Upload
Login or register

CoolStoryBrosky

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 112
Date Signed Up:10/19/2010
Last Login:6/28/2016
Location:Seattle
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8020
Highest Content Rank:#1800
Highest Comment Rank:#1155
Content Thumbs: 5526 total,  6327 ,  801
Comment Thumbs: 7141 total,  8580 ,  1439
Content Level Progress: 29% (29/100)
Level 152 Content: Faptastic → Level 153 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 74% (74/100)
Level 268 Comments: Pure Win → Level 269 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:135753
Times Content Favorited:218 times
Total Comments Made:1991
FJ Points:8410
Favorite Tags: game (16) | the (15) | are (2) | this (2) | You (2)

Text Posts

latest user's comments

#17 - Comment deleted 06/27/2016 on Smack the bitch up 0
#38 - Being "overweight" with regards to statistics is som… 06/27/2016 on Some Tumblr sanity. 0
#31 - It's not a hard concept people. Let people do whatever the ***…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/22/2016 on Youcuck +8
#44 - gamiakguy (06/22/2016) [-]
"Stop treating me differently!" I don't give a fuck if you're gay, but I'm tired of these special snowflakes social and political agenda showed down my throat harder than the dicks they're taking.
#167 - Pacific Northwest, Reporting in. Fat - Seattle and Portla… 06/19/2016 on Trump is God 0
#88 - Well, no. Ad hoc rescue , aka No True Scotsman, is an att…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/17/2016 on Omama 0
User avatar
#90 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Well my point is that just because YOU dont consider the people who agree with Obama's views to be liberals doesnt mean they arent actually liberals.
#82 - You're also conflating liberals and people who call themselv…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/17/2016 on Omama 0
User avatar
#83 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
And you are using the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Anyone who doesnt agree with you is not a real liberal because obviously you are the real liberal.
User avatar
#88 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
Well, no.
Ad hoc rescue, aka No True Scotsman, is an attempt to respond to a counterexample by modifying one's initial claim to make an exception (I.E " No true liberal supports Obama") as opposed to rejecting either the original claim or the counterexample.
My initial claim was that common notions of liberalism are false, and my previous argument was merely a reassertion of this claim.
In any case, pointing out an informal fallacy such as ad hoc does nothing to further your side of the argument and quite frankly, I'm not sure what you hoped to achieve by doing so.
User avatar
#90 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Well my point is that just because YOU dont consider the people who agree with Obama's views to be liberals doesnt mean they arent actually liberals.
#77 - By your argument, as head of state and chief diplomat Obama re…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/17/2016 on Omama 0
User avatar
#78 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Liberals who agree with your views are few while liberals who agree with Obama's views are a lot therefor Obama's views represent liberals more than yours do. Who actually follows the real definition of what a Liberal is has no baring on this argument. The question is if generalizing liberals, (not liberalims but actual liberals who are alive today) as people who think like obama is OK and the answer is YES. Because the majority of Liberals who are alive today and claim to be liberals actually think like Obama does. Next time I might draw you a diagram.
User avatar
#82 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
You're also conflating liberals and people who call themselves liberals because they don't understand the term (I.E think it's synonymous with Democrat).

North Korea calls itself a Democratic Republic, that doesn't make it one.
User avatar
#83 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
And you are using the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Anyone who doesnt agree with you is not a real liberal because obviously you are the real liberal.
User avatar
#88 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
Well, no.
Ad hoc rescue, aka No True Scotsman, is an attempt to respond to a counterexample by modifying one's initial claim to make an exception (I.E " No true liberal supports Obama") as opposed to rejecting either the original claim or the counterexample.
My initial claim was that common notions of liberalism are false, and my previous argument was merely a reassertion of this claim.
In any case, pointing out an informal fallacy such as ad hoc does nothing to further your side of the argument and quite frankly, I'm not sure what you hoped to achieve by doing so.
User avatar
#90 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Well my point is that just because YOU dont consider the people who agree with Obama's views to be liberals doesnt mean they arent actually liberals.
#70 - Your analogy can't hold because Obama is not to liberalism as …  [+] (7 new replies) 06/17/2016 on Omama 0
User avatar
#73 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
I dont care about the schools or the pioneers of liberalism, I care about who represents the AVERAGE liberal on the streets, you? or Obama?
User avatar
#77 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
By your argument, as head of state and chief diplomat Obama represents ALL Americans.

"I don't care I dont care about the schools or the pioneers of liberalism, I care about who represents the AVERAGE American on the streets, you? or Obama?"
Therefore, we can misalign being American with being an Obama supporter?
That's absurd even though Obama quite literally represents all Americans.
User avatar
#78 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Liberals who agree with your views are few while liberals who agree with Obama's views are a lot therefor Obama's views represent liberals more than yours do. Who actually follows the real definition of what a Liberal is has no baring on this argument. The question is if generalizing liberals, (not liberalims but actual liberals who are alive today) as people who think like obama is OK and the answer is YES. Because the majority of Liberals who are alive today and claim to be liberals actually think like Obama does. Next time I might draw you a diagram.
User avatar
#82 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
You're also conflating liberals and people who call themselves liberals because they don't understand the term (I.E think it's synonymous with Democrat).

North Korea calls itself a Democratic Republic, that doesn't make it one.
User avatar
#83 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
And you are using the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Anyone who doesnt agree with you is not a real liberal because obviously you are the real liberal.
User avatar
#88 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
Well, no.
Ad hoc rescue, aka No True Scotsman, is an attempt to respond to a counterexample by modifying one's initial claim to make an exception (I.E " No true liberal supports Obama") as opposed to rejecting either the original claim or the counterexample.
My initial claim was that common notions of liberalism are false, and my previous argument was merely a reassertion of this claim.
In any case, pointing out an informal fallacy such as ad hoc does nothing to further your side of the argument and quite frankly, I'm not sure what you hoped to achieve by doing so.
User avatar
#90 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Well my point is that just because YOU dont consider the people who agree with Obama's views to be liberals doesnt mean they arent actually liberals.
#60 - Liberalism is a political ideology with a rich history that ex…  [+] (9 new replies) 06/17/2016 on Omama 0
User avatar
#61 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Feminism is a political ideology with a rich history that extends back to the Suffragettes.... But that dont mean that the majority of the modern feminist of today align in any way with that type of feminist ideals.
User avatar
#70 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
Your analogy can't hold because Obama is not to liberalism as modern-feminists are to classical feminism.
In philosophy there's a concept of "carrying the tradition," or the practice that certain old ideologies belong to thinkers within that school of thought. These thinkers are the ones who represent that school. Social contract theory, for instance: was initially described by Plato; was expounded on by Hobbes, refined by Rousseau, detailed by Locke, and applied by Thomas Jefferson. Such is the natural lineage of a philosophy.

For feminism, the carriers of the feminist tradition are by-and-large third-wave feminists who have legitimate claim as the heirs to feminist ideology.

Obama is NOT the heir to liberalism. As far as American tradition is concerned, philosophers like Richard Rorty, John Rawls, and Ronald Dworkin are the holders of liberal tradition. By your analogy, these are the men who represent liberalism in the same way modern feminists represent feminism.
User avatar
#73 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
I dont care about the schools or the pioneers of liberalism, I care about who represents the AVERAGE liberal on the streets, you? or Obama?
User avatar
#77 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
By your argument, as head of state and chief diplomat Obama represents ALL Americans.

"I don't care I dont care about the schools or the pioneers of liberalism, I care about who represents the AVERAGE American on the streets, you? or Obama?"
Therefore, we can misalign being American with being an Obama supporter?
That's absurd even though Obama quite literally represents all Americans.
User avatar
#78 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Liberals who agree with your views are few while liberals who agree with Obama's views are a lot therefor Obama's views represent liberals more than yours do. Who actually follows the real definition of what a Liberal is has no baring on this argument. The question is if generalizing liberals, (not liberalims but actual liberals who are alive today) as people who think like obama is OK and the answer is YES. Because the majority of Liberals who are alive today and claim to be liberals actually think like Obama does. Next time I might draw you a diagram.
User avatar
#82 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
You're also conflating liberals and people who call themselves liberals because they don't understand the term (I.E think it's synonymous with Democrat).

North Korea calls itself a Democratic Republic, that doesn't make it one.
User avatar
#83 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
And you are using the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Anyone who doesnt agree with you is not a real liberal because obviously you are the real liberal.
User avatar
#88 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
Well, no.
Ad hoc rescue, aka No True Scotsman, is an attempt to respond to a counterexample by modifying one's initial claim to make an exception (I.E " No true liberal supports Obama") as opposed to rejecting either the original claim or the counterexample.
My initial claim was that common notions of liberalism are false, and my previous argument was merely a reassertion of this claim.
In any case, pointing out an informal fallacy such as ad hoc does nothing to further your side of the argument and quite frankly, I'm not sure what you hoped to achieve by doing so.
User avatar
#90 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Well my point is that just because YOU dont consider the people who agree with Obama's views to be liberals doesnt mean they arent actually liberals.
#56 - Semantically, you could be correct. However, the context of th…  [+] (11 new replies) 06/17/2016 on Omama 0
User avatar
#57 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Yeah.. But im pretty sure that there are more liberals who align with Obama's views than your libertarian ones. If anything, you're the one who's not the real representation of liberals, not him.
User avatar
#60 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
Liberalism is a political ideology with a rich history that extends back to John Locke's version of the social contract -- he's the guy who originally enumerated "Life, liberty, and property," sound familiar? Obama isn't even a player when it comes to actual liberalism.
Insofar as Obama is a liberal, he's also black. He's also a man. He's also a vertebrate.
Why is making a generalization of liberalism any more valid than making a generalization of blacks, men, or vertebrates.

User avatar
#61 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Feminism is a political ideology with a rich history that extends back to the Suffragettes.... But that dont mean that the majority of the modern feminist of today align in any way with that type of feminist ideals.
User avatar
#70 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
Your analogy can't hold because Obama is not to liberalism as modern-feminists are to classical feminism.
In philosophy there's a concept of "carrying the tradition," or the practice that certain old ideologies belong to thinkers within that school of thought. These thinkers are the ones who represent that school. Social contract theory, for instance: was initially described by Plato; was expounded on by Hobbes, refined by Rousseau, detailed by Locke, and applied by Thomas Jefferson. Such is the natural lineage of a philosophy.

For feminism, the carriers of the feminist tradition are by-and-large third-wave feminists who have legitimate claim as the heirs to feminist ideology.

Obama is NOT the heir to liberalism. As far as American tradition is concerned, philosophers like Richard Rorty, John Rawls, and Ronald Dworkin are the holders of liberal tradition. By your analogy, these are the men who represent liberalism in the same way modern feminists represent feminism.
User avatar
#73 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
I dont care about the schools or the pioneers of liberalism, I care about who represents the AVERAGE liberal on the streets, you? or Obama?
User avatar
#77 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
By your argument, as head of state and chief diplomat Obama represents ALL Americans.

"I don't care I dont care about the schools or the pioneers of liberalism, I care about who represents the AVERAGE American on the streets, you? or Obama?"
Therefore, we can misalign being American with being an Obama supporter?
That's absurd even though Obama quite literally represents all Americans.
User avatar
#78 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Liberals who agree with your views are few while liberals who agree with Obama's views are a lot therefor Obama's views represent liberals more than yours do. Who actually follows the real definition of what a Liberal is has no baring on this argument. The question is if generalizing liberals, (not liberalims but actual liberals who are alive today) as people who think like obama is OK and the answer is YES. Because the majority of Liberals who are alive today and claim to be liberals actually think like Obama does. Next time I might draw you a diagram.
User avatar
#82 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
You're also conflating liberals and people who call themselves liberals because they don't understand the term (I.E think it's synonymous with Democrat).

North Korea calls itself a Democratic Republic, that doesn't make it one.
User avatar
#83 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
And you are using the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Anyone who doesnt agree with you is not a real liberal because obviously you are the real liberal.
User avatar
#88 - CoolStoryBrosky (06/17/2016) [-]
Well, no.
Ad hoc rescue, aka No True Scotsman, is an attempt to respond to a counterexample by modifying one's initial claim to make an exception (I.E " No true liberal supports Obama") as opposed to rejecting either the original claim or the counterexample.
My initial claim was that common notions of liberalism are false, and my previous argument was merely a reassertion of this claim.
In any case, pointing out an informal fallacy such as ad hoc does nothing to further your side of the argument and quite frankly, I'm not sure what you hoped to achieve by doing so.
User avatar
#90 - mrhugeballsack (06/17/2016) [-]
Well my point is that just because YOU dont consider the people who agree with Obama's views to be liberals doesnt mean they arent actually liberals.