Contract Killing

Scott said:
No, I just don't agree that abortion is a proper subset of contract killing. I explain why in post #8.
Click to expand...
[Given the rules of Base-10 mathematics]

Any rational adult: 2+2=4
Scott: "I just don't agree that 2+2=4."

Any rational adult: So you deny Base-10 mathematics?
Scott: "No. I just don't agree that 2+2=4."
 
gfm7175 said:
[Given the rules of Base-10 mathematics]

Any rational adult: 2+2=4
Scott: "I just don't agree that 2+2=4."

Any rational adult: So you deny Base-10 mathematics?
Scott: "No. I just don't agree that 2+2=4."
Click to expand...
I suppose that Scott would otherwise not deny math, but something more important to him is now facing an existential threat, i.e. his killing supremacy, and you have to sacrifice your queen before you allow your king to fall into checkmate.
 
Scott said:
There is no math involved here.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. Set theory is a foundational framework for most mathematics.
Scott said:
What we have are different beliefs regarding whether abortions qualify as a subset of contract killings.
Click to expand...
Set theory is not a matter of "different beliefs".

Set A = {1,2,3}
Set B = {1,2,3,4}

Set A is a subset of Set B, as all elements that are present within Set A are also present within Set B, regardless of any "different beliefs" that you may hold.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, there is. Set theory is a foundational framework for most mathematics.

Set theory is not a matter of "different beliefs".

Set A = {1,2,3}
Set B = {1,2,3,4}

Set A is a subset of Set B, as all elements that are present within Set A are also present within Set B, regardless of any "different beliefs" that you may hold.
Click to expand...
Abortion is not math.
 
IBDaMann said:
Contract Killing is the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer.


Why didn't you make a thread for contract killing? I suppose I should make that thread and start to respond to your posts here.

@Scott, why do leftists support contract killings?
Click to expand...
Dude, that's retarded.

Stop.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, there is. Set theory is a foundational framework for most mathematics. Set theory is not a matter of "different beliefs".

Set A = {1,2,3}
Set B = {1,2,3,4}

Set A is a subset of Set B, as all elements that are present within Set A are also present within Set B, regardless of any "different beliefs" that you may hold.
Click to expand...
Note: Set A is also a proper subset of B.

Just to be complete:

Set C = {1,2,3,4}

Set C is a subset of B, and B is a subset of C.

Set A is a proper subset of both C and B
 
Current status of this thread:
  1. The term 'contract killing' has been clearly and unambiguously defined as such: the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a {customer}.
  2. The term 'abortion' has been clearly and unambiguously defined as such: the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a {customer who is a pregnant woman} who wishes to place a hit on her own child while he is still in the womb.
  3. Therefore, upon applying set theory, 'abortion' is a proper subset of 'contract killing' because {customer who is a pregnant woman} is a proper subset of {customer}.
There has yet to be a single cheerleader of contract killings on this forum who has provided any sort of valid rationale explaining how {customer who is a pregnant woman} is somehow not a proper subset of {customer}.

CLEARLY, {abortion} is a proper subset of {contract killing}.
CLEARLY, JPP's leftists wholeheartedly support any contract killing in which a pregnant woman wishes to put out a hit on her own unborn child.
 
Last edited:
Scott said:
Would you agree that a contract killing basically means hiring a hitman to kill someone? If so, I think the title alone suggests that he's talking about contract killings. For anyone in the audience who hasn't yet seen the title of the article:
theconversation.com

Abortion is nothing like hiring a hitman, whatever Pope Francis says

Some careful reasoning shows that comparing abortion with contract murder equates two acts that are far from obviously morally equivalent.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
Click to expand...
I'm answering this question within IBDaMann's "contract killing" thread because I believe that discussion about this specific term fits better here.

IBDaMann has already in this thread clearly and unambiguously defined 'contract killing' as: the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a {customer}.

I am agreeable to the bolded definition for 'contract killing' (and I think that the wording you used above is quite similar to the wording that IBD used). I suspect that you are agreeable to it too, but correct me if I am wrong.
 
Scott said:
I think you know at this point that I don't agree that abortion is a subset of contract killing.
Click to expand...
Yes sir. I am aware that you don't agree that abortion is a subset of contract killing. I am also aware that you stand so adamantly by that position that you are even willing to reject set theory in order to retain that position.
  1. The term 'contract killing' has been clearly and unambiguously defined as such: the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a {customer}.
  2. The term 'abortion' has been clearly and unambiguously defined as such: the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a {customer who is a pregnant woman} who wishes to place a hit on her own child while he is still in the womb.
  3. Therefore, upon applying set theory, 'abortion' is a proper subset of 'contract killing' because {customer who is a pregnant woman...} is a proper subset of {customer}.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes sir. I am aware that you don't agree that abortion is a subset of contract killing. I am also aware that you stand so adamantly by that position that you are even willing to reject set theory in order to retain that position.
  1. The term 'contract killing' has been clearly and unambiguously defined as such: the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a {customer}.
  2. The term 'abortion' has been clearly and unambiguously defined as such: the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a {customer who is a pregnant woman} who wishes to place a hit on her own child while he is still in the womb.
  3. Therefore, upon applying set theory, 'abortion' is a proper subset of 'contract killing' because {customer who is a pregnant woman...} is a proper subset of {customer}.
Click to expand...
Wow, many hours with no attempt at a response. Hmmmmmm. Did you make an iron-clad case against killing supremacy or something?
 
IBDaMann said:
Exactly. You leftists all regurgitate exactly what you are instructed to say in your echo-chamber, safe zone, collectives.

So who ordered you to say what you said?
Click to expand...
One more time for the hard of thinking: Nobody. It's not like I'm some bloody tRumpling, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top