Specific arguments you're just SICK of

There are a few specific arguments that people make relatively often on the SDMB which bug me to no end, but which I’ve never gotten around to responding to, usually because by the time I’ve read to the end of the thread, there doesn’t seem to be any point to going back several pages and responding to one specific part of one post.

So this thread is for those arguments, and any similar things other people want to vent about.

Feel free to be as political or non-political as you like, although both of these examples happen to be rather partisan.
The Argument: “So what if Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq? So did John Kerry and even BILL CLINTON HIMSELF”

My Rebuttal: So what? The problem is not that Bush thought there were WMDs. The problem is that he LED THE COUNTRY TO WAR largely because of this claim. Starting a war is probably the gravest, most serious thing that a human being can do. It demands absolutely the most complete and authoritative arguments and justifications. Any claim being made as a reason for going to war is subject to a far higher standard than any other claim. I’m sure Clinton thought that there were WMDs. Heck, so did I. But Clinton didn’t start a freakin’ WAR with that as justification.

As for Kerry and anyone else who more recently bought into the idea that there were WMDs, they almost certainly were convinced by the Bush White House. In which case they are guilty of naivete, certainly, but not of the same level of dishonesty and/or negligence that Bush is guilty of.

There are plenty of legitimate opinions that can be held about the whole WMD issue, and plenty of legitimate arguments about it. But the “Bill Clinton thought so too” thing is a fucking joke.

The argument: “Calling liberals ‘Moore-ons’ is no worse than calling Republicans ‘pubbies’”

My Rebuttal: Are you serious? Let’s see: ‘pubbies’ takes a single syllable and adds the diminuitive “ies” to it. OK, maybe a teensy bit condescending. But all it’s basically saying is “Republicans”, which is a clearly defined and accurately measurable category. ‘Moore-ons’ first of all is an obvious homonym of “Moron” which is actively insulting. It also is vague as to precisely who it applies to. I saw F 9/11 and liked it, and read Stupid White Men. But I have a variety of reservations about Michael Moore. I certainly don’t slavishly worship every word out of his mouth, or anything like it. But I’ll certainly vote against Bush. Am I a “Moore-on”? Who knows. But it makes things nice and easy to be able to dismiss entire swaths of dopers with one snide name, and then claim you’re not doing any worse than they are. Right, Brutus?

(Note: I’ve just recently seen a truly insulting nickname for Republicans, namely “repugs”. Cut it out! Let’s maintain the moral high ground here…)

Fuck. to be honest, I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

You just need to sip a big mug of ‘get the fuck over it’, and you’ll be fine. ‘Pubbies’ is hardly the only name Republicans get called in GD, so it is quite disingenuous of you to focus on that one word.

How about any arguement starting with Brutus, [sub]Charter Member[/sub]?

Frankly, I’d like to see a software program that plants a little red flag next to every logical fallacy. If someone gets more than three flags, the Mods can label them an asshole.

Too often the fallacies around here are allowed to slide, ad hominums alone are contained in 97.3% of the posts here. Misuse of statistics in the remaining 12.93%.

“Freeing the oppressed people of Iraq was more than enough reason to go in.”


Look, buddy. You have called me (by implication) a Moore-on. I have not called you any name. If I have, cite it, point it out, and I’ll apologize.
Seriously, do you even care about trying to maintain a productive and respectful forum in which competing opinions can flourish? In other words, do you even care about fighting ignorance?

Or do you just enjoy being mean to liberals?

From the OP:

Not disingenuous at all. It’s quite clear that Max is not using a double standard. Or to put it in a way you can more easily understand: You need to sip a big mug of “read the fucking OP more carefully, jackass”.

Back on topic: I dislike the arguments used against evolutionary theory. It’s the closest thing to pure irrationality I’ve ever experienced

The Argument: “The problem is that he LED THE COUNTRY TO WAR largely because of this claim [of WMD’s].”

The Rebuttal: And several other claims. Congratulations, you were right about the WMD’s. So was I. Now let your other testicle drop and go refute the other half-dozen stated reasons for going to war.

So, as Mr. Gore said, they’re either stupid or they’re gullible. Which is it?

Look, I’m not trying to belittle the annoyance over being screwed over about the WMD’s. It was wrong, and it was stupid. But look beyond that one issue - despite the fact it was the one that really made the war glamorous to Joe Average - at the other, utterly legit reasons for goin’ in.

“Pubbies”? Jesus, d’ya got a G-Rated filter on every time you read through GD? Getting called a “Moore-on” (that’s a new one on me) is in the same ballpark as callin’ a conservative a “Dittohead”… that’s one that quickly grew to encompass more than just Rush listeners.

One thing I’ll concede about conservatives: We sure suck at VB coding. I’ll just go crouch in my corner again… ::sigh::

Sure, remind me what they were and I’ll gladly shoot holes through them. Actually fuck it, we’ve done it a million times before so let’s spare the good people the hijack.

Yep! :smiley:
As for me, it’s the “Black people wouldn’t have any problems if they’d only do …” Which I’ve raken to calling the Moses Position, usually espoused by someone not black. We don’t get as much of that as we used to, but it gets my goat everytime.

‘By implication’? :rolleyes:

Damn, you have run out of serious things to worry about, haven’t you? If ever wanted to call you a ‘Moore-on’ or somesuch, there will be no doubt as to my intent. Until then, why don’t you go focus your paranoid ‘by implication’ worries elsewhere?

[I’m not against gay marriage/adoption but] a child needs a mother and a father to learn proper gender roles.

  1. Why does the child need to learn proper gender roles? 2) What are proper gender roles? 3) How does having parents of different sexes make the child learn proper gender roles? 4) Why isn’t it sufficient to know people of the other gender? 5) Does this mean that children of single parents don’t learn proper gender roles? 6) Why am I genderqueer, since I grew up with one parent of each sex? 7) Even if all of the above supported your assertion, why would this mean restricting the ability of gay couples to adopt? Isn’t it much worse for the child not to have legal ties to both their parents, which would be of supreme importance in an emergency (in the case of second-parent adoption)? Isn’t it better to increase the pool of loving homes (in the case of first-parent adoption)? 8) Is anyone ever going to answer any of these questions?

That’s probably a fairly reliable guide. In fairness though, Brutus, though he usually comes across as little more than the schoolyard bully, does occasionally correctly identify his opponent’s soft underbelly, and slips in the shiv. And every now and then, he throws us all a curve, and ends up supporting the “enlightened” side of an argument. It doesn’t happen often, but that it occurs at all tells me that he’s not a milroyj-style simpleton. He’s just misguided. :wink:

Yes there were other reasons but it went sort of like this…

He has WMD’s!!!

Free the Iraqi’s


Because daddy screwed up.

Understand now?

That paints such a beautiful image…Makes me think of Oz!

“I’ll take ‘Dopers I wouldn’t want as a cellmate’ for $400, Alex.”

“Why are you donating money to/volunteering to help people in other countries? There are people right here in America who need help!”

What in fucken hell is wrong with helping other human beings in general? What does it matter where they live? Whatever happened to the brotherhood of man?

What about the other 4.6587%, eh? Well, NurseCarmen? What about the other 4.6587%?

had to look at the thread title to remind myself where the hell I’m posting

I am sick and tired of reading “slippery slide” arguments about gay marriage.