Upload
Login or register

krobeles

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:8/08/2012
Last Login:12/03/2016
Location:Denmark
Stats
Comment Ranking:#1588
Highest Content Rank:#2711
Highest Comment Rank:#1051
Content Thumbs: 1633 total,  1920 ,  287
Comment Thumbs: 12011 total,  21277 ,  9266
Content Level Progress: 31% (31/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 64% (64/100)
Level 297 Comments: Post Master → Level 298 Comments: Post Master
Subscribers:0
Content Views:101941
Times Content Favorited:73 times
Total Comments Made:6569
FJ Points:11049
Favorite Tags: fucking (2) | shit (2)

latest user's comments

#30 - "Addressing the problem is just as bad as willfully denyi…  [+] (53 replies) 11/29/2016 on Friendly Somalians +36
User avatar
#115 - elsanna (11/29/2016) [-]
I'm convinced that their intention is just to be as contrarian as they can be without overly looking edgy or trolling.
User avatar
#71 - rokkarokkaali (11/29/2016) [-]
That's literally not what he said though?

It's more like "addressing the problem and doing nothing about it is just as bad as denying it exists"
User avatar
#44 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
This website doesn't "address the problem". It tailors the problem in whatever ways fit it's narrative. You can't look at the few times the blind guy hits the side of the barn and use it as justification for why he has "perfect accuracy."
User avatar
#62 - WutsAtroll (11/29/2016) [-]
surprisingly, it's not up to this website to fix the problem. Spreading awareness that the problem exists relative to the role FJ has in the world is significantly better than Obama saying "Islam is all good guys" in his role as president
User avatar
#45 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Thats an intensely negative view you have of the people here.
I agree that this website alone doesn't address the problem all by its lonesome, but its contributing to the larger societal pressure needed to push back the pervasive tide of Islam.

I do not agree that we push a narrative or agenda. The community has a certain view of things, true, but thats really rather unavoidable.
User avatar
#49 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
PS before you go on the tangent, this content isn't an example of the "provably false" shit this website posts. I'm talking the "the EC makes it where a few overpopulated states don't have all the votes! It's a good thing!" argument.
User avatar
#46 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
Actually, it's very avoidable. It's called "don't post and comment with shit that is provably false and then become a salty vagina when people have the good sense not to believe your bullshit."
User avatar
#83 - antiponiesuser (11/29/2016) [-]
We do not "ban" posts which say otherwise.

You can post "Islam is a religion of peace" and it will have as much existence as any other post.

Another thing is that nobody will back you up with greenies, because they *disagree by vote* with you.
User avatar
#94 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
I get how group voting works. I actually find it amusing when people think that their attempts at chipping my positive thumb collection will make me "see the light". But don't you lie to me and say that there's not a raging hugbox going on with this website.
#101 - mixedfeelings (11/29/2016) [-]
¿hugbox?

this is fightclub
#103 - lolollo (11/29/2016) [-]
we dont...we don't talk about that...
#104 - mixedfeelings (11/29/2016) [-]
the how do all these people know about it?
User avatar
#48 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Provably false? Thats a rather tall claim you make there.
I agree that there have been times in which some people have been a bit too eager to believe something they've read, but that should sooner to chalked up the naivete of the people rather than malicious intent.
That, and the fact that this past year has been so absurd that practically anything would be plausible at this point in time...
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.
User avatar
#32 - platinumaltaria (11/29/2016) [-]
In what way is this addressing the problem, the only thing you are succeeding in doing is repeating the statement "islam is bad". Yes, everyone knows that dear, now try doing something about it. For all that feminists complain about a wage gap none have actually done anything about it. Obama himself believes that it is legal to pay women less, and despite having complete control over an entire country he doesn't seem to be interested in repairing that proposed problem. You're whining incessantly about islam but making no effort to reform the religion.
User avatar
#36 - pebar (11/29/2016) [-]
the wage gap is caused by the choices women make. In order to fix it, government would have to mandate which jobs women are and are not allowed do. Then they would have to mandate that women not start a family and instead choose to work on getting job experience.
Feminists degrade women who choose to be housewives because of this.

your analogy breaks down because despite incessant whining about this topic, you still don't know about it
User avatar
#38 - platinumaltaria (11/29/2016) [-]
No, Obama believes the 78 cents thing, full feminist rhetoric. But he doesn't do anything.
User avatar
#39 - pebar (11/29/2016) [-]
obama most likely does not truly believe it; he's not that stupid. He is a politician who uses rhetoric to influence the audience
with rhetoric, facts don't matter; only the audience liking him matters
User avatar
#35 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
"dear"...Huh. Didn't know 80 year old women were using FJ. Live and learn, I guess.

What do you want us to do, exactly? Take to the streets and murder them? The Muslims dont want to discuss it, trust me, I've tried. Went to school with two Muslims girls who got really upset if you tried to discuss their religion in a non-stellar fashion. They weren't even terribly orthodox Muslims, but rather westernized. They still got incredibly defensive about it.

The first step to doing something about it, is to decriminalize the discussion. At present, its downright criminal to address the problem, you realize? People have been jailed for bad mouthing Islam, not to mention the countless slain in Islams name, even here in the rest.
At the moment, we cannot do anything about it, because the discussion is criminalized, so in an attempt to get it decriminalized, we attempt to have this discussion.

Obama doesn't actually believe that. He was just paying lib service to the idiotic shitmongers who eats that kind of rhetoric raw. Thats why he hasn't done anything about it. He is fully aware that there isn't a problem. He just said what he knew the idiots wanted to hear, to attempt to secure their support and favor.
User avatar
#40 - platinumaltaria (11/29/2016) [-]
No, probably best stick to the same shit that happened to christians; you point out the obvious bullshit and they realise that it's bullshit.
Have you considered that it was because they were cunts? Because those do exist.

Perhaps in Saudi Arabia, but not in any western nation. Complaining that Saudi Arabia is too fundamentalist is like saying Australia is too hot, it's not gonna be fixed any time soon and there's nothing much for anyone to do.

Sure he doesn't, you kids with your faith in humanity. And that still doesn't explain why the whole host of feminist business owners don't do something...
User avatar
#42 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
Kids? According to your profile, I'm older than you by several years.
I said that Obama lied to get votes. How the fuck do you interpreted that as having faith in humanity? You think hes stupid but good natured, I think hes clever - well, at least not retarded - but ruthless/evil.

Did you miss how that actually worked with the Christians? They aren't as rampantly zealous as they used to be.
Look up Germany. Its downright criminal there under their fucking draconian hatespeech laws.

Also, my two class mates were actually perfectly nice girls. One of them was even pretty hot. They just massively defensive when you discussed their religion.
I went to school with two hardline Christians too, and I discussed their religion often with them.
User avatar
#47 - platinumaltaria (11/29/2016) [-]
To clarify I am patronising you.
It's fairly optimistic to call Obama clever. Clever enough to be elected perhaps, but when you look to the guy who ran America for the previous 2 terms suddenly it's not so impressive.

Yeah, and it will work exactly the same way with muslims.
Well I'm not german, so I don't much care how they ruin their country as long as it doesn't affect me.

They were probably jews though amirite?
Yeah and how many christians blew up a building this decade? Now, might there be a difference between a hardline christian and a fundamentalist muslim?
User avatar
#54 - krobeles (11/29/2016) [-]
I know you were trying to be patronizing. In order to effectively patronize somebody, you need to at least be able to feign superiority. Otherwise you just sound like a retard, just as you just did.

So we agree than? Keep pointing out the heinous and self contradictory bullshit of Islam will work eventually. What the hell are we arguing over, if we agree on this point?

What happens in Germany largely sets the tone for what happens in the rest of the EU. I know you Brits had the good wits to GTFO, but we Danes still need to suffer under the yoke of the EU, so its a concern of mine.

Jews? No. They were Christians. Protestants. I barely think theres any Jews at all in Denmark.
Sure theres a difference between a difference between hardline Christian and a fundamentalist Muslim. Are you contradicting your previous point, and now saying that peaceful discourse will not work, because the Muslims are bestial animals? What the fuck is even your argument at this point?
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.
#37 - pebar (11/29/2016) [-]
>decriminalize the discussion
#27 - This chart is probably ********, but heres my explanation. I'm…  [+] (5 replies) 11/29/2016 on /pol/ discusses whiteness +7
User avatar
#31 - hidemoto (11/29/2016) [-]
Seems plausible enough, just like with the bronze beard thing. If you have ancestors with red hair, there's a chance it shows up, even if both parents aren't redheaded.
User avatar
#32 - lolscrub (11/29/2016) [-]
wait.. are every danish person greek according to this chart, im greek as well according to this chart
User avatar
#33 - hidemoto (11/29/2016) [-]
Well, according to the chart it's traceable by the toes, but I'm not sure. I just have fucked up toes.
#54 - azteh (11/29/2016) [-]
While my flag shows britain, I too am from Denmark and I also have Greek toes. Any danes here that can say they don't have greek toes?
User avatar
#29 - carlonord (11/29/2016) [-]
To this day that always amazes me that there were Romans in Britain.
#20 - Pretty sure you might be able to do something with some ultra-…  [+] (1 reply) 11/28/2016 on Bounty 4 PizzaGate Urban... +5
#24 - anon (11/28/2016) [-]
What is even the use of tunnels? Why are people trying to find tunnels? Is the government supposedly running child sex slaves through the tunnels or something? Or are you all just trying to get internet points for exposing the government to be kiddie fiddlers as well as reptile communists from space?
#69 - Well, its pretty undeniable that the father of those kids is a…  [+] (1 reply) 11/28/2016 on Switzerland Has A Solution 0
User avatar
#97 - wraithguard (11/28/2016) [-]
Well they'll definitely grow up to be degenerates if members of their own family treat them that way.
#30 - ...Ok, I take that back. You might not be smarter than that af…  [+] (2 replies) 11/27/2016 on Britain's New Security Laws -1
User avatar
#35 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
Except if an armed populace goes for another revolution, do you really think the military will fire on its own people? Sure a handful may, but many would refuse, leave, and take equipment with them to help fight. A revolution here wouldn't be as unbalanced as you claimed. You really think every single soldier or officer would wage war on its own people? They are the people. Most would fight with the people. So the vast majority of the US against corrupt leaders and their small army of whoever the fuck they could wrangle together(who would likely back out rather than sacrifice their lives to protect the corrupt against a whole country).

Without an armed populace, any would-be defectors in police/military would likely rethink defecting. That would be a massive gamble for one soldier to side with an unarmed populace in the hopes that others would do the same.

They gave us the right to bear arms for this very same purpose. Without them, we would have no leverage whatsoever. What would we do? Stand up with words? That's proven to not work as well.
User avatar
#60 - krobeles (11/28/2016) [-]
Theres more to a military than just trained soldiers and whatever arms they're carrying at any given moment.
Theres a huge level of coordination, infrastructure and intelligence gathering that is needed for a modern army to operate effectively, and thats also what makes it vastly superior a - by comparison - poorly organized, poorly trained and poorly equipped civilian uprising.
It would require a staggeringly vast fraction of the army to defect and in addition, for those people to steal some pretty heavy equipment, even to just give the civilians a fighting chance.

You're really rather naive, if you dont think the military would shoot on the civilians. Maybe they wouldn't at this precise moment, but theres an insidious method to brainwashing that you dont seem to appreciate. All it takes, is for the government to convince the military that the civilian uprising is actually a lethal threat to the country, democracy, decency and freedom and those military men will be just as ready to mow them down as they would any other enemy.
Given what we've seen recently, with how absolutely brainwashed a large portion of the American population is, do you sincerely think this untrue? Do you sincerely think that they couldn't brainwash those people? We've just seen it, during this election. They did almost this precise thing against Trump supports, brainwashing a large portion of the leftists into being ready to enact heinous violence against Trump supporters, and that wasn't even with the directed goal of getting them ready for violence. They just wanted to polarize them.

I agree that an armed population gives you a better fighting chance, in the same way that saying "No" to being raped slightly increases your chances of the rapist quitting or fighting back against a pack of hungry lions is a slightly better idea than doing nothing.
Not that either of those things will really save you or make a true difference, though...
#28 - You're joking, hopefully? You're going to use something t…  [+] (4 replies) 11/27/2016 on Britain's New Security Laws -2
User avatar
#29 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
"We have actual empirical evidence to suggest, that an armed population changes nothing, and therefore, your point is wrong."

I proved that statement wrong. It doesn't matter how long ago it was. It will always be a prime example. You can't just dismiss history because it doesn't support your view. The revolution would never have succeeded without an armed populace.
User avatar
#30 - krobeles (11/27/2016) [-]
...Ok, I take that back. You might not be smarter than that after all.

Listen here, you cant apply the conclusion of that conflict to the pressent situation, because the players and parameters are vastly different. That war was won, largely because the gulf between violence-capability of the government and the populace wasn't that great back then. Also, the populace received significant aid from foreign governments, but thats another point altogether.
The main point is, that it the difference between the violence that the government was capable of and that which the populace was capable of, wasn't all that different back then. The populace had a fighting chance, if they were armed.

You're a fool of astronomical proportions, if you think the civil populace has a fighting chance against a modern military, even if they are armed.

That is why I can reject that historical scenario as inapplicable to the current situation. It isn't because it refutes my "view" its because its objectively incomparable. Its empirical fact, sure, but its a piece of empirical evidence that doesn't relate to the current situation what-so-ever.
User avatar
#35 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
Except if an armed populace goes for another revolution, do you really think the military will fire on its own people? Sure a handful may, but many would refuse, leave, and take equipment with them to help fight. A revolution here wouldn't be as unbalanced as you claimed. You really think every single soldier or officer would wage war on its own people? They are the people. Most would fight with the people. So the vast majority of the US against corrupt leaders and their small army of whoever the fuck they could wrangle together(who would likely back out rather than sacrifice their lives to protect the corrupt against a whole country).

Without an armed populace, any would-be defectors in police/military would likely rethink defecting. That would be a massive gamble for one soldier to side with an unarmed populace in the hopes that others would do the same.

They gave us the right to bear arms for this very same purpose. Without them, we would have no leverage whatsoever. What would we do? Stand up with words? That's proven to not work as well.
User avatar
#60 - krobeles (11/28/2016) [-]
Theres more to a military than just trained soldiers and whatever arms they're carrying at any given moment.
Theres a huge level of coordination, infrastructure and intelligence gathering that is needed for a modern army to operate effectively, and thats also what makes it vastly superior a - by comparison - poorly organized, poorly trained and poorly equipped civilian uprising.
It would require a staggeringly vast fraction of the army to defect and in addition, for those people to steal some pretty heavy equipment, even to just give the civilians a fighting chance.

You're really rather naive, if you dont think the military would shoot on the civilians. Maybe they wouldn't at this precise moment, but theres an insidious method to brainwashing that you dont seem to appreciate. All it takes, is for the government to convince the military that the civilian uprising is actually a lethal threat to the country, democracy, decency and freedom and those military men will be just as ready to mow them down as they would any other enemy.
Given what we've seen recently, with how absolutely brainwashed a large portion of the American population is, do you sincerely think this untrue? Do you sincerely think that they couldn't brainwash those people? We've just seen it, during this election. They did almost this precise thing against Trump supports, brainwashing a large portion of the leftists into being ready to enact heinous violence against Trump supporters, and that wasn't even with the directed goal of getting them ready for violence. They just wanted to polarize them.

I agree that an armed population gives you a better fighting chance, in the same way that saying "No" to being raped slightly increases your chances of the rapist quitting or fighting back against a pack of hungry lions is a slightly better idea than doing nothing.
Not that either of those things will really save you or make a true difference, though...
#25 - Yes, but an armed population would have changed nothing, Ameri…  [+] (6 replies) 11/27/2016 on Britain's New Security Laws -5
User avatar
#26 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
The American revolution begs to differ.
User avatar
#28 - krobeles (11/27/2016) [-]
You're joking, hopefully?
You're going to use something that happened well over 200 years ago as the basis to make your claim about contemporary issues?
I'm not even mad, I'm just kinda disappointed. Comeon man. You're smarter than this.
User avatar
#29 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
"We have actual empirical evidence to suggest, that an armed population changes nothing, and therefore, your point is wrong."

I proved that statement wrong. It doesn't matter how long ago it was. It will always be a prime example. You can't just dismiss history because it doesn't support your view. The revolution would never have succeeded without an armed populace.
User avatar
#30 - krobeles (11/27/2016) [-]
...Ok, I take that back. You might not be smarter than that after all.

Listen here, you cant apply the conclusion of that conflict to the pressent situation, because the players and parameters are vastly different. That war was won, largely because the gulf between violence-capability of the government and the populace wasn't that great back then. Also, the populace received significant aid from foreign governments, but thats another point altogether.
The main point is, that it the difference between the violence that the government was capable of and that which the populace was capable of, wasn't all that different back then. The populace had a fighting chance, if they were armed.

You're a fool of astronomical proportions, if you think the civil populace has a fighting chance against a modern military, even if they are armed.

That is why I can reject that historical scenario as inapplicable to the current situation. It isn't because it refutes my "view" its because its objectively incomparable. Its empirical fact, sure, but its a piece of empirical evidence that doesn't relate to the current situation what-so-ever.
User avatar
#35 - wertologist (11/27/2016) [-]
Except if an armed populace goes for another revolution, do you really think the military will fire on its own people? Sure a handful may, but many would refuse, leave, and take equipment with them to help fight. A revolution here wouldn't be as unbalanced as you claimed. You really think every single soldier or officer would wage war on its own people? They are the people. Most would fight with the people. So the vast majority of the US against corrupt leaders and their small army of whoever the fuck they could wrangle together(who would likely back out rather than sacrifice their lives to protect the corrupt against a whole country).

Without an armed populace, any would-be defectors in police/military would likely rethink defecting. That would be a massive gamble for one soldier to side with an unarmed populace in the hopes that others would do the same.

They gave us the right to bear arms for this very same purpose. Without them, we would have no leverage whatsoever. What would we do? Stand up with words? That's proven to not work as well.
User avatar
#60 - krobeles (11/28/2016) [-]
Theres more to a military than just trained soldiers and whatever arms they're carrying at any given moment.
Theres a huge level of coordination, infrastructure and intelligence gathering that is needed for a modern army to operate effectively, and thats also what makes it vastly superior a - by comparison - poorly organized, poorly trained and poorly equipped civilian uprising.
It would require a staggeringly vast fraction of the army to defect and in addition, for those people to steal some pretty heavy equipment, even to just give the civilians a fighting chance.

You're really rather naive, if you dont think the military would shoot on the civilians. Maybe they wouldn't at this precise moment, but theres an insidious method to brainwashing that you dont seem to appreciate. All it takes, is for the government to convince the military that the civilian uprising is actually a lethal threat to the country, democracy, decency and freedom and those military men will be just as ready to mow them down as they would any other enemy.
Given what we've seen recently, with how absolutely brainwashed a large portion of the American population is, do you sincerely think this untrue? Do you sincerely think that they couldn't brainwash those people? We've just seen it, during this election. They did almost this precise thing against Trump supports, brainwashing a large portion of the leftists into being ready to enact heinous violence against Trump supporters, and that wasn't even with the directed goal of getting them ready for violence. They just wanted to polarize them.

I agree that an armed population gives you a better fighting chance, in the same way that saying "No" to being raped slightly increases your chances of the rapist quitting or fighting back against a pack of hungry lions is a slightly better idea than doing nothing.
Not that either of those things will really save you or make a true difference, though...