5. Being a billionaire doesn't preclude someone from being stupid.
4. And I don't think stupid people should run for president.
3. When "Today's sacrifice to the Gun Cult" becomes your schtik, and hours after a tragic shooting, probably by an ill person, I don't listen to you anymore. You certainly haven't respectfully interacted with anyone who values those rights, and--without being callous toward any unnecessary losses--might disagree. If I were going to make the same point, I would say: "Without prejudice to those who exercise their Constitutional rights articulated in the Second Amendment responsibly and without malice, I believe the sheer number of unnecessary deaths caused by firearms should prompt people such as myself to revisit the structure of the regulatory apparatus as currently constituted." Yes, it takes longer, and I make certain people unhappy anyway, but I have adopted the posture--in the very choice of my words--of listening, and certainly not insulting. I'm starting to make an argument, not having a moral spasm. I will call you out by name--again--if you don't knock it off. And you'd be the worst politician ever, by the way.
2. [Are you openly accusing Mark Shea of lacking certain virtues necessary for fruitful dialogue?--ed.] Yes. [Pot, meet kettle.--ed.] Point taken.
1. No, as a general rule, we Catholics don't view our architecture as "decadent." In fact, it's necessary to accomplish what's actually taking place in a church during Mass (or any other time). If you don't believe or understand any of those things, of course it will look ostentatious to you. But you don't have the right to expect that I won't call out that theological prior commitment when we discuss the matter, in my opinion.
4. And I don't think stupid people should run for president.
3. When "Today's sacrifice to the Gun Cult" becomes your schtik, and hours after a tragic shooting, probably by an ill person, I don't listen to you anymore. You certainly haven't respectfully interacted with anyone who values those rights, and--without being callous toward any unnecessary losses--might disagree. If I were going to make the same point, I would say: "Without prejudice to those who exercise their Constitutional rights articulated in the Second Amendment responsibly and without malice, I believe the sheer number of unnecessary deaths caused by firearms should prompt people such as myself to revisit the structure of the regulatory apparatus as currently constituted." Yes, it takes longer, and I make certain people unhappy anyway, but I have adopted the posture--in the very choice of my words--of listening, and certainly not insulting. I'm starting to make an argument, not having a moral spasm. I will call you out by name--again--if you don't knock it off. And you'd be the worst politician ever, by the way.
2. [Are you openly accusing Mark Shea of lacking certain virtues necessary for fruitful dialogue?--ed.] Yes. [Pot, meet kettle.--ed.] Point taken.
1. No, as a general rule, we Catholics don't view our architecture as "decadent." In fact, it's necessary to accomplish what's actually taking place in a church during Mass (or any other time). If you don't believe or understand any of those things, of course it will look ostentatious to you. But you don't have the right to expect that I won't call out that theological prior commitment when we discuss the matter, in my opinion.
Comments