You are either extremely bad at defending your principles, incapable of discourse or a troll. I’m leaning the latter. If you can’t see that you are using classic fallacies to support your truth you are an idiot. You went train track/joker fallacy into straw man.
You leveled a retarded “challenge”. Inserted your crazy behind into it. You credibly (or else the argument doesn’t work) threatened to kill one or more people in a crazed state. And asked how I a pro-lifer would respond. The answer is snuff you or anyone else that would do that right out. Amazing that you can can justify killing what we can at least agree is a potential for life but me taking yours in order to save lives is considered “dehumanizing”. How can you possibly make those to things add up in your wise secular mind. Nice jump to assuming that my disagreement with you over this is indicative of my disagreements with literally anyone else in my life. If you want bedrock principle to lay your preference for killing humans on pick a better one or deal with being called an imbecile.
You are either extremely bad at defending your principles, incapable of discourse or a troll. I’m leaning the latter.
Considering 12 people upvoted me in a place like this is a win, in my opinion. It seems some people were able to not jump to conclusions are understand what I was saying. I expected downvotes and disagreement (I didn't expect a positive ratio) but I chose to post my thoughts anyways, but I did not expect as much positive response.
If you can’t see that you are using classic fallacies to support your truth you are an idiot. You went train track/joker fallacy into straw man.
I also explained how I think the definition of "life" is not important as most people think, that there are certain properties contained within life that are actually what's important. Now I may be wrong about what others think but I do think that way myself. I tried to show that with an example in addition to other arguments. Your response has shown me you don't understand what I'm saying, and that's fine. Hell even if you did, you'd still have the right to disagree. But apparently my thoughts are so wrong you think killing me is okay.
You credibly (or else the argument doesn’t work) threatened to kill
If you cannot entertain a hypothetical, this level of discussion is impossible. I could have just as easily replace myself (as crazy!) with a fictional, hypothetical crazy person. In no universe would I ever threaten a 5 year old boy, and my whole argument lays out why I think it's wrong. The fact that you think I am "credibly threatening" a hypothetical person shows me you don't have any understanding of what is being said.
I guess I’m dumbfounded you can’t run you own hypothetical properly. Why you inserted yourself into this hypothetical I’ll never know. I imagine it’s your own callousness towards life that makes you fantasize so. However that’s irrelevant. You made it personal not me. If you had said person A creates a strange life or death scenario and asks person B to be involved then what should person B do, then I would have said person B has an obligation to use “up to lethal force” (and should prefer that option if a victim is in imminent credible danger) against person A to keep them from committing that violence.
How you jumped from that to me coming through the keyboard o kill you is a leap I won’t understand. It is evidence you cannot develop your own logical arguments properly. Why do you care that you have anecdotal support when you tell another commenter that their sources are invalid because they use that very same thing? It has no bearing on if what you are saying is truth or not.
Why you inserted yourself into this hypothetical I’ll never know.
The whole point of a hypothetical is that it's fiction. Thus it doesn't matter whether I'm in the story or batman. Its 100% irrelevant. Just like continuing to talk to you.
It sounds like you have no problems dehumanizing anyone that disagrees with you.
Pot, meet kettle.
You are either extremely bad at defending your principles, incapable of discourse or a troll. I’m leaning the latter. If you can’t see that you are using classic fallacies to support your truth you are an idiot. You went train track/joker fallacy into straw man.
You leveled a retarded “challenge”. Inserted your crazy behind into it. You credibly (or else the argument doesn’t work) threatened to kill one or more people in a crazed state. And asked how I a pro-lifer would respond. The answer is snuff you or anyone else that would do that right out. Amazing that you can can justify killing what we can at least agree is a potential for life but me taking yours in order to save lives is considered “dehumanizing”. How can you possibly make those to things add up in your wise secular mind. Nice jump to assuming that my disagreement with you over this is indicative of my disagreements with literally anyone else in my life. If you want bedrock principle to lay your preference for killing humans on pick a better one or deal with being called an imbecile.
Deport.
Considering 12 people upvoted me in a place like this is a win, in my opinion. It seems some people were able to not jump to conclusions are understand what I was saying. I expected downvotes and disagreement (I didn't expect a positive ratio) but I chose to post my thoughts anyways, but I did not expect as much positive response.
I also explained how I think the definition of "life" is not important as most people think, that there are certain properties contained within life that are actually what's important. Now I may be wrong about what others think but I do think that way myself. I tried to show that with an example in addition to other arguments. Your response has shown me you don't understand what I'm saying, and that's fine. Hell even if you did, you'd still have the right to disagree. But apparently my thoughts are so wrong you think killing me is okay.
If you cannot entertain a hypothetical, this level of discussion is impossible. I could have just as easily replace myself (as crazy!) with a fictional, hypothetical crazy person. In no universe would I ever threaten a 5 year old boy, and my whole argument lays out why I think it's wrong. The fact that you think I am "credibly threatening" a hypothetical person shows me you don't have any understanding of what is being said.
I guess I’m dumbfounded you can’t run you own hypothetical properly. Why you inserted yourself into this hypothetical I’ll never know. I imagine it’s your own callousness towards life that makes you fantasize so. However that’s irrelevant. You made it personal not me. If you had said person A creates a strange life or death scenario and asks person B to be involved then what should person B do, then I would have said person B has an obligation to use “up to lethal force” (and should prefer that option if a victim is in imminent credible danger) against person A to keep them from committing that violence.
How you jumped from that to me coming through the keyboard o kill you is a leap I won’t understand. It is evidence you cannot develop your own logical arguments properly. Why do you care that you have anecdotal support when you tell another commenter that their sources are invalid because they use that very same thing? It has no bearing on if what you are saying is truth or not.
The whole point of a hypothetical is that it's fiction. Thus it doesn't matter whether I'm in the story or batman. Its 100% irrelevant. Just like continuing to talk to you.