I've often heard the "cyanide m&ms" argument. There are 100 m&ms, but five of them are actually cyanide. Would you take the risk? It's often used against letting in refugees. We can't let in uncontrolled refugees, because we can let in rapists and criminals and never know about it. Why take the risk?
However, today I've argued with a feminist, and she used the very same argument against men. Of course, all men aren't rapists - but some of them are. Why take the risk?
Obviously, she can't be right. But it bothers me for some reason - it's the same argument, only applied to the different enemy. There must be some difference, some way in which that's a false equivalence, but what is it?
Just avoid the brown ones.
might as well apply it against all humans in that case
Plus I thought it was used against men first
Because the reward is potentially greater than eating a m&m.
>>72101895
id grab my fat ass a handfull
Just tell her the countries that have been so fucking generous to mudslimes and given so much money and welfare- France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden- are the ones that are having mass rapes against women, shooting massacres of teens and airport bombs etc etc.
The countries which actively express they do not want rapefugees- Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria- have never had any mass rapes against women, terrorist attacks etc.
How can any dumb feminist refute that logic??
>>72101895
its a false equivalence
we can choose whether or not to let worthless arab cunts into the country
we cannot choose to have no men as part of society.
>>72101895
Because you can only have one significant other at a time, and them becoming your SO means you put in effort into the relationship to make sure the other person isn't a fucking retard to begin with.
The m&m argument works for refugees because there's no intensive background screening process. It's just "come right on in if you're from a specific country."
Besides, the false equivalency is that most people need a boyfriend/girlfriend to lead a happy life. You do not, however, need refugees at all in your life, so it's a dumb risk to take.
>>72102044
FPBP
its literally this easy, the poisoned ones are color coded for your convenience.
if you don't want to get gang-raped, beheaded, or both, just avoid the brown, get out of town.
Because ultimately a relationship with a man is necessary for the continued survival of the human species whereas letting in refugees is a benefit to them.
The put it simply, with men the poisoned m&m's scenario us about eating the sweets for your own survival whereas the regugees situation is eating them because the m&m's (somehow) benefit.
The lesson is to not blindly eat handfuls, take them one at a time and be sure to analyze them.
Feminist? Report her to the authorities. What kind of Russian are you
>>72102305
>Because ultimately a relationship with a man is necessary for the continued survival of the human species whereas letting in refugees is a benefit to them.
silly britbong, they are strong and triumphant independent women that need no man.
>>72102290
>the poisoned ones are color coded for your convenience.
>just avoid the brown
its like poetry
>>72101895
we can decide not to import more m&ms
>>72102250
There are both already arabs and already men in this country and we can choose to keep more of both out.
So your point of contention fails to hold up.
And even if it did hold up, you're simply retorting that the hypothetical isn't worth considering, not actually defeating the comparison on the merits as a hypothetical.
>>72102338
Rapist argument-
The difference is that buying M&M's in a reputable sweet shop will yield a good bag of sweets, nothing can go wrong...and any faults are easily remedied since they won't be serious. If you go digging for M&M's in the back streets and night clubs then you're going to find a lot of shit ones. If you decide to exclusively eat the M&M's with a higher chance of being dangerous due to production problems then really you have only yourself to blame for not heeding the warning label on that particular bag.
When it comes to the refugee argument its more like this-
Someone has handed you a bowl of M&M's and said "You MUST Take some". You know from previous experience with this person and from hearing about this person that some of his M&M's are poisoned. You ask him how many are poisoned and he just says "Not ALL of them". You ask to the origin of the M&M's and he just says "Well the guy I got them off claimed they came from an old sweet shop that went out of business, he was giving them away from the back of his van".
The fact is- you have zero idea about the M&M's you're being offered. You have no idea as to their origin or production standards. More-so you might be highly allergic to peanuts but have no idea which ones are peanuts since the person forcing you to eat some is "Pretty sure" none of them are"
>>72101895
It isn't a very good explanation in either case. It's possible to identify the rapists and criminals, as it is possible to identify the M&Ms with cyanide
>>72101895
The number of European Caucasian well-educated rapists is drastically lower than the refugees, I can tell you that. The majority of them are barely literate or completely illiterate.
They all come from places where doing things so horrible even Japan would be like "DUDE WHY" is commonplace
Hah this is funny because I believe it was a feminist that originally came up with that argument to use against men but shitlord pollacks turned it around on them by making it racist. So if suggest just the rhetoric back at her and accuse her of "racist" logic. Don't waste more brain power on a feminist than you have to.
>>72102507
/thread. OP listen to this guy if you want the M&M reason and listen to rest of the people in this thread of why this reason is right.
Just stay ugly, cunt, and nobody will rape you.
>>72101895
Here's a better analogy:
Someone hands you a bowl of 100 turds. 5 of them are poisoned. How many will you eat? None, because they are all turds. And, you will then kick the shit out of whoever thought it was a good idea to give you a bowl of shits.
>>72101895
It's a dumb argument. Women are selective about the men they let into their life, a country should be selective about the people it lets in.
When the M&Ms argument is used against men it's implied that women have no control over who they socialize with. While in reality they're picky as fuck.
>>72102450
>not actually defeating the comparison on the merits as a hypothetical.
a fair point, this requires too much actual evidence that the feminist in question is almost certainly going to dismiss without analysing so a retort on her level of comprehension will suffice, with rational people we can ditch meme level arguments for actual evidence based arguments.
The argument is always good. The problem is with numbers used.
1 out 100 men is not a rapist. 1 out of 5000 might be a rapist, maybe. I don't know the numbers.
It's more like taking a bowl full of 100 M&Ms and knowing that there is not a single bad M&M in there.
Meanwhile 1 out 100 ''refugees'' might actually be a rapist, it might even be more like 1 out of 10. Same with illegal Mexicans who rape 80% of the women smuggled over the border.
In many of Muslim countries rape is legal.
>>72101895
>There must be some difference, some way in which that's a false equivalence, but what is it?
It comes down to cost-benefit analysis. Policies can typically produce a variety of potential outcomes, each with its own level of desirability and probability of occurrence. Analyzing this information reveals how desirable the policy is. The situation with the M&Ms involves a 5% risk of immediate death by poisoning per tasty chocolate candy eaten. That's not a good bet even for a starving person (the average effect on life expectancy would be negative). For immigrants, it comes down to the likelihood and severity of problems compared to any benefits of immigration (which people tend to disagree on, as it depends mostly on value judgements rather than facts and analysis). As for men, what are the costs and benefits of men being in a society? What would a society without men be like?
More accurate
>99 eminems taste like shit but are safe
>1 eminem is cyanide
>>72101895
They are all poisonous to western society, some are more dangerous than others but all want to see Islam dominate and that will never change.
Don't let in any, at all.
>>72103089
Many women are easily courted by aggressive dominant men. Even if those men are total shitskin Muslims. Women aren't picky, they are dumb.
The difference is that rape isn't objectively bad, and sometimes it is even justified (such as when a woman leads a man on or in a marriage where she won't perform her marital duties). Conversely, shitskins in White nations is objectively bad.
>>72101895
>There must be some difference
Unless you want to live in an amazon colony of only women you will have men around.
You don't need to take in refugees.
One is a risk that exists and you can only fight it. The other is a risk that need not exist.
Further; if the risk of male rapists in a country is /let's say/ 5 in 100 (5%) and feminists claim this is so bad they don't want to risk interacting with men, how in the goddamned hell does it make sense to argue for open borders when we KNOW immigrants have a much higher rate of rapists?
Feminists would, if they were consistent, be completely against this.
Although, if they were consistent about using statistics they would already have figured out that a disproportionate amount of rape is already committed by non-natives.
>>72103832
>when a women leads on a man on
>just like when a Muslim says they can rape white women because she smiles at him and that "led him on"
Get out of here shitskin
>>72104040
>Feminists would, if they were consistent, be completely against this.
>Although, if they were consistent about using statistics they would already have figured out that a disproportionate amount of rape is already committed by non-natives.
yeah i really do not understand this massive lapse in judgment. honestly it just proves that these sjws aren't actually feminists, they're just really dumb and easily manipulated
>>72101895
>"OK you have the right to choose not to have any, so should the nation"
There you go OP
>>72101895
Maybe because refugees aren't fucking m&m's, they're human beings whose lives are in risk.
Obviously we shouldn't write a blank cheque to refugees, but letting in 20,000-30,000 is the right thing to do.
>>72101895
>However, today I've argued with a feminist, and she used the very same argument against men. Of course, all men aren't rapists
The difference is, women love rape.
>>72104141
Any woman that smiles at a Muslim objectively deserves to be rape because she is clearly an idiot.
So basically, it's OK to generalize when it fits your world view, but otherwise it makes you an asshole.
>>72101895
You could grant her that, but then the following is true.
Most refugees are men, so her strategy for dealing with the cyanide m&ms is to pour more of them in the bowl, except this time the ratio is 1 in 10 for cyanide m&ms.
>>72101895
I would eat all the m&ms
Please end my torment
>>72101895
>most refugees are men
>women can be selective about men, so should nations
>as much as wome hate to admit it, without men, society would crumble
Here you go OP
>>72102108
Australia yes!
>>72101895
>not being able to identify people with mental issues.
The very fucking first moment you meet someone you should be able to judge this, you don't need a degree in psyhology for this shit.
Even if you are a turbohikki, there are big signs, like eye movement, speach tone and volume, the way the person adresses others, other body language etc.
There are cases when people are good at hiding it but those are rare, because these types often make exaggerated emotions.
>>72104980
this
>>72101895
There is an equivalence and it's not false. Feminist bitch forgot she's supposed to not eat all m&ms but just one. If she dates 1 million men indiscriminately, some are going to rape her. She shouldn't do it. She's right.
>>72101895
someone have the male tears compilation???
