A twinkier defense than even The Twinkie Defense.
(I do know what that defense actually was.)
A variant I’ve heard on the kids argument: “If you don’t have kids, who’ll take care of you when you’re old?” There’s also “It’s a good thing your parents didn’t think like that!” (Uh… I like wouldn’t know it if they had so it wouldn’t make any difference to me.)
In addition to being the single most selfish reason possible to have children, this one can backfire like a $500 Chevy. Many parents are still working in their 70s because of the children who were supposed to support them, either due to the kid’s immaturity or drug habit or physical illness or some other reason.
I frequently think I’m going to puke if I hear the “Lord, Lunatic or Liar!” argument one more time. The hole in that argument literally occurred to me when I was in elementary school, and logic isn’t my strong point. How adults can see it as airtight is just inconceivable to me.
If you didn’t like my particularly beloved wad of entertainment, it’s because you just didn’t understand it.
If you haven’t done anything wrong then you should have no problem with having, (your privacy violated in many, many ways)
My nephew wants to move to Las Vegas to work. I found out that the practice of doing background checks on casino employees (because it’s regulated by the Treasury Dept. and there is LOTS of money involved, plus organized crime) has spread to the community outside of Vegas and they are, for example, requiring background checks on cashiers at Wal-Mart (I called to check and this is true). If you are an exotic dancer or sell hot dogs on the streets from a cart you have to have a background check.
Investigating this a little online it seems that Clark county made millions when it did background checks for casino employees; this is now moved to another agency. But they still make a pretty penny having you put your thumb on the livescan, and making you get a hepatitis shot and watch movies to get a health card; and get an alcohol card (e.g. if you work where they sell liquor, even wine). Yeh I need to have someone require me to get a vaccination or I can’t work; and to see information about alcohol I saw in high school and is on TV constantly. These fees are about $200.00. What a crock.
I also found out that in Nevada you can’t work at the casinos (and god knows where else there) if you have ever been arrested, and even after appeal you most likely won’t get a realtor’s license (even if the case was dismissed). I guess that leaves out my brother, who was arrested in the Berkeley protests 35 years ago, and all those people hauled in last New Year’s eve in Times Square. And that funny guy on George Noory’s show last night that got arrested for trying to build a time machine and “borrowed” a transmitter from his job. God, what a risk!! Please State of Nevada, protect me from these monsters!
Sorry, I’m ranting.
So, yes I haven’t done anything “wrong” but I do have a problem with having you run an FBI check on me.
Here’s one I see in Great Debates often in one form or another:
Some person (or article, book, etc.) A criticizes person (or article, book, etc.) B.
Since A is criticizing B, then A is clearly anti-B.
If someone is anti-B, then they are biased against B.
Therefore, we should not trust A on this matter.
(In short: “The fact that it’s criticism proves that it’s untrustworthy!”)
It’s never spelled out that explicitly, of course. It’s a handy way for people to deflect any criticism of something they hold dear without the messy business of looking at the evidence and creating a convincing argument.
“And as often as he can!”
And on that note, “Boys will be boys!” So you don’t have to, like, give them any guidance or curb destructive or anti-social behavior. They’ll just magically become responsible adults the minute they turn 18. Yeahright.
“I won’t buy that product because I heard from a FOAF that someone in the corporation has a political view I don’t share.” If you want perfect integrity in all your purchasing choices, go live in the woods like Ted Kasyinski. (Only don’t blow anyone up.)
“I once knew/heard of a [member of demographic] who did such-and-such, so I won’t have anything to do with ANY [member of demographic]!” What about people in your own demographic? If even one of them has done such-and-such, then why do you associate with them?
They must circulate this manual very widely… :dubious:
BING BING BING! We have a winner in the most astute observation award for how the Majority of people parent out there.
yeah, sometimes I fall into autopilot yell-a-matrix, but I stop and apologize to the kids after the fact.
“That breed of dog is an awful/vicious/bad.”
Um …no.
Alot has to do with training, upraising and breeding of the dog. Just because you had your face in that Pug/Terrier/Shepard/whatever’s face when you were an unsupervised spaztic 7 year old and the dog bit you does not conclusively mean that all dogs of that breed are evil. It was you at that age or, dare I say it, the owner and their lack of training the dog properly.
“that child never listens.”
Um…maybe if you did something other than YELL at them ALL THE TIME or make Empty THREATS y’know, like, If you don’t stop flushing the toilet, I’m going to kill you. Then your progeny might listen to you. Oh, and maybe if you were YELLED AT ALOT AS A KID you think THAT IS HOW YOU PARENT…by screaming like a monkey all the time at your kids. If you are, then it isn’t your kids that are the problem. It is you.
It’s not rocket science. If your kids are driving you nuts or getting into what they shouldn’t be getting into chances are -YOU- as a parent ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION and too ABSORBED in TV/internet/meals/cleaning/talking on the phone.
When kids can’t get positive attention, they come to think negative attention is all there is and will drive you nuts even more.
My eye is twitching
'/rant
" I don’t have time to read/exercise/clean/scrapbook/knit/write that disseration."
You don’t lack the time. What you lack is the desire.
When you have the desire to do something, you find the time.
So true. That’s just polite-speak for “I’ve got other things I’d rather be doing.”
Hey, can you make it to the party?
I don’t have time.
Did you finish that book you started?
I just didn’t have time.
etc…
“The Patriot Act works because there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11”. This gem comes up with regularity in Letters to the Editor. Well, there haven’t been any attacks since the Yankees last won the World Series, there have been no attacks since Shallow Hal was released, and there have been no terrorist attacks since Aunt Martha’s gout started acting up. Because you observe B after taking action A doesn’t necessarily mean that A caused B.
“You shouldn’t feed your infants and children cow’s milk because humans are the only species that drinks the milk of other animals.”
So fucking what?
We’re suppose to free our bovine brethren from the shackles of slavery. If we all stop drinking milk and eating beef, cows will run free and show you that they have the capacity to run for office and become vital members of society.
Sponsored by the Eat Pork Association.
This is a little bit disingenuous. Guns have been glamorized so much in our culture. Rambo didn’t get famous for his canteen, or for a baseball bat. When Dirty Harry finally opens the drawer and pulls out his .44 Automag, there is cheering in the audience that isn’t repeated when he clips his handcuffs to his belt. Annie Get Your Camp Stove probably wouldn’t play on Broadway.
There is a celebration and fetishization of the gun in American culture. Whether that makes it more likely that it will be used is debatable, but certainly the gun is not a tool and nothing else. It is an icon of power, status, defiance, independence, cool, and countless other images and values attached to it in movies, books, art, and music.
On a somewhat different tack, a gun is easy to use. Pull a trigger / press a button, and your problem is dealt with. There’s a school of thought (I’m not saying it’s right, but I find it logical there might be something to it) that the easy, hands-off nature of a gun makes it more likely to be used than if a lot of hand labor was involved, like strangling and dragging.
Certainly most of the people I deal with in my normal life will do something if all they have to do is press a button that they would pass up doing if they had to do a lot of work. I know a lot of people who will eat a hamburger but would balk at slaughtering a cow with their own hands. Even nations are not immune to basing their decisions on how easy a tool makes a project. A digging stick is as much a tool as dynamite, but nobody contemplated digging the Panama Canal with digging sticks. Dynamite made it “easier”, and being “easier” (yes, I know it was stil an enormous undertaking) stimulated the project to finally be attempted.
To bring up an admitted generalization, many times we hear that an angry person went to get a gun and came back to shoot. If he or she was really angry and any tool would do, why didn’t he or she use just any tool at hand or use bare hands? Instead, he or she went to get the gun.
A gun is a tool. But saying *just * a tool and nothing else ignores so much historical and cultural context that it’s almost spin.
Sailboat
and etc.
I agree. What the heck…
But curiously, I don’t do drugs (any more) and I don’t drink much. It’s not because I can “have fun at parties without it.” I just don’t feel like it any more. Mebbe I’m getting old; I don’t think that’s the reason, but who knows. Sometimes I drink, sometimes I don’t! I am not gonna show up at a martini-tasting party and not drink! But I’ll only have two.
Mebbe it’s that I really hate hangovers!
And also, I’ve done it all before, so I don’t have to be defensive.
My response is usually: Yes, believe it or not, I am biased against B, in that I believe it to be false. And here is why.
or Sunday school. 
“I don’t believe in XXXXX. I promise to give a prize of $$$$$ to anyone able to prove XXXXX. If XXXXX is true, anyone can claim my $$$$$. Of course, I am the only person qualified to assess the quality of proof. Since nobody has claimed my prize yet, that is strong evidence that XXXXX does not exist.”
That’s a perfectly valid argument, as long as he can provide records showing why each applicant was disqualified.
But I have a feeling you’re referring not to some argument that’s been overused by many people, but to a specific individual making that claim. It seems off-topic for this thread, especially when we’ve discussed that individual’s claim in many threads already.
No, it’s never a worthwhile argument. It’s used exclusively by people that don’t know what they are talking about. have nothing else to say.
And. by the way, it’s one that has been used on a number of occsions. Flat earthers, creationists and holocaust deniers have all used it.
As for that specific individual, my point has never been that he’s wrong to deny XXXXX. I don’t actually believe in XXXXX myself. Just that his methods of attacking it are dishonest.