ohyesrobot.ordoliberal.com

2009-08-26

Original: 2009-08-26 on Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

Transcript

Title: DEBATE TIPS:
ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY CAN ALWAYS BE TURNED BACK AGAINST YOU

Panel 1 (banner: PRO-ABSTINENCE ARGUMENT):
Woman (with blonde hair, in pink): EWW! THEY SERVED US FOOD SOMEONE ALREADY ATE!
Man (in red sweater, across the table): YUCK! WHY WOULD WE WANT IT NOW?
(On the table are two plates with partially-eaten food on them.)

Panel 2 (banner: PRO-SEX ARGUMENT):
Woman riding a carousel horse (brown-haired, in pink): THIS IS MY FAVORITE CAROUSEL!
A man nearby: ME TOO!
Another rider: ME THREE!
Another rider: WHEEE!
(Several people are riding a merry-go-round/carousel with horses.)

Votey:
Banner: ANTI-METAPHOR
A man (looking confused): I DON'T GET IT. WHY DON'T THEY JUST F--K THE FOOD?

Alt text

A comic titled "Debate Tips: Argument by analogy can always be turned back against you." The first panel, labeled "Pro-Abstinence Argument," shows a blonde woman and a man at a dinner table reacting in disgust to plates of partially-eaten food. She says, "Eww! They served us food someone already ate!" and he replies, "Yuck! Why would we want it now?" The second panel, labeled "Pro-Sex Argument," shows several happy people riding a carousel with horses; a rider exclaims, "This is my favorite carousel!" and others chime in "Me too!", "Me three!", and "Wheee!" The two panels mock both sides of the abstinence-vs-sex debate by pushing each food/carousel analogy to a silly conclusion. The votey aftercomic, labeled "Anti-Metaphor," shows a confused man asking, "I don't get it. Why don't they just f--k the food?" — someone who has taken the food analogy completely literally.

Transcribed by Claude Opus 4.8.