Cred Forums BTFO

Cred Forums BTFO.

Same coin, different sides.

>You say not all women are monsters

Etc...fact is we need men for society and we don't need Muslims

>it's ok when SJW's do it

The toilet witch is calling you, my designated friend

It's easy, just throw out the dark ones. It's not our fault that the refugees are all brown.

skittles and m&m's taste completely different

thatsthejoke.jpg

Comparing a gender to a religion. And 10% is a huge exaggeration.

What's the point of the SJW image? To encourage women to go their own way?

And the skittles one is more like this: you have a bowl of skittles, three would kill you, and around 30-40% of them would make you mildly ill

>And 10% is a huge exaggeration.
I dunno, there's like a 1,5 billion muslims, half of them are male, so 10% of males being monsters seems true to me.

When the M&Ms one came out people used facts and statistics to disprove it, with the Skittles one liberal went "people aren't candy your argument is invalid "

And yet where was the outcry from the media when feminists said it? They said it first and nobody batted an eye.

We need men, we don't need illiterate Muslim immigrants.

1/10 men is a monster? You believe that? I mean maybe if we were looking at niggers...

It's almost like you didn't actually read what he posted.

what's that even supposed to mean doe?

in the refugee analogy
>Skittles = Refugees
>Taking a handful = Uncontrolled mass migration

now the feminist analogy
>M&Ms = Men
>Eating a handful = ???

You see, /leftypol/, the difference is that society can survive and in fact will do better without rapefugees.
The society without men is bound to collapse, so you have to deal with collateral damage.
Also, not nearly as many males commit crimes as muslims in the West (per capita).
False equivalence.

POO

This is not an adequate argument , this is why:
>If i had a bowl of skittles and i told you 3 would kill you .Would you take a handful?

Maybe i would risk it if i was about to starve to death , otherwise of course not ,
the point is even if all the refugees were the nicest most well behaved secular citizens they are at the very best a huge waste of money and have no perceived benefit to the host country at all.

An adequate example would be something like this
>If i had a truck full of dogs and only 3 of them had rabies , would you take 6 dogs? Even tough you already have 2 dogs of your own .

desu 10/10 men are monsters since they are all rapists.

All heterosexual intercourse is rape because all women are biologically lesbian. The only reason they think they are straight is because of societal pressures

Society needs men in order to survive, otherwise reproduction will halt. Society doesn't need rapefugees. Argument won with no survivors.

Women and leftists won't let us kill the ten percent who end up as criminals. Apparently it's a violation of their "rights". I don't want ANY immigrants, and I want to kill the criminals filling out prisons so I don't have to pay for them to merely exist, or to pay for expensive treatments and therapies so they can reintegrate into society, and what exactly? Become little more than burger flippers and shit? Fuck them. Also, I want to see the women who make false rape claims killed, who support the Muslim conquests of the West whipped and then killed, and so on and so forth until we can reestablish the glory of our civilization.

>Same coin, different sides.

no one is telling you to fuck all men

A pair of good philosophers could keep this Skittles argument/counterargument bullshit going on ad infinitum.
But it's not just the Skittles argument. The same applies to every argument, every theory, literally everything. Eventually, philosophers reach a point where they realize the only way to defend their position and destroy the enemy position is to adopt the enemy position and attack their own position, and at this point the philosophers have a hearty laugh, plant their seeds of chaos in society, and eat popcorn together, watching as the commoners self-destruct.
If you are too dumb to understand what I am saying, I just mean that you can say whatever you want and attack enemy arguments however you want forever, and in the end your opponent can do the same thing forever, too.
Humans have been doing this for as long as I can remember. The only way to win is to encourage commoners to keep on fighting and enjoy the resulting pain and tears.

Wouldn't surprise me.

The question we should be asking is, why do women feel entitled to fuck 10 men and not end up getting raped by one? Why are we being forced to admit thousands of refugees without any attempt to filter out terrorists?

Women shouldn't be fucking handfuls of men, and nations shouldn't be admitting entire countries of refugees. You do, and getting BTFO by them is inevitable.

The difference is one can select only good partners but the current capabilities of our government don't let us select only the good refugees, not that any exist, mind you.

i hate the poison m&m argument, it's a fucking fallacy

Yet the left image caused massive media butthurt while the right went unnoticed. Thus its done its job exposing media hypocrisy, as intended

>A pair of good philosophers could keep this Skittles argument/counterargument bullshit going on ad infinitum.

they couldn't, because people are forgetting this isn't an issue of choice

you aren't allowed to just NOT take a handful of skittles, immigration is being forced on you

in other cases, there is no policy forcing you to take the skittles as there is in the immigrant comparison

people are completely fucking this up and thinking "gotcha" even though they are retards