Things that make you :mad:

[D&P3]

Sometimes it's better to just not say anything.


Anyway

When places sell Pepsi instead of Coke.

THIS Especially when they've only got Pepsi and every other selectable alternative at that time is just as crap

[Dwarra?]

But coke and pepsi both suck.

[pacdiggity]

Waking up at 4:40 AM, getting only 4 hours sleep ._.
When people are incredibly opinionated about menial things, i.e. tap water, fried chicken provider, choice of soft drink.

[Gracie]

When places sell Pepsi instead of Coke.

THIS Especially when they've only got Pepsi and every other selectable alternative at that time is just as crap

I actually make a point of not going to places that don't, or I bring coke and just sit there drinking it really obviously like a complete asshole, because if they're gotta serve shitty drinks, im gonna have a shitty attitude.

[Pat5]

...People who argue and get mad over silly things... it annoys me.

Having to splice tilesets together in XP makes me fume.

RMRK's smilies, I don't like them.

When somebody talks to me in a manner that insinuates I don't know what I'm doing, when they're clueless and I know what the (BLEEP) I'm doing... thaaat makes me fairly unhappy~

Yeah... I could post in this thread for hours. >w>;

[Gracie]

RMRK's smilies, I don't like them.

[Dwarra?]

Waking up at 4:40 AM, getting only 4 hours sleep ._.
When people are incredibly opinionated about menial things, i.e. tap water, fried chicken provider, choice of soft drink.

I have a giant 50 pound water filter attached to my tap that makes my water fucking delicious, KFC is terrible and is blown out of the water by Popeyes and Chicken Express, Dr Pepper is superior to every drink and Sunkist is alright too.

[SirJackRex]

when places don't serve peach pop
at 99% of the country because of this

[pacdiggity]

Waking up at 4:40 AM, getting only 4 hours sleep ._.
When people are incredibly opinionated about menial things, i.e. tap water, fried chicken provider, choice of soft drink.

I have a giant 50 pound water filter attached to my tap that makes my water fucking delicious, KFC is terrible and is blown out of the water by Popeyes and Chicken Express, Dr Pepper is superior to every drink and Sunkist is alright too.

I'm okay with all of these things.

[Zerothemaster]

Ambiguous Trolls 

[threeofspades]

The genuinely most provoking thing that I ever encounter is people arguing for some ideology and as the debate plays out, it becomes more and more obvious how the motivation behind their debating is to protect his/her own view, not to find the truth. Whenever a Christian who originally argued through evidence and logic, changes his/her argumentation to revolve around how religion is good for society (which is completely irrelevant) after facing enough opposition, then this has happened.

The conclusions are suddenly: "I have wasted my time discussing.", "No matter what I say they will not change their mind." and "I can not tell this to the person's face, well I could but it would be of no use."

I totally agree!
I wanted to only quote a bit of what you said but I don't think that would do it justice, so I quoted it all.

[threeofspades]

Kids these days 
[spoiler][/spoiler]

I see what you did there lol

[modern algebra]

I did not mean to imply that anyone who will not change their minds after a debate are doing this. I was merely talking about those occasions when this actually becomes evident like you said.

I should have been more precise, but yeah. And using Christianity in my post was just an example drawn from recent experience. My post was not about any ideology in particular.

Oh, and sorry for keeping this off-topic stuff on, but I realized to demonstrate what I was talking about, I could now instead of saying that you were right and redefine my allegation, I could have said "but when they don't change their mind the discussion has to go on and we waste more time." Thus changing my argumentation completely while ignoring the fact that you just logically proved me wrong and I am now discussing something else.

Well, I still don't know that it's ever evident, and I certainly wouldn't have thought your latter example outside of the scope of the original debate. In any event, while subjects for debate perhaps require some limitations, I think you should be careful that you are not, in defining the parameters of your debate, structurally privileging arguments that are supportive of your position.

For instance, assuming that in your original example the subject of the debate was the existence of God, I do not see that raising the issue of whether religion performs good in the world is necessarily irrelevant to the original question.

In that I mean it is a perfectly logical argument to say that, if God does not exist, there is no value to human life; absent some divinity, each individual person is worthless - you are simply one speck of dust among seven billion on a tiny planet in a vast and incalculable universe. Your life will be cosmically brief and will likely leave an impact so minimal that not even your great grandson will remember your name. Even if you are one of the rare individuals whose life is remembered by history, such a memorial affects only people whose lives have no more intrinsic meaning than your own, and it certainly doesn't affect you, because you're dead. Arguably, that basic thread of logic is a premise of the Abrahamic religions, with some of the first words in the bible describing life after Eden as "you are dust, and unto dust you shall return." (that line of thought is more fleshed out in Ecclesiastes).

To my mind, that argument is not unrelated to the question of God's existence, since it goes toward the very reason for the hypothesis of God - that is to say, His existence validates the sense of self-worth and altruism that is arguably innate to all human beings. Is it not an unfair constraint to debate a hypothesis without permitting your opponent to advance any observations which form the basis for the hypothesis? To debate gravity and refuse to permit the observation that objects fall down and not up?

Given that rationale, the question of whether religion does good in the world is potentially relevant to the question of whether God or some divinity exists, since it could circumstantially validate the hypothesis outlined above.

I truncated that argument since it was only an example, but my point is only this: if you construct the subject of debate too narrowly, you risk introducing a bias toward your own position, especially where the onus of proof is on your opponent, as it would be on the person arguing the existence of God. It seems to me a narrow debate indeed if you forbid your opponent to raise reasons for his or her belief. If your objective is truth, I would advise against building artificial walls that disadvantage those who do not share your opinion.

[Illumination™]

I did not mean to imply that anyone who will not change their minds after a debate are doing this. I was merely talking about those occasions when this actually becomes evident like you said.

I should have been more precise, but yeah. And using Christianity in my post was just an example drawn from recent experience. My post was not about any ideology in particular.

Oh, and sorry for keeping this off-topic stuff on, but I realized to demonstrate what I was talking about, I could now instead of saying that you were right and redefine my allegation, I could have said "but when they don't change their mind the discussion has to go on and we waste more time." Thus changing my argumentation completely while ignoring the fact that you just logically proved me wrong and I am now discussing something else.

Well, I still don't know that it's ever evident, and I certainly wouldn't have thought your latter example outside of the scope of the original debate. In any event, while subjects for debate perhaps require some limitations, I think you should be careful that you are not, in defining the parameters of your debate, structurally privileging arguments that are supportive of your position.

For instance, assuming that in your original example the subject of the debate was something tedious like the existence of God, I do not see that raising the issue of whether religion performs good in the world is necessarily irrelevant to the original question.

In that I mean it is a perfectly logical argument to say that, if God does not exist, there is no value to human life; absent some divinity, each individual person is worthless - you are simply one speck of dust among seven billion on a tiny planet in a vast and incalculable universe. Your life will be cosmically brief and will likely leave an impact so minimal that not even your great grandson will remember your name. Even if you are one of the rare individuals whose life is remembered by history, such a memorial affects only people whose lives have no more intrinsic meaning than your own, and it certainly doesn't affect you, because you're dead.

To my mind, that argument is not unrelated to the question of God's existence, since it goes toward the very reason for the hypothesis of God - that is to say, His existence validates the sense of self-worth and altruism that is arguably innate to all human beings. Indeed, I would argue that that premise is the foundation of the Abrahamic religions, with some of the first words describing life after Eden as "you are dust, and unto dust you shall return." Is it not an unfair constraint to debate a hypothesis without permitting your opponent to advance any observations which form the basis for the hypothesis? To debate gravity and refuse to permit the observation that objects fall down and not up?

Given that rationale, the question of whether religion does good in the world is potentially relevant to the question of whether God or some divinity exists, since it could circumstantially validate the hypothesis outlined above.

I truncated that argument since it was only an example, but my point is only this: if you construct the subject of debate too narrowly, you risk introducing a bias toward your own position, especially where the onus of proof is on your opponent, as it would be on the person arguing the existence of God. It seems to me a narrow debate indeed if you forbid your opponent to raise reasons for his or her belief. If your objective is truth, I would advise against building artificial walls that disadvantage those who do not share your opinion.

Just to conclude clearly, I change my position while humbly admitting that I was wrong.

What enrages me, I think is the type of person who is sincerely bad at debating seriously (which I think we all can agree about) and generalizing such persons into any kind of method of argumentation et cetra was an error. Thank you for this correction. 

[modern algebra]

With that I can agree.

In any event, I was really just trying to annoy everyone else in this thread

[Jules]

well you failed.  I quite enjoyed that

Does that make you ? 
TOO BAD

[pacdiggity]

I renounce my atheism, modern algebra is clearly God.

Also Holk and Arlen.

[EvilM00s]

I get  when I have had ZERO sleep and my job gives me forced overtime.

Not that I'm complaining. No-ho. Nope.