NationStates Jolt Archive

Here are 5 arguments I hate, I was going to do 10, but that list was too long and would get too many tl;dr posts which this will get but hopefully not on the same scale.

5.) The "smug global warming denialist's" argument

Usually carried out by a smug big-l Libertarian or American conservative. This person talks in a condescending tone concerning the theory of global warming, shrugging it off as they refer to "global cooling" (which never had any significant scientific consensus or support) or the "warming on Mars" (which is attributed for different reasons). Missing major facts or ignoring any posts that may go into detail about the molecular structure of CO2 and why it's a greenhouse gas and why this results in global warming are completely ignored.

Another favorite part of this argument is the "well, it was pretty damn cold today where I live." Of course the part in global warming has no effect. Any explanations trying to explain that this phenomenon refers to global average temperature change are promptly ignored so the smug poster can continue rambling on in a self-satisfied circle jerk.

4.) The "War on Christmas/Destruction of Christianity" argument

I'm sure you've heard this. And I'm sure it makes your head hurt like hell.

It goes a little like this:

Person A: Gay marriage has been legalized in Massachusetts. Yay for gays!
Person B: WHAT???!!!?? LIBERALS ARE DESTROYING CHRISTIANITY AND RAPING CHRISTIANS!!!

Person A: Happy holidays.
Person B: WHAT???!!!?? LIBERALS ARE DESTROYING CHRISTIANITY AND HATE CHRISTMAS BECAUSE THEY WANT ISLAMIC THEOCRACY OR ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM!!!

Person A: "Under god" probably shouldn't be in the pledge.
Person B: WHAT???!!!?? LIBERALS WANT TO TURN THIS COUNTRY INTO A VALUE-LESS ATHEIST THEOCRACY.

The problem of course with this argument is that the existence of gay marriage doesn't affect the existence of Christianity as they are two separate entities. Christians aren't going to be suddenly lured into becoming gays by the prospect of gay marriage. Not to mention the fact that there are gay Christians:eek: and other Christians who think there's nothing wrong with gay rights:eek:

Nor does the fact that saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" really have any effect on the fact that 75% of this nation is Christian or the fact that Christmas is celebrated by secularists as well. Or the fact that Christmas is a highly commercialized holiday that results in economic benefits...nah, you're right, there's a WAR on Christmas. Fuck off.

3.) The "Cuba is great" argument

For a long period in my life, I always thought that Cuba wasn't really a great place to live, especially if you're interested in freedom. But apparently some folks like to envision Castro's dictatorship as sort of paradise. Oh yes, Cuba has nationalized health care -- great! Never mind their miserably low rankings when it comes to human rights and free speech.

Here's free speech as described by the Cuban constitution:

"Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society. The law regulated the exercise of those freedoms."

"None of the freedoms which are recognized for citizens can be exercised contrary to what is established in the Constitution and by law, or contrary to the existence and objectives of the socialist state, or contrary to the decision of the Cuban people to build socialism and communism. Violations of this principle can be punished by law."

Don't expect any of that freedom if you don't like socialism or communism, or more appropriately, the state.

And how about Human Rights Watch: Cuba (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm).

Gah, I'm so sick of people sucking Castro's dick.

2.) The "jealousy" argument

I'm sure if you've spent any time on any forum with reasonable political discussion you've heard this argument before. But if you haven't this is what it boils down to:

"Terrorists hate America because they're jealous of our freedom."
"Europeans hate America because they're jealous of our power/freedom/military/etc."

Oh yes, I'm sure that's exactly why terrorists really hate the US. Not our stance that Israel probably shouldn't be wiped off the map or any type of interference in Middle Eastern politics -- nope, they just want our freedom. After the 9/11 attacks, the Twin Towers leaked freedom which terrorists cells in NYC promptly picked up and brought back to their home country!

I'm also CERTAIN that non-Americans hate America because you know we're just better than you. None this misinformed hate has to stem from the perceived arrogance of Americans or our government's clumsy foreign policy. No, Europeans just are in awe of our amazing technological feats, our dominance in the Olympics, and all the extra freedom we have over them. Like the right to treat gays like shit.

1.) The "my country invented more than yours" argument

Also called the national dick-waving argument. This usually comes about when an American decides to post all the great technological achievements and great inventors from America after some serious America-bashing by some non-American. The non-Americans, then, in turn decide that America hasn't really invented anything and point to some insignificant, irrelevant invention that predates the American version by several days. Or the fact that said American inventor immigrated to America (immigrants don't count as American citizens).

This argument is amusing because I fail to see how the number of inventions/inventors your country produced really correlates with its greatness. It was the individuals who invented this; not a national entity most of the time, am I right?

Honorable Mentions:

"Political correctness is rampant"
"Racism is rampant"
"Liberal-controlled media"
"Conspiracy theory"

I'm with you on those. Also:

-Any forum argument beginning with "All men are..." or "All women are..."

-"If you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from killing people?"

-"Non-privatized health care = COMMUNISM"

"godwin!"

I particularly hate the anti-gay-marriage arguments... Especially the appeal to "protect marriage", under some absurd notion that if two men can get married and spend the rest of their lives together engaging in what-ever sexual activities they would like; somehow is a danger to the relationship between me and my wife.

Some others that came to mind:

Evolution is a religion
Special rights
Americans are dumb because they only speak 1 language

"If you disagree with us, you hate us."

"9/11 gave us the right to rape, murder and kill countries, after which we call it 'liberating'"

"Gays harm society"

"There is no freedom NOT to believe in a god, just to choose how you do."

"Evolution is 'just a theory'".

The argument that being irreligious causes people to lack morality, and that some how because we don't pander to some invisible man in the sky and his wanking fan club that we're inevitably hellbound because we don't structure every element of our lives and have the audacity to believe something other than the word according to some dated doctrine that we find to be complete and utter bunk.

The argument against homosexuality by linking it to paedophillia. Drives me fucken mad.

I'd like you to expand on the "racism is rampant" line of argument if you'd be so kind

Along with the "smug global warming denialist," I would put the "smug global warming supporter." The fact is, neither side has been proven; there still remains to be debate on the issue. Either side claiming that opposers are idiots for supporting their position is arrogant and ignorant. For example, there is often some petition or whatever of scientists worldwide signing that global warming is real and a problem. There also happens to be a response petition or whatever of equally reputable scientists saying that the issue is being blown way out of proportion and global warming is not such an problem.
I have not investigated enough into both sides to make an informed decision, so I am as of yet neutral on global warming.

How could I forget the "mods are biased" argument??

The really amusing thing about this one, though, is that it comes from both sides of the political spectrum.

If any of you remember a poster by the name of The Red Arrow he essentially made the claim that the mods and this site were neoconservatives who were trying to control "the truth." Now that I think about it, he very well may have been a satire. I don't know.

And there was an example of a righty complaining about the left bias of mods, if you remember not so long ago: "Free speech or liberal circle jerk?"

Its hilarious and I find it especially satisfying when both of them eventually get zapped by the mods for breaking some rule in the said-poster's version of vigilante justice.

yeah the notion that without religion you are devoid of morals is the argument that I hate most in the world.

It really devalues humanity and is basically saying all our members would be out raping and murdering if it wasnt for their religion, surly doing good things only because of the fear that if they dont they will be burned for eternity in hell whilst really wanting to do evil things (which is the implication) is far more immoral than doing good deeds that are true from the heart. And then the people who are just doing good things because of orders get into "paradise" argh the whole notion is the most retarded thing ever!

Evolution is just a theory.
The Iraq war was a waste of money, therefore other wastes of money are justified.
If you criticize the Quran you're a bigot.
You hate poor people if you are libertarian.

I hate being lumped in the same bunch with Lenin, Stalin and co.

I'd like you to expand on the "racism is rampant" line of argument if you'd be so kind

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton bitching and moaning when they don't need to. But more along the lines on this forum when someone goes off on a tangent about how racist someone is, or what have you. It's the same line of thinking when people bitch and moan about how rampant political correctness is in this country when it really isn't.

You hate poor people if you are libertarian.

Libertarianism is an idealogy that would totally fuck poor people over if it was ever implemented. No idea how anyone could connect wanting to fuck poor people over with not liking them.

Libertarianism is an idealogy that would totally fuck poor people over if it was ever implemented. No idea how anyone could connect wanting to fuck poor people over with not liking them.

I think he wants us to replace "don't like" with "don't give a flying assfuck about".

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton bitching and moaning when they don't need to. But more along the lines on this forum when someone goes off on a tangent about how racist someone is, or what have you. It's the same line of thinking when people bitch and moan about how rampant political correctness is in this country when it really isn't.

So racism isn't widespread?

Along with the "smug global warming denialist," I would put the "smug global warming supporter." The fact is, neither side has been proven; there still remains to be debate on the issue. Either side claiming that opposers are idiots for supporting their position is arrogant and ignorant. For example, there is often some petition or whatever of scientists worldwide signing that global warming is real and a problem. There also happens to be a response petition or whatever of equally reputable scientists saying that the issue is being blown way out of proportion and global warming is not such an problem.
I have not investigated enough into both sides to make an informed decision, so I am as of yet neutral on global warming.

Yeah, there are smug global warming "supporters" (I don't think anyone actually supports global warming, though!) Usually some hippies who only care about the trees rather than hard scientific data.

But I think you're misinformed when you say neither side has been proven. As much as people will try to say otherwise, there is scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening, mostly due to anthropogenic causes.

I give the scientific community a lot more credibility as a layman than I would to some hack who ultimately doesn't want to implement environmental regulations.

Pascal's wager (be a good Christian, even if you think Christianity unlikely, because the cost if you are wrong is a few missed parties but the cost for the non-believer if he is wrong is eternal torture).

It just doesn't work. I've never met ANYONE not already a convinced Christian who thinks it works. Pascal was a bright man. He knew enough of the world to know that there were people who believed that being a Christian ITSELF would earn the displeasure of their god. What was he thinking.

So racism isn't widespread?

No, it really isn't.

Libertarianism is an idealogy that would totally fuck poor people over if it was ever implemented. No idea how anyone could connect wanting to fuck poor people over with not liking them.

On the contrary, I can say communism would fuck over ALL people if ever implemented. No idea how anyone could not connect wanting to fuck everyone over with communism.

It's a hack argument.

Also: in before arguments that I and many others hate begin flooding the thread.

How could I forget the "mods are biased" argument??

The really amusing thing about this one, though, is that it comes from both sides of the political spectrum.

If any of you remember a poster by the name of The Red Arrow he essentially made the claim that the mods and this site were neoconservatives who were trying to control "the truth." Now that I think about it, he very well may have been a satire. I don't know.

And there was an example of a righty complaining about the left bias of mods, if you remember not so long ago: "Free speech or liberal circle jerk?"

Its hilarious and I find it especially satisfying when both of them eventually get zapped by the mods for breaking some rule in the said-poster's version of vigilante justice.

You get a leftist-hack who had his pee-pee smacked will accuse the mods of being neo-conservative ultra-Bush supporting moral-majority types..... The rightist-hack who had his pee-pee smacked will accuse the mods of being hyper-leftist pinko commie fags....

On the contrary, I can say communism would fuck over ALL people if ever implemented. No idea how anyone could not connect wanting to fuck everyone over with communism.

It's a hack argument.

Also: in before arguments that I and many others hate begin flooding the thread.

Even assuming communism would function as you described, the words "FALSE DICHOTOMY" are BLARING in your post. The options aren't only "Tiny government that lets companies rape, murder, pillage and kill" and "BIG government that rapes, murders, pillages and kills".

Libertarianism is an idealogy that would totally fuck poor people over if it was ever implemented. No idea how anyone could connect wanting to fuck poor people over with not liking them.

Is there supposed to be an argument in here? Or are you one of those naive idiots who know nothing about economics and believe the trite going around about how "more rich people and big business makes the people at the bottom poorer"?

You get a leftist-hack who had his pee-pee smacked will accuse the mods of being neo-conservative ultra-Bush supporting moral-majority types..... The rightist-hack who had his pee-pee smacked will accuse the mods of being hyper-leftist pinko commie fags....

That's exactly how it goes; the mods must be pretty satisfied that they can be ultra neoconservatives hyper-leftist pinkos. That's quite a feat.

Is there supposed to be an argument in here? Or are you one of those naive idiots who know nothing about economics and believe the trite going around about how "more rich people and big business makes the people at the bottom poorer"?

And you're one of the morons who believes that just because it's "not a zero sum game!!!!" that somehow changes anything?

Is there supposed to be an argument in here? Or are you one of those naive idiots who know nothing about economics and believe the trite going around about how "more rich people and big business makes the people at the bottom poorer"?

The problem is not understanding economics.

The problems is equating libertarianism to not caring about the poor.

On the contrary, ideally, libertarianism is supposed HELP reduce poverty by reducing taxes and whatnot. Whether or not that happens doesn't affect the libertarian's belief because they DO believe it will help people just like a communist DOES believe communism will help people.

It's not like either the communist or libertarian secretly know the flaws of their system and are just waiting to fuck society over...

No, it really isn't.

Where do you live?

Where do you live?

America. Where public racism will make the rest of society hate you.

That's exactly how it goes; the mods must be pretty satisfied that they can be ultra neoconservatives hyper-leftist pinkos. That's quite a feat.

It's quite a feat to be a pinko-commie-fag and a authoritarian zionist neo-conservative at the same time... Either the ones with their pee-pee smacked are idiots, or the mods are quite limber in their capability to bend in two opposing directions simultaneously.

I was just using an example of the other extreme to demonstrate how silly the argument was.

Ah, okay, then, moving right along. :p

The problem is not understanding economics.

The problems is equating libertarianism to not caring about the poor.

On the contrary, ideally, libertarianism is supposed HELP reduce poverty by reducing taxes and whatnot. Whether or not that happens doesn't affect the libertarian's belief because they DO believe it will help people just like a communist DOES believe communism will help people.


Exactly! If I said that I think policy A would help poor people, and someone else said that policy A would harm poor people, he wouldn't then go on to say you hate poor people, unless he wanted to commit an enormous logical flaw.


It's not like either the communist or libertarian secretly know the flaws of their system and are just waiting to fuck society over...

Yeah, the more you think about that, the more absurd such a belief is.

Even assuming communism would function as you described, the words "FALSE DICHOTOMY" are BLARING in your post. The options aren't only "Tiny government that lets companies rape, murder, pillage and kill" and "BIG government that rapes, murders, pillages and kills".

I was just using an example of the other extreme to demonstrate how silly the argument was.

The problem is not understanding economics.

The problems is equating libertarianism to not caring about the poor.

On the contrary, ideally, libertarianism is supposed HELP reduce poverty by reducing taxes and whatnot. Whether or not that happens doesn't affect the libertarian's belief because they DO believe it will help people just like a communist DOES believe communism will help people.

It's not like either the communist or libertarian secretly know the flaws of their system and are just waiting to fuck society over...

Indeed, most libertarians in my own circles believe and exercise helping poor-people privately, either themselves or through private charities which offer such assistance to the poor... What they oppose is tax-funded government well-fare programs (as I do)....

Indeed, in my area this connects with the racism argument as well... Racism is rampant in Social Services in my area..... It's especially noticeable when a white guy working his ass off can't even get 1/2 the assistance as a black guy in a three-piece suit driving a brand new Mercedes can get... I don't trust a bureaucrat any further than I can throw them.

America. Where public racism will make the rest of society hate you.

Explicit public racism doesn't go down well... so racism can't be widespread?

Explicit public racism doesn't go down well... so racism can't be widespread?

Unless you start changing the definition of racism to include anything you want.

The problem is not understanding economics.

The problems is equating libertarianism to not caring about the poor.

On the contrary, ideally, libertarianism is supposed HELP reduce poverty by reducing taxes and whatnot. Whether or not that happens doesn't affect the libertarian's belief because they DO believe it will help people just like a communist DOES believe communism will help people.

It's not like either the communist or libertarian secretly know the flaws of their system and are just waiting to fuck society over...

I don't think libertarians honestly believe the poor will be better off. It's not that they see the flaw, just that they don't really care.

I don't think libertarians honestly believe the poor will be better off. It's not that they see the flaw, just that they don't really care.

I'm still waiting for some form of argument or evidence to explain why you think this is the case.

Unless you start changing the definition of racism to include anything you want.

I don't think it's changing the definition of racism to say that when it's proven that sending out job applications with an "ethnic name" yields far less responses than the same application with a "white name" that racism might exist regardless of the reaction to explicit public racism.

I dislike ANY type of argument. In my experience, people who are into debating tend to be smug, self-obssessed turdbags who have deluded themselves into believing that they have superior intellect and that they are doing society a service by spouting hot air. Ultimately, whoever is more aggressive and can shout louder will win, no matter the quality of the ideas in dispute.

God damn it, why do people hate libertarianism? What the hell is wrong with it?
If your gay and want to get married, go right ahead. I don't have the right to stop you.

I believe that Christianity is right, and all others will burn in hell. Should then Christianity be taught in all schools to save people from this fate? No, because I don't have the right to impose my morals on other people.

If you could get a job, but don't, you don't deserve welfare. If you truly are poor despite your efforts, then you do deserve welfare.

Hey, if you want to smoke crack, dope, meth, heroin, etc. go right ahead. Its your life and you are (presumably) able to make your own rational decisions.

And free-market economics, with government there to enforce property distinctions and resolves non-exclusive public goods failures (and thus some taxes are necessary), is the best sytem for max SOCIAL benefit. Guess what? Some people will get screwed, some won't, but the net benefit for SOCIETY will be better than any other system (Communism).

(Earlier, maybe in another post, someone mentioned that two people working for their own gain mutually exclude themselves from potential benefit. Thats true, and that situation is known as an oligopoly. But, hey, when they work against eachother, guess who comes out ahead? SOCIETY. If they worked together, it harms society, hence the anti-oligopoly laws in America)

I dislike ANY type of argument. In my experience, people who are into debating tend to be smug, self-obssessed turdbags who have deluded themselves into believing that they have superior intellect and that they are doing society a service by spouting hot air. Ultimately, whoever is more aggressive and can shout louder will win, no matter the quality of the ideas in dispute.

Oh the irony.

Annoying Arguments:

Religion is the root of all Evil-Religion is religion. Preachers make it what it is.

Money is the Root of all Evil-Depends on how you use your money.

Is America becoming a fascist state?-Give it a rest no country is perfect. Even the beacons of democracy such as Rome had their problems.

The argument against homosexuality by linking it to paedophillia. Drives me fucken mad.


I'm with you on that one, how can people relate the two?

Is America becoming a fascist state?-Give it a rest no country is perfect. Even the beacons of democracy such as Rome had their problems.

I'll agree with you on that this statement is annoying, because America really isn't anywhere close to moving towards fascism; there are problems yes, but none on the scale to warrant fascism. However, there's nothing wrong with people getting up in arms about more government intervention and control over private lives which is why many people pose this question.

.....It's especially noticeable when a white guy working his ass off can't even get 1/2 the assistance as a black guy in a three-piece suit driving a brand new Mercedes can get... I don't trust a bureaucrat any further than I can throw them.

You had me riiiight up until you said this. Please link to something that shows a Black man in a three-piece suit driving a new Benzo is getting a welfare check.

I don't think it's changing the definition of racism to say that when it's proven that sending out job applications with an "ethnic name" yields far less responses than the same application with a "white name" that racism might exist regardless of the reaction to explicit public racism.

Steven D. Leavitt's Frekonomics. I read that, too. Good book.

Oh the irony.

I'm guessing the irony is that I'm criticising the concept of debate on a forum apparently designed for people to debate political issues. Well, it certainly would be ironic, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm here purely for the mindless banter and spam threads :p

Plus, it is quite entertaining to watch people flame each other repeatedly, without any good being achieved of it :D

I'm guessing the irony is that I'm criticising the concept of debate on a forum apparently designed for people to debate political issues. Well, it certainly would be ironic, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm here purely for the mindless banter and spam threads :p


Nope, keep guessing.


Plus, it is quite entertaining to watch people flame each other repeatedly, without any good being achieved of it :D

Well it's still fun.

Practically every argument ever made on NationStates's General forum (or any other given political debate forum for that matter). These arguments, of course, are made by everyone except you (whoever you might happen to be.)

Some positions that aggravate Atma because they're obviously false:

"You should worship god even though there's zero evidence he exists!"
"I feel Hillary is against video games even though there's no evidence!"
"Bush is a wonderful president even though he started an illegal war and committed numerous impeachable offenses!"
"Gitmo should stay open even though it violates the constitution and geneva convention #3!"

Yes, I exaggerated it a little bit, only a little.

Some positions that aggravate Atma because they're obviously false:

"You should worship god even though there's zero evidence he exists!"
"I feel Hillary is against video games even though there's no evidence!"
"Bush is a wonderful president even though he started an illegal war and committed numerous impeachable offenses!"
"Gitmo should stay open even though it violates the constitution and geneva convention #3!"

Yes, I exaggerated it a little bit, only a little.

Hillary is an old cranky bitch who jumped on the anti-hot coffee bandwagon which is why many gamers hate her.

"I feel Hillary is against video games even though there's no evidence!"
.

Eh?

Nope, keep guessing.

Hmm...I'd have presumed that it was that I made a rather angry sounding post against the idea of people being too vociferous in argument. To clarify, I suppose its not argument itself which is the problem, rather that some people take it too seriously or try to force opinions down other people's throats and shout people down without them being given the chance to have a say. I think maybe I exaggerated my position a little in my previous post.

Indeed, in my area this connects with the racism argument as well... Racism is rampant in Social Services in my area..... It's especially noticeable when a white guy working his ass off can't even get 1/2 the assistance as a black guy in a three-piece suit driving a brand new Mercedes can get... I don't trust a bureaucrat any further than I can throw them.

I'd argue that what has been said here supports my argument. And the racism isn't on the the part of the social services.

Circular arguments.

"God exists because he wrote the bible and the bible is written by God because it says so and it is truthful because God wrote it and because he wrote it God exists..."

Ignorance-based arguments.

"Of COURSE evolution is wrong! When has a cow ever turned into a whale?"

Blatant intellectual dishonesty.

"A wrong answer is better than no answer at all!"


I could go on but most everything else is posted already.

You had me riiiight up until you said this. Please link to something that shows a Balck man in a three-piece suit driving a new Benzo is getting a welfare check.

Go hang around the Social Services office in Richmond, VA. for abit... You'll see some pretty wild stuff. The hassle you receive is based upon the color of your skin... If you're not black, they take their time to do anything for you what-so-ever... It's especially horrid in the non-federal aspects, like the Virginia EBT program.

I'd argue that what has been said here supports my argument. And the racism isn't on the the part of the social services.

It isn't? I call unequally providing benefits based on race, racism... You may feel racism is something else... And you're right, it's not precisely "Social Services" that are racists... It's primarily the employees of Richmond Social Services which are... Given that the same things do not happen in Henrico, Chesterfield or Hanover.

You remind me of the guidance director at my wife's school... Since she is presently in the course of being fired, and attempting to file suit under the argument that they are doing so because she is black.... Of course it's because she's black, it's not because she took unscheduled leave over the summer (Guidance is on an 11 month contract), nor because in doing so she shirked responsibility on her scheduling duties (causing close to half of the 6th grade students to come in on the first day of school WITHOUT A SCHEDULE OF CLASSES, which took a couple of weeks to clear up... All while delaying the capability of the entire 6th grade from actually beginning any instruction since no one knew what kids would be theirs and which weren't); nor of the fact that some students in higher grades were packed with 50 students (exceeding the 37 max classroom size) per classroom, while others had 10 or less.... It's nothing to do with any of that... It's because the school is "discriminating" against her because she's black... None of that helped the principle of the school however, who began the year running defense for her... The principle was fired into the second month of school... And now the laser sight has a clear beam upon the guidance director.

Even the beacons of democracy such as Rome had their problems.
I lol'd.

Rome was the empire which created the term fascism.

I lol'd.

Rome was the empire which created the term fascism.

'Res pvblica' for 17 points.

What I find annoying is the argument that being a theist causes people to lack rationality. And that some how because we believe in a god that we are automatically part of some 'wanking fan club' and also believe that everyone outside it is inevitably hellbound. It is also assumed that we structure every element of our lives according to some dated doctrine that we are supposed to believe in the most literal fashion possible.[/QUOTE]

"Racism is rampant"

It is....

I particularly hate the anti-gay-marriage arguments...

Fuck yeah. Those infuriate me too.

America. Where public racism will make the rest of society hate you.

Unless it's appreciably subtle, in which case many people will go to considerable lengths to defend it.

Actually, even the very explicit stuff has its practitioners and defenders, though thankfully they are somewhat marginalized in mainstream media and politics.

Unless you start changing the definition of racism to include anything you want.

Really? So unless someone openly and explicitly expresses racism ("I hate Blacks"), they can't be racist?

'Res pvblica' for 17 points.

Res pvblica = the State

Only one ideology glorifies the state as an entity, and that is fascism.

Rome even gave us the root of the word "fascism" with the fasces, which represented the state's power to inflict pain and death

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Fasces.png

*snip


Well, referring to your "happy holidays", I really do think people should say "merry Christmas" instead. Now I'm not even Christian, but I think all this wishy-washy "let's not offend people" is silly.

.

I've read like 10 of your posts but just from them I can tell you're the best poster on here by a quadromile. Congrats.

The "communism will work this time, the other 20 times they did it wrong, but ILL do it right!" argument.

I've read like 10 of your posts but just from them I can tell you're the best poster on here by a quadromile. Congrats.

Not even remotely. But I'm glad you think so. :)

Annoying Arguments:

Religion is the root of all Evil-Religion is religion. Preachers make it what it is.

Money is the Root of all Evil-Depends on how you use your money.

Is America becoming a fascist state?-Give it a rest no country is perfect. Even the beacons of democracy such as Rome had their problems.

Dont you mean athens greece? Rome was a bloody empire, or rather an empire founded in the blood of the conquered.

Go hang around the Social Services office in Richmond, VA. for abit... You'll see some pretty wild stuff. The hassle you receive is based upon the color of your skin... If you're not black, they take their time to do anything for you what-so-ever... It's especially horrid in the non-federal aspects, like the Virginia EBT program.

That may be, but it doesn't equate to a Black man in a Mercedes wearing a three-piece suit getting a welfare check.

I feel the need to set history straight here. You can insult my religion, my political beliefs, my morals, but god help you if you insult my favorite ancient civilization.

Athens had a brief experimentation with democracy in the mid-third century AD. This was after, of course, centuries of imperialistic practices like the Delian League. Athens' government of choice was an oligarchy, which it tossed in immediately after their few decades of democracy didn't work out.

Rome, on the other hand, establishes itself as a republic and grants far more stability than the Athenian democracy ever had. For the entirety of the Republic personal freedoms were guaranteed to an extent far greater than any ancient culture had, or would had until liberalism showed up. Even the transition to empire, which Rome was more forced to do than had fallen victim to bloodlust, brought Roman law and architectural advancements to the far corners of the empire. There wasn't any glorification of the state as we would see it today, but more of a sense of civic duty.

Fascism came from the name of Mussolini’s political party, which was Italian, not Roman. Forgive me, I like the Romans.

Regardless, any argument that drips with bias frustrates me. From the uber right wing's "Evolution is 'just a theory', just like ID" and "Homosexuality is a sin against morality" to the uber left wing's "God is a factless myth" and "Women in America suffer under the yolk of patriarchal oppression."

Even seeing a few of these arguments written in the way they were got me a little peeved. But I do it myself, on occasion. Oh, the hypocrisy.

Not even remotely. But I'm glad you think so. :)

Humility too :***)

I always hate the argument that anarcho-syndicalism = Marxism-Leninism, because its false and nothing I can do will convince people otherwise.

Annoying Arguments:

Religion is the root of all Evil-Religion is religion. Preachers make it what it is.

Money is the Root of all Evil-Depends on how you use your money.

Is America becoming a fascist state?-Give it a rest no country is perfect. Even the beacons of democracy such as Rome had their problems.

I feel the need to set history straight here. You can insult my religion, my political beliefs, my morals, but god help you if you insult my favorite ancient civilization.

Athens had a brief experimentation with democracy in the mid-third century AD. This was after, of course, centuries of imperialistic practices like the Delian League. Athens' government of choice was an oligarchy, which it tossed in immediately after their few decades of democracy didn't work out.

Rome, on the other hand, establishes itself as a republic and grants far more stability than the Athenian democracy ever had. For the entirety of the Republic personal freedoms were guaranteed to an extent far greater than any ancient culture had, or would had until liberalism showed up. Even the transition to empire, which Rome was more forced to do than had fallen victim to bloodlust, brought Roman law and architectural advancements to the far corners of the empire. There wasn't any glorification of the state as we would see it today, but more of a sense of civic duty.

Fascism came from the name of Mussolini’s political party, which was Italian, not Roman. Forgive me, I like the Romans.

Regardless, any argument that drips with bias frustrates me. From the uber right wing's "Evolution is 'just a theory', just like ID" and "Homosexuality is a sin against morality" to the uber left wing's "God is a factless myth" and "Women in America suffer under the yolk of patriarchal oppression."

Even seeing a few of these arguments written in the way they were got me a little peeved. But I do it myself, on occasion. Oh, the hypocrisy.

I was using what I said in context of the ancient world. And yes rome was free...for romans, no one else. Of coarse in athens only free males could vote, so nither of them were really all that free.

How could I forget the "mods are biased" argument??

The really amusing thing about this one, though, is that it comes from both sides of the political spectrum.

If any of you remember a poster by the name of The Red Arrow he essentially made the claim that the mods and this site were neoconservatives who were trying to control "the truth." Now that I think about it, he very well may have been a satire. I don't know.

And there was an example of a righty complaining about the left bias of mods, if you remember not so long ago: "Free speech or liberal circle jerk?"

Its hilarious and I find it especially satisfying when both of them eventually get zapped by the mods for breaking some rule in the said-poster's version of vigilante justice.

I don't hate that argument. I actually enjoy it. Makes me ROFL.

I get the best chuckles out of Mod bias claims.

For a couple reasons. One, because if I have some personal investment in the issue, I'll get a second opinion or leave it for another Mod, so any bias I have is unlikely to interfere.

And two, because IRL, I wouldn't care enough to do anything to people who say shit like what gets Moderated here. When someone makes a derogatory remark about Texans, I just laugh and find something better to listen to, because I generally don't mind enough to bother with it. Most of what I Moderate doesn't bother me personally, even when it's trolling directed at a group I'm in or flamebaiting me directly.

I don't hate that argument. I actually enjoy it. Makes me ROFL.

I get the best chuckles out of Mod bias claims.

For a couple reasons. One, because if I have some personal investment in the issue, I'll get a second opinion or leave it for another Mod, so any bias I have is unlikely to interfere.

And two, because IRL, I wouldn't care enough to do anything to people who say shit like what gets Moderated here. When someone makes a derogatory remark about Texans, I just laugh and find something better to listen to, because I generally don't mind enough to bother with it. Most of what I Moderate doesn't bother me personally, even when it's trolling directed at a group I'm in or flamebaiting me directly.

How do you do that?

How do you do that?

Mostly through the practical realization that my true self is not bound up in non-essential properties such as skin color, ideology, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. Basically, I know that I am not by myself solely any of those qualities. So any attack on those qualities is not an attack on me.

Oh, man, there are so many arguments I hate. Here are a few:

1) Neo-Cons/Liberals/Libertarians/ (insert any other political ideology of your choice) are a bunch of dumbasses/satan-worshipers/ evil people/ (insert any other insult of your choice). Inter-ideology fighting annoys me so much.

2) OH MY GOD, CHRISTIANS ARE OUT TO GET US!!!! They want to create a theocracy/start a holy war/topple the government/kill all atheists and eat their children. Way to go, unjustly demonize christianity like islam...

3) Communists are conspiring to take down the government! Suprisingly, I keep hearing this one despite the end of the cold war.

And there's that argument that the US is still an extremely racist country, that racism is rampant, that the US is actually a racially feudalist society. My Psychology textbook supports the view that everyone is a racist, and if you are not consiously racist, then you are subconsiously racist. Which annoys me quite alot.

And there are a lot more to.

Mostly through the practical realization that my true self is not bound up in non-essential properties such as skin color, ideology, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. Basically, I know that I am not by myself solely any of those qualities. So any attack on those qualities is not an attack on me.

Hmph. But how do you define yourself?

Hmph. But how do you define yourself?

It doesn't really matter. It's different for each person and sometimes different for people at various stages of life, and my approach is unlikely to be good for you.

So let's get back on topic, shall we?

Non sequitur arguments. Especially when they absolutely refuse to realize that their arguments are non sequitur. Arghghghghghg

The stupidest argument I have ever encountered was "What if Jesus was an alien? Well, since aliens, don't exist, then I guess that proves your whole 'Jesus' thing wrong, doesn't it?"

I just clicked the back button and never read a single post by that person ever again.

It doesn't really matter. It's different for each person and sometimes different for people at various stages of life, and my approach is unlikely to be good for you.

So let's get back on topic, shall we?

Oh. Ok.

Hmph. But how do you define yourself?
Musical taste, buh :p

Musical taste, buh :p

I do that sometimes.

"Well, that's just your opinion."

No, really? Oh, I thought I was channeling the thoughts and beliefs of some other person who possessed my brain. :rolleyes:

Oh, and also "[Group X] is wrong about [Issue Y] because they were wrong about [Issue Z] twenty years ago."

*coughglobalwarmingcough*

"Let's legalize X, X will happen anyway."

"Because the Bible says so."

I particularly hate the anti-gay-marriage arguments... Especially the appeal to "protect marriage", under some absurd notion that if two men can get married and spend the rest of their lives together engaging in what-ever sexual activities they would like; somehow is a danger to the relationship between me and my wife.
<offtopicrant>
I oppose using the term marriage where the term marriage doesn't belong!

Infact, I personally think that only various religions should be allowed to marry people and rest of the formal unions should be called civil unions.

Several reasons:
1. The term marriage means The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife which is patently outdated language which practically promotes differing roles and responsibilities in union between partners.
2. Marriage itself is an outdated concept with outdated traditions: What might fit into moral worldview of a couple in union might not fit into formal relationship called marriage.
3. We're united sounds so much better than we're married :D
</offtopicrant>

<ontopic>

I hate -isms and -ists when used in debate to discredit the opponent.

I hate the aggressive and excessive use of reductio ad strawman when a strawman wasn't infact even built :(

</ontopic>

Not sure if this counts, but I cringe whenever someone refers to a piece of evidence as "proof." A proof proves some statement to be universally true, and it is either correct or it isn't.

I hate arguments people make for not having sex with me. They're all pretty irrelevent to the issue. They're all like "blah blah blah" and I'm like "get naked now."