The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists

IBDaMann said:
You changed the wording. Not "expresses no desire" ... but rather "has not expressed any desire."

You changed the semantics from "has not expressed" to "has expressed" which then causes you to dwell on irrelevant concepts such as consciousness and to become confused.

Consciousness is not needed to "not express".
Click to expand...
All sock puppeteers are cowards and liars.
 
IBDaMann said:
You changed the wording. Not "expresses no desire" ... but rather "has not expressed any desire."

You changed the semantics from "has not expressed" to "has expressed" which then causes you to dwell on irrelevant concepts such as consciousness and to become confused.

Consciousness is not needed to "not express".
Click to expand...

Why are you weaseling your way out?
 
AProudLefty said:
Again, expressing desires requires consciousness and thinking.
Click to expand...
*Sighs* ... and that is totally irrelevant to anything we have been discussing. If you aren't going to state any argument for which that is relevant, then it remains irrelevant.

AProudLefty said:
Clearly I do not support killing a person who has not committed a crime and expresses no desire to die.
Click to expand...
I notice that you insist on altering the wording for your own convenience. The question asks about those "who have not expressed" any desire to die. You continue to deny that consciousness is not required to not express something, and you continue to insist that consciousness is somehow necessary. That is blatantly dishonest. You then use your own dishonesty to declare that my question is a fallacy.

You're not discussing anything. You are stalling for time so as to not answer my question, but to claim that you somehow are answering my question by insisting that you are answering some fallacy that you have declared. You give yourself away by reverting back to your insistence that my question is a fallacy, so it really doesn't matter how much you insist that you are answering my question. You make your response meaningless every time. You're answering ... but you're not answering. You have a need to be able to say that you didn't answer it.

As long as that is the case, you have not answered my question.
 
IBDaMann said:
*Sighs* ... and that is totally irrelevant to anything we have been discussing. If you aren't going to state any argument for which that is relevant, then it remains irrelevant.


I notice that you insist on altering the wording for your own convenience. The question asks about those "who have not expressed" any desire to die. You continue to deny that consciousness is not required to not express something, and you continue to insist that consciousness is somehow necessary. That is blatantly dishonest. You then use your own dishonesty to declare that my question is a fallacy.

You're not discussing anything. You are stalling for time so as to not answer my question, but to claim that you somehow are answering my question by insisting that you are answering some fallacy that you have declared. You give yourself away by reverting back to your insistence that my question is a fallacy, so it really doesn't matter how much you insist that you are answering my question. You make your response meaningless every time. You're answering ... but you're not answering. You have a need to be able to say that you didn't answer it.

As long as that is the case, you have not answered my question.
Click to expand...

This is your question...

"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?"

Those require consciousness and thinking. So obviously the answer is no.
 
AProudLefty said:
This is your question...
Click to expand...
Nope. I have provided extensive clarification since the original post. It's quite dishonest of you to pretend that I have not done so.

"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.

You will not answer this question. You must first alter it in your mind by declaring it a fallacy, and that is what you claim to answer.
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope. I have provided extensive clarification since the original post. It's quite dishonest of you to pretend that I have not done so.

"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.

You will not answer this question. You must first alter it in your mind by declaring it a fallacy, and that is what you claim to answer.
Click to expand...

I have told you that my answer is no. Why are you unable to accept my answer?
 
AProudLefty said:
I have told you that my answer is no. Why are you unable to accept my answer?
Click to expand...
I have explained your duplicity. Why are you unable to accept what you yourself are doing? All of this could have been very easy at the beginning but you brought it here.

If you want to approach this honestly,

1. Admit up front that consciousness is not needed to not express something.
2. Acknowledge up front that you do not find any logical contradiction in my question and that obviously no fallacies exist therein.
3 Admit up front that the question we are addressing is what I have written below.

"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.

... then when you give the correct answer ("No"), your answer will be to this question and not to some attempt at evasion.
 
IBDaMann said:
I have explained your duplicity. Why are you unable to accept what you yourself are doing? All of this could have been very easy at the beginning but you brought it here.

If you want to approach this honestly,

1. Admit up front that consciousness is not needed to not express something.
2. Acknowledge up front that you do not find any logical contradiction in my question and that obviously no fallacies exist therein.
3 Admit up front that the question we are addressing is what I have written below.

"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.

... then when you give the correct answer ("No"), your answer will be to this question and not to some attempt at evasion.
Click to expand...

There are numerous humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, but are murdered everyday by senseless gun violence, and you support these gun sellers and gun manufactures who are profiting by this carnage.
 
gfm7175 said:
The 'RNC club' wing of the Uniparty hates Donald Trump, dude.
Click to expand...

Geeko Sportivo said:
If you say so.
Click to expand...

gfm7175 said:
I'm not saying anything... THEY say it THEMSELVES.
Click to expand...
You are correct, of course. The former Republican Party is now the RINO Party (Republican In Name Only) and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. They HATE Donald Trump, as ordered by senior management.

You have once again hit the nail on the head. Geeko Sportivo has once again hit his thumb with the hammer.

attachment.php
 
Trumpet said:
There are numerous humans who have committed no crime and who have not expressed any desire to die, but are murdered everyday by senseless gun violence,
Click to expand...
Define this "gun violence." Is it similar to "automobile violence"? I realize that automobile violence happens every day, but I didn't know you were so opposed to cars. Wow, you are a nutcase.

Trumpet said:
and you support these gun sellers and gun manufactures who are ...
Click to expand...
... providing self defense to otherwise unarmed, law-abiding people facing a world whereby, thanks to nutcases like you, only the criminals are armed. Nutcases like you are responsible for all the mass shootings in the defenselessness zones that you create. You probably never noticed that 100% of mass shootings occur where the victims are rendered defenseless at the door, but the shooter is not. Shit like you cause all our problems. Shit like you are too brain-dead to realize that there are never any mass shootings in cop bars where everyone is armed ... and you have no way to explain why nobody ever gets shot there. Shootings only occur where shit like you make the laws and render law-abiding citizens defenseless.

Operative words: shit - like - you
 
IBDaMann said:
Define this "gun violence." Is it similar to "automobile violence"? I realize that automobile violence happens every day, but I didn't know you were so opposed to cars. Wow, you are a nutcase.


... providing self defense to otherwise unarmed, law-abiding people facing a world whereby, thanks to nutcases like you, only the criminals are armed. Nutcases like you are responsible for all the mass shootings in the defenselessness zones that you create. You probably never noticed that 100% of mass shootings occur where the victims are rendered defenseless at the door, but the shooter is not. Shit like you cause all our problems. Shit like you are too brain-dead to realize that there are never any mass shootings in cop bars where everyone is armed ... and you have no way to explain why nobody ever gets shot there. Shootings only occur where shit like you make the laws and render law-abiding citizens defenseless.

Operative words: shit - like - you
Click to expand...
Policemen are ambushed all the time. Unless, you are using DUI deaths, the purpose of automobiles is not to purposefully kill but for transportation. It’s not the same as a gun.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are correct, of course. The former Republican Party is now the RINO Party (Republican In Name Only) and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party. They HATE Donald Trump, as ordered by senior management.

You have once again hit the nail on the head. Geeko Sportivo has once again hit his thumb with the hammer.

attachment.php
Click to expand...

Well, are you a Nikki Hailey fan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top