All right, Zano, it’s time for me to present a quarterly assessment all your logical fallacies and argumentative deficiencies. This should give you another ideal opportunity to avoid, distract, and otherwise dance around the principled points and positions—namely mine—in the guise of something that remotely resembles humor. You’re funny, Zano, but not “Ha, Ha” funny.

While Zano is out-witting himself somewhere, here are some of the points I’ve been trying to make lately:

1.) Reproduction is essential to sexuality. It is unvirtuous to seek sexual pleasure that purposefully avoids reproduction. To socially encourage such behavior leads to the destruction of the family as can be proven through the 1960s when the use of “the pill” directly correlates with the rise in divorce. I recommend you disclose your donations to the hit television show Divorce Court before answering this one.

2.) Under the Presidency of Barack Obama, the State Department became less transparent in the forms of disappearing emails in relationship to IRS scandal and Hillary Clinton (Benghazi scandal), among others, while at the same time individual lives have become more transparent in the form of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. I am prepared to release your recent text to me at 3:00AM from Vegas. I was not in Vegas, so technically I’m not breaking the expected “Stays in Vegas” mandate.

3.) Eight months ago, you said that an individual business (in this case cake makers) could refuse service to any person (in this case homosexuals who are getting married). Yet since that time, many courts have ruled against the rights of business to deny participating in same-sex weddings. I’m wondering if your position has changed. I’m betting it has, since your position is rarely rooted on any foundational principles. For example, I once again site your recent late night text from Vegas.

4.) A few months back you seemed to suggest that President Obama had gone too far in his executive action granting legal status to undocumented immigrants. I’m wondering if your position has changed, you lib-flopper?

5.) I know that you hate the subject of abortion as much as the average Nazi hates the subject of genocide. My point is that my perspective, (Orthodox Christianity) actually presents a coherent and realistic position as to when a human being gains constitutionally protected personhood—at conception. If what I say is true, then to ‘abort’ a fetus is the equivalent of murder just like aborting the lesser developed ‘Jew’ was murder. If my position is false, then please present a coherent and realistic perspective at when a human being gains the constitutionally protection of their personhood.

Please answer this on The Discord and I will take my rebuttal off air. Oh, and I would prefer these questions aren’t answered in late-night-Vegas-text-form. I will also take the resulting acronym that you are no doubt going to create, off air. Thank you.

(LNVTM)