Freakin' buzzword abusing morons

I wish people would try using stuff they actually know and understand and that actually reflects what they think in an argument, rather than just using other people's phrases and slogans.

Example: I was discussing how I didn't like Firefox (this was ages ago, back when it was a new program and was still full of bugs and lacked a few basic things that were always covered by IE) and, lacking an argument, this moron said "Well my browsing experience is better with Firefox".

Also, when someone was trying to convince me to vote for the Green party, I was told that "Yeah, but a vote for the Green party is a step in the right direction". Sure enough, when I quizzed him on what the hell this meant he couldn't answer.

Not my own story, this 'un, but some Ecover sales rep turned up at the door of my friend's house spouting phrases like "The planet's dying" and "It's the ethical choice" without any apparent idea of the meaning of what he was saying... my mate never asked him "Why is it the ethical choice?" but it would've been amusing to see how he tried to answer :p

And finally, when someone was giving me a load of crap for disliking the idea of war and stuff (please don't use this topic to discuss this with me as I'm in too much of a good mood as of late to do so), he said "Well without me you'd be speaking German". I promptly responded by speaking German. The conversation ended shortly after; he couldn't retort to it.

I know a lot of people have standpoints and views that they feel very strongly about but it often feels as though they're just following a crowd with them and haven't got a clue, so they just say what someone else said and act like it's their own opinion.

Thread question: Have you ever come across people who argue like this?

People who say 'Uh, no.'

in b4 uh no

Ive never come across people who argue like this, but fortunately the people i talk to couldnt care less about political issues. Or atleast not enough to argue about it without using the term 'your face'

about every person believing in evolution.. saying they have evidence and stuff.. then when i start aking questions about the first three lines they say.. they have no answers whatsoever..

just funny :)

I know some people that latch onto statistics, not so much buzz words.

But yeah, it's pretty lame. Blame advertising? :D

People at high school would throw around this stuff all the time with political issues. "Yeah but without us the terrorists would win!" or stuff along the lines of that. Basically arguing for things that they knew nothing about other than the most basic ideas.

I don't claim to know everything about everything but I do tend to keep my mouth shut if I don't have the facts to back my feelings up.

I can't stand argumentative people to begin with, let alone people who argue with nothing to back up on, so I try to not associate with people who do that.

Jesus loves you. You'll be sorry when you're BURNING IN HELL. *insert something about your soul here*

A-hem, to the question, no. Not ever in my lifetime. The mere chance is an impossibility.

I like it when you ask annoying people who try to convert you what Hell is like, to which they give some response in the area of "dark", "nasty", "everything you hate" and stuff like that, to which I usually ask "How do you know?" and then slam the door in their face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I can't stand argumentative people to begin with, let alone people who argue with nothing to back up on, so I try to not associate with people who do that.

---

o rly?

Oh, man, I hate when people use soundbites in lieu of an actual arguement. I've noticed that creationists tend to do this.

Them- Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics! (yes, I've heard this one. :rolleyes2 )
Me- Oh? Well, then. Explain the second law of thermodynamics.
Them- Uh...um...*insert stock comparison to tornados and junkyards and/or comments about monkeys giving birth to humans and/or accusations of communism*
Me- *headdesk*

I think people do this because that's all that they see. Hell, look at political debates.

Quote:

---

And finally, when someone was giving me a load of crap for disliking the idea of war and stuff (please don't use this topic to discuss this with me as I'm in too much of a good mood as of late to do so), he said "Well without me you'd be speaking German". I promptly responded by speaking German. The conversation ended shortly after; he couldn't retort to it.

---

Win. :D

Reading this thread makes me wonder how eoff can have so many active members.

Working for a bullcrap telephony company with miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape, I have the joy to work with a lot of argumentative people, arguing over what's working in the house, and possible charges that the engineers bring (those engineers are sly b@st@ards, and I don't trust them... :mad:) I was arguing the same point round in circles with one man who was insistent that just by him plugging in a broadband connection, had caused his line to break down, saying 'oh, it's your fault'. I felt like saying 'Well I didn't personally come round to you house to bust up your line, however much I'd like to right now. He was a bit of a jerk to be honest. Despite that I put on the notes to the engineer (whom I eventually booked out because I just got pissed off arguing) that the person had only moved in less than a month ago and really shouldn't be held responsible for anything that had happened, and the problem had raised its ugly head after the internet connection had been established.

Another woman was moaning that since her extension were at fault, she was advised to go to an electrician (£70-£80 versus our up to £215! :eek: ) but she was whingeing, what if the socket actually on the BT socket was at fault? Then she would be out of pocket to the electrician who wouldn't be able to sort out the main one, which only a BT engineer can see to. We argued the same exact point endless times in ten minutes; I nearly told her to shut up and get the smurf over it!

Sorry to on about that nonsense

I do dislike people like that and usually such are people are either fighting a losing battle or are on a populist cause and just using buzzwords and phrases used by other people of a similar persuasion to convince others. It can be irritating but I'm sure I've probably done it at some point.

Yeah, I get that sometimes. Not necessarily a stock phrase, but things taken for granted, or ideas based on assumed things. For example, in my US Politics class gun control came up and the teacher was like "Well the current laws allow people to own semi-automatic weapons. That can't be right." and I'm thinking "... it can't? Wanna back that up?" but I couldn't be bothered making a deal out of it. I'll do that when the actual gun issue comes up this upcoming semester.

I am one of those people...it's terrible ;____________;

I don't use buzzwords. Aside from the colloquial, "dude" or "man" (peppered with the odd obscenity if I'm around friends), at the end of every other sentence, my diction is remarkably clean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yamaneko

I don't use buzzwords. Aside from the colloquial, "dude" or "man" (peppered with the odd obscenity if I'm around friends)

---

dude:skull::skull::skull::skull:?
mansmurfer?

Something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Manus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I can't stand argumentative people to begin with, let alone people who argue with nothing to back up on, so I try to not associate with people who do that.

---

o rly?

---

i c wut u did thar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

Oh, man, I hate when people use soundbites in lieu of an actual arguement. I've noticed that creationists tend to do this.

Them- Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics! (yes, I've heard this one. :rolleyes2 )
Me- Oh? Well, then. Explain the second law of thermodynamics.
Them- Uh...um...*insert stock comparison to tornados and junkyards and/or comments about monkeys giving birth to humans and/or accusations of communism*
Me- *headdesk*

---

[img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]

My hobby leads to some interesting discussions with uninformed laypeople. I'm an historical re-enactor, I re-create aspects of the European Middle Ages. Quite often, people assume that what they see in movies is a perfectly accurate portrayal of history.
This includes things like:

*I should be wearing a horned helmet because I'm a Norse ('Viking') re-enactor

*It's fundamentally wrong to drink white wine at a medieval feast, because they only had red wine in those days

*Everyone in the old days was stupid and filthy, and the evil church conspired to keep everyone that way for control

*Western Martial Arts didn't exist; European historical combat is all about brute force and flailing a sword around until you hit something

*Old Europe was terrible because everyone thought the world was flat until Columbus (HAH!), and women had no freedom or independence or power

I don't mind people thinking these things. It's completely understandable. But what I do mind is that they keep insisting they're right, even after I explain what it was really like, and point out that I'm involved in two organisations that research and re-create this stuff, and that I've studied it at university and in my own time.

Quote:

---

*Old Europe was terrible because everyone thought the world was flat until Columbus (HAH!), and women had no freedom or independence or power

---

Yep. That's another one that gives me headaches.

Another fun one- "Wiccans were burned at the stake in Salem!" I've heard that claim multiple times, and each time I die a litle inside. (Yes, people have specifically said Wiccans) And then I get insulted when I point out all of the ways that claim fails.

I dislike people like this, considering I tend to like to think about things rationally and logiclly most of the time.

Unfortunatly for me, alot of my friends act like this, so I have gotten very good to become apathetic towards most arguments and just avoid the topics most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

about every person believing in evolution.. saying they have evidence and stuff.. then when i start aking questions about the first three lines they say.. they have no answers whatsoever..

just funny :)

---

id say the same for creationism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

about every person believing in evolution.. saying they have evidence and stuff.. then when i start aking questions about the first three lines they say.. they have no answers whatsoever..

just funny :)

---

id say the same for creationism.

---

How is God made everything not a decent answer? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harle-Quin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

about every person believing in evolution.. saying they have evidence and stuff.. then when i start aking questions about the first three lines they say.. they have no answers whatsoever..

just funny :)

---

id say the same for creationism.

---

How is God made everything not a decent answer? ;)

---

*smite* :smash:

Now I'm smitten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

about every person believing in evolution.. saying they have evidence and stuff.. then when i start aking questions about the first three lines they say.. they have no answers whatsoever..

just funny :)

---

id say the same for creationism.

---

i never said i had evidence now did i?

but i suppose thats just how it is.. they say they have evidence and the stupid people get suckered in.. nobody even wonders how the hell they came up with "a million years ago.." when the furthest we can go back in carbon dating is about 20 to 40.000 years.

This is now a faith vs science thread

I hate faith (people generally abuse faith in a buzzword form, plus it's mosty guesswork anyway) and have less respect for science than I used to (people generally abuse scientific study in a buzzword form, plus it's mostly random findings caused by guesswork).

Stop discussing them in my thread bitches unless you're discussing how misused they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Quite often, people assume that what they see in movies is a perfectly accurate portrayal of history.

---

It's even worse when people use historically inaccurate movies to base ideas about a place in the present day.
Braveheart... xD The amount of people who've told me stuff about Scotland saying "It was in Braveheart so it still applies to Scotland now, right?". xD

Yeah, people should stop using buzz words. It's for the greater good ;[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

about every person believing in evolution.. saying they have evidence and stuff.. then when i start aking questions about the first three lines they say.. they have no answers whatsoever..

just funny :)

---

id say the same for creationism.

---

i never said i had evidence now did i?

but i suppose thats just how it is.. they say they have evidence and the stupid people get suckered in.. nobody even wonders how the hell they came up with "a million years ago.." when the furthest we can go back in carbon dating is about 20 to 40.000 years.

---

i wasnt personally attacking you i was just saying the same applys.

radiometric dateing for one. which is whats used in dateing dinosaur fossils.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

nobody even wonders how the hell they came up with "a million years ago.." when the furthest we can go back in carbon dating is about 20 to 40.000 years.

---

Carbon dating is not the only kind of absolute dating available to scientists. Potassium-argon dating is used for billion year-old fossils with great accuracy.

Someone just got whipped. Meow.


Bees use buzz words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yamaneko

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

nobody even wonders how the hell they came up with "a million years ago.." when the furthest we can go back in carbon dating is about 20 to 40.000 years.

---

Carbon dating is not the only kind of absolute dating available to scientists. Potassium-argon dating is used for billion year-old fossils with great accuracy.

---

all from wikipedia

amount of K40 (0.0117%),

and for accuracy?

As the simulation of the processing of potassium-argon samples showed, the standard deviations for K-Ar dates are so large that resolution higher than about a million years is almost impossible to achieve. By comparison, radiocarbon dates seem almost as precise as a cesium clock! Potassium-argon dating is accurate from 4.3 billion years (the age of the Earth) to about 100,000 years before the present.

At 100,000 years, only 0.0053% of the potassium-40 in a rock would have decayed to argon-40, pushing the limits of present detection devices

0.0053%? you cant even pick that up without white noise

this isnt accurate at all.. its a vage representation where you can say: Somewhere millions of years ago, without actually knowing it.

That's because at 100,000 years the technique pushes the limit of potassium-argon dating since the presence of potassium-40 is minuscule compared to a fossil billions of years old. The amount of K40 you quoted is also small, so depending on the presence of K40 in the sample a varying result would be produced. Older samples need less K40 present to produce accurate results whereas newer samples (100,000 years is the limit) need more.

The intention with these methods is not to show conclusive proof that the earth is x number of years old. Any method will give you a rough estimate as to the age of the sample. Sometimes that method will have a deviation of plus or minus 5,000 years and sometimes it will deviate plus or minus 50 million years. As these methods improve and as new methods for dating arise, gaps will close. Regardless, and what many people don't understand, is that a million years of time is incomprehensible to humans, but in earth history it's actually nothing, less than 1% of time. I agree, methods need to improve, but trying to discount them because there's some deviation in the results is absurd especially when it's the best we have in determining a blueprint of our world.

so who is going to make the creationist vs evoloutinist thread?

I thought for dating even older things, the ratio of Uranium-238 to Lead-206 is used, because of the long half-life (4500 million years) of the Uranium isotope. I was under the impression it was used to date the really old rocks that they've found.

Uranium-lead dating

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starseeker

I thought for dating even older things, the ratio of Uranium-238 to Lead-206 is used, because of the long half-life (4500 million years) of the Uranium isotope. I was under the impression it was used to date the really old rocks that they've found.

Uranium-lead dating

---

its all part of radio metric dateing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starseeker

I thought for dating even older things, the ratio of Uranium-238 to Lead-206 is used, because of the long half-life (4500 million years) of the Uranium isotope. I was under the impression it was used to date the really old rocks that they've found.

Uranium-lead dating

---

There are lots of materials that have long half-lives, but they arent found in Carbon based lifeforms, or the ground around it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starseeker

I thought for dating even older things, the ratio of Uranium-238 to Lead-206 is used, because of the long half-life (4500 million years) of the Uranium isotope. I was under the impression it was used to date the really old rocks that they've found.

Uranium-lead dating

---

There are lots of materials that have long half-lives, but they arent found in Carbon based lifeforms, or the ground around it.

---

The point is that this stuff is found in the ground around fossils. And almost any element can be found in carbon-based lifeforms, just in small quantities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starseeker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starseeker

I thought for dating even older things, the ratio of Uranium-238 to Lead-206 is used, because of the long half-life (4500 million years) of the Uranium isotope. I was under the impression it was used to date the really old rocks that they've found.

Uranium-lead dating

---

There are lots of materials that have long half-lives, but they arent found in Carbon based lifeforms, or the ground around it.

---

The point is that this stuff is found in the ground around fossils. And almost any element can be found in carbon-based lifeforms, just in small quantities.

---

If they find Uranium in your body, i think they wouldnt wonder about what killed you.

WHO | Depleted uranium

90 micrograms. With an intake of 0.5 from food and water, and 0.6 from the air.