“I don’t do drugs/drink alcohol because I can have fun at parties without it.”
Huh?? You can have fun at parties without drinking Pepsi either, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t drink Pepsi. Just say what you mean: drugs and alcohol can be bad for you, you’re just not interested, you’re afraid you’ll get addicted – whatever. Don’t make up something stupid.
“You shouldn’t curse, because surely you have a more creative vocabulary than that.”
Again, just say what you mean: people shouldn’t curse because it’s rude, not because it’s “uncreative.” People say banal things all the time; how come we’re suddenly supposed to get creative when it comes to expressing anger?
Whenever you critcize anyone for doing something they shouldn’t: Well, you do it, too. Particularly when it’s something I’ve never done or wouldn’t do in a million years, or if I’m not claiming to be perfect.
Let’s parse the phrase and see just how intelligent it really is.
The lottery - OK, I think we can all agree on what that is
is a tax - OK, right there, you’re off in the weeds…from the M-W dictionary:
Main Entry: 2tax
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2 : a heavy demand
Nope.
on people who are bad at math -
OK, even if it was a tax, what exactly would be the method to determine who’s bad at math. High school transcripts? Competency tests? Let’s say you could conclusively determine who’s bad at math. I really can’t see how that tax could possibly be legal, being discriminatory and all (legal types could probably quote you some chapter and verse about how it’s unconstitutional or something).
So, in a sentence of 12 words, I can only find two that are correct, meaning that 5/6 of the sentence is wrong. Not entirely certain, but a statement that is 5/6ths wrong might be fairly called stupid.
Now, if you were to say “playing the lottery is stupid, the odds are so astronomically against you that you’re wasting your money”, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but even there, some game theory geeks could probably somehow disprove it.
Oooh, I’ll agree with you on that one. When I was in high school a friend and I got into a debate about this, him saying heat lightning was an actual thing, me trying my best to convince him it wasn’t, until we finally went to the earth studies teacher to confirm my answer.
“Gays shouldn’t parent because it’s important to teach the child proper gender roles.”
-What is an improper gender role? Can you identify some?
-Why is it important? Do people who have “improper” gender roles reflect bad parenting? As the genderqueer product of a happy heterosexual marriage, what’s my excuse?
-Why would gay people not be able to teach “proper” gender roles even if we concede it is important to do so? Are single parents also ineligible to do so? What about straight couples where the parents have “improper” gender roles?
I agree 100% and that was what I was about to post. The guns and lottery statements are true on a basic level.
I get tired of the following pro-abortion arguments:
“Its my body” - right but you can do many things with your body that aren’t allowed or condoned. Loading youself up with crack, cigarettes and alcohol isn’t generally considered good form because it affects the baby. Russian stacking dolls show that just because one thing is inside another, it isn’t necessarily owned by the larger thing.
“It’s is just a collection of cells” - True but what do with think you are?
For the record, I am pro-choice but these arguments strike me as idiotic.
The problem I have with the lottery, believe it or not, is people telling me that I should play. “Somebody has to win,” they say. So fucking what? 149,999,999 people have to lose, and I don’t feel like being one of them.
Actually, when I say that, it’s because some bozo who’s already at least one-and-a-half sheets to the wind is breathing gin fumes at me and trying to get me to “just take ONE drink, why won’t you take at least ONE? It’s a PARTY!” (I had noticed that, thanks) or when someone is trying to convince me that getting hammered out of my mind and into unconsciousness is somehow enjoyable.
That’s when I respond with “I don’t need booze / drugs to enjoy myself, thanks just the same now go away.”
Gratuitous self-righteous pre-emptive snooty “I don’t need it to have fun”, yeah, I hate that too. But I also hate the “oh, you’re a goody two shoes what’s wrong with YOU that you don’t drink, what are you, a recovering alcoholic or something” attitude that somehow seems to arise whenever I politely say, “I don’t drink, but thanks.”
Why is the lottery magically better / valid if the payout matched the odds.
The odds don’t change.
Example: suppose odds of winning “Your State” lottery is 1:1000000
Ticket cost is $1. So I’m an idiot if the jackpot isn’t greater than $1000000?
That’s so anal. Why does it have to be cost-effective? I get a thrill that maybe lightning strikes and I might win. That’s worth a $1 to me.
