[two characters are arguing in a break room, coffee machine and all]
[teal, holding a coffee cup] Without mentioning avocado, explain to me what guacamole is
[purple, taken aback] Huh?!
[zoom on teal’s very smug face, the coffee steaming in front of them] I knew it You can’t Your guac ideology doesn’t work Heh Pft Owned
[purple looks blasé and has no words]
It’s mocking people that engage in bad-faith ideological debates.
Avocado is an essential ingredient in making guacamole, but, by “banning” its mention in the discussion and consequently stymying the opponent, the first figure is assuming and posturing as if they won a legitimate debate.
Which is so obviously false as to be humorous.
I’ve had this exact scenario on reddit, many years ago. I can’t remember the specifics but it was literally like this comic. “Without using the core part of this topic, you can’t explain how this topic works”
IIRC it was climate change (back when that was the hot button political issue) and something like “oh yeah, well without using man made CO2 emissions, explain the rise in CO2 and temperature, you can’t”, where their point was that it was “volcanoes”
Never heard of anyone doing that ngl. Except possibly secularists with arguments about certain morality, eg, “without using the Bible, explain how homosexuality is immoral” although I think I’ve only come across that one twice
I feel like that’s different, as the point is to make the moralist admit that they want Christian Religious Law.
I’m not talking about a debate over “should homosexuality/same-sex-marriage be illegal/banned”, just morality in general. It’s kind of hard to believe in and justify objective morality without some form of religion. From what I can tell, it’s the Humanists who understand this
Wtaf are you talking about lmao
An example proposition that is similar to this comic