Bad Arguments.

[Atheist]

Argument does not mean quarrel, it means rational discussion to arrive at a conclusion. Here are some bad arguments - (1) It's the economy, stupid. (2) Read my lips. (3) Get a life. (4) Project fear. (5) It's in the Bible/Koran so it must be true. The list goes on........

[Canary42]

You lost. Get over it.

[dunnitall]

And your question is...?

[Old_Geezer]

Not necessarily. Some of those can be valid points and to ban them is to deliberately cripple one side of the discussion, sorry I mean argument.

[sandyRoe]

I'm not sure that Q5 is all that bad.

[Atheist]

Sorry, I forgot I was supposed to ask a question. My apologies. Perhaps I could ask 'does anyone share this view?'

[Prudie]

If I have an argument with someone it's rarely a rational discussion. I don't agree - so there

[Atheist]

OG. I don't think any are arguments; they are either rude, cliches, or unanswerable assertions. I think the rude ones are perhaps the most dangerous.

[Old_Geezer]

For example, if someone keeps quoting unlikely worst case examples as a reason not to change for the better, pointing out it's just part of a fear spreading strategy is perfectly valid. Quoting the economy is fine (minus the "stupid" bit, but that's just common useage and means nothing). It's just a shame when folk put wealth accumulation before everything every time.

[Atheist]

Sandy. how can Q5 be meaningful? If you read my book of revelations of the god Athea you would realise that you should believe me. You wouldn't regard that as a convincing argument. would you?

[Atheist]

OG. Calling someone stupid should not be common usage. If I just said to you, 'shut up, stupid, you're just stupid, therefore you're wrong.' you would quite rightly take offence, and you wouldn't say, Oh sorry I now see you're right.

[Old_Geezer]

You would ignore the "stupid" bit, knowing it's a common phrase, and not personal, and concentrate on advising of the need for priorities.

[Atheist]

Anyway, thanks for all who responded. It's nice to attract some of the thinkers here.

[ToraToraTora]

none of those are arguments. 1 is a statement and an exclamation, 2/3 are instructions or possblt suggestions, 4 is a title and 5 is a declaration.

[Atheist]

OG, I'm afraid that I don't find it easy to ignore the 'stupid' bit. Calling someone 'stupid' is personal. Don't you agree? And it's certainly not going to encourage civilised discussion of the essential points at issue.

[Theland]

Nailit, your identity fingerprint is all over this thread.
Good question though.

[Atheist]

TTT. I quite agree that none of them are arguments. But they do appear here quite a lot. And I wish they wouldn't. The ones which are simply rude assertions should have no place in a civilised discussion.

[Old_Geezer]

It's a snowclone from Bill Clinton's campaign. Not to be taken seriously.

[Atheist]

Theland. Who is Nailit? Is it some code that I don't know about?

[Theland]

Oh come on John!
Give me some credit for having at least two functioning brain cells.

[Atheist]

OG. Sorry I don't understand your last answer at all. Could you explain? I am serious about this (serious as in 'interested to know what you mean', not serious as in 'I'm feeling aggressive about it')