Upload
Login or register

fragman

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:10/03/2010
Last Login:7/30/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5304
Highest Content Rank:#1376
Highest Comment Rank:#583
Content Thumbs: 11450 total,  14737 ,  3287
Comment Thumbs: 15682 total,  18701 ,  3019
Content Level Progress: 28% (28/100)
Level 208 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 209 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 69.09% (691/1000)
Level 313 Comments: Wizard → Level 314 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:19
Content Views:513472
Times Content Favorited:1508 times
Total Comments Made:3066
FJ Points:24723
Favorite Tags: it (2) | Lost (2) | the (2)

latest user's comments

#114 - So what's the body count? Because I don't see any mention …  [+] (7 new replies) 04/03/2016 on America gets revenge for 9/11 -1
#130 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
Because it is terrorism, don't get that one wrong www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism

Those are acts of violence comitted against civilians for political gains. Sure body counts are a horrible thing and we or the refugees got pretty lucky to not drop down on that level. (for those who didn't bother to read, houses got set on fire with refugees in them and for worst case a grenade was thrown in an arrival center, it didn't explode)
#135 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
Sure, obviously. And if you set fire to the damn place when noone is in there yet, it isn't.
Overly broad definitions make words lose meaning. If you call those attacks terrorism, we really need a new word for the targeted killing of civilians for ideological reasons (i.e. islamic terrorism in today's world), because those two things are not equal in the slightest.
#157 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
Nope, it most likley still is because you threaten, you know, civilians (just because you endangerd no one doesn't mean you didn't threaten them... did you read the definition at all?) And no why should we? If I come over to set your house on fire and tell you'll kill you if you don't do what I want how the hell is that diffrent from actual terrorism?

We can still discuss further on tomorrow I have work to do sorry m8 if we need a new name or whatever but the original point from you is still bollocks.
#191 - fragman (04/04/2016) [-]
I do understand that it is the definition according to them, but it's still completely idiotic.
I also understand why this definition is so broad, mainly to give certain governments more ways to deal with dissident protesters and to make terrorism a more prevalent issue than it actually is.

Look, here's why I think this definition is extremely stupid:
If burning down an uninhabited refugee home (which can be interpreted both as a threat to refugees as well as a violent protest against the government currently running the country into the gutter) is called terrorism and killing 72 people & injuring 200 in suicide bombings is also called terrorism, without any distinguishing definition, it creates a false equivalence.
It's like saying an accident is an accident, no matter if it's just me being an idiot running my car into a tree hurting myself (and the tree) or me driving drunk running over 3 kids. There's a reason those two scenarios have different crimes and therefore punishments attached to them.

This is why the definition I had in mind when making my original point was (imo a more sensible one) the targeted killing of civilians for ideological reasons, under which premise the point is far from bollocks. However obviously operating from a false premise I concede that the statement was false, it should've read "meanwhile more than 95% of terrorists that kill people are muslim".
#209 - schnabulator (04/04/2016) [-]
Now I understand you better thank you

I don't think I can agree with you but I get the point and maybe you are right, I give you that.
#210 - fragman (04/04/2016) [-]
That's cool, man. We don't need to agree.
We were able to argue opposing points on an issue that tends to push people into going full retard pretty often while staying civil and that's good enough for me.

Schönen Abend noch.
#211 - schnabulator (04/04/2016) [-]
Für mich auch. Danke dir auch.
#28 - Oh go through the lists yourself, links below. So in your …  [+] (10 new replies) 04/03/2016 on America gets revenge for 9/11 +1
#104 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
We had 1005 attacks on refugee camps in germany last year including life grenades and burning buildings. Not saying the terrorist attacks didn't happen but claiming only muslims do terror attacks is just bollocks m8.

www.dw.com/en/report-five-times-more-attacks-on-refugee-homes-in-germany-in-2015/a-19011109
#172 - anon (04/03/2016) [-]
That's not terrorism, that's fighting the invaders.
#114 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
So what's the body count?
Because I don't see any mention of injured or dead in this article. And being from one of your neighboring countries and thus having heard many stories from media in the DACH region regarding migrant housing attacks, many are perpetrated before anyone moves in, which makes this destruction of private/public property, maybe endangering people, but not terrorism.
#130 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
Because it is terrorism, don't get that one wrong www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism

Those are acts of violence comitted against civilians for political gains. Sure body counts are a horrible thing and we or the refugees got pretty lucky to not drop down on that level. (for those who didn't bother to read, houses got set on fire with refugees in them and for worst case a grenade was thrown in an arrival center, it didn't explode)
#135 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
Sure, obviously. And if you set fire to the damn place when noone is in there yet, it isn't.
Overly broad definitions make words lose meaning. If you call those attacks terrorism, we really need a new word for the targeted killing of civilians for ideological reasons (i.e. islamic terrorism in today's world), because those two things are not equal in the slightest.
#157 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
Nope, it most likley still is because you threaten, you know, civilians (just because you endangerd no one doesn't mean you didn't threaten them... did you read the definition at all?) And no why should we? If I come over to set your house on fire and tell you'll kill you if you don't do what I want how the hell is that diffrent from actual terrorism?

We can still discuss further on tomorrow I have work to do sorry m8 if we need a new name or whatever but the original point from you is still bollocks.
#191 - fragman (04/04/2016) [-]
I do understand that it is the definition according to them, but it's still completely idiotic.
I also understand why this definition is so broad, mainly to give certain governments more ways to deal with dissident protesters and to make terrorism a more prevalent issue than it actually is.

Look, here's why I think this definition is extremely stupid:
If burning down an uninhabited refugee home (which can be interpreted both as a threat to refugees as well as a violent protest against the government currently running the country into the gutter) is called terrorism and killing 72 people & injuring 200 in suicide bombings is also called terrorism, without any distinguishing definition, it creates a false equivalence.
It's like saying an accident is an accident, no matter if it's just me being an idiot running my car into a tree hurting myself (and the tree) or me driving drunk running over 3 kids. There's a reason those two scenarios have different crimes and therefore punishments attached to them.

This is why the definition I had in mind when making my original point was (imo a more sensible one) the targeted killing of civilians for ideological reasons, under which premise the point is far from bollocks. However obviously operating from a false premise I concede that the statement was false, it should've read "meanwhile more than 95% of terrorists that kill people are muslim".
#209 - schnabulator (04/04/2016) [-]
Now I understand you better thank you

I don't think I can agree with you but I get the point and maybe you are right, I give you that.
#210 - fragman (04/04/2016) [-]
That's cool, man. We don't need to agree.
We were able to argue opposing points on an issue that tends to push people into going full retard pretty often while staying civil and that's good enough for me.

Schönen Abend noch.
#211 - schnabulator (04/04/2016) [-]
Für mich auch. Danke dir auch.
#23 - The ******* "not all" non-argument. Obviously. N…  [+] (12 new replies) 04/03/2016 on America gets revenge for 9/11 -3
User avatar
#25 - andywazowski (04/03/2016) [-]
I still don't know where you get your "95%" from. And I know a lot of people, especially western people, tend to connect terrorism to muslims. I'm just trying to say that it's a toxic way of looking at it. Since all over the world there have been terrorist action by pretty much every religion.
#28 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
Oh go through the lists yourself, links below.
So in your book, it's "toxic" to look at reality based on reality. Then let's do a hypothetical here: If you were to notice that >90% of stabbings in your country were perpetrated by midgets, it would be "toxic" to assume it was probably a midget when you hear about someone being stabbed. Similarly, if >90% of the time your head hurts it is because of your mental gymnastics without doing a proper warm up, it can obviously be some other reason this time and therefore it would be "toxic" to see, let alone mention the damn plainly visible connection.

References:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2016
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_July%E2%80%93December_2015
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2015
#104 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
We had 1005 attacks on refugee camps in germany last year including life grenades and burning buildings. Not saying the terrorist attacks didn't happen but claiming only muslims do terror attacks is just bollocks m8.

www.dw.com/en/report-five-times-more-attacks-on-refugee-homes-in-germany-in-2015/a-19011109
#172 - anon (04/03/2016) [-]
That's not terrorism, that's fighting the invaders.
#114 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
So what's the body count?
Because I don't see any mention of injured or dead in this article. And being from one of your neighboring countries and thus having heard many stories from media in the DACH region regarding migrant housing attacks, many are perpetrated before anyone moves in, which makes this destruction of private/public property, maybe endangering people, but not terrorism.
#130 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
Because it is terrorism, don't get that one wrong www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism

Those are acts of violence comitted against civilians for political gains. Sure body counts are a horrible thing and we or the refugees got pretty lucky to not drop down on that level. (for those who didn't bother to read, houses got set on fire with refugees in them and for worst case a grenade was thrown in an arrival center, it didn't explode)
#135 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
Sure, obviously. And if you set fire to the damn place when noone is in there yet, it isn't.
Overly broad definitions make words lose meaning. If you call those attacks terrorism, we really need a new word for the targeted killing of civilians for ideological reasons (i.e. islamic terrorism in today's world), because those two things are not equal in the slightest.
#157 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
Nope, it most likley still is because you threaten, you know, civilians (just because you endangerd no one doesn't mean you didn't threaten them... did you read the definition at all?) And no why should we? If I come over to set your house on fire and tell you'll kill you if you don't do what I want how the hell is that diffrent from actual terrorism?

We can still discuss further on tomorrow I have work to do sorry m8 if we need a new name or whatever but the original point from you is still bollocks.
#191 - fragman (04/04/2016) [-]
I do understand that it is the definition according to them, but it's still completely idiotic.
I also understand why this definition is so broad, mainly to give certain governments more ways to deal with dissident protesters and to make terrorism a more prevalent issue than it actually is.

Look, here's why I think this definition is extremely stupid:
If burning down an uninhabited refugee home (which can be interpreted both as a threat to refugees as well as a violent protest against the government currently running the country into the gutter) is called terrorism and killing 72 people & injuring 200 in suicide bombings is also called terrorism, without any distinguishing definition, it creates a false equivalence.
It's like saying an accident is an accident, no matter if it's just me being an idiot running my car into a tree hurting myself (and the tree) or me driving drunk running over 3 kids. There's a reason those two scenarios have different crimes and therefore punishments attached to them.

This is why the definition I had in mind when making my original point was (imo a more sensible one) the targeted killing of civilians for ideological reasons, under which premise the point is far from bollocks. However obviously operating from a false premise I concede that the statement was false, it should've read "meanwhile more than 95% of terrorists that kill people are muslim".
#209 - schnabulator (04/04/2016) [-]
Now I understand you better thank you

I don't think I can agree with you but I get the point and maybe you are right, I give you that.
#210 - fragman (04/04/2016) [-]
That's cool, man. We don't need to agree.
We were able to argue opposing points on an issue that tends to push people into going full retard pretty often while staying civil and that's good enough for me.

Schönen Abend noch.
#211 - schnabulator (04/04/2016) [-]
Für mich auch. Danke dir auch.
#21 - "But muh nority of muslims are terrorists." Sure…  [+] (19 new replies) 04/03/2016 on America gets revenge for 9/11 -8
#181 - anon (04/04/2016) [-]
Lol you might want to get your numbers checked, there's more right-wing extremist terrorists in the US than Muslim terrorists.
#113 - anon (04/03/2016) [-]
www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

I know it's technically only the US terrorism records but even if you consider it world wide the overall muslim terrorism percentage is less than 20% btw about 23% of the world population is muslim which makes within acceptable range. I am not trying to say that muslim terrorism is ok. terrorism is still a crime and every terrorist should get punished but statistically speaking there is no irregularity of the percentage of muslim terrorist which you said there was.
#115 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
"Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group[...]"

Surely including non-acts with 0 victims in terrorism stats does not skew the results in the slightest.
User avatar
#186 - selongb (04/04/2016) [-]
Well thats one of the largest problems we face when adressing terrorism, there is no concrete definition for terrorism, or who constitutes a terrorist.
User avatar
#22 - andywazowski (04/03/2016) [-]
It still doesn't mean every terrorist is a muslim. So there's that.
#78 - vexille (04/03/2016) [-]
#23 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
The fucking "not all" non-argument.
Obviously. Noone ever claimed anything like that.
But if you have a certain group of people who is responsible for >99% of the terrorim-related body count world wide, there's a damn clear tendency.

So in essence since terrorist = muslim in more than 95% of the cases, making the connection to muslims when someone says terrorism is called pattern recognition.
User avatar
#25 - andywazowski (04/03/2016) [-]
I still don't know where you get your "95%" from. And I know a lot of people, especially western people, tend to connect terrorism to muslims. I'm just trying to say that it's a toxic way of looking at it. Since all over the world there have been terrorist action by pretty much every religion.
#28 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
Oh go through the lists yourself, links below.
So in your book, it's "toxic" to look at reality based on reality. Then let's do a hypothetical here: If you were to notice that >90% of stabbings in your country were perpetrated by midgets, it would be "toxic" to assume it was probably a midget when you hear about someone being stabbed. Similarly, if >90% of the time your head hurts it is because of your mental gymnastics without doing a proper warm up, it can obviously be some other reason this time and therefore it would be "toxic" to see, let alone mention the damn plainly visible connection.

References:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2016
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_July%E2%80%93December_2015
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_January%E2%80%93June_2015
#104 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
We had 1005 attacks on refugee camps in germany last year including life grenades and burning buildings. Not saying the terrorist attacks didn't happen but claiming only muslims do terror attacks is just bollocks m8.

www.dw.com/en/report-five-times-more-attacks-on-refugee-homes-in-germany-in-2015/a-19011109
#172 - anon (04/03/2016) [-]
That's not terrorism, that's fighting the invaders.
#114 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
So what's the body count?
Because I don't see any mention of injured or dead in this article. And being from one of your neighboring countries and thus having heard many stories from media in the DACH region regarding migrant housing attacks, many are perpetrated before anyone moves in, which makes this destruction of private/public property, maybe endangering people, but not terrorism.
#130 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
Because it is terrorism, don't get that one wrong www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism

Those are acts of violence comitted against civilians for political gains. Sure body counts are a horrible thing and we or the refugees got pretty lucky to not drop down on that level. (for those who didn't bother to read, houses got set on fire with refugees in them and for worst case a grenade was thrown in an arrival center, it didn't explode)
#135 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
Sure, obviously. And if you set fire to the damn place when noone is in there yet, it isn't.
Overly broad definitions make words lose meaning. If you call those attacks terrorism, we really need a new word for the targeted killing of civilians for ideological reasons (i.e. islamic terrorism in today's world), because those two things are not equal in the slightest.
#157 - schnabulator (04/03/2016) [-]
Nope, it most likley still is because you threaten, you know, civilians (just because you endangerd no one doesn't mean you didn't threaten them... did you read the definition at all?) And no why should we? If I come over to set your house on fire and tell you'll kill you if you don't do what I want how the hell is that diffrent from actual terrorism?

We can still discuss further on tomorrow I have work to do sorry m8 if we need a new name or whatever but the original point from you is still bollocks.
#191 - fragman (04/04/2016) [-]
I do understand that it is the definition according to them, but it's still completely idiotic.
I also understand why this definition is so broad, mainly to give certain governments more ways to deal with dissident protesters and to make terrorism a more prevalent issue than it actually is.

Look, here's why I think this definition is extremely stupid:
If burning down an uninhabited refugee home (which can be interpreted both as a threat to refugees as well as a violent protest against the government currently running the country into the gutter) is called terrorism and killing 72 people & injuring 200 in suicide bombings is also called terrorism, without any distinguishing definition, it creates a false equivalence.
It's like saying an accident is an accident, no matter if it's just me being an idiot running my car into a tree hurting myself (and the tree) or me driving drunk running over 3 kids. There's a reason those two scenarios have different crimes and therefore punishments attached to them.

This is why the definition I had in mind when making my original point was (imo a more sensible one) the targeted killing of civilians for ideological reasons, under which premise the point is far from bollocks. However obviously operating from a false premise I concede that the statement was false, it should've read "meanwhile more than 95% of terrorists that kill people are muslim".
#209 - schnabulator (04/04/2016) [-]
Now I understand you better thank you

I don't think I can agree with you but I get the point and maybe you are right, I give you that.
#210 - fragman (04/04/2016) [-]
That's cool, man. We don't need to agree.
We were able to argue opposing points on an issue that tends to push people into going full retard pretty often while staying civil and that's good enough for me.

Schönen Abend noch.
#211 - schnabulator (04/04/2016) [-]
Für mich auch. Danke dir auch.
#93 - So there you have a guy, that is about as balls deep in his sk…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/03/2016 on The worst outcome 0
User avatar
#94 - mvnnvm (04/03/2016) [-]
True, The only one left I would choose though is Trump.
#79 - Hahahaha Carson Sure, have one of the few truly secular na…  [+] (3 new replies) 04/03/2016 on The worst outcome 0
User avatar
#92 - mvnnvm (04/03/2016) [-]
I don't care about their scientific knowledge, I want them to not ruin the country.
#93 - fragman (04/03/2016) [-]
So there you have a guy, that is about as balls deep in his skydaddy's ass as Cruz and you think it would be a good idea to have him run the county? Holy shit.
Would Carson be better than Cruz or Shillary? Very likely. But then again that's true for most of the candidates that dropped out as well as Trump and Sanders.
User avatar
#94 - mvnnvm (04/03/2016) [-]
True, The only one left I would choose though is Trump.
#13 - - Authoritarian - Believe fairytales over facts - Use … 03/31/2016 on Feminist Islam +26
#929 - **fragman used "*roll 1, 1-99*"** **fragman rolls 28** 03/23/2016 on Roll for gf 0
#34 - The world's problems wouldn't end with the legalization, but i… 03/20/2016 on Weed +5
#40 - So you're saying, there shouldn't be dealbreakers? Like, t… 03/19/2016 on Unpopular opinion is... +1