If you want to tell us why you are special and are morally entitled, morally authorized, and morally enabled to devalue other humans into subhuman status, and then declare them suitable for killing for the convenience of others, then your comment will be published.
If you want to explain how you became a moral and intellectual elite, then your comment will be published.
If you just want to justify the human devaluation process you have chosen, then don't bother, I won't publish it.
If you have other topics, they will be considered.
6 comments:
Message to Robin:
You didn't address any of the issues in this post; you make claims without either substance or support; you claim to have "won" the argument.
The difference between rhetoric and logic is this: an ideologist who engages in rhetoric must "win", regardless of the irrational tactics which are used. A logician humbles himself before the outcome of a rational, disciplined, grounded deductive argument regardless of whether the outcome matches his preconceptions.
You engage in rhetoric and you reject logic. There is no point in discussing anything with you, since you slip and slide through fallacies in support of your ideology, and reject rational discussion.
So you do win in the irrational ideology department. Take your blue ribbon and show off to your irrational friends.
But you are done here.
If you want to tell us why you are special and are morally entitled, morally authorized, and morally enabled to devalue other humans into subhuman status, and then declare them suitable for killing for the convenience of others, then your comment will be published.
If you just want to justify the human devaluation process you have chosen, then don't bother, I won't publish it.
What humble logic. Can there be no clearer example of fallacious rhetoric? I demand answers or I will ban you! And if you give them to me, you will be banned!
Anonymous,
Choose a moniker or leave. It's that simple.
The two statements are obvously mutually exclusive. The first deals with false entitlement to perform the act; the second deals with the act.
Your critique fails.
You should start a blog where you ask people to justify beating their wives and delete any response explaining they are not.
-think-:
False Analogy. The Abortionistas obviously think they are entitled to devalue humans and to declare them suitable for killing; So it is legitimate to ask why they think they are entitled. This is purely about their entitlement; their self-endowed personal superiority; their god complexes.
Note: it is not because the humans are really, actually of no value. So how the AtheoLeftists devalue the humans who are targeted has no bearing on WHY THEY THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DEVALUE HUMANS AND THEN DECLARE A DEATH SENTENCE FOR HUMANS THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW.
It appears that I have to shout to be heard. The devaluation of humans was specifically done by Lenin; Stalin; Mao; Pol Pot; Che; etc.
Don't even bother complaining about the reference to the totalitarians above; it is the declaration of personal totalitarian tendencies to sentence other natural humans to death, to declare it acceptable for the vicious ripping apart of those natural humans.
It is the personal God complex: rampant narcissism - a demonstrable mental disorder which is incurable.
When someone bleats about "the children" as the AtheoLeft commonly does, yet kills preborns without compunction, it is both irrational, and it is a mental disorder, pure and simple. It is indicative of a complete lack of empathy in the sense of a dead conscience: all that is left is ideology without morals.
I have further asked why, given the ability of certain classes of superior humans to condemn others to death, a third set of humans should not be allowed to devalue the category called "Atheists" or "AtheoLeftists", and declare them suitable to be killed based on their subhuman valuation.
I'm still awaiting reasonable logic which would prevent this. It is discrimination not to allow this to occur. Repeat: discrimination - i.e. intolerable by the coarsest Leftist ideological position.
54,000,000 killed for convenience: natural, living, humans at a necessary and required stage of human development... and no empathy from the god-complexes who approve their killing.
Now, if you have an actual legitimate argument to make, rather than a logic fallacy, let 'er rip. Otherwise, don't waste our time here.
Post a Comment