Upload
Login or register

italianfrosttroll

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:11/16/2011
Last Login:7/28/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#1797
Highest Content Rank:#4676
Highest Comment Rank:#1088
Content Thumbs: 97 total,  125 ,  28
Comment Thumbs: 6224 total,  7630 ,  1406
Content Level Progress: 20% (1/5)
Level 8 Content: New Here → Level 9 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 28% (28/100)
Level 248 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 249 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:2
Content Views:5418
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:3016
FJ Points:4872

latest user's comments

#46 - I guess that's true. Apples to oranges eh. But to answer…  [+] (20 new replies) 06/01/2016 on ilovelucy -1
User avatar
#48 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
My ideals? I was explaining what the guy in the OP was saying, not what I think.

And how would you draft the people who want to fight the least in the first place?
User avatar
#49 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Not wanting to fight doesn't mean you wont go in to the armed forces. The french foreign legion is a prime example of desperation, hunger, and the promise of a roof is enough to make lots of people volunteer.
Other than that, police forces follow orders, they would enforce a draft even if there were a fictional fantasy land where people aren't already in the military pre-war.
User avatar
#52 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Do you argue that guns exist when people say "what if they didn't?"

French Foreign Legion operates on necessity, because there are wars and people who want glory and fighting, if there was none of those it would not exist.

You are literally arguing that things could not be different because they aren't.
User avatar
#54 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
I didn't say that, I said they exist because people will volunteer. The legion has not been in constant use, and therefore has not always been needed. Yet there they were still existing.
You imagine I say things I didn't. Starting to think you get mad at logic, evwn if I present it in your imaginary pussland.
User avatar
#56 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
You are applying logic from our existing world to the imaginary world of the guy in the OP and expecting that to be logical and make sense?

People volunteer because of wars existing, his entire spiel hinges on the prospect of there being no wars. No wars, no fighting, no foreign legion.
User avatar
#58 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
People volunteer because of their needs, not war existing. Go back and read my comments again before you answer. I'm trying to play along with his lalaland.
User avatar
#59 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Their needs come from what?
User avatar
#62 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Even in a fantasy world with no war, there will surely be poverty, because there will always be some greedy enough to take advantage of others. You're really grasping at straws here.
User avatar
#68 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed comes from wanting more, same aspect as wanting glory and honor. There would be less greed if people didn't have to fight to keep what they already have. less wars, less corruption for power, biggest risk for poverty is poor farm years.

You should study causes of poverty.
User avatar
#69 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Ok buddy, lets just ignore human nature. Everyone is greedy.
Forget ideals, you already live in your own little fantasy world.
User avatar
#70 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Now you are getting it, he is literally saying "What if people aren't 'insert human nature'", Was that so hard?

yes yes, everyone but you are idiots and completely agree with what they explain, nobody could ever explain or understand something without actually believing it.
User avatar
#71 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
That's not what this started as though, it started as "what if people don't glorify war."
It's easy to make yourself seem smart if you constantly change what you're talking about. This went from what if no war, to what if no greed.
What if I was green? What if pigs flew? What if I was a unicorn with frog legs? None of these things are relevant.
User avatar
#76 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed is the number one cause of wars, I think its safer to say without greed there would be no wars.

I doubt wars could stop existing if greed remained.
#91 - thesguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#77 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
This is true, but that's not what he said.
User avatar
#73 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed and war has relevance, but whatever you get the point, partially, thanks to the other guy.
User avatar
#75 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Oh wait that dummie is you. Question stands.
User avatar
#74 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
They have correlation, but that dummie was saying that without war there would be no greed. Tell me honestly, do you think that's the case? Forget where you stand on the argument, without war, would there still be greed?
User avatar
#60 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Poverty, not necessaeily war.
User avatar
#61 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Poverty comes from what multitude of reasons?
#44 - If you believe that, then you're a fool. If no one volunteered…  [+] (22 new replies) 06/01/2016 on ilovelucy -1
User avatar
#45 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
You are arguing real life aspects with an idealistic view, which is redundant and unnecessary. You also seem to attribute cowardice to only exist within the realm of fighting versus not fighting.

if nobody wanted to fight the drafts would not work, who would force the drafts? the non existent soldiers? And who would they be fighting? the non existent foreign soldiers?

What threat? what invasion? if nobody in the whole world believed in such things, who would invade?

its an idealistic view of life, hoping for a place where nobody wants to fight, not just a country but in the whole world.
User avatar
#46 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
I guess that's true. Apples to oranges eh.
But to answer one of your questions, the people who would enforce the draft, are the ones who would want to fight the least, and prefer another to do it for them.
Guess I'll keep living in the real world, enjpy your ideals.
User avatar
#48 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
My ideals? I was explaining what the guy in the OP was saying, not what I think.

And how would you draft the people who want to fight the least in the first place?
User avatar
#49 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Not wanting to fight doesn't mean you wont go in to the armed forces. The french foreign legion is a prime example of desperation, hunger, and the promise of a roof is enough to make lots of people volunteer.
Other than that, police forces follow orders, they would enforce a draft even if there were a fictional fantasy land where people aren't already in the military pre-war.
User avatar
#52 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Do you argue that guns exist when people say "what if they didn't?"

French Foreign Legion operates on necessity, because there are wars and people who want glory and fighting, if there was none of those it would not exist.

You are literally arguing that things could not be different because they aren't.
User avatar
#54 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
I didn't say that, I said they exist because people will volunteer. The legion has not been in constant use, and therefore has not always been needed. Yet there they were still existing.
You imagine I say things I didn't. Starting to think you get mad at logic, evwn if I present it in your imaginary pussland.
User avatar
#56 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
You are applying logic from our existing world to the imaginary world of the guy in the OP and expecting that to be logical and make sense?

People volunteer because of wars existing, his entire spiel hinges on the prospect of there being no wars. No wars, no fighting, no foreign legion.
User avatar
#58 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
People volunteer because of their needs, not war existing. Go back and read my comments again before you answer. I'm trying to play along with his lalaland.
User avatar
#59 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Their needs come from what?
User avatar
#62 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Even in a fantasy world with no war, there will surely be poverty, because there will always be some greedy enough to take advantage of others. You're really grasping at straws here.
User avatar
#68 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed comes from wanting more, same aspect as wanting glory and honor. There would be less greed if people didn't have to fight to keep what they already have. less wars, less corruption for power, biggest risk for poverty is poor farm years.

You should study causes of poverty.
User avatar
#69 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Ok buddy, lets just ignore human nature. Everyone is greedy.
Forget ideals, you already live in your own little fantasy world.
User avatar
#70 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Now you are getting it, he is literally saying "What if people aren't 'insert human nature'", Was that so hard?

yes yes, everyone but you are idiots and completely agree with what they explain, nobody could ever explain or understand something without actually believing it.
User avatar
#71 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
That's not what this started as though, it started as "what if people don't glorify war."
It's easy to make yourself seem smart if you constantly change what you're talking about. This went from what if no war, to what if no greed.
What if I was green? What if pigs flew? What if I was a unicorn with frog legs? None of these things are relevant.
User avatar
#76 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed is the number one cause of wars, I think its safer to say without greed there would be no wars.

I doubt wars could stop existing if greed remained.
#91 - thesguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#77 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
This is true, but that's not what he said.
User avatar
#73 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed and war has relevance, but whatever you get the point, partially, thanks to the other guy.
User avatar
#75 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Oh wait that dummie is you. Question stands.
User avatar
#74 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
They have correlation, but that dummie was saying that without war there would be no greed. Tell me honestly, do you think that's the case? Forget where you stand on the argument, without war, would there still be greed?
User avatar
#60 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Poverty, not necessaeily war.
User avatar
#61 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Poverty comes from what multitude of reasons?
#41 - There will always be wars because someone always has a dollar …  [+] (24 new replies) 06/01/2016 on ilovelucy -1
User avatar
#42 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
You are missing the point where if nobody fell for the concept of glory, bravery and heroism there would be no fighters and therefore no wars.

he isn't talking about how things are, we know how things are, we are well aware there will always be wars, his statement is working entirely on the principle of "what if".
User avatar
#44 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
If you believe that, then you're a fool. If no one volunteered, there would be drafts, as there always has been.
Even if everyone didn't believe in heroism, and there were no such thing as drafts, do you believe the population of any country would flop on its back and let stand the threat of invasion or a threat to their culture? There's a big difference between glorofying war, and being a coward. No country will ever be filled with nothing but cowards.
User avatar
#45 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
You are arguing real life aspects with an idealistic view, which is redundant and unnecessary. You also seem to attribute cowardice to only exist within the realm of fighting versus not fighting.

if nobody wanted to fight the drafts would not work, who would force the drafts? the non existent soldiers? And who would they be fighting? the non existent foreign soldiers?

What threat? what invasion? if nobody in the whole world believed in such things, who would invade?

its an idealistic view of life, hoping for a place where nobody wants to fight, not just a country but in the whole world.
User avatar
#46 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
I guess that's true. Apples to oranges eh.
But to answer one of your questions, the people who would enforce the draft, are the ones who would want to fight the least, and prefer another to do it for them.
Guess I'll keep living in the real world, enjpy your ideals.
User avatar
#48 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
My ideals? I was explaining what the guy in the OP was saying, not what I think.

And how would you draft the people who want to fight the least in the first place?
User avatar
#49 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Not wanting to fight doesn't mean you wont go in to the armed forces. The french foreign legion is a prime example of desperation, hunger, and the promise of a roof is enough to make lots of people volunteer.
Other than that, police forces follow orders, they would enforce a draft even if there were a fictional fantasy land where people aren't already in the military pre-war.
User avatar
#52 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Do you argue that guns exist when people say "what if they didn't?"

French Foreign Legion operates on necessity, because there are wars and people who want glory and fighting, if there was none of those it would not exist.

You are literally arguing that things could not be different because they aren't.
User avatar
#54 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
I didn't say that, I said they exist because people will volunteer. The legion has not been in constant use, and therefore has not always been needed. Yet there they were still existing.
You imagine I say things I didn't. Starting to think you get mad at logic, evwn if I present it in your imaginary pussland.
User avatar
#56 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
You are applying logic from our existing world to the imaginary world of the guy in the OP and expecting that to be logical and make sense?

People volunteer because of wars existing, his entire spiel hinges on the prospect of there being no wars. No wars, no fighting, no foreign legion.
User avatar
#58 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
People volunteer because of their needs, not war existing. Go back and read my comments again before you answer. I'm trying to play along with his lalaland.
User avatar
#59 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Their needs come from what?
User avatar
#62 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Even in a fantasy world with no war, there will surely be poverty, because there will always be some greedy enough to take advantage of others. You're really grasping at straws here.
User avatar
#68 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed comes from wanting more, same aspect as wanting glory and honor. There would be less greed if people didn't have to fight to keep what they already have. less wars, less corruption for power, biggest risk for poverty is poor farm years.

You should study causes of poverty.
User avatar
#69 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Ok buddy, lets just ignore human nature. Everyone is greedy.
Forget ideals, you already live in your own little fantasy world.
User avatar
#70 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Now you are getting it, he is literally saying "What if people aren't 'insert human nature'", Was that so hard?

yes yes, everyone but you are idiots and completely agree with what they explain, nobody could ever explain or understand something without actually believing it.
User avatar
#71 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
That's not what this started as though, it started as "what if people don't glorify war."
It's easy to make yourself seem smart if you constantly change what you're talking about. This went from what if no war, to what if no greed.
What if I was green? What if pigs flew? What if I was a unicorn with frog legs? None of these things are relevant.
User avatar
#76 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed is the number one cause of wars, I think its safer to say without greed there would be no wars.

I doubt wars could stop existing if greed remained.
#91 - thesguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#77 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
This is true, but that's not what he said.
User avatar
#73 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed and war has relevance, but whatever you get the point, partially, thanks to the other guy.
User avatar
#75 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Oh wait that dummie is you. Question stands.
User avatar
#74 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
They have correlation, but that dummie was saying that without war there would be no greed. Tell me honestly, do you think that's the case? Forget where you stand on the argument, without war, would there still be greed?
User avatar
#60 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Poverty, not necessaeily war.
User avatar
#61 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Poverty comes from what multitude of reasons?
#36 - **** this guy, thanks to all our armed service members. Herois…  [+] (32 new replies) 06/01/2016 on ilovelucy -1
User avatar
#50 - therealfell (06/01/2016) [-]
the point is to stop glorifying it you fucking dip
User avatar
#51 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
How bout this, I'll keep glorifying real men and women being courageous, and you keep glorifying whatever nonsense you glorify. Fucking nutless pudding sack.
User avatar
#55 - therealfell (06/01/2016) [-]
you clearly are too dense to understand the difference
don't give your child toy soldiers and glorify growing up and going to war
don't glorify it when so many men and women die, so many men and women suffer from ptsd
you can thank them for their service, but don't lead children and young men to believe it's going in and killing the bad guys
there's so much more to it, and it's fucking scary.
User avatar
#57 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
I don't think children should be honoring and worshipping it, but I do think that grown adults with a grasp on reality should have the sense to honor those that will do what they can't.
On a side not, the first half of your paragraph is gibberish, learn to write.
User avatar
#63 - therealfell (06/01/2016) [-]
it's not gibberish, and nobody is saying you shouldn't be grateful for the soldiers who fight for your freedom
the point, AGAIN, is that war is glorified and men and women enlist thinking that they're going to go out and gun down the bad guys and everything will be good
I think, before enlisting, maybe people should visit a veteran with ptsd
or maybe they should be given facts about the homeless veteran statistics
how you're praised for going to war, but once you return, nobody gives a fuck about you, really. only about a flag and verbally saying they support you
User avatar
#65 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Those are all fine and good points, and I agree with all of them. Thank you for not creating some new standards in an imaginary world and grasping at straws.
User avatar
#38 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
His point is that if nobody fell for the heroism and honor stuff, there would be none but the ministers and generals to wage wars.

This isn't about winning wars, its about why there will always be people to fight in them, on either side.
User avatar
#41 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
There will always be wars because someone always has a dollar to make and doesn't care about the heads that must roll to do so. If we lost the appreciation of heroism, all that would happen, is that fighters would be used and unnapreciated by the bigwigs, and come home to ungrateful hippys, like after nam.
User avatar
#42 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
You are missing the point where if nobody fell for the concept of glory, bravery and heroism there would be no fighters and therefore no wars.

he isn't talking about how things are, we know how things are, we are well aware there will always be wars, his statement is working entirely on the principle of "what if".
User avatar
#44 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
If you believe that, then you're a fool. If no one volunteered, there would be drafts, as there always has been.
Even if everyone didn't believe in heroism, and there were no such thing as drafts, do you believe the population of any country would flop on its back and let stand the threat of invasion or a threat to their culture? There's a big difference between glorofying war, and being a coward. No country will ever be filled with nothing but cowards.
User avatar
#45 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
You are arguing real life aspects with an idealistic view, which is redundant and unnecessary. You also seem to attribute cowardice to only exist within the realm of fighting versus not fighting.

if nobody wanted to fight the drafts would not work, who would force the drafts? the non existent soldiers? And who would they be fighting? the non existent foreign soldiers?

What threat? what invasion? if nobody in the whole world believed in such things, who would invade?

its an idealistic view of life, hoping for a place where nobody wants to fight, not just a country but in the whole world.
User avatar
#46 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
I guess that's true. Apples to oranges eh.
But to answer one of your questions, the people who would enforce the draft, are the ones who would want to fight the least, and prefer another to do it for them.
Guess I'll keep living in the real world, enjpy your ideals.
User avatar
#48 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
My ideals? I was explaining what the guy in the OP was saying, not what I think.

And how would you draft the people who want to fight the least in the first place?
User avatar
#49 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Not wanting to fight doesn't mean you wont go in to the armed forces. The french foreign legion is a prime example of desperation, hunger, and the promise of a roof is enough to make lots of people volunteer.
Other than that, police forces follow orders, they would enforce a draft even if there were a fictional fantasy land where people aren't already in the military pre-war.
User avatar
#52 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Do you argue that guns exist when people say "what if they didn't?"

French Foreign Legion operates on necessity, because there are wars and people who want glory and fighting, if there was none of those it would not exist.

You are literally arguing that things could not be different because they aren't.
User avatar
#54 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
I didn't say that, I said they exist because people will volunteer. The legion has not been in constant use, and therefore has not always been needed. Yet there they were still existing.
You imagine I say things I didn't. Starting to think you get mad at logic, evwn if I present it in your imaginary pussland.
User avatar
#56 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
You are applying logic from our existing world to the imaginary world of the guy in the OP and expecting that to be logical and make sense?

People volunteer because of wars existing, his entire spiel hinges on the prospect of there being no wars. No wars, no fighting, no foreign legion.
User avatar
#58 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
People volunteer because of their needs, not war existing. Go back and read my comments again before you answer. I'm trying to play along with his lalaland.
User avatar
#59 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Their needs come from what?
User avatar
#62 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Even in a fantasy world with no war, there will surely be poverty, because there will always be some greedy enough to take advantage of others. You're really grasping at straws here.
User avatar
#68 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed comes from wanting more, same aspect as wanting glory and honor. There would be less greed if people didn't have to fight to keep what they already have. less wars, less corruption for power, biggest risk for poverty is poor farm years.

You should study causes of poverty.
User avatar
#69 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Ok buddy, lets just ignore human nature. Everyone is greedy.
Forget ideals, you already live in your own little fantasy world.
User avatar
#70 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Now you are getting it, he is literally saying "What if people aren't 'insert human nature'", Was that so hard?

yes yes, everyone but you are idiots and completely agree with what they explain, nobody could ever explain or understand something without actually believing it.
User avatar
#71 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
That's not what this started as though, it started as "what if people don't glorify war."
It's easy to make yourself seem smart if you constantly change what you're talking about. This went from what if no war, to what if no greed.
What if I was green? What if pigs flew? What if I was a unicorn with frog legs? None of these things are relevant.
User avatar
#76 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed is the number one cause of wars, I think its safer to say without greed there would be no wars.

I doubt wars could stop existing if greed remained.
#91 - thesguy has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#77 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
This is true, but that's not what he said.
User avatar
#73 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Greed and war has relevance, but whatever you get the point, partially, thanks to the other guy.
User avatar
#75 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Oh wait that dummie is you. Question stands.
User avatar
#74 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
They have correlation, but that dummie was saying that without war there would be no greed. Tell me honestly, do you think that's the case? Forget where you stand on the argument, without war, would there still be greed?
User avatar
#60 - italianfrosttroll (06/01/2016) [-]
Poverty, not necessaeily war.
User avatar
#61 - Shramin (06/01/2016) [-]
Poverty comes from what multitude of reasons?
#10 - All hail Warlord Trump. 05/31/2016 on Im with Trump and with mr... +1
#4 - I think therefore I am. That is all. 05/31/2016 on I'm not on drugs +2
#13 - Hah, I watched my brother hand saw his index to the bone, and … 05/31/2016 on Tis but a flesh wound 0
#8 - It really is literally because of twerpy men and women. God da… 05/31/2016 on Anon asks for a new question 0
#8 - I'm a reverse Maurice Richard, I speak 4 languages with no accent. 05/30/2016 on Modern Family 0
#54 - Comment deleted 05/30/2016 on tfw no gf 0