Yes, dispite the new format.
A blessed Thanksgiving to you, Leaf
Yes, dispite the new format.
I always ignore those who use the word “implying.” Almost all the time it is used as an excuse to twist another’s words and rephrase what was said into what was not said to suit the agenda at hand. If what is said cannot be rationally discussed, speaking of what was implied is just sound and fury.
God, as a teacher I would not want students carrying guns at school. Then again there are times as a teacher when it is probably not such a good idea for me to have one either.
I speculate if a school allowed staff to carry, it would reside in a lock box, perhaps in their desk. Not on their hip.
That would make sense. I think though that I would probably prefer not to be the one responsible for minding a gun. That being said, in the unlikely event of a tragedy happening, I would probably regret not having it. It is a complicated issue.
lol. you certainly don’t want to do something that will look bad on your resume
hahaha Tell me abucs, what are your class management skills like. ummmm, well…
I love Kindergarten Cop myself.
Thanks, good point about “implying”.
You really need to make distinctions between political issues with and without moral content. If there is a moral question involved, such as all the issues you mentioned, then comments from the bishops are justified. Where their comments are (generally) inappropriate are when the issues do not involve moral decisions, such as gun control.
As I have said before, issues with moral content and issues involving prudential judgement are not mutually exclusive.
This is true, a truth contained in my comment that some issues are both political and moral. The question here, however, is the appropriateness of comments from the bishops on those issues have only political content. Gun control, for example.
Some of us reject the notion that gun regulation has only political content.
Then I guess we (including the bishops) disagree with you that gun control has no moral content.
That is your opinion, not theirs, not mine. That is why we read phrases like, “when used with an evil purpose,” and “Society must recognize that the common good…”
Yes, clearly. The question is though, what moral question is involved in determining what the best course of action should be to control gun violence? That is a practical concern, not a moral one.
I keep asking someone, anyone, to identify what that moral content would be. This is in fact one of my chief objections to the bishops’ involvement in political issues: it implies a moral judgment where in fact none exists.
OK, so this is the third person in a row to imply there is moral content in the issue of gun control, and the third person to fail to identify what that would be. The question is not whether guns are “used with an evil purpose” - of course they can be - the question is what to do about it. Nor are generic appeals to the “common good” meaningful when the debate is precisely how best to achieve it.
These objections simply confirm my assertion: no one has identified a single moral choice involved in determining the best gun control policy which is a strong indication that one (moral choice) does not exist.
When only lip service is given to “achieving it” (a reduction in gun violence) that is a moral issue. Of course no one can judge another’s intentions with certainty. But it is possible for someone to argue against gun control because they are primarily interested in preserving gun rights rather than solving the problem you claim everyone is trying to solve. In fact, if you read the responses in this forum, you see that most of the comments against gun control are of that sort. Pointing out that trying to reduce gun violence is a higher moral priority than maintaining the right to own a gun under a wide range of circumstances is a valid moral point to be made.
To prove that gun control can work I only have to look at passenger air travel. Guns are strictly prohibited and there are virtually zero murders or suicides on airplanes.
The bishops are showing some woeful ignorance when it comes to firearms. Their support of a ban on “high capacity” magazines of 10 rounds or more is particularly stultified. Maybe they need to focus on their flocks, rather than a what amounts to partisan politics.