The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists

[StoneByStone]

Here too, 2006 PISA scores in Germany were highest in Saxony & Bavaria.

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/roivainen.pdf

The lowest were Lower Saxony near the Netherlands.

Does Bavaria have as many Turks & Yugoslavian immigrants as Lower Saxony?

If so, then Bavarians definitely appear to be superior over Lower Saxons of the North-West.

It's hard to say if that means Bavarians are more intelligent than Lower Saxons. It could also be the living standard factor. Though it is interesting that Saxony did that well, since it's part of East Germany. But then East Germany also has much less immigration. So there are a lot of factors.

Bavaria and Lower Saxony have about the same amount of immigrants from the Balkans and Turkey, but Lower Saxony also has lots of immigrants from the Middle East.

 

[BattleofHodow]

It's hard to say if that means Bavarians are more intelligent than Lower Saxons. It could also be the living standard factor. Though it is interesting that Saxony did that well, since it's part of East Germany. But then East Germany also has much less immigration. So there are a lot of factors.

Bavaria and Lower Saxony have about the same amount of immigrants from the Balkans and Turkey, but Lower Saxony also has lots of immigrants from the Middle East.

Aren't Bavarians the most Nationalist in Germany excluding East Germans, and Lower Saxons likely the least because they're near the Netherlands?

I've heard Germans say Bavarians are fairly Nationalist, but this was also years ago.

As for Lower Saxons I'm just assuming because they're near the Liberal Netherlands. LOL

 

[StoneByStone]

Aren't Bavarians the most Nationalist in Germany excluding East Germans, and Lower Saxons likely the least because they're near the Netherlands?

I've heard Germans say Bavarians are fairly Nationalist, but this was also years ago.

As for Lower Saxons I'm just assuming because they're near the Liberal Netherlands. LOL

Bavarians are the most traditional Germans. They're extremely proud of their traditions and culture. But I wouldn't say they're Nationalist. They're not really any more against Globalism and Multiracialism than other West Germans.

 

[BattleofHodow]

Bavarians are the most traditional Germans. They're extremely proud of their traditions and culture. But I wouldn't say they're Nationalist. They're not really any more against Globalism and Multiracialism than other West Germans.

Maybe Bavarians Catholics are more like Irish Catholics used to be?

Not really Nationalists, but against abortion?

Bavarians & Swabians do seem to vote more for AfD than other West Germans, even if it's lower than the East Germans.

But, in general this seems to be a pattern in countries in Europe, that towards the South & East there are more Nationalists & Conservatives.

Poland's East & South also vote more Nationalist than the North & West of Poland.

 

[StoneByStone]

Maybe Bavarians Catholics are more like Irish Catholics used to be?

Not really Nationalists, but against abortion?

Bavarians are more likely to be conservative on certain issues, abortion is one. But they're still very socially liberal by American standards.

Bavarians & Swabians do seem to vote more for AfD than other West Germans, even if it's lower than the East Germans.

Makes sense. Traditionalists usually oppose any change, whether good or bad.

But, in general this seems to be a pattern in countries in Europe, that towards the South & East there are more Nationalists & Conservatives.

Poland's East & South also vote more Nationalist than the North & West of Poland.

That's pretty weird. In Germany, I would assume it's a possible religious influence, since the South is more Catholic. But in Poland, the entire country is traditionally Catholic.

 

[BattleofHodow]

Bavarians are more likely to be conservative on certain issues, abortion is one. But they're still very socially liberal by American standards.

Makes sense. Traditionalists usually oppose any change, whether good or bad.



That's pretty weird. In Germany, I would assume it's a possible religious influence, since the South is more Catholic. But in Poland, the entire country is traditionally Catholic.

Actually the regions of Poland controlled in the past by Prussia / Germans are less Nationalist voting.

While the regions of Poland controlled in the past by Austria & Russia are more Nationalist voting.

But, also note that in the case of Germans vs Austrians & Russians.

That Germans brought in tons of German settlers into Poland, Russians & Austrians not so much.

I think it might be that some of those Poles have traces of German ancestry vs the others.

Or perhaps they were more impacted by Nazi Germany, and therefor are more sensitive to Nationalism.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Could I possibly get you to bravely read the question and answer it, as opposed to answering a question that was not asked?

Let me give the same two-part question but with even more direct wording. In order to strip out any possible weaseling by ANYBODY and to eliminate even the appearance of any "gotchas" ... I was very deliberate with the words.

[Part I] Do you believe it should be legal to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die?
[Part II] How does your answer change if said killing clearly makes some other living human's life more convenient?

Note: The words "person," "innocent," "value" and "conscious" do not appear in the question.

Additional clarification:

"Living" is defined by the medical and biological axiom "If there is a heartbeat then there is life" ... thus a brain-dead person with a heartbeat is considered "alive." The first thing any medical professional does is to check for a pulse. No fauna with a heartbeat is ever considered "dead"

"Human" is defined as being of the species Homo Sapiens and is determined by DNA. A human infant is not a puppy ... the DNA establishes this beyond any doubt.

The expression of a desire to die could be the mentioning of suicidal thoughts, a signed DNA, ... whatever.


Yes, specifically a group of human cells. The only distinction being made is whether the fetus has a heartbeat.

I thought you'd understand my answer.

YES.

I have no qualms about abortion whatsoever..

Every single person who grew up to be a Trumpanzee should have been aborted and should be terminated noiw, after the fact.

Many of you, especially Trump and his cock holster Miller, will have to leave the country anyway.

 

[gfm7175]

In light of recent events (the purposeful public release of a private SCOTUS draft opinion), I just wanted to give this beauty of a thread a bump...

Have liberals finally "manned up"?? Will they no longer be cowards with regard to the OP's questions? Let's find out!

 

[ZenMode]

How many leftists will own up to approving of the killing of a living human who has committed no crime and who has expressed no desire to die?

How many leftists will own up to approving of said killing if the justification is to make some third living human's life more convenient?

I'm late to the party, but there seems to be some dispute on where "living" begins.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm late to the party, but there seems to be some dispute on where "living" begins.

You can read through the first page of this thread... He explains very clearly what he means by the word "living".

I'll even make it easy and add some of his responses to the question:

Living: standard medical definition, i.e. has a heartbeat. If there is a heartbeat then there is life.

A heartbeat indicates life. If there is a heartbeat, there is life. You asked me to define "living human" and consciousness is irrelevant.

Additional clarification:

"Living" is defined by the medical and biological axiom "If there is a heartbeat then there is life" ... thus a brain-dead person with a heartbeat is considered "alive." The first thing any medical professional does is to check for a pulse. No fauna with a heartbeat is ever considered "dead"

 

[ZenMode]

You can read through the first page of this thread... He explains very clearly what he means by the word "living".

I'll even make it easy and add some of his responses to the question:

Living: standard medical definition, i.e. has a heartbeat. If there is a heartbeat then there is life.

A heartbeat indicates life. If there is a heartbeat, there is life. You asked me to define "living human" and consciousness is irrelevant.

Additional clarification:

"Living" is defined by the medical and biological axiom "If there is a heartbeat then there is life" ... thus a brain-dead person with a heartbeat is considered "alive." The first thing any medical professional does is to check for a pulse. No fauna with a heartbeat is ever considered "dead"

That's the definition that I agree with, but it's just an opinion. It's not a objective truth.

 

[gfm7175]

That's the definition that I agree with, but it's just an opinion. It's not a objective truth.

What do you mean "just an opinion"?

That view of 'living human' is not based on opinion.

 

[Gnostic Christian]

Do you oppose the idea of killing a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die?

If you are referring to the myth of Jesus and his death, you are wrong in saying he showed no desire to die.

Jesus was on a suicide mission to test the old messiah myth and planned the whole thing.

The Jews who took his death on their heads were doing so to help Jesus test the myth.


That fact makes a huge difference in how your question is answered.

A friend would help Jesus, as Judas did.

Have you ever watched the movie, They shoot horses don't they?

Jesus failed the test of course, but it was correct for his friends to help him die.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian]

Did you have a point in starting this thread? If so, express it. Otherwise, you have been correctly identified as a common troll. Garden variety.

What point do you think could be (reasonably ) made by the O.P.?

What makes you think he is just trolling?

Please just do not say history as I do not know it. Give an actual point please.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian]

How do you answer a straw man? Nobody supports killing innocent people.

Except for everyone who plans to ride Jesus as their scapegoat/savior.

That is the world majority is it not?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian]

Just out of curiosity, what's your position on "abortion"?

I hate to see any potential human die, but not enough to force a person to keep an unwanted pregnancy.

Here is a fact for all white Americans to think about.

When the law changes to no abortions, the black and brown population is helped to overtake and profit from white ethics.

Demographically speaking, white Americans are shooting themselves in the demographic foot.

Whites end in paying for their own loss of demographic power that they give to the black and brown.

Stupid white Americans.

Regards
DL

 

[Jarod]

How many leftists will own up to approving of the killing of a living human who has committed no crime and who has expressed no desire to die?

How many leftists will own up to approving of said killing if the justification is to make some third living human's life more convenient?

Approve of, not me. Allow others to chose, me. You see there are lots of legal things I do not approve of, but still insist remain legal. Its called freedom.

 

[Gnostic Christian]

Millions of innocent unborn babies are killed each year and those do it call it a choice.

If they all lived, would the tax payer have a choice in supporting them in a lifestyle that costs us more than the average person?

No.

We would pay to keep many of those we save in high cost jails.

In the U. S., now that they might reverse the law, are giving the whites a black eye while helping the black and brown.

White Americans stupid.

Regards
DL

 

[gfm7175]

I hate to see any potential human die,

Define "potential human". What IS that, even? Is the "thing" that is inside of the womb not of the human species?? If not, then what species is it?

but not enough to force a person to keep an unwanted pregnancy.

So you condone the killing of living humans who have committed no crime nor have expressed any desire to die so long as that action makes another living human's life more convenient?

Here is a fact for all white Americans to think about.

Here, you are setting up a racist argument.

When the law changes to no abortions,

That is NOT what overturning Roe v Wade would do.

the black and brown population is helped to overtake and profit from white ethics.

What is "white ethics"? And what about the mulatto population? The "red" population?? What about different individuals within those populations? Racism.

Demographically speaking, white Americans are shooting themselves in the demographic foot.

Racism.

Whites end in paying for their own loss of demographic power that they give to the black and brown.

Stupid white Americans.

Regards
DL

Racism.

 

[Gnostic Christian]

Define "potential human". What IS that, even? Is the "thing" that is inside of the womb not of the human species?? If not, then what species is it?


So you condone the killing of living humans who have committed no crime nor have expressed any desire to die so long as that action makes another living human's life more convenient?


Here, you are setting up a racist argument.


That is NOT what overturning Roe v Wade would do.


What is "white ethics"? And what about the mulatto population? The "red" population?? What about different individuals within those populations? Racism.


Racism.


Racism.

Only in the socio economic demographic pyramid sense, and how whites are helping the other colors, thanks to shooting themselves in the foot, ------- and their/our wallets.

A decent form of restitution to blacks and other non-whites.

Are you white?

Regards
DL