Anything Glenn Beck has ever said. Period.

That a lack of proof is proof of a conspiracy to cover things up.

I think the stupidest arguements I have ever heard exist in my family. My mother's side are big christians, yet they are racist, homophobic, and hypocrits. Like for example my Great-Uncle is a Christian, preaches about the bible constantly how we are supposed to love people and ect... yet he's racist, but cheated on his wife of 30+ years with a black woman and has two kids by her...

His sister in law and granddaughter are lesbian and Bisexual... but he practically tells them always that they are going to hell. And yet, I thought the bible preached about loving everyone? Yeah... right. And he worries for my 'immortal soul' because I'm wiccan... I told him to practice what he preaches and shut the hell up. :D

I just hate people who force their beliefs on others and present no proof or reasoning skills, just use the bible as proof... yeah the bible has been re-written and translated into how many languages? How many times over the centuries? I say let people believe what they want, but don't fucking preach it constantly and force said views on people. Because everyone has a different belief and an opinion, respect all of them not just yours.

Anything that comes from political talk/radio show. This includes, but is not limited too: Glenn Beck, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Steve Doocey, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and The Fox and Friends douche bags.
Remember kids:
1. They have no qualm, and are in fact expected too, warp facts and information to make it fit their premise. Tomorrow the headline could be that Obama caught and killed Osama Bin Laden with his bare goddamn hands, and Rush Limbaugh still has to make him out to be an Un-American, Communist, Nazi, Anti-Christian.
2. Politics cannot be simplified; by it's very nature it is complex and nuanced
3. If the host compares his opponents to Nazis, Communists, and/or terrorists, he has nothing to teach you.

At 7/7/10 09:45 PM, Patton3 wrote: Well, that makes a little more sense than what was first implied. But only in the same sense that bashing your head against a wooden pole makes more sense than bashing it against a metal one.

Obviously I'm not going to assume that everyone has heard of the argument, but on the other hand it was just a brief list and the other 8 of them were just as vague.

Ooh I got one. People saying Obama is Muslim and Foreign

I swear someone on another board claimed circumcision is what separates us from animals. The immediate response was 'so does that mean you can't tell the difference between your daughters and animals'? (Not even sure he had daughters but whatever).

At 7/8/10 09:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 7/1/10 10:40 AM, Amoebaman wrote: I cant quite get the dumbest thing I've heard in my mind but...

That humans have absolutely nothing to do with climate change just because it has happened many times before without us.

This may actually be the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. If a process has been shown to occur several times at predictable increments and the planet is due for the next spike in Greenhouse Gasses...yeah you're right...it's all man's fault!

Oh pipe down, the argument was basically 'the world has warmed up on its own before therefore this has to be one of those times'. You must be able to appreciate the stupidity of that logic.

At 7/6/10 11:57 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 7/3/10 02:55 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so are we supposed to be debating these dumb arguments or just listing them... do they have to be politics related?

Well this is the politics forum. They don't have to be about policies though.

You know what screw it, it can be non-politics if you wish.

I was playing the home version of "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?" and the question was "in what year did the War of 1812 end?" The possible answers were: 1815, 1812, and 1817. I said (correctly) 1815, but my aunt who was on my team said that it ended in 1812. I told her that I was positive that it ended in 1815, and she then offered the dumbest argument I have heard in my entire life:

"Why would they call it the War of 1812 if it lasted more than a year?"

That is a true story, and that is a verbatim quote.

when my mom tried to tell me atheist believe in God....

Oh god I bet u a stupid argument is gonna happen on this thread

an argument is not the same thing as a statement. people here are listing stupid statements.

I'd like to add one more.

Men/children/teens are all complete idiots who cannot distinguish reality from fiction and thus they will slowly become violent/sexist/dangerous when they consume [insert media here].

This has been used against porn, video games comic books, rap rock and roll, crime novels, movies, TV etc. etc. etc.

Also used in porn with the implication that 'men are idiots who will think most women behave like strippers/are sex objects if they ever watch strippers'.

It's so head smackingly stupid

Because a few crazy people have lost touch with our world and belive in those worlds

I remember one argument which included rape while intoxicated. Basically the discussion moved to what happens when someone is raped shortly after or during a binge (more specifically while attending social gatherings).

The proponent argued that while a woman is intoxicated and not acting like her usual self, it is purely the man's responsibility to refuse her drunken advances and if he does not, that is a form of rape.

This was one of the most stupid things I had heard in a while. If you exclude the average intake for males/females, who is more susceptible to intoxication, the definition of rape etc. The simple rebuttal is, men would have to drink severely moderate amounts so he is rationally capable to refuse advances while woman can drink themselves under the table.

Baring in mind, the person making this argument is a feminist and was screaming for sexual equality. What's equal about having to take full responsibility for the actions of total strangers?

If two people get drunk and start acting stupid, that is their fault but this person didn't have the brains to figure that out.

At 7/9/10 03:11 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 7/8/10 09:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 7/1/10 10:40 AM, Amoebaman wrote: I cant quite get the dumbest thing I've heard in my mind but...

That humans have absolutely nothing to do with climate change just because it has happened many times before without us.

This may actually be the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. If a process has been shown to occur several times at predictable increments and the planet is due for the next spike in Greenhouse Gasses...yeah you're right...it's all man's fault!

Oh pipe down, the argument was basically 'the world has warmed up on its own before therefore this has to be one of those times'. You must be able to appreciate the stupidity of that logic.

Ummm...you do realize that I've been one of those people who are making that argument?

Ice core samples going back 750,000-1,000,000 years show a spike in CO2 levels and temperatures at regular intervals of about 250,000 years. Now the last spike was 250,000 years ago...which means we are living at the time that the geological record predicts another spike in CO2 levels and temperatures through natural processes totally unrelated to man.

The argument is not as simple as you make it out to be (it's happened before...therefore this time is one of those times). Instead it is based on an examination of the geological record.

Now, does this mean I think man has absolutely no impact on climate (either local or global)? Oh hell no I don't think that. Look at urban temperature bubbles. Look at smog. I hate pollution and much prefer clean air and water.

I just think that there are natural processes at play here that even our very best minds have difficulty wrapping their heads around. Furthermore, I do think man effects the climate...but not as significantly as pop culture psuedoscientists (ie: Al Gore & James Cameron) would lead us to to believe.

oh heres another one Ancient astronauts.

At 7/10/10 05:21 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh heres another one Ancient astronauts.

... the first time I heard that theory it caused me physical pain.

At 7/10/10 05:46 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 7/10/10 05:21 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: oh heres another one Ancient astronauts.

... the first time I heard that theory it caused me physical pain.

yeah aliens came to earth thousands of years ago and gave humans intelligence and stone technology. what load you know what another one is? Hollow Earth theory.

At 7/10/10 11:19 PM, Musician wrote:
Oh that's right, they don't exist, (not just yet anyways) and we have in fact confirmed that the only possible source for the massive increase of CO2 in the atmosphere are human contributed emissions.

As is confirmed by both the IPCC and the American Meteorological Society, to name but two reputable organizations which back that claim. Not to mention the roughly 98% of climatologists.

Quoting the bible verse "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." " as proof that atheism are stupid.

At 7/11/10 07:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: atheism are stupid.

lol bad time to make a typo

At 7/10/10 11:19 PM, Musician wrote:

At 7/10/10 05:16 PM, TheMason wrote: Ice core samples going back 750,000-1,000,000 years show a spike in CO2 levels and temperatures at regular intervals of about 250,000 years. Now the last spike was 250,000 years ago...which means we are living at the time that the geological record predicts another spike in CO2 levels and temperatures through natural processes totally unrelated to man

250,000 years ago (if that really was the last time the earth experienced serious rises in CO2 level, I haven't fact checked your claim yet) the fluctuating temperatures caused by increases in sun activity melted ancient glaciers releasing huge amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere.

Now please, if this really is a repeat of what has happened naturally in the past, where exactly are these glaciers that are releasing thousands of tons of GHGs like Carbon and Methane into the atmosphere?

Oh that's right, they don't exist, (not just yet anyways) and we have in fact confirmed that the only possible source for the massive increase of CO2 in the atmosphere are human contributed emissions.

Musician,

One of the things I find fascinating about your argument (and makes it appropriate for this thread) is you admit you are unfamiliar with the events I'm talking about...and yet you make an argument in defense of Global Climate Change Theory.

I mean...if you're unaware of the CO2 cycle I'm talking about (one that has occured over and over again for at least the past million years), how can you really make an argument or even a theory on what was the cause of a CO2 spike 250,000 years ago?

Now, lets assume that the theory you posit is correct...then considering it happens on a fairly consistent and reoccuring basis then glaciers should be forming in a cycle in sync with a solar phenomenon. (Thus explaining the regular pattern of CO2 & temp spikes.) Glaciers would have then formed (again) when the last spike occurred...signaling a new cycle. Now this would have predated human civilization...much less the Industrial Revolution. So did man also have a hand in stopping this natural cycle way back then? (If they did...I want a turn in the time machine!)

What this means is no glaciers actually invalidates your entire theory.

In conclusion, given that we have verified CO2 spikes coincinding with temp spikes that appear in a fairly regular pattern, and this pattern predicts a spike in the time in which we are living/observing nature...the notion that man is the sole or even most significant cause quite simply violates Occam's razor.

At 7/1/10 04:02 PM, The-universe wrote: 9. *anything from fox news*

FUCK YEAH! And Homeland Security. And any internet encyclopedia that lets anyone and I mean anyone annex information regardless of whether or not it's true. I can't tell you how many people had the audacity to call me an idiot and yet they themselves were inclined to believe the most profoundly stupid and/or provocative "statements" for the sake of argument we'll call them that that always sounds like something from a member in an inebriated/drug induced or otherwise compromised state of mind, a limerick on the mens room wall in an inner city public high school or bar, or the supermarket tabloids. To which they maintained: "No it was..." either Fox News, Homeland Security, that internet encyclopedia that lets anyone annex. I won't say but I'll give you a hint, it's not Encarta or Grolier's.

At 7/1/10 03:56 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Pretty much anything Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron have ever said.

This, and a guy who said that if a song has a chorus, it has pop influence.

1. Slayer are a bunch of Satanic white supremacist Nazis!!! (Two of them are hispanic. One is Catholic. The other three are atheists who don't believe in Satan)

2. A guy asked for evidence of a species diverging and a fish species was brought up. He said something along the lines of "That doesn't count! That's a fish turning into a fish. They're the same species!" Fish is a PHYLUM!! Not a species.

3. Macroevolution over an extremely long period of time involving many small steps is impossible, but it is possible for two dogs 4000 years ago to evolve so rapidly that they can account for ever variety of dog in the world. (Creationists believe in evolution on steroids)

4. Rape happens because a women wear revealing clothing and men cannot help their desires. I want to fucking kill these blame-the-victim bastards.

5. Heavy Metal sucks because it is too loud. TURN DOWN THE VOLUME!!!

6. All new albums suck because they are new (my friend Jordan is an idiot)

7. The bass is a useless instrument (my friend Jordan is an idiot)

8. Hip Hop is better than rock because you can dance too it. >.>

9. The only way to get out of dept is to spend ridiculous amounts of money

10. The United States is a Christian nation

At 7/10/10 07:30 AM, DanteDelfuago wrote: Because a few crazy people have lost touch with our world and belive in those worlds

That is true but the argument is that most people are like them.

At 7/10/10 05:16 PM, TheMason wrote: Ice core samples going back 750,000-1,000,000 years show a spike in CO2 levels and temperatures at regular intervals of about 250,000 years. Now the last spike was 250,000 years ago...which means we are living at the time that the geological record predicts another spike in CO2 levels and temperatures through natural processes totally unrelated to man.

Ok then I was confused as to what the argument actually was. Sorry about that.

At 7/10/10 10:19 AM, The-universe wrote:

The simple rebuttal is, men would have to drink severely moderate amounts so he is rationally capable to refuse advances while woman can drink themselves under the table.

I never actually saw a feminist that said that it should only apply to drunk women, they probably exist but I don't see them (then again it's not like I talk to a lot of them). Although if they were both drunk than technically they both raped each other under drunk=cannot consent, although if that's the case then neither party would be stupid enough to tell the cops.