Yet Another Pet Peeves thread

Actually, that’s not at all what I was talking about. There has defniitely been the “ooh, atheists have killed more people than religious people” debate, which is relatively meaningless, as I see it. I’m talking about the general behavior, attitudes, and political beliefs of generic non-serial-killer Americans. Compare the people who want to ban gay marriage (because of their religion) or keep the 10 commandments in the classroom (because of their religion) or not allow the teaching of evolution (beacuse of their marriage), or the recent big political/religious rally called “Sunday for Faith” or whatever the hell it was called, with ANY actions taken by atheists and motivated by their atheism.

And remember, removing “Under God” from the pledge does not make it an atheist pledge, it just makes it a pledge which does not violate beliefs of either Christians or atheists. What atheists would actually add the words “under no God, because there is no God” to the pledge, if they could? (I bring this up as an example of the kind of asymmetric situation that abounds.

No, it wouldn’t be, would it.

Of course you do.

That was on my list of guesses, right after squash casserole.

Well, let’s see. I could mention Stalin’s Gulags designed for “eliminating the male homosexual subculture from Russia’s capital” (Daniel D. Healey, lecturer in Russian History in the Department of History, University of Wales, Swansea). It wasn’t because of Stalin’s religion. I could mention Mao’s ubiquitous Little Red Book, not to mention his ever-present portrait from whole sides of buildings to tabletop mats. It wasn’t because of Mao’s religion. I could mention the revisionism and teaching of false history instituted by every atheist despot who seized power from his predecessor. Not to mention staged mass rallies. And it wasn’t because of their religion. I could also mention the religious people who advocate gay marriage specifically because of their religion, or those who advocate the separation of church and state specifically because of their religion. But you already know some of them. They post here.

::loses interest after first paragraph::

Yeah, insomnia sucks.

I really hate it when people post long quotes, with out even the least <snip> in it, to shorten it.

SDMB related:

People who post in cafe society threads and refer to a character by the name of a different character that that actor played (calling Jonathon Archer from Enterprise “Captain Quantum” is a prime example). It’s not clever, it’s just annoying.

Non-SDMN related:

People who feel the need to sing at work. We don’t have cubicles, everything carries. When I’m trying to concentrate on a particularly complex job, I don’t need to hear you shout “Oh, that’s my jam” and proceed to warble along to it.

My peeve is people who come into Pet Peeve threads and turn them into boring debates on issues that nobody is interested in anymore, if they ever were. It’s just peeves, people. If you want to have a serious debate, start your own damned thread.

My other peeve is squirrels digging my stuff up. Little fuzzy bastards.

Just like a librul Democrat to bring something like that up! :smiley:
My pet peeve is when people refuse to acknowledge the fact that I am omnis…omnisie…omnescie…that I know everything!

Some fountains now have Minutemaid Lite lemonade, a good choice. Try mixing it 50-50 with diet cola!

My pet peeve rigth now is the (deliberately lefy un-named) SUV commercial. It has a line of black SUVs, driving WAY too close together, like they are VIP’s or something. Then they stop- and disgorge their" VIPs"- schoolkids. First of all- this reinforces the completely incorrect UL that SUV’s are “safer for my little babies” (they aren’t, overall). Next, it shows SUV being used as commuter vehicles- which is a misuse of resources. Then, it shows them closely taligating- with their “precious cargo” onboard- and a motorcycle cops watches them drive by, seemingly with approval- when any right minded cop would issue them each a BIG FAT tailgating ticket. :mad: Perpetuating a UL, suggesting a misuse of natural resources, and showing unsafe driving behaviour. Three strikes. :mad:

Don’t worry its blatantly obvious what you meant in the OP and I agree with your statement. I also knew that someone was going to take issue with it (interestingly enough doing the exact thing you were pitting) and it is not suprising that ** Liberal ** is the one that did it, he has quite the Christian persecution complex.

Goodness gracious, who peed in your wheaties this morning?

Let me try to make myself clear, here.
(1) I certainly don’t believe that all, or even most, Christians are mean/stupid/homophobic/dogmatic/extreme/Fred Phelps/Jack Chick
(2) I was not, at least originally, interested, at least in this therad, of going through a list of history’s greatest monsters, both of the genocidal-dictator variety and then serial-killer-child-rapist variety, seeing how many are Christian vs. Atheist, and pretending that that proves something.
(2a) Although if we WERE to have a discussion of that sort, I should point out that it’s certainly possible for someone to be motivated to do evil things by Christian beliefs, at least when they are twisted and extreme. It is much harder, bordering on impossible, for someone to be twisted to do evil things by their Atheist beliefs, because there ARE no Atheist beliefs, specifically. Saying that being an Atheist leads to doing X Y and Z is like saying that NOT being a football fan leads to doing X Y and Z
(3) Instead, I was discussing the level of dogmatic obnoxiousness and want-to-make-my-beliefs-law that not-super-evil Christians and non-super-evil Atheists have. Maybe that’s a stupid discussion to have (or in this case, a stupid peeve to have), but are you claiming I’m lying and backpedalling now when I say that’s what I was talking about?

Here’s one of my pet peeves: I actually knew a guy like that. His entire personality seems to revolve around being anti-Bush. One time, I was with some people who suggested that parts of Bowling for Columbine was inaccurate or at least misleading, and he got really defensive about it. That’s about when I asked myself why I was even hanging out with that guy.

…well, plus he was just generally annoying. That counts as a pet peeve, right?

Problem is, the popular media seems filled with people who, when the movie came out, were willing to do much the same, should someone suggest it was the least bit accurate. Fighting fire with fire? Reasoned discussion didn’t seem to do a thing to people who wanted to believe Moore was a liar.

My pet peeve -

Narcissistic arguers. The SDMB is full of folks who spend all their waking hours surfing though the every thread on the board looking for a fight. Rather than fighting ignorance, these people seem to focus on scoring points on some invisible scoreboard and pumping up their post count as if there’s a prize at the end somewhere. And they seem genetically predisposed to think that if a thought enters their mind, they must post! It’s as if they are afraid if they aren’t in permanent output mode, they would vanish in a puff of blue smoke!

::Scott vanishes from existance.::

I hate it when people don’t re-wind the vacuum cord. Come on, it takes less than a minute to wind the cord around the little knobs on the back of the vacuum. Why leave it in a tangled mass on the floor, or wrapped around the handle that has to be unknotted later? Save some time and do it right in the first place.

  • (3) I like it when women on match.com respond positively when I send them email. But I like it a lot less when that response is a “wink”. Where does that leave me? Should I email again? Clearly, she’s interested. But what’s the next step?*

It means she cannot reply with an email because she does not have paid services. It behooves you to always include a non-match email in your letters.

Oh come on give Lib a break he doesn’t mean to do it, god makes him…

Psst - hey, inkleberry - see post #6 in this thread.

:stuck_out_tongue:

Got lost in scroll. And it bears repeating.

I just figured it meant I wasn’t in the clique.