Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 32
Date Signed Up:2/19/2011
Last Login:7/22/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#8468
Highest Content Rank:#1514
Highest Comment Rank:#843
Content Thumbs: 6997 total,  7528 ,  531
Comment Thumbs: 7997 total,  11558 ,  3561
Content Level Progress: 56.99% (57/100)
Level 166 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 167 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Comment Level Progress: 82% (82/100)
Level 267 Comments: Pure Win → Level 268 Comments: Pure Win
Content Views:224783
Times Content Favorited:453 times
Total Comments Made:5769
FJ Points:13654
Favorite Tags: chan appendix (2)

latest user's comments

#120 - In response to the most liberal post imaginable, you blame the… 07/22/2016 on War: Modern Military Rifles... +2
#100 - I'll try to address your psychobabble as short as possible. Fi… 07/22/2016 on Chinese lawyer's clothes... 0
#92 - Actually, infantry are still the single most important unit in…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/21/2016 on Chinese lawyer's clothes... +1
User avatar
#96 - Fgner (07/21/2016) [-]
You have no idea how this works.

0) Not in a civil war. The idea is to squash the rebellion, you don't have any conquering to do. And you're a tyrannical government anyway, just blow the fuck out of them. There's 0 reason for a government to use actual troops to go close quarters. The government could then lie and say it was a rebel headquarters, no civilians were harmed (how can you prove otherwise), and the clean up the rubble. Even if more people revolted, they have a surplus of bodies to replace them and the "blow them the fuck up" tactics work.

And the few times you need ground troops in, say, important hostage situations, security, etc. They'll have them. Their army is a few million strong, their culture has a distinct lack of concern for the lives of other people, they have plenty of manpower to fight a sticks and stones rebellion.

1) The RPG-30 has already been defeated by the "Trench Coat" Israeli countermeasure. It's also not available for purchase for foreign entities, and even if it was costs several thousand dollars per missile. And on the huge gap of reasoning that the civilians had enough money to buy them as well as Russia having the bright idea to sell them, Russia would never sell them. Would you risk WW3 for chump change?

2) This is absolutely and 100% completely bullshit. A single sidewinder, which is *really* basic tech is half a fucking million. Here's some actual numbers: www.defencebd.com/2010/11/missile-price-list.html. Notice how fucking crazy those prices are? It's because they aren't just dumb missiles. They have to be able to identify and track a target miles away, several thousand feet in the sky, moving the speed of fucking sound, then manage to catch up to it and actually HIT it despite manoeuvres and countermeasures deployed by the pilot. And it needs an accompanying high-power radar system, likely a custom low-wavelength one to even have a chance at detecting anything with a stealth coating. And who the fuck is making these things for the civilians? It's not some basic factory, these aren't toys, they need guidance systems accurate to the fucking millimeter, high-grade explosives you can't just get on craigslist, rocket fuel, precision machined control surfaces, special alloys for the casing. Despite all that, modern SAMs only have a fucking 30-50% kill rate.

And sure, your total expense will be lower than the expense of the plane. But let's see who can hold out longer: the poor rebels buying 2 million dollar missiles on piss salaries (if they even still have jobs), or the government that's been hoarding weapons and money and still rakes in virtually all the money from their economy buying 30 million dollar jets.

3) War changed a long-ass time ago, you don't seem to have caught up. Pray tell, what exactly makes an infantryman absolutely vital in killing rebels? Why can't an armored unit siege a building? Why can't a drone level a building? Why can't a helicopter gun down anyone at any time?

4) You conveniently ignored how they know literally every detail about the lives of these people as well. The Great Firewall is one hell of a tool, their spying is invaluable. Just like Erdogen they probably have a databse of all "potential rebels". The greatest weapon is that they don't even need a war, just a secret police to kill anyone who starts too much dissent. Hell, they don't even need to kill them, just plant drugs at the house and arrest them forever. You make this seem like it's an actual war, but it's not. It's not the fucking 50s, everything is completely different and the vectors for battle are radically different.
#100 - cabbagemayhem (07/22/2016) [-]
I'll try to address your psychobabble as short as possible. First, some basic facts. This isn't about Turkey, this is about any revolt. In a civil war, both sides would have the same types of assets, this is just about revolts where the civilians try to take the government.

- The RPG-30 is an example of how modern tanks are matched by modern weapons. And, the RPG costs only a few thousand dollars -- you could afford that if you got a job. Tanks cost five million or more.

- MANPADS (man-portable air-defense systems) can be acquired for the price of a new car. That list you posted is for full-fledged SAM systems designed to deny air power for an entire region. That's overkill for a revolt, and in a civil war, both sides would have them.

Now to address your psychobabble, you can't just "blow up" the rebels. You have to find them first. Then you have to order the military to "blow up" their fellow countrymen. And then, it would only slow down a revolt of any significant size. Like I said, advanced weaponry is still only useful as support. There is not enough advanced weaponry in the world to "blow up" revolting citizens faster than they can recruit more. You would know this if you based your position on reality. These things happen continuously around the world. It's almost axiomatic that if a small minimum percentage of the population revolts, the government cannot simply "stomp" them out.

In conclusion, no matter if it's a revolt, or a full-fledged war, infantrymen have always been and continue to be the sole force behind any conflict. Without them, there is no war. Government can only resist a revolt with the support of its citizens, and even then it can only resist, not dominate. Advanced technology can only support, alone it is useless.
#225 - Fire and police services are better known as public services. … 07/20/2016 on Who is that system +1
#185 - What do you mean, in socialism no one gets the shaft? O… 07/19/2016 on Who is that system +1
#178 - The debate between socialism and capitalism was resolve…  [+] (8 new replies) 07/19/2016 on Who is that system +1
#199 - hellsno (07/19/2016) [-]
Really? All countries have socialist policies, and we all love many of them. For example; the fire department is socialist. The community pools their money via taxes to pay for services like the fire department. That way individuals aren't presented with a bill for putting out a fire at their house. Other SOCIALIST systems: Public roads, schools, all types of insurance, social security, national defense, etc.

Communism is different and says that ALL means of production should belong to the state. Socialism says that some means of production should when it makes sense... ie infrastructure. Real capitalism would require private fire departments (something we once had), and road tolls every 10 feet.

So, the debate today is where the balance between socialism and capitalism should exist. Everything in moderation. The debate is very much not settled, nor should it be.
User avatar
#231 - somuchfreedom (07/20/2016) [-]
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

Nowhere in there did it day some control of some things. The government providing services is not socialism, the government exclusivley controlling services or industries is
#242 - hellsno (07/20/2016) [-]
The government exclusively owning services or industries is communism. Regulating, and owning services that would function poorly in a free market is Socialism.
#255 - thebigbadbeest (07/22/2016) [-]
you have no idea what either communism or Socialism are. Communism is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the STATE. Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production
User avatar
#252 - somuchfreedom (07/21/2016) [-]
1. There are no services that would function poorly without government.
2. Who's definition is that because it isn't THE definition? wouldn't happen to be yours would it?
#241 - hellsno (07/20/2016) [-]
Nope. It says "or regulation". The US has zero unregulated markets. Unregulated markets don't function well, and create what are called market failures. You're confusing socialism with communism. They are different. Communism is far more extreme. Socialism can be applied on a micro economic scale and integrated within a capitalist market. It's not the dirty word people think it is. It's just a description of many parts of our current system.
User avatar
#253 - somuchfreedom (07/21/2016) [-]
It doesnt say "or regulation" in that. And they actually do function just fine, and any "failures" are temporary and last far less time than those that are created by government interfearence
#225 - cabbagemayhem (07/20/2016) [-]
Fire and police services are better known as public services. Services which the state is responsible for by nature should not be considered "socialism". If you do, then you're really having a government vs anarchy debate, not a socialism vs capitalism debate.

Under socialism, all industry is controlled and maintained by the state. However, in a classical liberal society (what you roughly refer to as capitalism), the only purpose of government is to provide an environment where we can pursue our own happiness. That means government's purpose is for national security and justice (some allow for simpler forms of welfare), and that's it.

Let me enumerate your list of "socialist" services.
- Fire departments: Yes we did once have private fire departments. And they were predictably cheaper and more efficient than state run fire departments. It's not the fire departments in question though. We've reached a state of socialism far past socialized fire services holding us back.
- Public roads: We wouldn't pay tolls every 10 feet, but we would pay tolls. However, they would be much cheaper than the tolls we pay for roads in the Gas Tax. Nowadays, we don't even have to stop to pay, it can be done automatically.
- Schools: Private schools are already known to be much less expensive, and much more educational than government schools. It doesn't have to be socialized to ensure everyone gets an education. Everyone can get a better education by de-socializing the school system.
- Insurance: Insurance is not socialism. Insurance is voluntary. Socialism is an insurance policy at the end of a gun. I don't know about you, but I don't even like _private_ insurance companies, let alone one that is above the law.
- Social security is the worst insurance policy you could possibly take out for your retirement. Unfortunately, you don't have a choice.
- National defense is not socialism, it's one of the fundamental duties of government.
#162 - That's the big misconception, that for someone to "win&qu…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/19/2016 on Who is that system 0
#168 - anon (07/19/2016) [-]
Oh please.

Trickle down theory is a myth and everyone knows it. In capitalism, someone always gets the shaft. It's darwinistic.

Just look to the gilded age, when shit like company stores existed.
#250 - anon (07/21/2016) [-]
No, capitalism does not mean somebody will get shafted.

It is far better to be "poor" in the capitalist west than poor in socialist Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China.

The system which generates most cake, also have most cake to distribute to the people. I bit of welfare state is a good thing, just dont overdo it.
User avatar
#185 - cabbagemayhem (07/19/2016) [-]
Milton Friedman  Socialism is Force What do you mean, in socialism no one gets the shaft? Or are you saying that in Capitalism, for someone to succeed, someone has to lose. Any economist will tell you that's not the case.

Poverty exists naturally, we all have to work to escape it. People aren't impoverished because someone else did it to them. They're impoverished because they don't produce enough to take care of themselves. Fortunately, with free trade and private industry, we're in a better position than ever before to lift ourselves out of poverty.

If you look to someone who happens to be more successful at it than you are, and you think that his things should belong to you, then you are the violator. You become the person who takes from another. You become the cause of someone being closer to poverty, not nature.
#162 - That's wrong on many levels. 1. We don't drop bombs f… 07/19/2016 on And here come the racists +3
#153 - No because it's not a fallacy, it makes sense. In areas where …  [+] (5 new replies) 07/19/2016 on And here come the racists +6
User avatar
#154 - platinumaltaria (07/19/2016) [-]
I'm aware, my point is that people aren't actually saying this shit...
#167 - anon (07/19/2016) [-]
Maybe, but that's not what a strawman is. It's misrepresenting an argument. And since the argument is quite literally "X was used to do Y, so we should ban X" it is quite well represented.
#202 - anon (07/19/2016) [-]
"The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X."

X are banning of guns,

Y are banning of axes.

X and Y are two different propositions. If X were Y, then it would simply be X.
I am not arguing against or for guns, just trying to define fallacies.
User avatar
#244 - fjkabob (07/19/2016) [-]
Nobody is actually arguing to ban axes, it was sarcastic. They're just using this as another example of how banning guns doesn't actually cause fewer tragedies.
Argument X is government should ban guns, because it will help reduce tragedy. The counterargument is terrorists will only find another ludicrous way to murder innocents who are now disarmed and defenseless.
This is only an example assisting the counterargument because the terrorist, without access to a gun, grabbed an axe and went on a rampage.
There is no fallacy in pointing out this fact, as it is a valid counterargument to Argument X.
User avatar
#176 - platinumaltaria (07/19/2016) [-]
But no one has actually said that, or at least I've never heard it. It's just part of the ultra-gun circlejerk.
#28 - If Hitler did nothing else wrong, he targeted Jews of all peop… 07/17/2016 on Turkish guy on /pol/ has... 0