Phrases That Make You "Cringe"

[emeraldrafael]

Excuses are the nails that build our houses of failure.

No, shitty contractors and bad carpentry build houses of failures. you're just being a dick and wont give the slightest leiway.

Well I showed him. I had a paper due that I missed because the guy was an ass and said that my personal problems at the time (my gf dying) had no base on my school work, and I would not get a time extension.


Then his mom died, and he said he'd be taking off work. So I stood up and said that his personal problems at the time have no base on my education, I expect you here to teach me, cause thats what my mothers taxes pay you to do.

Oh yeah, we didnt like each other, never had.

 

[Bluntman1138]

I'll agree with Haplon. "It is just a Theory" has got to be the stupidest thing someone can say when talking about a scientific theory. And only proves the ignorance of the person saying it.

In My opinion people use said phase when someone gets up on their high horse about things like macro evolution. They pass it off as fact. Theory and fact are not the same thing.

That is where you are wrong. Scientific theory is pretty much fact. I dont hear anyone saying the Earth going around the Sun, or Gravity isnt fact. In Science, once something is called a "theory" it has been proven, it is fact, and the majority of scientists agree that it is a fact.

One thing i dont like is the phrases of "macro and micro" evolution. It is all evolution, it is all fact. Someone saying they believe in Micro evolution, but not macro evolution, is basically saying they believe in inches, but they dont believe in feet.

 

[Nouw]

I'm not a sexist/racist/homophobic but... -sexist/racist/homophobic statement here-

In this case, the 'but' nullifies whatever you said before.

 

[Alexander Hamer]

"I could care less." Glad to hear it, it's good to know you care.

"For God sakes." 'Sakes' isn't even recognized by my spell-check, and I would assume probably not yours either.

"Your vs. you're." I think we can all agree.

"Its and it's." Tons of people miss this. 'Its' is possessive. 'It's' means 'it is'.

"There, their and they're." Don't even get me started...

"Libary." Jesus...

"Ec setera." Et, people. It's 'et'.

"Sherbert." The worst of the bunch. It's spelled "sherbet" because there is only one R. Some of you will contest this because some dictionaries made in the past 5 years added 'sherbert'. You know what else they added? 'Bootylicious', 'Ain't' and 'Doh!'. You know why? To shut up morons who struggle trying to find words in a dictionary. Hint: it's alphabetical, figure it out.

 

[team star pug]

U Mad. I hate this phrase so much. Its just so annoying to hear heck even to say.

U mad bro?

OT: I could care less, Remember the n't.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Similar to yours, "I don't want an excuse" or things along that line (can't remember what the actual phrase is).

What if my parents just died? That'd be a good reason why I'm late, don't ya think?

 

[JoesshittyOs]

"I could care less." Glad to hear it, it's good to know you care.

"For God sakes." 'Sakes' isn't even recognized by my spell-check, and I would assume probably not yours either.

"Your vs. you're." I think we can all agree.

"Its and it's." Tons of people miss this. 'Its' is possessive. 'It's' means 'it is'.

"There, their and they're." Don't even get me started...

"Libary." Jesus...

"Ec setera." Et, people. It's 'et'.

"Sherbert." The worst of the bunch. It's spelled "sherbet" because there is only one R. Some of you will contest this because some dictionaries made in the past 5 years added 'sherbert'. You know what else they added? 'Bootylicious', 'Ain't' and 'Doh!'. You know why? To shut up morons who struggle trying to find words in a dictionary. Hint: it's alphabetical, figure it out.

Half of these are just grammar mistakes, not phrases.

 

[Alexander Hamer]

"I could care less." Glad to hear it, it's good to know you care.

"For God sakes." 'Sakes' isn't even recognized by my spell-check, and I would assume probably not yours either.

"Your vs. you're." I think we can all agree.

"Its and it's." Tons of people miss this. 'Its' is possessive. 'It's' means 'it is'.

"There, their and they're." Don't even get me started...

"Libary." Jesus...

"Ec setera." Et, people. It's 'et'.

"Sherbert." The worst of the bunch. It's spelled "sherbet" because there is only one R. Some of you will contest this because some dictionaries made in the past 5 years added 'sherbert'. You know what else they added? 'Bootylicious', 'Ain't' and 'Doh!'. You know why? To shut up morons who struggle trying to find words in a dictionary. Hint: it's alphabetical, figure it out.

Half of these are just grammar mistakes, not phrases.

Thereby creating an insurmountable litany of possible phrases which would make me cringe myself stupid. Think of all the possible sentences theses could be used in! It's impossible to list them all.

 

[CrashBang]

I have a friend who, after every statement she makes, says "I'm not gonna lie". How fucking redundant and stupid is that? It makes me facepalm every time... and I think she's started to notice.

EDIT: I have another friend who's really stupid and, when he texts, says "could of" or "should of". Really? I mean REALLY?! No! I've corrected him a thousand times but he's either too dumb or too annoying to stop it. Sigh.

 

[Dorian6]

"douse" "could of" "guestimate" and "dollop" make my asshole clench

 

[Alexander Hamer]

I'll agree with Haplon. "It is just a Theory" has got to be the stupidest thing someone can say when talking about a scientific theory. And only proves the ignorance of the person saying it.

In My opinion people use said phase when someone gets up on their high horse about things like macro evolution. They pass it off as fact. Theory and fact are not the same thing.

That is where you are wrong. Scientific theory is pretty much fact. I dont hear anyone saying the Earth going around the Sun, or Gravity isnt fact. In Science, once something is called a "theory" it has been proven, it is fact, and the majority of scientists agree that it is a fact.

One thing i dont like is the phrases of "macro and micro" evolution. It is all evolution, it is all fact. Someone saying they believe in Micro evolution, but not macro evolution, is basically saying they believe in inches, but they dont believe in feet.

I'm not going to say Bluntman is entirely wrong, he seems to know his stuff, but I'm leaning more toward There is no Spoon.

First off, I can't believe no one mentioned the word "hypothesis". That really could have abbreviated this discussion.

Second: No scientific theory is EVER a fact. Never. The best we can do is find supporting evidence to turn a hypothesis into a theory, and from a theory design further hypotheses which we support with new evidence and thus further the world of science.

The only "Facts" which ever exist are the proof of events. We can prove that a house burned down or that a bowl isn't in the cupboard you left it in.

This is where I lean toward Bluntman. It's true that some theories reach a point of corroborating evidence that we can indeed refer to them as fact. Keep in mind that 400 years ago it was a FACT that the Earth was flat and that our world was the center of the universe. Use that to establish some context that, however preposterous they may seem now, future theories may indeed, one day, be considered the new "scientific theory" and "scientific fact".

Look up the Electron Double Slit Test if you don't get what I'm telling you.

 

[there is no spoon]

I'll agree with Haplon. "It is just a Theory" has got to be the stupidest thing someone can say when talking about a scientific theory. And only proves the ignorance of the person saying it.

In My opinion people use said phase when someone gets up on their high horse about things like macro evolution. They pass it off as fact. Theory and fact are not the same thing.

That is where you are wrong. Scientific theory is pretty much fact. I dont hear anyone saying the Earth going around the Sun, or Gravity isnt fact. In Science, once something is called a "theory" it has been proven, it is fact, and the majority of scientists agree that it is a fact.

One thing i dont like is the phrases of "macro and micro" evolution. It is all evolution, it is all fact. Someone saying they believe in Micro evolution, but not macro evolution, is basically saying they believe in inches, but they dont believe in feet.

Scientific theory or is defined as "A hypothesis that has been substantiated either by observation, or a repeatable test." The wording my change from one text book/website to another but is says roughly the same thing. Now having said that, we can't test evolution in complicated organisms such as modern mammals, reptiles, birds..etc because they have long life cycles, relatively of course. The only time we can test evolution is on simple, smaller organisms like microscopic insects. We can't say for certain that the evolution that occurs in the simple organisms occur in their larger, more complicated, counterparts because as of right now we have no way of testing said theory. If you look at the theory of gravity for example, It is considered fact because if you jump off your roof without aid of some kind you will fall each and every time you do so. This is observable and repeatable.

 

[Xaio30]

"Well well well.... What have we here?"

It makes me die a little inside.
Every. Single. Time.

 

[InsipidMadness]

"Your hot." Yes, because the possessive form of addressing in second person means I have ownership of hot. Hot is mine and I shall hold it underfoot for life.

Oh, I'm sorry. Were you trying to say "You are hot?" That's a shame.

It's gotten to a point where I've actually seen "your" in place of "you're" so much that when I type "you're" I actually double check to make sure it's right because it LOOKS wrong :\

I'm curious to see grammarians a hundred years from now talk about this century's text speak like we do with old-English languages in our English classes.

 

[Russirishican]

two words

ball
busting.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

"My bad." It makes me want to hurt whomever said it.

 

[Bluntman1138]

Scientific theory or is defined as "A hypothesis that has been substantiated either by observation, or a repeatable test." The wording my change from one text book/website to another but is says roughly the same thing. Now having said that, we can't test evolution in complicated organisms such as modern mammals, reptiles, birds..etc

You forgot one major point. The peer review process. The evolutionary theory has been through this process. It is accepted, it is considered scientific "law". Until something can come up and disprove it (which at this point, with the evidence evolution has, is improbable)

And you are wrong on one other point, and this shows where your research is not up to snuff. We HAVE witnessed evolution in complex organisms. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

You consider reptiles to be "complicated" enough, that seeing this evolution should be enough to counter your argument that we havent "seen" evolution in a complicated organism. It can take decades to centuries for evolution to be witnessed, and quite frankly, we have only been trying to "witness" evolution for 40-50 years. And we have seen it already, in an organism that just produces more generations than others.

It could take thousands of more years for us to witness evolution in most mammals, besides domesticated animals which is just forced evolution. But that doesn't mean evolution is not real, or not happening.

Note: When I say fact in a scientific sense, I mean scientific law. Evolution is a scientific fact, it is a theory that has undergone the peer review process, has a mountain of evidence for and none against (except religious). It is the best possible explanation of the evidence that has been brought forth.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

Any sentence and/or phrase with , 'terribad' or 'hella' in it.

"Dude, that's hella wicked serious!"
"..."

"That's terribad, yo."
*foams at the mouth*


More then once my hands flew up and went straight for their throat.

 

[Audun]

"Just pull yourself together"

By that logic, there is no need for psychiatrists.

The people using it are either:

Trying to trivialize whatever difficulties you are facing.

Trying to make you feel stupid for not already having pulled yourself together.

Showing that they either can't understand the problem or haven't tried to.

Doing all of the above options, but thinking they are helping you.

(I might be biased but this really pisses me off)