Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Czernobog]

Agh, but you see, you're just making my case for me. The embryos have relative value, and the only person who has the right to determine the weight of that relative value is the person who owns the embryo. Not me. And not you.

Again, you are trying to change the parameters, in order to avoid making the obvious moral choice.

No need. This is only a relevant question, if you insist that an embryo is a person. If you insist that, then you should have no problem sating unequivocally that you would choose to save the 1,000 children over the single child. You see, you keep trying to insist that an embryo is a person, when the whole point of the thought experiment exposes the reality that you don't.

The Constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.
moral
That is the ONLY "value" assessment that matters.

And, without twisting a single word in the pre-amble, the Constitution never defines "person".
Lets' get the semantic argument out of the way. The Constitution speaks of "posterity". Many anti-abortionists (I presume you) make a big deal out of the fact that an obscure synonym of posterity is "unborn", and claim that mean in vitro.

The problem is that no jurist has ever attempted to make this connection in any ruling, ever. Further, the actual definition of the word posterity makes it clear that this was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding this word:

1. Succeeding or future generations collectively:
   Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
   
   
2. all descendants of one person:
   His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.

Clearly, posterity means succeeding generations of actual descendants, not in vitro fetuses.

Now that we have that bit of semantic silliness out of the way, calling a fetus, or an embryo a "person" is a question of moral equivalency. It is the point of the thought experiment in the OP. IF you believe that an embryo is a "person", then you should have no problem saying with conviction, that you should choose the phial of embryos over the 5-year-old. I'm still waiting for you to make that statement.

I'm still waiting on YOU to explain how the rights of one is contingent upon the other.

How the right of the one what is contingent on the right of the other what?

You just aren't very bright at all. Are you.

How are the rights of the children in an embryonic stage of their life in ANY way contingent upon how much or how little they are fucking valued in comparison to a fucking screaming baby in a burning building?

Thank you for being clear. They aren't. The point is there is no such thing as a "child in an embryonic state". And you know there isn't, this is why you keep refusing to say whehter you will save 1,000 "children in embryonic state", or a five-year-old child, if you had to make a choice.

 

[Czernobog]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Mod Edit: Czernobog --- In the future, if your tale has a source -- you need to credit it.
Believe the source for this one is something like

Man confronts anti-abortion debaters with one question | Daily Mail Online

Thread fail... On the premise that the writer believes that if a person chooses anything other than the answer they predict; that the person must be lying... At which point one has to wonder why they bothered to ask in the first place.

Nope. That's the last thing I think. I would think your moral priorities are fucked up, but I would take you at your word. I haven't had anyone give any other than the respected response - at least not from anyone who actually answered the question.

 

[Chuz Life]

The Constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.
moral
That is the ONLY "value" assessment that matters.

And, without twisting a single word in the pre-amble, the Constitution never defines "person".
Lets' get the semantic argument out of the way. The Constitution speaks of "posterity". Many anti-abortionists (I presume you) make a big deal out of the fact that an obscure synonym of posterity is "unborn", and claim that mean in vitro.

The problem is that no jurist has ever attempted to make this connection in any ruling, ever. Further, the actual definition of the word posterity makes it clear that this was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding this word:

1. Succeeding or future generations collectively:
   Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
   
   
2. all descendants of one person:
   His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.

Clearly, posterity means succeeding generations of actual descendants, not in vitro fetuses.

Now that we have that bit of semantic silliness out of the way, calling a fetus, or an embryo a "person" is a question of moral equivalency. It is the point of the thought experiment in the OP. IF you believe that an embryo is a "person", then you should have no problem saying with conviction, that you should choose the phial of embryos over the 5-year-old. I'm still waiting for you to make that statement.

I'm still waiting on YOU to explain how the rights of one is contingent upon the other.

How the right of the one what is contingent on the right of the other what?

You just aren't very bright at all. Are you.

How are the rights of the children in an embryonic stage of their life in ANY way contingent upon how much or how little they are fucking valued in comparison to a fucking screaming baby in a burning building?

Thank you for being clear. They aren't. The point is there is no such thing as a "child in an embryonic state". And you know there isn't, this is why you keep refusing to say whehter you will save 1,000 "children in embryonic state", or a five-year-old child, if you had to make a choice.

If there is no such thing as a child in the embryonic stage of their own life. . . Please explain how / why your biological father is YOUR biological father.

 

[Vastator]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Mod Edit: Czernobog --- In the future, if your tale has a source -- you need to credit it.
Believe the source for this one is something like

Man confronts anti-abortion debaters with one question | Daily Mail Online

Thread fail... On the premise that the writer believes that if a person chooses anything other than the answer they predict; that the person must be lying... At which point one has to wonder why they bothered to ask in the first place.

Nope. That's the last thing I think. I would think your moral priorities are fucked up, but I would take you at your word. I haven't had anyone give any other than the respected response - at least not from anyone who actually answered the question.

The respected response? So you've already determined that a particular answer is worthy of respect. Which implies that the other is not... So what your actually seeking is confirmation bias.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Save the boy...alert the staff to save the embryos. The boy is asking for rescue. The embryos are cool with the situation. They will go straight to heaven, without having to endure the stupidity of your hypotheticals.

There you go. The embryos die, and you decided that the child was of more value than the embryos. So, please cease referring to embryos as children.

If your child and my child were in the building I'd save my child, not yours.

Does that mean my child has more value than yours?

Of course not; both have intrinsic value because both are humans. The same holds true for the child and embryos in your, ah, 'scenario'. The difference between the born and the pre-born is location.

Regardless that your scenario takes place in a fertility clinic, it's obvious you're speaking about abortion. How does saving a born human but leaving the pre-born to die equate to intentionally killing a pre-born human? When one has an abortion, one intentionally kills the preborn.

If there was a 3 week old baby and a 93 year old person I'd save the baby. The 93 year old has had their life, the baby has not. Does that mean I do not value the older person? Of course not. Does that mean the older person's life has no value? Of course not. It means I had to make a decision based on emergency and emotion. That decision is not the intentional, deliberate taking of life.

Why do you guys always, always go for the extreme scenarios? Did this actually happen? What about the vast, vast, VAST majority of abortions that are done simply because having a child would be an inconvenience? You guys dodge that all the damn time.

Abortion kills a pre-born human being. They are human from the get go, the do not "turn into" or "develop into" a human. Humans beget humans, that's how the hell it works. You are okay with abortion. That means that you are okay killing/terminating/snuffing out/destroying/ending the life of a pre-born human being. Your type constantly tries (and fails) to present abortion as ANYTHING other than what it is ... horrid, disgusting, intentional killing of a pre-born human. smh

 

[Czernobog]

And, without twisting a single word in the pre-amble, the Constitution never defines "person".
Lets' get the semantic argument out of the way. The Constitution speaks of "posterity". Many anti-abortionists (I presume you) make a big deal out of the fact that an obscure synonym of posterity is "unborn", and claim that mean in vitro.

The problem is that no jurist has ever attempted to make this connection in any ruling, ever. Further, the actual definition of the word posterity makes it clear that this was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding this word:

1. Succeeding or future generations collectively:
   Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
   
   
2. all descendants of one person:
   His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.

Clearly, posterity means succeeding generations of actual descendants, not in vitro fetuses.

Now that we have that bit of semantic silliness out of the way, calling a fetus, or an embryo a "person" is a question of moral equivalency. It is the point of the thought experiment in the OP. IF you believe that an embryo is a "person", then you should have no problem saying with conviction, that you should choose the phial of embryos over the 5-year-old. I'm still waiting for you to make that statement.

I'm still waiting on YOU to explain how the rights of one is contingent upon the other.

How the right of the one what is contingent on the right of the other what?

You just aren't very bright at all. Are you.

How are the rights of the children in an embryonic stage of their life in ANY way contingent upon how much or how little they are fucking valued in comparison to a fucking screaming baby in a burning building?

Thank you for being clear. They aren't. The point is there is no such thing as a "child in an embryonic state". And you know there isn't, this is why you keep refusing to say whehter you will save 1,000 "children in embryonic state", or a five-year-old child, if you had to make a choice.

If there is no such thing as a child in the embryonic stage of their own life. . . Please explain how / why your biological father is YOUR biological father.

Nope. I asked my question first. You want any more questions answered, it's your turn. Answer the question form the OP, or admit that answering it honestly will destroy your silly "children in embryonic state" drivel.

 

[Vastator]

I'm still waiting on YOU to explain how the rights of one is contingent upon the other.

How the right of the one what is contingent on the right of the other what?

You just aren't very bright at all. Are you.

How are the rights of the children in an embryonic stage of their life in ANY way contingent upon how much or how little they are fucking valued in comparison to a fucking screaming baby in a burning building?

Thank you for being clear. They aren't. The point is there is no such thing as a "child in an embryonic state". And you know there isn't, this is why you keep refusing to say whehter you will save 1,000 "children in embryonic state", or a five-year-old child, if you had to make a choice.

If there is no such thing as a child in the embryonic stage of their own life. . . Please explain how / why your biological father is YOUR biological father.

Nope. I asked my question first. You want any more questions answered, it's your turn. Answer the question form the OP, or admit that answering it honestly will destroy your silly "children in embryonic state" drivel.

All things being equal... The answer is simple. The thousand lives over the one. However your scenario makes all things being equal an impossibility.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm still waiting on YOU to explain how the rights of one is contingent upon the other.

How the right of the one what is contingent on the right of the other what?

You just aren't very bright at all. Are you.

How are the rights of the children in an embryonic stage of their life in ANY way contingent upon how much or how little they are fucking valued in comparison to a fucking screaming baby in a burning building?

Thank you for being clear. They aren't. The point is there is no such thing as a "child in an embryonic state". And you know there isn't, this is why you keep refusing to say whehter you will save 1,000 "children in embryonic state", or a five-year-old child, if you had to make a choice.

If there is no such thing as a child in the embryonic stage of their own life. . . Please explain how / why your biological father is YOUR biological father.

Nope. I asked my question first. You want any more questions answered, it's your turn. Answer the question form the OP, or admit that answering it honestly will destroy your silly "children in embryonic state" drivel.

Still skipping over my posts I see, you scared bro?


.

 

[Czernobog]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Mod Edit: Czernobog --- In the future, if your tale has a source -- you need to credit it.
Believe the source for this one is something like

Man confronts anti-abortion debaters with one question | Daily Mail Online

Thread fail... On the premise that the writer believes that if a person chooses anything other than the answer they predict; that the person must be lying... At which point one has to wonder why they bothered to ask in the first place.

Nope. That's the last thing I think. I would think your moral priorities are fucked up, but I would take you at your word. I haven't had anyone give any other than the respected response - at least not from anyone who actually answered the question.

The respected response? So you've already determined that a particular answer is worthy of respect. Which implies that the other is not... So what your actually seeking is confirmation bias.

respected? Did I say "respected"? After having looked, LOL! You're right. I did say respected. I meant expected. Sorry. Typo. Lemme try that again. I do think there is only one answer that deserves respect. However, if you think the "right" answer is, "I save the phial," by all means, answer with that. I think it will indicate that your moral priorities are fucked-up, but that's on you. What I meant to say was that I have yet to have any one give me anything other than the expected response - at least not anyone who has answered the question.

I notice you aren't answering the question. Feel free. I'll wait.

 

[Czernobog]

How the right of the one what is contingent on the right of the other what?

You just aren't very bright at all. Are you.

How are the rights of the children in an embryonic stage of their life in ANY way contingent upon how much or how little they are fucking valued in comparison to a fucking screaming baby in a burning building?

Thank you for being clear. They aren't. The point is there is no such thing as a "child in an embryonic state". And you know there isn't, this is why you keep refusing to say whehter you will save 1,000 "children in embryonic state", or a five-year-old child, if you had to make a choice.

If there is no such thing as a child in the embryonic stage of their own life. . . Please explain how / why your biological father is YOUR biological father.

Nope. I asked my question first. You want any more questions answered, it's your turn. Answer the question form the OP, or admit that answering it honestly will destroy your silly "children in embryonic state" drivel.

All things being equal... The answer is simple. The thousand lives over the one. However your scenario makes all things being equal an impossibility.

And why does the scenario make "all things being equal", an impossibility?

 

[Borillar]

That's the point.

the point is creating a dumb "gotcha?"
Interesting.

Derp.
No.
That everyone would pick the boy.

Of course they would, dummy. Thats why i think its dumb.
Its like asking if the woman running from the rapist is going to grab the loaded 9MM or the banana.

Then the boy and the embryos are not the same. That's the point.

The right to lifers swear they are.

How many people do you know think that an embryo and a young child are the same?

Well, there's Chuzlife...

 

[Vastator]

Your "scenario" is plagued with flaws, and variables that can affect a persons answer. However; being generous, I'll assume that you intend for all things being equal (which is an impossibility in this scenario). And if equal the answer is simple. The thousand over the one.

 

[Vastator]

You just aren't very bright at all. Are you.

How are the rights of the children in an embryonic stage of their life in ANY way contingent upon how much or how little they are fucking valued in comparison to a fucking screaming baby in a burning building?

Thank you for being clear. They aren't. The point is there is no such thing as a "child in an embryonic state". And you know there isn't, this is why you keep refusing to say whehter you will save 1,000 "children in embryonic state", or a five-year-old child, if you had to make a choice.

If there is no such thing as a child in the embryonic stage of their own life. . . Please explain how / why your biological father is YOUR biological father.

Nope. I asked my question first. You want any more questions answered, it's your turn. Answer the question form the OP, or admit that answering it honestly will destroy your silly "children in embryonic state" drivel.

All things being equal... The answer is simple. The thousand lives over the one. However your scenario makes all things being equal an impossibility.

And why does the scenario make "all things being equal", an impossibility?

One cannot know the race of those in the phial for one. Another being that they are in a fertility clinic lab; which can suggest that the parents have some genetic flaw that prompted the neccesity of using the clinic in the first place. Those are just two of many.

 

[Czernobog]

One cannot know the race of those in the phial for one.

Why would race have anything to do with anything? unless you're a racist, ad think that some races deserve to live more than others...

Another being that they are in a fertility clinic lab; which can suggest that the parents have some genetic flaw that prompted the neccesity of using the clinic in the first place. Those are just two of many.

Did I say anything about the room being a lab? All I said was that it was a room inside of a fertility clinic. You made that room a lab, not me. So, no flaw, yet...

 

[Vastator]

One cannot know the race of those in the phial for one.

Why would race have anything to do with anything? unless you're a racist, ad think that some races deserve to live more than others...

Another being that they are in a fertility clinic lab; which can suggest that the parents have some genetic flaw that prompted the neccesity of using the clinic in the first place. Those are just two of many.

Did I say anything about the room being a lab? All I said was that it was a room inside of a fertility clinic. You made that room a lab, not me. So, no flaw, yet...

Fertility clinic... A phial of embryos... If this isn't a lab... With support equipment to see these embryos through to the natural maturation stage... Then... The answer is obviously the child; as the children were doomed from the outset... Like I said. Your scenario is plagued with problems.
As far as race goes... Of course I'm a racist. You should be too. If not... I'd wager one to be a rather shitty parent otherwise. If the 5 year old in the corner is my son; and the thousand children in the phial are eskimos... A thousand kids are going to die. And my son will live. Even if the 5 year old just happens to be white. The thousand Eskimos will die; as I still have a closer genetic/familial relation to the 5year old. It a basic decision promoted at its core, by self preservation.
I can think of a much more concise scenario than the one you plagiarized.

 

[Czernobog]

One cannot know the race of those in the phial for one.

Why would race have anything to do with anything? unless you're a racist, ad think that some races deserve to live more than others...

Another being that they are in a fertility clinic lab; which can suggest that the parents have some genetic flaw that prompted the neccesity of using the clinic in the first place. Those are just two of many.

Did I say anything about the room being a lab? All I said was that it was a room inside of a fertility clinic. You made that room a lab, not me. So, no flaw, yet...

Fertility clinic... A phial of embryos... If this isn't a lab... With support equipment to see these embryos through to the natural maturation stage... Then... The answer is obviously the child; as the children were doomed from the outset... Like I said. Your scenario is plagued with problems.
As far as race goes... Of course I'm a racist. You should be too. If not... I'd wager one to be a rather shitty parent otherwise. If the 5 year old in the corner is my son; and the thousand children in the phial are eskimos... A thousand kids are going to die. And my son will live. Even if the 5 year old just happens to be white. The thousand Eskimos will die; as I still have a closer genetic/familial relation to the 5year old. It a basic decision promoted at its core, by self preservation.
I can think of a much more concise scenario than the one you plagiarized.

Well, that answer right there told me everything I need to know. Your moral priorities are completely fucked. So, nothing you say would surprise me at all, and you certainly are in no position to be passing moral judgement on anyone for any reason.

Feel free to slither your racist ass back under whatever rock you crawled out from under. Your opinion is now officially irrelevant.

 

[Vastator]

One cannot know the race of those in the phial for one.

Why would race have anything to do with anything? unless you're a racist, ad think that some races deserve to live more than others...

Another being that they are in a fertility clinic lab; which can suggest that the parents have some genetic flaw that prompted the neccesity of using the clinic in the first place. Those are just two of many.

Did I say anything about the room being a lab? All I said was that it was a room inside of a fertility clinic. You made that room a lab, not me. So, no flaw, yet...

Fertility clinic... A phial of embryos... If this isn't a lab... With support equipment to see these embryos through to the natural maturation stage... Then... The answer is obviously the child; as the children were doomed from the outset... Like I said. Your scenario is plagued with problems.
As far as race goes... Of course I'm a racist. You should be too. If not... I'd wager one to be a rather shitty parent otherwise. If the 5 year old in the corner is my son; and the thousand children in the phial are eskimos... A thousand kids are going to die. And my son will live. Even if the 5 year old just happens to be white. The thousand Eskimos will die; as I still have a closer genetic/familial relation to the 5year old. It a basic decision promoted at its core, by self preservation.
I can think of a much more concise scenario than the one you plagiarized.

Well, that answer right there told me everything I need to know. Your moral priorities are completely fucked. So, nothing you say would surprise me at all, and you certainly are in no position to be passing moral judgement on anyone for any reason.

Feel free to slither your racist ass back under whatever rock you crawled out from under. Your opinion is now officially irrelevant.

Its only irrelevant because of yet another flaw in your plagiarized premise. You didn't account for the variables accociated with the person making the choice. Its interesting that you were so taken with this writers work; that not only did you try to pass it off as your own... But you also interpreted it to be rather clever, all the while never noticing the plethora of failures inherent in the proposition. Having a preconceived bias as to what constitutes a " correct" answer only cements the obvious conclusion.
That by any objective measure... This is a thread FAIL...

 

[hadit]

Literally, the only question to be resolved is whether or not a pre-born baby is a living human being. If so considered, then no one should have the right to violently end his/her life. Yes, as I demonstrated, human life does hold relative value, but we all agree it is wrong to deliberately end that life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it was revelant then the lack of moral equivalence between saving you and the child would mean that we can kill you.

This kind of gets away from the original thought experiment, but I'm curious to follow your logic here. On what are you basing the determination that I have less moral right to live than a child? And on what authority are you basing that determination?

Which is precisely the point.

It is the point. No one has the right to determine the relative value of a fetus, other than the person carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vastator]

If it was revelant then the lack of moral equivalence between saving you and the child would mean that we can kill you.

This kind of gets away from the original thought experiment, but I'm curious to follow your logic here. On what are you basing the determination that I have less moral right to live than a child? And on what authority are you basing that determination?

Which is precisely the point.

It is the point. No one has the right to determine the relative value of a fetus, other than the person carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That puts taxpayers in a position to place a value on welfare recipients, as we provide for them. Should this mean we have the right to kill them in order to alleviate ourselves of the burden?

 

[jon_berzerk]

unlike you

i am not going to pretend to have come with the idea

leftards --LOL all the same

i will let Ben Shapiro respond to your nonsense


This Pro-Abortion Fanatic Presented A Thought Experiment 'DESTROYING' Pro-Lifers. Here Are 4 Reasons He Fails Dramatically.

Yeah...you're the third person who did that. Ben failed. In order to make an "arguement" he had to pretend that the argument is about something it isn't - whether or not an embryo is alive. This is why it never helps to let someone else do your thinking for you. The point of a thought experiment is to employ critical thinking. You need to put yourself into the process.

he did not

you failed

your thread failed

failure is your only option

Sure. Because you say so. Moving the goalpost is now succeeding in countering an argument. And just what colour is the sky in your reality? When you have to use intellectual dishonesty to defeat an argument, you didn't defeat the argument. You failed spectacularly.

stop embarrassing yourself

You're adorable. No need to project. I knew you couldn't answer the question. No need to be embarrassed.

typical leftist troll behavior

face it your thread is a failure