Upload
Login or register

krobeles

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:8/08/2012
Last Login:12/04/2016
Location:Denmark
Stats
Comment Ranking:#1602
Highest Content Rank:#2711
Highest Comment Rank:#1051
Content Thumbs: 1633 total,  1920 ,  287
Comment Thumbs: 12013 total,  21286 ,  9273
Content Level Progress: 31% (31/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 66% (66/100)
Level 297 Comments: Post Master → Level 298 Comments: Post Master
Subscribers:0
Content Views:101941
Times Content Favorited:73 times
Total Comments Made:6572
FJ Points:11057
Favorite Tags: fucking (2) | shit (2)

latest user's comments

#88 - That was an almost eerily swift reply. You're like a praying m…  [+] (7 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +2
User avatar
#207 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
And now we've reached the point where you declare yourself the winner, like the proverbial chess pigeon.
#214 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
I'm not really of the opinion that there can be a "winner" of an argument, but if you by "winner" mean to say: " I assert that I have sufficiently explained my point to you, and any lapse in understanding on your part, is entirely due to the large volume of paint you've been drinking coupled with what I suspect to be several serious birth defects of which severe atrophy in the left side of your brain is barely on the top 5 "
Then yes. I do make that assertion. Although frankly, that assertion should be obvious to anyone who have been paying attention...Excluding those in the cheap seats, who are busy pouring lead-based paint into their swollen maw, of course.
User avatar
#215 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Is it really that hard for you to make a comment without slipping in a few lame insults? Because all you're doing is demonstrating your lack of an actual argument.
#216 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
Its not that its hard for me to stop insulting you, its that I dont want to stop.
You ever seen one those people with a punchable face? Its like that, only with words. Also, no jail.
Its like fucking an unconscious chick. Its not that you couldn't stop yourself, theres just no good reason not to.
User avatar
#217 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Morality?
#218 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
Aaah, yes...Not a single good reason...
#219 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Either you haven't quite figured out humour or you're a piece of shit.
#82 - Why're speaking about your nation? Isn't most of your nations …  [+] (9 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +2
User avatar
#84 - platinumaltaria (11/29/2016) [-]
Or the world centre of finance... something like that.

No, you call me retard because you don't know how to refute what I say, but you mindlessly disagree anyway. If you can't refute what I say then logically it follows that what I say is sound in your mind.
#88 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
That was an almost eerily swift reply. You're like a praying mantis of comments. And here you were, saying that you dont think of me

I have refuted what you said. The fact that you're too thick to actually understand that simple truth, is more your problem than it is mine. I've recommended you quit drinking all that paint, but my pleas seem to fall on deaf ears. Its probably the paint.
You rarely say anything that is logically sound, much less with any frequency where it registers.
User avatar
#207 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
And now we've reached the point where you declare yourself the winner, like the proverbial chess pigeon.
#214 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
I'm not really of the opinion that there can be a "winner" of an argument, but if you by "winner" mean to say: " I assert that I have sufficiently explained my point to you, and any lapse in understanding on your part, is entirely due to the large volume of paint you've been drinking coupled with what I suspect to be several serious birth defects of which severe atrophy in the left side of your brain is barely on the top 5 "
Then yes. I do make that assertion. Although frankly, that assertion should be obvious to anyone who have been paying attention...Excluding those in the cheap seats, who are busy pouring lead-based paint into their swollen maw, of course.
User avatar
#215 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Is it really that hard for you to make a comment without slipping in a few lame insults? Because all you're doing is demonstrating your lack of an actual argument.
#216 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
Its not that its hard for me to stop insulting you, its that I dont want to stop.
You ever seen one those people with a punchable face? Its like that, only with words. Also, no jail.
Its like fucking an unconscious chick. Its not that you couldn't stop yourself, theres just no good reason not to.
User avatar
#217 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Morality?
#218 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
Aaah, yes...Not a single good reason...
#219 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Either you haven't quite figured out humour or you're a piece of shit.
#81 - If you're going to be nasty about things, I wont bother with y…  [+] (5 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +3
User avatar
#92 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
You're also wrong if you seriously think that's the only reason I dislike the electoral college, but I'm not going to go into details if you're just going to pass over all of it as "not enough" which is why it keeps baffling me that you'll admit to hating it but then advocate that there's "not enough to abolish it."

My biggest concern with it is actually the "winner take all" philosophy. The whole "22% have 51%" argument is just to debunk this asinine assertion that the electoral college protects us from "the tyranny of the majority." 22% of the country having 51% of the votes wouldn't be a concern were it not for the fact that a candidate only needs 51% of each state to win 100% of the votes. Like California steals anywhere between 20 and 25 electoral votes for the DNC every goddamn election. And I say "steal" because they'll only actually earn around 30-35 with their population vote.

That also debunks this argument for the EC that's it's meant to "provide adequate representation for the minorities of the country". Not when your vote literally doesn't count if you lose your state, buddy...
User avatar
#95 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Again, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said there weren't enough reason to abolish it. I'd like to see it abolished too. You've unjustly assumed me to hold a position that I never once claimed to hold. Why?

What I said, was that the argument that you attempted to refute, was a rather sound argument and that that argument has not refuted by you thus far. Thats all I've been saying.
User avatar
#98 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
What argument have I been attempting to refute, then?
#130 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
This guy is straight brain aids. Hide all
User avatar
#134 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
No, I'm not a pussy who will just hide away from anyone with a differing opinion. Thanks though.
#65 - Excuse me, what? I just explained to you - in detail, min…  [+] (8 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +5
User avatar
#70 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
Also your example holds no weight whatsoever. I could leave it at that, and perhaps throw in a rhetorical question or two insinuating an insult to your intelligence, but I'm not you.

The difference is that it's physically possible for a candidate to win 11 states and lose the other 39 and win the election. It's describably possible via an explicit number of steps. Your example of "all I have to do is go fast enough" is as vague a descriptor on how it would go about happening as a 3rd grade report on quantum physics.
User avatar
#67 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
"So what you're saying is that if you win the right combination of states all it takes is 11, and the rest wont matter? And that this alone entirely debunks the argument that EC might possibly help in some fashion?
If this is actually your argument, than that argument does not hold. At all.

What you've done is simply point out a problem with the EC - one I agree is a problem - not actually debunk the existing argument."

Nowhere in there is any detail as to how it is what I've said doesn't debunk the need for the EC, what is there you simply saying, through 2 rhetorical questions, and 2 simple statements, "that argument doesn't work" with absolutely 0 reference as to how it works.

I understood the clear and obvious reference to "its not enough", but I was gracious enough not to just state that you were moving the goalposts, given that your original statement was that I had absolutely no argument against it whatsoever.
User avatar
#81 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
If you're going to be nasty about things, I wont bother with you. Keep that in mind if you want to actually discuss this. I'm not trying to insult you. I genuinely think you're missing my point. I dont think its because you're an idiot. I may just have explained it you poorly.

I feel I have explained in detail - with an example, no less - why your argument does not hold and specifically whats wrong with it. If you dont understand where the problem lies, I can try to reformulate the problem again, but I think a careful analysis of what I've already told you should suffice.
User avatar
#92 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
You're also wrong if you seriously think that's the only reason I dislike the electoral college, but I'm not going to go into details if you're just going to pass over all of it as "not enough" which is why it keeps baffling me that you'll admit to hating it but then advocate that there's "not enough to abolish it."

My biggest concern with it is actually the "winner take all" philosophy. The whole "22% have 51%" argument is just to debunk this asinine assertion that the electoral college protects us from "the tyranny of the majority." 22% of the country having 51% of the votes wouldn't be a concern were it not for the fact that a candidate only needs 51% of each state to win 100% of the votes. Like California steals anywhere between 20 and 25 electoral votes for the DNC every goddamn election. And I say "steal" because they'll only actually earn around 30-35 with their population vote.

That also debunks this argument for the EC that's it's meant to "provide adequate representation for the minorities of the country". Not when your vote literally doesn't count if you lose your state, buddy...
User avatar
#95 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Again, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said there weren't enough reason to abolish it. I'd like to see it abolished too. You've unjustly assumed me to hold a position that I never once claimed to hold. Why?

What I said, was that the argument that you attempted to refute, was a rather sound argument and that that argument has not refuted by you thus far. Thats all I've been saying.
User avatar
#98 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
What argument have I been attempting to refute, then?
#130 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
This guy is straight brain aids. Hide all
User avatar
#134 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
No, I'm not a pussy who will just hide away from anyone with a differing opinion. Thanks though.
#63 - pseudo-intellectual? Hah! Thats rich. If I couldn't stand…  [+] (12 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +4
User avatar
#64 - platinumaltaria (11/29/2016) [-]
Indeed, because my nations wealth is in finance, not in windmills and dams.

Because coming onto every post I make and calling me a retard demonstrates a high level of thought.

Have you ever considered that I'm right and you're wrong, and the only reason you oppose me is that I'm a cunt? Because you rarely have any actual criticism for me beyond "that's dumb and wrong", which universally points to an internal problem.

You know it's funny to hear that you consider me anything, because I don't think of you at all.
#100 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
>"I don't think of you at all"
>Keeps on responding
#82 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Why're speaking about your nation? Isn't most of your nations wealth in Tescos and sarcasm? Tea and biscuits, perhaps?

I dont come onto every post you make. Just the ones I see, while I'm browsing. I keep calling you a retard because you keep saying retarded things. If you stopped saying retarded things, I might just stop calling you a retard. Probably not, but theres a chance of it.

I routinely consider if you're right. The conclusion I unfailingly reach, is that you're retarded, but I do consider the possibility that you might not be. I dont even think you're a cunt. Being a cunt necessarily implies that you could do better if you tried. I've given up that hope a while ago. At this point, its almost more of a "keeping up a routine" thing, what with considering that you might not be retarded. Thats a valid consideration in regards to other people, and I dont want to get into a pattern of assuming idiocy of folks, just because doing so would be entirely valid in your case.

Aaurh. I'm hurt dude. I thought we had something special. Does this mean I'm uninvited from your birthday party?
User avatar
#84 - platinumaltaria (11/29/2016) [-]
Or the world centre of finance... something like that.

No, you call me retard because you don't know how to refute what I say, but you mindlessly disagree anyway. If you can't refute what I say then logically it follows that what I say is sound in your mind.
#88 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
That was an almost eerily swift reply. You're like a praying mantis of comments. And here you were, saying that you dont think of me

I have refuted what you said. The fact that you're too thick to actually understand that simple truth, is more your problem than it is mine. I've recommended you quit drinking all that paint, but my pleas seem to fall on deaf ears. Its probably the paint.
You rarely say anything that is logically sound, much less with any frequency where it registers.
User avatar
#207 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
And now we've reached the point where you declare yourself the winner, like the proverbial chess pigeon.
#214 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
I'm not really of the opinion that there can be a "winner" of an argument, but if you by "winner" mean to say: " I assert that I have sufficiently explained my point to you, and any lapse in understanding on your part, is entirely due to the large volume of paint you've been drinking coupled with what I suspect to be several serious birth defects of which severe atrophy in the left side of your brain is barely on the top 5 "
Then yes. I do make that assertion. Although frankly, that assertion should be obvious to anyone who have been paying attention...Excluding those in the cheap seats, who are busy pouring lead-based paint into their swollen maw, of course.
User avatar
#215 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Is it really that hard for you to make a comment without slipping in a few lame insults? Because all you're doing is demonstrating your lack of an actual argument.
#216 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
Its not that its hard for me to stop insulting you, its that I dont want to stop.
You ever seen one those people with a punchable face? Its like that, only with words. Also, no jail.
Its like fucking an unconscious chick. Its not that you couldn't stop yourself, theres just no good reason not to.
User avatar
#217 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Morality?
#218 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
Aaah, yes...Not a single good reason...
#219 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Either you haven't quite figured out humour or you're a piece of shit.
#58 - So what you're saying is that if you win the right combination…  [+] (10 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +5
User avatar
#59 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
It doesn't "not debunk the argument" jut because you've rhetorically said so.

You don't get to act apathetic and just a little too salty and call that logic for your argument.

You don't get to substitute actually having an argument with "Are you kidding me?!"
User avatar
#65 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Excuse me, what?
I just explained to you - in detail, mind you - why what you said didn't debunk the argument. You did not at all even attempt to confront the argument with which you supposedly disagree. All you did was raise another - entirely valid, although entirely different - argument as to why the EC isn't laudable.

In order to actually debunk an argument, you need to actually go through thar argument and point out specifically where that argument is incorrect. You cant just raise another argument that refutes the conclusion. All that accomplishes is - possibly - refute the conclusion of the argument, not the argument itself. An argument can be logically sound but reach an incorrect conclusion perfectly well.
As an example, imagine the statement: " I can walk through walls. All it requires is that I accelerate myself to beyond the speed of light, so that the chance of my constituent particles quantum-tunneling through the wall reaches approximately a 100%. Therefore, I can walk through walls ".
Thats an entirely logically sound and correct assertion. The problem is, that its physically impossible for me to accelerate myself to those speeds. Thats another argument which, while not debunking the first argument itself, debunks the conclusion.
Thats what you're doing. Raising another argument which only serves to debunk the conclusion, not the argument itself.

Also, weather or not the conclusion is sufficiently debunked by your new argument, is actually a subjective matter, so I would argue that your new argument only introduces the possibility that the first arguments conclusion is incorrect, while not actually definitively debunking it.
User avatar
#70 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
Also your example holds no weight whatsoever. I could leave it at that, and perhaps throw in a rhetorical question or two insinuating an insult to your intelligence, but I'm not you.

The difference is that it's physically possible for a candidate to win 11 states and lose the other 39 and win the election. It's describably possible via an explicit number of steps. Your example of "all I have to do is go fast enough" is as vague a descriptor on how it would go about happening as a 3rd grade report on quantum physics.
User avatar
#67 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
"So what you're saying is that if you win the right combination of states all it takes is 11, and the rest wont matter? And that this alone entirely debunks the argument that EC might possibly help in some fashion?
If this is actually your argument, than that argument does not hold. At all.

What you've done is simply point out a problem with the EC - one I agree is a problem - not actually debunk the existing argument."

Nowhere in there is any detail as to how it is what I've said doesn't debunk the need for the EC, what is there you simply saying, through 2 rhetorical questions, and 2 simple statements, "that argument doesn't work" with absolutely 0 reference as to how it works.

I understood the clear and obvious reference to "its not enough", but I was gracious enough not to just state that you were moving the goalposts, given that your original statement was that I had absolutely no argument against it whatsoever.
User avatar
#81 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
If you're going to be nasty about things, I wont bother with you. Keep that in mind if you want to actually discuss this. I'm not trying to insult you. I genuinely think you're missing my point. I dont think its because you're an idiot. I may just have explained it you poorly.

I feel I have explained in detail - with an example, no less - why your argument does not hold and specifically whats wrong with it. If you dont understand where the problem lies, I can try to reformulate the problem again, but I think a careful analysis of what I've already told you should suffice.
User avatar
#92 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
You're also wrong if you seriously think that's the only reason I dislike the electoral college, but I'm not going to go into details if you're just going to pass over all of it as "not enough" which is why it keeps baffling me that you'll admit to hating it but then advocate that there's "not enough to abolish it."

My biggest concern with it is actually the "winner take all" philosophy. The whole "22% have 51%" argument is just to debunk this asinine assertion that the electoral college protects us from "the tyranny of the majority." 22% of the country having 51% of the votes wouldn't be a concern were it not for the fact that a candidate only needs 51% of each state to win 100% of the votes. Like California steals anywhere between 20 and 25 electoral votes for the DNC every goddamn election. And I say "steal" because they'll only actually earn around 30-35 with their population vote.

That also debunks this argument for the EC that's it's meant to "provide adequate representation for the minorities of the country". Not when your vote literally doesn't count if you lose your state, buddy...
User avatar
#95 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Again, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said there weren't enough reason to abolish it. I'd like to see it abolished too. You've unjustly assumed me to hold a position that I never once claimed to hold. Why?

What I said, was that the argument that you attempted to refute, was a rather sound argument and that that argument has not refuted by you thus far. Thats all I've been saying.
User avatar
#98 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
What argument have I been attempting to refute, then?
#130 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
This guy is straight brain aids. Hide all
User avatar
#134 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
No, I'm not a pussy who will just hide away from anyone with a differing opinion. Thanks though.
#55 - Whatever. I dont care right now. We're not debating the EC rig…  [+] (12 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +6
User avatar
#56 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
The argument is provably false when you can show that it doesn't, in fact, solve a problem that it's claiming to solve. It's like giving a bunch of weapons to refugees and saying "there, now there'll be less violence!"
User avatar
#58 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
So what you're saying is that if you win the right combination of states all it takes is 11, and the rest wont matter? And that this alone entirely debunks the argument that EC might possibly help in some fashion?
If this is actually your argument, than that argument does not hold. At all.

What you've done is simply point out a problem with the EC - one I agree is a problem - not actually debunk the existing argument.
User avatar
#59 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
It doesn't "not debunk the argument" jut because you've rhetorically said so.

You don't get to act apathetic and just a little too salty and call that logic for your argument.

You don't get to substitute actually having an argument with "Are you kidding me?!"
User avatar
#65 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Excuse me, what?
I just explained to you - in detail, mind you - why what you said didn't debunk the argument. You did not at all even attempt to confront the argument with which you supposedly disagree. All you did was raise another - entirely valid, although entirely different - argument as to why the EC isn't laudable.

In order to actually debunk an argument, you need to actually go through thar argument and point out specifically where that argument is incorrect. You cant just raise another argument that refutes the conclusion. All that accomplishes is - possibly - refute the conclusion of the argument, not the argument itself. An argument can be logically sound but reach an incorrect conclusion perfectly well.
As an example, imagine the statement: " I can walk through walls. All it requires is that I accelerate myself to beyond the speed of light, so that the chance of my constituent particles quantum-tunneling through the wall reaches approximately a 100%. Therefore, I can walk through walls ".
Thats an entirely logically sound and correct assertion. The problem is, that its physically impossible for me to accelerate myself to those speeds. Thats another argument which, while not debunking the first argument itself, debunks the conclusion.
Thats what you're doing. Raising another argument which only serves to debunk the conclusion, not the argument itself.

Also, weather or not the conclusion is sufficiently debunked by your new argument, is actually a subjective matter, so I would argue that your new argument only introduces the possibility that the first arguments conclusion is incorrect, while not actually definitively debunking it.
User avatar
#70 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
Also your example holds no weight whatsoever. I could leave it at that, and perhaps throw in a rhetorical question or two insinuating an insult to your intelligence, but I'm not you.

The difference is that it's physically possible for a candidate to win 11 states and lose the other 39 and win the election. It's describably possible via an explicit number of steps. Your example of "all I have to do is go fast enough" is as vague a descriptor on how it would go about happening as a 3rd grade report on quantum physics.
User avatar
#67 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
"So what you're saying is that if you win the right combination of states all it takes is 11, and the rest wont matter? And that this alone entirely debunks the argument that EC might possibly help in some fashion?
If this is actually your argument, than that argument does not hold. At all.

What you've done is simply point out a problem with the EC - one I agree is a problem - not actually debunk the existing argument."

Nowhere in there is any detail as to how it is what I've said doesn't debunk the need for the EC, what is there you simply saying, through 2 rhetorical questions, and 2 simple statements, "that argument doesn't work" with absolutely 0 reference as to how it works.

I understood the clear and obvious reference to "its not enough", but I was gracious enough not to just state that you were moving the goalposts, given that your original statement was that I had absolutely no argument against it whatsoever.
User avatar
#81 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
If you're going to be nasty about things, I wont bother with you. Keep that in mind if you want to actually discuss this. I'm not trying to insult you. I genuinely think you're missing my point. I dont think its because you're an idiot. I may just have explained it you poorly.

I feel I have explained in detail - with an example, no less - why your argument does not hold and specifically whats wrong with it. If you dont understand where the problem lies, I can try to reformulate the problem again, but I think a careful analysis of what I've already told you should suffice.
User avatar
#92 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
You're also wrong if you seriously think that's the only reason I dislike the electoral college, but I'm not going to go into details if you're just going to pass over all of it as "not enough" which is why it keeps baffling me that you'll admit to hating it but then advocate that there's "not enough to abolish it."

My biggest concern with it is actually the "winner take all" philosophy. The whole "22% have 51%" argument is just to debunk this asinine assertion that the electoral college protects us from "the tyranny of the majority." 22% of the country having 51% of the votes wouldn't be a concern were it not for the fact that a candidate only needs 51% of each state to win 100% of the votes. Like California steals anywhere between 20 and 25 electoral votes for the DNC every goddamn election. And I say "steal" because they'll only actually earn around 30-35 with their population vote.

That also debunks this argument for the EC that's it's meant to "provide adequate representation for the minorities of the country". Not when your vote literally doesn't count if you lose your state, buddy...
User avatar
#95 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Again, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said there weren't enough reason to abolish it. I'd like to see it abolished too. You've unjustly assumed me to hold a position that I never once claimed to hold. Why?

What I said, was that the argument that you attempted to refute, was a rather sound argument and that that argument has not refuted by you thus far. Thats all I've been saying.
User avatar
#98 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
What argument have I been attempting to refute, then?
#130 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
This guy is straight brain aids. Hide all
User avatar
#134 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
No, I'm not a pussy who will just hide away from anyone with a differing opinion. Thanks though.
#54 - I know you were trying to be patronizing. In order to effectiv…  [+] (14 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +4
User avatar
#61 - platinumaltaria (11/29/2016) [-]
Well I can't possibly feign superiority; you and I are truly incomparable. You have on numerous occasions shown your hand as a disgruntled pseudo-intellectual who can't stand to have their personal beliefs challenged, and who grows indignant at the idea of defending ones own views on the grounds that "I'm a retard".

Muslims are not animals, muslims are people exactly like you. The sooner people pull their heads from betwixt the inner walls of their rectums the sooner the moronic divides between us will heal.
#63 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
pseudo-intellectual? Hah! Thats rich.
If I couldn't stand to have my views challenged, do you sincerely think I wouldn't have blocked you at this point?
I enjoy having my views challenged. Thats the entire reason I write you and people like you. Despite my personal belief that you're a mindless idiotic retard who couldn't form a coherent argument to save your life, you still pose an alternate view to mine. Your..."unique" intellectual faculties allows you to view things in ways I never could. Even if that view is inherently distorted by all the paint tasting you've been doing, its still interesting to hear the gibbering of a mad person.
If anything, I actually like writing with you. You're a source of stress relief for me. Its always so wonderfully easy to come up with colorful insults at you, and the actual points you rise never merit more than a single instants thought to pierce. I view you as something akin to an online stress ball. If I'm stressed out or just plain bored, I can always count on platinumaltaria to speak some absolute garbage, that I can have fun debunking and insulting.

Just today you've been an integral part of my particle physics homework. "Calculate an assignment, insult platinumaltaria, calculate an assign, insult platinumaltaria". Rinse and repeat until done. Its a good system.
User avatar
#64 - platinumaltaria (11/29/2016) [-]
Indeed, because my nations wealth is in finance, not in windmills and dams.

Because coming onto every post I make and calling me a retard demonstrates a high level of thought.

Have you ever considered that I'm right and you're wrong, and the only reason you oppose me is that I'm a cunt? Because you rarely have any actual criticism for me beyond "that's dumb and wrong", which universally points to an internal problem.

You know it's funny to hear that you consider me anything, because I don't think of you at all.
#100 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
>"I don't think of you at all"
>Keeps on responding
#82 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Why're speaking about your nation? Isn't most of your nations wealth in Tescos and sarcasm? Tea and biscuits, perhaps?

I dont come onto every post you make. Just the ones I see, while I'm browsing. I keep calling you a retard because you keep saying retarded things. If you stopped saying retarded things, I might just stop calling you a retard. Probably not, but theres a chance of it.

I routinely consider if you're right. The conclusion I unfailingly reach, is that you're retarded, but I do consider the possibility that you might not be. I dont even think you're a cunt. Being a cunt necessarily implies that you could do better if you tried. I've given up that hope a while ago. At this point, its almost more of a "keeping up a routine" thing, what with considering that you might not be retarded. Thats a valid consideration in regards to other people, and I dont want to get into a pattern of assuming idiocy of folks, just because doing so would be entirely valid in your case.

Aaurh. I'm hurt dude. I thought we had something special. Does this mean I'm uninvited from your birthday party?
User avatar
#84 - platinumaltaria (11/29/2016) [-]
Or the world centre of finance... something like that.

No, you call me retard because you don't know how to refute what I say, but you mindlessly disagree anyway. If you can't refute what I say then logically it follows that what I say is sound in your mind.
#88 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
That was an almost eerily swift reply. You're like a praying mantis of comments. And here you were, saying that you dont think of me

I have refuted what you said. The fact that you're too thick to actually understand that simple truth, is more your problem than it is mine. I've recommended you quit drinking all that paint, but my pleas seem to fall on deaf ears. Its probably the paint.
You rarely say anything that is logically sound, much less with any frequency where it registers.
User avatar
#207 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
And now we've reached the point where you declare yourself the winner, like the proverbial chess pigeon.
#214 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
I'm not really of the opinion that there can be a "winner" of an argument, but if you by "winner" mean to say: " I assert that I have sufficiently explained my point to you, and any lapse in understanding on your part, is entirely due to the large volume of paint you've been drinking coupled with what I suspect to be several serious birth defects of which severe atrophy in the left side of your brain is barely on the top 5 "
Then yes. I do make that assertion. Although frankly, that assertion should be obvious to anyone who have been paying attention...Excluding those in the cheap seats, who are busy pouring lead-based paint into their swollen maw, of course.
User avatar
#215 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Is it really that hard for you to make a comment without slipping in a few lame insults? Because all you're doing is demonstrating your lack of an actual argument.
#216 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
Its not that its hard for me to stop insulting you, its that I dont want to stop.
You ever seen one those people with a punchable face? Its like that, only with words. Also, no jail.
Its like fucking an unconscious chick. Its not that you couldn't stop yourself, theres just no good reason not to.
User avatar
#217 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Morality?
#218 - krobeles (11/30/2016) [-]
Aaah, yes...Not a single good reason...
#219 - platinumaltaria (11/30/2016) [-]
Either you haven't quite figured out humour or you're a piece of shit.
#51 - I didn't suspect you were referring to this content in particu…  [+] (14 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +5
#52 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
You're aware that it takes just 11 states to get the amount of EC votes needed to win, right?

But, right, sure, let's all be moronic and believe that it's to protect the democratic process from "a few key places influencing the entire vote."
User avatar
#55 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Whatever. I dont care right now. We're not debating the EC right now, and I dont much care to right now either.
I didn't say the argument was good enough to justify the EC, merely that the argument was not "obviously false" as you claimed. You're trying to pass your own subjective opinion off as fact right now.

Thats troubling...
User avatar
#56 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
The argument is provably false when you can show that it doesn't, in fact, solve a problem that it's claiming to solve. It's like giving a bunch of weapons to refugees and saying "there, now there'll be less violence!"
User avatar
#58 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
So what you're saying is that if you win the right combination of states all it takes is 11, and the rest wont matter? And that this alone entirely debunks the argument that EC might possibly help in some fashion?
If this is actually your argument, than that argument does not hold. At all.

What you've done is simply point out a problem with the EC - one I agree is a problem - not actually debunk the existing argument.
User avatar
#59 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
It doesn't "not debunk the argument" jut because you've rhetorically said so.

You don't get to act apathetic and just a little too salty and call that logic for your argument.

You don't get to substitute actually having an argument with "Are you kidding me?!"
User avatar
#65 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Excuse me, what?
I just explained to you - in detail, mind you - why what you said didn't debunk the argument. You did not at all even attempt to confront the argument with which you supposedly disagree. All you did was raise another - entirely valid, although entirely different - argument as to why the EC isn't laudable.

In order to actually debunk an argument, you need to actually go through thar argument and point out specifically where that argument is incorrect. You cant just raise another argument that refutes the conclusion. All that accomplishes is - possibly - refute the conclusion of the argument, not the argument itself. An argument can be logically sound but reach an incorrect conclusion perfectly well.
As an example, imagine the statement: " I can walk through walls. All it requires is that I accelerate myself to beyond the speed of light, so that the chance of my constituent particles quantum-tunneling through the wall reaches approximately a 100%. Therefore, I can walk through walls ".
Thats an entirely logically sound and correct assertion. The problem is, that its physically impossible for me to accelerate myself to those speeds. Thats another argument which, while not debunking the first argument itself, debunks the conclusion.
Thats what you're doing. Raising another argument which only serves to debunk the conclusion, not the argument itself.

Also, weather or not the conclusion is sufficiently debunked by your new argument, is actually a subjective matter, so I would argue that your new argument only introduces the possibility that the first arguments conclusion is incorrect, while not actually definitively debunking it.
User avatar
#70 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
Also your example holds no weight whatsoever. I could leave it at that, and perhaps throw in a rhetorical question or two insinuating an insult to your intelligence, but I'm not you.

The difference is that it's physically possible for a candidate to win 11 states and lose the other 39 and win the election. It's describably possible via an explicit number of steps. Your example of "all I have to do is go fast enough" is as vague a descriptor on how it would go about happening as a 3rd grade report on quantum physics.
User avatar
#67 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
"So what you're saying is that if you win the right combination of states all it takes is 11, and the rest wont matter? And that this alone entirely debunks the argument that EC might possibly help in some fashion?
If this is actually your argument, than that argument does not hold. At all.

What you've done is simply point out a problem with the EC - one I agree is a problem - not actually debunk the existing argument."

Nowhere in there is any detail as to how it is what I've said doesn't debunk the need for the EC, what is there you simply saying, through 2 rhetorical questions, and 2 simple statements, "that argument doesn't work" with absolutely 0 reference as to how it works.

I understood the clear and obvious reference to "its not enough", but I was gracious enough not to just state that you were moving the goalposts, given that your original statement was that I had absolutely no argument against it whatsoever.
User avatar
#81 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
If you're going to be nasty about things, I wont bother with you. Keep that in mind if you want to actually discuss this. I'm not trying to insult you. I genuinely think you're missing my point. I dont think its because you're an idiot. I may just have explained it you poorly.

I feel I have explained in detail - with an example, no less - why your argument does not hold and specifically whats wrong with it. If you dont understand where the problem lies, I can try to reformulate the problem again, but I think a careful analysis of what I've already told you should suffice.
User avatar
#92 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
You're also wrong if you seriously think that's the only reason I dislike the electoral college, but I'm not going to go into details if you're just going to pass over all of it as "not enough" which is why it keeps baffling me that you'll admit to hating it but then advocate that there's "not enough to abolish it."

My biggest concern with it is actually the "winner take all" philosophy. The whole "22% have 51%" argument is just to debunk this asinine assertion that the electoral college protects us from "the tyranny of the majority." 22% of the country having 51% of the votes wouldn't be a concern were it not for the fact that a candidate only needs 51% of each state to win 100% of the votes. Like California steals anywhere between 20 and 25 electoral votes for the DNC every goddamn election. And I say "steal" because they'll only actually earn around 30-35 with their population vote.

That also debunks this argument for the EC that's it's meant to "provide adequate representation for the minorities of the country". Not when your vote literally doesn't count if you lose your state, buddy...
User avatar
#95 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Again, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said there weren't enough reason to abolish it. I'd like to see it abolished too. You've unjustly assumed me to hold a position that I never once claimed to hold. Why?

What I said, was that the argument that you attempted to refute, was a rather sound argument and that that argument has not refuted by you thus far. Thats all I've been saying.
User avatar
#98 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
What argument have I been attempting to refute, then?
#130 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
This guy is straight brain aids. Hide all
User avatar
#134 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
No, I'm not a pussy who will just hide away from anyone with a differing opinion. Thanks though.
#48 - Provably false? Thats a rather tall claim you make there. …  [+] (16 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +7
User avatar
#50 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
>>#49
User avatar
#51 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
I didn't suspect you were referring to this content in particular. Its still a tall claim, to which you have provided no proof.

Do you think that that argument is bad? Personally, I think its one of the better arguments I've heard in defense of the EC. I still dont think the EC is justified, at least not in its current form, but the argument itself is sound enough.
#52 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
You're aware that it takes just 11 states to get the amount of EC votes needed to win, right?

But, right, sure, let's all be moronic and believe that it's to protect the democratic process from "a few key places influencing the entire vote."
User avatar
#55 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Whatever. I dont care right now. We're not debating the EC right now, and I dont much care to right now either.
I didn't say the argument was good enough to justify the EC, merely that the argument was not "obviously false" as you claimed. You're trying to pass your own subjective opinion off as fact right now.

Thats troubling...
User avatar
#56 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
The argument is provably false when you can show that it doesn't, in fact, solve a problem that it's claiming to solve. It's like giving a bunch of weapons to refugees and saying "there, now there'll be less violence!"
User avatar
#58 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
So what you're saying is that if you win the right combination of states all it takes is 11, and the rest wont matter? And that this alone entirely debunks the argument that EC might possibly help in some fashion?
If this is actually your argument, than that argument does not hold. At all.

What you've done is simply point out a problem with the EC - one I agree is a problem - not actually debunk the existing argument.
User avatar
#59 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
It doesn't "not debunk the argument" jut because you've rhetorically said so.

You don't get to act apathetic and just a little too salty and call that logic for your argument.

You don't get to substitute actually having an argument with "Are you kidding me?!"
User avatar
#65 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Excuse me, what?
I just explained to you - in detail, mind you - why what you said didn't debunk the argument. You did not at all even attempt to confront the argument with which you supposedly disagree. All you did was raise another - entirely valid, although entirely different - argument as to why the EC isn't laudable.

In order to actually debunk an argument, you need to actually go through thar argument and point out specifically where that argument is incorrect. You cant just raise another argument that refutes the conclusion. All that accomplishes is - possibly - refute the conclusion of the argument, not the argument itself. An argument can be logically sound but reach an incorrect conclusion perfectly well.
As an example, imagine the statement: " I can walk through walls. All it requires is that I accelerate myself to beyond the speed of light, so that the chance of my constituent particles quantum-tunneling through the wall reaches approximately a 100%. Therefore, I can walk through walls ".
Thats an entirely logically sound and correct assertion. The problem is, that its physically impossible for me to accelerate myself to those speeds. Thats another argument which, while not debunking the first argument itself, debunks the conclusion.
Thats what you're doing. Raising another argument which only serves to debunk the conclusion, not the argument itself.

Also, weather or not the conclusion is sufficiently debunked by your new argument, is actually a subjective matter, so I would argue that your new argument only introduces the possibility that the first arguments conclusion is incorrect, while not actually definitively debunking it.
User avatar
#70 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
Also your example holds no weight whatsoever. I could leave it at that, and perhaps throw in a rhetorical question or two insinuating an insult to your intelligence, but I'm not you.

The difference is that it's physically possible for a candidate to win 11 states and lose the other 39 and win the election. It's describably possible via an explicit number of steps. Your example of "all I have to do is go fast enough" is as vague a descriptor on how it would go about happening as a 3rd grade report on quantum physics.
User avatar
#67 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
"So what you're saying is that if you win the right combination of states all it takes is 11, and the rest wont matter? And that this alone entirely debunks the argument that EC might possibly help in some fashion?
If this is actually your argument, than that argument does not hold. At all.

What you've done is simply point out a problem with the EC - one I agree is a problem - not actually debunk the existing argument."

Nowhere in there is any detail as to how it is what I've said doesn't debunk the need for the EC, what is there you simply saying, through 2 rhetorical questions, and 2 simple statements, "that argument doesn't work" with absolutely 0 reference as to how it works.

I understood the clear and obvious reference to "its not enough", but I was gracious enough not to just state that you were moving the goalposts, given that your original statement was that I had absolutely no argument against it whatsoever.
User avatar
#81 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
If you're going to be nasty about things, I wont bother with you. Keep that in mind if you want to actually discuss this. I'm not trying to insult you. I genuinely think you're missing my point. I dont think its because you're an idiot. I may just have explained it you poorly.

I feel I have explained in detail - with an example, no less - why your argument does not hold and specifically whats wrong with it. If you dont understand where the problem lies, I can try to reformulate the problem again, but I think a careful analysis of what I've already told you should suffice.
User avatar
#92 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
You're also wrong if you seriously think that's the only reason I dislike the electoral college, but I'm not going to go into details if you're just going to pass over all of it as "not enough" which is why it keeps baffling me that you'll admit to hating it but then advocate that there's "not enough to abolish it."

My biggest concern with it is actually the "winner take all" philosophy. The whole "22% have 51%" argument is just to debunk this asinine assertion that the electoral college protects us from "the tyranny of the majority." 22% of the country having 51% of the votes wouldn't be a concern were it not for the fact that a candidate only needs 51% of each state to win 100% of the votes. Like California steals anywhere between 20 and 25 electoral votes for the DNC every goddamn election. And I say "steal" because they'll only actually earn around 30-35 with their population vote.

That also debunks this argument for the EC that's it's meant to "provide adequate representation for the minorities of the country". Not when your vote literally doesn't count if you lose your state, buddy...
User avatar
#95 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Again, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said there weren't enough reason to abolish it. I'd like to see it abolished too. You've unjustly assumed me to hold a position that I never once claimed to hold. Why?

What I said, was that the argument that you attempted to refute, was a rather sound argument and that that argument has not refuted by you thus far. Thats all I've been saying.
User avatar
#98 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
What argument have I been attempting to refute, then?
#130 - anon (11/29/2016) [-]
This guy is straight brain aids. Hide all
User avatar
#134 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
No, I'm not a pussy who will just hide away from anyone with a differing opinion. Thanks though.