Contract Killing

Crepitus said:
One more time for the hard of thinking: Nobody. It's not like I'm some bloody tRumpling, after all.
Click to expand...
Did your thought-master tell you to write "for the hard of thinking" or did you lift that from a previous instruction?
 
Scott said:
Good. This will help with the next part.
Click to expand...
Apparently, the logic escapes you.

Scott said:
I want to make sure that you understand that just because there is a -possibility- that a sexual encounter might result in pregnancy doesn't mean that getting pregnant was "deliberately planned".
Click to expand...
I want to make sure you understand your error. If the sexual encounter is deliberate, then all possible outcomes are accepted, ergo, they are planned.

Ergo, pregnancy resulting from sex, an entirely foreseen possibility, by being accepted means it was planned. If you were honest, you would refer to the poorly-planned pregnancy as a poorly-planned pregnancy rather than as somehow being "unplanned".

Scott said:
Just keep in mind that they are not deliberately planning to crash the car.
Click to expand...
Just keep in mind that they are deliberately driving the car, and thus are deliberately accepting the possibility of crashing, which is planning for it ... very poorly I might add, but you can't say that it is unplanned when it was accepted as part of deliberate activity.

You advertise your dishonesty by referring to the pregnancy as being "unplanned" instead of "unwanted" (one aspect of the Unplanned Pregnancy fallacy). The pregnancy is simply unwanted, despite it being fully accepted as a risk and thus being fully planned. You are deliberately mischaracterizing the unwanted repercussions of arbitrary decisions as somehow being the unfortunate results of random events ... all to avoid accountability ... all to maintain supremacy.
 
Scott said:
Because of her choice, if she gets pregnant, she will have to make the generally difficult choice of whether to [allow her child to remain alive] or whether to [hire a hit-man to snuff the life out of her child].
Click to expand...
FTFY. I see that you just won't be honest on this topic.

Scott said:
If the [living human is allowed to remain alive without being snuffed] , the father is legally required to support the child, assuming he can do so. I believe that's as it should be.
Click to expand...
It warms my heart to see that you believe a child, who is allowed to remain alive, should be supported by the father.

My observations:

* You support contract killings and demand killing supremacy
* You deny math when it inconveniently contravenes your drive for killing supremacy
* You specify that a mother alone can decide to kill her living human child, but that the father must support the child if the mother's living human child is allowed to remain alive (without mentioning any responsibilities that the mother might have).
* The mother is to be relieved of all responsibility by referring to her deliberate sexual activity as somehow having been a random accident that had "unplanned" results .
* You are too dishonest to bring yourself to recognize that an abortion is the killing of a living human per a contract between the mother and the child's killer.
 
IBDaMann said:
Wow, many hours with no attempt at a response. Hmmmmmm. Did you make an iron-clad case against killing supremacy or something?
Click to expand...
Have you also noticed how quiet the other leftists on this forum have been? They usually love to chime in, but they've also been awfully quiet with regard to this thread.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
Nothing is more boring than abortion.
Click to expand...
So the hiring of hit men to snuff out the most vulnerable of living humans amongst us, the tens upon tens of millions of unborn children (each year) whose mere existence has been deemed "inconvenient" to other living humans, isn't "action packed" enough for you?

How many more hundreds of millions of living humans must have their very last moment of life snuffed out by hit men in order for your bloodthirst to be satisfactorily quenched?
 
gfm7175 said:
So the hiring of hit men to snuff out the most vulnerable of living humans amongst us, the tens upon tens of millions of unborn children whose mere existence has been deemed "inconvenient", isn't "action packed" enough for you?

How many more hundreds of millions of living humans must have their very last living breath snuffed out by hit men in order for your bloodthirst to be satisfactorily quenched?
Click to expand...
could not give a shit
 
Hume said:
could not give a shit
Click to expand...
Apparently no amount of contract killings is enough to satisfy Hume's bloodthirst. What say you, @Scott ? How many more hundreds of millions of unborn living humans must have their very last moment of life snuffed out by hit men in order for your bloodthirst to be satisfactorily quenched?
 
gfm7175 said:
Have you also noticed how quiet the other leftists on this forum have been? They usually love to chime in, but they've also been awfully quiet with regard to this thread.
Click to expand...
... as it always becomes the moment they find that their accountability-erasing dog-whistle word "abortion" is removed and replaced with the words "the killing of a living human who has not committed any crime and who has not expressed any desire to die." The word "abortion" provides a mighty shield behind which killing supremacy remains defended rhetorically, but stripped of that shield, killing supremacy is revealed for the indefensible position that it is.

Scott will not wander from the safety of the "abortion" word, which is why "contract killing" scares him shitless and poses an existential threat to his desired supremacy. We will find no honesty here from Scott, nor will we find any honesty surrounding his pursuit of LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ supremacy.
 
gfm7175 said:
Apparently no amount of contract killings is enough to satisfy Hume's bloodthirst. What say you, @Scott ? How many more hundreds of millions of unborn living humans must have their very last moment of life snuffed out by hit men in order for your bloodthirst to be satisfactorily quenched?
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of quantity of blood, but of maintaining supremacy in perpetuity.
 
gfm7175 said:
Apparently no amount of contract killings is enough to satisfy Hume's bloodthirst. What say you, @Scott ? How many more hundreds of millions of unborn living humans must have their very last moment of life snuffed out by hit men in order for your bloodthirst to be satisfactorily quenched?
Click to expand...
Appeal to emotions and hyperbole fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top