#1. It's really sad that so many people think that lying and making stuff up is a perfectly acceptable way to prove your point. I've seen this happen many times, and it still baffles me. Right now, Ray "Banana" Comfort has some new book about how atheists believe that "Nothing created everything". He has had it explained time and time again that he's wrong, and that he's completely misunderstanding the atheistic point of view. (The key word is "create". We don't believe that it was "created".)
Another example was a debate that I read (but didn't really participate in) where some guy was making bold assertions like how the U.S. is the only country that allows people to become citizens simply because they were born here. He also threw out some dubious statistics regarding how many kids get free lunches.
Sure, one religious nut and some online nut - hardly the symptom of a greater problem, right? Wrong. You've got guys like Sean Hannity who takes snippets from Obama's speeches completely out of context in order to attack the man (when all you'd have to do is listen to the next sentence to see that he was actually saying THE OPPOSITE of what Hannity accused him of saying). The dishonesty has gone mainstream, folks.
This is why I prefer online debates to in-person debates. When I debate in person, I have this thing where I don't like just making things up. Unfortunately, not everybody has that problem, and you can't really do fact-checking in the heat of the moment. That's what's nice about the Internet. Somebody can post something and you can destroy their arguments immediately after fact-checking.
#2. Okay, about three times this week I've heard and/or read people still whining about Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I think that I gave it a B- when I first saw it, but upon a further viewing, I downgraded it to C+. And what's the one thing that people won't shut the hell up about? The nuked fridge scene. It's become an internet catch-phrase, and there's even a movie news site called "Nuke the Fridge".
Ugh. Can we get over this? Personally, and I know I'm not the only one, I loved that scene. Yes, it was stupid. Spectacularly stupid. There is absolutely no way such a thing would work in reality, just like the following wouldn't either:
- being dragged behind a truck and having no injuries
- hanging on to a submarine for miles and surviving
- using a life-raft as a parachute (Mythbusters has my back on this one).
- Using your bare hands to pull out a guy's heart (to be fair, there may have been something supernatural at work with this one - which isn't more realistic, but it makes sense in movie logic).
- chopping a rope bridge in half, slamming into the cliff, and not breaking a single bone
- having James Bond be your dad in the thirties
#3. I can't seem to exape these damned Coors Light ads. Basically, their whole selling point is that you can tell when the beer is cold enough because it changes the color on the can. Call me crazy, but I can usually tell if a beer is cold enough WITH MY SENSE OF TOUCH!!!! I mean, do I have Matt Murdock-like (that's a superhero reference) tactile sense here or can't pretty much everybody do that?
What's also bugging me is that they keep talking about how their beer is "frost brewed". What the hell does that even mean? How can you use frost to brew something? First of all, you have to boil everything, so there's no frost there. Afterwards, you have to ferment it. Now, while lagers ferment at colder temperatures than ales, you still don't want any "frost" in the picture. After all, frost implies freezing, and nothing's gonna happen if you get it that cold.
My point? There's no such thing as "frost brewed". Why do they say it then? Because some marketing research guys determined that the phrase concocts thoughts of a nice, cold beer in the mind of the rubes who buy Coors Light. (Not that everybody who buys Coors Light is a rube, but that is what a rube buys.)