Click to expand
Level -244 Comment: mediocre wizard
OfflineSend mail to vividsam Block vividsam Invite vividsam to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||7/02/2013|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Comment Thumbs:||435 total, 60 , 495|
|Content Level Progress:|| 6.77% (4/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 50% (5/10) |
Level -244 Comment: mediocre wizard → Level -243 Comment: mediocre wizard
|Total Comments Made:||21|
latest user's comments
|#2 - I made it to 15 seconds, did I lose or win? [+] (1 new reply)||07/08/2013 on JUST LISTEN TO THIS PLEASE||0|
#4 - anon (07/09/2013) [-]
You got banned
|#1 - Why is rape prevention always teaching women how to defend the… [+] (44 new replies)||07/05/2013 on Rape prevention||-389|
#182 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
Rapists know that rape is bad but they do it anyway because they're messed up in the head.
#36 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
That is one of the reasons people rape, because the victim struggles and doesn't want it. They like to dominate people and feel like they have power.
Source- I'm a criminologist
#153 - zorororonoa (07/06/2013) [-]
Yeah i remember learning that in some thing a while back I forget when. But I thought it was interesting that most rape happens not because the person is aroused and needs sex now, but rather because they want to feel like they have power and that they are dominating someone.
#15 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
Rather than teach women what to do when raped
Teach men not to rape
(In feminism terms, realistically teach all motherfuckers not to rape)
#41 - weenieandthebutt (07/06/2013) [-]
#161 - jacofhearts (07/06/2013) [-]
There is a recent epidemic though of guys, usually in middle school or high school, knowingly raping a girl that was intoxicated, unconscious, ect, and then taking pictures of it. They are literally documenting themselves having sex with a girl that's clearly unconscious, and in most cases posting it on the internet.
While most people know rape is wrong, it's becoming apparent that a lot of people just don't care.
#294 - anon (07/10/2013) [-]
I will not sleep with an intoxicated girl, even if I have had consensual sex with her before. Too many fucking risks. All a girl has to say is "rape" and if you did it or not YOU FUCKING DID IT! Speaking of rape, why are women raping the word rape? "A guy told me he loved me so I fucked him then he dumped me, I was raped"
#278 - watchesupee (07/06/2013) [-]
I was just about to mention that. I think its scary really because if you didnt learn that while in high school, what makes you think you'll go out of your way to learn it now? People focus so much on telling the women to be careful when they go out and get drunk rather than educating males on what is defined as rape, and thats just stupid to me.
#291 - jacofhearts (07/07/2013) [-]
My first year of college, I was taught "regurgitate, urinate, defecate." As in, if you are in a dangerous situation, and are potentially about to be assaulted, vomit all over yourself, pee yourself, and/or shit your pants.
A lot of women were offended by this, because the men were essentially told "if she's drunk, don't boink her," and we were told to shit ourselves to get out of a situation. I mean, sure, that is decent advice, and it's better to try to do something than to just lay there, but the focus seemed unfairly balanced.
#128 - alltimetens (07/06/2013) [-]
Actually, it may sound stupid but developed countries like Switzerland are actually putting rapists, murderers, theifs, etc. in comfortable prisons that aim to teach them right from wrong. Sociopaths can be jailed and put into rehab, and when they leave, they are always back to normal.
#52 - mrcinnamon (07/06/2013) [-]
Also I love your username.
#94 - weenieandthebutt (07/06/2013) [-]
#20 - pockyrin (07/06/2013) [-]
Men are taught not to rape already. Like 99% of people with access to public education are taught to be good people, it's nothing to do with lack of teaching. It just comes down to the fact there will always be messed up people in the world, it's not education or one sexes fault.
|#5 - On very rare occasions this actually happens and I cherish tho…||07/05/2013 on Personalities||-2|
|#17 - I think the reason why Europe is all slave like to America is … [+] (36 new replies)||07/05/2013 on King Europe||-63|
#33 - komradkthulu (07/05/2013) [-]
#178 - pellebauss (07/06/2013) [-]
im not saying that the UK contributed more than the Soviet Union, because that is not true, but they did way more than the US in the war. The US has taken credit for most of the work that british soldiers did. and while we are at the US helping, lets not forget wich country that dropped a nuclear bomb over Japan instead of just showing them what kind of damage it could do without risking anybodys life!
#179 - komradkthulu (07/06/2013) [-]
The atomic bombing should not be condemned. Especially if the US had "showed what kind of damage it could do" it and the rest of the Allies that were set to invade in November would have killed millions of Japanese civilians and took hundreds of thousands of more casualties. Forcing a surrender with the A-Bomb was the humane decision.
Now, go read a history book or watch a documentary before you open your mouth to me again.
#35 - komradkthulu (07/05/2013) [-]
I'm not saying the US won it, but to belittle its role is absurdity. Youfeelinme?
#36 - Hreidmar (07/05/2013) [-]
I don't get involved in arguments about the US contribution. It very quickly turns into a monkey brawl and a game of 'who can use the most expletives.' The only thing I'll say is that I think the war could still have been won without the US, though it would have taken much, much longer and cost easily twice as many lives total. One of the deciding factors of the war was the cryptography and cryptanalysis effort, which was almost a purely British project. I'm not saying that the US contributed less than other countries, but I am saying that perhaps their involvement in the European front was less crucial. The Pacific and North African fronts are a different matter.
#38 - Hreidmar (07/05/2013) [-]
The Soviets AND the British. Don't underestimate the difficulty of conquering an island, even with an industrial machine like Germany's. I honestly doubt Hitler could have taken Britain, though he could have devastated it. Britain was too well prepared, though, again because of the cryptalanysis effort and Bletchley Park. Starting from late 1940 or so they could predict most of Germany's moves and even their submarine fleets were vulnerable.
#80 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
had Hitler cared less about Russia and used its force on Britain....he probably could have taken down Britain. Hitler fucked up when he led his troops into Russia which pretty much made Hitler wide open for an attack.
#86 - Hreidmar (07/05/2013) [-]
That's true, the entire German army and industry could have probably taken down Britain. But yes, they were split between two fronts. All I'm saying is that even if America wasn't involved in the European front at all, I think that the split between the USSR and Britain would have rendered Hitler incapable of taking over either of them. Just a hypothetical situation, that's all.
#126 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
This is absolutely ridiculous. WWII would not have been won without the might of the American industrial machine. We went from a 175,000 man military to an 8.2 million man military that was capable of fighting all over the world in a year. Britain could not have fought Germany in main land Europe without the support of the Americans. their military was absolutely devastated at Dunkirk and they never really fully recovered after that. If Hitler had just launched an amphibious assault Britain would have got its ass kicked.
The American war effort was vital in both the Eastern and Western front. I'll start with the West because it is chronologically sooner. The Russians lost most of their military industrial factories in the early German assault. These were located to the west because of the abundance of railroads in that part of the country. The Russians were unable to produce their own ammunition and many of the products required for the military because of this loss.
#130 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
America provided Russia with almost all of its supplies to fight the war. We sent Half-tracks, scout cars, almost all of their ammunition used, fuel and steel, as well as many other resources. The famous T-34s were constructed using premium American steel as well as the Russian KS-1s and ISU-152 heavy tanks. Even the Russian heavy machine guns were American made as well as almost all the bullets fired by the Russian troops. It wasn't until near the end of the war when Russia recaptured much of its lost territory was it able to begin to produce its own weapons again. Without America Russia would have been fighting the Germans with sticks and never would have held out at Stalingrad or Leningrad and prevented the capture of Moscow.
Now lets look at the actions in northern Africa which were also key into denying Germany victory in both the Western and Eastern front. Britain had been completely defeated by Rommel in Africa and was in a full retreat.
#136 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
The complete resupply of the British forces and the replacement of the lost armored troops as well as providing our own troops to halt and eventually defeat the German advance across Northern Africa. Rommel would have captured the oil fields in the Middle East which would have been the final nail on the coffin of the Russians in the Eastern front. The Germans had stretched themselves too far in the Eastern front and they began too run dangerously low on oil and gas for their Panzers. I do not think anyone can argue that it was the Americans that denied Germany these vital resources in Africa.
Britain's greatest achievement was during the Battle of Britain when for all intensive purposes the British forces smashed the Luftwaffe. This not only caused the planned German assault on Britain to stall because of the lack of needed air support required of the Amphibious landing, but it also gave the Allies a huge boost during D-Day and on the Eastern Front.
#139 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
Britain also provided a staging area for the assault on Normandy. Without the island it would have been almost impossible to launch an assault from across the Atlantic and crossing the Alps in northern Italy would also have proven extremely difficult.
The Western front was also key to supporting the Russians in the East. Many of the Wehrmacht's most elite troops and Panzer Divisions were stationed on the Western front for R&R before heading back to the Eastern front. The fighting in the West was actually bloodier than in the East. The Americans and Germans both lost more men in the West per regiment fighting than they did in the East. Meaning that if you were in an American or Russian regiment you actually had a greater chance of living through the war in the Russian Regiments.
#143 - anon (07/06/2013) [-]
In the end you need to ask your self could the war have been won with out the British? Of course it could have, but could the war have been won without America? No chance in hell. Between the complete supply of the Russian Army and the greatest amphibious assault in history the Americans were vital. Everyone always says how it was really the Russians that won WWII, but they definitely could not have done it without bullets or tanks or basically every other resource needed to fight a war. Not to mention we did all of this while fighting Japan in the Pacific and Southeast Asia which without a doubt was much harder than anything we did in Europe.
#48 - scousaj (07/05/2013) [-]
Are you fucking kidding me, we were devastated during that war, Hitler could have easily taken Britain after a few more years of whittling down our navy and then launching a land invasion. Luckily the Soviets pushed Germany back otherwise we'd be fucked. America putting massive pressure on Germany coupled with the unstoppable Soviets is what led to Hitler's downfall - the Soviets won the war.
#40 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
America did support rebuilding Europe after WWII (Marshal plan) and America did lead the fight against the USSR during the Cold War
#76 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
War is good because it gave America more money, essentially.
I somehow question the morality of that assertion.
#23 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
Well, America saved Europes ass in both world wars actually, as well as the world in WWII when Japan took over half of Asia. As well as most of Europe is fighting in the middle east as well as a america, because Terrorist are suicide bombing all across Europe too.
#51 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
Lol it's not like America was like, "Lets help those guys, because we want to". They were more like, "Let's help them, because we got attacked by the Germans (WW1 when Germans sunk the Lusitania), and when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. Americans were actually being selfish by not helping out in the first place...
#88 - anon (07/05/2013) [-]
Lol I think this is different, because mass genocide is being committed...
|#4 - Nothing wrong with pussy||07/05/2013 on Or just wink||-2|
|#5 - I still don't understand how people can deny evolution, just l… [+] (1 new reply)||07/05/2013 on Didn't know people this...||+2|
|#1 - Being smart doesn't automatically make you a good person. [+] (2 new replies)||07/04/2013 on Racist are dum!||+6|
|#2 - KKK is at is again||07/04/2013 on We are all the same.||0|
|#1 - Comment deleted||07/04/2013 on We are all the same.||0|
|#38 - I forgive the comic sans, this is awesome!||07/04/2013 on 0_-||0|