Replies

What? Just because I asked him why he's so upset?

Yes, precisely that. It's almost a "stopped beating your wife" question, and even worse, in a way, because it diverts the conversation away from the matter at hand to the psychology of LB, which doesn't strike me as especially relevant. It seems calculated to put him on the defensive, which may help you win a logomachy, but won't necessarily advance reason or truth.

Actually what I said was that homicide is just as evil as lying (you put it the other way around -- is "just as evil" commutative?), and I probably should have said "at least as evil". You failed to change my mind, but you did change my language, so that ain't bad.

I am not a "recent" convert in normal uses of "recent". I converted over a decade ago. And I've been reading this stuff, off and on, since, Oh Lord help me, 1966 - so 40 years! Get me my Geritol! NOW!

But let me say this. If you paid attention to what I was saying, you would have seen that I was arguing against LB. My argument structure was:

There are times when killing humans is licit, though it is always an evil.
If you (in the the sense of "you, my interlocutor", not you yourself) want to argue that one should never lie under any circumstances, how much more would you have to argue that one should never kill a person under any circumstances?
And if you argue that, then your suggestion that it is licit to abort a person who cannot survive outside the womb without major techno-med stuff needs to be reexamined. Not to mention the possibility of a just war and all that.

I think Saint Paul cared several whits if he caused an agitation. It's not always bad to cause one, and not always good, and maybe not always good not to care one way or another. Outcomes matter a little, and the purpose of fighting is to win, or else it's perverse, I think. I disagree with LB about the outcome of this action, but I don't think he's off the wall with his concerns. The question of injury to justice in a deliberative assembly is tricky, I think. Just as a solider in the middle of combat probably ought to think as much has he can ab out the outcomes of his acts of bravery, so a legislator needs to consider if stretching the parliamentary rules here might lead to his being unable to act somewhere else.

I've been doing this a while. I make mistakes, sometimes in thought, often in expression. And often I don't have time to choose my words carefully. Now is one such time. I have to feed some animals then clean myself up to go to a friend's wake. So I may seem brusque or make an error -- like writing "just as" when I mean "at least as", and I hope we won't have to go into whether I have certain feelings, like being upset, and why I have them (too much coffee? not enough Glenlivet?) but can look at the case before us, which is, as far as I can tell: Whether or not Mr. Harvey done good.

I'm inclined to think he did. I just don't think it's a slam dunk.

It wasn't calculated to put him on the defensive, it was a valid question and an honest one.

Don't exactly know what you're getting at here, I quoted you verbatim from post #153. I copied and pasted your own words into the discussion between you and I.

If I didn't change your mind, are you saying that you are in disagreement with the Church? Please explain your position further.

I am not a "recent" convert in normal uses of "recent". I converted over a decade ago. And I've been reading this stuff, off and on, since, Oh Lord help me, 1966 - so 40 years! Get me my Geritol! NOW!

LOL!

Wow, I'm sorry about your friend. May God grant them eternal rest and may He give you comfort.