Upload
Login or register

wertologist

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:7/10/2011
Last Login:12/02/2016
Stats
Content Ranking:#5217
Comment Ranking:#479
Highest Content Rank:#956
Highest Comment Rank:#397
Content Thumbs: 4903 total,  5846 ,  943
Comment Thumbs: 25616 total,  28233 ,  2617
Content Level Progress: 68% (68/100)
Level 142 Content: Faptastic → Level 143 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 32.2% (322/1000)
Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 322 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
Subscribers:98
Content Views:361351
Times Content Favorited:574 times
Total Comments Made:6963
FJ Points:24147
Favorite Tags: sims (3) | Minecraft (2) | OC (2)
Wertologist or Wert107

latest user's comments

#14 - There's also one for all lotr books and another for the hobbit…  [+] (1 reply) 11/28/2016 on This needs to stop 0
User avatar
#15 - masseffectskyrim (11/28/2016) [-]
The Tombs of Anak

How about something far less appetizing?
#44 - They know their target audience loses interest after 4 lines o…  [+] (2 replies) 11/28/2016 on He's going super saiyan now 0
User avatar
#57 - dudulli (11/28/2016) [-]
...they lose interest after 4 lines of children?
#67 - pepeluz (11/28/2016) [-]
twittergate,there is proof that twitter may be related to a massive pedophilia ring
#45 - Not from what I've seen. Less of a Mary sue, but still just an…  [+] (1 reply) 11/28/2016 on ALfred 0
User avatar
#46 - holycrapimacupcake (11/28/2016) [-]
Well I never said it was by much. I still want Clark's kid to kill him some day and become some huge mega villain.
#33 - Everything I see of Damien makes me wish they erase him. Kill …  [+] (3 replies) 11/28/2016 on ALfred +2
User avatar
#41 - holycrapimacupcake (11/28/2016) [-]
He's better in the comics.
User avatar
#45 - wertologist (11/28/2016) [-]
Not from what I've seen. Less of a Mary sue, but still just an awful character.
User avatar
#46 - holycrapimacupcake (11/28/2016) [-]
Well I never said it was by much. I still want Clark's kid to kill him some day and become some huge mega villain.
#35 - Except if an armed populace goes for another revolution, do yo…  [+] (1 reply) 11/27/2016 on Britain's New Security Laws 0
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...
#29 - "We have actual empirical evidence to suggest, that an ar…  [+] (3 replies) 11/27/2016 on Britain's New Security Laws +3
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...
#26 - The American revolution begs to differ.  [+] (5 replies) 11/27/2016 on Britain's New Security Laws +3
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...