The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists

Your question:

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



My answer:

Yes. All things, including human life, must be valued in qualitative, not absolute, terms.

Euthanizing those with no quality of life is an act of mercy and humanity.


 
IBDaMann said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks, once again, for proving your irrationality, Sybil. :thup:
 
Doc Dutch said:
Define "living humans".
Click to expand...
That is clarification item #2 below, i.e. "Living Human" is unambiguously defined as those with human DNA and a heartbeat

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.
 
IBDaMann said:
That is clarification item #2 below, i.e. "Living Human" is unambiguously defined as those with human DNA and a heartbeat

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.
Click to expand...

Are you against pulling the plug on a brain-dead person, Sybil? What if someone shot you behind the ear with a .22 and, while your heart kept beating and you, presumably, have human DNA, but there was nothing on upstairs?
 
IBDaMann said:
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?

38
Click to expand...

Here is the question that makes PUSSIES out of the Republican Party- ARE YOU STILL WILLING TO KISS DONALD TRUMP'S ASS?

1au941.jpg
 
Doc Dutch said:
Are you against pulling the plug on a brain-dead person, Sybil? What if someone shot you behind the ear with a .22 and, while your heart kept beating and you, presumably, have human DNA, but there was nothing on upstairs?
Click to expand...
OK, so when you put all of this together what is your answer to the question "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.
 
Doc Dutch said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are content only to retire to the refuge of your safe space and interact only with the fantasy world you create therein. This fantasy world of yours apparently has only one person in it speaking to you through many socks.

One would think that if you are going to fabricate your own little happy world that you would at least make it an interesting one that doesn't screw with you.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are content only to retire to the refuge of your safe space and interact only with the fantasy world you create therein. This fantasy world of yours apparently has only one person in it speaking to you through many socks.

One would think that if you are going to fabricate your own little happy world that you would at least make it an interesting one that doesn't screw with you.
Click to expand...

Why did you take the link to your manifesto off your signature, Sybil?
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Euthanizing those with no quality of life is an act of mercy and humanity.
Click to expand...
This leads to a follow-on question that begs for an answer. Implicit in your response is the maxim that living humans do not get to determine for themselves the quality of their lives, but rather some third party does that for them. Implicit in your answer is that the determination by living human A of an insufficient life quality of living human B is sufficient justification for living human C to kill living human B.

Ergo:

Do you support/advocate the killing of living humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die if some third party has determined their quality of life to be "insufficient"?

The answer in your case appears to be "yes". This makes you a schytty person.
 
IBDaMann said:
You have never answered my question.
Click to expand...

Yes I have answered your question. The answer is no.

You keep insisting on answering some fallacy that I didn't ask.
Click to expand...

You committed a straw man fallacy. That's a fact.

The abject fear that my easy, direct, unambiguous and straightforward "yes/no" question instills in you prevents you from answering it.
Click to expand...

You have abject fear of my straightforward answer to your straw man fallacy. You fear so much that it is the reason you omitted the word "being".

Try answering my question without rushing to declare that you decided to answer some fallacy instead.
Click to expand...

See above.

You can't do it, can you?
Click to expand...

Already did multiple times. You are too much of a coward to accept the answer.

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

I have already answered multiple times. The answer is obviously no.
 
AProudLefty said:
Yes I have answered your question. The answer is no.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but you are going to immediately insist that you are not answering my question but rather some fallacy you arbitrarily selected.

AProudLefty said:
You committed a straw man fallacy. That's a fact.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. You have no idea what constitutes a fallacy. If you'll notice, you cannot explain why you are declaring a simple question to somehow be a fallacy. The reason is that you are struggling to EVADE the question out of sheer panic. The fact of the matter is that I am asking a question, not making an argument. The only thing preventing you from answering my question is your fear of backlash from your political slavemasters.

I nonetheless appreciate you at least putting your fear on display. It makes my point for me quite well.

For those who are just tuning in, or who can't understand why leftists cannot answer my question, is that if they admit that only a shitty person would advocate the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes and who have not expressed any desire to die, they know that they would look really stupid and shitty supporting abortion which is a proper subset of killing living humans who have committed no crimes and who have not expressed any desire to die.

It's math. You can't get around it.

Oh, hey AProudLefty, the math (set theory) is not a fallacy. You're silly claiming that it is. If you would like a brief refresher in set theory, let me know.
 
IBDaMann said:
I'm sorry but you are going to immediately insist that you are not answering my question but rather some fallacy you arbitrarily selected.


Incorrect. You have no idea what constitutes a fallacy. If you'll notice, you cannot explain why you are declaring a simple question to somehow be a fallacy. The reason is that you are struggling to EVADE the question out of sheer panic. The fact of the matter is that I am asking a question, not making an argument. The only thing preventing you from answering my question is your fear of backlash from your political slavemasters.

I nonetheless appreciate you at least putting your fear on display. It makes my point for me quite well.

For those who are just tuning in, or who can't understand why leftists cannot answer my question, is that if they admit that only a shitty person would advocate the killing of living humans who have committed no crimes and who have not expressed any desire to die, they know that they would look really stupid and shitty supporting abortion which is a proper subset of killing living humans who have committed no crimes and who have not expressed any desire to die.

It's math. You can't get around it.

Oh, hey AProudLefty, the math (set theory) is not a fallacy. You're silly claiming that it is. If you would like a brief refresher in set theory, let me know.
Click to expand...

Why are you refusing to accept my answer? I have already answered your question. The answer is NO.

NO NO NO NO NO NO

Now do you get it?
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Here is the question that makes PUSSIES out of the Republican Party- ARE YOU STILL WILLING TO KISS DONALD TRUMP'S ASS?
Click to expand...
You lose a lot of street cred when you are actively in the process of fleeing an easy, straightforward question just because you must OBEY others who do your thinking for you.
 
IBDaMann said:
Great. You answer of "No" is registered. I appreciate your response.

Of course, my expectation is that you remain consistent with your stated position but otherwise thank you for being forthright.
Click to expand...

Now let's continue.

Committing an act and desiring require consciousness and thinking. Agreed?
 
AProudLefty said:
Now let's continue.
Click to expand...
Sure. I'll be happy to.

By the way, I'm elated to discuss your philosohical point about consciousness below, but I greatly dislike the tactic of trying to construct a GOTCHA by stringing together one question after another in a "leading the witness" sort of way. I would very much appreciate you starting with your main point and letting both of us analyze the merits and deficiencies. I promise to answer all of your questions directly without evasion.

AProudLefty said:
Committing an act and desiring require consciousness and thinking. Agreed?
Click to expand...
No. Committing an act does NOT require any sort of consciousness. A Venus Fly Trap will snare a fly purely on automatic reflex. Computers use "logic" to commit actions.

Desiring is necessarily an activity of a consciousness.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are about to get some logic backwards. Can a fetus that is not conscious not express any desire to die? I think you are allowing yourself to become confused over "not"s and negatives.
 
IBDaMann said:
No. Committing an act does NOT require any sort of consciousness. A Venus Fly Trap will snare a fly purely on automatic reflex. Computers use "logic" to commit actions.
Click to expand...

We are not talking about instincts and mechanical acts.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are about to get some logic backwards. Can a fetus that is not conscious not express any desire to die? I think you are allowing yourself to become confused over "not"s and negatives.
Click to expand...

So you agree that a one week old zygote is not conscious and can not think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top