[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]
I don't get it
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
Without using plate tectonics, explain how fish fossils ended up on mountains. That’s right, it must be the Noah flood.
Never heard that one, that's quite mental. One thing I heard from a young earth creationist was that "global warming isn't accurate because it's using an assumption that the earth is 6-10,000 years old".... Although in that case, wouldn't it be much more urgent?
Like people that try to nullify an argument against cars by saying "well you have a car so you are a hypocrite"... we may all be forced to own a car but that does not preclude anyone from understanding what's negative about cars or cities designed for driving