Taxi Driver:

Graustein:
I'm going to call Poe's Law here, because I'm scared of the implications if I'm wrong.

Sorry I'm unfamiliar with your devil language.

Labyrinth:

Taxi Driver:
No, I saw them all, and agree with them all. God, what is this world coming to? I look forward to the day when Jesus comes and cast all the evil people into hell.

Why doesn't a family of four need eight cars?
Why does do spelling and grammar matter?

Well I believe you have made my point.

It's known as a statement of irony.

Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

I'm becoming more confident that this is the case

Labyrinth:
A few of the many..
"Spelling and grammar aren't important!"
"Abortion is murder!"
"You're going to hell for your homosexuality/bisexuality."
"I need guns for self defence."
"My family of 4 people need 8+ cars."
"You should wait until marriage to have sex."
"You should be loyal and obedient to your male spouse."
"[race/sexuality/gender/stereotype] should, without exception, be degraded."
Edit: I'm adding Creationism to the list.

While none of these cause a complete separation between body and brain, they do tend to warrant a fist-to-face reaction if, after several minutes of heated argument, the tactless Burke still clings to them.

Just out of curiosity, are there any fundamental, serious positions you hold but with which you are still willing to admit other people can disagree without being trolls or idiots? Or are you certain that you have discerned all life's deepest truths before even graduating university? Are we only to have the pleasure of your company until the automated ego-stroking home echo chamber is perfected? Enquiring minds want to know (and I'm curious myself.)

Taxi Driver:

You horrible amoral atheist you.

EDIT: You got owned by an oppressive white theist, you should be very ashamed.

Where did I say I was atheist?

I also fail to see where you owned me.

When Creationists watch the flintstones as a documentary.

Yes, kids.
We lived alongside dinosaurs 7000 years ago.

Mr. Moose:
When Creationists watch the flintstones as a documentary.

Yes, kids.
We lived alongside dinosaurs 7000 years ago.

How would you explain human footprints in dino tracks? or human and dino fossils in the same rock layers? Just saying it's possible for dinos and man to have co existed

werepossum:
Just out of curiosity, are there any fundamental, serious positions you hold but with which you are still willing to admit other people can disagree without being trolls or idiots? Or are you certain that you have discerned all life's deepest truths before even graduating university? Are we only to have the pleasure of your company until the automated ego-stroking home echo chamber is perfected? Enquiring minds want to know (and I'm curious myself.)

I'm open for people to hold any opinion, so long as they can support it with argument. My vehement disagreement with that opinion tends to indicate that I consider the counter-arguments more weighty.

Taxi Driver:
EDIT: Incase you are even more dense than I suspected, you made my point by correcting a statement that seemed, to you, ironic, so ironic you just couldn't pass it up. By correcting it, you showed that you knew what was being said, and that grammar wasn't important considering without it you were still able to comprehend.

I am able to understand it in the same way that the phrase 'hi how r u lol dats kool' can get across essential meaning. It's just a point of irritation that such a thing compresses a means of expression that I hold dear. An elitist philosophy, sure, but it works for me.

sneakypenguin:

Mr. Moose:
When Creationists watch the flintstones as a documentary.

Yes, kids.
We lived alongside dinosaurs 7000 years ago.

How would you explain human footprints in dino tracks? or human and dino fossils in the same rock layers? Just saying it's possible for dinos and man to have co existed

Fake.
All perpetuated by Kent Hovind.
And seriously.
Humans living with Dinosaurs?
The OLDEST homo sapien specimen is around 150 million years old.
Dinosaurs were LONG gone by then.

snowplow:

poleboy:
Pro-gun, anti-abortion and religious political arguments all transform me an into angry troll-man who communicates with grunts and clobberings. Then again, perhaps words are wasted on some people.

Whats wrong with guns and why do you enjoy killing babies?

We kill babies for decadence. Just ask MagentaShower.

Mr. Moose:

sneakypenguin:

Mr. Moose:
When Creationists watch the flintstones as a documentary.

Yes, kids.
We lived alongside dinosaurs 7000 years ago.

How would you explain human footprints in dino tracks? or human and dino fossils in the same rock layers? Just saying it's possible for dinos and man to have co existed

Fake.
All perpetuated by Kent Hovind.
And seriously.
Humans living with Dinosaurs?
The OLDEST homo sapien specimen is around 150 million years old.
Dinosaurs were LONG gone by then.

And every one knows dinosaur's remains were placed by God to test our faith in Christianity.

Stupidity or lower intelligence causes arguments.

-Ricky

sneakypenguin:

Mr. Moose:
When Creationists watch the flintstones as a documentary.

Yes, kids.
We lived alongside dinosaurs 7000 years ago.

How would you explain human footprints in dino tracks? or human and dino fossils in the same rock layers? Just saying it's possible for dinos and man to have co existed

No its not, its really not possible at all. creationism/Intelligent design sure whatever floats your boat but at no point in human history were we sharing the same space as dinosaurs

Apart from the Flintstones and 10,000 years BC obviously

Delta4845:

AuntyEthel:
People who say that power metal continues the work of classical composers.

Any argument involving animal rights and PETA members. I like animals and all, but PETA's braindead fairytale ideals just piss me off.

No ALF fans?
---eh
Pink Floyd was written on drugs - that sets me off

No, ALF is even worse than PETA. Any organisation that puts animal safety above people's, and who destroy property and endanger human life for the sake of animals has something seriously wrong with it.

I love animals. They taste great.

Labyrinth:
A few of the many..
"Spelling and grammar aren't important!"

Actually, a lot of grammar rules have no real reason to be besides some self-made authority suggested it should be true, usually because that's how it worked in Latin. Hell, the first English grammar books were written in Latin because it would be unthinkable to stoop to English. For example: no split infinitives (that is, putting an adverb in between 'to' and the verb it's being attached to to make an infinitive - "to quickly run"). This 'rule' came about because a grammar book that became influential merely suggested that not splitting infinitives was better, because in Latin such a thing was inconceivable. Just to show how ridiculous the split infinitive is, consider that no one complains about the split nominative of "the good man" - splitting the definite article "the" and the nominative "man" with an adjective. English grammar is so maddeningly complex and impenetrable to outsiders - and insiders - mostly because of self-appointed authorities rigidly following the decrees of previous self-appointed authorities who rigidly followed the rules of earlier self-appointed authorities who thought English grammar should be more like Latin.
Another example of English craziness: "Why were you ["you" the singular in this example] running down the road?" This is entirely grammatical and also entirely illogical. "Were" is the plural past tense but here it's being used as the singular past tense. A few centuries ago logic and grammar were one in this case - "Why was you running down the road?" - but today anyone who chose consistency over custom would be frowned upon simply because that's not the way things are done. Funnily enough, this particular quirk was also instituted because a self-appointed grammar authority decided English looked nicer with another irrational and unnecessary rule.
Spelling has its own set of problems. For instance, it no longer accurately represents the sounds it should represent. How the hell did "shood" become "should" and why is "ould" suddenly "old" in "boulder"? This specific issue is because pronunciation has changed since English was first set into writing but spelling, for various reasons, hasn't. "Flood" was once pronounced literally "floood", not "flud", and "knight" was originally pronounced "kuh-ni-guh-t". As for whether proper spelling is important, Shakespeare couldn't even keep his last name straight - once he spelled it five different ways in one document. While standardised spelling is nice, the early tradition of English shows it's not actually necessary.
While we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, there's something to be said for choosing common sense over rigid (and silly) laws.

Edit: Let's also not forget that if it weren't for some pragmatists applying the -s rule of plurals to "eye" and "cow" - where the 'correct' plural was totally originally irregular - we'd talk about a pair of "eyn" and a group of "kine".

My personal favourtie argument is when you've basically won an argument about global warming or some other profound discussion and then the fuckwit your arguing with decides to use the most desperate keep in the game clause they can, 'At least I have a Girlfriend', now I'm normally quite a nice chap but this completely unrelated admittance of defeat basically turns me into a complete wanker and has me retorting with things such as, 'your hand doesn't count' or 'are you sure your Girlfriend is a girl' or if I'm particularly incensed, 'I'm not desperate enough to go out with a dog like your girlfriend'

Corporate Language, like "synergy" and "paradigm." It doesnt anger me, it just makes me sick to my stomach

The Attempted Use of Religious Justification in an Argument

Games with "awesome graphics" are automaticaly good.

Halo is teh B3st Gaem 3vAR!!!!!111!!! Cuz Halo Guy cilz aliens and doesnt afraid of anything

4th edition D&D is way better than 3.5, they fixed every problem, and now 3.5 is obsolete, you will switch over eventualy, all the earlier stuff sucked anyway and its now great and OMGTEHROXORZwarlocksrocknow (seriously, 4th edition just isnt my sort of game. I'll give it a try when I have a chance, but fuck me if WotC is getting any money from me. It has real flaws, and 3.5, for the most part, was not nearly as bad as they're making out.)

Creationism

Half-life is a crappy game why arent there more vehicles and why is picking stuff up so great you can do that in forceunleashed but better cuz there's more stuff and it's bigger and also the guy is really cool.

That's YOUR opinion

Astrology

WoW is the best game ever, you should try it!

[insert whatever game is about to come out, regardless of shittyness] is going to be great! I have to have it. Can you pick it up for me?

Decoy Doctorpus:

Labyrinth:
A few of the many..
"Spelling and grammar aren't important!"
"Abortion is murder!"
"You're going to hell for your homosexuality/bisexuality."
"I need guns for self defence."
"My family of 4 people need 8+ cars."
"You should wait until marriage to have sex."
"You should be loyal and obedient to your male spouse."
"[race/sexuality/gender/stereotype] should, without exception, be degraded."
Edit: I'm adding Creationism to the list.

While none of these cause a complete separation between body and brain, they do tend to warrant a fist-to-face reaction if, after several minutes of heated argument, the tactless Burke still clings to them.

Yeah. Bloody people and their bloody opinions. The world would be a better place if we could just get rid of them.

I thought the exact same thing. She hates people with differing opinions? That's got to be a rough life for her. Makes me very glad I'm not that easy to P.O. Or maybe I should be angry that I have real things happening in my life to cause those sorts of emotions, and not made-up reasons like spelling and grammar.