Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/24/12 07:19 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: This ain't the Bronze Age, dude. Homophobia is pretty archaic, I must say. In this day and age, you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking like that.

to be fair, homosexuality is kind of a new thing; the Romans and Greeks had no problem with the man on man fun, but that didn't mean they liked men.

...who put what in who was more important than who was what gender

At 1/24/12 07:27 PM, SolInvictus wrote: to be fair, homosexuality is kind of a new thing;

I'm pretty sure homosexuality has existed since beginning of humanity, if not the beginning of life on Earth. I figure it's probably older than humankind, considering it naturally occurs in animals.

the Romans and Greeks had no problem with the man on man fun, but that didn't mean they liked men.

hah. And from what I hear, most of them preferred tiny dongs, which is why many of those statues have little ones.

At 1/24/12 07:59 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 1/24/12 07:27 PM, SolInvictus wrote: to be fair, homosexuality is kind of a new thing;

I'm pretty sure homosexuality has existed since beginning of humanity, if not the beginning of life on Earth. I figure it's probably older than humankind, considering it naturally occurs in animals.

should have specified that they didn't see it as a distinct practice or lifestyle. if you could stick it in there, all is well (but not the mouth).

so ya, does that make our sexual categories dumb arguments? yay topic!

Oh, I getcha.

Worst argument ever? It would be anything related to logic fallacies, escape hatch arguments, complete bullshit, shoehorned interpretations (evidence modified to fit their beliefs), quote mining, pseudoscience "evidence", think tank-generated "facts", deniers- Holocaust, climate change, etc. and any fundamentalist arguments.

But the most stupidest argument I ever heard? "Illegal tobacco", for the argument against plain packaging in cigarettes.

At 1/24/12 04:09 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: Then give me a reason that is not bigoted as to why you oppose it and maintain yourself to not be bigoted. Give me a reason. Give me an actual reason. Not what some would consider a good reason or a bad reason an actual reason. I have been unable to find a single individual with a single reason of any kind.

Are you so dense that you cannot think of a single reason to oppose the forced expulsion of the Palestinian people other than anti-Jewish racism? You my friend are severely out of touch with reality.

Israelis are NOT the indigenous people of Palestine. The CANAANITES are. Should we resurrect this group of people and return them to that region just because the settlers of Israel murdered them and took their land?

At 1/24/12 07:59 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 1/24/12 07:27 PM, SolInvictus wrote: to be fair, homosexuality is kind of a new thing;

I'm pretty sure homosexuality has existed since beginning of humanity, if not the beginning of life on Earth. I figure it's probably older than humankind, considering it naturally occurs in animals.

the Romans and Greeks had no problem with the man on man fun, but that didn't mean they liked men.

There were no doubt homosexuals then though, as some writings refer to men that had a preference for other men. There wasn't gay marriage, perhaps for religious or cultural reasons or because they had a different concept of marriage (it was to produce children, a property arrangement, etc.). Perhaps. I find it very hard to believe that they accepted homosexuals in the sense that we define them today since there's very little evidence that there was ever gay marriage.

An interesting series of quotes:

"According to Aristotle, most 'belligerent nations' were strongly influenced by their women, but the Celts were unusual because their men openly preferred male lover", maybe they had homosexual partnerships?

Also "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused", though these are believed to be the observations of so called "male bonding rituals" (hehehe) rather than commonplace behavior, it's still an interesting quote...

"Under Brehon Law, which was written down in early Medieval Ireland after conversion to Christianity, a woman had the right to divorce her husband and gain his property if he was unable to perform his marital duties due to impotence, obesity, homosexual inclination or preference for other women", this suggests that marriage was very sexual in nature or existing primarily to produce children.

Those just covers one culture, the Celts. Supposedly in Roman culture, if a male (particularly a politician) did not play the masculine role in a same-sex relationship he was considered effeminate or of low social standing. Same-sex relationships between soldiers of the same class were sometimes punished harshly. A Greek saying claims that "women are for business, boys are for pleasure".

TL;DR there wasn't really gay marriage in ancient times; marriage was mostly seen as a way to produce children and not a loving relationship. Sure some cultures regarded it as natural, or even acknowledged the existence of a "third gender", but the gay rights movement is a very, very new thing.

Any argument that involves returning to the "traditional Christian values" that the United States was founded on. You'll hear Republics use this a lot. The funny thing is, the founding fathers were worried about the effects of merging church and state. A lot of them were atheists as well. The US was founded as a secular nation.

@Iron Claw

I rushed my previous response because i was in a hurry. I'll take more time with this

1,000 years is a long time. You say Palestine never belonged to the Arabs, but they lived there well over a thousand years. What makes an area of land belong to a certain group? Ancient historical records? God's will? Or how about the fact that that group currently inhabits it? Are you American? I know I am. If I shared your beliefs I would get out of my seat right now, and find the nearest flight to Europe and leave the North American continent forever. The arabs didn't own Palestine? A child who was born on that land cannot call it home because someone in Europe had a great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather who lived there over a thousand years ago? How is America our land (again I'm making the ignorant assumption that you're American, I apologize if you aren't) if it was founded less than 250 years ago?

Guess what? Political boundaries change all the time. Migrations, expulsions, natural disasters etc have moved people around the globe since before recorded history. To say that someone has a right to a piece of land simply because his ancestors owned that land thousands of years ago is beyond absurd. This is the 21st century. We can never go back to the 6th century nor should we. So why should we rearrange our locations on the globe based on where some of our ancestors lived in that particular time period?

Say you were sent to jail for 20 years for a crime you did not commit. You lose your house as a result. During those 20 years, a newly married couple moves in and starts a family there. Near the end of your sentence, new evidence is uncovered that proves your innocence and you are released. Now that you are out of jail, would it be fair to kick that family out of their house after they've owned it for 20 years? You lost that house unjustly so is it ok to evict the family? Well, the family did not evict you. They bought it legally and made it their own. So how can you say that house does not belong to them? 20 years is a long time after all. 1500 years is a lot longer.

And please. Put your semantics aside and stop bypassing my arguments by pointing out irrelevant information about words. YOU used the word anti-semitism in your original comment to refer only to Jews and then criticized me for using it incorrectly. I know that Semites include Arabs but I didn't know you knew that, so I went off of the commonly accepted understanding of the word. No one uses "anti-semitism" to refer to someone who hates Arabs. It is almost always referring to anti-Jewish bigotry.

Besides, you completely used that to side step my argument. I was saying that there are various reasons to consider a forced expulsion to be wrong and yet you attribute that to anti-semitism alone. Bullshit. How can you criticize the ancient Romans for expelling the Jews but think it's ok for the Jews to expel the Arabs? Should I say that you're an anti-Roman bigot for disagreeing with their right to exile? Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds? If you can't understand the plight of the Palestinians, perhaps you are the bigot. Not me.

And to reiterate, the Hebrews are not indigenous to that land. They murdered the polytheistic Canaanites to get that land. But that's just ancient history right? Who cares who owned the land that far back?

At 1/26/12 10:30 PM, bgraybr wrote: ...

can't respond now, but i plan to do so (lol, butt-sex).

though i wonder if this needs its own sexy thread for such a sexy topic [without just being a homosexuality thread], or since we've got multiple arguments we can each claim the other's is stupid and keep it here :P

Oh man! People still confuse the term Homophobia and think the elements of fear and hatred are mutually exclusive? That is the dumbest argument of our time! No the hatred element is indeed part of Homophobia both the term and lifestyle and it's just so arrogant and belligerent to devote your entire life to such a cause the irrevocable outcome is Holocaust except they use the pseudonym "Ethnic Cleansing" and that's how you know they're up to no good. Also using pseudonyms like "Collateral Damage" and "States Rights" the translation of which is ""We're not at fault, nor are we responsible, nor are we apologizing" and "Needs White Supremacy" and that's a very bad thing.

And using terms like "Homophobia" as a synonym for both hatred and fear a true one it is because there is also another term of which the true meaning of which is hatred and fear just like homophobia the word is Xenophobia.

xen·o·pho·bi·a%u2002noun: an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

from dictionary.com

At 1/24/12 02:56 PM, Zultra wrote:
*Cough*ignoring the fact that those 3 are mental illnesses or was considered one till 1972, and that there are clinics and doctors out there that can cure the illness (some with a 99% success rate).*Cough*

The most stupid argument I have heard is,

"It's ok to let 10 year old children have sex opts"

That is one very large step closer to Aushwitz to treat homosexuality as a "sickness" for which needs to be "cured" then the next outcome is going to be Holocaust that's how it was before with Aushwitz and that's how it always shall be when people treat other groups of people as diseases. Well as far as I'm concerned anyone content with genocide is the real disease a walking parasite the human condition no longer applies because they've lost their humanity which is why they commit crime against humanity. Yeah? Well FUCK YOU ALL!!!

Here it is, though I doubt I could call it an argument:

God is real. I can prove it. The Bible says God is real. How do we know the Bible's telling the truth? Because God wrote the Bible. How do I know? Because the Bible says God wrote it.

At 1/29/12 06:21 PM, Society-of-Guardians wrote:

Here it is, though I doubt I could call it an argument:

God is real. I can prove it. The Bible says God is real. How do we know the Bible's telling the truth? Because God wrote the Bible. How do I know? Because the Bible says God wrote it.

They don't come out and say that to you in debate.... But they sure do think it loudly.

What pisses me off is the convert argument. "Atheist Andy used to be just like you! But now he sees the light and let Jesus into his heart! If he can find God, so can you!" Bullshit. Christians and Muslims use this all the time. People convert to different religions all the time. Christianity is on the decline. More people are converting away from it than to it. Should I bring up all the atheist "convert" stories of people who finally saw the light? (Or rather, saw past the facade)

At 2/3/12 07:08 PM, Ilssm wrote: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1290 309

I second this

I was debating with an acquaintance about religion (everyone's favorite debate lol). I'm an agnostic (you should know that for the argument to make sense).

I pointed out how the physical evidence for the age and origins of the Earth, etc. contradicts the Christian creation myth. He said something along the lines of "well, then what created the Big Bang?". I responded with "no one knows, or can even make an educated guess". His snobbish response was that sounds a lot like "God said 'let there be light' and there was". Well... that just proves that God could exist; I didn't say that he couldn't exist, only that there isn't any concrete evidence for his existence. So I told him that, and that he was going out of his way to put God into the equation even though there was clearly no evidence.

Instead of making a real argument like a man, he got angry and twisted my words, saying "well YOU just go out of your way to take God out of the equation. I've stated my opinion and you've stated yours, can't we just agree to disagree!".

Yeah, play the fucking "WHY CAN'T WE JUST ALL GET ALONG" card. If he really thought that, then he wouldn't have argued with me in the first place, jeeze.

TL;DR I hate it when people say "why can't we all get along!" or "I don't care!" to back out of a debate without actually countering the other person.

Dumbest most hypocritical arguement of all time is

"I'm anti-racist! They preach hatred and want to kill people just because of who they are!"

After a long rant they proceed to say

"I fucking hate those racists! They should all be killed!"

Here's one of the greatest examples I can find.

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploa ds/2011/11/emma-west-1.jpg

Anything related to the phrase "rational actor". Individualists are the worst.

My family seem to be using an awful lot of "I'm not racist....but...."

If you've got to add that modifier to the argument then you might as well say "I adore my new shoes" so at least I can get an accurate opinion.

At 2/5/12 02:03 PM, The-universe wrote: My family seem to be using an awful lot of "I'm not racist....but...."

If you've got to add that modifier to the argument then you might as well say "I adore my new shoes" so at least I can get an accurate opinion.

They're not racist.

If they say "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally" That means they're closet nationalists. So don't worry about it if you're left-wing.

At 2/5/12 02:30 PM, Globex wrote: They're not racist.

If they say "I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally" That means they're closet nationalists. So don't worry about it if you're left-wing.

I'd hate to admit it, but that's very funny. And I wouldn't classed myself as left wing.

One of the dumbest arguments is that you're either a Zionist or an antisemite. I saw that argument used in this threat. I could reiterate my previous post, but here's a quote from a Zionist newspaper in Israel that demonstrates my point. This statement is pretty much fact and I don't think anyone will disagree.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

He says right there that "There is no Zionism... without the eviction of the Arabs". The forced removal of a group of people from their homes is recognized as a violation of human rights. Therefore, the only way one can be a Zionist is to oppose human rights... I'm sorry but if you're going to label me a bigot for standing up for human rights, you really need to reassess the situation.

You can't have health care, it Orwellion (You keep using that word, I don't think you know what it means) and have death panels!

...What?

I mean seriously... what?

Iron-Claw? Where are you? I'm waiting for a counter argument. Perhaps you cannot find any semantics or typos to pick out and bypass my arguments. You'll have to actually look at my arguments for what they are and come up with reasonable rebuttals this time. Quite a daunting task if you ask me.

Dumest argument ever. life in general.

The dumbest argument that i have ever heard was in Joan Peter's book From Time Immemorial. In that book she argues that Palestinians are not the indigenous of Palestine. Peter's basically says that Palestine was just empty land that the Jewish people began to migrate to in the 1900s. She goes onto say that once the Jewish people began cultivating the land Arabs from the neighboring countries began to move in. She then argues that these are the real ancestors of the Palestinians and that they have no right to historic Palestine because they are not native to the land. Along with that her book was hailed as being one of the best books on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the USA. However, once her book was released in Europe it was picked apart by European scholars who said she used biased sources, ignored Arab sources, and ignored Israeli sources that didnt fit her view.

Women that dress slutty are asking to be raped. Why else would they dress that way?

At A few seconds ago, dude23 wrote: Women that dress slutty are asking to be raped. Why else would they dress that way?

Also, it was easier for Hitler to start World War 2 than to complete a painting because he ignored his creative genius.

I am a Christian. I believe in the lord Jesus Christ based purely on faith. Religion is not a science and cannot be proven to exist using science and it cannot be proven not to exist using science. It is simply faith. Now with that being said...

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?

At 8 hours ago, The-Great-One wrote: I am a Christian. I believe in the lord Jesus Christ based purely on faith. Religion is not a science and cannot be proven to exist using science and it cannot be proven not to exist using science. It is simply faith. Now with that being said...

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?

I hate that so much.

I've known Christians who constantly try to prove their religion. Then when you point out that there's no evidence and there are contradictions, they say "It's a matter of faith." Then what are you trying to prove?