I had a hostess at a cocktail party actually yell at me because I wasn’t drinking. She took it as a personal challenge that I was not imbibing alcohol for some reason. Ok-she was an idiot.
I dislike the argument of “This is America; it’s a free country!” What the hell does that mean? Like Europe isn’t free? How does one compare the socio-economic status of the USA with say, Bolivia in a meaningful way? What is the point? What they mean to say is “I get to do what I want, because I’m a selfish moron who craves immediate gratification.” It’s not an argument–I don’t know what it is.
I have yet to hear someone call their newborn “my little collection of cells” even though I am sure that newborns aren’t self-aware. The specialized cell thing doesn’t hold up too well either if you are talking about older fetuses.
The differentiation potential for using the “collection of cells” argument is very poor and indicates fuzzy thinking in both biology and philosophy.
“God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” :rolleyes:
How will you know what great deals we have unless we contact you to tell you? (i.e., we need your personal information for your own good).
The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.
I only heard this once, but it was funny and sad at the same time: “It’s a good thing he was drunk, otherwise he would have really been hurt when he drove his car into a ditch.”
“Marriage” is defined as a man and a woman, and that definition can’t change to include SSM because then it wouldn’t be “marriage” anymore.
Opposition to war = opposition to America/troops/freedom
I only quoted the first one of the statements. Let’s examine it for stupidity.
The verb “kill” means “to put to death”. Guns are inanimate objects; they have no volition or motive power of their own. They, therefore, cannot put anyone or anything to death. They require the motive power of a human and the volition of the human’s pulling the trigger before they will fire.
A gun is no more responsible for the death of a human than is a knife or a hammer or a baseball bat. It is a tool and nothing else.
Well, actually, large portions of Europe are significantly less free than the US.
Stupid argument: “That’s the way it’s always been.” Look up the word “evolution” some time, doofus. It happens to societies as well as organisms.
Stupider argument: “God said…” Excuse me? I must have slept through the thunderous pronouncement.
Trying to remove religion from government = an attack on Christians
Oy. That’s not what I meant. It is said as if noone else “enjoys” the freedoms that we do–yeah, some are “free” to reasonably priced healthcare and decent family leave as a matter of course. And this “freedom” makes America the BEST!
America is (or was) a great country–but for more reasons than some ill-defined and jingoist phrase about " it’s a free country!".
I agree re the “it’s in the Bible, so therefore there is no counter-argument” crappola, though.
Yea… this is why I am generally Pro-Choice up until about the three year mark.
Yeah, the just the one where any person who is not religious is somehow automatically Anti-Christian. Like the time Governor Venura was called anti-christian when he said he didn’t believe in god.
Stupid argument that I am guilty of using half the time to my students re the question “why?”: because I SAID SO.
Hey, it works.
Me: Jimmy, be quiet and let someone else answer the question this time.
Student: Why, teacher?
Me: Because everyone wants a chance at answering, Jimmy, and you’ve already had your turn. We have to be fair.
Student: What means fair, teacher?
Me: [tries to think of easy explanation. Fails. Ignores question.] Okay, everyone, page 20.
Student: TEACHER WHAT MEANS FAIR WHAT MEANS FAIR
OR
Me: Jimmy, be quiet and let someone else answer the question this time.
Student: Why, teacher?
ME: [thundering voice] BECAUSE I SAID SO.
Student: [meek silence]
(for the record, I teach an ESL class)
Ok. Gotcha. I agree.
Another one I hear all the time: “But that isn’t fair!” :rolleyes:
My usual response is “You’re right…it isn’t. Next question?”
HA! Teacher simulpost! 
Every time gas prices go up, somebody always writes in to the paper to complain, and to argue that, even if the prices that the suppliers charge the gas stations has gone up, this shouldn’t affect how much they charge for the “old” gas that’s already sitting in their underground tanks. :rolleyes:
True so far as it goes. OTOH putting a gun in the hands of a homicidal maniac is a darn sight more hazardous to his innocent neighbours than, oh, say, putting a raspberry souffle in his hands. So in that sense guns do kill people, and indeed, that’s what they’re for. Primarily, perhaps, in order that you may do unto your neighbour what he is about to do unto you, but that wasn’t the argument.
The one I don’t want to hear any more is the one about how guns aren’t for killing, they’re for making holes in things, such as paper targets. Yup, and a gun that could make holes in nothing but paper targets is going to be a volume seller, fer sure.
No, the homicidal maniac kills people. The gun is just a tool, and could easily be replaced by a kitchen knife in your scenario. The UK response to that, of course, is to ban pointy kitchen knives.
In the final analysis guns are for making small pieces of dense metal move very fast, and that’s all. Whether those small metal pieces knock soup cans off of fence rails or perforate rival gang members is a consequence of the intent of the shooter, and the nature of the gun has nothing to do with it.
Three-ring hole punches don’t kill people, drill presses kill people.
“All violence gets you is more violence”. Be that as it may, If somebody hits me, I’m gonna fuckin hit them right back! DAMMIT! :mad:
Almost any “argument” that ends in “think of the children” elicits a :rolleyes: from me if not otherwise supported.
Nudist colonies should be banned - think of the children, man!
Rip up those steel-tube monkey-bars, boys! - think of the children.
Another eyeball roller is “…if it saves one life it’s worth it.” BS!
I heard an interview with a Vancouver police staff sergeant. He was asked about the annual “Kid Print” program - you know, you take your kid to the police kiosk at the mall and have your kid videotaped saying his name, address, etc - left side, right side - said video kept on file at the police station.
Sgt: “It’s a tool. If ever your child is abducted, we have a lot of useful information.”
Interviewer: “In the last 17 years the program has been running, how many times have you used needed to use it?”
Sgt: “Well, um, none - but if it saves just one life, you know.”
Sure. It’s worth engendering the fear in both the mother and the kid about the villains that lurk around every corner for a useless go-through-the-motions-make-everyone-feel-good exercise, not to mention the cost of the program, etc., etc… you see where I’m going with this.
sigh
No matter where you stand on gun regulation, I don’t think that the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument is a “stupid” argument. You may not agree with it in terms of a rationale for fashioning public policy, but I wouldn’t say it’s “stupid.”