Truth? Give me a break? (Open to Everybody)

[Mason Michaels]

People with penises can be women so anything is possible with this crew.

People with penises can pretend to be women

 

[Yakuda]

People with penises can pretend to be women

Pretend being the optimal word

 

[Mason Michaels]

Pretend being the optimal word

That's the only way a man with a penis can be a woman

 

[Yakuda]

That's the only way a man with a penis can be a woman

I'm not a leftist nut job so you're wasting your breath with me.

 

[Trumpet]

I'm not a leftist nut job so you're wasting your breath with me.

You're just a plain nutjob.

 

[Yakuda]

You're just a plain nutjob.

That may well be but jt doesn't change how screwed up leftists are.

 

[IBDaMann]

Correct. This is an objective, legal, constitutional question.

Incorrect. The only objective I have on this topic is to discuss the morality of killing living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die. At the mere question, leftists fight tooth and nail, as you did, to deny that living humans are living humans.

I take it that now you accept that having human DNA and a heartbeat makes one a living human, yes? Why was that so difficult?

So now if I ask you "Do you, Concart, advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?" ... your truthful answer is "Hell yeah, and I donate money to fight for the cause! ... and because of IBDaMann, I'm going to donate even more in the hopes that even more living humans will ultimately be killed."

We've already covered this topic thoroughly and I'm not asking you to rehash your position; you have made it abundantly clear.

IBD instead turns into a quivering pile of emotionally overwrought goo.

I missed that. When did that happen?

The fact is that the rights of the [living human in an early life phase] are in direct competition with the [convenience] of the mother [and possibly of the father and maybe even other people].

Like I said, you have made your position abundantly clear. Any excuse, even someone's convenience, is sufficient to justify the killing of a living human in your eyes ... as long as that living human isn't you, right? I mean, if they come to kill you for someone else's convenience, you might complain a bit, or am I wrong? Will you go without a peep?

IBD is here to lecture you about his moral superiority,

Nope. No lectures here. I have only pointed out your moral bankruptcy and I pretty much left it at that. I have clarified that you are a shitty person for placing the convenience of someone over the life of a living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die.

at the same time he posts dozens of death porn pictures.

I appreciate you making my case for me. You trivialize instances of living humans (who committed no crime) being killed because it's something for which you advocate. That makes you rather shitty.

And the poster you are addressing is his sock. It couldn't be more obvious.

You are desperate. So desperate, in fact, that your only option is to pretend to be unable to distinguish between different people. You think that somehow gets you out of having to address the topic ... because you're stupid that way.

Have a great day.

 

[Concart]

Incorrect. The only objective I have on this topic is to discuss the morality of killing living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die. At the mere question, leftists fight tooth and nail, as you did, to deny that living humans are living humans.

I take it that now you accept that having human DNA and a heartbeat makes one a living human, yes? Why was that so difficult?

So now if I ask you "Do you, Concart, advocate for the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime and who have not expressed any desire to die?" ... your truthful answer is "Hell yeah, and I donate money to fight for the cause! ... and because of IBDaMann, I'm going to donate even more in the hopes that even more living humans will ultimately be killed."

We've already covered this topic thoroughly and I'm not asking you to rehash your position; you have made it abundantly clear.


I missed that. When did that happen?


Like I said, you have made your position abundantly clear. Any excuse, even someone's convenience, is sufficient to justify the killing of a living human in your eyes ... as long as that living human isn't you, right? I mean, if they come to kill you for someone else's convenience, you might complain a bit, or am I wrong? Will you go without a peep?


Nope. No lectures here. I have only pointed out your moral bankruptcy and I pretty much left it at that. I have clarified that you are a shitty person for placing the convenience of someone over the life of a living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die.


I appreciate you making my case for me. You trivialize instances of living humans (who committed no crime) being killed because it's something for which you advocate. That makes you rather shitty.


You are desperate. So desperate, in fact, that your only option is to pretend to be unable to distinguish between different people. You think that somehow gets you out of having to address the topic ... because you're stupid that way.

Have a great day.

Unread

 

[IBDaMann]

Unread

You read every word, twice.