Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Lapey]

I am responsible for my race, and at this point find the documents authoritative, and I’m a gun owner, always have been. To claim the need for self defense with only a gun is a violent interpretation and a part of the Culture of death Cardinal Dolan spoke of. Guns are material things of this world. They have no spiritual value in my opinion. I’d rather place all trust in Him, through the authoritative Church He gave us, which is a spiritual thing btw.

I’m done’ arguing the same point. I would only be interested in seeing a statement from those bishops who argue against any gun controls, as most have done in this thread,

I don’t remember seeing anyone say they didn’t want any gun laws or gun control. The arguments has and continues to be about how a bishops comments or a conferences comments are being used to go further than ever before with gun control and there is evidence, historical evidence, these new attempts would not have stopped Sandyhook or the Movie theater shooting.

Furthermore, as has been stated repeatedly, if these statements would not be used as political capital and fuel for the fire of gun control, maybe the conversation could finally be had on the aspect of this which has not been talked about, and both sides agree, mental illness!

I mentioned this several pages back and you barely even acknowledged it. If we truly care about stopping these mass shootings then quit using statements like these to separate the people, like Barrack Obama does. This is his objective, divide and conquer. That is how he wins.

This is the issue, not more gun control.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again you mistake what I said. I said we could end our discussion, because it has become a circular argument of the same points being argued. All the men of the Church, produced in this thread, have spoken in favor of gun controls. As I’ve said, that’s binding enough for me to act on.

I look forward to someone producing the bishop to speak against any gun controls.

I agree it just goes around and around.

Of course “all the men of the Church” have NOT spoken in favor of gun control, though in 2000 what seems to have been the majority of bishops approved a text that spoke very briefly and generally in favor of “sensible regulation” of handguns and disapprovingly of machine guns, all in the context of discussing crime and remedies for crime. Never did they state what “sensible regulation” ought to be.

I am sure nobody is going to produce a bishop speaking against specific gun legislation, even among those bishops who own guns. Bishops do not generally involve themselves in the details of legislation of any kind. Most definitely, my own bishop, who was not a bishop in 2000, has never addressed it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t remember seeing anyone say they didn’t want any gun laws or gun control. The arguments has and continues to be about how a bishops comments or a conferences comments are being used to go further than ever before with gun control and there is evidence, historical evidence, these new attempts would not have stopped Sandyhook or the Movie theater shooting.

Furthermore, as has been stated repeatedly, if these statements would not be used as political capital and fuel for the fire of gun control, maybe the conversation could finally be had on the aspect of this which has not been talked about, and both sides agree, mental illness!

I mentioned this several pages back and you barely even acknowledged it. If we truly care about stopping these mass shootings then quit using statements like these to separate the people, like Barrack Obama does. This is his objective, divide and conquer. That is how he wins.

This is the issue, not more gun control.

Universal background checks, to include private sales has been disputed in this thread. What gun rights advocates in this thread have promoted does not even attempt to fill the gaps of easy access, some admitting monetary advantages for themselves. Are we really concerned about criminals, and people with mental health problems, having easy access to guns and creating gun violence, possibly taking innocent lives, or a few bucks?

If you read back through this thread, my posts specifically, I believe you’ll find you can count the times I have referred to Obama on one hand, and then it was in response to a connection made by someone arguing against my view. I have relied on the statements of the men of the Church. I have done my best to explain this from a moral, and spiritual angle. The rebuttals have not been able to do the same. What are our priorities supposed to be in this life; the secular advantages we can use for self, or the sacrifices of minor inconveniences we make for others to have a full dignity of life?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree it just goes around and around.

Of course “all the men of the Church” have NOT spoken in favor of gun control, though in 2000 what seems to have been the majority of bishops approved a text that spoke very briefly and generally in favor of “sensible regulation” of handguns and disapprovingly of machine guns, all in the context of discussing crime and remedies for crime. Never did they state what “sensible regulation” ought to be.

I am sure nobody is going to produce a bishop speaking against specific gun legislation, even among those bishops who own guns. Bishops do not generally involve themselves in the details of legislation of any kind. Most definitely, my own bishop, who was not a bishop in 2000, has never addressed it.

Here’s your problem, in my honest opinion. We have men who have spoke on behalf of committees, the USCCB, and even from the Vatican. We do not have any that have spoken the other way. You use the fact that all bishops have not lined up and each spoken specifically as opposition. What a further stretch, chairmen speaking for committees of the full body, presidents speaking for the fully body, and documents on their website stating full body approval, or take the silence of those and it’s opposition?

We have organizations, and governments, that operate with spokespersons, and representatives, but some would place the Church in a more difficult position of communication. The Church is as capable, or more so, to stand as one as any secular organization, through committees and their chairmen, or by standing behind documents posted on their very website and stating it’s from the full body. (The denial of the full body behind the 2000 document places some of those in the USCCB of less than being honest with us.) The higher standard seems only in the interests of personal views, and that is my opinion in light of the changing standards of 4 or 5, majority, 2/3, or unanimous.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here’s your problem, in my honest opinion. We have men who have spoke on behalf of committees, the USCCB, and even from the Vatican. We do not have any that have spoken the other way. You use the fact that all bishops have not lined up and each spoken specifically as opposition. What a further stretch, chairmen speaking for committees of the full body, presidents speaking for the fully body, and documents on their website stating full body approval, or take the silence of those and it’s opposition?

We have organizations, and governments, that operate with spokespersons, and representatives, but some would place the Church in a more difficult position of communication. The Church is as capable, or more so, to stand as one as any secular organization, through committees and their chairmen, or by standing behind documents posted on their very website and stating it’s from the full body. (The denial of the full body behind the 2000 document places some of those in the USCCB of less than being honest with us.) The higher standard seems only in the interests of personal views, and that is my opinion in light of the changing standards of 4 or 5, majority, 2/3, or unanimous.

The French call this La poudre aux yeux.

Once more. In 2000 at a meeting of bishops, a document was approved by some majority or other about crime, it’s causes and about punishment. There are, as I recall, maybe three sentences about “gun control”. They were talking about handguns and machine guns. And the strongest language they used was favoring “sensible regulation” of handguns.

The only resolution of the bishops that is binding on Catholics (other than what one’s own bishop teaches) is one in which: a) the vote was unanimous or b) voted by 2/3 pursuant to a Vatican mandate to do it, then approved by the Vatican as it appears. I have repeatedly asked for the evidence that it was either, and you have not produced it. So it’s status is simply that of opinion.

But regardless, calling for “sensible regulation” of handguns is not what you and Obama want. You want some rifles banned outright, some magazines banned outright and background checks mandated for person-to-person sales, trades or gifts. You were asked to produce reliable support for the idea that such transfers present an objective threat, and you didn’t.

A person could fully accept what’s said in the 2000 text and still oppose your propositions because the 2000 text never even mentioned your proposals, let alone recommended them, let ALONE said they are mandatory in conscience upon Catholics.

Then Bp Blaire, in 2012 announced his support for Obama’s general favorability toward gun control. One of the many functionaries in the Vatican did too, BEFORE Obama produced his exact proposals. Over 500 bishops who could have joined Blaire in his position, did not, let alone pass them unanimously or by 2/3 vote pursuant to a Vatican mandate, which is required before any USCCB communication is mandatory upon Catholics. Since the body of the bishops has changed from 2000, and since the 2000 text didn’t promote Obama’s or your stance anyway, perhaps they simply don’t agree with Bp. Blaire. In any event, they sure haven’t had a meeting to take it up.

Adopt Bp Blaire’s opinion if you wish. But don’t tell other Catholics that somehow they’re morally bound to follow it, because we aren’t.

Oh, and again, the 2000 text at least expressed a wish that all guns disappear from society. Yet, you are not saying all Catholics must therefore get rid of their guns; possibly because you own some by your own admission and don’t want to do it. But I’ll let you explain for yourself why you are fine with some of the 2000 text but not all of it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The French call this La poudre aux yeux.

Once more. In 2000 at a meeting of bishops, a document was approved by some majority or other about crime, it’s causes and about punishment. There are, as I recall, maybe three sentences about “gun control”. They were talking about handguns and machine guns. And the strongest language they used was favoring “sensible regulation” of handguns.

The only resolution of the bishops that is binding on Catholics (other than what one’s own bishop teaches) is one in which: a) the vote was unanimous or b) voted by 2/3 pursuant to a Vatican mandate to do it, then approved by the Vatican as it appears. I have repeatedly asked for the evidence that it was either, and you have not produced it. So it’s status is simply that of opinion.

But regardless, calling for “sensible regulation” of handguns is not what you and Obama want. You want some rifles banned outright, some magazines banned outright and background checks mandated for person-to-person sales, trades or gifts. You were asked to produce reliable support for the idea that such transfers present an objective threat, and you didn’t.

A person could fully accept what’s said in the 2000 text and still oppose your propositions because the 2000 text never even mentioned your proposals, let alone recommended them, let ALONE said they are mandatory in conscience upon Catholics.

Then Bp Blaire, in 2012 announced his support for Obama’s general favorability toward gun control. One of the many functionaries in the Vatican did too, BEFORE Obama produced his exact proposals. Over 500 bishops who could have joined Blaire in his position, did not, let alone pass them unanimously or by 2/3 vote pursuant to a Vatican mandate, which is required before any USCCB communication is mandatory upon Catholics. Since the body of the bishops has changed from 2000, and since the 2000 text didn’t promote Obama’s or your stance anyway, perhaps they simply don’t agree with Bp. Blaire. In any event, they sure haven’t had a meeting to take it up.

Adopt Bp Blaire’s opinion if you wish. But don’t tell other Catholics that somehow they’re morally bound to follow it, because we aren’t.

Oh, and again, the 2000 text at least expressed a wish that all guns disappear from society. Yet, you are not saying all Catholics must therefore get rid of their guns; possibly because you own some by your own admission and don’t want to do it. But I’ll let you explain for yourself why you are fine with some of the 2000 text but not all of it.

So, we can now stand back and delay intent by arguing sensible? I see.

I’m not repeating the same points. I believe our posts speak for themselves, and believe repeating the exact same thing over and over just takes away any validity of a point being made.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, we can now stand back and delay intent by arguing sensible? I see.

I’m not repeating the same points. I believe our posts speak for themselves, and believe repeating the exact same thing over and over just takes away any validity of a point being made.

I agree.

If, indeed, the majority of bishops in 2000 felt there should be “sensible regulation” of guns, which is what they said, then the real question is what’s “sensible”. They were not specific. Even though they were, at the time, talking about handguns, “sensible” gun regulation is a legitimate thing to espouse, and few would disagree about that. But of course people don’t agree on what’s “sensible”.

Regardless, I think increased control of guns is a dead issue politically for now because of the Tsarnaev brothers.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree.

If, indeed, the majority of bishops in 2000 felt there should be “sensible regulation” of guns, which is what they said, then the real question is what’s “sensible”. They were not specific. Even though they were, at the time, talking about handguns, “sensible” gun regulation is a legitimate thing to espouse, and few would disagree about that. But of course people don’t agree on what’s “sensible”.

Regardless, I think increased control of guns is a dead issue politically for now because of the Tsarnaev brothers.

As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.36

As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms…

The sensible regulation being used to delay acting on the call applies to handguns. The measures supported by the bishops are controls for the SALE and use of firearms.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms…

The sensible regulation being used to delay acting on the call applies to handguns. The measures supported by the bishops are controls for the SALE and use of firearms.

I doubt 1% of the population thinks there should be NO control over the sale and use of firearms. Maybe some poster did say it in this unending thread, but I didn’t see it. So most would not disagree with the very general statement. I said several hundred posts ago that i, myself would not disagree with the general statement, even though I do disagree with your particular proposals.

Let’s not extend what they said to something they did not say. They did not call for any particular regulation of the sale of handguns or any other kind of gun. They simply said “sensible regulation”. People can differ on what’s “sensible”, and do.

Maybe the bishops who voted on the 2000 text thought “sensible” meant “outright ban”. After all, they did express their wish that all guns disappear. Maybe they thought strict enforcement of laws against sale to criminals would be “sensible”. After all, 99% of the text was actually about crime and criminals, not guns. Nowhere did they say “lawful citizens should be deprived of guns that look like the military weapons of the last 30 years, but older-looking ones are okay”. Nowhere did they say “A law-abiding father should not give a gun to his law abiding adult son without running him through a pointless criminal background check, which he can’t do anyway by himself.”

Maybe the bishops in 2000 thought no country folk should be able to defend themselves against wild animals. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe they thought no citizen should have the means of defending himself against a Tsarnaev loose in the neighborhood. Maybe they didn’t.

Whatever any given one of them thought in specifics, they didn’t say as a group. Even if they had, it would still be simply their opinions unless it met the Canon Law requirements, which have been mentioned here repeatedly, and apparently does not.

And, of course, the bishops of today have never even taken the subject up as a group.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I doubt 1% of the population thinks there should be NO control over the sale and use of firearms. Maybe some poster did say it in this unending thread, but I didn’t see it. So most would not disagree with the very general statement. I said several hundred posts ago that i, myself would not disagree with the general statement, even though I do disagree with your particular proposals.

Let’s not extend what they said to something they did not say. They did not call for any particular regulation of the sale of handguns or any other kind of gun. They simply said “sensible regulation”. People can differ on what’s “sensible”, and do.

Maybe the bishops who voted on the 2000 text thought “sensible” meant “outright ban”. After all, they did express their wish that all guns disappear. Maybe they thought strict enforcement of laws against sale to criminals would be “sensible”. After all, 99% of the text was actually about crime and criminals, not guns. Nowhere did they say “lawful citizens should be deprived of guns that look like the military weapons of the last 30 years, but older-looking ones are okay”. Nowhere did they say “A law-abiding father should not give a gun to his law abiding adult son without running him through a pointless criminal background check, which he can’t do anyway by himself.”

Maybe the bishops in 2000 thought no country folk should be able to defend themselves against wild animals. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe they thought no citizen should have the means of defending himself against a Tsarnaev loose in the neighborhood. Maybe they didn’t.

Whatever any given one of them thought in specifics, they didn’t say as a group. Even if they had, it would still be simply their opinions unless it met the Canon Law requirements, which have been mentioned here repeatedly, and apparently does not.

And, of course, the bishops of today have never even taken the subject up as a group.

The biggest and most repeated proposal, that I have made, was for background checks for the SALE of all firearms.

No, I didn’t refer to Obama’s plan. I was challenged to show it was more than 1, then 3, then 4, then 5, then majority, then 2/3, then unanimous support of the men of the Church. That was in the light of the fact that not a single man of the Church has spoken in favor of gun rights. Then we had to move on to determine what ‘sensible’ really meant, in fact it’s evident that we can’t let that go when it was pointed out that the bishops supported measures to control the sale and use of firearms, and sensible regulations applied to handguns. Now, our bishops have multitasked and covered as much as they could in reference to Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice. and it somehow minimizes a part of what they stated, even when some step forward and make direct clarifications. Those that felt the issue was addressed properly and let it stand, have been taken as opposition. Now, thank goodness for a terrorist. We must be able to defend ourselves. Really?

It seems that no matter what is said, it will be dismissed. It speaks to priorities, and guns have a very high priority to some.

As you brush on who support what, again, it’s clearly stated on their website for anyone to see. A full body of bishops approved…

 

[Ridgerunner]

The biggest and most repeated proposal, that I have made, was for background checks for the SALE of all firearms.

No, I didn’t refer to Obama’s plan. I was challenged to show it was more than 1, then 3, then 4, then 5, then majority, then 2/3, then unanimous support of the men of the Church. That was in the light of the fact that not a single man of the Church has spoken in favor of gun rights. Then we had to move on to determine what ‘sensible’ really meant, in fact it’s evident that we can’t let that go when it was pointed out that the bishops supported measures to control the sale and use of firearms, and sensible regulations applied to handguns. Now, our bishops have multitasked and covered as much as they could in reference to Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice. and it somehow minimizes a part of what they stated, even when some step forward and make direct clarifications. Those that felt the issue was addressed properly and let it stand, have been taken as opposition. Now, thank goodness for a terrorist. We must be able to defend ourselves. Really?

It seems that no matter what is said, it will be dismissed. It speaks to priorities, and guns have a very high priority to some.

As you brush on who support what, again, it’s clearly stated on their website for anyone to see. A full body of bishops approved…

La poudre aux yeux.

As you shift from the 2000 text to Bp Blaire’s letter and try to pretend there’s some mystery about “unanimous” and “2/3” and all that, you’re the source of any confusion here, not me. The fact that everybody else seems to have abandoned the thread really does confirm that these posts are simply repetitive.

But I’m not going to let you get away with representing that the bishops of the U.S. have issued any morally binding mandate on U.S. Catholics supporting your position or Obama’s, either one. I’ll return to it until you quit saying it or the moderators shut it down, whichever happens first. The only difference is that you seem to have a lot more time on here than I do. But very well, I’ll come back.

The bishops of the U.S. have NEVER issued a mandatory moral instruction to Catholics about gun control. Never. And certainly not what you propose.

You don’t want to defend your proposal as “sensible”. So don’t. Point abandoned.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As you brush on who support what, again, it’s clearly stated on their website for anyone to see. A full body of bishops approved…

Copy it verbatim here then, so people can see what they really said, not just the interpretation you put on it.

Go ahead. Copy it all. I’ll check. Not tonight, but sometime.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Copy it verbatim here then, so people can see what they really said, not just the interpretation you put on it.

Go ahead. Copy it all. I’ll check. Not tonight, but sometime.

Because you somehow missed the few times that I’ve already posted it?

Here’s the link, again.

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice

The text for Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice originated from the Committee on Domestic Policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their November 2000 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.

You’ve misrepresented what I have said, made incorrect connections to political figures, dismissed the most current calls as 1, 3, 4, 5, and finally a majority, possibly 2/3, but short of unanimous, raising the bar higher and higher with each change of attempting to belittle the documents provided. You disqualified the statement because that was 2000 and we have different bishops now, totally ignoring that whatever you demanded to qualify the statement was no longer needed to overturn the statement by these ‘new’ bishops. You’ve misrepresented the bishops calls because we really don’t know what sensible means, when the call was clearly for support of measures to control the SALE and use of firearms. Sensible regulations has been shown to be in reference of handguns. Then the document was 90% about other issues, like that somehow disqualified a part of what the bishops spoke about. But you’re not going to let me ‘get away with…’ That’s irony at it’s best.

That’s the last time I’m posting that information. It’s in this thread for all to see. I haven’t changed what I believed, but have seen the challenges change each time one was met.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Because you somehow missed the few times that I’ve already posted it?

Here’s the link, again.

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice

You’ve misrepresented what I have said, made incorrect connections to political figures, dismissed the most current calls as 1, 3, 4, 5, and finally a majority, possibly 2/3, but short of unanimous, raising the bar higher and higher with each change of attempting to belittle the documents provided. You disqualified the statement because that was 2000 and we have different bishops now, totally ignoring that whatever you demanded to qualify the statement was no longer needed to overturn the statement by these ‘new’ bishops. You’ve misrepresented the bishops calls because we really don’t know what sensible means, when the call was clearly for support of measures to control the SALE and use of firearms. Sensible regulations has been shown to be in reference of handguns. Then the document was 90% about other issues, like that somehow disqualified a part of what the bishops spoke about. But you’re not going to let me ‘get away with…’ That’s irony at it’s best.

That’s the last time I’m posting that information. It’s in this thread for all to see. I haven’t changed what I believed, but have seen the challenges change each time one was met.

I think people who have stayed with these threads know what has been said in 2000 by the bishops’ meeting and in 2012 by Bishop Blaire.

For those who haven’t, I greatly encourage that you go back to the bishops’ 2000 meeting and read every word. See for yourself whether the bishops had specific gun control measures. See for yourself whether they are the ones proposed by Prodigal.

Most of all, I suggest that one go back and see what has been posted about the morally binding nature of a USCCB resolution or individual bishop’s opinion. Look at what the Canon Law, which governs not only the bishops but us as well, says about it. It’s all in these posts.

Don’t accept what either Prodigal Son or I say about it. Read the actual documents for yourself.

If, after doing so, there is still any confusion in your mind (which I doubt there will be) talk it over with a priest.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I think people who have stayed with these threads know what has been said in 2000 by the bishops’ meeting and in 2012 by Bishop Blaire.

For those who haven’t, I greatly encourage that you go back to the bishops’ 2000 meeting and read every word. See for yourself whether the bishops had specific gun control measures. See for yourself whether they are the ones proposed by Prodigal.

Most of all, I suggest that one go back and see what has been posted about the morally binding nature of a USCCB resolution or individual bishop’s opinion. Look at what the Canon Law, which governs not only the bishops but us as well, says about it. It’s all in these posts.

Don’t accept what either Prodigal Son or I say about it. Read the actual documents for yourself.

If, after doing so, there is still any confusion in your mind (which I doubt there will be) talk it over with a priest.

This thread seems identical to the one on the Kentucky woman “ordained”. Both have one poster defending the indefensible and regardless of the mounds of evidence provided to them they remain intentionally obtuse.

 

[Gricken]

La poudre aux yeux.

As you shift from the 2000 text to Bp Blaire’s letter and try to pretend there’s some mystery about “unanimous” and “2/3” and all that, you’re the source of any confusion here, not me. The fact that everybody else seems to have abandoned the thread really does confirm that these posts are simply repetitive.

But I’m not going to let you get away with representing that the bishops of the U.S. have issued any morally binding mandate on U.S. Catholics supporting your position or Obama’s, either one. I’ll return to it until you quit saying it or the moderators shut it down, whichever happens first. The only difference is that you seem to have a lot more time on here than I do. But very well, I’ll come back.

The bishops of the U.S. have NEVER issued a mandatory moral instruction to Catholics about gun control. Never. And certainly not what you propose.

You don’t want to defend your proposal as “sensible”. So don’t. Point abandoned.

 

[Tigg]

La poudre aux yeux.

As you shift from the 2000 text to Bp Blaire’s letter and try to pretend there’s some mystery about “unanimous” and “2/3” and all that, you’re the source of any confusion here, not me. The fact that everybody else seems to have abandoned the thread really does confirm that these posts are simply repetitive.

But I’m not going to let you get away with representing that the bishops of the U.S. have issued any morally binding mandate on U.S. Catholics supporting your position or Obama’s, either one. I’ll return to it until you quit saying it or the moderators shut it down, whichever happens first. The only difference is that you seem to have a lot more time on here than I do. But very well, I’ll come back.

**The bishops of the U.S. have NEVER issued a mandatory moral instruction to Catholics about gun control. Never. And certainly not what you propose.
**
You don’t want to defend your proposal as “sensible”. So don’t. Point abandoned.

I don’t think anyone has abandoned this thread, RR - I know I’m still reading every post. It contains much needed information and is one of the best on this issue. You never know when a lurker or the misinformed will catch some bit of information that will bring understanding where there was once confusion caused by ambiguity in statements issued by the prelates.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This thread seems identical to the one on the Kentucky woman “ordained”. Both have one poster defending the indefensible and regardless of the mounds of evidence provided to them they remain intentionally obtuse.

The mounds of evidence seem to be the bishops supporting measures to control the sale and use of firearms, and regulations on handguns. But when the evidence piles up, speak against the posters.

What is missing, is any bishop that denies support for gun controls and actually supports uncontrolled gun rights.

 

[pnewton]

This thread seems identical to the one on the Kentucky woman “ordained”. Both have one poster defending the indefensible and regardless of the mounds of evidence provided to them they remain intentionally obtuse.

There are mounds of evidence for both sides. Evidence is not lacking. I had dropped out because I had nothing new to say. Just because more people want to talk in circles on one side than the other indicates nothing. One does not decide an issue based on who yells the loudest.

“Obtuse” assumes that you are right to begin with and thus begs the question.

Now you can return to your thumb-upping each other.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There are mounds of evidence for both sides. Evidence is not lacking. I had dropped out because I had nothing new to say. Just because more people want to talk in circles on one side than the other indicates nothing. One does not decide an issue based on who yells the loudest.

“Obtuse” assumes that you are right to begin with and thus begs the question.

Now you can return to your thumb-upping each other.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.