I saw this one political cartoon making a statement against The Face on Mars the more current images with better resolution that Viking 2 that to me looks less like a human face more like a Martian's face but that's a whole different argument. In this cartoon depicted what was supposed to be The Face on Mars with two cartoon astronauts standing in front of it declaring "Sure don't look like a face!" and as I'm looking at this I recognize this rock formation, to which I say "Of course it doesn't, it looks more like a rock face in Montana because it is a rock face in Montana, dummy. Not exactly the perfect crime you didn't change the sky from blue to pink or the rocks from yellow to 'rust' not orange. You see, the trick is, find an archive photo off of the internet unless you have an actual one from the place you've visited like a canyon or a bluff easier to do one with no vegetation use photoshop tint the rock formation a darker shade of orange the one you want is 'rust' between orange and red if it's the color of blood you've gone too far, if it's peach you haven't gone far enough. be sure to leave the skyline out of that then go to the skyline and tint the sky pink." You can't fool me with that! I been doin' that same trick on photoshop since I was fifteen!

pending further any legitimate Photograph some wise ass has the audacity to declare "It was done on photoshop" which includes but is not limited to Aliens, UFOs, Sasquatch, El Chupacabra, Mothman and there's also concentration camps and other war pictures that are to graphic for The Associated Press, Fox News, MSNBC, even CNN still declare "it was done on photoshop" the actual discussion goes as follows:

wiseass: It was done on Photoshop.
Me: What makes you think that?
Wiseass: I don't think I know.
Me: Are you adept at using Photoshop?
Wiseass: No.
Me: Do you know how to use Photoshop?
Wiseass: No.
Me: Have you now or ever used Photoshop?
Wiseass: No.
Me: WISEASS!!!

Just about any post made by ShaggyTheClown makes an effective case for the theory that lobotomized cats can use the internet.

I heard an argument from a homophobic once. It was pretty funny if you believe me and absolutely wrong.

" Gays brought AIDS to America ".

Discuss.

Any man declaring "If women are allowed to breast feed in public I should be allowed to masturbate in Public."

I remember talking with a conspiracy theorist early this year.

He stated that the major media companies are controlled, edited and maintained by 6 people to make sure that government cover-ups are not discovered.

That's right, just SIX people are monitoring, writing and maintaining every single news outlet in the country, whereas it takes thousands of people just to work for one.

When I mentioned this, he changed his argument. It wasn't actually "6", it was 60 and his original argument was a typo. Then when I elaborated the problem he said 600 while deleting all his previous posts.

Luckily I already saved his comments so I made mention of them again. He pissed and moaned, called me weak minded and didn't reply to my criticisms.

Conspiracy theories are called conspiracies for a good reason.

Pretty much anyone saying gay marriage is allowed or trying to prove there is a god.
Both stupid arguments.

The argument went as follows:

Men have natural urges which cannot be controlled. Therefore, if the manner in which a women dresses can be interpreted as lewd, she is at fault for having been raped. The man couldn't help it.

At 8/10/10 01:20 AM, MrFlopz wrote: T Atheists don't say "I know for a fact that there is no God."

Untrue, some atheists try to argue that science has proven there can't be a god (or at least the god of the Bible). I think Hitchens might be one, not sure about it though.

At 8/30/10 03:41 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: Any man declaring "If women are allowed to breast feed in public I should be allowed to masturbate in Public."

Now THAT is really really stupid.

Any of you know of a woman who considers breast feeding to be a form of masturbation or sexually arousing?

At 9/1/10 08:17 PM, Black487 wrote: The argument went as follows:

Men have natural urges which cannot be controlled. Therefore, if the manner in which a women dresses can be interpreted as lewd, she is at fault for having been raped. The man couldn't help it.

That's right men lose all free will when looking at women dressing lewd.

I hope the asshole saying that realizes
A. How incredibaly stupid and wrong that is
B. The argument would be a HUGE help to anyone trying to ban porn, or the swimsuit issue of sports illustrated (or even violent games).

At 8/30/10 06:21 PM, DaftDog wrote: Pretty much anyone saying gay marriage is allowed

You must've meant something else. Gay marriage is allowed in some states and some countries.

At 9/2/10 04:32 AM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 8/30/10 03:41 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: Any man declaring "If women are allowed to breast feed in public I should be allowed to masturbate in Public."

Now THAT is really really stupid.

Any of you know of a woman who considers breast feeding to be a form of masturbation or sexually arousing?

I am most certain it is sexually arousing for women to be breast feeding they're just better at not showing it. Women are MUCH BETTER at that than men. I pitched to my cousin who did breast feed her baby "Doesn't that hurt?" I said. "Quite the contrary, it's quite pleasant." she said.

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.

And everybody who has ever made such a statement ironically possesses a God Complex who would eventually be part of a crew landing on an Alien world of development by our standards be between 5000 BC and 500 AD land and be revered by the indigenous as "Gods" because they came down from the sky. They will play to this that they are a "God" and play God in the indigenous society which will irrevocably lead to destruction the consequences of which the indigenous will rise up and put your "Godhood" to the test the test of which is that if you are a true "God" you cannot die and when you do they will be all the better for it.

"Barak Obama is a Nazi" Seriously what kind of moron would believe that? Everyone who's ever watched the History channel can tell you that's a load of shit! You see the nazis would never let him in. The nazis were all about filtering out what they deemed to be "inferior" Not Jewish, not gay, not having a mental illness, not gypsy, not inclined to speak out against the nazis, not Jehovah's witnesses, not a twin, not being white. They called it "Eugenics" I call it "Übercracker" I can say that, I'm German. That type of thing should never happen again.

"THINK OF THE CHILDREN"
you can literally use that for any argument...

I especially hate the "think of the children" mentallity when it comes to the legalization of marijuana.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S AN AGE LIMIT.
And it beats going to creepy drug dealers with guns and hookers.

This happened at work just after the new Ipad came out.

The conversation started with him saying:

"I've got the new Ipad!, isn't that cool?"
"Personally, no"
"Why?"
"Because I don't like it."
"Nah, it's cool!"
"I don't think so"
"Oh yeah? Well...have YOU ever used one?"
"Nope"
THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW???"
"I know I'll die if I jump into a pit of fire."
"That's just stupid, how is the Ipad shit?"
"No removable battery so if it degrades you have to pay Apple to replace it. There's no Adobe flash support and no USB or CD drive. All songs, movies, shows etc have to be bought from Itunes, no file sharing with computers, no drag and drop, no multitasking and no camera/webcam. That's just the stuff I can think of from the top of my head and Ipad's are supposed to be an ALTERNATIVE to laptops yet they're more expensive and do less. So tell me how the fucking hell can you justify buying it?"
"But...apple will fix it..."
"Okay, you can waste your own money buying something that's more expensive and less powerful than even simplistic computer".

Baring in mind, I'm not talking to a spoiled 15 year old brat who adores every gadget on planet earth. I'm talking to a 27 year old with a wife and full time job....who adores every gadget on planet earth, no matter how stupid they are.

anything that states that God made the planet, water, day and night, animals and humans(humans arent considerated animals in the bible, as we actually are), and more in just 7 days.

Oh also someone said that God made the time and universe. Lol.

At 7/1/10 04:47 PM, animehater wrote:

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

To use such a statement as that in an argument would in itself be stupid to me.

fox likes to call themselves "news" while only making chicken shit right wing editorial arguments, and purposefully scaring the living daylights out of people to make them conform.

that is not news.

/argument

At 7/2/10 02:43 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Any, "communism would work if!" arguments.

any, "Obama is a communist" arguments

At 10/6/10 01:03 AM, Antimatter500 wrote: fox likes to call themselves "news" while only making chicken shit right wing editorial arguments, and purposefully scaring the living daylights out of people to make them conform.

that is not news.

/argument

Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox news, is an ardant left winger. He has supported EVERY democrat candidate for president since the 70s. Claiming that a life long Democrat is scheming to tilt the news to the right is moronic.

While Fox's opinion segments are heavily conservative, their news segments are left of center.

You're kinda done bud.

At 10/9/10 03:34 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox news, is an ardant left winger.

The person you're replying to is talking about the validity and accuracy of Fox news, not it's political stance. But nonetheless, let's have some fun.

During the time when he created Fox News he was a conservative (due to his public support of Margaret thatcher)and made Republican Roger Ailes the CEO. He's been switching parties for years. But either way it doesn't sound like the actions of a "left-winger" right?

Also if you want to argue semantics, he doesn't own Fox news. Fox news is owned by Fox Entertainment group. F.E.G is owned by News Corporation, which is a conglomerate and has many owners.

At 10/9/10 03:34 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox news, is an ardant left winger. He has supported EVERY democrat candidate for president since the 70s. Claiming that a life long Democrat is scheming to tilt the news to the right is moronic.

While Fox's opinion segments are heavily conservative, their news segments are left of center.

You're kinda done bud.

its obvious, if only people of your intelect could wrap your heads around the fact that he's just doing it for ratings

At 10/6/10 01:03 AM, Antimatter500 wrote: fox likes to call themselves "news" while only making chicken shit right wing editorial arguments, and purposefully scaring the living daylights out of people to make them conform.

that is not news.

/argument

This is a perfect example of an ideologue's thought. Don't be like this, kids.

Man, your family must suck.

oh yeah here is the best one the people who let Slavery go on and Racism go on for 300 years after our forefathers said that all men were created equal and all may vote. That's a pretty dumb argument, obviously our forefathers were wrong. I'm just kidding... but seriously people actually think forcing people to do stuff because of the color of there skin is okay? Yeah that makes sense.

"cannabis should be illegal"

At 9/23/10 01:48 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: "Barak Obama is a Nazi" Seriously what kind of moron would believe that? Everyone who's ever watched the History channel can tell you that's a load of shit! You see the nazis would never let him in. The nazis were all about filtering out what they deemed to be "inferior" Not Jewish, not gay, not having a mental illness, not gypsy, not inclined to speak out against the nazis, not Jehovah's witnesses, not a twin, not being white. They called it "Eugenics" I call it "Übercracker" I can say that, I'm German. That type of thing should never happen again.

Saying:''Barack Obama is a nazi'' isn't an argument...
Oh and what you said that it's a bad argument because the nazis would have never let him in, is pretty stupid too. You shouldn't take it too literal.
I completely agree with it being stupid, since Obama doesn't have ANY characteristic of that of a nazi.
But your argument saying it is a dumb statement, is kind of dumb.

Any monarchists use to support the monarchy and the Westminster system, and the idea that a republic is elitist.

A woman made a Youtube video basically saying that we haven't answered the "why's" of life. During this video she says "fuck science" basically for giving us tedious technology.

I love it when hot chicks who know nothing about science start using the benefits of science to criticise science.

But there are people who went without the benefits of science, they're called skeletons and they lived for about 30 years.

At 11/1/10 03:10 PM, mikailus wrote: Any monarchists use to support the monarchy and the Westminster system, and the idea that a republic is elitist.

I meant to say "Any excuse monarchists use to support the monarchy and the Westminster system, and the idea of a republic being elitist."