Upload
Login or register

Customer Services

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:2/05/2009
Location:Quebec
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#555
Highest Content Rank:#4406
Highest Comment Rank:#547
Content Thumbs: 2744 total,  3000 ,  256
Comment Thumbs: 18493 total,  20474 ,  1981
Content Level Progress: 45% (45/100)
Level 127 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 128 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 57.09% (571/1000)
Level 314 Comments: Wizard → Level 315 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:5
Content Views:80779
Times Content Favorited:169 times
Total Comments Made:2874
FJ Points:17009
Favorite Tags: lol (2)

latest user's comments

#125 - Tho, you're right on your second sentence. 07/21/2016 on Milo Banned -1
#124 - IMO it would be worth it. 07/21/2016 on Milo Banned -1
#95 - Ain't even going to bat an eye if this ****** is reported shiv…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/21/2016 on Milo Banned 0
User avatar
#120 - samxdaxman (07/21/2016) [-]
i hope he isn't, that would just give all the /pol/tards rage boners and we'd get flooded with even more shit about SJW's on this site.

Like, it was cool at first but now it's becoming an echo chamber in here. We're becoming the alt-right tumblr.
User avatar
#125 - Customer Services (07/21/2016) [-]
Tho, you're right on your second sentence.
User avatar
#124 - Customer Services (07/21/2016) [-]
IMO it would be worth it.
#175 - War, def (Oxford dictionnary): "A state of armed conflict…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/20/2016 on I don't want to live on... 0
User avatar
#176 - SonofChuck (07/20/2016) [-]
Okay first off I was never arguing a specific definition of war, the whole point of my original comment was that war will always exist regardless of whether there are armies or not, I already gave examples in my last comment. As for your other point, I can concede to the fact that he probably meant the first definition but as I already stated that's not what my argument was about.
#177 - Yeah, because being an FBI agents magically makes that she won… 07/20/2016 on Fucking Comey 0
#24 - What. the. ****.  [+] (3 new replies) 07/19/2016 on Facebook comp +6
User avatar
#47 - yutdollacwwwthree (07/20/2016) [-]
it's probably a fetish thing. probably just a boyfriend.
User avatar
#48 - yutdollacwwwthree (07/20/2016) [-]
probably
User avatar
#49 - yutdollacwwwthree (07/20/2016) [-]
hopefully
#173 - Army, def: " large organized body of armed personnel trai…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/19/2016 on I don't want to live on... 0
User avatar
#174 - SonofChuck (07/19/2016) [-]
War, def: "A state of open and usually armed hostile conflict between states or nations" "A state of hostility, conflict or antagonism" "a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end"

According to these definitions the actual act of "war" is basically just conflict and again you don't need armies to create conflict. Also according to your definition an army is an organized force trained for the purpose of war so no any group leading a war by that definition is not an army. All that aside that aside though let's say for the sake of argument that a country with no standing army has war declared on them and upon invasion the civilians of said country fight back, is that not war? When rival gangs fight against one another is that not war, and lets not forget a certain 50 year long war fought without a single shot being fired from either side, The Cold War.

In summary, the concept of war encompasses more than just marching armies.
User avatar
#175 - Customer Services (07/20/2016) [-]
War, def (Oxford dictionnary): "A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country".

You took your definition on the Merriam-Webster dictionary as i can see. Mine is also there, which was is also backed by Oxford Dictionnary. I'm surprised you didn't took the first, and most appropriated definition, as comment #53 was referring to (and as you replied to him, proving that you acknowledged that he referred to that specific type of conflict).

According to other dictionary, i assume the definitions you're referring to are mostly used as figure ( example of an equivalent definition in Oxford's "A state of competition or hostility between different people or groups", e.g: she was at war with her parents.) without referring to actual nation conflicts (Which, i remind you, the original citation was all about). In summary, you are altering the main definition of what we were talking in the first place, and you're cherry picking definitions in order to prove your point. If i was bad faithed, i'd say you're just being intellectually dishonest once again.

OP original comparison you replied to was about a specific definition. If you tried to made your own analogy on comment 69 with a more generalist definition of "war", your argument isn't any more valid.
User avatar
#176 - SonofChuck (07/20/2016) [-]
Okay first off I was never arguing a specific definition of war, the whole point of my original comment was that war will always exist regardless of whether there are armies or not, I already gave examples in my last comment. As for your other point, I can concede to the fact that he probably meant the first definition but as I already stated that's not what my argument was about.
#89 - Maybe they just don't wanna be harassed by herds of people who…  [+] (6 new replies) 07/19/2016 on catchem all +5
User avatar
#96 - malhaloc (07/19/2016) [-]
Its not that one business will get fucked up. Its that the other will have better business because its not only accepting the Go crowd, it's embracing them. It could end up being a good hang out spot for trainers.
User avatar
#90 - gragasvlad (07/19/2016) [-]
Which is why one of them where clever enough to ad a stay and buy something incentive where as the otherone will lose potential customers.
User avatar
#91 - fables (07/19/2016) [-]
yeah, like the majority of these people are going to stick around for a bit of change off of a drink
User avatar
#98 - sirnigga (07/19/2016) [-]
most people are stupid enough to fall for simple shit like that if they think its a deal most of the time theyll go for it
User avatar
#92 - cursedjester (07/19/2016) [-]
You'd be surprised. People are more inclined to buy when they can get a percentage off something. Not everyone, of course, though its why prices are 9.99 or have a fraction removed: It looks that much cheaper.
User avatar
#102 - gragasvlad (07/19/2016) [-]
But it's rounded up so I feel it's more expensive.
#122 - Ok, because you eat your forks? That's a plain false analogy. …  [+] (5 new replies) 07/18/2016 on I don't want to live on... -3
#129 - SonofChuck (07/18/2016) [-]
No forks are not essential to eating, likewise an army isn't actually necessary to have a war only a capacity to fight and a concept of ownership is needed for war to exist, that was my point.
User avatar
#173 - Customer Services (07/19/2016) [-]
Army, def: " large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land" "the complete military organization of a nation for land warfare".

According to these definitions, i'm pretty sure any group leading a war is considered an army. Having a casual war implies that both or all parties have an army.

How are army not actually necessary to have a war, considering that the concept of army requires to have soldiers, or anything who actually have "the capacity to fight"?

In summary, War have to be lead by a given force. If no forces are able to fight, then war cannot be. Therefore, he's technically right.
User avatar
#174 - SonofChuck (07/19/2016) [-]
War, def: "A state of open and usually armed hostile conflict between states or nations" "A state of hostility, conflict or antagonism" "a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end"

According to these definitions the actual act of "war" is basically just conflict and again you don't need armies to create conflict. Also according to your definition an army is an organized force trained for the purpose of war so no any group leading a war by that definition is not an army. All that aside that aside though let's say for the sake of argument that a country with no standing army has war declared on them and upon invasion the civilians of said country fight back, is that not war? When rival gangs fight against one another is that not war, and lets not forget a certain 50 year long war fought without a single shot being fired from either side, The Cold War.

In summary, the concept of war encompasses more than just marching armies.
User avatar
#175 - Customer Services (07/20/2016) [-]
War, def (Oxford dictionnary): "A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country".

You took your definition on the Merriam-Webster dictionary as i can see. Mine is also there, which was is also backed by Oxford Dictionnary. I'm surprised you didn't took the first, and most appropriated definition, as comment #53 was referring to (and as you replied to him, proving that you acknowledged that he referred to that specific type of conflict).

According to other dictionary, i assume the definitions you're referring to are mostly used as figure ( example of an equivalent definition in Oxford's "A state of competition or hostility between different people or groups", e.g: she was at war with her parents.) without referring to actual nation conflicts (Which, i remind you, the original citation was all about). In summary, you are altering the main definition of what we were talking in the first place, and you're cherry picking definitions in order to prove your point. If i was bad faithed, i'd say you're just being intellectually dishonest once again.

OP original comparison you replied to was about a specific definition. If you tried to made your own analogy on comment 69 with a more generalist definition of "war", your argument isn't any more valid.
User avatar
#176 - SonofChuck (07/20/2016) [-]
Okay first off I was never arguing a specific definition of war, the whole point of my original comment was that war will always exist regardless of whether there are armies or not, I already gave examples in my last comment. As for your other point, I can concede to the fact that he probably meant the first definition but as I already stated that's not what my argument was about.
#121 - You're anon. You're 13 at the most. 07/18/2016 on I don't want to live on... 0