they'll be traveling through the planes. The first is the plane of earth, and I don't know of any earth elementals that are incorporeal. I could put DR/Bludgeoning on them, but that can only take away so much damage.
User avatar
#12828 - warrenzthehero (05/02/2016) [-]
You could try having the elementals grapple the "stone breaker," so the other players have to help him out of his grab or just kill the elemental.

How is a level 2 hitting for 25 damage? What system is this?
User avatar
#12837 - drldrl (05/02/2016) [-]
Pathfinder. He's an orc barbarian with 22 strength. He dumped int and will to get an 18 and the racial mod is +4. Currently rages for another +4. So 26 while raging. He usually gets enlarge person cast on him, so another +2 strength, and his greataxe becomes 3d6+13. Mesmerist gives an addition +1 damage when he stares at the target.
User avatar
#12838 - warrenzthehero (05/02/2016) [-]
Do you mean the Mesmerist class? Their 1st-level feature only reduces Will saves, it doesn't provide a bonus to damage. It also explicitly says it requires concentration, something a Raging Barbarian wouldn't have.
I would throw a couple of spellcasters at the party, with Dispel Magic or Counterspell. "Oh, he's bug? Let's make him back to normal." Or hit them with a bunch of Intelligence-based checks and challenges. Really enforce the low Int. Don't let him be a tactician on the battlefield, don't let him connect the dots of clues, no he doesn't know the history of this Artifact, no he doesn't know how to play chess, etc.

Also, as others have said, throw a lot of smaller enemies against him. He may be strong, but at Level 2 he also has only one attack. He can swing at the Big Bad of the encounter, but if there's 20 goblins as well, they can still chip him down and he can only handle one at a time. Meanwhile, a caster could take down a part of the swarm, while a ranger could be knocking down two at a time.

Also, if he did in fact multiclass, it's beginning to feel (to me at least) like he's trying to minmax. Talk to him and say "Hey, it's cool that you want a strong character, but I'm going to enforce that you take classes that make sense. Why would an Orc Barbarian know hypnotism? Oh he doesn't and you chose the class just for combat bonuses? Congratulations, now you're 2 levels Barb, no levels Mesmerist."
User avatar
#12841 - drldrl (05/03/2016) [-]
Another character is a Mesmerist. Painful Stare causes targets of their Hypnotic Stare to take the extra damage.
#10 - *heavy breathing* 04/20/2016 on 7 0
#51 - Welcome to the comment section. Repeat after me.  [+] (3 new replies) 01/30/2016 on Vote starting monday lads +283
User avatar
#253 - garymotherfingoak (01/30/2016) [-]
this will come in handy
#74 - jdizzleoffthehizzl (01/30/2016) [-]
So that's how I can finally voice my support for trump....
User avatar
#200 - talldumbdork (01/30/2016) [-]
So that's how I can finally voice my support for *insert politician*
#91 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 01/30/2016 on >...Pantsuit on Fire +10
#299 - dammriver Comment deleted by