NationStates Jolt Archive

Events on a recent thread got me wondering:

In all the debates and all the topics humans argue about, which specific argument annoys you the most?

Personally, the one that just really bugs me beyond reason is when people argue that believing in evolution means you believe "everything is random chance" and "there is no purpose to life." It combines complete ignorance of evolutionary theory with poorly-veiled bigotry against the non-superstitious.

Oh, and when people say that homosexuality "isn't natural." Sigh. How can anybody still be using that stupid line?!

Those "look how inferior these furrin brown people are" threads got rather annoying, but fortunately they're few and far between these days. As for the evolution threads, it's very annoying that so many people can be so mistaken about what evolution actually in very nearly the same way.

That SW should somehow be old technology because it happend a long time ago and that ST from the future so that if per definition has to be more advanced than SW.

If you mean what topics get me going, education and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both are good to get my attention, usually because the 'facts' presented in them are so wrong.

The actual argument that gets under my skin is the "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government". That still has to be the most outdated, irrelevant, and just flat out stupid argument for gun ownership.

If you mean what topics get me going, education and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both are good to get my attention, usually because the 'facts' presented in them are so wrong.

The actual argument that gets under my skin is the "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government". That still has to be the most outdated, irrelevant, and just flat out stupid argument for gun ownership.
I was aiming more at the second one. I know certain topics are hot-buttons for folks, but I'm talking about specific arguments that people make. Your second example is exactly what I was talking about.

Hmm.

Accordion arguments in general. You know, the ones where each person has broken up the other's post into a couple dozen pieces and insists on answering all the irrelevant parts of the argument while allow the actual point one's trying to make to be lost.

When people say that global warming isn't true. That must be the most annoying and dangerous standpoint one can have.

When people say that global warming isn't true. That must be the most annoying and dangerous standpoint one can have.

Ohh for me it's the insulting 'your thinking is irrational' that thoes un beliveres amongst us spout. Like we are not all goverend by irrationality, and that religoius thought is somehow inferrer.

When right-wing libertarians argue for the abolition of all aspects of the welfare state, yet they have well-to-do parents who've paid for every aspect of their upbringing, education, and their every whim and desire, and the simple fact of their being born in a wealthy family means they'll never be wanting for money for as long as they live, and any job they get will purely be a hobby. JUST. FUCK. OFF.

Oh, and the "British food is rubbish" thing really fucks me off, too, but that's an assertion more than an argument. Which is possibly why it fucks me off.

Oh, Nationalian reminded me of another: "China isn't curbing its emissions, why should we bother?". Combined with "Reducing harmful emissions is too expensive" from wealthy corporations.

Ohh for me it's the insulting 'your thinking is irrational' that thoes un beliveres amongst us spout. Like we are not all goverend by irrationality, and that religoius thought is somehow inferrer.

what's you religion?

Anyone who claims a "liberal media" bias...

...not only are such people willfully forgetting the media's actions during Clinton's presidency, but they actually expect me to believe that the executives of media companies are far-left liberals desperate to turn over their corporate salaries to the tax man.

Those CEO's are as red as Reagan...there's simply no money in reporting positively on with administration. Simple as that.

what's you religion?

Me, I'm Sikh.

Arguments of the "Us against them" variety really make me shudder. I identify with no-one, neither you (the proponents of said argument) nor your enemies, and the fact that you can't deal with that both fightens and infuriates me.

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"... of course! You will never get wrongly accused, there will never any misuse of the surveillance systems or bugs which make you look really suspicious....

Hmmm... I say an argument someone backs up with the Bible.

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"... of course! You will never get wrongly accused, there will never any misuse of the surveillance systems or bugs which make you look really suspicious....
YES. That one bugs me, too.

As long as there are busy-bodies who are interested in spying on my personal life, I DO have something to hide! I don't like Peeping Toms, dagnabbit!

I can't say as there's any particular argument I can think of that gets on my nerves.


Not to say there aren't topics that annoy me, but none that are particularly egregious.

I tend to get annoyed when people argue from ignorance......so I know what you are talking about Bottle, it annoys me in different areas than you I suppose though.

I guess the one that really really bothers me is the fetus=parasite, now I know the def. of a parasite and I know logically that parasite doesn't have to have a negative connotation but to me, it does, and to me, the fetus is a baby, and to me my kids used to be babies, and so to me, it's......bothersome.

I also (back to the ignorance thing) get pretty annoyed with the people who think that Christians can only have sex in the dark, in missionary position, with most of their clothes on, for the purposes of reproduction and only if you don't like it......:rolleyes:

I get pissed off when people try to use the Bible as empirical evidence.

the "they should of thought of that before they did X" logic, I mean really for someone who is boasting forward thinking its funny how they can make such an argument

also the arguments that ignore history just outright scare me:

"I say lets have harsh punishments! its not like hanging someone for every crime imaginable hasn't been done in oh lets say the 1800's"

"the market will look after the people, there is no need for education or minimum wage cause nothing bad will ever happen with capitalism like I don't know lets say 19th-early 20th century London!" (though to be honest its funny comparing the argument to Mr. Birling)

People who go on about how you should have to get 'involved' in politics so you can make things better.

- the argument that religion is useless in modern-day society

- the generalization that makes all Christians seem like they live out their faith the same way Fred Phelps does :rolleyes:

Also,

- the argument that says socialism and communism are the same thing

- when Christians who claim to adhere to the teachings of Jesus (which include taking care of the poor and loving your enemies) somehow also support capital punishment and "getting all those lazy bums off welfare", because OBVIOUSLY everyone on welfare is there because they're lazy :rolleyes:

Capital punishment really works - every killer you kill will never kill again. [/sarcasm]

Depending on my mood, people referring to God as my 'imaginary friend' either irritates me immensely or makes me pity the person for being so brainwashed as to have so little respect for other peoples views and beliefs.

Sweeping generalizations concerning people, beliefs or whatever. "See, some members of [insert group of people] did something bad, that means that all members of [group] are evil!"
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" - yeah, but the same goes for rocks, cheese and ice cream!

Four words:

"It's just a theory"

I was aiming more at the second one. I know certain topics are hot-buttons for folks, but I'm talking about specific arguments that people make. Your second example is exactly what I was talking about.

I believe that I need a gun to protect myself from other humans, in extremis.

Not because I need to protect myself against the government. I need one because the government isn't going to assign a set of policemen to stay with me everywhere I move, and protect me from all harm 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for the rest of my life.

The sort of argument that gets under my skin is the one where people take a ridiculous argument and then imply that it's mine.

Sweeping generalizations concerning people, beliefs or whatever. "See, some members of [insert group of people] did something bad, that means that all members of [group] are evil!"

I can probably think of some examples where that's true.

I can probably think of some examples where that's true.

Sure there are; But on NSG - not so much. Not long ago there was a rush of wild sweeping generalizations, especially conserning Islam and muslims and that just got me fucking fed up with it. So now I hate it and won't accept it unless you manage to prove conclusively that it is so. Do that and I won't throw a duck at you.

If someone pulls that line out of their backside however, the Duck Man cometh!

Dismissing an argument because it is, or labeling a person as, trolling. What others do is not my or your concern; if they want to argue with a troll, fine. But it really serves no purpose beyond inflaming the argument to label someone a "troll"--if his/her posts are inflammatory, call them as such. If they are irrelevant to the argument, make the point and let him defend himself. "Trolling" is an overused accusation and a weak fall back for those who don't feel like parsing out an argument, or simply ignoring the situation.

Depending on my mood, people referring to God as my 'imaginary friend' either irritates me immensely or makes me pity the person for being so brainwashed as to have so little respect for other peoples views and beliefs.

Heh, I've done that to you haven't I? Sorry.
But it annoys me when people believe something that I don't believe, and because they believe that it means they should behave in a certain manner it implies that everyone should be forced to behave in that manner, believe it or not, like it or not. Your beliefs may be your reason for (not) doing something, but they aren't a reason for me to (not) do that same thing.
But that takes a lot longer to write, doesn't it? :p

Lord...Name your poison...

- If we all had guns there would be less crime because we all could protect ourselves
- If we banned all guns there would be less crime
- We need guns to protect ourselves from the government
- Homosexuality is a choice
- "Libruhl meediyah biass"
- The poor are poor because they are lazy
- Mental illness is a myth
- "Look to these passages as proof!"
- Pat Robertson represents all Christians in America (used by both lefties and righties)
- I saw it on Wikipedia
- Life starts at conception
- "Only the guilty have anything to fear"
- "Life is pointless, we all just die" (Fucking Nihilist pricks...)

There are more...believe me there are more...but I can't remember any right now.

Heh, I've done that to you haven't I? Sorry.
But it annoys me when people believe something that I don't believe, and because they believe that it means they should behave in a certain manner it implies that everyone should be forced to behave in that manner, believe it or not, like it or not. Your beliefs may be your reason for (not) doing something, but they aren't a reason for me to (not) do that same thing.
But that takes a lot longer to write, doesn't it? :p

Not only that, but I didn't understand a single friggin' thing...except for the first line...

I find it sad that other people's beliefs annoy you...

Four words:

"It's just a theory"

Bah, beat me to it.

People who spout this tripe have no idea what a Theory is, what it is meant to do, or the process of creating a theory.

What's more, they think that a theory somehow magically turns into fact, which is not even any single purpose of a theory.

As one of my professors put it:

Facts are useless in science. You can't do anything with them.(Well, technically you base theories around facts, but that's not the point-you can't really make a useful prediction with facts alone)

Heh, I've done that to you haven't I? Sorry.
But it annoys me when people believe something that I don't believe, and because they believe that it means they should behave in a certain manner it implies that everyone should be forced to behave in that manner, believe it or not, like it or not. Your beliefs may be your reason for (not) doing something, but they aren't a reason for me to (not) do that same thing.
But that takes a lot longer to write, doesn't it? :p

The problem is that Christianity, and religion in general, is, like everything in life, not so black and white. There are some people who believe that everyone should behave in the same way, but there are equally many who believe that you should be free to live as you want. Personally, all I ask is that you try to be a decent person.

I realise that the fundamentalists grab people's attention because they say such extreme things, but they are not necessarily the majority, in any faith. Us moderates speak up pretty loudly; it's just that we tend to be overlooked because we're not saying anything particularly controversial.

Like Gravlen above, all I'm asking is that people don't take the exception to be the norm. Admittedly, however, if you succeed in doing that, you'll be a better person than I.

I hate it when people misuse the word or idea of "tolerance" so that it becomes "uncritical acceptance." Tolerance means simply that people have a right to hold an opinion or belief, not that they get a free pass from criticism for holding said belief. See also "respect."

- "Life is pointless, we all just die" (Fucking Nihilist pricks...)


Hey now, don't be bashing the Nihilsts. But I am a prick, if I want to be...

:D

I hate it when people misuse the word or idea of "tolerance" so that it becomes "uncritical acceptance." Tolerance means simply that people have a right to hold an opinion or belief, not that they get a free pass from criticism for holding said belief. See also "respect."

Ah, like that German judge who was an idiot.

Ah, like that German judge who was an idiot.

That's an awfully wide net you've cast there. Care to shorten it up some?

Not only that, but I didn't understand a single friggin' thing...except for the first line...

I find it sad that other people's beliefs annoy you...

Nono, what I meant was the argument that because one person/group believes that something is wrong, it must be banned, say. It was the generalisation of the argument - and I use this as a hypothetical example, I don't want to derail the thread with debate on it - a single example of which might be:

"My God says homosexuality is wrong, therefore we should outlaw homosexuality"

In my eyes, as I don't believe in their god, it is a non-argument.

(Edit:
@Philosopy: The posts were this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11424269&postcount=11) and this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11424287&postcount=13) in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493218), if you're curious...)

How a particular belief *coughcreationismcough* must be true because there's no evidence against it.

That's an awfully wide net you've cast there. Care to shorten it up some?

Here are three examples of someone taking "tolerance" too far.

The crux case centres on a woman called Nishal, a 26-year-old Moroccan immigrant to Germany with two kids and a psychotic husband. Since their wedding night, this husband beat the hell out of her. She crawled to the police covered in wounds, and they ordered the husband to stay away from her. He refused. He terrorised her with death threats.

So Nishal went to the courts to request an early divorce, hoping that once they were no longer married he would leave her alone. A judge who believed in the rights of women would find it very easy to make a judgement: you're free from this man, case dismissed.

(1) But Judge Christa Datz-Winter followed the logic of multiculturalism instead. She said she would not grant an early divorce because - despite the police documentation of extreme violence and continued threats - there was no "unreasonable hardship" here.

Why? Because the woman, as a Muslim, should have "expected" it, the judge explained. She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you. That's your culture. Goodbye, and enjoy your beatings.

This is not a freakish exception. Germany's only state-level Minister for Integration, Armin Laschet, says this is only "the last link, for the time being, in a chain of horrific rulings handed down by the German courts".

The German magazine Der Spiegel has documented a long list of these multicultural verdicts. Here are just a few:

(2) A Lebanese-German who strangled his daughter Ibthahale and then beat her unconscious with a bludgeon because she didn't want to marry the man he had picked out for her was sentenced to mere probation. His "cultural background" was cited by the judge as a mitigating factor.


(3) A Turkish-German who stabbed his wife Zeynep to death in Frankfurt was given the lowest possible sentence, because, the judge said, the murdered woman had violated his "male honour, derived from his Anatolian moral concepts". The bitch. A Lebanese-German who raped his wife Fatima while whipping her with a belt was sentenced to probation, with the judge citing his ... you get the idea.

That's an awfully wide net you've cast there. Care to shorten it up some?

I think the judge being referenced is the one who let an East Indian guy off with - what was it, probation? - after he beat his wife senseless, and then said the reasoning was that the woman should've expected that sort of thing "based on her cultural upbringing" or some such tripe.

(If, of course, we're thinking of two different judges here, then nevermind what I just said. :p )

Oh, oh, another one, this one, as a lawyer, particularly irks me.

"If you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about."

Here are three examples of someone taking "tolerance" too far.

Not exactly what I'm talking about--there are other problems with that situation beyond simply being uncritical of a belief system. I'm talking more along the lines of religious people using their beliefs as a "get out of an argument free" card. If, for instance, you are a young earth creationist, I am being tolerant when I say you have every right to believe that. But that doesn't mean that I accept your point of view as valid, or that I won't call you an idiot for believing such stupidity.

I think the judge being referenced is the one who let an East Indian guy off with - what was it, probation? - after he beat his wife senseless, and then said the reasoning was that the woman should've expected that sort of thing "based on her cultural upbringing" or some such tripe.

(If, of course, we're thinking of two different judges here, then nevermind what I just said. :p )

No, she refused to grant a speedy divorce. And she wasn't tolerant, she was simply wrong.

No, she refused to grant a speedy divorce. And she wasn't tolerant, she was simply wrong.

That's why I said it was an example of what The Nazz calls an abuse of the term "tolerance".

Not exactly what I'm talking about--there are other problems with that situation beyond simply being uncritical of a belief system. I'm talking more along the lines of religious people using their beliefs as a "get out of an argument free" card. If, for instance, you are a young earth creationist, I am being tolerant when I say you have every right to believe that. But that doesn't mean that I accept your point of view as valid, or that I won't call you an idiot for believing such stupidity.

I agree with you there. These examples were more of a "get out of jail free" card than a "get out of argument free" card.

No, she refused to grant a speedy divorce. And she wasn't tolerant, she was simply wrong.
And the guy was Moroccan, not East Indian.

Anyway, lo and behold, all my pet peeves have already been mentioned (at least all the ones I can think of right now):

The actual argument that gets under my skin is the "We need guns to protect ourselves from the government".

Oh, and when people say that homosexuality "isn't natural."

"China isn't curbing its emissions, why should we bother?".

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!"... of course!

Hmmm... I say an argument someone backs up with the Bible.

- when Christians who claim to adhere to the teachings of Jesus (which include taking care of the poor and loving your enemies) somehow also support capital punishment and "getting all those lazy bums off welfare", because OBVIOUSLY everyone on welfare is there because they're lazy :rolleyes:

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" - yeah, but the same goes for rocks, cheese and ice cream!


Four words:

"It's just a theory"

Lord...Name your poison...

- If we all had guns there would be less crime because we all could protect ourselves
- If we banned all guns there would be less crime
- We need guns to protect ourselves from the government
- Homosexuality is a choice
- "Libruhl meediyah biass"
- The poor are poor because they are lazy
- Mental illness is a myth

I hate it when people misuse the word or idea of "tolerance" so that it becomes "uncritical acceptance." Tolerance means simply that people have a right to hold an opinion or belief, not that they get a free pass from criticism for holding said belief. See also "respect."

Oh, and pretty much any argument in favour of capital punishment.

Anyway, lo and behold, all my pet peeves have already been mentioned (at least all the ones I can think of right now):

I'm going to take it personally that you quoted absolutely everyone in the thread, except me. :p

As of yesterday, it's:
"If you have sex, you must deal with the consequences, end of story."

Anyway, lo and behold, all my pet peeves have already been mentioned (at least all the ones I can think of right now):

Oh, and pretty much any argument in favour of capital punishment.

i can't think of anything to add to those either

Not exactly what I'm talking about--there are other problems with that situation beyond simply being uncritical of a belief system. I'm talking more along the lines of religious people using their beliefs as a "get out of an argument free" card. If, for instance, you are a young earth creationist, I am being tolerant when I say you have every right to believe that. But that doesn't mean that I accept your point of view as valid, or that I won't call you an idiot for believing such stupidity.

I think I'll reitterate something I said a while back.

To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. IN a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that one does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I do not seek to oppose for you is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that i tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.

I'm going to take it personally that you quoted absolutely everyone in the thread, except me. :pOh, that wasn't everyone in the thread.

i can't think of anything to add to those eitherMeh, wanna bet we'll be reminded of another one some time during the next, say, hour or so on here? :rolleyes:

I think I'll reitterate something I said a while back.

To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. IN a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that one does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I do not seek to oppose for you is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that i tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.
Unfortunately, the Limbaughs of the world have sought to redefine tolerance into "uncritical acceptance and respect for others beliefs," and they've done it by claiming that's what multi-culturalism and moral relativism stand for, thus managing to poison two wells for the price of one.

Oh, that wasn't everyone in the thread.

Meh, wanna bet we'll be reminded of another one some time during the next, say, hour or so on here? :rolleyes:

i don't doubt it.

Nono, what I meant was the argument that because one person/group believes that something is wrong, it must be banned, say. It was the generalisation of the argument - and I use this as a hypothetical example, I don't want to derail the thread with debate on it - a single example of which might be:

"My God says homosexuality is wrong, therefore we should outlaw homosexuality"

In my eyes, as I don't believe in their god, it is a non-argument.

Ah, so we shouldn't make exceptions because SOME disagree. Thank ye for clarifying.

Hey now, don't be bashing the Nihilsts. But I am a prick, if I want to be...

It just pisses me off when people site the works of some big name, no brains "philosopher" as the law of the universe.

Nietzcheits, Randites...y'know...

And I respect a prick who is honest with himself! Dennis Leary comes to mind.

The "I believe in God/Allah/nobody come argue with me" threads irritate me the most.

I realize the OP calls for a specific argument but as I sat pondering which was the one that annoys me the most, I find that all of the examples I could think of had one thing in common:

They were all of the form "You don't share my belief in x therefore you are stupid/uninformed/brainwashed."

The reason that annoys me is that it's a clear indicator that the person saying it has already made up their mind and isn't really interested in debating. A debate implies the 2-way exchange of arguments and premises. Such a person is willing to have a 1-way discourse ONLY and you'd better be on the receiving end. I find that juvenile and dishonest, and thus an annoyance.

My "better idea" is to present arguments as "I believe in y because..." and let the debate go from there. Big difference.

Ah, so we shouldn't make exceptions because SOME disagree. Thank ye for clarifying.

Now I'm confused...

Now I'm confused...

Very well...why don't we both agree to just be terribly confused, and then head for the pub?

Very well...why don't we both agree to just be terribly confused, and then head for the pub?

Done!

the arguement of picking apart and stating the name of the style of arguement you just made.

yes very nice you took a reasoning class or some sort of philosophy. it doesnt do anything to prove your point just because you know the style of arguement someone else is using.

In all the debates and all the topics humans argue about, which specific argument annoys you the most?It's a split between bringing in WWII/nazis, and trying to extract a value/moral judgement from whether or not something is natural.

Women should stay at home. They aren't suited for the cruel, competitive business world or the ruthless military. That argument really irritates me.

When right-wing libertarians argue for the abolition of all aspects of the welfare state, yet they have well-to-do parents who've paid for every aspect of their upbringing, education, and their every whim and desire, and the simple fact of their being born in a wealthy family means they'll never be wanting for money for as long as they live, and any job they get will purely be a hobby. JUST. FUCK. OFF.
You mean like certain socialists who bewail the proletariat's supposed indigence, yet live in luxury themselves? Yes, such people annoy me. Except that I have never, ever actually met any libertarian who fits this description, and at most one or two socialists who do. But then this is not about the argument itself - it is about the person making it, no?

You mean like certain socialists who bewail the proletariat's supposed indigence, yet live in luxury themselves? Yes, such people annoy me. Except that I have never, ever actually met any libertarian who fits this description, and at most one or two socialists who do. But then this is not about the argument itself - it is about the person making it, no?
I've met plenty of both, but the problem is equally shared between the person and the argument where the libertarian is concerned, if only because the thinking behind the myth of the self-made man is so shallow.

Arguments that support the bible but have no foundation besides someones trust and belief.

And I hate people who denie arguments or make arguments up just out of patriotism and nothing more.

When right-wing libertarians argue for the abolition of all aspects of the welfare state, yet they have well-to-do parents who've paid for every aspect of their upbringing, education, and their every whim and desire, and the simple fact of their being born in a wealthy family means they'll never be wanting for money for as long as they live, and any job they get will purely be a hobby. JUST. FUCK. OFF.

Wasn't born into a wealthy family (in fact, my father came to the US with less than fifty cents in his pocket). He made good, but we've been alienated since I was a teenager.

I left home at 17 and never looked back. Paid for my own education. Never got a student loan, grant, or scholarship.

Oh, and nowadays, my job is pretty much my hobby. And I think that a lot of the welfare state needs to be abolished (for anyone who is able-bodied).

I've met plenty of both, but the problem is equally shared between the person and the argument where the libertarian is concerned, if only because the thinking behind the myth of the self-made man is so shallow.
Whether that is so or not, the thread is about the arguments themselves, not about the person making them, isn't it? I was simply pointing that out.

Okay, How about the neo nazis claiming the haulocaust never happened and that they are the victims of untrue accounts.

Or, how about the argument that american indian casinoes a curropting america. Oh, you can just taste irony.

Maybe I'll Settle with the idea that a monkey simple gave birth to a human is the understanding of evolution for conservatives.

"THIS which you said contradicts THAT which you said, therefore you are wrong about both and an asshat."
Particularly if THIS and THAT are in very different contexts.

You mean like certain socialists who bewail the proletariat's supposed indigence, yet live in luxury themselves? Yes, such people annoy me. Except that I have never, ever actually met any libertarian who fits this description, and at most one or two socialists who do. But then this is not about the argument itself - it is about the person making it, no?

The term for such people is "champagne socialist" :)
And if I'd never met such a person (one of my close friends, actually... We've stopped talking about economics, it's just less painful) it wouldn't have been able to annoy me.
And RO: I didn't specify all libertarians deliberately. And I'm not going to argue about it, because I get unreasonably upset and it's just not worth it.

religious thought itself doesn't piss me off. however, what religitoids often do is misquote their holy book, claim(this applies to christianity, i haven't had muslims, jews, or pagans do this) that since you are an atheist, you somehow are a satanist (sort of contradictory isn't it), shoot down your arguements with "I AM A PROPHET OF GOD, AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE WHAT I SAY, YOU WILL GO TO HELL" or lesser words to that effect, when they are clearly a retard with a towel on their head (There is a Christian guy on youtube who actually wears an actual towel... this isn't anything against Muslims or Sikhs or anything else)

another arguement type that pisses me off: "someone else isn't doing X, so we shouldn't do X as well!"

especially if X is a good thing. using someone else's bad behaviour as an excuse for your own is a symbol of a horribly weak mind, and week-minded people really PISS. ME. OFF!

that is all... for now!

religitoids
Is that even a word? :p

another arguement type that pisses me off: "someone else isn't doing X, so we shouldn't do X as well!"
Yes, those annoy me as well.

"Living in a democracy = being free"
"Corporal punishment is necessary to send a clear message to a small child"

The argument that immigration (legal or otherwise) is an "invasion."

The argument that illegal immigrants "take our jobs."

The argument that compares open immigration with opening the doors of your private home and letting anyone enter.

The argument that immigration (legal or otherwise) is a plot by the Mexican government to make itself wealthy beyond imagining through remmittances.

The argument that the Bush administration engineered 9/11.
-The argument that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
-The argument that only "controlled demolition" could have brought down the towers.
-The argument that because the Bush administration profited from 9/11, they must have caused it.
-The argument that anyone who doesn't agree with these arguments is "sheeple" and needs to "wake up."

Any argument which relies on strawman bashing (possibly ad hominems if the opponent is classified under $enemy$) of terms like "liberal," "conservative," "leftist" or "righties."

Arguments that justify killing of innocents by the killing of innocents.
-The argument that killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is justified because about 3,000 Americans died in 9/11.
-The argument that killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians was justified because about 3,000 Americans died in Pearl Harbor. (Apparently the exchange rate is 1 American = 30 foreigners.)

The argument that we need to stay in Iraq for no other reason than we're already there (and need to "finish the job.")

Arguments which demonize private companies and ownership, but are apathetic toward or glorify government ownership.

The argument that immigration in Europe is a Muslim plot to conquer Europe.

The argument that the Holocaust was a Jewish plot.

The argument that if you oppose Israel's policies and politics, you are an anti-Semitic Jew-hater.

Any argument which demonizes groups of people based on ethnicity, race, religion or nationality.

The argument that suggests nonmilitary personnel (usu. the one making the argument) should be grateful to military personnel (usu. the ones opposed to the argument) for "protecting" them in various hypothetical situations.

The argument that military service is somehow morally superior to anything else and should be glorified.

The argument that something is wrong because it is illegal.

The argument that something is right because it is legal.

The argument that gun ownership equates to being a homicidal maniac (or supporter of homicidal maniacs).

The argument that since private citizens can't own nuclear weapons, they shouldn't be able to own firearms.

The argument that cigarette smokers are committing murder when they smoke.

The argument that cigarette smoking should be banned from "public places," when by "public" it is meant, "privately owned bars and clubs."

The argument that cigarette smoking is a sign of addiction.

The argument that addicts (to anything) are helpless victims.

The argument that because psychology once classified homosexuality as a disorder, psychology is wrong.

The argument that a poll of 800 people can accurately transcribe the opinions of 300,000,000 people.

The argument that marijuana "kills brain cells."

The argument that God exists because atheists can't prove God doesn't exist.

The argument that God's existence is necessary because of the complexity of life.

The argument that unless you believe in God, you are amoral and have no purpose in life.

Wasn't born into a wealthy family (in fact, my father came to the US with less than fifty cents in his pocket). He made good, but we've been alienated since I was a teenager.

I left home at 17 and never looked back. Paid for my own education. Never got a student loan, grant, or scholarship.

Oh, and nowadays, my job is pretty much my hobby. And I think that a lot of the welfare state needs to be abolished (for anyone who is able-bodied).

there is an argument that pisses me off. your father had 50 cents in his pocket, but he was probably resourceful, smart and had a load of other things that benifited him. the people the welfare state is targeted at have few or these virtues, or haven't realized these virtues because of the "Gangsta" culture they were raised.

really? paid for your own education, never got a student loan, grant or scholarship? tell me how you did that! i had help from my parents and still was shitloads of cash in the hole.

oh wait... did you not go to university?

As of yesterday, it's:
"If you have sex, you must deal with the consequences, end of story."

Heh yeah just that '...end of story' is garunteed to ilicit an unfaverable response from me, 'ohhhh is it now!'

Is that even a word? :p


it is now !!!!!!!:p :p :p :p :p :p :p

there is an argument that pisses me off. your father had 50 cents in his pocket, but he was probably resourceful, smart and had a load of other things that benifited him. the people the welfare state is targeted at have few or these virtues, or haven't realized these virtues because of the "Gangsta" culture they were raised.

really? paid for your own education, never got a student loan, grant or scholarship? tell me how you did that! i had help from my parents and still was shitloads of cash in the hole.

oh wait... did you not go to university?

I went to George Mason University. I worked full time.

I went to George Mason University. I worked full time.
I am considering doing a Masters there. Is it any good?

religitoidsIs that even a word? :p

No. TCoM means "theodroids" I think!

The argument that marijuana "kills brain cells."

Well, maybe not "kill brain cells".

But http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/mental/articles/2007/04/30/doctors_pot_triggers_psychotic_symptoms/?p1=MEWell_Pos4


LONDON --New findings on marijuana's damaging effect on the brain show the drug triggers temporary psychotic symptoms in some people, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions, doctors say.

British doctors took brain scans of 15 healthy volunteers given small doses of two of the active ingredients of cannabis, as well as a placebo.

One compound, cannabidiol, or CBD, made people more relaxed. But even small doses of another component, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, produced temporary psychotic symptoms in people, including hallucinations and paranoid delusions, doctors said.

So it depends on which variety of pot you are smoking, whether or not it's really good for your brain.

any argument that says I shouldn't win the Sexiest NSer contest ;)

Something just reminded me:

"Blah blah brain chemistry, therefore blah blah mind."

"Mental illness is a chemical imbalance in the brain. There, I explained all mental illnesses"
"You need psychiatric help" as an insult.

Well, maybe not "kill brain cells".

But http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/mental/articles/2007/04/30/doctors_pot_triggers_psychotic_symptoms/?p1=MEWell_Pos4




So it depends on which variety of pot you are smoking, whether or not it's really good for your brain.

Heheh or the argument that MJ doesn't have an adverse effect on mental health for some people, or those who start young, or long term smokers.

Well, maybe not "kill brain cells".

But http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/mental/articles/2007/04/30/doctors_pot_triggers_psychotic_symptoms/?p1=MEWell_Pos4




So it depends on which variety of pot you are smoking, whether or not it's really good for your brain.

None of that has anything to do with either the original argument, or the question of doing permanent damage to the brain.

I hate when people stuff words into my mouth and then start arguing against something they think I said, which they have of course concluded themselves, while I in fact meant a completely other thing.

I also dislike when people try to put themselves over others to make up for their lack of confidence. With this I mean people who have to point out that their own arguments are so good while other's are bad. If they can't rely on others to conclude for themselves who are right or wrong, and actually have to point it out, than they can't have too much confidence in themselves.

essentially if you're any form of caucasion you get blamed for slavery by a select few black people. my family is jewish and wasn't even here when that happened... i wish people would get that. i dont owe anyone anything. neither does anyone else. if you want something, get it... that's how everyone else has to do it.

None of that has anything to do with either the original argument, or the question of doing permanent damage to the brain.

It's not like there aren't other perfectly legal means of altering your brain chemistry.

When right-wing libertarians argue for the abolition of all aspects of the welfare state, yet they have well-to-do parents who've paid for every aspect of their upbringing, education, and their every whim and desire, and the simple fact of their being born in a wealthy family means they'll never be wanting for money for as long as they live, and any job they get will purely be a hobby. JUST. FUCK. OFF.

Oh, and the "British food is rubbish" thing really fucks me off, too, but that's an assertion more than an argument. Which is possibly why it fucks me off.

Oh, Nationalian reminded me of another: "China isn't curbing its emissions, why should we bother?". Combined with "Reducing harmful emissions is too expensive" from wealthy corporations.

I agree with everything you said, except the food thing, never heard it.

I hate when people stuff words into my mouth and then start arguing against something they think I said, which they have of course concluded themselves, while I in fact meant a completely other thing.

I also dislike when people try to put themselves over others to make up for their lack of confidence. With this I mean people who have to point out that their own arguments are so good while other's are bad. If they can't rely on others to conclude for themselves who are right or wrong, and actually have to point it out, than they can't have too much confidence in themselves.

Hahah yeah or even better(or perhaps worse) is when people totaly get the wrong idea and then start on you with the 'You want to work on your reading comprehension skills' Bwhahah that makes me both splutter with rage and laugh at the same time!

It's not like there aren't other perfectly legal means of altering your brain chemistry.

Of course there are, like alcohol, but that actually *does* kill brain cells.

They don't grow back, you know.

any argument that says I shouldn't win the Sexiest NSer contest ;)

Like, say ... "neither pathos nor romanticism are in any way sexy"? :p

Hahah yeah or even better(or perhaps worse) is when people totaly get the wrong idea and then start on you with the 'You want to work on your reading comprehension skills' Bwhahah that makes me both splutter with rage and laugh at the same time!

Commenting on others writing or reading skills is low. I also dislike when people start to comment on minor things which are in no way important to the meaning of a post or an article. For example if something happened in the end of 2000 or in the beginning of 2001 and then they just steal focus of the important things to discuss.

One "argument" I found especially disturbing when I was younger was "What do you know? You're just 15" Okay, then if I'm so stupid cuz I'm young, why can't you tear me apart with your legendary arguing skills?

The argument that if you are an atheist, you are amoral.

The argument that if you believe in evolution, that you also believe you can act like an animal. (I love this one; we're all animals, ultimately, so ._.)

The argument that the [religious scripture/book of choice goes here] is right because it is the word of [deity of choice goes here] and it should never be challenged, ever, under any circumstances or else you are a heathen/infidel/non-believer.

The argument that we don't know how long the '6 days' were in human time, in spite of the fact that it says days, so it could have been 13 billion years somehow and that makes everyone agree with it.

The argument that being military personnel somehow makes you in a position of authority in a debate that should never be questioned, ever, under any circumstances or else you are unpatriotic/a conspiracy theorist/a terrorist.

The argument that conspiracy theories can never be true, ever, under any circumstances and if you believe otherwise you are insane/paranoid/a terrorist.

The argument that agnosticism is the exact same thing as atheism.



Just a few of the ones that really drive me crazy.

The argument that conspiracy theories can never be true, ever, under any circumstances and if you believe otherwise you are insane/paranoid/a terrorist.


Exactly. You said it before me! YOU ARE AN ALIEN SHAPESHIFTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I try not to let any argument get under my skin.

Emphasis on try... :p

but what I really... dislike, is when people feel that their well thought out arguments can be made infalliable by inserting personal attacks at their opponent.

calling others ignorant, asshole, stupid, etc... just invalidates one's argument in my opinion.






oh and anything involving "Loose Change"

How about.. ."Well the earlier govt. administrations did something similar so therefore we have no right to criticize the current one for doing it."

ALSO

The "poor people are lazy" argument which leads to the equally absurd "All it takes is a little hard work in the U.S. and anyone can be a millionaire."


I'll probably think about more later.

Four words:

"It's just a theory"

Very, very strongly seconded.

Besides that, other least-favorites include "Women who want abortions are all irresponsible sluts and should have thought about the consequences before they opened their legs," "Homosexuality is unnatural," "Global warming is a big old lie because it was cold the other day where I live," "People with mental disorders are just lazy or needed to be spanked more as children," and anything involving the phrases "real men" or "real women."

The one that annoys me most is "Black and white people are exactly the same apart from skin colour"

Now, I'm no racist but it angers me to no end when I am flamed simply for pointing out that in top level athletics almost all swimmers are white while almost all runners you see are black.

I hate the one where if you disagree with "x" quality, about group "a" then you are automatically a racist, fascist, bigot, etc, EXCEPT when it comes to Christians, as they are the group that can be pounded in every orifice, and no one says anything about it.


Another one, you say '"a" did this..Oh my this is bad', then someone comes up and says, "well "b" did this 1000 years ago", which i guess implies that "b"s today are equally as bad and thus comparable to 'a'

for example,
you= "Oh my those 'jihadists' are super bad",
person from ns- well, the christians did the crusades!


Really, is there some sort of connection? Just because a group did something long ago, doesn't mean that current people in the same group are still evil. That's why we say the Nazi's did the holocaust, instead of the Germans. Not all German people partook in that act, so to say that Germans as a whole are responsible is rather ludicrous. So why would we try the same thing with other groups?

How about.. ."Well the earlier govt. administrations did something similar so therefore we have no right to criticize the current one for doing it."

ALSO

The "poor people are lazy" argument which leads to the equally absurd "All it takes is a little hard work in the U.S. and anyone can be a millionaire."


I'll probably think about more later.

I hate that second one as well. Fuck, i do a lot of work, bull shit work too, so I should be able to be a forking billionaire right now.

I'm gonna bookmark this thread, oh yeah! If I ever want to push someone's buttons for lowly reasons, I can just look up their entry and say something like

"Real Men and Real Women have a mental disorder: homosexual laziness which should have been spanked out of them as children."

Then sit back and watch as they go ballistic and get themselves a 3-day ban. :cool:

I hate that second one as well. Fuck, i do a lot of work, bull shit work too, so I should be able to be a forking billionaire right now.

poor money management?

just a thought.

also, I don't like the natural=good argument. I understand that when someone is against something because it's "unnatural" that you have the drive to prove that it is in fact "natural" but just because something's natural doesn't make it always good.....you know?

I'm gonna bookmark this thread, oh yeah! If I ever want to push someone's buttons for lowly reasons, I can just look up their entry and say something like

"Real Men and Real Women have a mental disorder: homosexual laziness which should have been spanked out of them as children."

Then sit back and watch as they go ballistic and get themselves a 3-day ban. :cool:


Haha, evil bastard! :D

poor money management?

just a thought.

also, I don't like the natural=good argument. I understand that when someone is against something because it's "unnatural" that you have the drive to prove that it is in fact "natural" but just because something's natural doesn't make it always good.....you know?

right, warring is a natural thing, and i think we can almost all agree that war =/= good.

right, warring is a natural thing, and i think we can almost all agree that war =/= good.
yep. animals have been known to eat their young, rape each other, and attack the weak, I don't think any of those things are good.

before anyone jumps on me for what they think I am trying to say......I am not trying to say anything other than "natural=good" is a crappy standing.

some things are really none of anyone else's business, and I think that's about as good an argument you can get.

I'm gonna bookmark this thread, oh yeah! If I ever want to push someone's buttons for lowly reasons, I can just look up their entry and say something like

"Real Men and Real Women have a mental disorder: homosexual laziness which should have been spanked out of them as children."

Then sit back and watch as they go ballistic and get themselves a 3-day ban. :cool:

Meanie! :p

Haha, evil bastard! :D

ya know, I've been thinking the same thing...

The argument that i hate is the one that goes a little like this...

"Y'know, I think one thread on abortion/gun control/gay marriage just isn't enough. What we really need is 749 of each, so we can repeat the same arguments over and over again every day in a continuous cycle, indulging my fetish regarding the film 'Groundhog Day'".

The mindless slob meme "godwin law."

yep. animals have been known to eat their young, rape each other, and attack the weak, I don't think any of those things are good.

before anyone jumps on me for what they think I am trying to say......I am not trying to say anything other than "natural=good" is a crappy standing.

some things are really none of anyone else's business, and I think that's about as good an argument you can get.

Idk, i think some parents wish they could eat their young. In fact, my mum said that once, "I should have ate you at birth" i was :eek:

These things anger me in no particular order:
#1:Hmmm... I say an argument someone backs up with the Bible.
#2:Being accused of racism if you dislike a non-white person,even if you have friends from the same category.
#3:"Sex is evil!"
#4:You're no trendy if you don't do/eat/say/wear the same shit as us.
#5:They're just animals,they're purpose is to get eaten,so we can just torture them for fun.

Idk, i think some parents wish they could eat their young. In fact, my mum said that once, "I should have ate you at birth" i was :eek:

I want to do a lot of things that aren't good.

Today the people in my house are thankful I have the self control not to.

Specific arguments that piss me off:

- Arguments that assume/insist all abortions are elective, including late term ones.

- Arguments that assume/insist all women who get abortions do so for personal convenience.

- I really hate those libertarian arguments that in one breath denounce all government social programs as "theft" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and in the next breath demand that the government step in to arrange all of life so that the libertarian of the moment can do whatever he wants without ever getting sued by anyone else. The poor don't have any right to seek government assistance for food and shelter, but this particular libertarian has the absolute right to demand government assistance so he can keep on exercising his right to pollute his local rivers (or whatever).

- "Yeah, but Clinton did XYZ."

- EDIT: Just thought of another one: Moral Police arguments -- anything that says "I think X is bad for you and that's why I should be able to stop you doing it, even though you are an adult because bad things should be stopped."

General argument types that piss me off:

- People making unsupported claims of fact, then claiming that they just know it to be true, but refusing to explain how.

- People who think that repeating a failed argument over and over for days and days will somehow win a debate.

- Any and all hypocritical arguments that hold group A to one standard but don't apply that standard to the arguer's own group.

- Any argument that is just a recital of some group's talking points (any source from a political party to the Bible) without any thought, analysis or further commentary from the poster him/herself. I wish Jolt had such a thing as a Talking Point Filter.

- Presenting opinion as fact and then demanding that others accept it as fact.

- Presenting an argument based on an unsupported assumption and then getting angry when others challenge the assumption rather than just accepting it as a basis for debate.

most of my pet hates have already been mentioned, but I'll add:

Pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience.

The only responsible way to deal with a pregnancy is to take no responsibility at all and let it progress to birth.

People who suffer from depression should pull their socks up and Be Cheerful.

The mindless slob meme "godwin law."

I have to agree here. It's a cheap way out, and there are times where comparison to Naziism is legitimate. It's rare, and more often than not, the person making the comparison is either a moron or is doing it for shock value, but take the five seconds and show them to be morons instead of falling back on the pathetic little "Godwin" trick.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em", which leads to the arguments for legalising hard drugs, guns, abortions on demand, et cetera just because people will do it anyway.

"You are religious, thus you are a Fred Phelps type."/"You are nonreligious, therefore you are an evil baby killer."

"Humans aren't animals." The offshoots of this include "Humans have souls", "It's unnatural for humans to act in the same way animals do", "Emotions and instincts are wrong", et cetera.

The related "Real men/women do $insert_whatever_it_happens_to_be_here".

"Anyone can become a millionaire from nothing, because my grandmother's cousin's girlfriend's dentist's daughter's cat did it."

"If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear."

"Business is, by its very nature, more trustworthy than government."/"Government is, by its very nature, more trustworthy than business."

Ad hominem attacks.


Probably quite a few more too, although those are the only ones to spring to mind right now.

.

"Anyone can become a millionaire from nothing, because my grandmother's cousin's girlfriend's dentist's daughter's cat did it." Millionaire cat, eh? that just proves what I have known all along; my cat is lazy.



"If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear."

.


I like to use that one against people that use it. Like many right wing christians favor racial profiling, and use their reasoning that you gave. So I turned it around in a thread, and said that all white christians need to be stopped, and searched, to make sure they aren't bombing abortion clinics, and used their reasoning :D

"marriage is sacred"


that line really ticks me off :mad:

I just hit the big 2-5-0

I have to agree here. It's a cheap way out, and there are times where comparison to Naziism is legitimate. It's rare, and more often than not, the person making the comparison is either a moron or is doing it for shock value, but take the five seconds and show them to be morons instead of falling back on the pathetic little "Godwin" trick.

Wasn't that the point? That Nazi comparisons are so rarely appropriately made? When's the last time we had an appropriate comparison made here anyways? I daresay if someone actually showed how whatever they were talking about is reasonably comparable to Nazism...

More often than not, it's another poster that's being called a Nazi.

Wasn't that the point? That Nazi comparisons are so rarely appropriately made? When's the last time we had an appropriate comparison made here anyways? I daresay if someone actually showed how whatever they were talking about is reasonably comparable to Nazism...

More often than not, it's another poster that's being called a Nazi.

You're face is like a nazi. :p

You're face is like a nazi. :p

Zomg godwin.


Now, see, I could take the time to explain how stupid comparing my face to a Nazi is, but Mike Godwin's done it for me. I can instead focus on the points Piggy made that are actually worth debating, if any.

Zomg godwin.


Now, see, I could take the time to explain how stupid comparing my face to a Nazi is, but Mike Godwin's done it for me. I can instead focus on the points Piggy made that are actually worth debating, if any.

Oh, you want to bring my name into this? I say we go fisticuffs.

Generally arguments are grounded in religious dogma get on my nerves.

I think it was in the 'Are Jews a Nation?' thread and some wrote that Israel was given to Jews by god and people would just have to get used to.

I kinda feel weird to admit this, but I felt a level of anger surge through body and a look of disdain form on my face even though no one was around to see... just a completely automatic reaction. c.c

Events on a recent thread got me wondering:

In all the debates and all the topics humans argue about, which specific argument annoys you the most?

Personally, the one that just really bugs me beyond reason is when people argue that believing in evolution means you believe "everything is random chance" and "there is no purpose to life." It combines complete ignorance of evolutionary theory with poorly-veiled bigotry against the non-superstitious.

Oh, and when people say that homosexuality "isn't natural." Sigh. How can anybody still be using that stupid line?!

The most annoying argument for me, personally, is the "It's just a theory" argument against evolution. Usually spoken by people who have, truly, no idea what a scientific theory is, and how it differs from, say, what Mike McBumFuck thought up about the state of the universe and wrote down in a book 5000 years ago, without any additional evidence to back it up, or any method of testing it, or any method of falsifying it, or really anything scientific or reasonable about it.
.../rant

I find it odd that some gays argue so vehemently that "you're born that way" (which I agree with), and then turn around and imply that somehow, if you were simply try it, you would become gay.

Four words:

"It's just a theory"

The inclusion of 'just' in phrases like that is what would anger me; everything's merely a theory, apart from in mathematics where we can come up with actual, undeniable proofs and thus have theorems as opposed to theories, but many theories are backed up by observable evidence. We're reasonably certain about gravity because we don't often see people flying off into space for no apparent reason, but it's still a theory.
Theory doesn't necessarily mean untested or untrue.

Listed without regard as to whether any are true or not (and whether or not they've been listed already):

- Religion is untrue because it can't be proven

- Athiesm is untrue because it can't be proven

- Agnosticism = Athiesm

- The United States is a corrupt nation slowly contributing to all of the worlds problems.

- The U.S. should stay out of other nation's affairs.

- The U.S. needs to take a more active role in world affairs.

- The E.U. is better thant the U.S. because...(and vice versa)

- It's Just A Theory (tm)

- The Bible/Koran/whatever says...therefore...

- Global Warming will be our doom.

- Global Warming doesn't exist.

- There's no such thing as male/male rape.

- Just about anytime someone starts talking about "tolerance" when really meaning "acceptance"

- Video Games/Violent Movies & TV/Music are causing school shootings

- We need guns to defend ourselves from the gov't.

- Guns lead to violence, therefore no one should have them.

- White people owe reparations for slavery.

- Just about anything Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton say

- Science is a relgion

- Only men can stop rape/sexual assault

I'm sure there's more, but this'll do for a start.

Like, say ... "neither pathos nor romanticism are in any way sexy"? :p

That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. ;)

There isn't any argument that bothers me. I debate for the fun of it. I ride myself on being able to take either side and make the argument.

Well, I guess I'll rank my least favorite in order of my contempt.

1) The Bible says... (it says a lot of things, many of which are contradictory, and none tell me why the said proposition is correct)

2) ZOMG!!!111!! teh ebil L183R4L M3d!A B!4S!!!!1!!1!!! (self explanatory)

3) Poor people are poor cause their lazy, deficient etc.

4) Since you're an atheist, then life has no meaning to you, then how do I know you won't go and kill everybody tomorrow?

5) Adam Smith was the founder of modern capitalism and the Jesus of the Church of the free market and all that other stuff.

Arguments appealing to authoritarianism are what irks me the most. Sadly, virtually all of the NSG population engage in that silly shit on a regular basis.

In all the debates and all the topics humans argue about, which specific argument annoys you the most?


"She can't have an abortion; she should suffer the consequences!!! Pregnancy is only a minor inconvenience, she can carry it to term then put it up for adoption. IF SHE DIDN'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT, THE DIRTY DIRTY WHORE SHOULDN'T HAVE SPREAD HER LEGS!!!!!"

Yeah. That one pisses me off to no end. Maybe I'll be less pissed if "IF HE DIDN'T WANT KIDS HE SHOULD HAVE HAD A VASECTOMY!!!!" were as often shouted with the same inanity.

All pro-Palestinian arguments. Very few of them are well articulated and most rely on things other than facts.

And now the debate rant:
Multiple A Prioris good- It's just not true. It's unfair to the other side
All non-warranted arguments- A because just isn't that hard
Non-impacted arguments- Showing how it relates to the standard just isn't that hard.
UN doesn't cover the whole world because it leaves out Vatican City- It's 10 blocks in Rome! For the love of god come on!
Speed bad kritik- Get used to it, that's how debate works
No standards = I win- There are other ways to interpret the round. Don't forget this.

I thought I had a lot more but debate teaches you to look on all sides of everything so bad arguments go away

All pro-Palestinian arguments. Very few of them are well articulated and most rely on things other than facts.

And now the debate rant:
Multiple A Prioris good- It's just not true. It's unfair to the other side
All non-warranted arguments- A because just isn't that hard
Non-impacted arguments- Showing how it relates to the standard just isn't that hard.
UN doesn't cover the whole world because it leaves out Vatican City- It's 10 blocks in Rome! For the love of god come on!
Speed bad kritik- Get used to it, that's how debate works
No standards = I win- There are other ways to interpret the round. Don't forget this.

I thought I had a lot more but debate teaches you to look on all sides of everything so bad arguments go away

ZOMG! another policy debater!

ZOMG! another policy debater!

Actually LDer but ex-policy debater and a very progressive LDer at that (I ran a Rap AC at my last tourney)

I hate any arguement which tries to prove Athesim false by linking it with Hitler, Stalin or Mao, or evolution with fascism.

Some honorable mentions are: Pascals wager. The "context of time" arguement used to justify some of Muhammads atrocities. And also, the atheists can have no morals arguement.

I get most agitated by variations of "You can't understand because you've never been *X*," where *X* represents black, Hispanic, female, poor, Jewish, Arabic, et cetera.

You're right- I haven't ever been those things, but I'm a pretty empathetic guy and I'm not entirely moronic... so why don't you just try to explain yourself to me? Maybe, by some fleeting miracle, I'll be able to relate. I have changed many of my opinions because of personal experiences with others, so it's not like I'm incapable of listening to your problems.

I think those assertions bother me most because there is nothing I can say to counter them... and because it's not my fault that I'm middle class and white.

global warming

"(insert whatever here) is unproven, therefore it is unproveable, therefore it is wrong".

Atheism is not a faith. Yes it is. It's faith that there is NO god. Not that there MIGHT not be a God. Atheism means that GOD does not exist period. Since such a statement is unproveable, it requires a bit of faith.

Hitler did this, therefore if you did it, you're a Nazi. Well, since Hitler breathed air and ate food, you might want to hold your breath and not eat...ever, you anti-Nazi. Also, don't die. Hitler died, so if you died, your argument would call you a nazi. Wait, Hitler was also real. OMG! We're all Nazis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Smoking only hurts smokers. You calling the various nonprofit cancer organizations and the Surgeon General a liar? Second hand smoke is far from the safest thing to breath and if a pregnant woman smokes, the baby also gets the smoking chemicals, which includes formaldehyde (embalming fluid), lead (a poisonous element). cadmium(an ingredient in car batteries), and radioactive Polonium( a nuclear-processing waste product). Not sure why Tobbacco companies put that stuff in tobacco products. Is nuclear waste really that cheap?

*source for tobacco product ingredients-Las Vegas Clark County Library District website->"Smokeless tobacco"-World of Health. Online ed. Detroit: Gale Group, 2007. Student Resource Center. some other crap. blah blah blah. The end.

I have heard people who say that drunk driving is a victimless crime. Please. Do you know how many car crashes drunk drivers get into, not to mention the number of people ran over by drunk drivers?

I don't particularly mind any debate or any point within that debate although I'll generally ignore the 'what's the best XXX'/'what's your favourite XXX' threads.

I will tend to stop bothering once I find myself having to repeat a previously made point more than 1'ce. I'll also stop bothering when the debate has come down to the point where, really, no matter how much evidence is on hand, there's little more one can do to change another person's opinions, or mine as the case may (often) be.

It does tend to bother me when a thread is reduced to 'you're an idiot' but I guess, in a fair few cases, it's warranted.

At some point it's worth remembering that there's plenty of people reading but not contributing, who I feel have a more balanced view of the debate than those participating, which means a lot of poor threads/posts are seen for exactly what they are.

Now Spiderman 3? That DID get under my 'waste of $10s' skin.

I once encountered "What if Jesus were an alien. Well, aliens don't exist, so I guess that proves your whole God theory wrong, doesn't it?" The scary thing was that he wasn't joking. He was quite serious.

I promptly stopped debating on the internet. People will argue against you, even against total logic.

I hate being on the same side of an argument as nincompoops. A good example of that is global warming.

Here I am trying to rationally(which is hard enough for me) explain my misgivings about entrusting future climate to a bunch of environmental scientists who have proven time and again that they don't know as much as they think they do and that I think I need a bit convincing before I put the fate of mankind in their hands, only to have some dipshit go, "OMG! It was really cold in February! So much for global warming! ROFLMAO!"

:rolleyes:

I hate it when people insult me just because i was born rich. I inherited a lot of money when i turned 18. Had Harvard all paid for by my parents. I've had 2 cars my entire life. But this does not make me a bad person like some people seem to think it does.

I already have begun and plan on devoting my entire life to public service yet i still get insulted because i have always been comfortable and never will have to worry about paying the bills.

I think the utter dismissal of an arguement/opinion because of what it's based on is when I get most irritated. This person has thought enough about the subject at hand to actively form a thought process they are willing to defend. (if they're not willing to defend it, then that doesn't count) No matter what it's based on that's a valid opinion. If it's wrong, or if you don't like it, then give them new information - typing 'OMG ur st00pid, u believe that crap?!' (in any form) is utterly disrespectful and immature. Whether you like it or not, that's what they currently hold. The whole point of a 'debate' is to thoroughly explore your own and others viewpoints on various topics.

Usually we run into this mostly in the religious and/or political topics, which we all know aren't really the most sensitive threads. :D

Any argument that makes excessive use of emotional reasoning and/or ad hominem.

Zomg godwin.


Now, see, I could take the time to explain how stupid comparing my face to a Nazi is, but Mike Godwin's done it for me. I can instead focus on the points Piggy made that are actually worth debating, if any.

Actually, Mike Godwin said "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Here's Mike Godwin's page: godwinslaw.org (http://www.godwinslaw.org/). He seems to have moved on (the Commodore64 look notwithstanding.)
Really, that's his page. It doesn't mention the silly law, certainly not the way it's used as a sort of booby-trap.

I think this supports the "Godwinning don't mean squat" side of the question, but my brain seems to have got stuck in reverse, so it might do the opposite.

Any argument that makes excessive use of emotional reasoning and/or ad hominem.

That's pretty much all of them here on NS.

Atheism is not a faith. Yes it is. It's faith that there is NO god. Not that there MIGHT not be a God. Atheism means that GOD does not exist period. Since such a statement is unproveable, it requires a bit of faith.

Heh, and here's another one that gets under my skin:

"Atheism is faith. It's faith that there is NO god."

Whether we like it or not, atheism can currently mean either an active belief that there is no God, or it can mean simply a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Personally, I would love it if we didn't use the same word to refer to both these belief systems, since there are worlds of difference between them. But we can't always get what we want.

So, really, the "atheism is faith" thing annoys me for two reasons:

1) It's not true, and is thus automatically irritating
2) I kind of wish that it were true. Or, at least, I wish that there were a specific term for people who assert that there is no God as opposed to people who lack belief in God or gods.

I'm tolerant and accepting just not when it comes to Christianity. Isn't really an argument but it pisses me off.

Heh, and here's another one that gets under my skin:

"Atheism is faith. It's faith that there is NO god."

Whether we like it or not, atheism can currently mean either an active belief that there is no God, or it can mean simply a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Personally, I would love it if we didn't use the same word to refer to both these belief systems, since there are worlds of difference between them. But we can't always get what we want.

So, really, the "atheism is faith" thing annoys me for two reasons:

1) It's not true, and is thus automatically irritating
2) I kind of wish that it were true. Or, at least, I wish that there were a specific term for people who assert that there is no God as opposed to people who lack belief in God or gods.

Heheh I love it, I love the way you are saying that weak Atheisim is not a belife system, while Strong Atheisim is, and then say:

'I would love it if we didn't use the same word to refer to both these belief systems'

Heh pure class, cheers Bottle!;)

As to what Atheism is or isn't. I would say that anybody that argued that God did not exist does so from a POV of having made their mind up on that subject. As we all know we cannot prove ether way, and so anybody that says emphaticly that God is not, does so out of belief.

The real reason though that a lot of Atheists do not like to be told that they have a system of belief, is because if they admited that they did, then they could not use the old irrational belife line, with much force anymore.

Heheh I love it, I love the way you are saying that weak Atheisim is not a belife system, while Strong Atheisim is, and then say:

'I would love it if we didn't use the same word to refer to both these belief systems'

Heh pure class, cheers Bottle!;)

Um...huh?

"Faith" =/= "belief system."

Try reading my post again.


The real reason though that a lot of Atheists do not like to be told that they have a system of belief, is because if they admited that they did, then they could not use the old irrational belife line, with much force anymore.
Again, "faith" =/= "belief system."

You've stumbled upon another of the arguments that gets under my skin! Congrats :D.

Generally arguments are grounded in religious dogma get on my nerves.

I think it was in the 'Are Jews a Nation?' thread and some wrote that Israel was given to Jews by god and people would just have to get used to.

I kinda feel weird to admit this, but I felt a level of anger surge through body and a look of disdain form on my face even though no one was around to see... just a completely automatic reaction. c.c

im a big supporter of israel but you are right, that is a wicked stupid argument. how often has territory changed hands over the last 4000 years? could any other people make a claim that because their purported ancestors lived in a place 2000 years ago, they get to have it today?

Um...huh?

"Faith" =/= "belief system."

Try reading my post again.

Heh hey chill, I's a playin'



Again, "faith" =/= "belief system."

You've stumbled upon another of the arguments that gets under my skin! Congrats :D.

Maaa pleasure!

Do you say then that faith is not a belief system? Or what exactly do you mean by this: "Faith" =/= "belief system." ?

Heh hey chill, I's a playin'

Oh, and there's another one of the things that gets under my skin...though not technically an argument, I find it annoying when people say "chill out" or "calm down" when you actually aren't remotely worked up. I guess it's supposed to make you look emotional (and therefore weaken your position). *shrug*


Maaa pleasure!

Do you say then that faith is not a belief system? Or what exactly do you mean by this: "Faith" =/= "belief system." ?
The =/= sign means, "Does not equate to" or "does not equal."

I hate being on the same side of an argument as nincompoops. A good example of that is global warming.

Here I am trying to rationally(which is hard enough for me) explain my misgivings about entrusting future climate to a bunch of environmental scientists who have proven time and again that they don't know as much as they think they do and that I think I need a bit convincing before I put the fate of mankind in their hands, only to have some dipshit go, "OMG! It was really cold in February! So much for global warming! ROFLMAO!"

:rolleyes:

the global warming debate has nincompoops on both sides.

"ohmygod there was a really big snow storm, its global climate change!"

Oh, and there's another one of the things that gets under my skin...though not technically an argument, I find it annoying when people say "chill out" or "calm down" when you actually aren't remotely worked up. I guess it's supposed to make you look emotional (and therefore weaken your position). *shrug*

Chill out, babe. Don't get that pretty little face so worked up about the talk of the big men.

*Flees*

Chill out, babe. Don't get that pretty little face so worked up about the talk of the big men.

*Flees*
Hehe, quality.

Oh, and there's another one of the things that gets under my skin...though not technically an argument, I find it annoying when people say "chill out" or "calm down" when you actually aren't remotely worked up. I guess it's supposed to make you look emotional (and therefore weaken your position). *shrug*


heheh naaa not at all, as we all know you can't get tone or facial expressions here, so we can only go by the words used, and the context to try to judge mood. On many occasions we get this wrong, and so when I read:

'Try reading my post again.'

I got the feeling that you were a little anoyed, and thus my responce.


The =/= sign means, "Does not equate to" or "does not equal."

That is what I thought, so you say that faith is not remotley the same as belife system? Wow care to expalin why?

The argument that "you're evil" is pretty stupid as well.

You're evil because you're an atheist
You're evil because you support abortion
You're evil because you're an American
You're evil because <fill in the fucking blank>

"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" It was a silly pun to begin with and hardly an argument.

The argument over which argument gets under your skin the most really, really grinds my gears. :p

The argument over which argument gets under your skin the most really, really grinds my gears. :p

Bwhahahah! Umm no it doesn't!:rolleyes:

The "it doesn't hurt anyone else" argument used to defend something that obviously does hurt somebody else, like smoking while pregnant or drunk driving. I'm sorry, but drunk driving has killed many sober people (who are either ran over by a drunk driver or are killed in a car crash involving a drunk driver) and whatever a woman does to her body during pregnancy DOES affect someone. Unless that smoker plans on an abortian or stillbirth, she's going to birth one fucked up baby.

"Why do it today when you can put it off until tommorrow". What is today but yesterday's tomorrow?

faith-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
-dictionary.com

I hate it when people say that atheism doesn't require faith. I'm sorry, but Webster disagrees. Atheists believe that there is no god. It's not agnotism or whatever it is. It's a belief that there is no god. When you believe something without any proof, that's faith. Sure, God isn't proven. God isn't disproven either. I believe that there is NO invisible unicorn. That requires a bit of faith. I believe in God, but I don't believe in Zues or the invisible unicorn or some floating pasta beast.

The old "No Xs are Ys because there are Ys that aren't Xs" argument. Birds and sparrows. Birds and sparrows. An eagle is a bird. An eagle is not a sparrow. Yet a sparrow is a bird. There. I disproved the argument that if something in group B is not in group A, that nothing in group A could possibly be in group B.

"I love Chávez because he insults Bush, and I am a socialist, thus everything he does must be right"

"I hate Chávez because he insults Bush, and I a conservative, thus everything he does must be wrong"

And any variations of those. It is really annoying when foreign people that has no grasp of the situation of your country emits opinions based on ideology and some comments of the Head of the State about another Head of the State. It is pretty annoying. As some has seen, it makes me take my hammer and enter a rage.

Actually, Mike Godwin said "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

I was aware. Of course, that's not the only thing he ever said.

I hate it when people say that atheism doesn't require faith. I'm sorry, but Webster disagrees. Atheists believe that there is no god.

*buzzer*

I wonder exactly how you found out 'what I believe'. I'm in Webster, am I?

Actually, no, let's go a different route. How do you know you aren't gonna spontaneously float into the sky in....5 minutes? Hmm? Gravity? I'd like to see you prove gravity will still be working then. Really (excepting mathmatics) most anything you 'believe' is based on 'faith'. So, sure, going with that sort of definition, Atheism "requires faith".

I hate it when people say that atheism doesn't require faith. I'm sorry, but Webster disagrees. Atheists believe that there is no god. It's not agnotism or whatever it is. It's a belief that there is no god. When you believe something without any proof, that's faith. Sure, God isn't proven. God isn't disproven either. I believe that there is NO invisible unicorn. That requires a bit of faith. I believe in God, but I don't believe in Zues or the invisible unicorn or some floating pasta beast.

Stating "I believe there is no God" is about as accurate as stating "I believe in gravity".

Come to think of it, though, there's about as much evidence for one as there is for the other. Gravity is based on a set of axioms (mainly that the universe actually does operate the way we perceive it to) whereas God is based on a set of opinions.

"Why do it today when you can put it off until tommorrow". What is today but yesterday's tomorrow?


I've used that one before many tests in school. I keep using it, it doesn't turn out good.

I've used that one before many tests in school. I keep using it, it doesn't turn out good.

Same here. :(

*buzzer*

I wonder exactly how you found out 'what I believe'. I'm in Webster, am I?

Actually, no, let's go a different route. How do you know you aren't gonna spontaneously float into the sky in....5 minutes? Hmm? Gravity? I'd like to see you prove gravity will still be working then. Really (excepting mathmatics) most anything you 'believe' is based on 'faith'. So, sure, going with that sort of definition, Atheism "requires faith".
Yeah, that's really what I was getting at. Words like "faith" and "believe" get stretched so far that they lose all meaning. Words like "atheist" can have multiple meanings which are ridiculously far from one another. It kind of defeats the point of having words, if you can't communicate effectively with them.

That's why we say the Nazi's did the holocaust, instead of the Germans. Not all German people partook in that act, so to say that Germans as a whole are responsible is rather ludicrous. So why would we try the same thing with other groups?

Really?

This is something that has always intrigued me. People are always quick to make apologies for the actions of their ancestors. I used to be that way. Then I realized, wait, if it wasn't my actions, why should I apologize for my great-grandfather's ownership of slaves? He wouldn't have felt apologetic about it, so I sure as heck don't need to be. Times change, people change, social norms change.

Now when people say "the Nazis did Holocaust" but not the German people, I have to ask:

1) Were the Nazis not Germans? Is that not like saying Southern slave-owners were not Southerners?
2) Nazi soldiers may have done the actual killing in the Holocaust. That is true, though the German people at the time were implicit in the Holocaust. Who reported Jewish citizens to the Gestapo? Who profited from the departure of Jewish businessmen? Who allowed the Holocaust to occur without, in large part, protest? Granted, there were those citizens who worked and gave their lives toward fighting the Nazi machine. I do not mean to belittle their contribution and say that all Germans were at fault. I do mean to suggest that for an atrocity as the Holocaust to occur, average German citizens were necessarily implicit in the injustices.

But maybe that was your point. Regardless, the point has been made and I recognize this is a subject for a separate thread.

Logic disconnects, like this one:

All pro-Palestinian arguments. Very few of them are well articulated and most rely on things other than facts.


...so even the few well-articulated pro-Palestinian arguments that rely on facts gets under your skin? Nice.

Really?

This is something that has always intrigued me. People are always quick to make apologies for the actions of their ancestors. I used to be that way. Then I realized, wait, if it wasn't my actions, why should I apologize for my great-grandfather's ownership of slaves? He wouldn't have felt apologetic about it, so I sure as heck don't need to be. Times change, people change, social norms change.

Now when people say "the Nazis did Holocaust" but not the German people, I have to ask:

1) Were the Nazis not Germans? Is that not like saying Southern slave-owners were not Southerners?
2) Nazi soldiers may have done the actual killing in the Holocaust. That is true, though the German people at the time were implicit in the Holocaust. Who reported Jewish citizens to the Gestapo? Who profited from the departure of Jewish businessmen? Who allowed the Holocaust to occur without, in large part, protest? Granted, there were those citizens who worked and gave their lives toward fighting the Nazi machine. I do not mean to belittle their contribution and say that all Germans were at fault. I do mean to suggest that for an atrocity as the Holocaust to occur, average German citizens were necessarily implicit in the injustices.

But maybe that was your point. Regardless, the point has been made and I recognize this is a subject for a separate thread.

Thats an interesting point, I wonder how long a thing has to be in the past to make in non-offensive?

For example, I wonder if I went around the feilds of Flanders with my metal detector, to find and dig up stuff from the corpses of the first wolrd war, how many people would accuse me of being disrespectful and of grave robbing?

Against doing the same in the feilds of Colloden?

I am irritated the most by people who make arguments out of disbelief or patriotism. In otherwords Arguments not based on actual facts but on hopes and disregard of actual facts.

I am irritated the most by people who make arguments out of disbelief or patriotism. In otherwords Arguments not based on actual facts but on hopes and disregard of actual facts.

Man I definatley agree, I see not point to patrotism, it brings nowt but violence and disent, yet lots and I mean lots of people are effected by it. Including many, Atheists who would other wise deride your irrationality?

Makes no sense to me, but then heh I guess we are all differant huh!

Man I definatley agree, I see not point to patrotism, it brings nowt but violence and disent, yet lots and I mean lots of people are effected by it. Including many, Atheists who would other wise deride your irrationality?

Makes no sense to me, but then heh I guess we are all differant huh!

...All those spelling mistakes were on purpose right?

It was just that stray comma between 'many' and 'Atheists' that made me re-read, and then I noticed how drunk the post looked...

...All those spelling mistakes were on purpose right?

It was just that stray comma between 'many' and 'Atheists' that made me re-read, and then I noticed how drunk the post looked...

Naaa man I can't spell proper like. Dyslexic and all that. Ohh heh and it is Thursday(beer day) the daythat the management give us beer and nibbles after work, I have only had two, but like I say, I can't spell anyhoo!

I hate linguistic prescriptionism and its followers that argue for it with an undying passion.

Also, people who say that Christopher Paolini made real conlangs.:sniper:
They're not real conlangs! He singlehandedly managed to discredit all conlangers by claiming that those pieces of crap are conlangs!

Events on a recent thread got me wondering:

In all the debates and all the topics humans argue about, which specific argument annoys you the most?

Personally, the one that just really bugs me beyond reason is when people argue that believing in evolution means you believe "everything is random chance" and "there is no purpose to life." It combines complete ignorance of evolutionary theory with poorly-veiled bigotry against the non-superstitious.

Oh, and when people say that homosexuality "isn't natural." Sigh. How can anybody still be using that stupid line?!

My personal favorites are of the same argument type.

"It's Christian..."

"It's rational..."

"It's scientific..."

When folks assume their pet system is an absolute good and argue from that, it really gets my goat.

Naaa man I can't spell proper like. Dyslexic and all that. Ohh heh and it is Thursday(beer day) the daythat the management give us beer and nibbles after work, I have only had two, but like I say, I can't spell anyhoo!

Ah.

Wait, beer and nibbles? What sort of management is this?

My personal favorites are of the same argument type.

"It's Christian..."

"It's rational..."

"It's scientific..."

When folks assume their pet system is an absolute good and argue from that, it really gets my goat.

What I love is the ones who argue:

"I'm a doctor"
"I'm a lawyer"
"I'm a <fill in occupation blank>"

That doesn't bother me so much as the fact that the exact same ones will deny to the ends of the earth whatever your occupation is, and thus, everything you say is worthless, and their statements are minted from pure gold.

What I love is the ones who argue:

"I'm a doctor"
"I'm a lawyer"
"I'm a <fill in occupation blank>"

That doesn't bother me so much as the fact that the exact same ones will deny to the ends of the earth whatever your occupation is, and thus, everything you say is worthless, and their statements are minted from pure gold.

As a psychologist, I see your point. ;)

The most annoying thing is when someone wants to legalize something just because it is, or they want it to be, a "basic human right". This argument can more or less be applied to any debate. All rights are just human concepts, and not everyone necessarily agree with them; therefore using any definition of human rights as a basis for an argument is on the same level as using the Bible or other holy text.

Another: "You are a liberal/conservative/centrist/nazi/communist/whatever, and therefore all of your opinions are always wrong." If the person saying this is feeling particularly verbose, he might go on explaining why you must belong into said group, or why that group is wrong by default, completely ignoring the actual point you made.

Usually when conspiracy-theorists use the Iraq war as one of the reasons the US gov "faked" the 9/11 attacks. If so then they wouldn't have focused so much on the WMDs. Also, if they had the balls to fake 9/11 why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq?

What I love is the ones who argue:

"I'm a doctor"
"I'm a lawyer"
"I'm a <fill in occupation blank>"

That doesn't bother me so much as the fact that the exact same ones will deny to the ends of the earth whatever your occupation is, and thus, everything you say is worthless, and their statements are minted from pure gold.

Especially since, except in rare cases, there's little or no way to prove that the poster holds said position.

Especially since, except in rare cases, there's little or no way to prove that the poster holds said position.

i find that that is only a problem in newbies. over time you can tell who is telling the truth and who is lying

for example, i have no doubt that fass is a medical student. sure he could be a nurse pretending to be a doctor in training but he is definitely not an amateur in the medical field.

same with cat-tribes. if he isnt a lawyer, he is an excellent paralegal or legal secretary. for our purposes it doesnt much matter if he is "just" a legal secretary, his knowledge is expert enough.

others who have claimed to be lawyers in the past (im thinking of someone no longer here) are either flat out liars or such piss poor legal minds that they may as well not be a lawyer at all. for our purposes, it doesnt matter, their expertise is so poor that you cant rely on their claims.

or shall we say someone like yourself who claims to be a poet. i dont doubt that you are, but it hardly matters if you are lying out of your ass or not, nothing here depends on the truth of your claim.

i find that that is only a problem in newbies. over time you can tell who is telling the truth and who is lying

for example, i have no doubt that fass is a medical student. sure he could be a nurse pretending to be a doctor in training but he is definitely not an amateur in the medical field.

same with cat-tribes. if he isnt a lawyer, he is an excellent paralegal or legal secretary. for our purposes it doesnt much matter if he is "just" a legal secretary, his knowledge is expert enough.

others who have claimed to be lawyers in the past (im thinking of someone no longer here) are either flat out liars or such piss poor legal minds that they may as well not be a lawyer at all. for our purposes, it doesnt matter, their expertise is so poor that you cant rely on their claims.

or shall we say someone like yourself who claims to be a poet. i dont doubt that you are, but it hardly matters if you are lying out of your ass or not, nothing here depends on the truth of your claim.

Or like me, when I claim to be black!
Well...okay, there's photos to support that but...


I just didn't want to be left out...>_>

Or like me, when I claim to be black!
Well...okay, there's photos to support that but...


I just didn't want to be left out...>_>

I'm actually guilty of that. I did use "I'm an Indian" in the thread on the fate of Kashmir recently, an allegation unsupported by pics at the time.

And "I'm a Hindu" when discussing the original significance of the swastika before it was adopted as a symbol of hate.

What I love is the ones who argue:

"I'm a doctor"
"I'm a lawyer"
"I'm a <fill in occupation blank>"

That doesn't bother me so much as the fact that the exact same ones will deny to the ends of the earth whatever your occupation is, and thus, everything you say is worthless, and their statements are minted from pure gold.I work for a the United Parcel Service so I know damn well what I'm talking about when I say that this argument bothers me as well.

I'm actually guilty of that. I did use "I'm an Indian" in the thread on the fate of Kashmir recently, an allegation unsupported by pics at the time.

And "I'm a Hindu" when discussing the original significance of the swastika before it was adopted as a symbol of hate.

ya but really, who would claim to be indian if it werent true?
[/retribution]

"God says so."

Really? You've talked to him? No? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

OR

Really? You've talked to him? Yes? THEN GET THE HELL INTO THIS STRAIGHT JACKET!

Also when people saying something's offensive to a group when they're not part of that group. White people need to shut up about stuff being offensive to blacks, Christians should stop calling stuff anti-islam (Since it seems like all the times you hear about it they're WRONG!) and stuff like that.

Also I'm tired of hearing about "political correctness gone mad!" in like half of the threads on here. It's overused. "Please do not use faggot as a derogatory term" is not "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD!", but "Authorities change story 'three little pigs' to 'three little dogs' (see above about christians stop calling stuff anti-islam)" IS "political correctness gone mad". Not to mention stupid.

Also, most slippery slope arguments annoy me because of how insane they are. "You abort a baby with no brain? Then what's to stop you from aborting a baby because it has brown hair? ZOMG! Whar do u drew t3h linz!?!!??!"

Id say Most of them...

ya but really, who would claim to be indian if it werent true?
[/retribution]

I dunno. Possibly someone who snapped after his job got outsourced to India.

But then, who claims to be almost 50 if they're not :D (I'm just kidding!)

I dunno. Possibly someone who snapped after his job got outsourced to India.

But then, who claims to be almost 50 if they're not :D (I'm just kidding!)

hmmm there is that.

HEY! if i dont claim to be a vietnam vet, i probably really am almost 50. (which doesnt seem quite possible but thats what the calendar keeps telling me)

hmmm there is that.

HEY! if i dont claim to be a vietnam vet, i probably really am almost 50. (which doesnt seem quite possible but thats what the calendar keeps telling me)

S'ok, my grandma turned 79 a week ago. 50 isn't that old. Especially not these days.

Logic disconnects, like this one:



...so even the few well-articulated pro-Palestinian arguments that rely on facts gets under your skin? Nice.

Oh, that reminds me of another one. Pedants. ;)

Oh i get annoyed by lots of things, like:
-People who pick out every single spelling mistake in you post and point all of them out to you as a reason to entirely ignore any points you have made.
-The argument that goes "people on benifits are NOT just lazy". Yes, some arnt, yes often they are missing out on opertunities, on the other hand there are indeed people out there who are infact lazy, and are trying to milk the benifits system for all its worth.
-Pretty much any argument for gun ownership. I have never yet heard one i can agree with. I try not to go into the threads about gun ownership any more....
-People who suggest that do not understand the difference between believing global warming doesnt exist and believing that CO2 emmisions arnt the things causing it. This complete misunderstanding usually comes up with them producing many hundreds of facts and graphs showing that the temperatures are indeed rising. They are. I know. Thats not what im arguing against.
-People who say "You can proove anything with statistics and therefore no statistic you find has any relivance"
-People who believe that all statistics are right (see http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg)
-People who nit-pick a post due to that persons chice of words. Yes, they may have used the wrong word. They have now explained more clearly what they meant. Shut up and get over it and look at what their point was. (n.b. particularly virilant in good posts which arnt easy to reply to with any actual information)

Hmm, that is all.

S'ok, my grandma turned 79 a week ago. 50 isn't that old. Especially not these days.

old just isnt what it used to be. my father in law is 81 this year and works harder than most 40 year olds. he remodeled 2 houses last year.

Oh I get annoyed by lots of things, like:
-People who pick out every single spelling mistake in your post and point all of them out to you as a reason to entirely ignore any points you have made.
-The argument that goes "people on benifits are NOT just lazy". Yes, some aren't, yes often they are missing out on opportunities, on the other hand there are indeed people out there who are in fact lazy, and are trying to milk the benifits system for all its worth.
-Pretty much any argument for gun ownership. I have never yet heard one I can agree with. I try not to go into the threads about gun ownership any more....
-People who suggest that (? Something missing here) do not understand the difference between believing global warming doesnt exist and believing that CO2 emissions aren't the things causing it. This complete misunderstanding usually comes up with them producing many hundreds of facts and graphs showing that the temperatures are indeed rising. They are. I know. That's not what I'm arguing against.
-People who say "You can prove anything with statistics and therefore no statistic you find has any relivance"
-People who believe that all statistics are right (see http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg)
-People who nit-pick a post due to that person's choice of words. Yes, they may have used the wrong word. They have now explained more clearly what they meant. Shut up and get over it and look at what their point was. (n.b. particularly virilant(?) in good posts which arnt easy to reply to with any actual information).

Hmm, that is all.

:p Fixed. I will now proceed to disregard every point you just made! :p

The "it doesn't hurt anyone else" argument used to defend something that obviously does hurt somebody else, like smoking while pregnant or drunk driving. I'm sorry, but drunk driving has killed many sober people (who are either ran over by a drunk driver or are killed in a car crash involving a drunk driver)
It was the crashing that hurt people, not the driving.
I hate it when people say that atheism doesn't require faith. I'm sorry, but Webster disagrees.
I hate it when people cite definitions from Webster. Webster is one of the worst dictionaries ever written, and it has been ever since Noah Webster decided to be a one-man orthographic reform crew.

I also hate it when people insist that because I reject a particular opinion I must therefore hold the opposite opinion. No, most of the time I strongly doubt both positions. I'm a Pyrrhonian skeptic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism)- I doubt pretty much everything.

:p Fixed. I will now proceed to disregard every point you just made! :p

You know what? I am actually quite proud of myself for getting the spelling that correct....

I have another thing:
PEOPLE WHO TALK IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES!!!! This is an english forum. Just cause you understand it and i dont doesnt make you better than me. (note to the person who started and all those who continied a thread thats going atm)
Also l33t sp3ak. I havent the faintest idea what they are talking about. Yes its only ever rubbish that its used for but....

Logic disconnects, like this one:
...so even the few well-articulated pro-Palestinian arguments that rely on facts gets under your skin? Nice.

Well no they don't but thank you for correcting my little word errors.

Although most pro-Palestinian arguments are not well articulated and don't rely on facts.

Events on a recent thread got me wondering:

In all the debates and all the topics humans argue about, which specific argument annoys you the most?

Personally, the one that just really bugs me beyond reason is when people argue that believing in evolution means you believe "everything is random chance" and "there is no purpose to life." It combines complete ignorance of evolutionary theory with poorly-veiled bigotry against the non-superstitious.

Oh, and when people say that homosexuality "isn't natural." Sigh. How can anybody still be using that stupid line?!

Homosexuality is not very fair for straight people. While the gays go off and have joyous pleasure, me and the straights get to continue to keep the human race alive. What if everyone became gay? Even if we started to use women and cloning meathods we still could not truely keep the race going.

The arguements that annoy me the most are the ones that serve no use, specially ones that no one on either side will open their minds :)

I have another thing:
PEOPLE WHO TALK IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES!!!! This is an english forum. Just cause you understand it and i dont doesnt make you better than me. (note to the person who started and all those who continied a thread thats going atm)
Also l33t sp3ak. I havent the faintest idea what they are talking about. Yes its only ever rubbish that its used for but....

j00 c4n'7 5p347 133t, h4h4!

j00 c4n'7 5p34k 133t, h4h4!

And you apparently cant speak enlish properly.

I have another thing:
PEOPLE WHO TALK IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES!!!! This is an english forum. Just cause you understand it and i dont doesnt make you better than me. (note to the person who started and all those who continied a thread thats going atm)

even if it's in the same language as your nickname? :(

And you apparently cant speak enlish properly.

It is called leet you fool. It is how most programmers speak... well the ones I know.

1=l/i
3=e
7=t

All the alpebit you get from me.

And you apparently cant speak enlish properly.

Hey, I just realized, you forgot an apostrophe there... and a g.

It is called leet you fool. It is how most programmers speak... well the ones I know.

1=l/i
3=e
7=t

All the alpebit you get from me.

Lol, the fact that i read the previous post does show that i do indeed know that. Why can computers not take an imprint of your facial expression and tone of thought when posting? It would make life so much easier.

That one about claiming UV rays are harmful...

Pfft.. ultra-violet is one good solid letter from ultra-violent..

1337 ru135!!!

That one about claiming UV rays are harmful...

Pfft.. ultra-violet is one good solid letter from ultra-violent..


Lol, never noticed that before.

It is called leet you fool. It is how most programmers speak... well the ones I know.

I study Informatics. A large part of the curriculum is programming in one way or another, so I guess me and my classmates count as programmers. None of us type in leet, ever. Except ironically, when making fun of 13-year-old CS players who think they're "t3h l33t" ;)

Hey, I just realized, you forgot an apostrophe there... and a g.

I knew there was something wrong with the spelling, i just couldnt quite work out what. Give me a change, its a difficult country to spell and i've only lived there for 18 years!

I knew there was something wrong with the spelling, i just couldnt quite work out what. Give me a change, its a difficult country to spell and i've only lived there for 18 years!

Oh, do not fret my young one, lol. So, you have heard of l33t right? I usually only speak it to friends.

I study Informatics. A large part of the curriculum is programming in one way or another, so I guess me and my classmates count as programmers. None of us type in leet, ever. Except ironically, when making fun of 13-year-old CS players who think they're "t3h l33t" ;)

Yea, it is fun to do that. I used to play RuneScape so I got used to typing in l33t for a bit.

I knew there was something wrong with the spelling, i just couldnt quite work out what. Give me a change, its a difficult country to spell and i've only lived there for 18 years!

You mean you Scots don't speak English :D

Yea, it is fun to do that. I used to play RuneScape so I got used to typing in l33t for a bit.

GAH!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Runescape is the devil. I played it for about a week before finding 4dimensions (www.4dimensions.org)

You mean you Scots don't speak English :D

h311 n0, 101. Just kidding.

Yea, I played RuneScape for 4 years... for every year I played their costumer service went 25% furhter down the drain.

You mean you Scots don't speak English :D

Nay, they curse in U.S-ish and pray in Scotchlandish..

Nay, they curse in U.S-ish and pray in Scotchlandish..

P00n3d y0.

:p Fixed. I will now proceed to disregard every point you just made! :p

That wasn't 100% fixed, so I will disregard the disregarding.

It's benefit, not benifit ;)

Nay, they curse in U.S-ish and pray in Scotchlandish..

Never ever accuse me of talking in U.S-ish again. I may be forced to ... do something extreemly nasty which i cant think of right now to you.

That wasn't 100% fixed, so I will disregard the disregarding.

It's benefit, not benifit ;)

Vowels are uniportant. No-one really knows what to do with them. We should go like the arabic and simply remove the lot of them.

Never ever accuse me of talking in U.S-ish again. I may be forced to ... do something extreemly nasty which i cant think of right now to you.

You could post some more pictures.
:p

You could post some more pictures.
:p

You are going to get a metaphorical spanking for that. Or a physical one if i could stretch my arm a bit further.

You are going to get a metaphorical spanking for that. Or a physical one if i could stretch my arm a bit further.

Sounds fun. ;)

You are going to get a metaphorical spanking for that. Or a physical one if i could stretch my arm a bit further.

Could we get a spanking and more pictures? *sad puppy eyes*

racism gets me angry more than anything as you know bottle...there is good and bad in all people regardless on the colour of their skin...

and religion makes me laugh...im not an extreme philosopher but you cant deny evolution...on of my ex's parents were strict mormons and I really had to bite my tongue when I was round their house...whenever we got onto religion I was like...'But what about dinosaurs' and the father...a doctor and a very intelligent man was like...'God put the bones in the ground' absolutelyuneffingbelievable...so what your saying? that godzilla was walking round with adam and eve?? Hardly my version of the garden of eden haha!!

racism gets me angry more than anything as you know bottle...there is good and bad in all people regardless on the colour of their skin...

and religion makes me laugh...im not an extreme philosopher but you cant deny evolution...on of my ex's parents were strict mormons and I really had to bite my tongue when I was round their house...whenever we got onto religion I was like...'But what about dinosaurs' and the father...a doctor and a very intelligent man was like...'God put the bones in the ground' absolutelyuneffingbelievable...so what your saying? that godzilla was walking round with adam and eve?? Hardly my version of the garden of eden haha!!

I refer you to our recent thread on Creationism. It should still be on NSG page 1 or 2. I think you'll get much enjoyment from it.

I refer you to our recent thread on Creationism. It should still be on NSG page 1 or 2. I think you'll get much enjoyment from it.

thanks deus ill check it out...im always game for a laugh...will try to bite my tongue though...dont want to upset the cultia...I mean christians ;-)

thanks deus ill check it out...im always game for a laugh...will try to bite my tongue though...dont want to upset the cultia...I mean christians ;-)

Heh heh. Welcome back to NSG.

Heh heh. Welcome back to NSG.

thankyou kindly ;-)

I've just been reading it and my eyes glazed over...its 3am here and I cant be arsed putting my two quid in today so im gonna leave it till im more fresh of mind ;)

thankyou kindly ;-)

I've just been reading it and my eyes glazed over...its 3am here and I cant be arsed putting my two quid in today so im gonna leave it till im more fresh of mind ;)

It is, as I recall, roughly 50 pages long. I don't think I, at my age, after a fresh cup of hot coffee, could make it through that and make sense of it in a single go.

h311 n0, 101. Just kidding.

Yea, I played RuneScape for 4 years... for every year I played their costumer service went 25% furhter down the drain.

Oooh. Well, keeping people in chainmail and in velvet capes must have been a pain....

*rants*

so this afternoon my kids and I hit the park, while I am reading and "watching" my kids they make new friends, play, share, help the younger kids climb up to the slide, and mediate 3 arguments.....and the mom next to me says "wow, your kids are awesome!" and I say "thanks" and she says "what school do they go to?" and I say "I homeschool" and she says "I would never do that" and I ask "why?" and she says........

"because homeschool kids have shitty social skills"

:mad:

why do people do that? every freaking time someone finds out I homeschool they say "what about socialization?" and "aren't you worried they will be socially challenged?" that annoys me to no end.

first, my kids are obviously socially adept, they are polite and respectful and make friends easily and can carry on intelligent conversation with people of any age, in fact they are more socially adept than 90% of the adults I interact with every day. (NS included)

second, nobody, (okay one person, but nearly nobody) ever questions the education quality.....they all want to know about the socialization like it freaking matters more than what the kids are learning? isn't education supposed to be about education?

and what's up with people thinking that to be "properly socialized" that you have to sit in a room with 20 people the same age as you and don't talk...is that really the case anywhere else in the world?! no. I mean do you work with everyone the same age as you? do you go to college with everyone the same age as you? do you have to volunteer in the community with everyone the same age as you? whatever. :mad:

[/rant]

*yes this is on topic because it's the argument that gets under my skin most

It is, as I recall, roughly 50 pages long. I don't think I, at my age, after a fresh cup of hot coffee, could make it through that and make sense of it in a single go.

ah but its like a roast bird...you just pick out the best bits and leave the giblets alone...selective reading...thats what got me into trouble on this site in the first place deus ;)

-long as hell but mostly true rant-

I agree. I know a few kids who are homeschooled (by kids I of course mean fellow college students <.< >.>) and I can honestly say that if anything, they're more socially developed than many public schooled kids I know.

ah but its like a roast bird...you just pick out the best bits and leave the giblets alone...selective reading...thats what got me into trouble on this site in the first place deus ;)

Ah, I see. It all makes sense now.

Ah, I see. It all makes sense now.

Im opinionated...arrogant...self obsessed...and have a tongue that would slice you in two faster than a paper shredder...but I like you deus...you're the first of my n00b friends...welcome to my world :cool:

Personally, the one that just really bugs me beyond reason.........
Personally, I would never have believed that anything could bug you "beyond reason"!! :eek:

It combines complete ignorance of evolutionary theory with poorly-veiled bigotry against the non-superstitious.
Unlike your unbridled lust of bigotry towards those who choose to believe in a God of their choice???? :p

I'm not saying I disagree with you Smunk only providing the other point of view for the hell of it (I like to argue)

*rants*
"because homeschool kids have shitty social skills"

why do people do that? every freaking time someone finds out I homeschool they say "what about socialization?" and "aren't you worried they will be socially challenged?" that annoys me to no end.

Because if they only interact with each other and you then they won't be exposed to a large amount of views and social conventions of other kids.
Example: I went to a private Jewish school for 9 years and it caused me to think that people (Jews in particular) were more religious than they really were like I thought most people celebrated holidays like Sukkot and Shavuot even though most Jews have never HEARD of these holidays let alone celebrated them.



first, my kids are obviously socially adept, they are polite and respectful and make friends easily and can carry on intelligent conversation with people of any age, in fact they are more socially adept than 90% of the adults I interact with every day. (NS included)

Remember they are only 3. The older you go the more stratified social hierarchy becomes and the harder it is to fit into it. So at 3 they are social butterflies at 16 they are computer geeks who have no social skills (not neccesarily likely but possible).


second, nobody, (okay one person, but nearly nobody) ever questions the education quality.....they all want to know about the socialization like it freaking matters more than what the kids are learning? isn't education supposed to be about education?

There is more to school than education. You're first prolonged social interactions and friendships with those outside your family come from school meaning that you learn about the social aspects of society also.

Also most of the people who criticize you think about the stereotype of homeschool kids, namely smart but socially awkward. So they assume that the education in terms of learning is fine but the social education is lacking.

and what's up with people thinking that to be "properly socialized" that you have to sit in a room with 20 people the same age as you and don't talk...is that really the case anywhere else in the world?! no. I mean do you work with everyone the same age as you? do you go to college with everyone the same age as you? do you have to volunteer in the community with everyone the same age as you? whatever. :mad: [/QUOTE]

Yes grades are arbitrary dividing lines, I'm friends with as many sophmores and freshman as I am with juniors (I'm a junior) but you're forgetting times like Lunch, Recess, and when they get older Passing Periods where you talk for prolonged periods of time and meet a lot of new people with tons of social interactions. So your argument there doesn't really hold up.

Now remember I'm not by any means wedded to these arguments and I don't really care either way about your decision.

I'm not saying I disagree with you Smunk only providing the other point of view for the hell of it (I like to argue)
;)



Because if they only interact with each other and you then they won't be exposed to a large amount of views and social conventions of other kids.
they interact with a lot of people besides myself and each other.



Remember they are only 3. The older you go the more stratified social hierarchy becomes and the harder it is to fit into it. So at 3 they are social butterflies at 16 they are computer geeks who have no social skills (not neccesarily likely but possible).
you don't have to "fit in" to be successful in life, even if you did, they can adapt to whatever situation they need to now, I don't see them getting any worse at it.



There is more to school than education. You're first prolonged social interactions and friendships with those outside your family come from school meaning that you learn about the social aspects of society also.
they have friends outside of the family, they are learning about the world every day that they are in it. do you honestly think that I chain them to the kitchen table or something?

Also most of the people who criticize you think about the stereotype of homeschool kids, namely smart but socially awkward. So they assume that the education in terms of learning is fine but the social education is lacking.
the only homeschool kids I know that are like that are autistic.



Yes grades are arbitrary dividing lines, I'm friends with as many sophmores and freshman as I am with juniors (I'm a junior) but you're forgetting times like Lunch, Recess, and when they get older Passing Periods where you talk for prolonged periods of time and meet a lot of new people with tons of social interactions. So your argument there doesn't really hold up.
I went to school, recess wasn't a "prolonged time of talking", we weren't allowed to talk at lunch until high school and by then everyone was fractioned off into their "group", and I don't know about you, but during my 5 minute passing period I was trying to get cross campus.

Oh i get annoyed by lots of things, like:
-People who pick out every single spelling mistake in you post and point all of them out to you as a reason to entirely ignore any points you have made.
And if they pick out your mistakes and respond to your points?
*snip*[quote]
Oy, you're a particularly virulent one, aren't you?
[QUOTE=Indoslavokia;12607618]h311 n0, 101. Just kidding.

Yea, I played RuneScape for 4 years... for every year I played their costumer service went 25% furhter down the drain.

Wait, is that like...cummulative? Or is it like, 75%, 56%, 42% 32%?

i would have to say the one that says everything that doesn't kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper has to be the big bad boogie man is the most annoying because it is so often so ignorantly swallowed hook, line and sinker.

there's another one that says that tecnology could never have advanced without warfare. if that be the case holmes, riddle me this; why then was the automobile invented before mechanized armour? and for that matter, the railway a good bit before that?

but really the one that buggs me most is the pretense that everything that doesn't kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper has to have something to do with marxism and "of course" that makes it the big bad boogie man.
or that without little green pieces of paper we'd all have guns pointed at our head and told to do things that are onerous and tedius to us.

in case anyone hasn't noticed, we all have guns pointed at our heads and are being told to do things that are onerous and tedius to us NOW, WITH little green pieces of paper and all the rest of it.

or that competition is supposed to make our lives free-er and everything that is mass produced both cheeper and of higher quality.

oh really? anyone actualy checked that one out lately for real?

compared to some arbitrary mythical marxist state perhapse. by why the hell the hangup with that when it hasn't had any real teath for thirty years. if it did, we'd still be hearing the russians are comming the russians are comming, instead of the damd right wing mafia having had to invent 'terrorism' to scare us into refusing to use our god given brains.

and speaking of god and spirituality, the demonizing of everything that doesn't kiss the ass of little green pieces of paper, is the exact antithisis of any kind of spirituality i've ever experienced.

but then too i suppose, are the pretentions of most fallowers misperceptions of the organized beliefs they subscribe to.

=^^=
.../\...

"You're wrong! God said so!"