The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists

jbander said:
This clown is a total waste of bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Sybil? He clearly has "issues". A good insight to the way he thinks is to go to his manifesto as linked in the signatures of his socks "Into the Night" and "gfm7175". IBDaMann used to have the same links but he also had large pictures that took half a page. He must have wiped the links off along with the pictures.

The most fun part for me is watching Sybil's socks post to each other. Invariably, it's Sybil trying to build himself up and tear others down. He's not as smart as Ted Kaczyński, but most certainly as crazy.
 
IBDaMann said:
Do you support the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes and who have not expressed any desire to die.
.
Click to expand...
Most people have committed crimes, they just haven't been convicted of them. You constantly lie with your sock puppet army. Is that a crime? No. Is it evil and dishonest? Yes, it is.

Most people don't want to die even as they are killing or harming others as you and your socks have done.
 
gfm7175 said:
Hahahahahahahaha you are suuuuuuuch a COWARD hahahahahahahaha.... can't even answer a simple little straight forward question hahahahahahahaha how pathetic hahahahahahaha
Click to expand...
^^^
Sybil the Psycho losing his mind.

There was no question, dumbass. Only statements by your sock.
 
Trumpet said:
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
Can you get an dumber??????????
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahahahaha at least I'm smart enough to honestly answer a simple question hahahahahahahahaha

No, I do not support the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes nor have expressed any desire to die. I do not consider "another living human's convenience" to be justification for killing said living humans.

Your turn, coward.
 
gfm7175 said:
Hahahahahahahahaha at least I'm smart enough to honestly answer a simple question hahahahahahahahaha

No, I do not support the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes nor have expressed any desire to die. I do not consider "another living human's convenience" to be justification for killing said living humans.

Your turn, coward.
Click to expand...

Are you anti-war, Sybil? Do you think starving someone to death is "killing" them?

Please link where you asked this question. I've only seen statements. If you can't do it, I fully understand why you can't, Sybil. :thup:
 
IBDaMann said:
I appreciate the response. My question, however, does not contain the word "abortion" because I am covering so much more ground. I'm asking about the killing of any living human who has a heartbeat and who has neither committed any crime nor expressed any desire to die.

Should the police be allowed to use deadly force against a barricaded "suspect" who has committed no crime and is simply barricading himself against assaulting police?

We don't allow men to have sex with unconscious women because we require active consent. Shouldn't we therefore require consent before killing any women? ... and shouldn't we extend that courtesy to men as well? I think we can agree that no fetus has ever given such consent.
Click to expand...

I assume you're referring, at least partially, to the situation where police killed a guy for stabbing a police dog. I'm still not sure where I stand on that one.

In general, there are few situations where deadly force should be used. One is in defense of another life (who presumably gave no consent) i.e. a guy has a gun to a hostages head or really any situation where Person A threatens the life of Person B, C or D. And the second is if someone wants to die. Death should not be used as a form of retribution by the government.
 
gfm7175 said:
Hahahahahahahahaha at least I'm smart enough to honestly answer a simple question hahahahahahahahaha

No, I do not support the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes nor have expressed any desire to die. I do not consider "another living human's convenience" to be justification for killing said living humans.

Your turn, coward.
Click to expand...

:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
 
Doc Dutch said:
Are you anti-war, Sybil? Do you think starving someone to death is "killing" them?

Please link where you asked this question. I've only seen statements. If you can't do it, I fully understand why you can't, Sybil. :thup:
Click to expand...
I can't speak to Sybil; only you can, as she is a figment of your imagination.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Please link where you asked this question.
Click to expand...
No links are necessary. I'm happy to give you your own personal copy of the question on behalf of gfm7175 ... and myself.

Do you support/advocate the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?

Clarification:
1. Presume that the killing is done for a third party's convenience, e.g. to get out of paying a debt, to gain more inheritance, to terminate a pregnancy, etc ...
2. "Living Human" is unambiguously defined as those with human DNA and a heartbeat
3. The question does not contain the words "abortion", "person", "accused", "being(s)" or "conscious(ness)"; they do not come into play
4. With regard to pregnancy termination, the less than 1% of the cases in which the life of the mother is in jeopardy are not considered; they do not come into play.

I have intentionally made this question totally straightforward and completely easy-peezy-lemon-squeezy. It is intended to streamline the obvious, correct answer. There are no hidden tricks here, just an easy, correct answer.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top