Response To The Troll

There are two posts at Dan's blog that went off on tangents (as blog discussions are wont to do)  wherein the troll feo engaged in his usual nonsense.  The are here and here.

The first link is where the tangent involved a discussion on abortion, and more specifically for this post, what constitutes a person/human being/"personhood".  Even more specifically, whether or not I gave the troll my explanation/definition of what a person/human being/"personhood" is.  He claims I never did so.  He's an idiot.  I gave it quite clearly in my comment on March 23, 2019 at 1:03 PM, which is what follows:

"My definition of what a person is (because "personhood" is the real issue here)is the same as the actual definition one would find in a dictionary.

Merriam-Webster: human, individual

Dictionary.com: 1. a human being, whether an adult or child
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. (which puts feo's status in question)

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com : In general usage, a human being;

It's pretty cut and dried. A person is the product of the procreative act between a man and a woman. It is a person by virtue of the fact that it took two persons of the opposite sex to unite their procreative donations for the purpose of bringing forth a new person. It's not rocket science, and even a false priest like you should be able to understand it. I've no doubt you do, but your desire to preserve the imagined "right" to murder your own child compels you to wallow in cheap rationalization dressed up as philosophical moralizing."

feo, as if he works for CNN or MSNBC, ignored this explanation in order to pretend I failed to provide it, as well as so he can maintain the lie that I claimed the mere presence of DNA was what constitutes a person.  He then thought he was clever by insisting that would mean a single hair off one's head would be a person because of the DNA within it.  But again, he lied about why I mentioned DNA in the first place, which was to explain why the "it's my body, my choice" argument is crap.  If the child growing within her, invited by her engagement in the procreative act, was truly "her body", it would not have its own unique DNA which distinguishes it from her mother.

The second link is to a discussion where the subject of the border crisis comes up.  He lies about my position there as well, distorting the truth just as the mainstream media does in making themselves an enemy of the people.  His biggest hangup seems to be on the understanding of what constitutes an emergency with regard to the border.  My position is it's simply a matter of the fact that the border is unprotected.  He then points to our northern border, which is indeed much longer.  But people aren't flooding in at the rate of the southern border.  Then he wants to point to past years where the numbers of illegals crossing in were greater than the amount stopped at the time of the discussion.  Yet he won't speak of how many thousands are acceptable before referring to the situation as a crisis.  It just goes on and on, and while it does, he continues to insist I've said something I haven't...even with my words still present for all to see. 

Lazy and/or purposeful inaccuracies in reporting seem to be a truly lefty thing, as both Dan and his troll clearly demonstrate with incredible frequency.  No wonder that Dan sees no problem with the leftist media Trump refers to as an "enemy of the people".