At 7/7/10 09:00 PM, orangebomb wrote: 2. Palestine has the right to exist

Uh, no. It makes me wonder why Muslims are so batshit crazy over less than 50 miles of sand and dirt called Israel. They have thousands of miles of the Middle East and Central Asia that they can call home, and they want more than that. Why are there still radicals in the Palestianian region, fighting over nothing more than slums and sand, when they can just go over to Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., and live in peace, instead of bombing Israel to the ground, and then Israel fight back.

Let me stop you right there.
When the Israelites went to Egypt, someone else moved in to Canaan, the original name for Israel. These were the Palestinians. Some years later, (I have heard many different amounts, at most 2000) the Israelites came back from Egypt.
Now, when the Palestinians got there, the Israelites were already gone. Imagine, after 2000 years of living somewhere, another people came and said you had to leave because their god said so.
You'd be pretty pissed.
Anyway, other things happened, and the Israelites, or Jews, now moved mostly into Europe. Skipped forward after WW2, and the Allied Powers simply gave what was then Palestine to the Jews. So now Palestinians were being booted out by bigger, stronger countries who never had business there to begin with. All this led to the cluster-fuck we have today. It's not a matter of Muslim vs Jew, but of We've lived here longer against our God said this is ours, so we got big friends to come and kick you out.

Morality is relative therefore its only morally justified we should all do what I say.

MD. Benson B Roe.

At 7/16/10 05:52 PM, CommanderFalcon wrote:

Let me stop you right there.
When the Israelites went to Egypt, someone else moved in to Canaan, the original name for Israel. These were the Palestinians. Some years later, (I have heard many different amounts, at most 2000) the Israelites came back from Egypt.
Now, when the Palestinians got there, the Israelites were already gone. Imagine, after 2000 years of living somewhere, another people came and said you had to leave because their god said so.
You'd be pretty pissed.
Anyway, other things happened, and the Israelites, or Jews, now moved mostly into Europe. Skipped forward after WW2, and the Allied Powers simply gave what was then Palestine to the Jews. So now Palestinians were being booted out by bigger, stronger countries who never had business there to begin with. All this led to the cluster-fuck we have today. It's not a matter of Muslim vs Jew, but of We've lived here longer against our God said this is ours, so we got big friends to come and kick you out.

I agree with this guy. The world would be much more peaceful if Israel had never been established. Of course Palestine has the right to exist. It's not like they stole the land. It's their land and we kicked them out.

Pretty much anything from Young Earth Creationists.

They have to bastardise their beliefs and misunderstand absolutely everything because absolutely everything opposes their viewpoint.

Which would explain why on average they have lower IQ's.....

At 7/1/10 07:18 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: The argument that Palestinians deserve their own country.

This quotation

I honestly don't know. Arguments with very obvious errors are unremarkable so I never end up remembering them. The arguments that fail in interesting ways (like Pascal's wager) are usually created intelligently, so I don't feel like making fun of them.

christians raging over scientist "placing" out dinosaurs fossiles; couse it burst their bubble.

At 7/16/10 05:24 PM, CommanderFalcon wrote: A jack-off at my school had this to say:

"Obama's a Nazi fascist!"

To which I replied:

"What makes you say that?"

To which he replied:

"The Bible says so!"

..............

Are you sure he wasn't joking.

I mean really all you have to is point out that the Bible was written way before Obama or the Nazi party.

saying that global warming exists. I think by far the strangest argument i ever heard though was some lady went off about us humans really should not exist, if it we did not exist all these poor animals would not suffer and the earth would be in its natural state.....

We were discussing how much is too much regulation of the airlines and the interstate commerce clause was brought up. Then someone tried to argue that the airlines don't fall under interstate commerce.

Someone mentioned how Global Warming doesn't exist because it was cold outside. He then further accused proponents of some kind of Orwellian-language game when they decided to call it "climate change" instead. You know, because science and the labels it chooses for certain phenonmena aren't allowed to change in light of new data without some conspiracy forming about how the Underground Liberal Communist Left Party of American Destruction is killing us all.

At 7/24/10 09:07 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Someone mentioned how Global Warming doesn't exist because it was cold outside. He then further accused proponents of some kind of Orwellian-language game when they decided to call it "climate change" instead. You know, because science and the labels it chooses for certain phenonmena aren't allowed to change in light of new data without some conspiracy forming about how the Underground Liberal Communist Left Party of American Destruction is killing us all.

Oh boy. I sure do love the "its cold outside" argument. Gee... its not like it could possibly have been COLDER had it not been for global warming. No. That would just make too much sense.

Intelligent design is possibly the stupidest way out of a creation argument, because it's basically saying, "Oh, Darwin was right because it's God's will"

And how is this different from Creationists?

I've heard too many mind-numbingly stupid arguments to qualify one as the dumbest.

It would definitely be something stammered by one of the following groups which pretty much cover all people in the world too dumb to realistically be able to consider voting or having children "rights," despite them being so. And they shouldn't be:

-hardcore and moderate liberals
-hardcore conservatives
-any zionist
-anyone who takes global warming seriously
-vegetarians (including vegans as a subset)
-anyone religious (fundamentalist or not) (excluding those who are only religious in a philosophical sense)
-most blacks
-most atheists (for whom the "ism" and not the "ath" is the operative component of their theistic viewpoint)
-99% of self-proclaimed agnostics (for their inability to understand what the term 'agnostic' means due to an ignorance of basic logic and godelian incompleteness theory)
-most celebrities
-most politicians
-all politicians over the age of 60
-most people over the age of 60
-most young people
-all feminists
-apple fanbois
-anti-microsoft zealots

All of the people on this list form a subset of humanity with intelligence ranging from +1 standard deviation and down.

If you take the union of these sets (there will be tons of overlap), you should have good coverage of everyone in humanity in the -inf. <-> +1 s.d. range. None of these people possess an intellect sufficient to be allowed to procreate or vote on policy that affects everyone, including the people > +1 s.d.

I've heard arguments from every combination of common and distinct elements of these sets that were so unintelligent that I occasionally questioned whether they could be considered to have come from a sentient intelligence. Not much above the reasoning level of a chimp or maybe a pig.

All of these people use their personal situations as the basis for their points of view (rather than even attempting real objectivity). Each member of these sets is motivated more by emotion than rationality. And logic (which unknown to most people does not exist in the same continuum of rationality <-> emotionality) is weak and fragmented in the thought processes of all of them.

The "Turtle Fence" debate on Cspan2 in the HOR

Some Idiot argued that :
"evoloution issnt reel cause birds are boo rn as birds and berds die aas burds too"

The BNP in the UK's claim that sending immigrants back to their home country is in the interest of 'Keeping Britain British', despite the fact Britain is pretty much a nation founded on immigration, and is mostly populated by descendants of the foreign armies that conquered us in the past, thus immigration is the essence of being 'British'. I do agree there should be some sort of cap, but having such a racist agenda hidden under the guise of such a hypocritical statement is laughable.

At 7/25/10 11:46 PM, sharpnova wrote: -most celebrities

Anyone who attempts to generalise a group of people based on their status/fame.

At 8/3/10 05:46 AM, roojames wrote:

At 7/25/10 11:46 PM, sharpnova wrote: -most celebrities

Anyone who attempts to generalise a group of people based on their status/fame.

Or the color of their skin or all the monumentally stupid things he tries to generalize people with in that dumb post of his.

In fact I think that entire post qualifies for the top spot of dumb arguments.

"All of these people use their personal situations as the basis for their points of view (rather than even attempting real objectivity)"

So I take it you have polls showing that most of the people in those groups argue based on emotion.

Because if not then you'd basically be committing the sin you accuse them of doing.

At 8/3/10 04:10 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: "All of these people use their personal situations as the basis for their points of view (rather than even attempting real objectivity)"

So I take it you have polls showing that most of the people in those groups argue based on emotion.

Because if not then you'd basically be committing the sin you accuse them of doing.

Too true my man.

The worst and best argument someone has ever told me that was against the legalization of pot was:
"It would make my Dad unhappy."

I didn't even know what to say, hahaha.

I've heard all sorts of terrible arguments, but the worst I ever heard was "You're just a liberal."
It is off topic name calling that shows up every now and then, and it is annoying.

At 7/1/10 10:23 AM, Ericho wrote: I have heard of a lot of dumb arguments, but I think the dumbest might be something by Fred Phelps. As he is so unfathomably stupid, you could argue he does not even make political arguments at all, but simply religious arguments. I think Phelps exists for the sole purpose of having someone that even the worst religious fundamentalists can look down on. He's kind of like Ralph Wiggum.

Speaking of which what about that other ugly bitch Shirley Phelps? His daughter got on Fox News and for once we can agree with Fox when they called her insane and needs help.

Me: I'm atheist. I don't believe in god, and frankly don't understand what a person in the proper state of mind sees in religion. And by proper state of mind, I mean old enough to mount sophisticated arguments, and not in grief, or some tragic point in your life. Further more, I think that religion/belief in god(s) is actually detrimental in some ways to progressing, as it is perfectly possible to be moral without religion, and religion tends to be amoral in practice.
You're free to practice your beliefs, but I quite frankly don't understand it, and don't see it as logical until these questions, and many more, are sufficiently answered.
Him: I'll pray for you.

"Gun control works."

At 7/8/10 09:44 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: 9/11 was a inside job and other dumbass conspiracy theories.

Absolutely! Pending further anyone asinine enough to make a connection between conspiracy theorists and the rest of us who are perfectly sane who just so happen to have a penchante for the unexplained. "What's the difference" you may ask. Here's the difference:

Conspiracy Theorists are only doing this to be famous to get their name/face/voice on TV/Radio/Movies/The internet.

The rest of us have a genuine interest in the Unexplained.

Another one

prostitution = rape that you pay for

Yes some people are literally forced into prostitution but some aren't and to argue that it equals rape is akin to saying

Farming = Slavery.

There is a user on Youtube called ShockOfGod who has a bunch of amusing little followers. These band of lunatics are generally Nephilimfree, TruthfulChristian, FranksVoice etc.

Shock has a challenge, which the simplified version is "prove that atheism is accurate and correct", while having absolutely no idea what atheism is, what constitutes as evidence and his challenge doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Oh well, I guess stupid can't be reasoned with.

At 8/7/10 04:35 PM, The-universe wrote: Shock has a challenge, which the simplified version is "prove that atheism is accurate and correct", while having absolutely no idea what atheism is, what constitutes as evidence and his challenge doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Somebody here doesn't understand irony...

You know why he phrased it like that? Because a great deal of athiests pose the following challenge to the religious:

"Prove that your religion is accurate and correct."