• Welcome to the edge of the civilized internet! We are a site and community dedicated to freedom of speech. All our official content can be found here. If you have any questions, try our FAQ here or see our video on why this site exists at all!

Bad arguments people make about current events

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
I'll use this thread to post bad arguments people make about current events, and the rebuttals to them.

The argument:



"Anti-vaxxers say 'my body my choice' when it comes to vaccines, but don't say the same thing when it comes to women and abortion. Such hypocrites!"

The rebuttal:

You evidently have the memory of a goldfish, or too young to know this history of this phrase. Pro-abortion people are the ones who popularized the phrase "my body my choice" in the first place! Read the link! Even Wikipedia says, right up front, that it's a "feminist slogan". The anti-vax people are the ones calling YOU hypocrites because YOU claim to believe in bodily autonomy, but want to force vaccines and masks on everyone. They've taken your slogan in order to MOCK YOU. You only want bodily autonomy for yourself, not everyone else. When an "anti-vaxxer" says this, they are making fun of you.

By the way, using "my body, my choice" to argue for abortion is a bad argument. If you use this argument, do you also condone smoking, drinking, and doing other drugs while pregnant? It's just "your body", right, so you can do whatever you want with it, right? It's not hurting anyone else, you're only hurting yourself, right? Well, obviously not, because we know how much this harms the growing child. When the child comes out the womb and gets fetal alcohol syndrome, or is born addicted to the drugs you took, that was a direct result of your actions. It was your choice, but you indisputably harmed someone else's body. Just like with COVID, you spread your disease to someone else, causing them harm. You don't want the anti-vaxxers to do that, but you want to be able to do that to your child in the name of bodily autonomy? Then you're a hypocrite.

---

The argument:


"Having fun with/knowing how to operate guns as a kid turns you into a mass shooter"

The rebuttal:

So, you're saying that what you're exposed to as a child can influence your development? If this is true, then going to drag shows and being exposed to homosexuals and transgenders must also influence a child's development.




More to come
 

Arnox

Veteran
Staff member
Founder
Messages
4,380
"Anti-vaxxers say 'my body my choice' when it comes to vaccines, but don't say the same thing when it comes to women and abortion. Such hypocrites!"
Honestly, I think what I'm most tired of on this front by far is the complete misunderstanding of the Supreme Court decision. They ruled abortions as a state-decided issue, not a federal-decided issue. That's it. No more, no less. Now, if you want to campaign in your state to legalize abortion, hey, totally fine. I get it. But let's be accurate about what we're arguing here, please.

OMG, who had that avatar originally? lol
 

Cyberats

Pro Abortions as a constitutional freedom, DOJ does NOT make Law. But you need to ask yourself why was an adjudication been held as Law ? Because the Feds. could then manipulate said freedom willy nilly, left or right.
Pro Family, your choice when to have kids, but both parents must be in agreement.
Pro Guns - a Constitutional Right that cannot be taken away.
Anti Child Rape, Child Trafficking, Child Abuse & Child Murder, which is why we have the guns.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
The argument:




"AR-15s need to be banned! The Second Amendment is killing us! Conservatives want us all to die! Unhinged White Supremacist mass shooters! Won't somebody think of the children!"

The rebuttal:

You very obviously don't care about this issue. You only pretend to care about this issue because you're a "progressive", and you think it hurts "conservatives". You know how I know that? Because you never complain about all the other gun violence that happens daily in the United States. You only "bravely speak out" when there's a mass shooting perpetrated by a white person when they kill other white people. You don't care about the black-on-black gang violence. A mass shooting happens every weekend in Chicago, but you don't care. "Black lives" obviously do not "matter" you, unless a cop or a white person is around to pin the blame on.

If a black person with a pistol kills you in a drive-by, nobody cares. If a white person with an AR-15 kills you, you will be made famous and your family gets interviewed by every channel.

You are a hypocrite and possibly a racist.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
The argument:


The rebuttal:
Governor. Have you read the ruling? Do you know WHY the court decided this way?

Because those drop-boxes were NEVER LEGAL IN THE FIRST PLACE. They're not suddenly now illegal. They weren't legal before. They weren't a long-standing institution that was suddenly struck down by lobbyists with an agenda. They weren't legal ever.

Here's what happened.

Some election official, who isn't allowed to make or change laws, just unilaterally declared that people should put their votes in drop-boxes, and then everyone just went along with it.

But how elections are run is a matter of law. If the law says you have to hand it in personally, or mail it in yourself, that's what you have to do. You can't just make stuff up.

All of this is on the first three or four pages of the actual ruling, Governor, you should read it sometime.

The mean 'ol republican party isn't suppressing voters. They're holding everyone accountable to the actual laws on the books. The law says what it says, and it doesn't allow for unmanned drop-boxes.

You want unmanned drop-boxes? Okay great! Here's what you do: CODIFY IT INTO LAW THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE! You know, the only people who are allowed to make laws? You can have your drop-boxes back, if it goes through the proper democratic law-making process that all other laws are subject to.

And what are you even talking about "politicians" for? What politicians were involved in this whole affair? Judges issued this ruling. The voters brought up this issue. The election commission was the defendant. No politicians were involved in this. Don't blame mysterious unnamed "politicians". Blame Meagan Wolfe, the Wisconsin Elections Commission administrator, for directing everyone to set up dropboxes even though that was never legal.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
The argument:


"JUDAISM EXPLICITLY STATES THAT ABORTION IS A RIGHT. THAT MEANS FREEDOM OF RELIGION PROTECTS ABORTION."

The rebuttal:

"Freedom of religion" does not mean "people can do whatever their religion commands you to do with impunity". If your religion commands you to stone adulterers to death, does making that illegal infringe on your "freedom of religion"? No? You mean I can't hold backyard executions? Then there you go.
 
Last edited:

Arnox

Veteran
Staff member
Founder
Messages
4,380
The argument:


"JUDAISM EXPLICITLY STATES THAT ABORTION IS A RIGHT. THAT MEANS FREEDOM OF RELIGION PROTECTS ABORTION."

The rebuttal:

"Freedom of religion" does not mean "people can do whatever their religion commands you to do with impunity". If your religion commands you to stone adulterers to death, does making that illegal infringe on your "freedom of religion"? No? You mean I can't hold backyard executions? Then there you go.
I think I'll be the devil's advocate here for a little bit. They'd probably argue that abortions aren't hurting anyone, and thus, it would still fall under freedom of religion.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
I think I'll be the devil's advocate here for a little bit. They'd probably argue that abortions aren't hurting anyone, and thus, it would still fall under freedom of religion.
"Whether or not it hurts someone" is irrelevant. Things are not necessarily illegal because it "hurts someone", for example, desecrating a corpse, or polygamy. They would just be objecting to the comparison on the grounds of "but this is different because..." while completely missing that the difference they're pointing out is immaterial.

> "Apples are comparable to oranges in that they both contain carbohydrates"
> "HAH! You can't compare apples to oranges! They're two different things!"

The root of the matter is, "freedom of religion" does not mean that "it's my religion" is a get-out-of-jail-free card. You still need to follow the laws regardless, or else. What it means is that the government can't restrict you from practicing your religion.

If "practicing your religion" means "holding up traffic", you're going to jail for holding up traffic, not for practicing your religion.
If it means blasting music in your apartment at midnight, you're going to jail for disturbing the peace, not for practicing your religion.
If it means murder, then you're going to jail for murder, not for practicing your religion.
If it means abortion, then you're going to jail for abortion, not for practicing your religion.

If you get arrested (or are restricted from) for going door-to-door talking about the bible, provided you follow all other laws regarding, "time, place and manner", then you'd have a case.

"Their" argument is fatally flawed, because "they" do not know what "they" are talking about.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
This isn't really an argument per se, just something I want to yell at a cloud about:


Remember the Ukraine conflict? The "Russian invasion?" (who decides whether to call it a war, an invasion, a conflict, or a special military operation? CNN? Ukraine? Russia? The UN?) Well, StackExchange, the broader network that encompasses StackOverflow, has made the brave stance that any use of the the "Z" symbol that appears on Russian hardware is not allowed on the network.

So another user asks, "what about other invasions? What about when the USA invades someone? What about Israel and Palestine? What about the British? What about any future invasion? Where's the line? What's the reasoning?"

Their answer? "We'll handle it on a case by case basis, and pass it off to another team to decide if it's unclear".

The rebuttal:

You guys don't know. Why? Because you haven't thought about it. You have no principles. No morals. There was no reasoning behind your original decision. You have no north star. You are simply drifting along in the flow of public opinion. Public opinion says "Russia bad" and so you also say "Russia bad" for no reason other than because it's what everyone else is saying.

That's why you can't answer the question.

You wouldn't dare have principles, because public opinion changes on a whim, and taking a principled stand just means you have to uproot yourself every time it changes. "Bodily autonomy is bad, you must get vaccinated!" "Bodily autonomy is good, we must have abortions!" See, you can't have principles and also chase the approval of the crowd at the same time.

You're a bunch of cowards whose self-preservation mechanism is to blend in with the crowd, like a pack animal.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
The argument:


https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/w35mo4
The rebuttal:

Remember when pharmacists were allowed to refuse to fill Ivermectin prescriptions, even when they were prescribed by a doctor? Bet you applauded that, didn't you? Well have a taste of your own medicine.

This is freedom. Individuals cannot be forced to bake your gay wedding cake or sell you things against their moral or religious code, because FORCING people would be a violation of their FREEDOM. That's freedom. That's America (for now).

You have the freedom to go shop somewhere else. You have the freedom to whine and complain that your every wish isn't being instantly granted by the minimum wage teller, boo hoo. You even have the right to never shop at Walgreens again!

They aren't fascists for refusing your demands, you're the fascist for making demands of others, regardless of their beliefs. This isn't Saudi Arabia just because people have religious freedom. This isn't Handmaiden's Tale just because you have to ask for a different employee to check you out.

You absolute clowns
 

Drathnoxis

Devotee
Messages
109
This is freedom. Individuals cannot be forced to bake your gay wedding cake or sell you things against their moral or religious code, because FORCING people would be a violation of their FREEDOM. That's freedom. That's America (for now).
Or more likely, they have the freedom to have their life ruined after someone drags them through the mud on Twitter for refusing it.

Although refusing to sell condoms is pretty fricking stupid. Condoms are a force for good in this world, overpopulation is at the source of a lot of the problems in the modern day.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
overpopulation is at the source of a lot of the problems in the modern day.
I would argue that overpopulation is only problem in certain cities, and only a symptom of other causes, such as poverty, (poor) city planning, and public transportation.

---

The argument:


The rebuttal:

People aren't equating LGBTQ people as groomers. People are equating LGBTQ people who groom as groomers. Such as people who want to teach sexuality to young children, drag queens who for some reason REALLY want to perform and read to young children, and people who want to coach children on how to convince doctors that they're trans and irreversibly alter their body before they even hit puberty. Those who groom are groomers.

Y'know, these people:



People are calling these people groomers.
 

Drathnoxis

Devotee
Messages
109
I would argue that overpopulation is only problem in certain cities, and only a symptom of other causes, such as poverty, (poor) city planning, and public transportation.
Overpopulation is a global issue because it directly impacts climate change. More people means more carbon emissions.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
Overpopulation is a global issue because it directly impacts climate change. More people means more carbon emissions.
I think that logic is a bit backwards. Industry creates carbon emissions. If we could somehow lower our collective carbon footprint to an acceptable level while still growing in population, then can we say that we're no longer overpopulated?

If the term "overpopulation" has no actual relation to the size of a population, then you should choose another word to describe what you're talking about. Just say that "pollution" is the problem instead.
 

Drathnoxis

Devotee
Messages
109
I think that logic is a bit backwards. Industry creates carbon emissions. If we could somehow lower our collective carbon footprint to an acceptable level while still growing in population, then can we say that we're no longer overpopulated?

If the term "overpopulation" has no actual relation to the size of a population, then you should choose another word to describe what you're talking about. Just say that "pollution" is the problem instead.
Overpopulation might have been the wrong word, but the problems aren't only limited to pollution. There's also destruction of natural environments, use of limited resources, and limited space, and more. The point I wanted to make is that having more people magnifies a lot of problems. And really, why do we need more than 8 billion people? The way the population has been growing is simply not sustainable and birth control is the best way to manage it.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
Overpopulation might have been the wrong word, but the problems aren't only limited to pollution. There's also destruction of natural environments, use of limited resources, and limited space, and more. The point I wanted to make is that having more people magnifies a lot of problems. And really, why do we need more than 8 billion people? The way the population has been growing is simply not sustainable and birth control is the best way to manage it.
Sure, okay.

The argument:


The rebuttal:

Do you know the difference between a federal law and a state law?

A federal law applies to the whole nation.
A state law applies to just the state.

By voting against the federal law, it means, in this case, that you don't want gay marriage to be a federal law. It does not mean that you want it to be illegal. It likely just means that you think each state should decide for itself whether or not gay marriage should be allowed.

By continually lying about "the other side", you're just contributing to division and hate, and if politically motivated left vs right violence ever breaks out, you'll have some blood on your hands. You are not a force for good in this world.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
Damn Houseman, you are going on some rants here.

:risitas:

If only I could get paid to do this professionally.



The argument:

Referencing this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-62301091, one twit said:


The rebuttal:

Key word: "accused of".
Hey Pam, I accuse you of rape. So, by your own logic, you should get canceled, lose your job, friends and family, now, right? No? Why not? Because it's just a accusation, and you didn't really rape anybody? Huh, okay, so accusations mean nothing, since just anybody can make them for any or no reason at all, based on zero evidence? Great, you learned something.

Yes, players will boycott over being forced to wear a rainbow. Wouldn't you boycott over being forced to wear a cross? Or a star of David? Or any of the Islamic symbols? You'd refuse to wear these symbols because they don't represent you, and you don't want to be associated with them, right? Well it's the same reasoning here.

"Human rights", you might say, "this isn't a political issue".
What about the right to have your own religion? To disagree? Are these not human rights too? See, you don't want "equality". You don't even know the meaning of the word.
 

Houseman

The Actual Hero
Sanctuary legend
Messages
814
I would argue that overpopulation is only problem in certain cities, and only a symptom of other causes, such as poverty, (poor) city planning, and public transportation.

---

The argument:


The rebuttal:

People aren't equating LGBTQ people as groomers. People are equating LGBTQ people who groom as groomers. Such as people who want to teach sexuality to young children, drag queens who for some reason REALLY want to perform and read to young children, and people who want to coach children on how to convince doctors that they're trans and irreversibly alter their body before they even hit puberty. Those who groom are groomers.

Y'know, these people:



People are calling these people groomers.
Also, this comic makes the point:

 
Top