Upload
Login or register

muscularsystem

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:12/23/2012
Last Login:12/02/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#13205
Highest Content Rank:#3479
Highest Comment Rank:#6582
Content Thumbs: 431 total,  469 ,  38
Comment Thumbs: 510 total,  660 ,  150
Content Level Progress: 60% (6/10)
Level 32 Content: Peasant → Level 33 Content: Peasant
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 145 Comments: Faptastic → Level 146 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:0
Content Views:21373
Times Content Favorited:68 times
Total Comments Made:282
FJ Points:771

latest user's comments

#592 - Wow, you can't read. Ask ur mum to interpret or something m8. …  [+] (11 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#636 - lolollo (12/02/2016) [-]
Good thing it's preserved that each state gets a say in a system only run with popular vote.

That's also a particularly retarded argument considering our current system has it where the losing party in each state legitimately has their votes stricken from being counted, which wouldn't happen in a system with popular vote.

But by all means continue with your erroneous belief that you're fighting on behalf of the minority populations.
User avatar
#633 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Great! So let's get rid of the EC so we can eliminate that glaring problem.
User avatar
#635 - muscularsystem (12/02/2016) [-]
It's a glaring problem that each state gets a say? It thought that the country was callled the "United States" not "Only the most populated states?"
User avatar
#629 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
When you have to change the math from 4 to 9, I'm 90% sure it proves my point.

By the way, do those 9 states also have about 51% of the electoral votes as well?

Yeah, that's EC...
User avatar
#631 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
The math was corrected and so were you. Very few states hold more than 51% of the population, thus, all of the power in a purely democratic vote. So that proves my point. Those 9 states hold 240 EC votes altogether. I'm sure that you can figure it from there.
User avatar
#624 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Considering its not the case that 51% of the country lives in those 4 major cities that you're claiming would equate to the "tyranny of the majority", I'm inclined to call that full of shit. And it still doesn't change the fact that you're using a load of shit to justify one group of people getting an inflated say on what happens in anothers life.
User avatar
#627 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Actually, if you do the math, the nine largest states do have more than 51% of the population. You should check the math before you call bullshit. What about the other ~41 states? They do not deserve any say because those 9 states know what is best for the whole country, right? Could you point what exactly is a load of shit? You've only shown that you don't understand what modern farming is or the population differences of states are.

I get that your main point is that you do not believe that one person should have more say than another. However, the representatives of larger states already have more say than those of the smaller states due to population differences; the EC just shortens the gap slightly. That gap can only be shortened by giving the individual slightly more voting power.
User avatar
#618 - lolollo (11/27/2016) [-]
They're not getting "less of a vote" unless you're seriously so arrogant as to say that one person getting more of a say in what happens in someone else's life is "perfectly acceptable." Because that's what you're advocating for. A governmental system based around people in the major cities getting held hostage by the tyranny of the minority of the few people who can tend piles of dirt. You're advocating for the idea that people who live in an urban setting, because they live in an urban setting, should have their lives dictated by those living in a rural setting even though they would have no idea what concerns urban living would entitle to be able to make an effective vote.

And if all of that sounds asinine, even paranoid, that's precisely how you sound at the simple idea that everyone's votes be worth exactly the same.

So erroneously make fun of what you presume to be my problem, I'm not the one acting like an undemocratic dick bag actively advocating for one class of people to be given more of a say on what happens in other people's lives even though those people have absolutely no idea what living those people's lives entitles, or requires.

That's you. But you're more than willing to try and pass it off on anyone else for proposing the blasphemous idea that everyone should get an equal say in a fucking democracy.
User avatar
#623 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Since the smaller states have more of a say right now, doing what you suggest would give them less say, yes. Stick to reality, will you? It's funny that you mention one group of people being tyrannically controlled by another. You know, since that's what literally what would happen if there were no electoral college. It would make it so that every decision is made by the 4 most populated states; giving literally no say to the smaller states. I'm simply advocated for everyone to be heard. It is mathematically impossible for a *minority* state to have any kind of total control over the US. Do you think that the EC gives every person in a small state a hundred million votes or something?

You should check the meaning of democracy before you call someone undemocratic; democracies are usually run by representatives, which is exactly what the EC is; they represent their states.
User avatar
#601 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
You're starting to lose it m8.

The farmers shouldn't have an inflated vote just because you say so and you're starting to realize that. They're no more important to the machine than any other cog nor are they any more versed in knowing what decisions to make for what direction the country should go it.

They shouldn't have more of a say in shit that's completely and utterly irrelevant to what happens in their livelihood just because they can tend to dirt and maintain an irrigation system. They shouldn't get to have more of a say in whether or not 2 people half a country away from them should be able to get married just because they'd act like children and hold the country hostage by halting food production if they dont. Even in a drastic survival situation, they'd just be shot and replaced, because it's fucking tending dirt.

You've lost a grip on your only erroneous argument for why we should be worshipping the farming class and you know it. And you're hoping that I'll be intimidated by simple insults.
User avatar
#616 - muscularsystem (11/27/2016) [-]
They shouldn't have more of a say because *I* say so but they can simultaneously less because *you* say so? That's rather arrogant of you, friend.

You obviously have never left your house if you think that farming is just tending dirt. Farming at its current output level is rather difficult to do: plotting land, breeding, QC, logistics, equipment. Google it, kid. They are obviously a little more important the cogs such as yourself. I have never heard of a society built on packaging or accounting. Last time I checked, every notable civilization was centered around farmers. Weird how that works, right? It's almost as if they are necessary for survival!

The Presidential election has every effect on them because they live in the country. How would anyone have a say in what two people do half a state away, exactly? You obviously have biases and some horrid misconceptions of what farmers are if you think that they'd withdraw food protection over gay marriage. It isn't about what you think they believe about marriage, it's about harsh regulations and federal interference on their land as well dangerous inflated demands of their crops. Those things are caused by ignorant voters and unnecessarily complicated legislation.

You haven't really made any real arguments other than "because you say so." Why should population be the sole decider of an election; not the state's individual importance?

Your lack of reading comprehension is scaring me. Can you at least briefly acknowledge that you understand that "farmers" also refers to the smaller states. Do you just hate farmers because they killed your family or something? Is your only real argument that they get no say is because they are small? You haven't really presented anything besides that.
#574 - Yes, actually. If we wage war, the crops are not only used mor…  [+] (13 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#585 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Point is there's a whole lot of "from the ass" logic dictating they should have a more inflated say.
User avatar
#592 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
Wow, you can't read. Ask ur mum to interpret or something m8. It isn't "from the ass" logic that farmers are the staple of civilization.

The trunk isn't an important part of a tree because there's only one, right?

Is anything I said wrong? War and medicine demand food. Life demands food. Farmers produce the food. The only from the ass thing is the demand for cucumbers but I guess you took that one seriously? On top of that, farmers aren't the only minorities in the states who need an edge to have a say. How many "farmers" do you think that there are? Do some research on population differences when you can.

It isn't that one "farmer" is better than one of you, it's that a few "farmers" are vastly outnumbered by "you"s. The individual "farmer"may have more of a say, but there are far more non-"farmers" that severely outweigh any advantage that the individual gets. Let's say that those "farmer" states get 4 EC votes, CA gets many more times that. I'll ballpark it at 40. Without EC, the farmers effectively have .4 of the equivalent of an EC vote. with CA still has 40, if not more than that. In that event, even if all the farmers band together, they would be snuffed by even an evenly split CA.

The EC is part of the checks and balances in the US; similar to why we have a senate and congress with representatives. That's why the have an inflated say, among the previously stated reasons.



User avatar
#636 - lolollo (12/02/2016) [-]
Good thing it's preserved that each state gets a say in a system only run with popular vote.

That's also a particularly retarded argument considering our current system has it where the losing party in each state legitimately has their votes stricken from being counted, which wouldn't happen in a system with popular vote.

But by all means continue with your erroneous belief that you're fighting on behalf of the minority populations.
User avatar
#633 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Great! So let's get rid of the EC so we can eliminate that glaring problem.
User avatar
#635 - muscularsystem (12/02/2016) [-]
It's a glaring problem that each state gets a say? It thought that the country was callled the "United States" not "Only the most populated states?"
User avatar
#629 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
When you have to change the math from 4 to 9, I'm 90% sure it proves my point.

By the way, do those 9 states also have about 51% of the electoral votes as well?

Yeah, that's EC...
User avatar
#631 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
The math was corrected and so were you. Very few states hold more than 51% of the population, thus, all of the power in a purely democratic vote. So that proves my point. Those 9 states hold 240 EC votes altogether. I'm sure that you can figure it from there.
User avatar
#624 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Considering its not the case that 51% of the country lives in those 4 major cities that you're claiming would equate to the "tyranny of the majority", I'm inclined to call that full of shit. And it still doesn't change the fact that you're using a load of shit to justify one group of people getting an inflated say on what happens in anothers life.
User avatar
#627 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Actually, if you do the math, the nine largest states do have more than 51% of the population. You should check the math before you call bullshit. What about the other ~41 states? They do not deserve any say because those 9 states know what is best for the whole country, right? Could you point what exactly is a load of shit? You've only shown that you don't understand what modern farming is or the population differences of states are.

I get that your main point is that you do not believe that one person should have more say than another. However, the representatives of larger states already have more say than those of the smaller states due to population differences; the EC just shortens the gap slightly. That gap can only be shortened by giving the individual slightly more voting power.
User avatar
#618 - lolollo (11/27/2016) [-]
They're not getting "less of a vote" unless you're seriously so arrogant as to say that one person getting more of a say in what happens in someone else's life is "perfectly acceptable." Because that's what you're advocating for. A governmental system based around people in the major cities getting held hostage by the tyranny of the minority of the few people who can tend piles of dirt. You're advocating for the idea that people who live in an urban setting, because they live in an urban setting, should have their lives dictated by those living in a rural setting even though they would have no idea what concerns urban living would entitle to be able to make an effective vote.

And if all of that sounds asinine, even paranoid, that's precisely how you sound at the simple idea that everyone's votes be worth exactly the same.

So erroneously make fun of what you presume to be my problem, I'm not the one acting like an undemocratic dick bag actively advocating for one class of people to be given more of a say on what happens in other people's lives even though those people have absolutely no idea what living those people's lives entitles, or requires.

That's you. But you're more than willing to try and pass it off on anyone else for proposing the blasphemous idea that everyone should get an equal say in a fucking democracy.
User avatar
#623 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Since the smaller states have more of a say right now, doing what you suggest would give them less say, yes. Stick to reality, will you? It's funny that you mention one group of people being tyrannically controlled by another. You know, since that's what literally what would happen if there were no electoral college. It would make it so that every decision is made by the 4 most populated states; giving literally no say to the smaller states. I'm simply advocated for everyone to be heard. It is mathematically impossible for a *minority* state to have any kind of total control over the US. Do you think that the EC gives every person in a small state a hundred million votes or something?

You should check the meaning of democracy before you call someone undemocratic; democracies are usually run by representatives, which is exactly what the EC is; they represent their states.
User avatar
#601 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
You're starting to lose it m8.

The farmers shouldn't have an inflated vote just because you say so and you're starting to realize that. They're no more important to the machine than any other cog nor are they any more versed in knowing what decisions to make for what direction the country should go it.

They shouldn't have more of a say in shit that's completely and utterly irrelevant to what happens in their livelihood just because they can tend to dirt and maintain an irrigation system. They shouldn't get to have more of a say in whether or not 2 people half a country away from them should be able to get married just because they'd act like children and hold the country hostage by halting food production if they dont. Even in a drastic survival situation, they'd just be shot and replaced, because it's fucking tending dirt.

You've lost a grip on your only erroneous argument for why we should be worshipping the farming class and you know it. And you're hoping that I'll be intimidated by simple insults.
User avatar
#616 - muscularsystem (11/27/2016) [-]
They shouldn't have more of a say because *I* say so but they can simultaneously less because *you* say so? That's rather arrogant of you, friend.

You obviously have never left your house if you think that farming is just tending dirt. Farming at its current output level is rather difficult to do: plotting land, breeding, QC, logistics, equipment. Google it, kid. They are obviously a little more important the cogs such as yourself. I have never heard of a society built on packaging or accounting. Last time I checked, every notable civilization was centered around farmers. Weird how that works, right? It's almost as if they are necessary for survival!

The Presidential election has every effect on them because they live in the country. How would anyone have a say in what two people do half a state away, exactly? You obviously have biases and some horrid misconceptions of what farmers are if you think that they'd withdraw food protection over gay marriage. It isn't about what you think they believe about marriage, it's about harsh regulations and federal interference on their land as well dangerous inflated demands of their crops. Those things are caused by ignorant voters and unnecessarily complicated legislation.

You haven't really made any real arguments other than "because you say so." Why should population be the sole decider of an election; not the state's individual importance?

Your lack of reading comprehension is scaring me. Can you at least briefly acknowledge that you understand that "farmers" also refers to the smaller states. Do you just hate farmers because they killed your family or something? Is your only real argument that they get no say is because they are small? You haven't really presented anything besides that.
#572 - The caused the legislation, yes. Did I not say that? The prote…  [+] (15 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
#634 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
User avatar
#630 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Yeah, buddy, welcome to the reason why I "took a few Phil classes" and didn't get a minor in it.

It's a mess.
User avatar
#632 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
I'm sorry... and? Again, I'm not debating the machinations of cause and effect or the meaning of life. I am only stating that legislators make the laws and thus, the change; legally speaking. That's it.
User avatar
#626 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
You don't get to call something that's the entire center of a philosophical debate "fact".

That's the entire point of philosophy not being a science.

It being a "fact" is the entire point of duscussion.
User avatar
#628 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
How is it not a fact that legislators make laws? If you want to be subjective about it, you could infinitely go back and say that is was the oppressive laws which triggered the protests that triggered the civil rights laws, but that's a complete waste of time.
User avatar
#622 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
"Cause and effect" is it's own existential, philosophical question with "no real right answer". Legislation was caused by the politicians, but the motivation to act and legislate was caused by the protests. So then what caused the legislation? Action from the politicians? The protests? Both?

Doesn't bode that well when the argument requires only one "winner" on that regard...
User avatar
#625 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
I never said that the protests never caused the legislation. I said that the protestors did not literally make the legislation; because they are not legislators. There is no cause and effect; just the effect. I am not arguing what caused what. I am simply saying what the effect was. You're making it more than it is. It is not existential or philosophical. Just fact.
User avatar
#617 - lolollo (11/27/2016) [-]
You're making a lot of presumptions as to what my point is.
User avatar
#621 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Could you make a point, then?
User avatar
#602 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
I suppose if you wanted to erroneously only look at one aspect of it for the sake of justifying your wrong point of view, sure.
User avatar
#615 - muscularsystem (11/27/2016) [-]
How is it wrong that legislators make laws? Do they not? Do protesters make laws instead? I must have missed the made up civics class that you attended.
User avatar
#587 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
The chain goes longer than that.
User avatar
#593 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
If you wish to make it complicated, yeah. Regardless of what happens before, the civil rights do not legally exist until the law is signed.
User avatar
#584 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
I'm not sure you're allowed to say all that after saying that you don't want a complex talk on cause and effect.
User avatar
#586 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
It's not complex. Effect does a thing. Legislation is the effect. Protest is not. Short enough?
#546 - Nope. Just literal interpretation.  [+] (17 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#558 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Good, literal interpretation. If protesting lead to legislation, protesting caused the legislation.
User avatar
#572 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
The caused the legislation, yes. Did I not say that? The protests did not literally create civil rights, though; the legislators did with the laws they made. That's all I meant which is why I said 'literal interpretation.' The protests triggered the laws, but they did not make literally them.
#634 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
User avatar
#630 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Yeah, buddy, welcome to the reason why I "took a few Phil classes" and didn't get a minor in it.

It's a mess.
User avatar
#632 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
I'm sorry... and? Again, I'm not debating the machinations of cause and effect or the meaning of life. I am only stating that legislators make the laws and thus, the change; legally speaking. That's it.
User avatar
#626 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
You don't get to call something that's the entire center of a philosophical debate "fact".

That's the entire point of philosophy not being a science.

It being a "fact" is the entire point of duscussion.
User avatar
#628 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
How is it not a fact that legislators make laws? If you want to be subjective about it, you could infinitely go back and say that is was the oppressive laws which triggered the protests that triggered the civil rights laws, but that's a complete waste of time.
User avatar
#622 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
"Cause and effect" is it's own existential, philosophical question with "no real right answer". Legislation was caused by the politicians, but the motivation to act and legislate was caused by the protests. So then what caused the legislation? Action from the politicians? The protests? Both?

Doesn't bode that well when the argument requires only one "winner" on that regard...
User avatar
#625 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
I never said that the protests never caused the legislation. I said that the protestors did not literally make the legislation; because they are not legislators. There is no cause and effect; just the effect. I am not arguing what caused what. I am simply saying what the effect was. You're making it more than it is. It is not existential or philosophical. Just fact.
User avatar
#617 - lolollo (11/27/2016) [-]
You're making a lot of presumptions as to what my point is.
User avatar
#621 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Could you make a point, then?
User avatar
#602 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
I suppose if you wanted to erroneously only look at one aspect of it for the sake of justifying your wrong point of view, sure.
User avatar
#615 - muscularsystem (11/27/2016) [-]
How is it wrong that legislators make laws? Do they not? Do protesters make laws instead? I must have missed the made up civics class that you attended.
User avatar
#587 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
The chain goes longer than that.
User avatar
#593 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
If you wish to make it complicated, yeah. Regardless of what happens before, the civil rights do not legally exist until the law is signed.
User avatar
#584 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
I'm not sure you're allowed to say all that after saying that you don't want a complex talk on cause and effect.
User avatar
#586 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
It's not complex. Effect does a thing. Legislation is the effect. Protest is not. Short enough?
#541 - Wow, it's almost as if you can't read. Perhaps it was you that…  [+] (15 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#557 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Shit canned by what? Is our foreign policy with Russia REALLY gonna dictate how good the hay crop does? Gay marriage? Socialized medicine?
User avatar
#574 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
Yes, actually. If we wage war, the crops are not only used more rapidly, but also have the possibility of being destroyed if they become a target. Socialized medicine means fuck all to a farmer 50 miles from a clinic and their crops would be needed more for hospitals because they have more patients. Not only food but food products like corn, ethanol, and oils. Gay marriage? I dunno, a higher demand for cucumbers? It could be part of their religious beliefs as well.
User avatar
#585 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Point is there's a whole lot of "from the ass" logic dictating they should have a more inflated say.
User avatar
#592 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
Wow, you can't read. Ask ur mum to interpret or something m8. It isn't "from the ass" logic that farmers are the staple of civilization.

The trunk isn't an important part of a tree because there's only one, right?

Is anything I said wrong? War and medicine demand food. Life demands food. Farmers produce the food. The only from the ass thing is the demand for cucumbers but I guess you took that one seriously? On top of that, farmers aren't the only minorities in the states who need an edge to have a say. How many "farmers" do you think that there are? Do some research on population differences when you can.

It isn't that one "farmer" is better than one of you, it's that a few "farmers" are vastly outnumbered by "you"s. The individual "farmer"may have more of a say, but there are far more non-"farmers" that severely outweigh any advantage that the individual gets. Let's say that those "farmer" states get 4 EC votes, CA gets many more times that. I'll ballpark it at 40. Without EC, the farmers effectively have .4 of the equivalent of an EC vote. with CA still has 40, if not more than that. In that event, even if all the farmers band together, they would be snuffed by even an evenly split CA.

The EC is part of the checks and balances in the US; similar to why we have a senate and congress with representatives. That's why the have an inflated say, among the previously stated reasons.



User avatar
#636 - lolollo (12/02/2016) [-]
Good thing it's preserved that each state gets a say in a system only run with popular vote.

That's also a particularly retarded argument considering our current system has it where the losing party in each state legitimately has their votes stricken from being counted, which wouldn't happen in a system with popular vote.

But by all means continue with your erroneous belief that you're fighting on behalf of the minority populations.
User avatar
#633 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Great! So let's get rid of the EC so we can eliminate that glaring problem.
User avatar
#635 - muscularsystem (12/02/2016) [-]
It's a glaring problem that each state gets a say? It thought that the country was callled the "United States" not "Only the most populated states?"
User avatar
#629 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
When you have to change the math from 4 to 9, I'm 90% sure it proves my point.

By the way, do those 9 states also have about 51% of the electoral votes as well?

Yeah, that's EC...
User avatar
#631 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
The math was corrected and so were you. Very few states hold more than 51% of the population, thus, all of the power in a purely democratic vote. So that proves my point. Those 9 states hold 240 EC votes altogether. I'm sure that you can figure it from there.
User avatar
#624 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Considering its not the case that 51% of the country lives in those 4 major cities that you're claiming would equate to the "tyranny of the majority", I'm inclined to call that full of shit. And it still doesn't change the fact that you're using a load of shit to justify one group of people getting an inflated say on what happens in anothers life.
User avatar
#627 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Actually, if you do the math, the nine largest states do have more than 51% of the population. You should check the math before you call bullshit. What about the other ~41 states? They do not deserve any say because those 9 states know what is best for the whole country, right? Could you point what exactly is a load of shit? You've only shown that you don't understand what modern farming is or the population differences of states are.

I get that your main point is that you do not believe that one person should have more say than another. However, the representatives of larger states already have more say than those of the smaller states due to population differences; the EC just shortens the gap slightly. That gap can only be shortened by giving the individual slightly more voting power.
User avatar
#618 - lolollo (11/27/2016) [-]
They're not getting "less of a vote" unless you're seriously so arrogant as to say that one person getting more of a say in what happens in someone else's life is "perfectly acceptable." Because that's what you're advocating for. A governmental system based around people in the major cities getting held hostage by the tyranny of the minority of the few people who can tend piles of dirt. You're advocating for the idea that people who live in an urban setting, because they live in an urban setting, should have their lives dictated by those living in a rural setting even though they would have no idea what concerns urban living would entitle to be able to make an effective vote.

And if all of that sounds asinine, even paranoid, that's precisely how you sound at the simple idea that everyone's votes be worth exactly the same.

So erroneously make fun of what you presume to be my problem, I'm not the one acting like an undemocratic dick bag actively advocating for one class of people to be given more of a say on what happens in other people's lives even though those people have absolutely no idea what living those people's lives entitles, or requires.

That's you. But you're more than willing to try and pass it off on anyone else for proposing the blasphemous idea that everyone should get an equal say in a fucking democracy.
User avatar
#623 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Since the smaller states have more of a say right now, doing what you suggest would give them less say, yes. Stick to reality, will you? It's funny that you mention one group of people being tyrannically controlled by another. You know, since that's what literally what would happen if there were no electoral college. It would make it so that every decision is made by the 4 most populated states; giving literally no say to the smaller states. I'm simply advocated for everyone to be heard. It is mathematically impossible for a *minority* state to have any kind of total control over the US. Do you think that the EC gives every person in a small state a hundred million votes or something?

You should check the meaning of democracy before you call someone undemocratic; democracies are usually run by representatives, which is exactly what the EC is; they represent their states.
User avatar
#601 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
You're starting to lose it m8.

The farmers shouldn't have an inflated vote just because you say so and you're starting to realize that. They're no more important to the machine than any other cog nor are they any more versed in knowing what decisions to make for what direction the country should go it.

They shouldn't have more of a say in shit that's completely and utterly irrelevant to what happens in their livelihood just because they can tend to dirt and maintain an irrigation system. They shouldn't get to have more of a say in whether or not 2 people half a country away from them should be able to get married just because they'd act like children and hold the country hostage by halting food production if they dont. Even in a drastic survival situation, they'd just be shot and replaced, because it's fucking tending dirt.

You've lost a grip on your only erroneous argument for why we should be worshipping the farming class and you know it. And you're hoping that I'll be intimidated by simple insults.
User avatar
#616 - muscularsystem (11/27/2016) [-]
They shouldn't have more of a say because *I* say so but they can simultaneously less because *you* say so? That's rather arrogant of you, friend.

You obviously have never left your house if you think that farming is just tending dirt. Farming at its current output level is rather difficult to do: plotting land, breeding, QC, logistics, equipment. Google it, kid. They are obviously a little more important the cogs such as yourself. I have never heard of a society built on packaging or accounting. Last time I checked, every notable civilization was centered around farmers. Weird how that works, right? It's almost as if they are necessary for survival!

The Presidential election has every effect on them because they live in the country. How would anyone have a say in what two people do half a state away, exactly? You obviously have biases and some horrid misconceptions of what farmers are if you think that they'd withdraw food protection over gay marriage. It isn't about what you think they believe about marriage, it's about harsh regulations and federal interference on their land as well dangerous inflated demands of their crops. Those things are caused by ignorant voters and unnecessarily complicated legislation.

You haven't really made any real arguments other than "because you say so." Why should population be the sole decider of an election; not the state's individual importance?

Your lack of reading comprehension is scaring me. Can you at least briefly acknowledge that you understand that "farmers" also refers to the smaller states. Do you just hate farmers because they killed your family or something? Is your only real argument that they get no say is because they are small? You haven't really presented anything besides that.
#523 - The protesting did not provide civil rights. LEGISLATORS did. …  [+] (19 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#531 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
You're begging for an existential discussion on cause and effect at this point, aren't you?
User avatar
#546 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
Nope. Just literal interpretation.
User avatar
#558 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Good, literal interpretation. If protesting lead to legislation, protesting caused the legislation.
User avatar
#572 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
The caused the legislation, yes. Did I not say that? The protests did not literally create civil rights, though; the legislators did with the laws they made. That's all I meant which is why I said 'literal interpretation.' The protests triggered the laws, but they did not make literally them.
#634 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
User avatar
#630 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Yeah, buddy, welcome to the reason why I "took a few Phil classes" and didn't get a minor in it.

It's a mess.
User avatar
#632 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
I'm sorry... and? Again, I'm not debating the machinations of cause and effect or the meaning of life. I am only stating that legislators make the laws and thus, the change; legally speaking. That's it.
User avatar
#626 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
You don't get to call something that's the entire center of a philosophical debate "fact".

That's the entire point of philosophy not being a science.

It being a "fact" is the entire point of duscussion.
User avatar
#628 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
How is it not a fact that legislators make laws? If you want to be subjective about it, you could infinitely go back and say that is was the oppressive laws which triggered the protests that triggered the civil rights laws, but that's a complete waste of time.
User avatar
#622 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
"Cause and effect" is it's own existential, philosophical question with "no real right answer". Legislation was caused by the politicians, but the motivation to act and legislate was caused by the protests. So then what caused the legislation? Action from the politicians? The protests? Both?

Doesn't bode that well when the argument requires only one "winner" on that regard...
User avatar
#625 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
I never said that the protests never caused the legislation. I said that the protestors did not literally make the legislation; because they are not legislators. There is no cause and effect; just the effect. I am not arguing what caused what. I am simply saying what the effect was. You're making it more than it is. It is not existential or philosophical. Just fact.
User avatar
#617 - lolollo (11/27/2016) [-]
You're making a lot of presumptions as to what my point is.
User avatar
#621 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Could you make a point, then?
User avatar
#602 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
I suppose if you wanted to erroneously only look at one aspect of it for the sake of justifying your wrong point of view, sure.
User avatar
#615 - muscularsystem (11/27/2016) [-]
How is it wrong that legislators make laws? Do they not? Do protesters make laws instead? I must have missed the made up civics class that you attended.
User avatar
#587 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
The chain goes longer than that.
User avatar
#593 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
If you wish to make it complicated, yeah. Regardless of what happens before, the civil rights do not legally exist until the law is signed.
User avatar
#584 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
I'm not sure you're allowed to say all that after saying that you don't want a complex talk on cause and effect.
User avatar
#586 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
It's not complex. Effect does a thing. Legislation is the effect. Protest is not. Short enough?
#522 - The reason is disrespectful how exactly? Don't get too caught …  [+] (17 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#529 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Ok, and what's saying a bunch of farmers know more about what's best for the country compares to people who formally study political science for a living?
User avatar
#541 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
Wow, it's almost as if you can't read. Perhaps it was you that Plato was referring to? the farmers do not dictate the countries decisions. They just know more about farming than the rest of the country. There are also VERY FEW farmers compared to everyone else. To ensure our farmers don't get shit canned, we give them a LITTLE more of a say. AGAIN, farmers are also a metaphor for the minority states and minorities in general.
User avatar
#557 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Shit canned by what? Is our foreign policy with Russia REALLY gonna dictate how good the hay crop does? Gay marriage? Socialized medicine?
User avatar
#574 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
Yes, actually. If we wage war, the crops are not only used more rapidly, but also have the possibility of being destroyed if they become a target. Socialized medicine means fuck all to a farmer 50 miles from a clinic and their crops would be needed more for hospitals because they have more patients. Not only food but food products like corn, ethanol, and oils. Gay marriage? I dunno, a higher demand for cucumbers? It could be part of their religious beliefs as well.
User avatar
#585 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Point is there's a whole lot of "from the ass" logic dictating they should have a more inflated say.
User avatar
#592 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
Wow, you can't read. Ask ur mum to interpret or something m8. It isn't "from the ass" logic that farmers are the staple of civilization.

The trunk isn't an important part of a tree because there's only one, right?

Is anything I said wrong? War and medicine demand food. Life demands food. Farmers produce the food. The only from the ass thing is the demand for cucumbers but I guess you took that one seriously? On top of that, farmers aren't the only minorities in the states who need an edge to have a say. How many "farmers" do you think that there are? Do some research on population differences when you can.

It isn't that one "farmer" is better than one of you, it's that a few "farmers" are vastly outnumbered by "you"s. The individual "farmer"may have more of a say, but there are far more non-"farmers" that severely outweigh any advantage that the individual gets. Let's say that those "farmer" states get 4 EC votes, CA gets many more times that. I'll ballpark it at 40. Without EC, the farmers effectively have .4 of the equivalent of an EC vote. with CA still has 40, if not more than that. In that event, even if all the farmers band together, they would be snuffed by even an evenly split CA.

The EC is part of the checks and balances in the US; similar to why we have a senate and congress with representatives. That's why the have an inflated say, among the previously stated reasons.



User avatar
#636 - lolollo (12/02/2016) [-]
Good thing it's preserved that each state gets a say in a system only run with popular vote.

That's also a particularly retarded argument considering our current system has it where the losing party in each state legitimately has their votes stricken from being counted, which wouldn't happen in a system with popular vote.

But by all means continue with your erroneous belief that you're fighting on behalf of the minority populations.
User avatar
#633 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Great! So let's get rid of the EC so we can eliminate that glaring problem.
User avatar
#635 - muscularsystem (12/02/2016) [-]
It's a glaring problem that each state gets a say? It thought that the country was callled the "United States" not "Only the most populated states?"
User avatar
#629 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
When you have to change the math from 4 to 9, I'm 90% sure it proves my point.

By the way, do those 9 states also have about 51% of the electoral votes as well?

Yeah, that's EC...
User avatar
#631 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
The math was corrected and so were you. Very few states hold more than 51% of the population, thus, all of the power in a purely democratic vote. So that proves my point. Those 9 states hold 240 EC votes altogether. I'm sure that you can figure it from there.
User avatar
#624 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Considering its not the case that 51% of the country lives in those 4 major cities that you're claiming would equate to the "tyranny of the majority", I'm inclined to call that full of shit. And it still doesn't change the fact that you're using a load of shit to justify one group of people getting an inflated say on what happens in anothers life.
User avatar
#627 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Actually, if you do the math, the nine largest states do have more than 51% of the population. You should check the math before you call bullshit. What about the other ~41 states? They do not deserve any say because those 9 states know what is best for the whole country, right? Could you point what exactly is a load of shit? You've only shown that you don't understand what modern farming is or the population differences of states are.

I get that your main point is that you do not believe that one person should have more say than another. However, the representatives of larger states already have more say than those of the smaller states due to population differences; the EC just shortens the gap slightly. That gap can only be shortened by giving the individual slightly more voting power.
User avatar
#618 - lolollo (11/27/2016) [-]
They're not getting "less of a vote" unless you're seriously so arrogant as to say that one person getting more of a say in what happens in someone else's life is "perfectly acceptable." Because that's what you're advocating for. A governmental system based around people in the major cities getting held hostage by the tyranny of the minority of the few people who can tend piles of dirt. You're advocating for the idea that people who live in an urban setting, because they live in an urban setting, should have their lives dictated by those living in a rural setting even though they would have no idea what concerns urban living would entitle to be able to make an effective vote.

And if all of that sounds asinine, even paranoid, that's precisely how you sound at the simple idea that everyone's votes be worth exactly the same.

So erroneously make fun of what you presume to be my problem, I'm not the one acting like an undemocratic dick bag actively advocating for one class of people to be given more of a say on what happens in other people's lives even though those people have absolutely no idea what living those people's lives entitles, or requires.

That's you. But you're more than willing to try and pass it off on anyone else for proposing the blasphemous idea that everyone should get an equal say in a fucking democracy.
User avatar
#623 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Since the smaller states have more of a say right now, doing what you suggest would give them less say, yes. Stick to reality, will you? It's funny that you mention one group of people being tyrannically controlled by another. You know, since that's what literally what would happen if there were no electoral college. It would make it so that every decision is made by the 4 most populated states; giving literally no say to the smaller states. I'm simply advocated for everyone to be heard. It is mathematically impossible for a *minority* state to have any kind of total control over the US. Do you think that the EC gives every person in a small state a hundred million votes or something?

You should check the meaning of democracy before you call someone undemocratic; democracies are usually run by representatives, which is exactly what the EC is; they represent their states.
User avatar
#601 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
You're starting to lose it m8.

The farmers shouldn't have an inflated vote just because you say so and you're starting to realize that. They're no more important to the machine than any other cog nor are they any more versed in knowing what decisions to make for what direction the country should go it.

They shouldn't have more of a say in shit that's completely and utterly irrelevant to what happens in their livelihood just because they can tend to dirt and maintain an irrigation system. They shouldn't get to have more of a say in whether or not 2 people half a country away from them should be able to get married just because they'd act like children and hold the country hostage by halting food production if they dont. Even in a drastic survival situation, they'd just be shot and replaced, because it's fucking tending dirt.

You've lost a grip on your only erroneous argument for why we should be worshipping the farming class and you know it. And you're hoping that I'll be intimidated by simple insults.
User avatar
#616 - muscularsystem (11/27/2016) [-]
They shouldn't have more of a say because *I* say so but they can simultaneously less because *you* say so? That's rather arrogant of you, friend.

You obviously have never left your house if you think that farming is just tending dirt. Farming at its current output level is rather difficult to do: plotting land, breeding, QC, logistics, equipment. Google it, kid. They are obviously a little more important the cogs such as yourself. I have never heard of a society built on packaging or accounting. Last time I checked, every notable civilization was centered around farmers. Weird how that works, right? It's almost as if they are necessary for survival!

The Presidential election has every effect on them because they live in the country. How would anyone have a say in what two people do half a state away, exactly? You obviously have biases and some horrid misconceptions of what farmers are if you think that they'd withdraw food protection over gay marriage. It isn't about what you think they believe about marriage, it's about harsh regulations and federal interference on their land as well dangerous inflated demands of their crops. Those things are caused by ignorant voters and unnecessarily complicated legislation.

You haven't really made any real arguments other than "because you say so." Why should population be the sole decider of an election; not the state's individual importance?

Your lack of reading comprehension is scaring me. Can you at least briefly acknowledge that you understand that "farmers" also refers to the smaller states. Do you just hate farmers because they killed your family or something? Is your only real argument that they get no say is because they are small? You haven't really presented anything besides that.
#496 - No. Grow potatoes for hundreds of thousands of people in a spa…  [+] (19 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#503 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
No it doesnt, it gives someone who happens to be at the front of a long chain of entirely necessary people an overinflated vote for an entirely disrespectful reason for the rest of the country.

"Yeah fuck you urban researcher who discovered how to grow potatoes that can feed you for a while week nutritionally, you live in the city. Your vote is work a fraction of this guy's vote, who knows how to tend dirt..."
User avatar
#522 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
The reason is disrespectful how exactly? Don't get too caught up on the farmer example. Again, this applies to other occupations too. ONE urban researcher who discovers ONE thing once pales in comparison to the MILLIONS of people who are not that urban researcher. You seem stuck on the concept of the individual, you gotta keep in mind that there are A LOT of people in the US alone. There are also a lot of ignorant people, but since they are citizens they get the right to vote regardless of if they know what they are voting for. The EC gives minorities a voice since they are obviously outnumbered.

You also haven't been paying attention in math class. The EC gives an edge to the little guys, not the whole vote. The populous states still have more of a say, so their vote still matters because they are, you guessed it, populous. it may be 15/16ths of a vote or whatever but because there are more of the 15/16ths, they have the higher total than a few whole votes.

"Yeah fuck you guy who grows our food, we're gonna make your vote the same as the guy who does nothing all day."

Without food we literally die. Everything down that "necessarily line" Is completely uselss without food because they would, you know, starve to death. I bet you think rain isn't important either. We don't need the atmosphere, we have guys who make oxygen tanks!
User avatar
#529 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Ok, and what's saying a bunch of farmers know more about what's best for the country compares to people who formally study political science for a living?
User avatar
#541 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
Wow, it's almost as if you can't read. Perhaps it was you that Plato was referring to? the farmers do not dictate the countries decisions. They just know more about farming than the rest of the country. There are also VERY FEW farmers compared to everyone else. To ensure our farmers don't get shit canned, we give them a LITTLE more of a say. AGAIN, farmers are also a metaphor for the minority states and minorities in general.
User avatar
#557 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Shit canned by what? Is our foreign policy with Russia REALLY gonna dictate how good the hay crop does? Gay marriage? Socialized medicine?
User avatar
#574 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
Yes, actually. If we wage war, the crops are not only used more rapidly, but also have the possibility of being destroyed if they become a target. Socialized medicine means fuck all to a farmer 50 miles from a clinic and their crops would be needed more for hospitals because they have more patients. Not only food but food products like corn, ethanol, and oils. Gay marriage? I dunno, a higher demand for cucumbers? It could be part of their religious beliefs as well.
User avatar
#585 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Point is there's a whole lot of "from the ass" logic dictating they should have a more inflated say.
User avatar
#592 - muscularsystem (11/26/2016) [-]
Wow, you can't read. Ask ur mum to interpret or something m8. It isn't "from the ass" logic that farmers are the staple of civilization.

The trunk isn't an important part of a tree because there's only one, right?

Is anything I said wrong? War and medicine demand food. Life demands food. Farmers produce the food. The only from the ass thing is the demand for cucumbers but I guess you took that one seriously? On top of that, farmers aren't the only minorities in the states who need an edge to have a say. How many "farmers" do you think that there are? Do some research on population differences when you can.

It isn't that one "farmer" is better than one of you, it's that a few "farmers" are vastly outnumbered by "you"s. The individual "farmer"may have more of a say, but there are far more non-"farmers" that severely outweigh any advantage that the individual gets. Let's say that those "farmer" states get 4 EC votes, CA gets many more times that. I'll ballpark it at 40. Without EC, the farmers effectively have .4 of the equivalent of an EC vote. with CA still has 40, if not more than that. In that event, even if all the farmers band together, they would be snuffed by even an evenly split CA.

The EC is part of the checks and balances in the US; similar to why we have a senate and congress with representatives. That's why the have an inflated say, among the previously stated reasons.



User avatar
#636 - lolollo (12/02/2016) [-]
Good thing it's preserved that each state gets a say in a system only run with popular vote.

That's also a particularly retarded argument considering our current system has it where the losing party in each state legitimately has their votes stricken from being counted, which wouldn't happen in a system with popular vote.

But by all means continue with your erroneous belief that you're fighting on behalf of the minority populations.
User avatar
#633 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Great! So let's get rid of the EC so we can eliminate that glaring problem.
User avatar
#635 - muscularsystem (12/02/2016) [-]
It's a glaring problem that each state gets a say? It thought that the country was callled the "United States" not "Only the most populated states?"
User avatar
#629 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
When you have to change the math from 4 to 9, I'm 90% sure it proves my point.

By the way, do those 9 states also have about 51% of the electoral votes as well?

Yeah, that's EC...
User avatar
#631 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
The math was corrected and so were you. Very few states hold more than 51% of the population, thus, all of the power in a purely democratic vote. So that proves my point. Those 9 states hold 240 EC votes altogether. I'm sure that you can figure it from there.
User avatar
#624 - lolollo (11/28/2016) [-]
Considering its not the case that 51% of the country lives in those 4 major cities that you're claiming would equate to the "tyranny of the majority", I'm inclined to call that full of shit. And it still doesn't change the fact that you're using a load of shit to justify one group of people getting an inflated say on what happens in anothers life.
User avatar
#627 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Actually, if you do the math, the nine largest states do have more than 51% of the population. You should check the math before you call bullshit. What about the other ~41 states? They do not deserve any say because those 9 states know what is best for the whole country, right? Could you point what exactly is a load of shit? You've only shown that you don't understand what modern farming is or the population differences of states are.

I get that your main point is that you do not believe that one person should have more say than another. However, the representatives of larger states already have more say than those of the smaller states due to population differences; the EC just shortens the gap slightly. That gap can only be shortened by giving the individual slightly more voting power.
User avatar
#618 - lolollo (11/27/2016) [-]
They're not getting "less of a vote" unless you're seriously so arrogant as to say that one person getting more of a say in what happens in someone else's life is "perfectly acceptable." Because that's what you're advocating for. A governmental system based around people in the major cities getting held hostage by the tyranny of the minority of the few people who can tend piles of dirt. You're advocating for the idea that people who live in an urban setting, because they live in an urban setting, should have their lives dictated by those living in a rural setting even though they would have no idea what concerns urban living would entitle to be able to make an effective vote.

And if all of that sounds asinine, even paranoid, that's precisely how you sound at the simple idea that everyone's votes be worth exactly the same.

So erroneously make fun of what you presume to be my problem, I'm not the one acting like an undemocratic dick bag actively advocating for one class of people to be given more of a say on what happens in other people's lives even though those people have absolutely no idea what living those people's lives entitles, or requires.

That's you. But you're more than willing to try and pass it off on anyone else for proposing the blasphemous idea that everyone should get an equal say in a fucking democracy.
User avatar
#623 - muscularsystem (11/28/2016) [-]
Since the smaller states have more of a say right now, doing what you suggest would give them less say, yes. Stick to reality, will you? It's funny that you mention one group of people being tyrannically controlled by another. You know, since that's what literally what would happen if there were no electoral college. It would make it so that every decision is made by the 4 most populated states; giving literally no say to the smaller states. I'm simply advocated for everyone to be heard. It is mathematically impossible for a *minority* state to have any kind of total control over the US. Do you think that the EC gives every person in a small state a hundred million votes or something?

You should check the meaning of democracy before you call someone undemocratic; democracies are usually run by representatives, which is exactly what the EC is; they represent their states.
User avatar
#601 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
You're starting to lose it m8.

The farmers shouldn't have an inflated vote just because you say so and you're starting to realize that. They're no more important to the machine than any other cog nor are they any more versed in knowing what decisions to make for what direction the country should go it.

They shouldn't have more of a say in shit that's completely and utterly irrelevant to what happens in their livelihood just because they can tend to dirt and maintain an irrigation system. They shouldn't get to have more of a say in whether or not 2 people half a country away from them should be able to get married just because they'd act like children and hold the country hostage by halting food production if they dont. Even in a drastic survival situation, they'd just be shot and replaced, because it's fucking tending dirt.

You've lost a grip on your only erroneous argument for why we should be worshipping the farming class and you know it. And you're hoping that I'll be intimidated by simple insults.
User avatar
#616 - muscularsystem (11/27/2016) [-]
They shouldn't have more of a say because *I* say so but they can simultaneously less because *you* say so? That's rather arrogant of you, friend.

You obviously have never left your house if you think that farming is just tending dirt. Farming at its current output level is rather difficult to do: plotting land, breeding, QC, logistics, equipment. Google it, kid. They are obviously a little more important the cogs such as yourself. I have never heard of a society built on packaging or accounting. Last time I checked, every notable civilization was centered around farmers. Weird how that works, right? It's almost as if they are necessary for survival!

The Presidential election has every effect on them because they live in the country. How would anyone have a say in what two people do half a state away, exactly? You obviously have biases and some horrid misconceptions of what farmers are if you think that they'd withdraw food protection over gay marriage. It isn't about what you think they believe about marriage, it's about harsh regulations and federal interference on their land as well dangerous inflated demands of their crops. Those things are caused by ignorant voters and unnecessarily complicated legislation.

You haven't really made any real arguments other than "because you say so." Why should population be the sole decider of an election; not the state's individual importance?

Your lack of reading comprehension is scaring me. Can you at least briefly acknowledge that you understand that "farmers" also refers to the smaller states. Do you just hate farmers because they killed your family or something? Is your only real argument that they get no say is because they are small? You haven't really presented anything besides that.