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

hide menu

tyraxio

Rank #22172 on Comments
no avatar Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to tyraxio Block tyraxio Invite tyraxio to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:7/31/2012
Last Login:12/20/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#22172
Highest Content Rank:#3892
Highest Comment Rank:#2059
Content Thumbs: 1902 total,  2299 ,  397
Comment Thumbs: 2601 total,  3945 ,  1344
Content Level Progress: 99% (99/100)
Level 118 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 119 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 34% (34/100)
Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:91060
Times Content Favorited:113 times
Total Comments Made:1506
FJ Points:4392

latest user's comments

#521 - Lions are protected from hunting because they taste good and a…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -2
#522 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Was talking about rabbits.
#529 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I see. I would like to say my mistake, but you did make that quite unclear.

Also, lion may taste quite well, and would be easy to catch, so that should save the trouble.
#539 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Sorry, i read your post but i had kept the ideas of rabbits in my mind instead of lions.
#542 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
No problem.
#514 - Alright, fair enough. Not aware. Let me change my example to r…  [+] (23 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -1
User avatar #524 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Rabbits are killed for pest control in most areas. They're so bad that it's basically become an occupation in countries like Australia.

We started killing animals for food, with basic weapons. We used guns to take out bigger animals that would otherwise kill us. In older days, danger from wolves and coyotes was also present. It WAS self defense and food supply.

Some people still kill for food, because they like natural meat, and they go after animals that aren't going to become extinct anytime soon. Again, food supply. And in where I am, we do have moose and elk wander into the city and attack.

We do NOT kill out of desire, but out of food. Game hunting I don't believe in, but hunting for food I support completely. The lions are apex predators and shouldn't be killed, for what it might do to increase their prey's population. And I never said they were protected, the guy pointed out it's not a fair hunt by any hunter's standards, she killed a motionless target, which is not a sportsman attitude.
#541 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am talking about hunting-hunting. As in, civilian hunting. Pest-control and food (back when hunting was needed for food) not included.

We do NOT kill for food, but out of desire. Even people who claim to do it for food are lying. Tribals killing for food is something different, because these people rely on it for food. In modern life, people kill because they like a taste, and this too is pleasure, but that's irrelevant, because no one gets into hunting if they don't enjoy pulling the trigger and ending a life.

Also >sportsman attitude
Killing is not a sport, period.
User avatar #552 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
And it looks like you're gettign pretty pissed off by thumbing down everything. Helps you fell better?
#564 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I don't quite catch you, buddy. You started thumbing me down, so I thumbed you down in return.
User avatar #567 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down any stupid points you made, you thumbed down anything I said, even when it wasn't to you
#569 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down all your stupid points too.

That being everything you've said <3
User avatar #551 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok now you're just spouting bullshit, and I have to stop you there. Killing rabbits for pest control is STILL HUNTING, the rabbits are then cooked or skinned and stuffed.

And yes, large portions of people STILL kill for food. Two of my friends never have to buy meat ever, because one has a full family of hunters and enough deer, elk, and moose meat to supply them. YOU just assume it's all about the murder and ignore a big part of hunting. Hunters are respectful for their kill, it's not "bloodlust".

And hunting for sport is about a test of skill.
You're just so hung up on the killing part you assume every hunter is some psychopath obsessed with murder and bloodshed. Next time don't argue with ignorance.
#568 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
You don't have to eat meat to survive at all, so that argument kind of falls to the ground. That's just a way of justifying your acts.

Hunting is NOT. A. SPORT. Test of skill, indeed, but you have an objective, as you are stating, if you wish to argue you do it for food. I don't call going to work to earn money a test of skill or "sport".
User avatar #571 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
So why do we still sell meat? A LOT of foods aren't necessary but we eat them, plus meat is a great source of protein prepared naturally without all the fatty crap put into it. I

If you listened, I don't agree with sport hunting, I agree with hunting for food. I just listed why THEY call it sport. I don't "justify killing" I say there is no issue getting your own food through other means. Do they torture the animal? No. Do they force feed the animal? NO.
#644 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
We sell meat because meat tastes good, and we have a lot of cultural ties to meat. Also, two things, meat is absolutely full of saturated fat, and while indeed a source of protein, definately not the best source of protein we have access to (broccoli, for example, contains higher amounts of protein pr. gram, with an index of almost no fat at all). Meat has high amounts of cholesterol as well.

I'm certainly more in favour of hunting for food than I am for factory farming, obviously, but I don't think there are many excuses for killing an animal, just as I do not think there are many excuses for killing a human being. Self-defense being one of the only I can think of.
User avatar #647 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok then why kill plants? Or fungi? Those are living things, why should we be eating them? If you say that animals do so, they also eat other animals to survive. Why not just let ourselves starve, because no matter what we do, something living ALWAYS dies. You must be against fishing too.
#658 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am certainly against fishing too.

Because plants, fungi, algae, bacteria, vira et cetera does not have brains or complex central nervous systems. They do not have a sense of awareness, which animals do. All animals does to some extent have wishes and desires like you and me (yes, even jellyfish and insects, although of course to a lesser extent than mammals), while plants, fungi, algae... do not.

Also, let me make an important note, I am not saying that if you were on an uninhabited island, where only you and a sheep lived, that you were not allowed to eat the sheep. I don't think I personally could get myself to do it, but that would be self-defense and highly understandable. I would not judge you in any way based on that.
User avatar #672 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Actually www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html

They do have a form of sense, and you do not need a complex nervous system OR brain to feel pain. Basic animals like worms, planaria, nemotodes, ect can feel pain, and do not have brains or complex nervous systems. In fact, picking mushrooms means you are removing their FRUITING BODY, their only way to reproduce. Didn't know they produce sexually too, did you?

The thing is that every living thing can sense pain or danger, and their still eaten. Living beings kill other living beings for food. It's always been like that, humans are just the first to question a cycle that has gone on forever.
#762 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Sense is not equal to awareness. They can react to stimuli, I am in no way disputing this, but they are not aware of the external world, and even less so, their internal worlds (emotions, desires etc.). Also what do you mean "produce sexually"? Of course I know, every being that does not rely on cloning itself (like strawberries) reproduce sexually.

Plants can react to stimuli which is harmful to their continued existence; they do not feel pain. By saying you feel pain, you are inferring a sense of feeling, which is not present in plants, as they do not have a brain or complex central nervous system. Why is this needed, you might ask. It's simple; without a CNS or a brain, the organism has no centralised understanding of anything. This means that a single vine can move towards sunlight, but there is no decisionmaking taking place; there is only that which the plant is coded to do as a reaction to certain stimuli. You might argue that this is actually what happens with insects as well, but that is a much more complicated argument, which might not have a clear-cut answer.

Indeed, we are the first to question the cycle. Why is this? Because we have a civilised sense of morals, and we have an explicit possibility of making decisions. Animals do not, animals do not evolve technologically. They have to rely on their natural instinct to survive, we do not. The lion needs to kill the gazelle to survive, but we do not need to kill the cow to survive.
#519 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
They taste good and are hard to catch.
User avatar #528 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Dude they're barely hard to catch.
#537 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Rabbits? Depends on your aim tbh, if you miss you can say goodbye to that rabbit. Or i guess you could lay traps, but that takes a few days on its own.
User avatar #538 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ya I was talking traps. Sorry about confusion.
#521 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Lions are protected from hunting because they taste good and are hard to catch?

That seems like a good argument why it's fair to hunt them.



Read what you reply to, you nigga.
#522 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Was talking about rabbits.
#529 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I see. I would like to say my mistake, but you did make that quite unclear.

Also, lion may taste quite well, and would be easy to catch, so that should save the trouble.
#539 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Sorry, i read your post but i had kept the ideas of rabbits in my mind instead of lions.
#542 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
No problem.
#85 - I thought there was fun moments, but overall it was just a bun…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/07/2013 on Cactus 0
User avatar #103 - fartingnachosuace (12/07/2013) [-]
I'm girl female and hate twilight
#114 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
edward is kill
#506 - "cowardly" No matter how aggressive any ani…  [+] (36 new replies) 12/07/2013 on tsk -4
User avatar #556 - PVTDickStryker (12/07/2013) [-]
Hunting is alright, nothing wrong with it if you dont waste the body, even less when you have to do it to put food on the table. The only thing that's wrong with "modern hunters" is that they feel like such hot shit when they blow the brains out of something that only knows how to eat, shit, sleep, and mate with a long-range rifle that has tech smarter than the user. If you're hunting for sport while using a weapon meant to practically make you a god compared to what you're "hunting," you're a Goddamned coward.
#547 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Let me just point this out, because apparently people are too butthurt about me being anti-hunting so I don't really have anything to lose.


You are all against hunting lions because you have a relationship to the lion. You think the lion is cute, it's like a cat, so it's a bit like that pet of your's too. Also, it looks majestic and such. Now, bring the red thumbs, you know you want to.
User avatar #557 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
No we don't, you just make shitty assumptions to try and cover your ass. Lions aren't hunted because their not a steady source of food, especially if you live anywhere else in the world. Most any animal looks "majestic" and that's why hunters respect them and use the body respectfully. You just bank on those idiotic "game hunters" that play with the carcass and act like idiots. Those aren't hunters.
#561 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
They are hunters though. Also, it feels good to see such anger in you.
User avatar #565 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Those are game hunters, not real hunters. Ok using your logic, we can call terrorsits soldiers right? Because they're a type of soldiers? Then we can say all soldiers are evil and kill innocents?
#787 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Terrorists are not soldiers, no. They do not share definition. A hunter refers simply to a human being who kills wild animals, regardless of method, weapon and reason. Instead of your soldier example, I can give you one that would've been controversial less than a hundred years ago, that all black people are human beings, and therefore human rights apply to them.

In a way, what you are saying is that only white people are real humans (only food hunters (one specific kind of hunter) are real hunters. I know my example is a bit far fetched, so don't take it too literally.
User avatar #510 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Are you an idiot?
gizmodo.com/5883606/fear-the-deernatures-unstoppable-killing-machines
Deer can be incredibly dangerous, especially if they charge you. And for the gun, good look keeping a steady shot before that deer gets too close. Moose, deer, elk, all are capable of killing people easily. Hell, moose can total a car.

We don't have guns for an unfair advantage, we have them to level the playing field.
User avatar #558 - PVTDickStryker (12/07/2013) [-]
Such a level playing field Boar Hunting With MINI GUN
#562 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
That's not a hunter, that's a dipshit with a minigun. If you knew anything about hunting you'd know that using that is ILLEGAL HUNTING PRACTICE. The rifle in this picture is what should be used. It needs to be used carefully, properly, and with intelligence, or you end up on the ground with a pissed off animal coming at you.

The face that you resort to that video lets me know that you have nothing good to say
User avatar #570 - PVTDickStryker (12/07/2013) [-]
Alright, fair enough.
Although, would you please remind me how offing something kilometers away before it can even see you count's as a "level playing field?" Last time I checked, as dangerous as moose, deer, and elk are, none can instantly kill you from a distance you cant do shit about.
User avatar #579 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
There's also requirements of a hunting rifle:
-physical ability
-brain power
-proper stance
-bullets
-working mechanics
Guns are loud, can fail, miss, go through without delivering a killing blow (don't cause as much internal damage as a spear or arrow) and can just fuck up. I'd honestly have an animal shot with a gun too, considering how a proper shot can cause less suffering than a shot with other weapons (some broad heads are just torture)
User avatar #577 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Just called up my buddy. Maximum effective range for a hunting rifle, providing there's no wind: 500 yards. Don't exaggerate it so much, there's no way you'd even SEE the target from kilometers away. At that distance, all it takes is alerting the animal or missing the shot, and they charge. And shooting at a charging animal is bad idea, usually ending in injury.
#514 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Alright, fair enough. Not aware. Let me change my example to rabbits then, which are also common hunting prey.

"level the playing field"

Please explain this example, as I don't quite get it. We don't kill for self-defense, so I don't really see what you mean. We use guns so we can get to kill animals because we like to kill animals. This gives us an unfair advantage as all we have to do is sit in a fucking bush and wait for something to move and we hit it right between the eyes without it even noticing us. This is an unfair advantage.

Also, animals kill out of necessity. We kill out of desire.


But that's cool, if you're pro-hunting, I can do nothing to stop you. I just want you to explain why lions are somehow "protected" from this game.
User avatar #524 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Rabbits are killed for pest control in most areas. They're so bad that it's basically become an occupation in countries like Australia.

We started killing animals for food, with basic weapons. We used guns to take out bigger animals that would otherwise kill us. In older days, danger from wolves and coyotes was also present. It WAS self defense and food supply.

Some people still kill for food, because they like natural meat, and they go after animals that aren't going to become extinct anytime soon. Again, food supply. And in where I am, we do have moose and elk wander into the city and attack.

We do NOT kill out of desire, but out of food. Game hunting I don't believe in, but hunting for food I support completely. The lions are apex predators and shouldn't be killed, for what it might do to increase their prey's population. And I never said they were protected, the guy pointed out it's not a fair hunt by any hunter's standards, she killed a motionless target, which is not a sportsman attitude.
#541 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am talking about hunting-hunting. As in, civilian hunting. Pest-control and food (back when hunting was needed for food) not included.

We do NOT kill for food, but out of desire. Even people who claim to do it for food are lying. Tribals killing for food is something different, because these people rely on it for food. In modern life, people kill because they like a taste, and this too is pleasure, but that's irrelevant, because no one gets into hunting if they don't enjoy pulling the trigger and ending a life.

Also >sportsman attitude
Killing is not a sport, period.
User avatar #552 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
And it looks like you're gettign pretty pissed off by thumbing down everything. Helps you fell better?
#564 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I don't quite catch you, buddy. You started thumbing me down, so I thumbed you down in return.
User avatar #567 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down any stupid points you made, you thumbed down anything I said, even when it wasn't to you
#569 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I thumbed down all your stupid points too.

That being everything you've said <3
User avatar #551 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok now you're just spouting bullshit, and I have to stop you there. Killing rabbits for pest control is STILL HUNTING, the rabbits are then cooked or skinned and stuffed.

And yes, large portions of people STILL kill for food. Two of my friends never have to buy meat ever, because one has a full family of hunters and enough deer, elk, and moose meat to supply them. YOU just assume it's all about the murder and ignore a big part of hunting. Hunters are respectful for their kill, it's not "bloodlust".

And hunting for sport is about a test of skill.
You're just so hung up on the killing part you assume every hunter is some psychopath obsessed with murder and bloodshed. Next time don't argue with ignorance.
#568 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
You don't have to eat meat to survive at all, so that argument kind of falls to the ground. That's just a way of justifying your acts.

Hunting is NOT. A. SPORT. Test of skill, indeed, but you have an objective, as you are stating, if you wish to argue you do it for food. I don't call going to work to earn money a test of skill or "sport".
User avatar #571 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
So why do we still sell meat? A LOT of foods aren't necessary but we eat them, plus meat is a great source of protein prepared naturally without all the fatty crap put into it. I

If you listened, I don't agree with sport hunting, I agree with hunting for food. I just listed why THEY call it sport. I don't "justify killing" I say there is no issue getting your own food through other means. Do they torture the animal? No. Do they force feed the animal? NO.
#644 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
We sell meat because meat tastes good, and we have a lot of cultural ties to meat. Also, two things, meat is absolutely full of saturated fat, and while indeed a source of protein, definately not the best source of protein we have access to (broccoli, for example, contains higher amounts of protein pr. gram, with an index of almost no fat at all). Meat has high amounts of cholesterol as well.

I'm certainly more in favour of hunting for food than I am for factory farming, obviously, but I don't think there are many excuses for killing an animal, just as I do not think there are many excuses for killing a human being. Self-defense being one of the only I can think of.
User avatar #647 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ok then why kill plants? Or fungi? Those are living things, why should we be eating them? If you say that animals do so, they also eat other animals to survive. Why not just let ourselves starve, because no matter what we do, something living ALWAYS dies. You must be against fishing too.
#658 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I am certainly against fishing too.

Because plants, fungi, algae, bacteria, vira et cetera does not have brains or complex central nervous systems. They do not have a sense of awareness, which animals do. All animals does to some extent have wishes and desires like you and me (yes, even jellyfish and insects, although of course to a lesser extent than mammals), while plants, fungi, algae... do not.

Also, let me make an important note, I am not saying that if you were on an uninhabited island, where only you and a sheep lived, that you were not allowed to eat the sheep. I don't think I personally could get myself to do it, but that would be self-defense and highly understandable. I would not judge you in any way based on that.
User avatar #672 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Actually www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-83446,00.html

They do have a form of sense, and you do not need a complex nervous system OR brain to feel pain. Basic animals like worms, planaria, nemotodes, ect can feel pain, and do not have brains or complex nervous systems. In fact, picking mushrooms means you are removing their FRUITING BODY, their only way to reproduce. Didn't know they produce sexually too, did you?

The thing is that every living thing can sense pain or danger, and their still eaten. Living beings kill other living beings for food. It's always been like that, humans are just the first to question a cycle that has gone on forever.
#762 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Sense is not equal to awareness. They can react to stimuli, I am in no way disputing this, but they are not aware of the external world, and even less so, their internal worlds (emotions, desires etc.). Also what do you mean "produce sexually"? Of course I know, every being that does not rely on cloning itself (like strawberries) reproduce sexually.

Plants can react to stimuli which is harmful to their continued existence; they do not feel pain. By saying you feel pain, you are inferring a sense of feeling, which is not present in plants, as they do not have a brain or complex central nervous system. Why is this needed, you might ask. It's simple; without a CNS or a brain, the organism has no centralised understanding of anything. This means that a single vine can move towards sunlight, but there is no decisionmaking taking place; there is only that which the plant is coded to do as a reaction to certain stimuli. You might argue that this is actually what happens with insects as well, but that is a much more complicated argument, which might not have a clear-cut answer.

Indeed, we are the first to question the cycle. Why is this? Because we have a civilised sense of morals, and we have an explicit possibility of making decisions. Animals do not, animals do not evolve technologically. They have to rely on their natural instinct to survive, we do not. The lion needs to kill the gazelle to survive, but we do not need to kill the cow to survive.
#519 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
They taste good and are hard to catch.
User avatar #528 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Dude they're barely hard to catch.
#537 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Rabbits? Depends on your aim tbh, if you miss you can say goodbye to that rabbit. Or i guess you could lay traps, but that takes a few days on its own.
User avatar #538 - kinginyellow (12/07/2013) [-]
Ya I was talking traps. Sorry about confusion.
#521 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
Lions are protected from hunting because they taste good and are hard to catch?

That seems like a good argument why it's fair to hunt them.



Read what you reply to, you nigga.
#522 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Was talking about rabbits.
#529 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
I see. I would like to say my mistake, but you did make that quite unclear.

Also, lion may taste quite well, and would be easy to catch, so that should save the trouble.
#539 - grandzora (12/07/2013) [-]
Sorry, i read your post but i had kept the ideas of rabbits in my mind instead of lions.
#542 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
No problem.
#502 - Except she doesn't. 12/07/2013 on tsk 0
#137 - How about no. We have two variables here, we have the… 12/07/2013 on Asians 0
#131 - lel le scandinavia master race face No, but seriously… 12/07/2013 on Asians +2
#328 - People who lack time or funding to sell the kittens or even dr… 12/07/2013 on Dear God Why? +2
#324 - There is actually one other common way to do it, which is equa…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/07/2013 on Dear God Why? 0
User avatar #326 - halbeardy (12/07/2013) [-]
that's just fucking sick, what sane person could actually do that to kittens
#328 - tyraxio (12/07/2013) [-]
People who lack time or funding to sell the kittens or even drive to a fucking adoption center, and are clearly too lazy to care for more cats.

But really, one thing you've got to learn about life, is that human beings treat animals like shit, this is only one example. I'm not trying to preach veganism or anything here, but really, check out some factory farming videos, some grim shit happens at human hands.
#135 - Or his 99 luftballons. get it?  [+] (6 new replies) 12/03/2013 on wot +50
#297 - funnyjunkforlife (12/03/2013) [-]
but it says us navy on them,
#254 - furiousmarshmellow (12/03/2013) [-]
#252 - steininja (12/03/2013) [-]
Shit! You just made my day!
User avatar #247 - plumotje (12/03/2013) [-]
that song's actually about 99 years of world war because of 99 balloons being mistaken for an attack.
#210 - urchinator (12/03/2013) [-]
#181 - anonymous (12/03/2013) [-]
#167 - ******* Hell. Read my comment, that's wh… 12/02/2013 on That's fucking sad 0
#150 - I am not at all denying that there are not more important thin…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/02/2013 on That's fucking sad 0
#156 - captnnorway (12/02/2013) [-]
I've already said that American strive for the american dream, to increase taxes isn't something you're supposed to do to them. Just as you don't force an ice bear to swim it's entire life even though it possibly can . That's the thing, people don't realize that they have a completely different viewpoint, so we can't force our ideals onto them.
#167 - tyraxio (12/02/2013) [-]
Fucking Hell.

Read my comment, that's what I said.


Also, tbh, don't even play a saviour when it comes to forcing ideals on other nations; especially Western civilisations, the pinnacle of which being America. I mean, fucking Hell, they're down there in the Middle East forcing some ideals with guns. At least I'm keeping this civil and on text, which, for the record, there is nothing wrong with. I wouldn't go do terror in another country in order to create a socialdemocratic nation, but I don't see in any way what harm a discussion does.7

Also

>the american dream is to be supreme
>the bigger, the better, the biggest ever
>we've got 29 letters
>they've only got 26
>we've got the biggest alphabet


Pic unrelated to any of this. I think.
#284 - With all respect for your current situation, and I feel so sor…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/02/2013 on Forever together +1
#348 - anonymous (12/02/2013) [-]
Bitch xjosequeervox is girl, and SHE left the guy. Also she's a slut apparently.
Read other comments.
User avatar #321 - avengedsevenx (12/02/2013) [-]
It's all up to the couple. Shit one night in Vegas and you'll wake up married
#215 - Dude. It's not like people don't know about kryptonite. People… 12/01/2013 on 2015 Looks Promising 0
#5 - Ohhhhh I see. I fail, and apologise.  [+] (1 new reply) 11/30/2013 on Four Character Minimum +1
User avatar #6 - yacchatta (11/30/2013) [-]
It's nothing to worry about. Anyone could make that mistake.
#203 - Neither am I, your arguments are just slightly stupid. …  [+] (2 new replies) 11/30/2013 on 2015 Looks Promising +1
User avatar #207 - snakebelmont (11/30/2013) [-]
But it never leads to good writing.

for example, in the newest Dr who episode, in the episode they introduced the audiance to some new technology, some time lord painting cube. They then later was like, wait a minute we've got this cube that we pretty much just told you about that we will use to win.

It's the same with kyptonite oh i so happen to have this material that you're weak to, i win. They should have introduced it in the first movie. If they want to bring it now it's going to feel like a cheat.
#215 - tyraxio (12/01/2013) [-]
Dude. It's not like people don't know about kryptonite. People pretty much consider it equal to Superman, and I also highly doubt they won't make a longer sequence explaining it. It would never be cheating if it is following the original comics; maybe if it was some technology that they invented for the movie that was not in the comics.
#3 - You do realise "blood" has 5 characters, right?  [+] (3 new replies) 11/30/2013 on Four Character Minimum 0
User avatar #4 - yacchatta (11/30/2013) [-]
It says 4-character minimum, not maximum. 5 letters is good enough.
#5 - tyraxio (11/30/2013) [-]
Ohhhhh

I see.

I fail, and apologise.
User avatar #6 - yacchatta (11/30/2013) [-]
It's nothing to worry about. Anyone could make that mistake.
#1 - Comment deleted 11/30/2013 on Arguments -1
#199 - Also, as a side note, your picture only reinforces the theory …  [+] (4 new replies) 11/30/2013 on 2015 Looks Promising 0
User avatar #201 - snakebelmont (11/30/2013) [-]
Well in the movie it's when he breathes in the air and it's because of the gravity. I don't think he'll be affected by a rock from the planet unless it somehow effects his breathing.

I just think it's a cheat, it's a problem with superman as a character, because he's too powerful there has to be a loophole in his powers so that he can lose a fight.

It's been his weakness for years but it's lazy writing in my opinion, the writers can't think of someway out of the situation so they throw a rock. I'd much rather he lose differently. I'd even accept him letting himself lose to save lives.

Personally i'm not really a fan of superman. i prefer underdog characters like spider-man.
#203 - tyraxio (11/30/2013) [-]
Neither am I, your arguments are just slightly stupid.

I mean, it's not just a rock, it's just a material. It seems obvious to have a weakness like that, like us humans are weak against many materials, even non-radioactive periodic elements.
User avatar #207 - snakebelmont (11/30/2013) [-]
But it never leads to good writing.

for example, in the newest Dr who episode, in the episode they introduced the audiance to some new technology, some time lord painting cube. They then later was like, wait a minute we've got this cube that we pretty much just told you about that we will use to win.

It's the same with kyptonite oh i so happen to have this material that you're weak to, i win. They should have introduced it in the first movie. If they want to bring it now it's going to feel like a cheat.
#215 - tyraxio (12/01/2013) [-]
Dude. It's not like people don't know about kryptonite. People pretty much consider it equal to Superman, and I also highly doubt they won't make a longer sequence explaining it. It would never be cheating if it is following the original comics; maybe if it was some technology that they invented for the movie that was not in the comics.
#196 - How is it in any way ridiculous to have a weakness against a s… 11/30/2013 on 2015 Looks Promising +1
#29 - Try starting with spelling the name without changes in symbols… 11/30/2013 on Hey admin -1
#66 - Great Britain is a ******* lying bastard.  [+] (1 new reply) 11/30/2013 on I want my hat back +17
#74 - newdevyx (11/30/2013) [-]
**newdevyx rolled a random image posted in comment #72 at Dear Santa ** nice.
#26 - Good, I am happy to hear that. Please accept this Dragon Spoon… 11/30/2013 on Black Books 0
#24 - That sounds pretty interesting. Hmm. Try to use your super tas…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/30/2013 on Black Books 0
User avatar #25 - heartlessrobot (11/30/2013) [-]
I promise.
#26 - tyraxio (11/30/2013) [-]
Good, I am happy to hear that. Please accept this Dragon Spoon of the Divine Flavour to aid you on your future gastronomic quests in the realm of the Culinary, disciple.
#149 - >wasn't shown or talked about >doesn't exist …  [+] (7 new replies) 11/30/2013 on 2015 Looks Promising +2
#194 - snakebelmont (11/30/2013) [-]
It's different, it's the superman version of the nolan-verse, nowadays from a film story telling perspective it is a bit ridiculous to have a weakness like that. Chances are they will re-write it so he loses other than some random weakness rock.


They explained it in the movie that he wasn't used to the atmosphere of kypton, that's why he was weak, instead of him being near a rock, he's weak to the air.

Maybe cut off his solar powers or something like that or make him breath in the krypton atmosphere.
#199 - tyraxio (11/30/2013) [-]
Also, as a side note, your picture only reinforces the theory that he is weak against kryptonite in the MoS universe; if it is a rock native to Krypton, and he is weakened by the Krypton atmosphere, it seems obvious that he would be weakened by a rock which was exposed to the Krypton atmosphere.

Take a normal stone from our planet; if we were somehow weakened by the atmosphere of Earth, it seems obvious that we probably shouldn't spend too long time around a stone or rock from Earth.
User avatar #201 - snakebelmont (11/30/2013) [-]
Well in the movie it's when he breathes in the air and it's because of the gravity. I don't think he'll be affected by a rock from the planet unless it somehow effects his breathing.

I just think it's a cheat, it's a problem with superman as a character, because he's too powerful there has to be a loophole in his powers so that he can lose a fight.

It's been his weakness for years but it's lazy writing in my opinion, the writers can't think of someway out of the situation so they throw a rock. I'd much rather he lose differently. I'd even accept him letting himself lose to save lives.

Personally i'm not really a fan of superman. i prefer underdog characters like spider-man.
#203 - tyraxio (11/30/2013) [-]
Neither am I, your arguments are just slightly stupid.

I mean, it's not just a rock, it's just a material. It seems obvious to have a weakness like that, like us humans are weak against many materials, even non-radioactive periodic elements.
User avatar #207 - snakebelmont (11/30/2013) [-]
But it never leads to good writing.

for example, in the newest Dr who episode, in the episode they introduced the audiance to some new technology, some time lord painting cube. They then later was like, wait a minute we've got this cube that we pretty much just told you about that we will use to win.

It's the same with kyptonite oh i so happen to have this material that you're weak to, i win. They should have introduced it in the first movie. If they want to bring it now it's going to feel like a cheat.
#215 - tyraxio (12/01/2013) [-]
Dude. It's not like people don't know about kryptonite. People pretty much consider it equal to Superman, and I also highly doubt they won't make a longer sequence explaining it. It would never be cheating if it is following the original comics; maybe if it was some technology that they invented for the movie that was not in the comics.
#196 - tyraxio (11/30/2013) [-]
How is it in any way ridiculous to have a weakness against a specific material which clearly seems to emit some kind of radiation?
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 3985 / Total items point value: 5760

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)