gfm7175
Mega MAGA
So you're too much of a coward to answer the question? Have you always been this cowardly?
The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists
- Thread starter IBDaMann
- Start date
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
I already answered.
He omitted the word "being" because he knows it kills his argument.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
He hasn't presented an argument. He has presented a question. His question doesn't include the word 'being' in it, so it is irrelevant to his question.
Why is his question so hard for you to answer?
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
It is not hard to answer. The "question" presupposes that "human beings" are beings or people. As in conscious and thinking people.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Then answer the question, coward.
Why the quotation marks?
The question does not mention any "beings" at all, human nor otherwise. It simply mentions 'living humans' and has unambiguously defined that terminology as those possessing human DNA and a heartbeat.
The question also doesn't mention the words 'conscious' nor 'thinking'.
Answer the question, coward.
AProudLefty
Black Kitty Ain't Happy
The answer is clearly no, dumbass. It is a straw man fallacy.
Because it is a dumb question and a straw man fallacy. It is "begging the question" fallacy.
An appendix has a human DNA and a heartbeat. Are you against removing it?
Committing or not committing crimes requires consciousness and thinking.
I did multiple times. You are too much of a coward to accept it.
You are stupidest POS on this forum.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Define "living humans".
People who use socks are dishonest since they are intending to deceive others. This makes them, and you, a liar. A minor exception are those who are mentally ill. IMO, this applies to you too, Sybil.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Disagreed. Since you are the same person, I can understand why you'd do that. Still, per the previous post, you're a liar. Mentally ill or not, I don't trust liars.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I'm content to let others determine your veracity on their own, Sybil. As for you, I know you are a liar and it's highly probable you have severe mental issues. Especially where honesty is required.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Disagree to an extent. The internet is low level amusement, this being the most generous possible assessment of the medium.
Creating sock accounts to cultivate amusing, at least to oneself, internet "characters" is a perfectly congruous use of the internet.
You don't go playing in the sewer and expect to frolic with serious people.
If I were more computer literate,
something I tried hard to avoid becoming if Excel spreadsheets were not involved,
I myself would have some cheap fun with sock accounts.
I actually tried once but fucked it up.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Your freedom to trust sock puppeteers and other liars, neef.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Trust? I don't confuse the internet with any segment of the civilized world.
Trust isn't even part of the equation.
Not in a medium suitable only for ranting.
In fairness, I will agree that you and I have vastly divergent concepts of what comprises civility and a civilized environment..
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Your choice. The fact remains violent people coordinated 1/6 on the Internet.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Tell me, IBsaMann, do you acknowledge that this Democrat answered your question directly?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You have never answered my question. You keep insisting on answering some fallacy that I didn't ask.
The abject fear that my easy, direct, unambiguous and straightforward "yes/no" question instills in you prevents you from answering it.
Try answering my question without rushing to declare that you decided to answer some fallacy instead.
You can't do it, can you?
For your convenience, I will post the question here. A careful examination will reveal that there is no logical contradiction and no fallacy present:
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.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Tell me NiftyNiblick, of whom do you speak?
I have not seen any direct answers to my question from any leftists. Did I miss one?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Correct. Those would be Democrats and other violent leftists who sought to infiltrate a peaceful protest, erupt in violence on cue and pretend that they were Trump supporters.
