It says self-defense is morally acceptable. It does not say “guns are pro-life”. In fact, I can’t seem to find the word “guns” in there anywhere.
First, I did not say that the CCC mentioned guns, so you are setting up a straw man in place of what I actually said.
Second, guns would be one way to “deal a lethal blow,” or do you disagree with that? The CCC fails to tell us whether “lethal blow” includes only fists, elbows or knees, knives, baseball bats, guns, or whatever. You are the one who brought up the idea about guns ending a life – that is, IMO, a “lethal blow.” If you don’t agree, that’s fine with me because you are arguing minutia with me, which is a tipoff that your argument has no substance.
Perhaps you can write an addendum to the CCC that delineates precisely what type of “lethal blow” is and is not acceptable for self-defense.
Nope, can’t find “aggressor” in there either. It says that one is “bound” to take more care of one’s own life than “another’s”. But on your interpretation that would mean stepping in front of a bullet to save my child would get me damned to hell.
No, not on my interpretation. My interpretation was to use the term “aggressor” in place of “another,” specifically to avoid your interpreting that CCC as saying what you’re claiming I said. It is your interpretation of the CCC, not my term, that would mean dying to save a child sends us to hell. Score: me:2, you:0
I ignore all references to Hitler and Nazism in Internet discussions because aside from the fact that they are generally intended to incite rather than enlighten, they are with but rare exception (no, you’re not one) nothing but ad hominem attacks.
How can I believe you on things we can’t see when you prevaricate here where we can see it? First of all, the first reference I saw to Hitler and Nazism was yours. When I commented on it, you have now responded. So your statement that you “ignore all references to Hitler and Nazism” is not only inoperative, you are actively injecting those things into the conversation. :whacky:
Me: 3, you:0
Nazi comparisons are so overused,
Then why are YOU making them?
Me: 3.5, you:0
argumentum ad Nazium". Google Godwin’s Law while you’re at it.
Let’s look at some of the other things Hitler, at one time or another, believed:
The sun rises in the east.
Germany is in Europe.
One plus one is two.
Hitler, by some accounts, was a vegetarian.
He enjoyed movies.
He was a teetotaler and non-smoker.
Hitler was raised Catholic.
Better start hitting the bars, breaking out the cigars, getting up on the west side of your bed – and by all means, stay away from the Catholic Church! Wouldn’t want to be caught agreeing with Hitler, doncha know?
Well, I’m intrigued that you are spending as much time on Hitler as you are, seeing as you “ignore all references” to him.
Finally, your assertion that sharing any beliefs at all with Hitler is akin to sharing a belief on the strategy he used to do what he is infamous for doing, is without any consequence whatsoever. Me:4, you:0.
I wish the score were closer; this is too easy. And really I’m trying to give you points for making points, but thus far you haven’t come close enough to even round it up to 0.1.
If you just have a “bad feeling” about guns, why don’t you just say so instead of trying to argue a point with illogic?
Alan
