One sided and generic arguments that piss you off.

[Eclectic Dreck]

When judging a construct like a corporation, morality is relative to successful fulfillment of purpose. You can judge the people calling the shots as immoral when they guide the corporation down such paths of course as people are a part of the social contract and thus the relative impact on the society as a whole becomes a morale issue.

Adam Smith warned against this business model back when capitalism was a novel new idea and he was working on refining it, for the very reason that the people running the business don't necessarily have much to lose or gain based on its success and thus doesn't have that as a built-in safeguard against irrational (and possibly immoral) behavior. Over two centuries ago, and the guy fucking called it.

I'd go so far as to say that any such construct that has a very limited purpose runs the same risk. A revolutionary movement, as often as not, betrays the ideals of the revolutionary members. A political party designed to gain advantage for a line of thinking finds that blind opposition to be at least as useful as collaboration.

In such cases, pointing to the construct and crying foul when that very structure pursues the stated goal well is folly. It is nothing more than a tool, any morality inherent is based upon the effectiveness of that tool. If you want to judge deeper, look at the hand that holds the tool.

 

[Sexy Devil]

When people decide that they hate a movie/TV adaption of a book because it made changes. I mean I wouldn't really care if they gave it a chance and then decided which they liked better, but most people who do this just straight up go "The book didn't go down like this, it's shit."

I'm mainly referring to Game of Thrones.

 

[direkiller]

THE ARGUMENT: THE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR IS BROKEN!
WHERE WE SEE IT: Anywhere there is a random number generator
HOW IT'S USED: As an explanation for why the random number generator did not produce the results you wanted
WHY I HATE IT: Because you do not understand what random means.

Man, I could go on all night. I'll stop here.

Oddly I had one of these that was legitimate
Ti-83's random number generator just used a list of numbers
we had 23 calculators producing the same "random" numbers

 

[Creator002]

"If you don't like realism, go to saints row"

Second, this argument is usually used when defending feature suggestions like fuel for cars and having to eat to stay alive. Mind you these are suggestions for GTA V.

Wait, wait. People are suggesting that Rockstar add fuel and hunger to GTA? I mean, sure cop chases would get more intense when your car suddenly runs out of fuel, but does that mean its more fun? What if your car runs out of fuel during a mission and you fail because you need the car and can't call AAA (Is that the American car service) because the car's stolen?
I can see how it could be incorporated in a mission, but not during the general game.

 

[NightmareExpress]

"I'd like to see you make a better game"
"You only dislike it because you're bad at it"
"You're not a true fan unless..."
"The good ole' days were just better"
"The games today are just fine"

Make a reply to these if you dare.
It's wasted effort and wasted thought put into something that will ultimately go nowhere. If they do get back to you on it, their responses will be just as simple as, if not a word to word copy of, their original post followed with "deal with it" and pseudo statistics.

That is if they bother getting back to you on it. They are more frequently used as "fire and forget" fuel where the individual then disappears and presumably never returns again. Just a very lazy way of making discussion/a point. On the other hand, it's a very good way to troll.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

These threads always humor me

Most of the complains thrown into these types of threads are one sided and generic arguments...if you don't agree with the argument

Might as well throw mine into the ring:
-Piracy is OK because the game company is EEEEEVIL!!!! (DRM, makes a shit ton of money, labor law issues, etc.)
-Piracy is OK because information WANTS to be free! Why you be caging up information brah!?
-Piracy is OK because it's legal here!
-Piracy is OK because it's just copy-right infringement! You're not hurting anyone!
-Piracy is OK because I wouldn't have bought it anyway.

And so on and so on. Just like they're going to argue about my reasons for why pirates are thieves is a one-sided and generic argument.

You're one of those "Anyone who even thinks about piracy in a positive light should be hung from their balls until death" people, aren't you?

My personal favorite is the "freedom of speech" argument on the internet. You do not have the right to say whatever the hell you want on the internet. That has nothing to do with the right to expression.

Yes. Yes it does. That is the very definition of Freedom of Speech. That you get to say or Speak if you will, virtually anything you want in a public space.

This is why places like 4chan exist.

You have the right to not go there. You have the right to criticize. But they have the right to say what they want.

 

[Vegosiux]

I want to add that not being good at a game is a perfectly valid reason to not like it. Constantly sucking is not fun, and there's no reason you should play a game if you aren't having fun. It's not a valid reason to think that the game is bad, but you don't have to think a game is bad to not like it.

Well, the problem with that argument isn't that not being good at a game would not be a valid reason to like it, but rather that it implies that you're supposed to like the game if you're any good at it.

 

[Lieju]

Pretty much anything that is a fact, but people treat it as if they can have an opinion on it. Like when people say "being gay is wrong", that's not you voicing your opinion; that's just you being wrong.

Opinions are just opinions. If someone says "I believe homosexuality is wrong.", that is a factual statement, they believe that.
However, what your reasoning behind it is, and whether you should have the right to oppress gay people or make them uncomfortable, that's a different issue.

For example, I am disgusted by raw tomatoes. Even seeing them makes me almost puke because I can imagine what they feel like in your mouth. And I can't watch someone eating them.

It is my opinion that raw tomatoes are disgusting.

But I'm not going to argue that they should be made illegal, or go around telling people who eat them how I feel like throwing up.

 

[Vegosiux]

My personal favorite is the "freedom of speech" argument on the internet. You do not have the right to say whatever the hell you want on the internet. That has nothing to do with the right to expression.

Yes. Yes it does. That is the very definition of Freedom of Speech. That you get to say or Speak if you will, virtually anything you want in a public space.

This is why places like 4chan exist.

You have the right to not go there. You have the right to criticize. But they have the right to say what they want.

Well, yes, but they do not have the right to go to my domain and say anything they want there if I choose not to allow it. Free speech means that the government can't persecute you for what you say. If you trash-talk in my house or on an internet domain that I own, I'm still within my rights to tell you to zip it or to kick you out.

Of course on 4chan I can't tell them what they can or can't say, I don't own it, and I'm free to just ignore it while they're free to say whatever the 4chan admins allow.

 

[Master Kuja]

Aside from the standard of people treating their opinion like fact, as well as the whole "your opinion is the wrong opinion" line of thinking, there's also this.

Spoiler: This shit, this shit right here.

I despise this shit. Anyone who pulls this tends to get a reply equating to "Yes, well done, that is my opinion, care to add anything more to this discussion? No? Fuck off then."

 

[karma9308]

My personal favorite is the "freedom of speech" argument on the internet. You do not have the right to say whatever the hell you want on the internet. That has nothing to do with the right to expression.

Yes. Yes it does. That is the very definition of Freedom of Speech. That you get to say or Speak if you will, virtually anything you want in a public space.

This is why places like 4chan exist.

You have the right to not go there. You have the right to criticize. But they have the right to say what they want.

Maybe I phrased what I said wrong. I meant more that when someone complains about a comment getting edited or deleted by a mod they usually claim "You can't do that! I have freedom of speech!!" And they don't. The government can't dictate what they can and can't say, but the domain owner (and the mods) can decided what can and can't be said on the website.

 

[Thomas Hardy]

One of the arguments I despise is when things are falsely reduced to some kind of black-and-white relativism:

i.e.

If it were a male torso would the "zombie bait" statue still be sexist?


THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

The argument is about the treatment of women in media/games/etc. Male/female is totally irrellevant to a discussion about the depiction of women (just women) in games. The same goes for "if it happened to a white guy in a movie" or any kind of absolute opposites...

...Bringing that crap up is just trying to derail the discussion without actually DISCUSSING anything.


Also, there is no news on FOX News. Most of those talking heads never actually ARGUE anything, they just ARGHFR^$#$%FGL!

...they make me mad.

My absolute most hated argument boils down to "I believe it so it must be true." Because that's just ignorant self-delusion and any actual discussion is flatly impossible. One side just yells their talking points and refuses to listen and the other side either does the same or things go nowhere.

 

[FFP2]

I too am greatly bothered by the strawfeminist.

I'm all for equality but people like Anita Sarkeesian give true feminists a bad name.

 

[RJ 17]

Really the arguments that I hate the most are political ones, on any topic. The chances of changing someone's mind - particularly their thoughts on politics - over the internet are slim and none. And yet we have the same sides throwing the same arguments and talking points at each other like two army lines lobbing mortars at each other, only they have about as much impact as a snowball (all they really succeed in doing is annoying the intended target).

But that's what upsets me the most about political arguments: they're ALL the exact same. Take any given topic and both sides will have the same points about said topic that you've seen a thousand times over. "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns!" "If guns make us safer, why isn't the US the safest country in the world?" "Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns." "Any psycho can walk into a gun show and walk out with an arsenal, no questions asked." How many times have you seen these arguments - or variations there-of - in gun debate topics? They're always the same, no knew thoughts or ways to look at the issue, just two groups of people shouting slogans and talking points at one another. The occassional piece of evidence flies through the air only to be countered by an equally compelling piece of evidence from the other side.

The only progress that ever gets made is a progression towards carpal tunnel syndrome due to everyone typing for what ultimately amounts for absolutely no reason.

 

[KissmahArceus]

I hate the Streamlining = Dumber argument.

The more complex something is doesn't immediately make it better,it probably ties in to the whole notion of something becoming popular taints it somehow.

I hate that

 

[Blunderboy]

?Hold on a second! This chap has expressed an opinion different to my own. There is only one possible explanation.
CORPORATE POD PEOPLE!?

Seriously. I?ve been called a ?sheeple? all the time just because I happen to have reached a different opinion.

 

[AnarchistFish]

"Communism has been proved that it can't work in practice"

is the only one I can think of off the top of my head