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

hide menu

gjsmothefirst

no avatar Level 197 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Offline
Send mail to gjsmothefirst Block gjsmothefirst Invite gjsmothefirst to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:9/12/2012
Last Login:2/01/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 1317 total,  1611 ,  294
Comment Thumbs: 975 total,  1417 ,  442
Content Level Progress: 15% (15/100)
Level 113 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 114 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 197 Comments: Anon Annihilator → Level 198 Comments: Anon Annihilator
Subscribers:0
Content Views:82067
Times Content Favorited:108 times
Total Comments Made:646
FJ Points:2322
Favorite Tags: tags (3) | no (2)

latest user's comments

#416 - I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the shear awesomeness of the …  [+] (17 new replies) 01/10/2013 on MAC vs PC -2
#429 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
ha i cant hear shit over my 8 core amd extreme fx running at 5.0 ghz and my 60 inch 4k resoluton screen with quad mount moniters around it
i have computers that will make bill gates jealous and apple look like pisswater
#431 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
>4k resolution
That's $25,000 right there. Nice try. You just lost all credibility.
8 core means you have an AMD cpu, great for price, nothing like a core i7.

tl;dr you're bullshitting and you know it.
#434 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
how would you know what i have ? i could be a millionair and you wouldnt even know it, and so what if it cost 25k my rigs and server cost a round about of 100 k and i do have amd and intel amd is my only 8 core rig and my intel is a sandy bride -E with clock of 4.5 ghz
#436 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
... you have no clue what the fuck you're even talking about.

You personally own a server worth $100k? You're retarded, if you have that much money you clearly have a job where they have servers like that available, just use one of them. You're so smart, they probably wouldn't even know. Not to mention that you can't even run a computer like that without running yourself new electrical lines, it's going to draw a whole lot more than 100A (assuming you're in the US, that's the maximum power draw in a standard household).
#438 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
i didnt say i have a server worth on 100k i said i have computer rigs and a server that cost about 100 k i have 8 computers all custom built and a custom build multimedia raid 0 15 tb. on a network connected over cat5e data cables
#440 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
>server cost a round about of 100 k
>i didnt say i have a server worth on 100k
Pick one, dipshit.

Cat5e? Bitch, get on my level, my house is wired with Cat6 (which support MUCH higher bandwidth).

So you're a stupid richfag? Ok, got it.
#448 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
oh and did i mention i am running DOCSIS3.0 mother boards and my internet is fiberoptics
#451 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
i put mother boards there on acident that was meant for something else
#449 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
>DOCSIS
Not a motherboard, data tranfer standard/system.

Seriously, shut the fuck up, you're retarded.
#447 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
and like i said i plan on upgrading to cat 7
#446 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
read dingus i SAID " my rigs and server cost a round about of 100 k " my rigs and server
#442 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
i use cat 5 e for an internal network and T5 for external and why would i need high band with just to store tons of files localy ?
#444 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
>tons of files
>low bandwidth

Don't really see what's so wrong with being able to transfer 5+GB per minute.
#445 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
their hooked up to a raid 0 server setup and the files go thought usb 3.0 and piggy back cat5e cables when there is no room also im in the process of upgradeing to cat 6 once my main systems are built fully
#450 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
>files go through usb 3.0

Can't fucking transfer files between computers, learn your shit.
#452 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
ugh you never used usb for data transfers have you ? what do you think almost ever external hdd /sdd use USB CABLES
#453 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
Ever tried to hook two computers together with USB? Doesn't fucking work.

Sure, I use flash drives and external drives all the time, but you can't transfer files through USB, as you implied by comparing it to Cat5E (which you really should be calling Ethernet, or by the more appropriate 100BASE-T or 1000BASE-T).
#187 - I have read it. It's an anarchism propaganda site, and therefo…  [+] (6 new replies) 01/10/2013 on Idk what to put here 0
#188 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#189 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Maybe you should call it that, since anarchy and/or anarchism (please don't argue over synonyms, you look like an idiot) are not communism, which is what you've been describing this entire time. Incidentally, communism is a great idea (again, in theory only) and when it does work (you gave three examples), it's great - but it only works on small scales, for short periods of time.

If you knew how to analyze sources, you would know that it's your site would NEVER be considered valid in itself, no matter how well-cited or well-argued it is - it is pro-anarchist, and therefore has inherent bias regardless of how well it is presented. A dictionary definition is as close as possible to a completely unbiased definition.

You have a fine case for your argument, if and only if you call it what it is (communism) and realize that it hasn't worked on any meaningful scale in the real world.
#191 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#190 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#192 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
USSR, China, etc... this were the attempts. Look at the results.

And when looking for something such as a definition (and I am really trying to prove that your definition is wrong), yes, bias must be eliminated.

Your site is perfectly valid if we were arguing about how communism (or in your words, anarchism) worked. It's not, however, a valid source to define the meaning of anything, due to said bias.

I am serious, I don't believe you're correct, nor will your sources sway me (as apparently mine cannot sway you). Just because you apply a pre-existing word to an event, object or thing doesn't make it the right word.

Put another way, if anarchism is what I would call communism, what do you call the complete lack of government which I would call anarchism?
#193 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#143 - Agreed, there are alternatives, but the fact is that most peop… 01/10/2013 on MAC vs PC -1
#82 - I have absolutely no idea, much like the rest of my gifs. … 01/10/2013 on A comment sets me up... 0
#75 - I think of this gif every time I see your username, even thoug…  [+] (3 new replies) 01/10/2013 on A comment sets me up... +9
#78 - waffies (01/10/2013) [-]
I like it! What is it from? i assume this is from the same thing
User avatar #92 - scottshur (01/10/2013) [-]
30 rock tv show bro
#82 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
I have absolutely no idea, much like the rest of my gifs.

WAIT - GOOGLE THE MUFUKKING RESCUE!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzB1thae_LA
#69 - Picture 01/10/2013 on A comment sets me up... 0
#98 - Or you know, just ******* Boot Camp, and you get … 01/10/2013 on MAC vs PC 0
#94 - >linux nope, based off of BSD and NeXT, runs the Mach k…  [+] (23 new replies) 01/10/2013 on MAC vs PC 0
#413 - disturbedmaster (01/10/2013) [-]
yeah macs work well till you oc em and stress them out to try and get reall performance
#416 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the shear awesomeness of the i7 quad-core in my MBP.
or the 2880x1800 resolution.
#429 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
ha i cant hear shit over my 8 core amd extreme fx running at 5.0 ghz and my 60 inch 4k resoluton screen with quad mount moniters around it
i have computers that will make bill gates jealous and apple look like pisswater
#431 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
>4k resolution
That's $25,000 right there. Nice try. You just lost all credibility.
8 core means you have an AMD cpu, great for price, nothing like a core i7.

tl;dr you're bullshitting and you know it.
#434 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
how would you know what i have ? i could be a millionair and you wouldnt even know it, and so what if it cost 25k my rigs and server cost a round about of 100 k and i do have amd and intel amd is my only 8 core rig and my intel is a sandy bride -E with clock of 4.5 ghz
#436 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
... you have no clue what the fuck you're even talking about.

You personally own a server worth $100k? You're retarded, if you have that much money you clearly have a job where they have servers like that available, just use one of them. You're so smart, they probably wouldn't even know. Not to mention that you can't even run a computer like that without running yourself new electrical lines, it's going to draw a whole lot more than 100A (assuming you're in the US, that's the maximum power draw in a standard household).
#438 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
i didnt say i have a server worth on 100k i said i have computer rigs and a server that cost about 100 k i have 8 computers all custom built and a custom build multimedia raid 0 15 tb. on a network connected over cat5e data cables
#440 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
>server cost a round about of 100 k
>i didnt say i have a server worth on 100k
Pick one, dipshit.

Cat5e? Bitch, get on my level, my house is wired with Cat6 (which support MUCH higher bandwidth).

So you're a stupid richfag? Ok, got it.
#448 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
oh and did i mention i am running DOCSIS3.0 mother boards and my internet is fiberoptics
#451 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
i put mother boards there on acident that was meant for something else
#449 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
>DOCSIS
Not a motherboard, data tranfer standard/system.

Seriously, shut the fuck up, you're retarded.
#447 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
and like i said i plan on upgrading to cat 7
#446 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
read dingus i SAID " my rigs and server cost a round about of 100 k " my rigs and server
#442 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
i use cat 5 e for an internal network and T5 for external and why would i need high band with just to store tons of files localy ?
#444 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
>tons of files
>low bandwidth

Don't really see what's so wrong with being able to transfer 5+GB per minute.
#445 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
their hooked up to a raid 0 server setup and the files go thought usb 3.0 and piggy back cat5e cables when there is no room also im in the process of upgradeing to cat 6 once my main systems are built fully
#450 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
>files go through usb 3.0

Can't fucking transfer files between computers, learn your shit.
#452 - disturbedmaster (01/11/2013) [-]
ugh you never used usb for data transfers have you ? what do you think almost ever external hdd /sdd use USB CABLES
#453 - gjsmothefirst (01/11/2013) [-]
Ever tried to hook two computers together with USB? Doesn't fucking work.

Sure, I use flash drives and external drives all the time, but you can't transfer files through USB, as you implied by comparing it to Cat5E (which you really should be calling Ethernet, or by the more appropriate 100BASE-T or 1000BASE-T).
#414 - disturbedmaster (01/10/2013) [-]
sure macs are fast but not much you can do to tweak it
#415 - disturbedmaster (01/10/2013) [-]
and add on the fact that only mac laptops are good and mac desktops only have 1 and dual core. unless you get the stupid all in one system. which are garbage in general
#131 - anonymous (01/10/2013) [-]
Should of used "IIRC" for that, I was thinking BSD but for some reason, Linux came to mind. Thanks for that.

As for games, I only stated the target audience - more specifically, the larger one. I used Windows because the XBOX and XBOX 360 are basically a stripped down version of NT.

AutoCad & InDesign? There are many different and equivalant software to match them. Some free, the rest, well, you can still afford your rent. ;)
#143 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Agreed, there are alternatives, but the fact is that most people use Window-only CAD programs, and InDesign is pretty damn standard AFAIK. Never said I pay for them, BTW.

You failed to address pro audio support, of which there's very little. Sure, JACK has made it better, Ardour isn't bad, but you really can't compare with the amazing support on both Windows and Mac (for reputable hardware manufacturers, that is). No Pro Tools, no Cubase, no Sonar - I can't use a Linux box (though I'd love to - realtime is better than Windows at least, not sure vs. Mac) because of this.
#83 - I understand that. That argument was never made by anyone. … 01/10/2013 on So I was watching 2 Fast 2... +1
#81 - ... which of course means you wouldn't be accelerating at all.…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/10/2013 on So I was watching 2 Fast 2... +1
User avatar #82 - legin (01/10/2013) [-]
but if you redlined 4th, 3rd wouldn't give you any acceleration.
#83 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
I understand that. That argument was never made by anyone.
"this only works if you can match the revs without redlining the engine"
#185 - Looks like you'll have to explain again, because you're …  [+] (8 new replies) 01/10/2013 on Idk what to put here 0
#186 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#187 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
I have read it. It's an anarchism propaganda site, and therefore the source is invalid for my purposes.

I understand the definitions, but it appears that you do not. I can hear you just fine. You're still wrong. Doesn't change a thing. I must say the same about you - if you refuse to hear MY side of the argument, it is indeed impossible to discuss this intelligently. I have put forth my argument, you simply say my definitions are wrong, and point EVERYONE to one anarchist propaganda site. I have given far more evidence than you have, far more evidence than even exists, and you still deny it.

This is not intelligent conversation. This is you standing on half a leg, trying to stand up, while I roll over you with a tank that I'd like to call Knowledge.

Just so you know:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1. a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2. a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Please don't refer to 1c.

Definition of UTOPIAN
1: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3: impossibly ideal : visionary <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes — C. S. Kilby>

In addition, the Greek root anarchos means lack of authority or government, something which communism (which is what you're advocating) clearly isn't.
#188 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#189 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Maybe you should call it that, since anarchy and/or anarchism (please don't argue over synonyms, you look like an idiot) are not communism, which is what you've been describing this entire time. Incidentally, communism is a great idea (again, in theory only) and when it does work (you gave three examples), it's great - but it only works on small scales, for short periods of time.

If you knew how to analyze sources, you would know that it's your site would NEVER be considered valid in itself, no matter how well-cited or well-argued it is - it is pro-anarchist, and therefore has inherent bias regardless of how well it is presented. A dictionary definition is as close as possible to a completely unbiased definition.

You have a fine case for your argument, if and only if you call it what it is (communism) and realize that it hasn't worked on any meaningful scale in the real world.
#191 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#190 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#192 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
USSR, China, etc... this were the attempts. Look at the results.

And when looking for something such as a definition (and I am really trying to prove that your definition is wrong), yes, bias must be eliminated.

Your site is perfectly valid if we were arguing about how communism (or in your words, anarchism) worked. It's not, however, a valid source to define the meaning of anything, due to said bias.

I am serious, I don't believe you're correct, nor will your sources sway me (as apparently mine cannot sway you). Just because you apply a pre-existing word to an event, object or thing doesn't make it the right word.

Put another way, if anarchism is what I would call communism, what do you call the complete lack of government which I would call anarchism?
#193 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#54 - It will be called "I Went in the Wrong Direction" 01/09/2013 on Its coming +1
#183 - ***** ... get your facts straight. Nice taking me …  [+] (10 new replies) 01/09/2013 on Idk what to put here 0
#184 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#185 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Looks like you'll have to explain again, because you're fucking wrong.

Let's see, Medieval Europe had government you say? Why might that be wrong? Could it possibly be because no-one, person or people, governed it? Oh sure, there were plenty of little tiny "governments" - one for every single fucking lord or nobleman everywhere, of which there were THOUSANDS. Government? I think not. That's anarchism, which is the lack of government, not any of the definitions you've given.
True, the military came to power shortly after Mubarak fell, but there was nearly a week of anarchy - during which there was chaos - and it led to a military oligarchy. How's your anarchism looking now?

I'm not sure how YOU fail to understand that the ATTEMPTS at communism were just that - ATTEMPTS. They didn't work, not one bit. Doesn't make them not attempts. Stop arguing with yourself, you're looking more and more like a potato every minute.

Libertarian communism? No, just no. Anarchism is lack of government, lack of any rule whatsoever. IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, IF THERE IS ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THAT IS NOT FUCKING ANARCHISM. You haven't given an example yet, you haven't even convinced me that you know anything about what you're saying. Good day to you sir, and good luck with getting healthcare, education, a job, currency, and protection from anything with your anarchism.

<< summary of your argument
#186 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#187 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
I have read it. It's an anarchism propaganda site, and therefore the source is invalid for my purposes.

I understand the definitions, but it appears that you do not. I can hear you just fine. You're still wrong. Doesn't change a thing. I must say the same about you - if you refuse to hear MY side of the argument, it is indeed impossible to discuss this intelligently. I have put forth my argument, you simply say my definitions are wrong, and point EVERYONE to one anarchist propaganda site. I have given far more evidence than you have, far more evidence than even exists, and you still deny it.

This is not intelligent conversation. This is you standing on half a leg, trying to stand up, while I roll over you with a tank that I'd like to call Knowledge.

Just so you know:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1. a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2. a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Please don't refer to 1c.

Definition of UTOPIAN
1: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3: impossibly ideal : visionary <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes — C. S. Kilby>

In addition, the Greek root anarchos means lack of authority or government, something which communism (which is what you're advocating) clearly isn't.
#188 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#189 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Maybe you should call it that, since anarchy and/or anarchism (please don't argue over synonyms, you look like an idiot) are not communism, which is what you've been describing this entire time. Incidentally, communism is a great idea (again, in theory only) and when it does work (you gave three examples), it's great - but it only works on small scales, for short periods of time.

If you knew how to analyze sources, you would know that it's your site would NEVER be considered valid in itself, no matter how well-cited or well-argued it is - it is pro-anarchist, and therefore has inherent bias regardless of how well it is presented. A dictionary definition is as close as possible to a completely unbiased definition.

You have a fine case for your argument, if and only if you call it what it is (communism) and realize that it hasn't worked on any meaningful scale in the real world.
#191 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#190 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#192 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
USSR, China, etc... this were the attempts. Look at the results.

And when looking for something such as a definition (and I am really trying to prove that your definition is wrong), yes, bias must be eliminated.

Your site is perfectly valid if we were arguing about how communism (or in your words, anarchism) worked. It's not, however, a valid source to define the meaning of anything, due to said bias.

I am serious, I don't believe you're correct, nor will your sources sway me (as apparently mine cannot sway you). Just because you apply a pre-existing word to an event, object or thing doesn't make it the right word.

Put another way, if anarchism is what I would call communism, what do you call the complete lack of government which I would call anarchism?
#193 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#179 - Socialism isn't supposed to be a government system, but that's…  [+] (12 new replies) 01/09/2013 on Idk what to put here 0
#180 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#183 - gjsmothefirst (01/09/2013) [-]
Nigga... get your facts straight. Nice taking me out of context, for all intents and purposes the Middle Ages were anarchism due to the government's complete and utter lack of control.

After Mubarak fell, fuck YES there was anarchism! In all fairness, it was soon replaced by a military oligarchy of sorts, but that's what anarchism gets you.

You have, once again, proven yourself wrong. "Marxist dictatorships have all called themselves 'socialist' in order to justify their rule, but that doesn't mean that they actually were" - i.e., nearly every attempt at communism or socialism ever.

One example does not an argument make. Multiple ones do. China, Russia, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba were all either once or are now officially communist - and at that time, they were/are no more than dolled up dictatorships. I'll give more if you want. Nope, no socialism - except that's what they called it.

Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that every example of "anarchism" you've given is just communism, on a small scale where it actually worked (briefly). Fuck, the work COMMUNE is in two of them.
#184 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#185 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Looks like you'll have to explain again, because you're fucking wrong.

Let's see, Medieval Europe had government you say? Why might that be wrong? Could it possibly be because no-one, person or people, governed it? Oh sure, there were plenty of little tiny "governments" - one for every single fucking lord or nobleman everywhere, of which there were THOUSANDS. Government? I think not. That's anarchism, which is the lack of government, not any of the definitions you've given.
True, the military came to power shortly after Mubarak fell, but there was nearly a week of anarchy - during which there was chaos - and it led to a military oligarchy. How's your anarchism looking now?

I'm not sure how YOU fail to understand that the ATTEMPTS at communism were just that - ATTEMPTS. They didn't work, not one bit. Doesn't make them not attempts. Stop arguing with yourself, you're looking more and more like a potato every minute.

Libertarian communism? No, just no. Anarchism is lack of government, lack of any rule whatsoever. IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, IF THERE IS ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THAT IS NOT FUCKING ANARCHISM. You haven't given an example yet, you haven't even convinced me that you know anything about what you're saying. Good day to you sir, and good luck with getting healthcare, education, a job, currency, and protection from anything with your anarchism.

<< summary of your argument
#186 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#187 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
I have read it. It's an anarchism propaganda site, and therefore the source is invalid for my purposes.

I understand the definitions, but it appears that you do not. I can hear you just fine. You're still wrong. Doesn't change a thing. I must say the same about you - if you refuse to hear MY side of the argument, it is indeed impossible to discuss this intelligently. I have put forth my argument, you simply say my definitions are wrong, and point EVERYONE to one anarchist propaganda site. I have given far more evidence than you have, far more evidence than even exists, and you still deny it.

This is not intelligent conversation. This is you standing on half a leg, trying to stand up, while I roll over you with a tank that I'd like to call Knowledge.

Just so you know:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1. a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2. a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Please don't refer to 1c.

Definition of UTOPIAN
1: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3: impossibly ideal : visionary <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes — C. S. Kilby>

In addition, the Greek root anarchos means lack of authority or government, something which communism (which is what you're advocating) clearly isn't.
#188 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#189 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Maybe you should call it that, since anarchy and/or anarchism (please don't argue over synonyms, you look like an idiot) are not communism, which is what you've been describing this entire time. Incidentally, communism is a great idea (again, in theory only) and when it does work (you gave three examples), it's great - but it only works on small scales, for short periods of time.

If you knew how to analyze sources, you would know that it's your site would NEVER be considered valid in itself, no matter how well-cited or well-argued it is - it is pro-anarchist, and therefore has inherent bias regardless of how well it is presented. A dictionary definition is as close as possible to a completely unbiased definition.

You have a fine case for your argument, if and only if you call it what it is (communism) and realize that it hasn't worked on any meaningful scale in the real world.
#191 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#190 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#192 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
USSR, China, etc... this were the attempts. Look at the results.

And when looking for something such as a definition (and I am really trying to prove that your definition is wrong), yes, bias must be eliminated.

Your site is perfectly valid if we were arguing about how communism (or in your words, anarchism) worked. It's not, however, a valid source to define the meaning of anything, due to said bias.

I am serious, I don't believe you're correct, nor will your sources sway me (as apparently mine cannot sway you). Just because you apply a pre-existing word to an event, object or thing doesn't make it the right word.

Put another way, if anarchism is what I would call communism, what do you call the complete lack of government which I would call anarchism?
#193 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#83 - Viggo also broke a tooth - and wanted to ******* …  [+] (1 new reply) 01/09/2013 on Django +1
User avatar #87 - anonymoose (01/09/2013) [-]
He also had a certain way of greeting people by headbutting them on the set, that Elijah Wood described as "spontaneous violent love".
#306 - Hope I don't need those testicles... 01/09/2013 on justin bieber fans +4
#168 - Yet socialism is most definitely a government system. It's cer…  [+] (14 new replies) 01/09/2013 on Idk what to put here 0
#171 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#179 - gjsmothefirst (01/09/2013) [-]
Socialism isn't supposed to be a government system, but that's what it ends up as. You can argue what it's defined as all you want, doesn't change how the real world works (which you clearly don't understand).

Your rejection of clear facts basically invalidate your entire argument. In capitalism, richer owners take advantage of the poor workers, in socialism the government takes advantage of the people (to an extent, depends on where you are), in communism one person always ends up as a dictator - and it's no longer communism. I needn't say that dictatorships or monarchies end in corruption.

Anarchism can't be flawed, because it's the LACK of government. That doesn't make it right at all. Sure, governments have issues, but you seem to be ignoring the vast evidence AGAINST anarchism - like, for instance, the Middle Ages, which were basically anarchism (there was a government, but it did absolutely nothing). Not too good. Or for instance, right after the government in Egypt fell, there was chaos - and there still is some. Morsi is doing a very good job managing it IMHO - and he's using GOVERNMENT.

Sure, you can name instances of socialism that worked. Now do that with anarchism. Betcha can't - there wouldn't have been records of it anyways.
#180 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#183 - gjsmothefirst (01/09/2013) [-]
Nigga... get your facts straight. Nice taking me out of context, for all intents and purposes the Middle Ages were anarchism due to the government's complete and utter lack of control.

After Mubarak fell, fuck YES there was anarchism! In all fairness, it was soon replaced by a military oligarchy of sorts, but that's what anarchism gets you.

You have, once again, proven yourself wrong. "Marxist dictatorships have all called themselves 'socialist' in order to justify their rule, but that doesn't mean that they actually were" - i.e., nearly every attempt at communism or socialism ever.

One example does not an argument make. Multiple ones do. China, Russia, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba were all either once or are now officially communist - and at that time, they were/are no more than dolled up dictatorships. I'll give more if you want. Nope, no socialism - except that's what they called it.

Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that every example of "anarchism" you've given is just communism, on a small scale where it actually worked (briefly). Fuck, the work COMMUNE is in two of them.
#184 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#185 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Looks like you'll have to explain again, because you're fucking wrong.

Let's see, Medieval Europe had government you say? Why might that be wrong? Could it possibly be because no-one, person or people, governed it? Oh sure, there were plenty of little tiny "governments" - one for every single fucking lord or nobleman everywhere, of which there were THOUSANDS. Government? I think not. That's anarchism, which is the lack of government, not any of the definitions you've given.
True, the military came to power shortly after Mubarak fell, but there was nearly a week of anarchy - during which there was chaos - and it led to a military oligarchy. How's your anarchism looking now?

I'm not sure how YOU fail to understand that the ATTEMPTS at communism were just that - ATTEMPTS. They didn't work, not one bit. Doesn't make them not attempts. Stop arguing with yourself, you're looking more and more like a potato every minute.

Libertarian communism? No, just no. Anarchism is lack of government, lack of any rule whatsoever. IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, IF THERE IS ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THAT IS NOT FUCKING ANARCHISM. You haven't given an example yet, you haven't even convinced me that you know anything about what you're saying. Good day to you sir, and good luck with getting healthcare, education, a job, currency, and protection from anything with your anarchism.

<< summary of your argument
#186 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#187 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
I have read it. It's an anarchism propaganda site, and therefore the source is invalid for my purposes.

I understand the definitions, but it appears that you do not. I can hear you just fine. You're still wrong. Doesn't change a thing. I must say the same about you - if you refuse to hear MY side of the argument, it is indeed impossible to discuss this intelligently. I have put forth my argument, you simply say my definitions are wrong, and point EVERYONE to one anarchist propaganda site. I have given far more evidence than you have, far more evidence than even exists, and you still deny it.

This is not intelligent conversation. This is you standing on half a leg, trying to stand up, while I roll over you with a tank that I'd like to call Knowledge.

Just so you know:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1. a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2. a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Please don't refer to 1c.

Definition of UTOPIAN
1: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3: impossibly ideal : visionary <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes — C. S. Kilby>

In addition, the Greek root anarchos means lack of authority or government, something which communism (which is what you're advocating) clearly isn't.
#188 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#189 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Maybe you should call it that, since anarchy and/or anarchism (please don't argue over synonyms, you look like an idiot) are not communism, which is what you've been describing this entire time. Incidentally, communism is a great idea (again, in theory only) and when it does work (you gave three examples), it's great - but it only works on small scales, for short periods of time.

If you knew how to analyze sources, you would know that it's your site would NEVER be considered valid in itself, no matter how well-cited or well-argued it is - it is pro-anarchist, and therefore has inherent bias regardless of how well it is presented. A dictionary definition is as close as possible to a completely unbiased definition.

You have a fine case for your argument, if and only if you call it what it is (communism) and realize that it hasn't worked on any meaningful scale in the real world.
#191 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#190 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#192 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
USSR, China, etc... this were the attempts. Look at the results.

And when looking for something such as a definition (and I am really trying to prove that your definition is wrong), yes, bias must be eliminated.

Your site is perfectly valid if we were arguing about how communism (or in your words, anarchism) worked. It's not, however, a valid source to define the meaning of anything, due to said bias.

I am serious, I don't believe you're correct, nor will your sources sway me (as apparently mine cannot sway you). Just because you apply a pre-existing word to an event, object or thing doesn't make it the right word.

Put another way, if anarchism is what I would call communism, what do you call the complete lack of government which I would call anarchism?
#193 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#64 - You make no sense, sir. From what I understood of that horribl…  [+] (16 new replies) 01/09/2013 on Idk what to put here +2
#67 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#168 - gjsmothefirst (01/09/2013) [-]
Yet socialism is most definitely a government system. It's certainly never used any way else.

You're rather idealistic. Tell us what the various political and economic systems are supposed to be isn't the same as actually making them. Communism, capitalism, socialism etc. all work IN THEORY ONLY - they each have severe weaknesses when put into practice, mostly because people inherently take advantage of whatever they can.
#171 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#179 - gjsmothefirst (01/09/2013) [-]
Socialism isn't supposed to be a government system, but that's what it ends up as. You can argue what it's defined as all you want, doesn't change how the real world works (which you clearly don't understand).

Your rejection of clear facts basically invalidate your entire argument. In capitalism, richer owners take advantage of the poor workers, in socialism the government takes advantage of the people (to an extent, depends on where you are), in communism one person always ends up as a dictator - and it's no longer communism. I needn't say that dictatorships or monarchies end in corruption.

Anarchism can't be flawed, because it's the LACK of government. That doesn't make it right at all. Sure, governments have issues, but you seem to be ignoring the vast evidence AGAINST anarchism - like, for instance, the Middle Ages, which were basically anarchism (there was a government, but it did absolutely nothing). Not too good. Or for instance, right after the government in Egypt fell, there was chaos - and there still is some. Morsi is doing a very good job managing it IMHO - and he's using GOVERNMENT.

Sure, you can name instances of socialism that worked. Now do that with anarchism. Betcha can't - there wouldn't have been records of it anyways.
#180 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#183 - gjsmothefirst (01/09/2013) [-]
Nigga... get your facts straight. Nice taking me out of context, for all intents and purposes the Middle Ages were anarchism due to the government's complete and utter lack of control.

After Mubarak fell, fuck YES there was anarchism! In all fairness, it was soon replaced by a military oligarchy of sorts, but that's what anarchism gets you.

You have, once again, proven yourself wrong. "Marxist dictatorships have all called themselves 'socialist' in order to justify their rule, but that doesn't mean that they actually were" - i.e., nearly every attempt at communism or socialism ever.

One example does not an argument make. Multiple ones do. China, Russia, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba were all either once or are now officially communist - and at that time, they were/are no more than dolled up dictatorships. I'll give more if you want. Nope, no socialism - except that's what they called it.

Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that every example of "anarchism" you've given is just communism, on a small scale where it actually worked (briefly). Fuck, the work COMMUNE is in two of them.
#184 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#185 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Looks like you'll have to explain again, because you're fucking wrong.

Let's see, Medieval Europe had government you say? Why might that be wrong? Could it possibly be because no-one, person or people, governed it? Oh sure, there were plenty of little tiny "governments" - one for every single fucking lord or nobleman everywhere, of which there were THOUSANDS. Government? I think not. That's anarchism, which is the lack of government, not any of the definitions you've given.
True, the military came to power shortly after Mubarak fell, but there was nearly a week of anarchy - during which there was chaos - and it led to a military oligarchy. How's your anarchism looking now?

I'm not sure how YOU fail to understand that the ATTEMPTS at communism were just that - ATTEMPTS. They didn't work, not one bit. Doesn't make them not attempts. Stop arguing with yourself, you're looking more and more like a potato every minute.

Libertarian communism? No, just no. Anarchism is lack of government, lack of any rule whatsoever. IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, IF THERE IS ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THAT IS NOT FUCKING ANARCHISM. You haven't given an example yet, you haven't even convinced me that you know anything about what you're saying. Good day to you sir, and good luck with getting healthcare, education, a job, currency, and protection from anything with your anarchism.

<< summary of your argument
#186 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#187 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
I have read it. It's an anarchism propaganda site, and therefore the source is invalid for my purposes.

I understand the definitions, but it appears that you do not. I can hear you just fine. You're still wrong. Doesn't change a thing. I must say the same about you - if you refuse to hear MY side of the argument, it is indeed impossible to discuss this intelligently. I have put forth my argument, you simply say my definitions are wrong, and point EVERYONE to one anarchist propaganda site. I have given far more evidence than you have, far more evidence than even exists, and you still deny it.

This is not intelligent conversation. This is you standing on half a leg, trying to stand up, while I roll over you with a tank that I'd like to call Knowledge.

Just so you know:
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1. a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2. a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

Please don't refer to 1c.

Definition of UTOPIAN
1: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a utopia; especially : having impossibly ideal conditions especially of social organization
2: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes <utopian idealists>
3: impossibly ideal : visionary <recognised the utopian nature of his hopes — C. S. Kilby>

In addition, the Greek root anarchos means lack of authority or government, something which communism (which is what you're advocating) clearly isn't.
#188 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#189 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
Maybe you should call it that, since anarchy and/or anarchism (please don't argue over synonyms, you look like an idiot) are not communism, which is what you've been describing this entire time. Incidentally, communism is a great idea (again, in theory only) and when it does work (you gave three examples), it's great - but it only works on small scales, for short periods of time.

If you knew how to analyze sources, you would know that it's your site would NEVER be considered valid in itself, no matter how well-cited or well-argued it is - it is pro-anarchist, and therefore has inherent bias regardless of how well it is presented. A dictionary definition is as close as possible to a completely unbiased definition.

You have a fine case for your argument, if and only if you call it what it is (communism) and realize that it hasn't worked on any meaningful scale in the real world.
#191 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#190 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#192 - gjsmothefirst (01/10/2013) [-]
USSR, China, etc... this were the attempts. Look at the results.

And when looking for something such as a definition (and I am really trying to prove that your definition is wrong), yes, bias must be eliminated.

Your site is perfectly valid if we were arguing about how communism (or in your words, anarchism) worked. It's not, however, a valid source to define the meaning of anything, due to said bias.

I am serious, I don't believe you're correct, nor will your sources sway me (as apparently mine cannot sway you). Just because you apply a pre-existing word to an event, object or thing doesn't make it the right word.

Put another way, if anarchism is what I would call communism, what do you call the complete lack of government which I would call anarchism?
#193 - KimonoDragon has deleted their comment.
#146 - May be fake, but not for this reason. There are so many ways y… 01/08/2013 on 4chan killing two birds... 0
#234 - I'll take 2. 01/08/2013 on Do want 0
#60 - dafuq is dat? I wants it.  [+] (2 new replies) 01/07/2013 on Do want 0
User avatar #67 - scorcho (01/07/2013) [-]
a pagani huayra. costs about a million bucks.
#234 - gjsmothefirst (01/08/2013) [-]
I'll take 2.
#51 - Indeed it is Glamdring. Instantly recognizable. My favorit… 01/07/2013 on Christmas Picture 0
#50 - Nope, Glamdring. 01/07/2013 on Christmas Picture 0
#444 - .... I end my quest. Good night. 01/07/2013 on Pretty epic roll +2
#443 - **gjsmothefirst rolls 66** See how few dubs there are?  [+] (1 new reply) 01/07/2013 on Pretty epic roll +4
#444 - gjsmothefirst (01/07/2013) [-]
.... I end my quest. Good night.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 950

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)