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

Pinch Flat · 10-06-2014 3:32am

Drinking a few pints and driving improves your driving. Couple of guys on the motoring from will argue that forever.

pragmatic1 · 10-06-2014 3:51am

Lou.m wrote: »

But also the cutest.

Funny as fook. He made some valid points.

pragmatic1 · 10-06-2014 3:52am

Anything in the comments section of a youtube video.

Cookie_Monster · 10-06-2014 5:38am

the "cyclists are real people too" is usually a good one for motors or C&T

osarusan · 10-06-2014 7:10am

Worst argument ever:

f all the reasons why you might want to end your marriage, not liking Frozen wouldn’t generally rank that highly.

In the case of one Japanese woman, though, her differences of opinion with her husband over the Disney smash is turning out to be grounds for divorce.

According to the website Kikonsha no Hakaba – or as it’s known in English, The Gravesite Of Married People – the anonymous 29-year-old became obsessed with the film after going to see it on her own several times, before persuading her spouse to join her.

But despite hoping he would also love the film due to having studied Danish Literature at university – with Frozen being based on the Hans Christian Andersen tale The Snow Queen – she was shocked to discover his reaction was very different.

After telling her ‘I didn’t really care for it personally,’ he apparently left their six-year marriage in tatters by asking his wife: ‘Did you really think it was that good?’

She furiously responded: ‘If you can’t understand what makes this movie great, there’s something wrong with you as a human being!’ before telling him she wanted a divorce.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/06/04/theres-something-wrong-with-you-as-a-human-being-woman-seeks-divorce-from-husband-over-his-dislike-of-frozen-4749392/

Dozen Wicked Words · 10-06-2014 7:19am

My dad and one of my brothers argued about which crime series was better, Morse or Taggart. Not just a day, it went on for over a week and nearly came to blows. It got to the point where they didn't communicate with each other for about 3 months to avoid fighting.

Everyone knows Touch of Frost is better anyway so don't know what all the fuss was about.

Witcher · 10-06-2014 7:19am

A dog that bites someone now has 'a taste for blood' and will do it again.

Pumpkinseeds · 10-06-2014 7:33am

Any argument that involves someone saying 'you weren't supposed to see/know about that', yeah that's fine so, I won't be pissed off so:rolleyes:

A cow called Daisy · 10-06-2014 7:53am

Aaah butt sargant I've oonnly had d onee. Hic

mrkiscool2 · 10-06-2014 8:13am

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of people are actually missing the point of the Thread Title -in a way- in that they are listing assertions. So for example the poster who listed "psychics are real" is listing a ridiculous and unfounded assertion - not a ridiculous argument.

By far - and I mean FAR - the most ridiculous and most precipitated argument on the planet has got to be "Well you can not prove there is NOT a god can you?".

Because that is something actually presented _as an actual positive argument for_ the existence of a god by the vast majority of subscribers to the particular fantasy.

And one wonders if we installed a simple 101 course on "onus of proof" and "negating an unfalsifiable assertion" into schools around age 10 - would the world - - the religion forum on here - and after hours threads - not look like a totally different place.

Why does the onus of proof have to be on the religious people though? I'm an Atheist-Agnostic (whatever, I can't be fully certain there isn't a god, just the odds are minute). In the Scientific method the only way to prove something exists is if you can't disprove. So, the onus of proof in this case would be to disprove God exists in the first place, which you cannot do.

Onus of proof is only used in court cases and law because usually it's one person's word against another, hence the scientific method doesn't really work here. Most debates are just about smashing into your opponents arguments and leaving nothing they left standing but have a few of your points left and hope the next person on the other side doesn't wreck your arguments.

So really, onus of proof has to come from both sides. And, unfortunately for us, while we can dispute a lot of claims made in most religious texts we can't disprove a God exists. Probably never will be able to either!

10-06-2014 8:19am

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Why does the onus of proof have to be on the religious people though?

The onus is on the person making the claim - not on the people they are making the claim at.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

In the Scientific method the only way to prove something exists is if you can't disprove. So, the onus of proof in this case would be to disprove God exists in the first place, which you cannot do.

Did I not just say that? That is what I meant by "negating an unfalsifiable assertion"

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So really, onus of proof has to come from both sides.

No. It does not. Because only one "side" is actually making a claim.

Lapin · 10-06-2014 8:22am

.

"Because that's the why." :mad:

I never knew what this meant but always knew it was some justification for whatever she* was saying,
and there was no way I was going to win once she said it.

She* = Mother, Sister, Girlfriend, Wife, Daughter and a whole assortment of other categories of the female species.

danniemcq · 10-06-2014 8:37am

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So really, onus of proof has to come from both sides. And, unfortunately for us, while we can dispute a lot of claims made in most religious texts we can't disprove a God exists. Probably never will be able to either!

'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of people are actually missing the point of the Thread Title -in a way- in that they are listing assertions. So for example the poster who listed "psychics are real" is listing a ridiculous and unfounded assertion - not a ridiculous argument.

By far - and I mean FAR - the most ridiculous and most precipitated argument on the planet has got to be "Well you can not prove there is NOT a god can you?".

Because that is something actually presented _as an actual positive argument for_ the existence of a god by the vast majority of subscribers to the particular fantasy.

And one wonders if we installed a simple 101 course on "onus of proof" and "negating an unfalsifiable assertion" into schools around age 10 - would the world - - the religion forum on here - and after hours threads - not look like a totally different place.

see there is a difference in psychics and religious beliefs.

Its very hard if not impossible to prove as the above poster pointed out.

However we can show that psychics are full of crap.

Psychics fail scientific test

Scientists put psychic's paranormal claims to the test

Skeptics Issue $1 Million Psychic Challenge

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge

mrkiscool2 · 10-06-2014 8:41am

Deleted User wrote: »

The onus is on the person making the claim - not on the people they are making the claim at.

Eh sorry. If you are going to attack a person's personal beliefs when you can just ignore it (and if they bring up topics like creationism or homosexuality then prove them wrong) then the onus of proof is actually on you. They can go on believing whatever the hell they want but if you want to tell them that God doesn't exist then you have to prove it as you are trying to convince them. If you are both trying to convince each other than it's shared equally. Unless I'm arguing with someone over the existing of a deity I never hear the "but can you prove he isn't real?" argument.

Deleted User wrote: »

Did I not just say that? That is what I meant by "negating an unfalsifiable assertion"

Ah! Are you a scientist by any chance? With an unshakeable believe in atheism? Because that's the only place I ever hear this notion and it's only applicable to one or two discussions. So teaching it in schools isn't actually a wise thing to do because applying that to most arguments won't work as you can prove or disprove 99% of things (eventually)

Deleted User wrote: »

No. It does not. Because only one "side" is actually making a claim.

Are you not making a claim that he doesn't exist? If you are then it's on you too. And I very rarely hear atheists say to a religious person "I don't believe in God. If you do that's awesome. Let's leave it there"

force eleven · 10-06-2014 8:43am

Vote Yes for Jobs!

10-06-2014 8:58am

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Eh sorry. If you are going to attack a person's personal beliefs when you can just ignore it

Who said anything about attacking anything? You are going off on one now. The thread is about ridiculous arguments and I simply pointed out one of them.

Supporting an unfalsifiable assertion with nothing but "You can not prove I am wrong" is a ridiculous argument.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Are you not making a claim that he doesn't exist?

If you find me making such a claim, by all means quote it.

Kelly06 · 10-06-2014 9:18am

Adyx wrote: »

I thought this was going to be more of the "why do you like riding hippos?" type of argument.

"Cos I ride anything I can get"

My all time favourite greatest you tube video !!!

gugleguy · 10-06-2014 10:04am

The smartphone robbing fcuker physically assaulted the victim *just because they held on to their phone*

For Forks Sake · 10-06-2014 10:05am

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Anything in the comments section of a youtube video.

Anything in the comments section of thejournal.ie...where rational thought goes to die.

UCDVet · 10-06-2014 10:10am

For me, it has to be the Ontological argument for the existence of God
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument)

Regardless of whether or not you believe in God, I've never understood why anyone would even entertain the argument. Maybe I'm just not smart enough, but all I do is slap my forehead and go, 'SERIOUSLY?!'

What's worse, is that it's covered in philosophy classes as something worthy of serious thought and consideration.

Anyway, here's the argument:

Anselm defined God as "...that than which nothing greater can be conceived," and then argued that this being must exist in the mind; even in the mind of the fool who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.

In all seriousness, I would expect this line of reasoning from a six year old. 'Well, I can imagine the best birthday cake in the world. And the BEST cake is the cake I'm eating NOW. So, you should give me my birthday cake now!'

Beyond that, you can use the same argument to prove all sorts of ridiculous things.

But yeah, I'm probably just too stupid to understand it. When I first heard it, I was all, 'That's stupid!' and now I'm still like 'That's stupid'. Either it's stupid, or I am, but either way, I don't like it.

// To clarify - I'm not claiming God does or doesn't exist. Just that this argument for the existence of God (or applied to anything else) never made any sense to me. I'm fine with the existence of God, just not proven this way.

mariaalice · 10-06-2014 10:15am

It the zeal with they believe their argument that's the most interesting/frightening.

I was told recently that sugar feeds cancer and that human souls can be weighed after death.

Mr. CooL ICE · 10-06-2014 10:29am

The banana - an atheist's nightmare

jamesbere · 10-06-2014 10:36am

Jessica fletcher is not a mass murderer. I mean come on of course she is.

Locomotion · 10-06-2014 10:40am

The plural of toothbrush is teethbrush

UCDVet · 10-06-2014 10:45am

LordChessington wrote: »

The banana - an atheist's nightmare

Look at it! It fits in my hand perfectly!

TheGlass · 10-06-2014 10:47am

danniemcq wrote: »

I've had some classics recently,

"psychics are real"
"a full moon makes people go mad"
"dogs eyes attract lightening"
"consoles are better than pc's"
"horoscopes are true"
"Coldplay are a good band"

Sigh

Whatever about the others, how do people even dream up something like dogs eyes attracting let alone believe it

I am pie wrote: »

Homeopathy. Shams selling water to fools.

Even worse, people looking for homeopathic vets.

Idiotic.

You can see how people would get taken in by that though, especially as some people will get cured via the placebo effect

PeteFalk78 · 10-06-2014 10:51am

The One Doctor wrote: »

................ As is the 'All Dole Recipients are No-Good Scroungers' argument. .............

That's not really an argument though....more so a generalisation.

FunLover18 · 10-06-2014 12:33pm

Locomotion wrote: »

The plural of toothbrush is teethbrush

………… what?

Donkey Oaty · 10-06-2014 12:50pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

………… what?

As plural is by definition not singular, it should surely be:

"The plurals of toothbrushes are teethbrushes."

danniemcq · 10-06-2014 12:53pm

TheGlass wrote: »

Whatever about the others, how do people even dream up something like dogs eyes attracting let alone believe it

I have no idea, apparently it came from a story where lightening came down a chimney through the house and hit the dog under the bed...

yeah.....

Amazingfun · 10-06-2014 1:00pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

Gay marriage will lead to paedophiles getting married so they can adopt kids.

And yet.....:

Gay couple used marriage as cover for adopting little boys and shipping them all over the world to service homosexual pedophiles:

http://rt.com/news/australian-paedophile-us-jail-976/

Longtime gay rights/gay marriage activist Larry Brinkin
busted for child porn

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/san-francisco-s-gay-icon-larry-brinkin-guilty-felony-child-porn

Hotale.com · 10-06-2014 1:05pm

Amazingfun wrote: »

And yet.....:

Gay couple used marriage as cover for adopting little boys and shipping them all over the world to service homosexual pedophiles:

http://rt.com/news/australian-paedophile-us-jail-976/

Longtime gay rights/gay marriage activist Larry Brinkin
busted for child porn

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/san-francisco-s-gay-icon-larry-brinkin-guilty-felony-child-porn

Two examples.

I imagine the whole "pedophile adoption" thing happens with straight couples just as often.

Think of all the anti-gay marriage priests who have been busted for child porn, maybe we should ban traditional marriage too?

Amazingfun · 10-06-2014 1:13pm

Hotale.com wrote: »

Two examples.

There are more than two, believe me. These are just two recent cases that came to mind.

FunLover18 · 10-06-2014 1:19pm

Amazingfun wrote: »

There are more than two, believe me. These are just two recent cases that came to mind.

It's still a ridiculous argument against gay marriage though. As Hotale.com says, straight couples could easily do the same and how many stories do we hear about biological parents abusing their own kids.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen but to argue that we shouldn't allow gay people to marry because of it is ridiculous

Hotale.com · 10-06-2014 1:22pm

Amazingfun wrote: »

There are more than two, believe me. These are just two recent cases that came to mind.

Do you disagree with gay marriage over it?

Amazingfun · 10-06-2014 1:26pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

It's still a ridiculous argument against gay marriage though. As Hotale.com says, straight couples could easily do the same and how many stories do we hear about biological parents abusing their own kids.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen but to argue that we shouldn't allow gay people to marry because of it is ridiculous

I didn't argue that, I am merely pointing out it's not as baseless a point some here might like to imagine

Amazingfun · 10-06-2014 1:29pm

Hotale.com wrote: »

Do you disagree with gay marriage over it?

lol, does it matter what *I* agree with or not? As per above, my post was to illustrate that those who make the argument are not conjuring it out of nowhere.

It's amazing how little international coverage the Larry Brinkin case received, something else that should raise an eyebrow or two.

mrkiscool2 · 10-06-2014 1:38pm

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

Buzz Killington the third · 10-06-2014 1:42pm

apparently women can't rape men either.

FunLover18 · 10-06-2014 1:43pm

Amazingfun wrote: »

I didn't argue that, I am merely pointing out it's not as baseless a point some here might like to imagine

I didn't say it was baseless, just that it was ridiculous

Hotale.com · 10-06-2014 1:44pm

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

apparently women can't rape men either.

He obviously wanted it if he had an erection :rolleyes:

The fact so many people believe that makes it even worse.

Carlos Orange · 10-06-2014 1:44pm

Buzz Killington the third wrote: »

apparently women can't rape men either.

Does that go along with an erection is consent?

StinkyMunkey · 10-06-2014 1:47pm

More guns will stop gun crime

.

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

Hotale.com · 10-06-2014 1:51pm

I think this proves that ridiculous does not necessarily mean baseless :rolleyes:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-M5fqSR1Q0Y8/TatUFu0m99I/AAAAAAAAbe8/UukvPRjJe_U/s640/dihydrogenmonoxide10.jpg

keith16 · 10-06-2014 1:54pm

Closing off licences at 10pm but leaving clubs open until 3am will solve all of our problems with alcohol!

Maybe we should charge a minimum price for that off licence alcohol too - the bad kind.

MRnotlob606 · 10-06-2014 1:56pm

alice. wrote: »

Tomato is a fruit!!!!

haha thats trivial

FunLover18 · 10-06-2014 2:14pm

Instead of making Irish optional at Leaving Cert level it should be divided into two separate subjects

Buzz Killington the third · 10-06-2014 2:15pm

What 2 subjects?

DoesNotCompute · 10-06-2014 2:22pm

1. Tax the rich

2. Any argument that creationists or scientologists roll out

3. Anything said by the anti-fluoride crowd

4. Anything the CT crowd say about the Illuminati, lizard people, 9/11, or MH730

Duggy747 · 10-06-2014 2:23pm

Know a hardcore feminist who will vote for Joan Burton purely and only on the basis that "politics needs more women" and that she is "empowering females in a male-dominated society."

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

Comments