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

Azwaldo55

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The consequences of your atrocious post are:

[*]International law means nothing

International law always meant nothing!:D

[*]What about the million dead Iraqi's who have no future and died due to (1) - are they dispensable?

In the real world the lesser of two evils must be chosen. Either way there is going to be bloodshed and war. You pick the least worst option.

[*]I oppose a complete smoking ban but I don't support smoking so your last point is fallacious to say the least.

The only way to get rid of Saddam was a full scale military invasion. The alternative was arming Iraqis who had already been crushed time and again by Saddam's military. Numerous assassination attempts had also failed. By opposing the overthrow of Saddam you were turning your back on the Iraqis and leaving them to their faith and giving de facto support to his regime. I am a left wing liberal progressive and if the opportunity arises to overthrow a fascist dictator I will take it.

[*]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.
[/LIST]

Short term there is going to be violence and conflict and long term Iraqis if they are willing to fight for their freedom there will be democracy.
The current instability and the fall of Mosul is due to the premature pull out of American troops by Obama.
He was warned that Iraq could collapse and become a base for terrorists if American troops withdraw prematurely and that is what appears to be beginning to be happening.
Iraq has vast quantities of oil vital for the future of the global economy and it cannot fall into the hands of Islamist fanatics who are bent on spreading jihad to the entire world.

Peaceniks seemed to believe if we do nothing then nothing bad will happen to us! Insane!

old hippy

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

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?

Perhaps you'd like to back up your claims. Are the groupings "more likely" from your opinion or are there facts to substantiate your comments?

Many thanks.

Azwaldo55

Reekwind wrote: »

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.

WMD was just one of the reasons why Bush and Blair went to war. If you read their many species from that time they said quite explicitly that Saddam had to go and Iraqis deserved to have democracy and freedom and we in the West had a moral obligation to help them.

Obviously you weren't listening.

Giving millions of Iraqis democratic rights and overthrowing a fascist dictator is a perversion of the democratic process?

As a liberal progressive surely you would welcome that?

wally79

I'm fairly sure there's already an Iraq war argument thread out there lads.

wretcheddomain

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Giving millions of Iraqis democratic rights and overthrowing a fascist dictator is a perversion of the democratic process?

As a liberal progressive surely you would welcome that?

So democracy is great when it's given to other people but democracy should be sidelined for war by lying to the population who voted you in.

You'll have to make your mind up on this democracy thing.

I assume then, in this unwavering dedication toward all-things democracy, that you'd favour military intervention in all Arab dictatorships and those in Africa as well?

Azwaldo55

wally79 wrote: »

I'm fairly sure there's already an Iraq war argument thread out there lads.

I'm sure. I brought up the subject because of the ridiculous arguments the anti-war movement came up with ten years ago.

I'll change the subject to abortion then.

Anti-abortion people don't explicitly come out and explain do they support life sentences for thousands of women in Ireland who have abortions and how they would force those who want abortions and to go abroad to have their babies.

Reekwind

Somebody in 2013 arguing the validity of the US invasion of Iraq? Now that really is a ridiculous argument.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Iraq has vast quantities of oil vital for the future of the global economy and it cannot fall into the hands of Islamist fanatics who are bent on spreading jihad to the entire world.

If at first you don't succeed, right? Because it looks like you're so impressed with the results of the last invasion of Iraq (ie the collapse of central authority in the country) that you're advocating a second invasion of Iraq, one that will address the current problems (ie the collapse of central authority in the country).

I wonder if you've ever heard of Einstein's definition of insanity?

Giving millions of Iraqis democratic rights and overthrowing a fascist dictator is a perversion of the democratic process?

If you go about this by lying to your electorate, yes. Unquestionably.

The entire point of democracy is that rulers are accountable to the people. Fabricating a case for war (because otherwise the people won't give you a mandate) is entirely contrary to that basic principle. It's undemocratic. Period.

Azwaldo55

wretcheddomain wrote: »

So democracy is great when it's given to other people but democracy should be sidelined for war by lying to the population who voted you in.

You'll have to make your mind up on this democracy thing.

I assume then, in this unwavering dedication toward all-things democracy, that you'd favour military intervention in all Arab dictatorships and those in Africa as well?

Lying to people is a small sin compared to leaving a fascist dictator in power surely? Tens of millions of Iraqis were freed from a savage regime. If someone stood on your toes or burst your naive bubble then so what? You are big boy you'll get over it.

danniemcq

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? The "liberation" of Kuwait was really about babies killed in their incubators by Iraqi soldiers?

No ww1 came from countries at the time having agreements and alliances and all wanting to show off in a passing contest, if it wasn't the assassination of arch Duke Franz it would have kicked off within a year at most I'd say. This was back in the day when it was all about glory and empire. Ww1 changed all that thought.

Ww2 like an above poster pointed out Hitler lied through his teeth, Poland attacked Germany according to him (Hitler had got prisoners dressed them up in Polish gear and had them attack a radio installation and they were all killed) and he also tried the same in Denmark. The French and the British and the French did nothing after pola nd was destroyed, very few bombing raids on the mainland, ineffective sanctions and blockades heck the French just moved some tanks over the border nothing else. It was later when it all started hitting the fan that they got involved.

And the babies being thrown from hospitals was a lie again and it was used to outrage the West into mobilisation against Iraq cause Iraq was no longer buddies of the West (remember who gave them their chemical weapons in the first place?) when they discovered that they had supported both sides in the Iran Iraq war.

Now if you want when I get home I'll look through all my military history books and give you quotes and details on all this. Right now I'm on a phone at work.

So tell me again how am I naive?

Donkey Oaty

Reekwind wrote: »

I wonder if you've ever heard of Einstein's definition of insanity?

Putting tomatoes in a fruit salad?

wretcheddomain

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Lying to people is a small sin compared to leaving a fascist dictator in power surely? Tens of millions of Iraqis were freed from a savage regime. If someone stood on your toes or burst your naive bubble then so what? You are big boy you'll get over it.

I'll ignore the facetiousness at the end of your remarks.

I'm glad that you've finally conceded that potential governments are warranted in lying to their electorate in order to pursue an agenda that will ultimately kill the sons and daughters of members of said electorate.

I find that to be a very distorted view of democracy.

The overwhelming public opinion in the UK was against military intervention in Syria and the government voted accordingly. I think the support for intervention was about 14%. Do you think it would have been justified to ignore 86% of the electorate to pursue a war in Syria to overthrow the Assad dictatorship?

Moreover, if you support democracy that much, do you favour intervention in every other Arab dictatorship, such as Saudi Arabia?

Sunglasses Ron

old hippy wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to back up your claims. Are the groupings "more likely" from your opinion or are there facts to substantiate your comments?

Many thanks.

I wouldn't lower myself to it. The same way I wouldn't hit Google to prove the sky is blue.


Instead, you show me that the opposite is true.

Azwaldo55

Reekwind wrote: »

Somebody in 2013 arguing the validity of the US invasion of Iraq? Now that really is a ridiculous argument.

If at first you don't succeed, right? Because it looks like you're so impressed with the results of the last invasion of Iraq (ie the collapse of central authority in the country)

Central authority in Iraq was Saddam and this vicious genocidal regime.

that you're advocating a second invasion of Iraq, one that will address the current problems (ie the collapse of central authority in the country).

The current central authority in the country is Maliki and his democratically elected regime who are under threat from barbarian Islamist fanatics.

I wonder if you've ever heard of Einstein's definition of insanity?

Americans withdrawing prematurely from Vietnam in 1973 led to the fall of the country to Communist dictatorship in 1975 which still exists to this day.

Obama was warned that a premature withdrawal from Iraq would potentially mirror the collapse in 1975 and so far this prediction is starting to come true.

The entire point of democracy is that rulers are accountable to the people. Fabricating a case for war (because otherwise the people won't give you a mandate) is entirely contrary to that basic principle. It's undemocratic. Period.

Rulers also have a responsibility to protect their people. The persistence of dictatorships and terrorists and instability in a dangerous world threatens democracy. When the people are naive and incapable of seeing the danger that their rulers see then action will have to be taken for the greater good.

SoapMcTavish

My sister in law argues against drinking multiple bottles of beer ....
1 bottle = 4% alcohol
2 bottle = 8% alcohol
3 bottle = 12% alcohol

She says better to drink one big bottle - eg pint bottle or bigger where there is 4% alcohol " in the WHOLE bottle".

LOL - how did she get through school .. ????

I am pie

If you gave me a choice of Iraq now or Iraq under Saddam as a place I had to go and live, I'd probably go with the Baathist version.

Less chance of becoming human mincemeat in the aftermath of the most poorly planned "occupation" in history. I've seen estimates which suggest that 500,000 people have died since the US led invasion.

Is the region more stable? No, it is visibly more unstable.

Strategically, was this a success? You could argue that it plays directly into the hands of the enemy who have a stated aim a long a protracted global conflict aimed at forcing the US to consume resources whilst creating more converts to their cause.

So, half a million dead. The net result having been documented by the enemy as a stated global objective and more instability in the region.

I would hate to see what would have happened had the war failed!

Rory Gallagher

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Lying to people is a small sin compared to leaving a fascist dictator in power surely? Tens of millions of Iraqis were freed from a savage regime. If someone stood on your toes or burst your naive bubble then so what? You are big boy you'll get over it.

Right,I suggest you read a book and learn what Fascism is and refrain from labeling it where it need not be labeled.
Who are you to say that all Iraqis disdained Saddam Hussein and thus were 'freed' by the forces of the barbaric U.S.A and U.K

The troops of these savages laid terror upon the Iraq and if you think the Iraq's are any better off then you are sadly mistaken and if you think the international forces cared about the welfare of the citizens of Iraq then it is you who are naive.

old hippy

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I wouldn't lower myself to it. The same way I wouldn't hit Google to prove the sky is blue.


Instead, you show me that the opposite is true.

No, please. You made a sweeping generalisation over two groupings of people. I'd like you to now back up your claims.

Many thanks.

Sunglasses Ron

SoapMcTavish wrote: »

My sister in law argues against drinking multiple bottles of beer ....
1 bottle = 4% alcohol
2 bottle = 8% alcohol
3 bottle = 12% alcohol

She says better to drink one big bottle - eg pint bottle or bigger where there is 4% alcohol " in the WHOLE bottle".

LOL - how did she get through school .. ????

Sure I know people who come out with stuff like "that Russian vodka I had the other night will blow the tits off ya, it's 70 proof?"

So 35% volume so?

5% lighter than most regular vodka?

I swear people get drunker with a mix of weaker alcohol mixed with the placebo effect of it coming from somewhere in the East gives it.

Sunglasses Ron

old hippy wrote: »

No, please. You made a sweeping generalisation over two groupings of people. I'd like you to now back up your claims.

Many thanks.

It's on Google. You look it up. I refuse to lower myself to such garbage on principle, the same way as I would refuse to justify the sky being blue.

Look at that, this thread in itself creates a ridiculous argument! Not one based on a difference of opinion but instead one based on ignorance and contempt.

Azwaldo55

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I'm glad that you've finally conceded that potential governments are warranted in lying to their electorate in order to pursue an agenda that will ultimately kill the sons and daughters of members of said electorate.

A free and democratic Iraq and a free and democratic Middle East will be more likely to lead to a stable world than the rule of dictators and theocrats.
A stable middle east will lead to a more stable world and will lead to less war and a bloodshed.
The deaths of a few thousand soldiers is a small price to pay for a better tomorrow.

I find that to be a very distorted view of democracy.

We cannot be less ruthless than our enemies just because our public policy is benevolent can we?

The overwhelming public opinion in the UK was against military intervention in Syria and the government voted accordingly. I think the support for intervention was about 14%. Do you think it would have been justified to ignore 86% of the electorate to pursue a war in Syria to overthrow the Assad dictatorship?

Of course because long term democracy will be threatened by the existence of the Assad regime or his replacement with Islamists.
How will democracy survive long term if on its borders are savage regimes and terrorist organizations left unchallenged?
If the West votes collectively to slit its own throat then the strong will have to take up their responsibilities to protect the naive and the weak and the dullards who are blind to the danger they face.

Moreover, if you support democracy that much, do you favour intervention in every other Arab dictatorship, such as Saudi Arabia?

Yes of course. The existence of the Islamist Saudi regime is the greatest threat to freedom in the West since Nazism and Communism. Unfortunately Saudi money and oil have bought them influence in the West and a cowed and fearful political elite are bending over backward.

Hotale.com

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

It's on Google. You look it up. I refuse to lower myself to such garbage on principle, the same way as I would refuse to justify the sky being blue.

Look at that, this thread in itself creates a ridiculous argument! Not one based on a difference of opinion but instead one based on ignorance and contempt.

IMO I think the stats don't show half the story of travellers/gypsies and unemployment. Of course they're more likely to be unemployed, that's undeniable, but there is a serious amount of prejudice towards both sets of people.

I don't think many employers would choose a gypsy or traveller over someone else with the same qualifications, and the reason for this would be due to things such as the generalisation you made in your first post with regards to gypsies/travellers being SW claimants and being associated with criminality.

And btw, you're just making yourself sound ignorant by comparing different cultures employment levels to the sky being blue. It's not a black & white situation like you're making it out to be.

I am pie

"It's on Google." Classic.

It's a Search engine, as in it searches for content. FFS. Saying "it's on google is like saying "it's on the internet" which, as any half thinking human knows, is about as valid as saying "someone said it once".

Remove brain, insert ability to use search engine, remove ability to think critically about content amd Eureka...we have created the perfect idiot ! There are 2 suns in the sky because "it's on google" etc.

El Guapo!

Mod: Stop the petty bickering and get back on topic please.

Sunglasses Ron

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Yes of course. The existence of the Islamist Saudi regime is the greatest threat to freedom in the West since Nazism and Communism.

Hardly.

The Saudi elite would hate if Sharia law ruled in London and Las Vegas, it means they would have to find another location to live their double life ( cocaine gamling and hooker orgies while their wives wait back in Riyadh under house arrest). It was the double standards of this mob that caused the growth of Bin Laden, as Saudi's who tired of their double standard grew to despise them.

The Saudi brand of Islam is certainly a threat, but the Saudi government has little interest in exporting it to Europe or the US.

The Mulk

oldyouth wrote: »

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

I used to think this, I was scared sh*tless my parents would have to get divorced if the legislation was passed.
I was 7 or 8 at the time:o

wally79

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I'm sure. I brought up the subject because of the ridiculous arguments the anti-war movement came up with ten years ago.

I'll change the subject to abortion then.

Anti-abortion people don't explicitly come out and explain do they support life sentences for thousands of women in Ireland who have abortions and how they would force those who want abortions and to go abroad to have their babies.

So you're just here trolling and picking contentious subjects in an effort to hijack the thread.

the_syco

The existent of god.

Remember;
No-one has ever seen it, talked to it, know it's gender or species type, nor has it actually done anything.

Sofaspud

SoapMcTavish wrote: »

My sister in law argues against drinking multiple bottles of beer ....
1 bottle = 4% alcohol
2 bottle = 8% alcohol
3 bottle = 12% alcohol

She says better to drink one big bottle - eg pint bottle or bigger where there is 4% alcohol " in the WHOLE bottle".

LOL - how did she get through school .. ????

I once knew a girl who was adamant that there was the same amount of alcohol in a 330ml bottle as in a 500ml can, because they both had 4% alcohol. She didn't get the concept of percentages.

FunLover18

the_syco wrote: »

The existent of god.

Remember;
No-one has ever seen it, talked to it, know it's gender or species type, nor has it actually done anything.

Starting an argument about the existence of God is ridiculous, regardless of what either side say. What's the point?

razorblunt

Give me one good reason why he;s not progressing through to the next round (interviews)?

- "eh ... it's .... <hands making weird signals> ... his shoes are too shiny and I mean you'd have to wonder about people like that fitting into the team"

That really wasn't an argument, I had to take a self declared tea break rather than continuing on that one. When I came back I realised they were still talking about it with that guy arguing it was a valid reason to not progress the candidate.

Hotale.com

Sofaspud wrote: »

I once knew a girl who was adamant that there was the same amount of alcohol in a 330ml bottle as in a 500ml can, because they both had 4% alcohol. She didn't get the concept of percentages.

It's surprising and disappointing how many people think this.

Donkey Oaty

Hotale.com wrote: »

It's surprising and disappointing how many people think this.

I'd say it's well over 100%, if you tally up the different survey findings.

tiablue

any argument on facebook is usually pretty pathetic pmsl

old hippy

The argument that claims the death penalty is a deterrent.

Adamocovic

People who say having legal Irish citizenship and a passport still don't make you Irish, had many debates with my dad about this!

FunLover18

Adamocovic wrote: »

People who say having legal Irish citizenship and a passport still don't make you Irish, had many debates with my dad about this!

You have to be able to speak fluent Irish and love GAA to be proper Irish. Anyone who doesn't do either of these just another West Brit

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Tayto vs King

SoapMcTavish

Sofaspud wrote: »

I once knew a girl who was adamant that there was the same amount of alcohol in a 330ml bottle as in a 500ml can, because they both had 4% alcohol. She didn't get the concept of percentages.

Yes - exactly - I think there are quite a lot of people who make this mistake ...

tiablue

Carson Chilly Trapdoor wrote: »

Tayto vs King

Now thats fighting talk haha

tiablue

Adamocovic wrote: »

People who say having legal Irish citizenship and a passport still don't make you Irish, had many debates with my dad about this!

If you moved to china and got a chinese passport, Would you be chinese??

Gambas

Ireland should be a single political entity (aka united) because all the counties are all joined together without sea water getting in between them.

shamrock2004

2 junkies on the train, man and a woman. The fella had a combat fighter jet magazine with him. As they were getting off, the centrefold page about an F-15 fighter fell out of his magazine on to the ground. Yer wan turns around and yells 'Tomo yer bleedin F-15 fighter is on da grou-ind'. As they were so mashed, an argument then ensues about whether it was from his magazine or not. Whole carriage was in stitches after.

Donkey Oaty

tiablue wrote: »

If you moved to china and got a chinese passport, Would you be chinese??

In terms of citizenship, there's nothing else they could be - see article 8.

Adamocovic

tiablue wrote: »

If you moved to china and got a chinese passport, Would you be chinese??

Ha not a place for debating on this thread but if you had Chinese citizenship then you can be classified as Chinese. Irish is the word given to the people of Ireland, a citizen is a person who is legally from Ireland, you are legally from her because it is the place of your birth, if someone moves here at a young age and legally becomes a citizen they're as Irish as you.

But again this isn't a place for debates just a place to say our most ridiculous argument, if you would like to follow up I'd suggest a pm rather than post here

FunLover18

tiablue wrote: »

If you moved to china and got a chinese passport, Would you be chinese??

Adamocovic wrote: »

Ha not a place for debating on this thread but if you had Chinese citizenship then you can be classified as Chinese. Irish is the word given to the people of Ireland, a citizen is a person who is legally from Ireland, you are legally from her because it is the place of your birth, if someone moves here at a young age and legally becomes a citizen they're as Irish as you.

But again this isn't a place for debates just a place to say our most ridiculous argument, if you would like to follow up I'd suggest a pm rather than post here

National identity is completely subjective, regardless of citizenship or passports. Total grey area

Adamocovic

FunLover18 wrote: »

National identity is completely subjective, regardless of citizenship or passports. Total grey area

Well national identity is a feeling of belonging, I am talking about a legal stand point, but as I said I'd say we should just move on and not clog up this thread.

Donkey Oaty

FunLover18 wrote: »

National identity is completely subjective, regardless of citizenship or passports. Total grey area

That is true, but that can be easily clarified by bringing in national identity cards.

Adamocovic

Met someone who claimed to be a "vegetarian" who said it was cruel and wrong to eat meat but she found no problem in eating fish because "we'll thats different, fish aren't like animals at all"

Zed Bank

Atheism is a religion.

karma_

Libertarianism.