Contract Killing

[IBDaMann]

Sure. I think it also bears mentioning that in our discussions regarding abortion, agreeing on the meanings/definitions/descriptions/usages of certain words becomes absolutely crucial.

Contract Killing is the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer.

Abortion is 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.

Abortion is an obvious proper subset of contract killing.

You approve of a proper subset of contract killing. Why do you approve of contract killings?

 

[Scott]

No, again, nothing to do with math.

It is set theory. You approve of a proper subset of contract killings.

Our disagreement is not with set theory, but rather that abortions are a subset of contract killings.

 

[Scott]

Sure. I think it also bears mentioning that in our discussions regarding abortion, agreeing on the meanings/definitions/descriptions/usages of certain words becomes absolutely crucial.

I believe you are referring to our discussion on contract killing (you and I haven't had a discussion on abortion).

We have definitely discussed abortion and you know that I don't agree with your notion that abortions are a subset of contract killings.

 

[Scott]

Sure. I think it also bears mentioning that in our discussions regarding abortion, agreeing on the meanings/definitions/descriptions/usages of certain words becomes absolutely crucial.

Contract Killing is the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer.

Agreed.

Abortion is 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.

Disagreed.

 

[IBDaMann]

Given the following to which you agree: Contract Killing is the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer.

Agreed.

When presented with the following, you disagreed: Abortion is 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.

Disagreed.

You do not get to disagree as though it is somehow a subjective matter of opinion. You must refute the assertion, and the refutation cannot be that you simply don't like the implication of the assertion.

Abortion is an obvious proper subset of contract killing. You still have not provided any examples of abortions that are not contract killings.

Ergo, here is where we still stand: You approve of a proper subset of contract killing. Why do you approve of contract killings?

Here is the core of our problem. We can't agree on the definitions/usages/descriptions of certain words

Nope. We agree on the meanings of words. The problem in this discussion is your refusal to discuss contract killings, because you do not wish to broadcast your support for them. Your quibbling over irrelevancies is just one of your tactics.

Your current strategy is to claim that the killing of a living human is somehow not "killing". You need for me (and others) to believe that a rose by any other name is therefore not a rose anymore, i.e. that if you refer to the killing of a living human as a "termination" then you have somehow transformed the killing into a "not a killing." Obviously this is fallacious.

Why do you do this? You do this to shift the question away from "Why do you support contract killings?" to "Why is the killing of a living human somehow not the killing of a living human?" This effectively buys you time by shifting the focus away from your support for contract killings, at least for a few posts and affords you additional opportunities to pretend that your refusal to answer my question is somehow a result of my refusal to recognize Wikipedia as anything other than an error-filled, non-authoritative source of Marxist indoctrination, i.e. you wish to pin the blame on me for your EVASION of the question:

Why do you support contract killings?

 

[IBDaMann]

We certainly need to agree on the definition of a given word for certain subjects.

Nope. We have no need to quibble over irrelevancies. This is the assertion:

Contract Killing is the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer.

You agreed to this because you understand English, you were being reasonable, and everything about it is straightforward and clear.

The following assertion is just as straightforward and clear:

Abortion is 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.

You claim to disagree with this. Support your argument with something other than quibbling, time-buying word games.

In other words, we need to agree on how we are defining a given word for a conversation.

Nope. We have carried on with many conversations without agreeing to any definitions for any words, and this discussion isn't any different except for your level of EVASION.

 

[IBDaMann]

How do you determine what you are to accept from Wikipedia and what you are to reject?

I determine that based on my knowledge of a given subject.

The very definition of confirmation bias. Thank you.

I certainly agree that ChatGPT makes mistakes. But to simply discard it as an erroneous source is going too far.

Aaaahhhh, you plan on engaging your confirmation bias by utilizing ChatGPT for selected errors of your choosing. I totally get it.

 

[IBDaMann]

Our disagreement is not with set theory, but rather that abortions are a subset of contract killings.

Nope. If I tell you that 3 + 7 = 10, you don't get to simply "disagree" without providing an explanation.

How is

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

... somehow not a proper subset of

the requisitioned killing of a living human by a professional killer on behalf of a customer

?

 

[IBDaMann]

We have definitely discussed abortion

Nope. If we had ever discussed abortion, we would have had the discussion that gfm7175 is having with you right now ... but that has never happened.

We have, at most, mentioned "abortion" in the course of discussing contract killings ... or in the course of EVADING the subject in your case.

 

[IBDaMann]

I just think we've stopped making any progress in our discussion here.

Nope. You know full well that you are EVADING. You are not being honest. You realize that your position is indefensible but you aren't honest enough to relinquish your killing supremacy position.

I'm fine with agreeing that you are staunchly remaining steadfast to your killing supremacy and that there is nothing horrific enough about killing living humans who have not committed any crime that can get you relinquish your support for contract killings.

Your position is indefensible and you refuse to change your mind.