There are a few arguments I hear that I just hate. Very simply, it’s because they’re plainly awful. Just awful. So in no particular order:
Once you have kids, your views on spanking will change. I hate this one because when I say parents should not spank their children, I’m making an argument about right and wrong. If I was making an argument where personal experience mattered at all, then sure, throw it in my face that I don’t have kids. But that isn’t what is being discussed. It’s just a condescending point that isn’t even remotely relevant. Coupled with this is usually the argument that spanking is effective. I don’t give a shit. Shooting a baby in its face will make it stop crying, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay.
Atheism leads to moral relativism and has no place for happiness. What really irks me about this one, aside from how common it is, is how ignorant it is. I’m plenty happy, just as millions of other atheists are. Furthermore, atheism does not lead to moral relativism. It removes an ultimate objective basis for morality, sure, but that is definitely not the same as moral relativism. And finally, as if there wasn’t already enough wrong with this wanker of a position, it’s just an Argument from Consequence. ‘Oh, atheism leads to these bad things? Then it must be wrong.’ It’s typical religious logic.
The rules are there for a reason, so follow them. This is rule internalization and it’s stupid as hell. Yeah, the rules usually have some sort of reason. And many times it is best to defer to them. But they will sometimes transgress their very point. Or their very point won’t matter in a given context. When that happens, it isn’t the rule that matters, it’s the reason. For instance, the speed limit is there for a reason, right? It keeps people safe. Unless you were recently shot in the leg. In that case you’re probably less safe if you don’t speed to the hospital. The rule can go to hell; I care about the reason.
Hilter was an evolutionist atheist. Nope. He was a creationist Christian. He declared his Christianity and rejection of evolution in Mein Kampf over and over, long before he came to power. Besides, the point of this dishonest argument is just to say that atheism and evolution lead to bad things; it’s another Argument from Consequence.
Al Gore uses X amount of energy to do Y. The point of this one is to discredit Al Gore in his campaign to get people to use less energy. It’s a dumb attack. First, it isn’t usually based on fact. Second, even when he does use a lot of energy (i.e., private flights), he’s delivering a message that will help to get a large number of people to use less. Third, even if he buys oil and throws it on baby dolphins while he dines on polar bears and pandas, that doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening (and because of man). It’s a bad argument; it has many different forms – ‘So-and-so is a hypocrite, thus her message is invalid’ – but Gore is one of its the most popular subjects.
I believe everyone has the right to express his or her opinion. This starts out so many points and it’s such a waste of time. Yes, great, you aren’t a fascist. Thanks for letting us know – even though no one was going to assume your argument was premised in the idea that people shouldn’t have free speech rights. But no, no. Thank you so much. I really hated having that 5 seconds of my life.