Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
Liberal Consequences (/pol/ image) 2016-11-20 06:15:21 Post No. 223251
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Liberal Consequences (/pol/ image) 2016-11-20 06:15:21 Post No. 223251
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 1460517598352.jpg (384KB, 1200x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
384KB, 1200x1200px
A while back I remember seeing a flowchart on /pol/ about the consequences of choosing equality.
I think the background was black, and it followed some logic of:
If you agree all humans are equal, then you agree both men and women are equal, therefore genders are meaningless, which means you must also agree with..... yadda yadda
It keeps going for a bit and also ends up talking about allowing pedophilia and zoophilia (because muh freedom). I think the bottom line said:
IF YOU AGREE ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL YOU MUST AGREE WITH THE REST OF THIS
If anyone could find and post the image here for me that would be amazing.
(pic unrelated)
>>
>>223251
>If you agree all humans are equal, then you agree both men and women are equal
False. At no point in time does someone need to agree to both or none.
>therefore genders are meaningless
false. You can agree with both preceding statements and not believe that at all
>you must also agree with..... yadda yadda
I'm not even going to try guessing what else there is.
What total garbage are you looking for? Is that what /pol/ is up to these days? Easily disproven illogical garbage?
>>
File: 1459967347522-1.jpg (147KB, 1078x1045px) Image search:
[Google]
147KB, 1078x1045px
>>223256
my point here isn't to have an argument with anyone here. Personally, I'm a more liberal person, I only browse /pol/ because it offers a different perspective. I just remember this image sticking out a lot and I want to have a look at it again.
And bear in mind, I only vaguely remember it, so my description is obviously filled with logical flaws, I only have a weak memory of what it said exactly.
I do remember it was a YES or NO flowchart. So it was like "Do you agree all humans are equal" and if YES then "So do you agree all different types of humans (black, white, asian, etc) are equal" and so and so forth.
>>
>>223256
oh yeah i could have possibly seen it on 8/pol/ and not the one on here. I dunno they both seem to be mostly the same to me.
>>
>>223259
Oh I'm not complaining about you. I'm laughing at /pol/
>>
>>223256
>>If you agree all humans are equal, then you agree both men and women are equal
>False. At no point in time does someone need to agree to both or none.
It's not false.
It's true that A implies B, because elementary propositional logic.
>>
bump because i wanna see this image
>>
One last hopeful bump
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2