TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Kickstarter Message
TV Tropes Needs Your Help
X
Big things are happening on TV Tropes! New admins, new designs, fewer ads, mobile versions, beta testing opportunities, thematic discovery engine, fun trope tools and toys, and much more - Learn how to help here and discuss here.
View Kickstarter Project
Total posts: [508]  1 ... 15 16 17 18 19
20
21

Worst abuse of Insane troll logic you've ever seen?:

I want Kat's glasses!
Quoth Neil Gaiman:
(It's worth noting that the UK, for example, has no such law, and that even the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that interference with free speech was "necessary in a democratic society" in order to guarantee the rights of others "to protection from gratuitous insults to their religious feelings.")
I just lost 1d100 faith in humanity. Again.

edited 29th Aug '11 11:30:16 AM by Medinoc

They Called Me Mad!! I decided to show them all; but when I looked on my works, oh mighty, I despaired: for it made me realize they were right.
complete noob
[up][up]Meh, does Time Cube always seemed to be just creating its own system of logic instead of twisting the current one.

 478 Justice 4243, Mon, 29th Aug '11 12:56:14 PM from Portland, OR, USA
WHAT IS GOING ON?!
Youíre only saying that because youíve been taught by EVIL EDUCATORS.

edited 29th Aug '11 12:56:30 PM by Justice4243

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15

SO JUSTICE I HEARD YOU WERE TUBESPHERING ON THE BLAGOBLAG-Blixty
Mr. Link
[up] If you wrote that in an assortment of rainbow colours my mind would be blown.

[up][up][up] Well I only found out about it recently and it seemed suitable to me for here.

This is a kind of old example but Donald Trumps justification for opposing same sex marriage strike me as this:

ďItís like in golf. A lot of people — I donít want this to sound trivial — but a lot of people are switching to these really long putters, very unattractive. Itís weird. You see these great players with these really long putters, because they canít sink three-footers anymore. And, I hate it. I am a traditionalist. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist.Ē

edited 31st Aug '11 4:05:21 PM by PiccoloNo92

 480 Blixty Slycat, Wed, 31st Aug '11 10:03:39 PM from Driving the Rad Hazard
|like a boss|
I will allow this to speak for itself:

Evolution has hardwired every animal on the planet to want to kill every other animal on the planet, it is an inescapable fact. As animals, we should be encouraging mass extinctions of other animals, it allows us to retain dominance over the planet.
go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine
"'Sim...bye...oh...sis'? What's that?"
It Just Bugs Me! - a place to discuss media, real life, and other topics.
 482 Justice 4243, Wed, 31st Aug '11 11:31:19 PM from Portland, OR, USA
WHAT IS GOING ON?!
[up][up] "Your goldfish would kill you given half the chance."
Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15

SO JUSTICE I HEARD YOU WERE TUBESPHERING ON THE BLAGOBLAG-Blixty
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
[up]Well, it would.

Evil little bastard...
Freedom of speech includes the freedom for other people to call you out on your bullshit.
 484 vanthebaron, Thu, 1st Sep '11 7:59:28 AM from Carlyle, Il
Mystical Monkey Master
The Kalām cosmological argument

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

edited 1st Sep '11 8:00:13 AM by vanthebaron

How did God suddenly appear in 4?
It Just Bugs Me! - a place to discuss media, real life, and other topics.
 486 vanthebaron, Thu, 1st Sep '11 11:22:30 AM from Carlyle, Il
Mystical Monkey Master
exactly
 487 Wagrid, Thu, 1st Sep '11 4:56:31 PM from England
Bang bang!
[up][up][up]Ah, the Cosmological Argument. Truly one of my least favourite things.

The Ontological Argument is worse though, fuck you Gaunilo/Descartes.

Other than that, I have nothing, although thank you guys kindly for the endlessly entertaining thread.

edited 1st Sep '11 4:56:43 PM by Wagrid

 488 vanthebaron, Thu, 1st Sep '11 5:14:30 PM from Carlyle, Il
Mystical Monkey Master
Argument from experience is worse then that one. 1) I talked to god 2) thereof god exists. I like to reply with 1) I talked to Cthulhu 2) there for Cthulhu exists
 489 Justice 4243, Thu, 1st Sep '11 5:18:30 PM from Portland, OR, USA
WHAT IS GOING ON?!
[up]"Guess what we're going to do now? That's right."
"We're going to feed the shoggoth."

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15

SO JUSTICE I HEARD YOU WERE TUBESPHERING ON THE BLAGOBLAG-Blixty
 490 vanthebaron, Thu, 1st Sep '11 5:23:44 PM from Carlyle, Il
Mystical Monkey Master
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Uncle George
I got a free christian book off some street preachers a month back.

Sadly, there's little to report back. Most of the fallacies in it were jjust Ad Hoc fallacy. But there were some good ones, like the part about body, soul, and spirit. These thee are separate consepts: body is the material, spirit is the immmaterial, and sould is our feelings and thoughts, and it's in our blood. We know the sould is in the blood, because if we lose all blood we die, and some strong feelings make the hearthrate grown and we might blush (blood rushes to the face).

That, and their proof of the existance of heaven and hell (aside from the oft cited urban legend of soviets accidentally drilling a hole to hell):

  1. We know souls exist
  2. After we die, the souls have to go somewhere, because they can't just wonder around
  3. There has to be some order to where the souls go.
  4. And Jesus said so in the bible, and you wouldn't call him a liar.

The book also "disproves" my argument of choise, that the sheer amount of past and present religions work against the idea of a omnipotent god who has the goal of getting his message to everyone. They just say that all people can sense the existance of god, but sadly didn't get to hear the good message in time. They also state that everyone who isn't a born again Christian, who is also unshaken in faith, goes to hell. Atheism is the highest sin (obviously, all thoughtcrimes like disbelief, sceptisism or even doubt are worse than material sins like murder), but that is kinda hard to quantify considering the punishment for each and every sin is eternity in hell.
This love so bold goes undeclared/a joy unseen, a world unknown/a love that dare not speak its name/hidden treasure, precious stone
 492 Black Humor, Thu, 1st Sep '11 5:30:28 PM from Zombie City
I have before taken anti-abortion pamphlets from people without knowing what they are.

So far I've kind of disgustedly thrown them out. Next time I think I'm going to keep one and dissect it on the internet.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
 493 vanthebaron, Thu, 1st Sep '11 5:32:53 PM from Carlyle, Il
Mystical Monkey Master
Please do
Uncle George
I ran into this one on "derailing for dummmies" a list about online arguments, specifically about politics. It was pretty good for the most part, but one bit boils down to "arguing from statistics and studies is privileged because not everyone has access to those materials", and another bit boils down to "my personal experience trumps general truths".

[ed.]

Another good one I've heard recently: "Is there anything more ironic than a liberal that wasn't aborted?", not understanding what irony means aside, being pro-choise doesn't mean being pro-all/any abortions, and statistically speaking, most women who have abortions still have children at some point of their lives.

edited 1st Sep '11 6:13:26 PM by JethroQWalrustitty

This love so bold goes undeclared/a joy unseen, a world unknown/a love that dare not speak its name/hidden treasure, precious stone
Lover of masks.
"my personal experience trumps general truths"

I want to make this my sig.
Please.
 496 Black Humor, Thu, 1st Sep '11 11:00:25 PM from Zombie City
@Jethro: I've encountered that list, and my main gripe with it is that it's too bitter.

I have a sneaking suspiciou the various social justice blogs of the internet might be a bit nicer if their main lookup for cached arguments was not quite so disdainful of everyone who disagrees with them.

(Also, I realize that this is covered on the list, under "tone argument". Tone arguments are only fallacious if you're saying "you sound bitter, therefore you're wrong". Saying, as happens 90% of the time, "if you sounded less bitter more people would listen to you" may possibly be quite true, albeit usually off-topic.)


That said, I think the point of the topic Jethro's talking about was something more like this:

Suppose I relate to you a story about my being mugged. Instead of accepting the story, you say "do you have any scientific proof that atheists get mugged? Like, ever?" This is obviously a silly demand, right? Aside from being blatantly obvious to anyone who's paying attention, my story is itself proof that atheists get mugged.

The main effect of demanding scientific proof is to make me have to scutter around on the internet to prove something we both already know. If we happen to be having this argument somewhere where I can't access the internet (in person, in rural areas, if I can't afford internet and the time it would take to fritter away half an hour on it...), you automatically win the argument in your mind by setting a bar of evidence you know I can't possibly meet.

But you're still wrong, and we both know you're still wrong, because my anecdote proved you were wrong right from the get-go.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
complete noob
[up]"Oh yeah? Prove it!"

 498 lord Gacek, Fri, 2nd Sep '11 3:28:57 PM from Kansas of Europe
KVLFON
The one case that I've encountered was a pamphlet on pre-marital chastity. Perhaps someone else might have found the reasons given believable; but for me — like, one had any merit, and the rest were either silly or creepy.
"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"
 499 honorius, Fri, 2nd Sep '11 3:39:42 PM from The Netherlands
I got a creationism promoting flyer in the mail once. Apparently later species can climb mountains faster than older versions, including plants.
If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling
Chaotic New Troll
Once I was at a local Mexican restaurant, and there were a bunch of Christian tracts in a tray. I took one that read "Evolution and Christianity" on the cover. However, I was with family, so I had to wait until I got home to read it. In retrospect, I should have fucking raided that bin for a copy of every single tract, because the one I got was full of pure comedy gold. (Emphasis in bold)

Q: What is meant by calling evolution a theory? What is a theory?

A: The simplest definition is that a theory is an unproven idea that is intended to explain something. ''For example, we all observe light, yet has anyone ever been able to explain exactly what light is? Through the years, many different theories have attempted to explain light, but each in turn was discarded when a newer theory was developed. A theory may seem reasonable, and it may be widely accepted. Even though it is supported by evidence, it is not necessarily a fact. A theory, by definition, is unproven.

Fuckin' light beams, how do they work?

Q: Are you saying that the theory of evolution is unproven?

A: Yes, or it wouldn't be called a theory. It is not proven because no one was there to observe it happen, nor can any experiments be done to demonstrate it.

So all those cops who solve cases are relying on faith?

Q: Does it take faith to believe in evolution?

A: Yes, faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. When we talk about these things, the very language that we use reveals that these things are matters of faith. We say, "I believe in evolution, " Or "I believe in creation".

Q: But isn't there evidence of evolution? Doesn't science prove from the evidence that evolution is true?

A: Not necessarily. Scientists who believe in creation look at the same evidence that evolutionists look at, but they arrive at different conclusions. Each group considers the same evidence, but interprets that evidence differently.

So scientific truth is relative? If that's the case, then can anything be known?

Q: Some Christians claim that God didn't explain evolution because people of long ago could not have understood it, and that's why the first two chapters of Genesis say what they do. What about that?

A: If we accept that line of reasoning, we are saying in essence that God did not tell us the truth. However, the Bible not only reveals that God loves truth, but that God actually is the truth. (John 14:6) It also says that He cannot lie! (Titus 1:2) He cannot lie, because He Himself is the truth. One of the Ten Commandments states, "Thou shalt not bear false witness [lie] ..." (Exodus 20:16). Does it seem reasonable that God would have a higher standard for us than for Himself?

I have actually never heard this argument put forward by a Christian, so I have to wonder where they got it from. In fact, the more I read it, the more this looks like it was written by a person who's having a bit of a crisis of faith.

If God cannot lie, then he doesn't have free will. So what made him create the universe?

If God is truth, and God loves truth, then does God love himself? That would explain why he's such a jealous God.

Also, it seems like God does have a higher standard for humans than he has for himself. According to Genesis, God murdered all but a handful of humans in the Flood, even children and infants - all because he was irresponsible enough to put the Forbidden Fruit in the garden with two conscienceless humans and an evil snake, which he also created. And if we assume that God is all-knowing, then he would surely know the consequences of his actions, yet he went along with his "divine plan" anyway, which means that According to the Bible, God was directly responsible for introducing evil and suffering into the world. All that bad stuff in the world today? It's because Eve ate an apple that God forgot to put maximum-security fencing around.

Q: Doesn't the Bible itself say somewhere that one day and a thousand years are the same thing to god? Doesn't that bring evolution and the Genesis record together?

A: No. That verse is found in 2 Peter 3:8, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." This verse is not telling us that a day and a thousand years are the same thing, but it is telling us that God does not experience time in the same way that we do. Still, if God had used six thousand years to create, or six million years, or six hundred million years, why didn't He simply tell us? Instead, the Bible records that he did it in six days, and emphasizes that fact by saying, "... and the evening and the morning were like the first [or second, or third, or fourth, etc.] day" (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).

This doesn't make any sense. Even if God can't lie, per se, he can still withhold the truth or, perhaps, be mistaken. Again, if God experiences time differently than we do, then a thousand years to us could be one day to him, or possibly longer. But if God is Truth, then why does God differ from humans in matters of the perception of time?

Although I believe in the God of creation, I was once an ardent believer in evolution. I believed in evolution for the same reason that most people do. It was all I ever heard. It was all I was ever taught. In our society there is tremendous peer pressure that it is unintelligent to believe in creation. There is a bias, and sometimes opposition, in the academic and scientific communities against those colleagues who choose to believe creation.

Bullshit. The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution because it's true. It's not like in elementary school where all the kids make little "clubs" with strict criteria. And as for that first part, try telling that to any evolutionist who's had to grow up in the Bible Belt.

There's also this final gem:

The Bible was not written to teach science, but this does not mean that it is scientifically inaccurate.

To be fair to the pamphlet, it did get the theory of evolution 90% right, which is very rare among creationists. It also admitted that there is no proof for "intelligent design", and that it is a matter of individual faith, which the pamphlet also admits is simply blindly believing in things without evidence. So at least it's not trying to push the "scientific proofs of creation" nonsense.
Total posts: 508
 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19
20
21


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy