It’s wrong because if you follow it to its logical conclusion, you end up dedicating your entire life to one, and only one, subject or problem. There’s a name for that: monomania. People who suffer from this disorder tend to be, well, really creepy.
[QUOTE=SPOOFE]
Iraq supported Al Qaeda.
Iraq poses an imminent threat to America.
It will be easy. They will welcome us with open arms and garlands of flowers etc.
They are crying out for democracy over there.
Fire away.
Because when a person responds to something you’ve indicated is in some way important to you in the manner you described, it is denigrating, and they’re basically telling you how superior they and their motives/morals/whatever are to you. It’s a thinly veiled insult.
Just a guess, and what annoys ME about people who say shit like that.
I never said it was solely genetic, fact. It seems to be that there has to be a genetic predisposition, mixed with some sort of environmental trigger. But even that environmental trigger is likely pre-natal or in the first few months of life.
You really should stop quoting the hobbyist-run, not-necessarily-accurate Wikipedia as a source so much. It’s not a real encyclopedia, it’s written by the general public and has a lot of glaring inaccuracies, particularly on matters controversial.
You’re right. Some of them are not Christians.
One I’ve heard several times, sadly (even once from someone whos daughter is a lesbian):
“There should be a gay marrage ban because the Bible says it isn’t right.”
Um… SEPERATION OF THE FUCKING CHURCH AND STATE!!!
-
Science doesn’t prove anything! That’s why I get all my answers from the Bible!
-
Science keeps changing its mind. The Bible got it right in the first place. (Sometimes followed with a comment about how science one thought the Earth was flat. As if the Church led the fight for a round Earth.)
-
Science is nothing but a religion! (Then what does that make religion?)
Worst of all are the arguments made from projection:
-
There is no evidence to support evolution, so I believe that mankind goes back 8 billion years.
-
You believe we went to the moon? You guys will believe anything that some nut tells you!
-
Fuzzy math! (Interestingly, an accusation made of Al Gore. Al Gore, of all people! While Gore has been accused of many things, that was probably the only time someone claimed he was not rigid and anal enough!)
Let’s see now…
- It was never about the sex, it was about lying under oath
- Clinton caused America’s children to be exposed to talk about oral sex
- We should not let humans recount because they are biased
- They hate us because they hate freedom
- It was never about racism, it was about states rights
- Anything government can do, private corporations can do better
- I’m a Christian and I am for the death penalty
- If everyone had a gun, society would be safer
- Repeat child molesters can be rehabilitated
- Rape is about power, not sex
- All races, and both genders, have exactly the same percentage of people with ability X.
- …
Hell, I’ve heard that not from the parent of a lesbian, but from a lesbian herself.
On a different topic, I’m bothered that even matt_mcl considers that humanity may go extinct in the near future. In a world of six billion, where our chief concerns are overcrowding, lack of resources, and starvation, do you really think we are in any danger of running out of people? Tell you what – next time you are sitting in rush hour traffic, complain about the dwindling population.
I disagree. It’s certainly possible to be for a position, yet still rebut an argument. Here’s an example: I’m in favor of the moratorium on puppy kicking, but I disagree with random poster’s argument that the moratorium will balance the national budget."
As for mine, I hate when posters begin with a false given, such as “Now that we’ve established X, we can see that Y logically follows” when X hasn’t been proved at all.
The claim that they can’t be is one that bugs me. They can and have been. They just are not, currently.
Um, I don’t believe this at all. If I said something that gave the impression I think we’re at risk of underpopulation, it was completely unintentional, or else I was being sarcastic.
We might be at risk of severe ecological disaster, but we certainly aren’t at risk of reproductive stagnation.
OMG! All the most infuriating aspects of SDMB condensed into a single thread! This is giving me fits.
factorial, why don’t you just admit you hate and fear homosexuality and be done with it? Your attempts to quash the queers with logical arguments are just silly. There have always been gays, there will always be gays. There’s no issue to discuss except for the fact that YOU don’t like it. Tough luck, buttercup; get over it.
My other peeve is the flip side of tdn’s argument - that all religion on SDMB is inextricably linked with Christianity. Faith is taken as a refutation of fact, rather than its partner. I think the issue is too important to be treated so simplistically, although given that evolution still has to be defended on a regular basis around here it’s understandable that we haven’t moved beyond square one.
Um, factorial did say s/he’s in favour of same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption. I’m not even sure s/he believes the arguments s/he’s making, or just providing arguments that someone could make.
I’m guessing that I misinterpreted that. Sorry.
(a) You’re wrong. Reread the OP. If you want to call liberals “Moore-Ons” go ahead, just admit that you’re doing it because (a) you’re a jerk, or (b) a liberal beat you up yesterday, or (c) you actually believe it’s the right thing to do, as opposed to the fallacious (d) it’s no worse than what Republicans are called
(b) Who are these mindless followers and defenders of Moore?
(c) For the third time, do you actually care about fighting ignorance, or do you just enjoy being mean to liberals?
Are you serious with that question? You’ve asked 3 times, and twice he answered with more liberal bashing. Doesn’t that answer your question?
You cannot prove a negative. (Is it possible to formulate a more logically absurd assertion?)
Back to the OP:
“Batman beats anybody, if he’s prepared.”
This is just silly. It seems to be based on three things.
- In Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, Batman takes on Superman one-on-one and beats him.
This is irrelevant for two reasons. First, DKR is out of continuity. Second, the situation is unique. Superman is caught in a nuclear bomb blast, then prevented exposure to the sun by the debris from the blast in the atmosphere. He’s shot with a kryptonite arrow by Green Arrow (making the actual battle 2 on 1). Then Batman, in a battle suit, beats him up. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect nuclear blasts to be convenient when Batman needs to take out Superman.
- Batman has contingency plans to take out each member of the Justice League and every other major superbeing on earth, just in case it should be necessary. Ra’s al Ghul stole these plans and used them to take out the Justice League one at a time, which proves that they would work.
The fact that Batman has such plans doesn’t mean that they would work if he implemented them. Ra’s al Ghul has the advantage of not caring whether the hero was killed in the process, while Batman is a fanatic about never killing for any reason. Rha’s al Ghul beating someone doesn’t mean Batman would.
- In stories involving the whole Justice League, or all of the heroes of the DCU being taken out, Batman is most often the last survivor.
This is just a reliance on what has become a cliche in the DCU. Having the most powerful heroes solve the problem isn’t as interesting as having the less powerful heroes save the day, as a general rule. Usually, the writers have the heavy hitters taken out early because they are the biggest threat, and Batman is ignored because the villains underestimate him. Having Batman save the day in the end, however, has become so common place that he has gained the reputation as the major power in the JLA. It’s a product of sloppy writing more than a plausible evaluation of relative ability.
Whatever the reason, just because Batman often saves the day or is the final survivor doesn’t mean he can beat anyone else.
Actual confrontations between Batman and the most powerful heroes in the DCU are rare. In the most recent Batman-Superman battle, a prepared Batman is barely able to slow down Superman long enough for Catwoman to kidnap Lois and throw her off a building. He doesn’t come anywhere close to beating Superman.
There have been two in-continuity confrontations between Wonder Woman and Batman. In The Hikatea, Batman tries to take in a criminal that Diana has sworn to protect, and she kicks his ass quite badly, to the point that the has to surrender and agree to let the criminal go. In A League of One, a prepared Batman also gets badly beaten by Wonder Woman, after she’s taken out the rest of the league. Batman as much as admits that he stands no chance against her in a physical battle, his only chance being to talk her out of it, at which he fails.
I don’t know of any direct confrontations with Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, or Flash.
It is, of course, possible for any character to beat any other character, at the whim of the writer, and by this standard, Batman can beat anybody. But the evidence from the in-continuity stories of the DCU just doesn’t support the “Batman wins, if he’s prapared” cliche.
I just expressed it badly. I meant “there are conceivable circumstances under which the human race could go extinct of underpopulation,” such as the example I gave in which all women join nunneries.
I certainly didn’t mean that any such circumstance is at risk of occurring.
Oh, here’s a completely fresh one for you:
Why are you bringing up (Queer rights/Bush’s malfeasance/etc.) again? It’s been done!