This thread is about people who make such poorly thought-out arguments that they do their “side” a disservice, such that you’re silently screaming “PLEASE DON’T HELP”* or you think they may secretly be a plant for the other “side”.
*(I think of a picture I have of my father on his back under the kitchen sink with the dopiest of their dogs poking his head in to see what’s up and generally getting in the way)
Most recently, an old friend posted a link to the recent explosion at a French nuclear waste processing facility. She wrote: “Ok, enough with the nuclear energy is “safe” bull crap. It explodes, it leaks, it melts, it contaminates. And when it’s spent it leaks, contaminates, kills… There’s nothing clean or safe about this…”
While most of us would agree that there are many serious issues surrounding nuclear power, this isn’t one of them. It was a smelting accident. There is more radiation in a boat full of bananas. It’s like saying we should ban wind power every time someone dies in a windmill accident (which, incidentally happens more per unit energy generated than it does for nuclear.) Education ensued.
Another example is one I see here. Whenever abortion comes up, some poster will make the claim that the motivation behind each and every single person out there who would place limits on abortion is that he or she hates women and wants to see them suffer. Now, I have no problem with abortion, but this is just stupid. It discredits them and takes away from any real arguments. I suspect they may secretly be pro-lifers who are trying to paint all pro-choicers and blathering idiots.
Not 100% on topic but close enough that I’ll write it here is the women who railed about the evils of fructose to me for 30 minutes, then offered me a snack bar that was exclusively sweetened with agave nectar, which has a higher % fructose than HFCS :rolleyes:
I frequently see some poster or other try to slap down one of the boards few conservatives and/or republicans by saying something like, “Oh, you don’t care for Obama’s economic policy? It’s because he’s an uppity nger, isn’t it?” I wonder though if that’s seen as hurting the cause or advancing it; I rarely see anyone on the same side calling the poster out for the nonsense this is.
Oh I think that qualifies. I’m sure there are plenty of racists out there (consciously or not), just like I’m sure there are lots of women-haters out there, but REALLY now folks…
My ire goes towards people who confuse science and religion. If they portray matters of faith as provable and even proven, they lay themselves open to an endless sniping war of counterclaims. If they place faith in matters of science, they forget that all science is provisional, and subject to revision, and lay themselves open to emotional attack.
In both cases they do themselves a great disservice.
You mean, like birthers? There’s plenty to dislike about Obama politically, so why do some people feel the need to “help” paint him as someone not to be reelected with that stupidity? I bet dems felt the same way about truthers back in 2003.
Not every subject has strong political divide. Recently I have seen posters claiming that it is just liberals that are against genetically enhanced crops. Unless that 80% or so levels of people that want to see GM food stuff labeled are all liberal.
It gives a small smug sense of satisfaction at how nonpartisan you are when you call out people on “your” side of the debate.
The people invariably turn around on you with all the restraint and good manners of a cornered bobcat. They never, ever, ever say, “Sorry, old boy, that was bad form n my part, what?”
Frankly, for me the fun part of a debate is getting into chewy substantive issues. Yeah, pointing out really stupid arguments is fun, too, but it’s lazy fun. Calling people out for stupid stuff isn’t very chewy.
Often the people making these idiotic arguments have made them in a billion other threads. Eventually it seems like ignoring them entirely is the best result.
I never understood that argument. Every time I see I read about a women getting denied birth control, Plan B or an abortion and then someone here says “That person [that denied them whatever it was they were looking to get] is nothing more then someone that hates all women and wants them to suffer”…I just can’t wrap my brain around the logic. It also pisses me off to no end when someone decides what someone else is thinking (or what their core beliefs are) based on a decision they made. I’ve just never been able to understand how you can’t see someone deny a woman Plan B and decide that it means that person hates all women.
Anyways, my submission is pro-marijuana activists that advocate for the use of medical marijuana. C’mon, if you want to get high, just go in that direction, but when someone that’s clearly a stoner is giving a speech about why it’s a great idea to legalize medical marijuana I just can’t take it seriously. And to keep this on track with the OP, it’s going to hurt their case because it’s obvious they’re going to use the medical marijuana loophole to get it for themselves and when that get’s overly abused the entire Legalize It movement is going to get set really far back. Think about states (state?) where people can get medical marijuana, is it that much closer to be “legal” for the regular person without a prescription or is it (and I don’t know, I’m asking) at all likely to be pulled due to abuse of the system? And if it’s pulled think about what happens when people try to get it legalized? I can’t see the government rolling over on that one.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I just wish people would be honest with their arguments for legalization. I’d rather see them compare more comparisons to alcohol then trying to get it legalized for medical patients. Besides, if it gets pushed through for medical patients it’s only going to be as ‘legal’ as Vicodin or Valium.
Let’s remember the topic of the OP. Soooo, you admit it does nothing to hurt your cause for your cohorts to accuse your opponents of the vilest sort of racism, such that you can coolly gloss over it while you continue your serene intellectual attack, huh? Werrry interesteenk . . .
Well, you have to admit case #4. If you’re already ignoring someone for being a fucknugget, rebuffing their argument is sort of counterproductive, no? (Assuming you even see it)
Apparently Rick Perry’s put-down of Social Security has the Republican establishment scared. He can be nuts on capital punishment, on evolution, on global warming, but by attacking SS he is on really dangerous grounds.
I don’t think Rick Perry’s arguments about SS are necessarily poorly thought-out. A bit too much of uncomfortable clarity for TPTB, if anything; and it’s questionable whether Perry and the Republican establishment are really on the same “side.”
I cringe with embarrassment when people respond to reports of animal cruelty by demanding that the perpetrator be submitted to the same cruel acts he or she perpetrated against the animals. Irony? Hypocrisy? Whatever. But y’all ain’t helping y’all’s anti-cruelty campaign by doing this.
And, by extension, I’m also embarrassed for pro-life/anti-abortion supporters who threaten or advocate violence against medical professionals who perform abortions. Once again, y’all jest ain’t gittin’ that the “thou shalt not kill” thingy applies to y’all, too.
+1. I am as much in favor of legalizing weed as anyone rational can be, but not because I am pretending it’s worth much as medication.
“Because I wanna get baked on something relatively harmless” is a perfectly good reason. We don’t need to pretend it is going to balance the budget, cure diseases, or give me a blowjob and make coffee in the morning like the hemp-heads claim.