IBDaMann
Well-known member
So why should living humans of the fetus life stage be stripped of their rights?One more time: NO.
So why should living humans of the fetus life stage be stripped of their rights?One more time: NO.
What argument is that?Yeah, a lot of the racists here use that argument.
So why should living humans of the fetus life stage be stripped of their rights?
What argument is that?
I see your confusion now. You thought I was making an argument. I was not.That it's not racism, it's bigotry.
It's a really weird argument, since being a bigot isn't really better, but there it is.
This one is alive.
She is asking for the same rights.
You just confused me. No point that you might have had was made. Could I get you to redo your post for clarity?
I see your confusion now. You thought I was making an argument. I was not.
You are simply operating under the common misconception that "racism" means "bigotry." It does not. Racism involves inequality under the law. One person cannot be racist unless he is causing an inequality under the law.
A person who hates/fears members of other classes is a bigot.
There certainly may be bigots on this board but I don't believe that any user account on Just Plain Politics has the power to create inequalities under the law.
I noticed. Was there any more to it? I don't see how that follows?That woman is a robot.
Did you just learn this? "Semantics" refers to the meaning of words. Hello?That's just #semantics.
Hold on, are you an insurrectionist?Are you a Trump supporter?
I noticed. Was there any more to it? I don't see how that follows?
I thought we no longer needed to beat that dead horse but if we must continue ... here we go again.It follows that anything moves doesn't mean it's "alive".
I thought we no longer needed to beat that dead horse but if we must continue ... here we go again.
It's the heartbeat that means it's alive. The dummy doesn't have a heartbeat. You don't have to consider it alive.
Did you just learn this? "Semantics" refers to the meaning of words. Hello?
Hold on, are you an insurrectionist?
In the colloquial sense, it refers to when people try to obfuscate the point by nitpicking words and definitions.
For example, a common way the Trumpcucks here defend Trump's racism is by saying the groups he attacks aren't technically races, so it's not racism.
I'll take that as a yes.
And no, I am not.
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?
Just read the question. It is an easy, simply and straightforward two-part question.
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? How does your answer change if said killing clearly makes some other living human's life more convenient?
You don't have to change any words. This is not a trick question. There are no semantic games being played. It's a straightforward question.
Once you answer this question, we can thereafter discuss "abortion" if you like.
Unfairly and unequally. That is usually something the Left wants to eradicate. Here they celebrate and encourage unequal treatment under the law.
I don't believe it should be legal to kill an innocent person. But this appears to be a gotcha question.
Please provide two examples of Trump's racism.