The worst argument you've ever heard
- Thread starter MASTACHIEFPWN
- Start date
Actually, the amendment does not "grant" any right, is assumes the right to everyone already. The amendment itself is actually a limitation on the government. It does not say "people have the right to bear arms" it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The right to keep and bear arms is held as both separate from the Militia, and as a right that already exists and is simply being reinforced and officially recognized.beef_razor said:
Back when I had my learner's permit my mom could NOT handle being in the passenger seat, even though I was doing nothing dangerous. Driving at 50 in a 55 zone? "Slow down, SLOW DOWN!" Someone 100 feet ahead eases on the brakes? She'd slam on the invisible brake. Eventually I'd call her out on her absolute paranoia, and she said "Well, you should learn to ignore me and focus on driving!!"
There's also trolls in online games. They'd do something that pisses everyone off, I tell em where they can shove their "U mad bro", they say "Dude, it's just a game." YES. It's a GAME. Which we play for FUN. And no one has fun when their efforts at fun are sabotaged by some jackass.
There's also trolls in online games. They'd do something that pisses everyone off, I tell em where they can shove their "U mad bro", they say "Dude, it's just a game." YES. It's a GAME. Which we play for FUN. And no one has fun when their efforts at fun are sabotaged by some jackass.
No your wording was fine, I was just offering a supporting argument. I am also taking it a step further and saying that it effectively renders the concept of regulatory laws unconstitutional on a fundamental level, because the constitution not only grants the right to own guns, but assumes it as a natural right as common and unrestricted as the right to breath air. My position is that the second amendment specifically states that no law may be passed that restricts the right to keep and bear arms. Since "arms" is a very broad term, in the current wording of the constitution this would then apply to any weapon, from semi to fully-automatic, to even high explosives and military grade equipment. The people that argue for gun regulation must first re-word the second amendment, or draft an official definition on what "arms" refers to before writing any law pertaining to gun ownership, otherwise the law is unconstitutional.beef_razor said:
The argument over gun ownership does not need to end there. I think that people who favor gun control should continue to voice there position, but they must do so by advocating a constitutional solution, leaving no option other then addressing the constitution itself, as any law regarding it is in direct violation of the constitution as it is currently worded. We should stop wasting time and effort arguing over what the amendment means, and focus the argument on what should really be done.
"There are bigger problems to deal with right now" is worse than the worst argument that I've ever heard as it doesn't even qualify as an argument. It is just an excuse to defer an argument indefinitely since the people who resort to it don't have a valid rebuttal to the point posed to them.
Beyond that,it backfires as even a non-argument. Trifling problems solved by simple attitude adjustments are exactly what should be solved first,freeing people to focus all of their efforts on the long term solutions(if they can be solved rather than merely kept in check)to major long standing problems even if the social/legal changes being discussed would mostly lead to fewer arrests for victimless crimes or a boost in morale.
Beyond that,it backfires as even a non-argument. Trifling problems solved by simple attitude adjustments are exactly what should be solved first,freeing people to focus all of their efforts on the long term solutions(if they can be solved rather than merely kept in check)to major long standing problems even if the social/legal changes being discussed would mostly lead to fewer arrests for victimless crimes or a boost in morale.
I don't want to instigate a religious debate, but any argument against evolution that overtly displays that the person has absolutely no understanding of the theory in the first place. I remember seeing a debate where Ray Comfort (I think it was him anyways) legitimately claims that the lack of a half duck half crocodile disproves evolution.
I once saw someone in the escapist arguing over something with someone. The argument kept going on with nothing being established until one broke cover and went "Last word! Last word! It's mine all mine!"
I'm not sure if it was them admitting they had no point to make, or if they were trying to suggest their opposer had no point to their replies. Either way I found the subsequent mod warning hilarious.
I'm not sure if it was them admitting they had no point to make, or if they were trying to suggest their opposer had no point to their replies. Either way I found the subsequent mod warning hilarious.
Since the previous thing that I mentioned is closer to a thought terminating cliche,I'd like to provide and alternative which is less ambiguous. "Violence in videogames/comics/cartoons is better than sex because the scenes of violence aren't really happening but the sex is real".
Even if there was some level on which this made any sense,it doesn't answer why sex(particularly depictions of consensual sex) is worse than violence(which is usually non-consensual,fighting games aside) rather than simply being similarly fictional rendition of real world actions though one which typically have opposite end results.
Even if there was some level on which this made any sense,it doesn't answer why sex(particularly depictions of consensual sex) is worse than violence(which is usually non-consensual,fighting games aside) rather than simply being similarly fictional rendition of real world actions though one which typically have opposite end results.
The thing is the modern banana isnt a good example at all since there is no such thing as a wild yellow banana. We selectively bred them from plantain. The plantain was FULL of seeds and green, it had to be cooked to be eaten and to be honest it kinda sucked. One day a plantain farmer simply grew a mutant tree with yellow bananas which were fairly worthless sexualy, they had sterile tiny seeds and ripened very quickly and he kept selectively breeding said trees to get the modern banana we see today. Good food source though! And thus ALL bananas today are based on that mutant.Arakasi said:
BEHOLD! A wild banana:
We bred the original banana to be tasty, ripe and a good shape. Before us it was useless for human consumption as is, we had to prepare and cook it.
Yes, someone in the thread already explained that to me. Thanks anyway.BiscuitTrouser said:The thing is the modern banana isnt a good example at all since there is no such thing as a wild yellow banana. We selectively bred them from plantain. The plantain was FULL of seeds and green, it had to be cooked to be eaten and to be honest it kinda sucked. One day a plantain farmer simply grew a mutant tree with yellow bananas which were fairly worthless sexuality, they had sterile tiny seeds and ripened very quickly. Good food source though! And thus ALL bananas today are based on that mutant.Arakasi said:
BEHOLD! A wild banana:
We bred the original banana to be tasty, ripe and a good shape. Before us it was useless for human consumption as is, we had to prepare and cook it.
I'll make the counter arguement that piracy is not stealing. I'm not saying it's okay, just that it isn't the exact same as stealing. If I were to steal a loaf of bread from you, then you no longer have a loaf of bread, but if I were to make an exact copy of that loaf of bread for free without any cost to myself, you are not without your bread and do not go hungry. I'm just a free loader with magical powers that can duplicate stuff and need to get a job. All in all, there should be some sort of punishment for piracy, but not the federal case that they make it now a days. You steal a CD you might have to pay a $100 fine but that's really it, but you pirate that CD and that will put you tens or even hundreds of thousands in the hole. Not exactly what I'd call a fair law.tippy2k2 said:I could tell you but I think it'd be much more fun to show you!
*Throat clearing noise*
I believe that piracy is stealing
*Takes step back and ducks the tomato thrown
Now all I have to do is wait for someone to come in and give me the standard bullet points for why piracy is OK
Worst argument? "No, Fluttershy is as human as Lilith or any cell-shaded woman so it's not weird or makes me a brony that I'd rather shag Fluttershy than Lilith!"
Worst. Argument. Ever.
The conversation that contained this argument also contained why blue women aren't as hot as pink women and why BL characters are boring... I argued for blue chicks and BL2 characters cuz they are both awesome!
Worst. Argument. Ever.
The conversation that contained this argument also contained why blue women aren't as hot as pink women and why BL characters are boring... I argued for blue chicks and BL2 characters cuz they are both awesome!