Upload
Login or register

yunogasaii

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:9/12/2012
Location:New York
Stats
Content Thumbs: 7 total,  3 ,  10
Comment Thumbs: 17934 total,  20258 ,  2324
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level -5 Content: Sort of disliked → Level -2 Content: Sort of disliked
Comment Level Progress: 39.8% (398/1000)
Level 316 Comments: Wizard → Level 317 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:4
Content Views:827
Total Comments Made:6705
FJ Points:30968

latest user's comments

#20 - Funnily enough, that account was also perma-banned during admi…  [+] (6 replies) 07/31/2015 on How To Train Your Dog +1
User avatar
#22 - testaburger (07/31/2015) [-]
Neato

>1939+76
>not understanding
User avatar
#23 - elpsycongroo (07/31/2015) [-]
>greentexts
>isn't green
User avatar
#24 - testaburger (07/31/2015) [-]
>implying it's greentexting when it's on FJ
It's meme-arrowing, as you should know, were you not such a newfag
User avatar
#29 - silvanyis (07/31/2015) [-]
Meme arrowing?

Oh god. Really dude? What's next? Sad frog? le troll face? Are you even aware of the autism of stuff you're arguing about?
#30 - testaburger (07/31/2015) [-]
>implying I'm being serious

User avatar
#26 - fishhitler (07/31/2015) [-]
Shrekt
#6 - Some people have textured balls? How do I get my balls to look…  [+] (2 replies) 05/11/2015 on Ate 9gag at some point +2
User avatar
#7 - torlan (05/11/2015) [-]
it depend on the nickname you choose. Some countries and popular internet stuff, have own textures
User avatar
#8 - yunogasaii (05/11/2015) [-]
Thanks. I saw some North Korea balls and it had the flag on them, but I figured it would be too silly to import your own images.
#5 - That doesn't make him any less of a human being. Granted, he's…  [+] (4 replies) 05/11/2015 on Is there good behind evil? +216
User avatar
#254 - hypers (05/12/2015) [-]
Being the cause of a mass genocide DEFINITELY makes you less of a human being. Rapists = less of a human being, wonder how many jews were raped under hitlers reign?
User avatar
#231 - sonictheblueguy (05/12/2015) [-]
I would argue that the guy was just misled. I'll go as far as saying he's a victim of circumstances. If you truly believe you're doing the right thing that doesn't make you evil. It makes you like any other fucker with an opinion. Hitler was different because he actually had power.
User avatar
#132 - thinemother (05/12/2015) [-]
I wouldn't say sociopath seeing how he treated animals so well.
User avatar
#43 - fiveblackmen (05/12/2015) [-]
Actually, a sociopath's emotions aren't exactly like that of the average person. By definition they lack a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. This generally means a lack of empathy and guilt.
#39 - I respect your opinion and knowledge. I'm just referencing my …  [+] (1 reply) 05/11/2015 on Petoria 0
#41 - marioauditore (05/11/2015) [-]
Fair enough. I declare my defeat and surrender to your maturity.

I have a knowledge-spreading logorrhea problem. Be kind to me.
#28 - Maybe not experience, but certainly they were at a disadvantag…  [+] (3 replies) 05/11/2015 on Petoria 0
#37 - marioauditore (05/11/2015) [-]
I don't know enough about the Revolutionary War to say how it was won, but the british army was one of the best of the time for both training and equipment. By the time of the fall of Rome, the romans and the germanic tribes had similar equipment and training. Tactics and strategy also didn't have much to do with it. Viet Cong didn't have better equipment or training than the US. Guerrilla warfare certainly was a good strategy, but a lot of other factors made that stategy possible. There are a lot of other factors involved in a war. Strategy, tactics, allies, resources, numbers, moral, timing, knowledge of the ground, etc. I think that reducing it to "equipment VS experience" is an extreme simplification. If you have tanks and your enemy doesn't, you have an advantage that experience can't compensate. But if the enemy manage to force you to fight on a ground where is impossible to effectively use tanks, then experience is going to count more. But what if they don't have such ground at their disposal? And what if that ground has no strategic importance so you can just skip it and conquer the nation anyway? Their exeperience is going to be useless. Equipment is always a more reliable advantage to have on you enemy (provided that the gap is large enough), because it gives you more possibilities and narrows those of your enemy.
User avatar
#39 - yunogasaii (05/11/2015) [-]
I respect your opinion and knowledge. I'm just referencing my 4th grade history knowledge at this point

ssh just let me be right
#41 - marioauditore (05/11/2015) [-]
Fair enough. I declare my defeat and surrender to your maturity.

I have a knowledge-spreading logorrhea problem. Be kind to me.
#22 - Yes, at least that's what I think. Classic examples are the Am…  [+] (5 replies) 05/11/2015 on Petoria 0
#26 - marioauditore (05/11/2015) [-]
None of the wars you metioned was won by superior experience.
User avatar
#28 - yunogasaii (05/11/2015) [-]
Maybe not experience, but certainly they were at a disadvantage and were the 'underdog'. I'm probably confusing experience/training with tactics
#37 - marioauditore (05/11/2015) [-]
I don't know enough about the Revolutionary War to say how it was won, but the british army was one of the best of the time for both training and equipment. By the time of the fall of Rome, the romans and the germanic tribes had similar equipment and training. Tactics and strategy also didn't have much to do with it. Viet Cong didn't have better equipment or training than the US. Guerrilla warfare certainly was a good strategy, but a lot of other factors made that stategy possible. There are a lot of other factors involved in a war. Strategy, tactics, allies, resources, numbers, moral, timing, knowledge of the ground, etc. I think that reducing it to "equipment VS experience" is an extreme simplification. If you have tanks and your enemy doesn't, you have an advantage that experience can't compensate. But if the enemy manage to force you to fight on a ground where is impossible to effectively use tanks, then experience is going to count more. But what if they don't have such ground at their disposal? And what if that ground has no strategic importance so you can just skip it and conquer the nation anyway? Their exeperience is going to be useless. Equipment is always a more reliable advantage to have on you enemy (provided that the gap is large enough), because it gives you more possibilities and narrows those of your enemy.
User avatar
#39 - yunogasaii (05/11/2015) [-]
I respect your opinion and knowledge. I'm just referencing my 4th grade history knowledge at this point

ssh just let me be right
#41 - marioauditore (05/11/2015) [-]
Fair enough. I declare my defeat and surrender to your maturity.

I have a knowledge-spreading logorrhea problem. Be kind to me.
#20 - The Russians weren't experienced (maybe fighting in the cold),…  [+] (7 replies) 05/11/2015 on Petoria 0
User avatar
#21 - pirateseatcarrots (05/11/2015) [-]
but my question remains does experience/training outweigh equipment
User avatar
#22 - yunogasaii (05/11/2015) [-]
Yes, at least that's what I think. Classic examples are the Americans beating the British during the Revolutionary War, Rome's downfall caused by barbarian tribes, and the aforementioned Viet Cong holding their own against the Americans.
#26 - marioauditore (05/11/2015) [-]
None of the wars you metioned was won by superior experience.
User avatar
#28 - yunogasaii (05/11/2015) [-]
Maybe not experience, but certainly they were at a disadvantage and were the 'underdog'. I'm probably confusing experience/training with tactics
#37 - marioauditore (05/11/2015) [-]
I don't know enough about the Revolutionary War to say how it was won, but the british army was one of the best of the time for both training and equipment. By the time of the fall of Rome, the romans and the germanic tribes had similar equipment and training. Tactics and strategy also didn't have much to do with it. Viet Cong didn't have better equipment or training than the US. Guerrilla warfare certainly was a good strategy, but a lot of other factors made that stategy possible. There are a lot of other factors involved in a war. Strategy, tactics, allies, resources, numbers, moral, timing, knowledge of the ground, etc. I think that reducing it to "equipment VS experience" is an extreme simplification. If you have tanks and your enemy doesn't, you have an advantage that experience can't compensate. But if the enemy manage to force you to fight on a ground where is impossible to effectively use tanks, then experience is going to count more. But what if they don't have such ground at their disposal? And what if that ground has no strategic importance so you can just skip it and conquer the nation anyway? Their exeperience is going to be useless. Equipment is always a more reliable advantage to have on you enemy (provided that the gap is large enough), because it gives you more possibilities and narrows those of your enemy.
User avatar
#39 - yunogasaii (05/11/2015) [-]
I respect your opinion and knowledge. I'm just referencing my 4th grade history knowledge at this point

ssh just let me be right
#41 - marioauditore (05/11/2015) [-]
Fair enough. I declare my defeat and surrender to your maturity.

I have a knowledge-spreading logorrhea problem. Be kind to me.