Crazy religious people
When you criticize crazy members of a group for crazy things some members of that group do and members of the group who aren't crazy get offended, as if it was directed at them. When those members don't fight the crazy policies or members. Applies much more broadly than religion.
The idea that western criticisms of religion being mostly directed to Abrahamic faiths invalidate them - for the same reason the idea that Indian criticisms of religion being mostly directed to Hinduism invalidate them too. Again this applies broader than religion.
When people criticize an example of a broader thing, that is common where they live and are bashed for focussing on locally common problems, as if that means they're afraid to deal with locally rare ones when a simpler solution (they don't experience it as much so aren't as aware of it) is available. When people ignore simple conclusions and jump to complicated ones, especially when it blames others.
The dangers of uncommon things (such as Eastern religions) being minimized because they're not common locally.
When staing someone's motive is to attack you, is used to invalidate their attack; happens in political attack ads a lot. When someone has good reason to attack you but society makes him not, or when someone is attacking you but society makes him pretend he isn't. Phonies and policies that promote them.
The number of latin and greek names in science. Can't we just translate to what it means in our language, since the meaning of those names is usually descriptive (of something the thing was thought to be when it was discovered but is known not to be now). Non systemic naming of things pisses me off too.
I tried to do long division earlier. I failed :I
Forgetting stuff I used to know when I haven't practiced it in years pisses me off =/
Spending years teaching people something they don't need to know pisses me off even more though =I
Pencil lead that snaps
People who talk down to old folks or physically disabled people.
Kids who ride scooters around supermarkets.
Stores that refuse to let X school kids in (i'm not a kid anymore but it's so discriminatory). Stores that ask for ID for stuff that has no reason to need ID. Boxes that are huge compared to the product.
Fake politeness - someone phoned my mum when she was exercising and she yelled out "f*ck whatever inconsiderate pussycat is calling" then answered in the most polite voice possible. If you don't like what someone's doing tell them so they know and can stop doing it - don't get mad at them but give them no clue you're mad or they'll keep doing it and eventually you'll explode on them!
Fake politness is just one example of people not revealing pertinent information then getting mad at the inevitable result of information being withheld.
Granted I didn't lock the vehicle, but c'mon, there ain't even 2,000 people in that town. And yes, with my encyclopedic knowledge of geography and stockpile of maps, I don't really need it. It's the principal of the thing. That GPS was a gift and kind of a fun toy to play with and mock it's routing algorithms while on the road. Plus I had switched it over to metric so I can develop a better "feel" for meters and kilometers in the real world.
What a bunch of crap. Fuck you, whatever redneck meth head took it. I hope the thing routes you onto the train tracks.
You read it! You can't unread it!
Inconsistent positions. Women who are 100% in favour of abortion but use the same phrases let alone arguments as anti-abortion activists to say men shouldn't be able to 'pull out' of paying child support in the period the woman is able to abort. Durr he should've worn a condom, hurr take personal responsability. it's the same point as 'she should've got him to wear a condom.' People who use irrelevent differences between situations like this to uphold inconsitant positions.
Self-defeating policies. For example, opposing abortion when the life of the mother is at risk as if the baby will survive if the woman dies. The purpose for opposing it (saving the baby) is defeated by opposing it in that situation. People who don't care about situations.
Set sentences for classes of crime - as if there isn't huge diversity within each class.
People who take an issue that effects loads of people (as if any issue doesn't) and insist it only effects the person most or most directly effected. When being effected is confused with being informed.
When stories that don't effect anyone are put in the paper just to sell papers.
When Democrats say "our policies are the same as the Republicans" as if that's an argument for them! When people use that as an argument against them. Look at the policy (a policy can't vote or join a party) and see if it makes sense don't bash people for using a good idea another party had and don't praise them 100% for it if the other guys came up with it.
When people get angry at kids for doing things adults are allowed to do like swear, that are totally harmless. People who get mad at adults for swearing.
skurtz wrote:nwt000 wrote:Get your trolling ass out of here!
I'm more friendlier drinking some espresso.
zzyzx 1 wrote:Coming home to watch something I DVR'd only to see that I forgot to set it to record
That, or you set it to record something, and it doesn't. Aw, and then last week the DNC and RNC, ran over, and messed up the schedule, so I didn't see the ends of most of Craig Ferguson.
It pisses me off when someone says they meant the (contextually incoherent) literal meaning of their original reply.
I.e. if someone replies to a comment that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because it's not evidenced with "scientists shouldn't force their views on our kids," It's a bitch move (that renders their reply incoherent given the context) for them to reply "i never said i was talking about evolution" even if literally they never mentioned evolution.
If my original reply (inferring they thought evolution was unevidenced because that's the criticism i originally levelled that their "evolution is just a view" was trying to counter) present evidence for evolution and they say "evidence doesn't stop it being a view" that is consistent with the literal meaning of what they said but makes it a non-reply to my original comment (how does that definition of 'view' reply to "it isn't based on evidence'?).
When people ignore contextually implied details of my comments is also annoying to a lesser extent because it's on me to communicate clearly.
People who retcon what they meant in a statement so it makes sense after it's pointed out that they were flawed in it. It's great to change your position but you can't go back in time and change what your past positions were! I had loads of bad positions not that long ago even but i accept that i don't pretend i meant things i now believe when i said things in the past.
When you reply to someone with 10 points, and they ignore the 9 strongest ones and focus the conversation on the weakest point you made as if you didn't make 9 other points. Forget the numbers you've probably all had this experience. For example if someone says the mammalian teeth couldn't have evolved and you present a list of evidence for how they evolved - then they pick out one piece of evidence from that list and show it's not enough to prove how teeth evolved by itself as if (a) it was meant to prove teeth in general not mamalian teeth (again, reply context!) and (b) as if i presented that alone. Sorry to use that same example but i'm sure we've all encountered people doing this in many contexts.
What's pissing me off? Life in general it seems.
Not having a full time job, living at home, not in a relationship...better yet, now more and more people are popping the question and are getting MARRIED! I'm 24!! Is this supposed to be happening to 24-25 year olds??
BEST CHARACTERS IN SOUTH PARK
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests