What's the most ridiculous argument you've ever heard??

FunLover18

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

What 2 subjects?

Looking for the link now, but essentially one would be the prose and poetry, can't remember what the other one would be, probably conversational. And one of them would remain compulsory

EDIT: Link

A two-subject approach is needed for the state examinations. Take the poetry, prose and history of the Irish language out of the current course and expand it into a separate, optional subject for advanced students, something akin to Applied Maths. “Irish Language” as a main subject would be taught to every student as a core subject with a renewed emphasis on understanding, speaking and writing the language. This subject would also cover language awareness and should be taught and assessed using the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.

It's ridiculous in my mind anyway

Tony EH

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Most ridiculous one I have ever heard is "Men can't experience sexism"

I've actually been involved in this argument, with about four women who broadly agreed.

My mind nearly melted.

mrkiscool2

Tony EH wrote: »

I've actually been involved in this argument, with about four women who broadly agreed.

My mind nearly melted.

I argued with two female feminists and 3 men who also claimed to be feminists. The amount of times I heard "patriarchy" and "misogyny" was insane.

old hippy

So many; where to begin?

Calls to sterilise large swathes of society. If my eyes rolled any further they'd fall out... :rolleyes:

Buzz Killington the third

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I argued with two female feminists

Destined to fail before you began.

Sunglasses Ron

Aside from quite literally anything and everything the AH PC brigade come up, it would be an extension of the below

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

More guns will stop gun crime.

Ban knives and cars because they kill people (in a gun debate).

A hilarious, yet disturbing, extension to this one is the seemingly large amount of Americans who believe that most, if not all, gun massacres since the Aurora massacre at the very least, are either

a- Orchestrated by multiple gunmen, leaving a usually "suicide" dead body gunman to take the blame

b- The government hands high powered firearms to some nut on CIA mind control drugs, sends him off on kill switch and, with the aid of one or two CIA shooters who scarper into the confusion after letting off a few shots, leave him to be arrested and take the fall with no idea or memory as to what he has done.

or, the very best one

c- Some massacres never happened, instead employing the services of a collaborative and willing left wing media and "crisis actors" to portray the relatives of non existent victims "murdered" by a gunman who also never existed.


Pre 9/11 conspiracy theories like JFK, Diana's car accident, the TWA flight off Long Island, that Pope who died suddenly, where the alleged protagonists actually had, you know, like, a probable motive, for the plot? I've not seen one in years.


Aside from all of that, it beggars belief how many people believe fast food chain urban legends.

"McDonald's and Supermacs advertise using 100% pure Irish beef because they buy muck from a company called 100% pure Irish beef"

So what is it? Flavored, dried out compacted turf speed grilled?

Even worse is the amount of people who believe KFC use genetically altered multiple legged, featherless chickens.


The ironic thing is that most of these alternative discount food sources would likely cost more to source than plain old cuts of beef and chicken.

toxicity234

danniemcq wrote: »

Nope it's true, heard it a few months ago I'll try and find a link now

Edit for link
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201307030003

There are other people saying the same and other sources but trying to walk a dog and search is a nightmare!

How old are these people and can we put them down yet??

Azwaldo55

The most ridiculous argument I ever heard was ten years ago when morons were opposed to overthrowing Saddam.
People were supposedly progressive, democratic, liberal, pro-human rights, pro-gay rights, pro-women's rights etc etc marching in the street in OPPOSITION to the overthrow of a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Utterly insane.

danniemcq

toxicity234 wrote: »

How old are these people and can we put them down yet??

I'd be more in favour of letting them spout their nonsense (heh brasseye)

Think about it if they did use a decent argument against gay marraige (i can't think of any to use as an example) then people on the fence or even people who would be kinda in their favour would support them.

When they come out with stuff like this though it destroys their arguments and makes them a laughing stock from the majority of people. This in turn will turn those who as I mentioned above to the other side.

Sometimes idiots on the opposition are your greatest advantage

Sunglasses Ron

toxicity234 wrote: »

How old are these people and can we put them down yet??

Why?

They don't have a right to an opinion, or to repeat the facts of a case heard in a court of law because you don't like it? You support the imprisonment and, it would seem, execution of those who hold an opposing, non violent political or societal viewpoint?

Sunglasses Ron

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The most ridiculous argument I ever heard was ten years ago when morons were opposed to overthrowing Saddam.
People were supposedly progressive, democratic, liberal, pro-human rights, pro-gay rights, pro-women's rights etc etc marching in the street in OPPOSITION to the overthrow of a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Utterly insane.

It was more of an in- thing than anything.

The fact is, the Irish never warmed to Bush, dating from before his election. Ireland loved Clinton, Gore was his natural successor, and from there on in he would never be liked.

Even British newspapers who were on the record as being anti war printed the "60 second launch capability" claims and all the rest of it as if they were unopposed fact.

JeffKenna

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The most ridiculous argument I ever heard was ten years ago when morons were opposed to overthrowing Saddam.
People were supposedly progressive, democratic, liberal, pro-human rights, pro-gay rights, pro-women's rights etc etc marching in the street in OPPOSITION to the overthrow of a dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Utterly insane.

Ah the good old weapons of mass destruction, whatever happened to them?

Azwaldo55

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

It was more of an in- thing than anything.

The fact is, the Irish never warmed to Bush, dating from before his election. Ireland loved Clinton, Gore was his natural successor, and from there on in he would never be liked.

Even British newspapers who were on the record as being anti war printed the "60 second launch capability" claims and all the rest of it as if they were unopposed fact.

Don't get me wrong. They made a total mess after the fall of Baghdad but the idea of getting rid of the evil fascist SOB was fundamentally sound.
I never believed the WMD claims. I wanted Saddam gone and people were looking at me like I had two heads when I said Saddam should go.
If Gore had been elected I think he would have done something about Saddam and he would have been adored by the Irish public.
Bizarre how people can't actually think for themselves.

Lou.m

Originally Posted by mrkiscool2 View Post
I argued with two female feminists

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

Destined to fail before you began.

This is a stupid argument.

Curly Judge

Renewable energy will save the planet.
It's right up there with the guy standing on the grassy knoll!

Azwaldo55

JeffKenna wrote: »

Ah the good old weapons of mass destruction, whatever happened to them?

I never believed the WMD bullsh*t because it was irrelevant anyway. Saddam was himself the weapon of mass destruction - he murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. He needed to go. I don't care who overthrew him. Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Russia or the U.S. He needed to go full stop. The morons who opposed the invasion didn't give a sh*t about Iraqis and since the Yanks pulled out they still don't give a sh*t. It was all pure anti-Americanism. They never gave a damn when Russia invaded Chechyna or Georgia and there are NO protests over Russian interference in Ukraine or Chinese brutality in Tibet. Can you imagine how mad things would be today if Saddam was still alive?

JeffKenna

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I never believed the WMD bullsh*t because it was irrelevant anyway. Saddam was himself the weapon of mass destruction - he murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. He needed to go. I don't care who overthrew him. Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Russia or the U.S. He needed to go full stop. The morons who opposed the invasion didn't give a sh*t about Iraqis and since the Yanks pulled out they still don't give a sh*t. It was all pure anti-Americanism. They never gave a damn when Russia invaded Chechyna or Georgia and there are NO protests over Russian interference in Ukraine or Chinese brutality in Tibet. Can you imagine how mad things would be today if Saddam was still alive?

You surely don't believe that world super powers can just go in and invade a country based on lies? Where is the proof of these hundreds of thousands of people that he murdered? More lies? I do realise he murdered people but any figure I heard has not come close to the number of dead following the invasion and the mess the country has been in since.

Lou.m

Wow this thread is bringing all the crazy out!

danniemcq

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I never believed the WMD bullsh*t because it was irrelevant anyway. Saddam was himself the weapon of mass destruction - he murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. He needed to go. I don't care who overthrew him. Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Russia or the U.S. He needed to go full stop. The morons who opposed the invasion didn't give a sh*t about Iraqis and since the Yanks pulled out they still don't give a sh*t. It was all pure anti-Americanism. They never gave a damn when Russia invaded Chechyna or Georgia and there are NO protests over Russian interference in Ukraine or Chinese brutality in Tibet. Can you imagine how mad things would be today if Saddam was still alive?

The issue was never that he wasn't a bad man, that went without saying.

The main issue was we were told lies to start a war. People knew this and didn't want it to happen.

If they wanted they could have said this guy is a dictator and we are going to overthrow him for democracy but then they would also have to do the same to many of their allies and not only them but also Governments that wouldn't have been as easy a walk over as Iraq was.

Sunglasses Ron

danniemcq wrote: »

The issue was never that he wasn't a bad man, that went without saying.

The main issue was we were told lies to start a war. People knew this and didn't want it to happen.

If they wanted they could have said this guy is a dictator and we are going to overthrow him for democracy but then they would also have to do the same to many of their allies and not only them but also Governments that wouldn't have been as easy a walk over as Iraq was.

I honestly think Bush believed he was a clear and present threat to at least some extent and feared him aligning with Al Qaeda. (Stranger alliances have occurred in the past- Nazi Germany aligned with everyone from Russian communists, Japanese imperialists and Arabs. All three regarded as inferior races, and communism regarded as much as a threat to Germany as Jewish economic power).

Blair, on the other hand, I don't think he gave a f'uck whether Saddam had weapons or not. A successful war for democracy would have been the icing on the cake for the retirement legacy he was so concerned.

Of course, it didn't go so well and in 50 years he will even outrank Thatcher by a mile as the most awful PM Britain ever had (the primary difference being that whilst Brits either loved or loathed Thatcher, and in the south at least she was even admired by a sizable chunk of the working class, pretty much nobody outside of the business classes has any positive thought about Blair)

Carlos Orange

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Can you imagine how mad things would be today if Saddam was still alive?

Any madder than the current state of Iraq?

danniemcq

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I honestly think Bush believed he was a clear and present threat to at least some extent and feared him aligning with Al Qaeda. (Stranger alliances have occurred in the past- Nazi Germany aligned with everyone from Russian communists, Japanese imperialists and Arabs. All three regarded as inferior races, and communism regarded as much as a threat to Germany as Jewish economic power).

I gotta disagree with the Al-Qaeda/Saddam link. They were opposed in pretty much anyway they could bar their hatred of the west.

Osama offered mujahideen fighters from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia to defend against Saddam in Gulf War 1

Osama hated Saddam

Hamid Mir, bin Laden's Pakistani biographer, spoke to him in 1997: He condemned Saddam Hussein in my interview. He gave such kind of abuses that it was very difficult for me to write, [calling Hussein a] socialist mother****er. [He said], "The land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is ****ing his mother." He also explained that Saddam Hussein is against us, and he discourages Iraqi boys to come to Afghanistan.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090216031256/http://www.peterbergen.com/bergen/articles/details.aspx?id=233

The founder of the ba'ath party was also Christian which Osama didn't like

Then there was the conflicts where Saddam supported (i guess in Osamas opinion) the wrong side

from wikipedia

during the Lebanese Civil War, he supported Michel Aoun and the Christian Maronite Forces as opposed to Amal Movement or Hezbollah, which were funded by Iran and most other Arab countries.

Saddam had a multi denominational government, abolished Sharia courts and promoted western ideals.

Osama also supposidly supported Kurdish rebels in Northern Iraq too.

Whatever differences allies had in WW2 this ran much deeper.

Also whatever hope/chance there was of Iraq not being linked to Al-Qaeda there is this comment

In February 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war, bin Laden released an audiotape in which he said, "Needless to say, this crusade war is primarily targeted against the people of Islam. Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist [Ba'th] party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad." Bin Laden went on to observe that "socialists are infidels," implying that Saddam was an apostate from Islam, the gravest charge bin Laden could make against a fellow Muslim.

So you have the haterd of saddam still but also the willingness to defend Iraq

Shakespeare's Sister

"Ireland will be taken over by sharia."

When asked for something to support this claim, its proponents just get all upset and angry.

danniemcq

Magaggie wrote: »

"Ireland will be taken over by sharia."

When asked for something to support this claim, its proponents just get all upset and angry.

Was it an EDL march a year ago or something that one of the guys claimed that they had "muslamic ray guns" or something?

wretcheddomain

That Sinn Fein would fix the economy and be the only party in the world to adhere to its promises.

Sunglasses Ron

danniemcq wrote: »

Was it an EDL march a year ago or something that one of the guys claimed that they had "muslamic ray guns" or something?

Bloke gave off the impression of being an opposition plant in fairness.

They probably do attract a scummier subsection of UK society but they speak a fair few real grievances that many people in these areas have that the established parties simply refuse to deal with. I have honestly never met one person, out of a cross section of people of varying education levels (unskilled, tradesmen, uni graduates) from the likes of Lancashire, Birmingham, Luton and Yorkshire who does not agree with at least a substantial amount of the views of the EDL. Self segregation, full burqas and attitudes towards local women being the top three gripes that keep coming up.

It is just too many people from too much of a cross section of society to write their concerns off as baseless racism.


Again though, as with UKIP, if it hadn't been for the state ordered political correctness of the Blair years the EDL nor UKIP would have ever had any support.

Azwaldo55

JeffKenna wrote: »

You surely don't believe that world super powers can just go in and invade a country based on lies?

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and now he is dead and gone. If the US lied about WMD so they could have an excuse to overthrow him I really don't care. An Iraqi defector codenamed Curveball aka Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi fed the Americans and British the faulty intelligence. He did so deliberately so that Saddam would be overthrown.

Where is the proof of these hundreds of thousands of people that he murdered?

Hundreds of thousands of bodies were dug up after the overthrow of regime. Those were the bodies of men women and children gassed or shot by Saddam's regime and bulldozed into mass graves.

I do realise he murdered people but any figure I heard has not come close to the number of dead following the invasion and the mess the country has been in since.

You clearly haven't an iota of a clue what you are talking about.
The majority of the dead since 2003 were murdered by Sunni and Shia extremists in bomb and gun massacres.
Innocent civilians blown to pieces by suicide bombers and shot or beheaded after being abducted from their homes.

danniemcq

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Bloke gave off the impression of being an opposition plant in fairness.

They probably do attract a scummier subsection of UK society but they speak a fair few real grievances that many people in these areas have that the established parties simply refuse to deal with.

I wouldn't call him a plant, more of a tulip in fairness.

And I know all EDL supporters aren't the same, and the UKIP parties do make good points and will take a huge percentage of the vote when other parties refuse to discuss what is important to people.

But having watched several documentaries on the group the majority (at least on the streets) of EDL members are exactly like what you would think of when you think EDL.

old hippy

EDL/BNP/UKIP types claiming that "they're coming to take our jobs" whilst simultaneously claiming "they're coming to sponge off our welfare" Which is it, lads? You can't have it both ways...

Azwaldo55

psinno wrote: »

Any madder than the current state of Iraq?

Iraq has a democratic constitution, elected President, elected Prime Minister, elected parliament and local government and judicial independence. It has a chance at a free democratic future. Under Saddam the only future was more tyranny and oppression. The bloodshed today is caused by Sunnis and Shias fighting each other for power. There should be international mediation between both sides. There was no chance of Iraq ever moving on under Saddam.

Optimalprimerib

I got a punch in the face once for being a rude bastard and not aknowledging him as he skipped the queue.

LorMal

Corrk is de reel capitil...

Azwaldo55

danniemcq wrote: »

The issue was never that he wasn't a bad man, that went without saying.

The main issue was we were told lies to start a war. People knew this and didn't want it to happen.

If they wanted they could have said this guy is a dictator and we are going to overthrow him for democracy but then they would also have to do the same to many of their allies and not only them but also Governments that wouldn't have been as easy a walk over as Iraq was.

So what if we were told lies to start a war? The result everyone with a brain wanted as Saddam gone and Iraqis to have a chance at a future.

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

JeffKenna

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what if we were told lies to start a war? The result everyone with a brain wanted as Saddam gone and Iraqis to have a chance at a future.

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

That's laughable. What future do the Iraqis have?? Turn on the news once in a while!

wretcheddomain

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what if we were told lies to start a war? The result everyone with a brain wanted as Saddam gone and Iraqis to have a chance at a future.

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

The consequences of your atrocious post are:

1. International law means nothing
   
   
2. What about the million dead Iraqi's who have no future and died due to (1) - are they dispensable?
   
   
3. I oppose a complete smoking ban but I don't support smoking so your last point is fallacious to say the least.
   
   
4. You fail to factor in the atomisation of Iraq by forces such as Al Qaeda, assuming they're a more refined way to operate Iraq currently than under Saddam.

Sunglasses Ron

old hippy wrote: »

EDL/BNP/UKIP types claiming that "they're coming to take our jobs" whilst simultaneously claiming "they're coming to sponge off our welfare" Which is it, lads? You can't have it both ways...

Different groups provide different reasons for opposition.

Most East European groups would provide more competition in terms of undercutting wages to established tradesmen in the construction sector and the haulage industry. Whether these rates of pay were over charged in the old days is another debate.

Others are competing with the likes of students in the part time sector (i.e. a local student will find it harder to obtain a three nights per week supermarket job when there are five Latvians who will do 60 hours over six days a week).

Like it or not the native student should be allowed to come of age in a society where he can get a few hours work per week the same way those in power making decisions did in their own college days.

Whereas groups like East European Roma and Irish travellers are more likely to come purely to claim welfare and engage in criminality. Both groups having an extremely negligible rate of acquiring employment in any type of real job.

But you already knew that, so why ask?

osarusan

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever.

Azwaldo55

JeffKenna wrote: »

That's laughable. What future do the Iraqis have?? Turn on the news once in a while!

So you think Iraqis are too backward and too uncivilized to run their country for themselves? Arabs should only be ruled by psychopaths like Saddam or Assad or else maniacs like the Muslim Brotherhood? Tens of millions of Arabs want the same freedoms you and I enjoy. You should be supporting them not throwing your hands up in the air or turning your back.

Azwaldo55

osarusan wrote: »

This is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever.

If the 2003 invasion had not gone ahead Saddam and his sons would still be in power. So if you opposed the war you in effect were giving your support to Saddam. What alternative for the future of the beknighted country was there except to see the back of him? Whatever progress Iraqis can make is only possible now. Bloodshed was all but inevitable as occurred in previous decades in other countries when dictators and tyrants came crashing down.

osarusan

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So if you opposed the war you in effect were giving your support to Saddam.

Still one of the most ridiculous arguments ever.

danniemcq

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what if we were told lies to start a war? The result everyone with a brain wanted as Saddam gone and Iraqis to have a chance at a future.

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

Hah that’s a terrible argument! Can i use that as an example in this thread?

Saying that someone supported Saddam because they were opposed to the worlds largest military power creating blatant lies about WMDs, vague links to the September 11th attacks, and saying that they could launch attacks within X amount of minutes in order to start an illegal invasion against a foreign country.

Not only this but they tried to get the UN involved and when they were told to cop on and didn't get the support they and their best bro Great Britain just went ahead and invaded anyway.

This is the reason I was opposed to the war. I completely agreed that Saddam had to go but don't lie to me like I’m a child. Especially when their other buddies are just as bad if not worse than Saddam. Look at Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Equatorial Guinea, Bahrain and even though its not a dictatorship look at the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians from Israel with the direct support of the US.

I don't understand how someone can say "So what if we were told lies to start a war?" That to me is terrifying attitude to have.

brooke 2

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Full moons do make people mad. It's OK for scientist and their 'confirmation bias' baloney, they don't have to live in the real world.

Ask any nurses who are on night duty when there is a full moon!!

JeffKenna

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So you think Iraqis are too backward and too uncivilized to run their country for themselves? Arabs should only be ruled by psychopaths like Saddam or Assad or else maniacs like the Muslim Brotherhood? Tens of millions of Arabs want the same freedoms you and I enjoy. You should be supporting them not throwing your hands up in the air or turning your back.

But Iraq was a democracy...didn't you see those those elections where Saddam was getting 99% of the votes?
Quite popular by all accounts.

Azwaldo55

I don't understand how someone can say "So what if we were told lies to start a war?" That to me is terrifying attitude to have.

You are jaw droppingly naive.
Do you think World War 2 was really about Poland? Or World War 1 was really about the assassination the the Grand Duke in Sarajevo or the rape of nuns in Belgium by advancing German troops? The "liberation" of Kuwait was really about babies killed in their incubators by Iraqi soldiers?

Azwaldo55

JeffKenna wrote: »

But Iraq was a democracy...didn't you see those those elections where Saddam was getting 99% of the votes?
Quite popular by all accounts.

Give me a break!:rolleyes:

wretcheddomain

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You are jaw droppingly naive.
Do you think World War 2 was really about Poland? Or World War 1 was really about the assassination the the Grand Duke in Sarajevo or the rape of nuns in Belgium by advancing German troops?

Hitler lied continuously to engage in acts of war, so according to your own thesis, you'd have to support Hitler's invasion of Poland.

That's why it's an extraordinarily ridiculous argument you're putting forward.

Moreover, would you feel comfortable if your son was sent to war and died on a false pretext given by government?

sbsquarepants

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what if we were told lies to start a war? The result everyone with a brain wanted as Saddam gone and Iraqis to have a chance at a future.

Those opposed the war de facto supported Saddam if they opposed his overthrow.

JeffKenna wrote: »

That's laughable. What future do the Iraqis have?? Turn on the news once in a while!

I would hazard a guess that the average Iraqi now pines for the good old days under Saddam. And anybody that thinks either George Bush or Tony Blair gave a flying fúck about the plight of the average Iraqi is about as naïve as it is possible to be. The Kuwaitis and the Saudis are every bit as bad, but somehow they're the good guys.

Azwaldo55

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Hitler lied continuously to engage in acts of war, so according to your own thesis, you'd have to support Hitler's invasion of Poland.

That's why it's an extraordinarily ridiculous argument you're putting forward.

The British goal in World War 2 was about saving its empire. The French were less interested in resisting Germany than stopping the British and Americans from grabbing their colonies.
The Americans only got involved in the war when its interests were attacked by Japan and when Nazi Germany started to lose to Soviet Russia.
The murder of Jews or the suffering of occupied peoples had nothing to do with why the power elite in Britain and America went to war.

oldyouth

Back in the 80's, prior to a divorce referendum, an anti-divorce campaigner and I got in to a heated argument when he insisted that divorce would be compulsory if the legislation was passed

Couldn't get through to him the absurdity of what he was saying

Reekwind

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what if we were told lies to start a war?

If you have to tell a lie to start a war then the odds are that you don't have a leg to stand on in the first place.

If, for example, Blair and Bush had stood up in 2003 and told the world that there were no WMDs and that the purpose of the war was purely improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis... well, people might have pointed out the small flaws in that plan. Like the fact that a decade after the war Iraq is still wracked by violence and Baghdad government is still struggling to control much of the country. Or other minor difficulties.

Which may be why the US and UK governments decided to lead with sensationalist lies (did you hear: Saddam was behind 9/11) and sexed up dossiers. And that (ie lying) is nothing less than a perversion of the democratic process.