Who the hell was the guy who sat down and said, "Hey, I have a great idea; let's make a video game about a blue hedgehog that runs really really fast," amirite?

Programmer Yuji Naka and artist Naoto Ōshima. HTH. HAND.

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, you realize that it is not the ideal solution, amirite?
For some reason, projecting your thoughts through speech or writing seems to make them truer and for lack of a better phrase more real. For example if you like someone and just keep it to yourself, it just seems like a flimsy thought that you're unsure of. But once you tell a friend through speech or text, it solidifies and you are more certain of your feelings, amirite?

There's a reason for that. The approximate technical term would be mythophobia. In laymen's terms, it's called The Fear of Being Accused of Lying.

You absolutely hate the Credit Karma commercials. They're poorly done, obnoxious, and their only selling point is that they are better than freecreditscore.com. No one cares, because freecreditscore puts effort into their commercials and has really catchy music, amirite?

All ads are manipulative by practical design. You're basically saying: "If freecreditscore's method of manipulating the perception of the public is better than their competitor's, then their products are better, by default."

The moment someone tells you you're not good enough, you know you're better than them. amirite?
@Jamal Let's plug s'more claims into this equation: The moment someone tells you not to set yourself on fire, you know...

I think the OP should've just said what she ment. Something like,

"Sometimes, when people say you're not good enough [for them], it's because they've projected their weaknesses and insecurities unto you. In doing so, they inadvertently betray their own feelings of worthlessness."

The moment someone tells you you're not good enough, you know you're better than them. amirite?
@Jamal Let's plug s'more claims into this equation: The moment someone tells you not to set yourself on fire, you know...

Well, why didn't OP just say that, instead of posting a claim made of imitation logic?

I really hate how people agree/disagree with the spirit of claims, agreeing with anything that seems intuitively correct. It screws with objectivity; a person is right because what he says feels right, not because he's actually right in any objective sense. For example,

"If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married"

is a weak conditional if-then statement. It's logically unsound. It's propaganda. What it actually says and what it means to say are two different things. But people will agree with in droves, as if it says something positive about gay marriage, completely unaware that they've been intellectually duped. It doesn't even matter that it's propaganda; as long as it appears to support an absolutist view on human rights, then it's true.

Why not just get straight to the point and say,

"I'm pro-gay marriage and anyone who isn't is an arsehole."

Not only is this a more honest rendition of the example claim, but it doesn't attempt to mask blatant propaganda behind a transparent wall of pretend logic.

Anything can sound sexual if you put "ladies" after it, amirite?

"BRB. I'm going to wash my goiter, ladies."
"I'm here for the tax audit, ladies."
"Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur, ladies."

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, you realize that it is not the ideal solution, amirite?

It depends on the situation. In some situations, abortion is the ideal solution. The claim that abortion isn't ideal in all situations is from moral absolutism, which doesn't speak much for objectivity.

It's really confusing that "ignorant" isn't a perfect conjugation of "to ignore", amirite?

Ignorant people generally ignore the parts of reality that don't fit in with their delusions. Hence, to be ignorant is to ignore facts at a greater frequency than most - to the extent that it impairs the ability to obtain and retain information.

The moment someone tells you you're not good enough, you know you're better than them. amirite?

Let's plug s'more claims into this equation:

The moment someone tells you not to set yourself on fire, you know you should set yourself on fire.

The moment someone tells you to go on a diet and lose weight, you know you're a fashion model.

The moment someone tells you that your breath smells like a pile of rotten Durians, you know your breath smells like rainbows in the spring.

Hm. I can get use to this logic. It IS self-serving, after all.

What's with facebook newbs who think they have to know someone just to like their posts? Do you have to know someone on amirite just to like what they say? Clicking "Like" because you happen to be friends with the author is a retrogressive (read: assbackwards) way to evaluate posts. That's why "Hey everyone, had a bad day at work. Can't wait to get home and have that glass of wine" gets more likes and shares than, say, a critical take on a verse from John Milton's "Paradise Lost, amirite?
You know your amirite? post is bad when users comment more on your terrible grammar and/or punctuation than what you wanted people to pay attention to, amirite?

Their pedantry is not your problem.

We take natural phenomena like eclipses, volcano eruptions, and earthquakes for granted. We understand them and why they occur. But hundreds of years ago, people wouldn't have had any idea what was going on. They would have thought the gods were destroying the Earth. Goes to show that the more we discover and learn, the less we attribute to mysticism. The age of religion is coming to an end, amirite?
@Jamal Apples and oranges; there's an explanation of "how" (natural science) and an explanation of "why" (philosophy...

Dude, you're not some misunderstood wandering soul. Calm down.

I never implied otherwise. And who the hell was even talking to you? The reason you posted this is because I was ignoring your comments ITT, so you decided to chime in with pointless and irrelevant commentary about the nature of my character just to get attention. You're as transparent as they come.

So you've got the attention you were looking for. Grand. Now do me a favour and stay the hell out of conversations that don't involve you. Otherwise, I'd like you to meet the bottom of my killfile.

We take natural phenomena like eclipses, volcano eruptions, and earthquakes for granted. We understand them and why they occur. But hundreds of years ago, people wouldn't have had any idea what was going on. They would have thought the gods were destroying the Earth. Goes to show that the more we discover and learn, the less we attribute to mysticism. The age of religion is coming to an end, amirite?
@Jamal Apples and oranges; there's an explanation of "how" (natural science) and an explanation of "why" (philosophy...

You know, I really don't give a flying fsck about your inferiority-complex fueled perceptions. In fact, I'm going to use more polysyllabic words just to spite the illiterate troglodytes ITT. Nothing anyone has said has changed my view on the necessity of using terms of philosophy, so you've wasted your time with your petty, sophomoric, embarrassingly ignorant whine.

We take natural phenomena like eclipses, volcano eruptions, and earthquakes for granted. We understand them and why they occur. But hundreds of years ago, people wouldn't have had any idea what was going on. They would have thought the gods were destroying the Earth. Goes to show that the more we discover and learn, the less we attribute to mysticism. The age of religion is coming to an end, amirite?
@Jamal Apples and oranges; there's an explanation of "how" (natural science) and an explanation of "why" (philosophy...

I don't need your running commentary. If you don't have anything to say on the topic of my first comment ITT, then don't waste my time.