MAKING MORAL DECISIONS WHEN THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM ALLOWS FOR MORE THAN ONE MORAL CHOICE.
On Monday I took by third Covid-19 jab and a decision made of my own free will. Yesterday’s was the half dose Moderna jab called a booster shot. I’ve had no noticeable side effects from all three jabs.
However, I had a choice and our bishop hasn’t mandated the jab for priests or laity who wish to attend Mass. God forbid we’d require the laity to show their vaccine card!
But many laity don’t have the same freedom as I do in our diocese. Their employers are requiring the jab and allow almost no flexibility for religious exemption based on a decision of conscience about one’s health care.
This has always existed in the military. Active military and their dependents are required to take various vaccines, especially if traveling to third-world type places. As an army brat, we children had to be inoculated for various things in the 50’s and early 60’s even to travel to Europe. I had the small pox vaccine as a young child.
As it concerns the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, the pope has said that there is no moral objection to a Catholic taking these. Both Pope Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict have been inoculated.
But there are three or four guides for making a moral decision in areas where the Church allows for more than one choice.
When the person has moral or health concerns, such as the use of tissues from a child that was murdered in an abortion used in the manufacture of a drug or the side effects of a drug that might harm one’s sterility or compromise the health of a baby in the womb and her conception, the Catholic’s decision of conscience should follow these guidelines:
1. Take it to prayer
2. Receive pastoral guidance from someone in the Church, like one’s pastor or someone competent to offer spiritual and moral guidance.
3. Consult with one’s close family members and respected friends for their input.
4. One prayerfully makes the decision acknowledging the ramifications of the decision concerning one’s job, family and other concerns that go beyond the affect on the person himself.
For example, if a spouse looses his job for refusing to take the vaccine, that affects his family, their financial security and could cause a great upheaval in the family.
Or, if a pregnant mother who is diagnosed with cancer refuses treatment that might save her life but could take the life of the infant in her womb, she could die and leave her other young children in need of her care—technically she could make a moral decision to take the therapy even if it ended the pregnancy because the intent is not to kill the unborn child but to save the mother’s life—I’m not speaking of active abortion or abortifacients intended to end the life of an unborn child in this regard, but normal chemotherapy with possible deadly side affects.
It’s complex. But I chose my jab not only to protect my health as I turn 68 but also to protect others around me, my parishioners, from contracting Covid 19 from me.
And keep in mind, getting Covid could have some serious lifelong effects, such as juvenile diabetes, loss of hair, fatigue and even other life threatening consequences such as blood clots.
Loss of job is just one concern. One needs to be prepared for all the others issues in that decision of conscience.
35 comments:
You need not post this comment as it is addressed specifically to you.
The "vaccine", which is not a true vaccine utilizing dead virus, but instead a gene therapy which has not panned out for treatment of disease and showed high lethality and so remarketed in far lower doses for "vaccines" of far lower doses than normal theraputics (unless, of course, you have an endless series of "boosters"), has one known good effect.....it can moderate symptoms.
It does NOTHING to prevent infection or transmission, as shown in numerous studies in hospitals of fully vaccinated staff still becoming infected and transmitting the disease to others, vaccinated or not.
It also is showing to kill/maim magnitudes greater numbers of people than all other vaccines administered in the last 30yrs according to VAERS. VAERS is proven to undercount by magnitudes, as shown by numerous studies. The countries with highest vaccination rates also have had the highest infection rates.
Your hopes of protecting parishoners are entirely unfounded.
For those of us with auto-immune malfunctions where even normal cholesterol levels trigger inflammation of veins and arteries, loss of circulation, along with clots, taking a vaccine known to trigger such responses is nearly suicidal. And all to dodge only a POSSIBLE severe case, where my state has recorded between 15%-19% of hospitalized patients are fully vaccinated with another 4%-5% partially vaccinated. Meanwhile, I have dodged it to date simply by following original pre-mask CDC hygiene guidance.
Bob, this is a decision of your conscience all of which is non infallible in a number of areas, but it is your decision. Others, including me, have made other decisions of conscience. I have yet to offer funerals for anyone dying from side effects of the vaccine. I have had numerous Covid 19 related deaths/funerals.
Begging your pardon, Father, but I did not even mention matters of conscience. I simply stated facts as to the "vaccine" effectivity and dangers.
It moderates symptoms, and that is all it has done, at best, in most cases, while in the significant minority it surely is killing/maiming recipients. It does nothing to stop the pandemic. It simply allows asymptomatic carriers to thrive while providing an ideal breeding ground for further mutation around these "vaccines".
The truth of the matter is of vast importance in informing the conscience, though. Especially in the, "I am doing this to protect others" realm of consideration, which the true facts of the matter annihilates. It boils down simply to possibly protecting only one's self from severe illness, and that is ALL it does.
You are stating theories not facts. You have a right to your theories but no right to present them as facts.
No vaccine is 100% effective in preventing illness or preventing transmission. To say, "It does NOTHING to prevent infection or transmission..." is misleading. The vaccine DOES reduce significantly the likelihood of illness/transmission. (CDC.gov)
No vaccine works forecver without boosters, if necessary. (Plotkin, S.A., W.A. Orenstein, and P.A. Offit, Vaccines. 5th ed. 2008, Pennsylvania: Elsevier Inc)
The vaccine is a true vaccine. No, it is not a vaccine like earlier ones, but a Tesla is an automobile although it is highly unl;ike the Model T. But it is a vaccine.
The VAERS data does not support the claim that the covid vaccine causes more deaths, "...than all other vaccines administered in the last 30yrs." (https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-usa/fact-check-vaers-data-does-not-suggest-covid-19-vaccines-killed-150000-people-as-analysis-claims-idUSL1N2R00KP)
15%-19% of my state's hospitalized covid patients being fully vaccinated is not theory.
Studies of health care facilities in Vietnam and Israel proving fully vaccinated staff catching AND transmitting (with DNA studies tracing the infections) to both vaccinated and unvaccinated is not a theory.
Countries with highest vaccination rates having highest infection rates with variants is not a theory.
Fr. K,
Also not sharing the common cup and holding hands at Mass reduces covid risk
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... The vaccine DOES reduce significantly the likelihood of illness/transmission. (CDC.gov)
The problem with this statement is that there is no way to test its veracity.
The only way to compare, with any accuracy, whether the vaccine reduces significantly the likelihood of illness/transmission is to compare results from the same person in a vaccinated status and an unvaccinated status.
But once a person is vaccinated, you cannot know what that person would have done in an unvaccinated situation. Likewise, if an unvaccinated person develops COVID, you would never know the results if that person had been vaccinated because it is a fact that COVID can be contracted under either scenario.
Likewise, it cannot be demonstrated, with any certainty, how, or from whom, a person contracts COVID, so it can never be known whether the vaccine is of any benefit, one way or another.
It makes zero sense to compare one person with a different person. That does not give any information as to the effectiveness of a vaccine because you're comparing apples with oranges.
My cousin and her husband were fully vaccinated; both developed COVID. The news is replete with people who are fully vaccinated but are still coming down with COVID.
And it's not possible to say, one way or another, whether they were less ill as a result of the vaccine. How can anyone say that with any certainty?
There would be only one way to determine that, and that is, to take that same person and allow that person to get COVID while unvaccinated. But it's not possible to "unvaccinate" someone and then infect them with the very same thing, under the exact same circumstances.
The bottom line: There is no way to empirically test the truthfulness of the statement. It's conjecture at best.
Thank you for posting about this, Father McDonald.
Asserting theories rather than facts is one part of the problem and is dangerous.
Admitted facts, taken out of context, is another. This is also dangerous.
I don’t blame people like Bob who are misled. I blame those media and political types who mislead. People like Tucker Carlson, for example!
This said, yes, of course, we should try to be as objective and impartial as possible in evaluating all relevant information.
I always trust government agencies to tell me the truth. And when trusted experts in social media go to so much trouble to make sure any "untruths" are censored from public view, I KNOW that they have only my best interests in mind.
DJR:
Perhaps I am especially obtuse on the subject, but I need you to help me understand your argument. Specifically, I need help understanding why the argument doesn't apply to the flu vaccine—or indeed, to any vaccine for that matter (except, presumably, those that guarantee 100% against infection).
Also, if the CDC has a contrary view, is it your position that they must be ignorant people who do not have your advanced understanding, or worse, just liars?
And are these findings from the Texas Department of Health also baloney?
Key Findings
1. From September 4 through October 1, 2021:
• Unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to become infected with COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
• Unvaccinated people were 20 times more likely to experience COVID-19-associated
death than fully vaccinated people.
2. Vaccination had a strong protective effect on infections and deaths among people of all ages. The protective impact on infections was consistent across adult age groups and even greater in people ages 12 to 17 years. The protective impact on COVID-19 deaths, which was high for all age groups, varied more widely. In the September time frame, unvaccinated people in their 40s were 55 times more likely to die from COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated people of the same age. Unvaccinated people aged 75 years and older were 12 times more likely to die than their vaccinated counterparts.
3. Overall, regardless of vaccination status, people in Texas were four to five times more likely to become infected with COVID-19 or suffer a COVID-19-associated death while the Delta variant was prevalent in Texas (August 2021) compared with a period before the Delta variant became prevalent (April 2021).
See https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/Cases-and-Deaths-by-Vaccination-Status-11082021.pdf
Mark,
Tucker Carlson APPEARS to be far more successful than you, but because he is a conservative you are attacking him. Why don't you tell us what you think about one of your fellow travelers at Rutgers "University." You may have a lot in common with her:
Rutgers University faculty groups are standing behind Dr. Brittney Cooper, the professor who warns white people are “villains.”
Black and brown people happily co-existed and sailed around the world until whites came along and destroyed the world with violence, Cooper told left-wing rag The Root in September.
“White people showed up being raggedy and violent and terrible and trying to take everything from everybody,” the 41-year-old tenured professor argued. “White people are committed to being villains.”"We gotta take these MF'ers out."
Please explain why Rutgers has not fired this racist loon or why you support her. Cheers
Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles recently said:
"In your society and mine, the “space” that the Church and believing Christians are permitted to occupy is shrinking. Church institutions and Christian-owned businesses are increasingly challenged and harassed. The same is true for Christians working in education, health care, government, and other sectors. Holding certain Christian beliefs is said to be a threat to the freedoms, and even to the safety, of other groups in our societies.
"One more point of context. We all noticed the dramatic social changes in our societies with the coming of the coronavirus and the way our government authorities responded to the pandemic.
"I think history will look back and see that this pandemic did not change our societies as much as it accelerated trends and directions that were already at work. Social changes that might have taken decades to play out, are now moving more rapidly in the wake of this disease and our societies’ responses."
Our institutions are not reliable or credible any longer. Am I calling them liars? Yes, if it is in their interest to do so and the interests of those who seek to accumulate power and arrogate it to themselves is more than obvious. Likewise, any voices of dissent are met with instant attempts to either silence or discredit and the "public marketplace" of ideas is suppressed under the banner of "protecting the public" in this crisis. The end result is most people don't know who to believe. Given the equation of the obvious power grab, I tend to give more credibility to the voices of dissent.
You fellows can debate this until you turn blue, but you will reach no conclusions and resolve nothing. Our rights as citizens under our Constitution are a roadblock to a bigger agenda and, make no mistake, those rights WILL be taken away and quickly. The experiment of freedom is over.
DJR said, "Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... The vaccine DOES reduce significantly the likelihood of illness/transmission. (CDC.gov) The problem with this statement is that there is no way to test its veracity."
Yes, there is. The process is called clinical trials.
Here's one that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine: "Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine." The conclusion: "A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines."
Here's the link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577
The results of hundreds of clinical trials have been published.
And before Jerome Merwick jumps in and says "Ya can't trust NOBODY, especially the GUBMINT!" consider that every drug you take - ibuprofen, Pepcid, Lipitor, Albuterol, Plavix, etc., has been tested in the same way. If you take any FDA approved drug, why the consternation over the Covid vaccine that has been thoroughly tested in the same manner?
DJR said, "My cousin and her husband were fully vaccinated; both developed COVID. The news is replete with people who are fully vaccinated but are still coming down with COVID."
This is NOTHING NEW, nor is it specific to the Covid vaccine. There have ALWAYS and with EVERY vaccine been some few people who, despite being vaccinated, contract the disease.
If you get the tetanus vaccine, you still have a 4% chance of getting lockjaw.
If you get the polio vaccine there is a 1% chance you will get polio.
If you get a mumps vaccination you still have a 10% chance of getting ill.
We KNOW this about vaccines. We've known this about vaccines since vaccines were invented.
In his speech, Archbishop Gomez also makes this observation, relevant to the intemperate rantings of the "professor" at Rutgers University:
"...there is another story out there today — a rival “salvation” narrative that we hear being told in the media and in our institutions by the new social justice movements. What we might call the “woke” story goes something like this:
"We cannot know where we came from, but we are aware that we have interests in common with those who share our skin color or our position in society. We are also painfully aware that our group is suffering and alienated, through no fault of our own. The cause of our unhappiness is that we are victims of oppression by other groups in society. We are liberated and find redemption through our constant struggle against our oppressors, by waging a battle for political and cultural power in the name of creating a society of equity."
"Today’s critical theories and ideologies are profoundly atheistic. They deny the soul, the spiritual, transcendent dimension of human nature; or they think that it is irrelevant to human happiness. They reduce what it means to be human to essentially physical qualities — the color of our skin, our sex, our notions of gender, our ethnic background, or our position in society."
Yet prominent black Catholics like Father Bryan Massingale takes offense at the archbishop's words by countering:
""On the contrary, most Black Catholics I know advocate Black Lives Matter precisely because of our belief in the universal human dignity of all people as images of God," Massingale added. "We declare that Black Lives Matter precisely because of our allegiance to what the archbishop calls the Christian story."
In case you are missing the point here--BLM makes no attempt to hide their Marxist sympathies--nay, their Marxist agenda--completely inimical to Catholic thought. It founders are three lesbian women, one of whom has openly boasted of her occult practices. Their website (unless it has been scrubbed) boasts of their dedication to erasing the nuclear family.
It matters little what "most Catholics" think, if they are not thinking with the mind of the Church. We have seen the same appeal used to justify support of the LGBTQRSTLMNOP agenda: "Most Catholics I know don't have a problem with it."
However the entire "woke" ethos is based not on only granting special status to a perceived group of "victims" but also demonizing another race as evil. This is not the message of Jesus. This is not the message of the Church. And this ignorant "professor" is unwittingly practicing the very kind of prejudice that she believes is so evil, once again proving the old adage, "You become what you hate."
What I find particularly sickening is that most of the faculty is blindly supporting her.
We HAVE lost our Christian way of thinking. Everything now is reduced to a Marxist dialectic of the powerful v. the powerless in an endless struggle. That does not reflect the mind of Jesus Christ or His mission.
Clinical trials are definitely important in the research and development of pharmaceuticals. In fact, the average cost of putting a new drug on the market is well over a billion dollars, just for that reason alone.
However, besides the obvious (and unmentioned in this venue so far) fact that this is not a vaccine in the traditional sense, but a trigger for genetic action within the body (which alone should give the average consumer pause), the clinical trials we have heard about, no doubt have glowing results as the good Father has reported.
BUT...
A recently published stwudy found that only 45% of the clinical trials have released their results to the public. To quote more specifically:
41% had provided only top-level results via a press release or press conference, with the full data not made available for media scrutiny or academic review.
Clinical trial protocols had been published for just 12% of trials. There were no publicly accessible protocols for 88% of the registered trials in our analysis and therefore no way of knowing the conditions under which they were carried out.
FURTHER:
Analysis of 183 contracts for 12 different COVID-19 vaccines reveals:
Only 7% of vaccine contracts between developers and governments were published through official channels.
Just one contract (0.5%) was published without redactions. Most feature entire pages of redactions that obscure information of critical public interest.
There are large disparities in the price paid. For the Oxford/Astra-Zeneca-developed vaccine, upper-middle income economies like South Africa are paying an average of 25% more per dose than high-income economies like the European Union.
No doubt, those who are eager to align themselves with the Great Resetters and the All Benevelont Republocrats managing America's decline and the rise of Globalism will enthusiastically encourage us to just shut up, stop asking questions and demonize us for our hesitancy. Mark Zuckerberg is making sure we don't get too mouthy with our objections.
Clincial trials. Yep, they're great when we actually get the full story.
In this case, don't hold your breath.
For the record, if anyone suspects me of "cutting and pasting" some of the information in my last post, I DID.
The source was Transparency International Global Health.
I am sure one of our reliable leftists will discredit the research or the organization by pointing out how it must obviously be funded by some sort of "right-wing extremist" group.
If that fails, they can accuse me of being a white supremacist, or some other trick from their broken-record litany of misery.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...DJR said, "Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... The vaccine DOES reduce significantly the likelihood of illness/transmission. (CDC.gov) The problem with this statement is that there is no way to test its veracity."
Yes, there is. The process is called clinical trials.
Father: This answer lacks critical thinking, and I'll use my vaccinated cousins as an example.
1. My cousin and her husband were both "fully vaccinated."
2. Both of them contracted COVID after being fully vaccinated.
3. You have no idea how long after they were vaccinated that they contracted COVID. Was it a day, a week, a month? They weren't testing themselves daily after being vaccinated, so how in the world is it possible to know that?
4. You also have no idea whether they transmitted the virus to other people after they were vaccinated, and, if so, to how many others, nor do you know whether those others, if there were any, were vaccinated or unvaccinated.
And neither does anyone else in this world know that. No "clinical trial" has ever shown such a thing, nor could it possibly show that.
And that's the point.
For those who hang their hats on clinical trials, I would test their reliance on such things by stating the following. Please show, using the data you find relevant from clinical trials, that my cousins:
A. Were somehow less sick by being vaccinated. (How in the world could you show that unless you were to test my two cousins specifically, and how can you now unvaccinate them to run an empirical study?)
B. Did not transmit the virus to others after being vaccinated.
C. If they transmitted the virus to others, whether any of the others were vaccinated or unvaccinated.
D. If they transmitted the vaccine to others, how sick those others got, regardless of vaccination status.
Multiply this scenario by millions of people, and that gives you the value of "clinical trials."
We know for a fact that vaccinated people can die from COVID; we also know for a fact that unvaccinated people, the overwhelming majority in fact, survive.
Mark said...DJR: Perhaps I am especially obtuse on the subject, but I need you to help me understand your argument.
Please see my answer to Father Kavanaugh.
DJR:
Just compare the outcomes of those who unvaccinated and vaccinated who contract Covid-19. Look at statistics for hospitalizations, ICUs, and death among the two groups. As I understand it, this is the sort of comparison done by the Texas Department of Health.
How sick did your cousins become? Our vaccinated son and one of my wife’s vaccinated daughters both contracted Covid—our daughter because she took an immunosuppressant medication and contracted Covid before her booster; our son, probably because he was working out in the relatively small enclosed gym in his apartment complex and some other patron, coughing and spluttering, also exercised, inconsiderately, without wearing a mask or, better yet, staying away (yes, I am angry that he did that and likely made our son sick). But neither of them got very sick, neither was hospitalized, etc. But I fear what might have happened without the vaccine. Of course, I can’t prove the point with a clinical trial. I guess, for me, it just comes down to good old common sense! We do remember common sense, don’t we?
As I made clear in an earlier thread, I will no longer go down TJM’s distracting and diversionary rabbit holes, such as the one he dug on this thread about some Rutgers professor.
As for TJM’s childish jibe about “success,” surely you jest sir? But at least he said “appears.” A moment’s reflection about what is truly important in life should dispose of any illusions about worldly success quite handily, I would think, especially on a Catholic blog. For what doth it profit a man, etc.? Or to adapt Robert Bolt’s Thomas More in Man for All Seasons, “But for ratings, Tucker, for ratings?”
By the way, how did we become such a nation of whiners? Back in the day, like when we were in school (or today, in the military), you lined up and got your jab, no ifs, ands, or buts (pun intended -:)).
Those “on the right” complain about the whining of Wokism. Fair enough. But they should look in the mirror or, better yet, just listen to themselves whining about having to get a vaccine or, horror of horrors, having to wear a mask. Good grief. What_would_we do if we had to experience the sort of thing our parents and grandparents had to deal with in the Second World War?
Perhaps we all need to just grow up (I include myself of course).
I have some facts as to the dangers of the gene therapy they are calling a vaccine.
I grew up in a family of four. The other three were "vaccinated," and two of them nearly died.
My younger brother was in the hospital a day and a half after getting the shot with severe leg pain. He had a deep vein thrombotic embolism that would have killed him if he hadn't gone to the hospital when he did. This happened months ago, and he is still on blood thinners.
My dad started acting a bit senile after receiving his second dose. Mom thought it was age, but my brother knew otherwise. Dad finally allowed my brother to take him to the ER. Dad was admitted because he had almost no red blood cells. He had twenty blood transfusions over the next few weeks to keep him alive.
Dad had a robust response to his first shot. After his second shot, his body made the spike protein in his bone marrow, and his immunity attacked the spike protein before it left his marrow, which severely damaged it. That is why he didn't have enough red blood cells. He has had chemo to get rid of his damaged cells, allowing the undamaged cells to replicate unimpeded. He is now on the mend.
I do NOT plan to get the shot. My decision is based on actual science. Science does not throw away data that does not fit the desired outcome. Social media is hiding information about deaths and injuries and calls them lies. Every post I've made concerning my family's experience has been removed from other social media sites. My dad's 86 year old sister got the virus, and she was fine a week later. I'll take my chances.
"I will no longer go down TJM’s distracting and diversionary rabbit holes..."
You just did.
Carol:
I am very sorry that your dad and younger brother had those horrific experiences. No wonder you are nervous about getting the vaccine. Given the family history, it is perfectly understandable. In such circumstances, no whining is involved. And it is totally unacceptable for a social media site to “censor” you in the way you describe!
It is known that the vaccines can cause blot clots in rare instances (rare comparatively, that is). I have not heard about the red blood cells. It is known that there can rarely be an issue with platelets, also made in the bone marrow. Could it have been platelets in your dad’s case, and not red blood cells?
Jerome Merwick,
No, I did not, I just pointed to them. There is a big difference. I hope you know that when you next see a rabbit hole in the woods. -:)
DJR - First, clinical trials are essential and of great value. If you doubt the validity of such trials, you must immediately stop taking any medications that have been approved via that lengthy and careful process. If, on the other hand, you are just blowing smoke about the Covid vaccine, keep taking the drugs.
Second, clinical trials for the Covid vaccine are not about the effect the vaccine will have on your relatives. Clinical trials have shown that the vaccine is safe and effective. Is it 100% effective? No, no vaccine is. Is it 100% safe, meaning that no one at any time anywhere wll have an adverse reaction? No. If that is your expectation then the fault lies with you, not the trials.
Carol H - Is there ANY evidence that the Covid vaccine caused your brother's embolism? While there is evidence of "extremely rare" occurances of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, are there not a dozen or more other causes that might be suspected?
I ask the same question about your dad's difficulties. Over 80 years of age, there is a 50-50 chance that a person will develop significant, measurable dementia. Maybe it is age.
If you are basing your choice of science, don't base it on assumptions or on the fallacy of assuming a link between correlation and causality.
Hundreds of millions have been vaccinated with minimal or no adverse reactions.
My booster is scheduled for 16 November.
Mark,
LOL. You are much like Mark Thomas. You avoid inconvenient facts, like the one I pointed about a racist professor at Rutgers who is clearly a member of the Party of Intrinsic Evil like you and your fellow travelers in "academia." Calling it a "rabbit hole" does not relieve you of your moral responsibility. You and Father K would have been good little soldiers in the Germany of the 1930s. Independent thought escapes you. Agenda Uber Alles.
TJM will have to find someone else to play his childish Trumpian games with. Here is what I posted in my FINAL reply to TJM in the other thread to which I referred. Apparently, he did not understand that I meant it:
“Father Kavanaugh said I had more patience with you than he had. I don’t know whether that is true. What I do know is that I have come to the end of mine. I am done with you. You do not discuss in good faith, and there is not point conversing with someone who acts in bad faith. I have never in my life encountered anyone who is as biased and partisan as you. I will no longer go down ridiculous distracting rabbit holes with you or respond to your absurd accusations. As I said before, I cannot believe you are a member of the legal profession, except for the fact that anything is possible it seems. For example, some other members of the profession who carried water for Trump are now in serious trouble and under investigation by the state bar authorities for their apparent disgraceful lying, misrepresentations, and abuse of the judicial process. . . .
I have now reached the point Father Kavanaugh reached some time ago and am done with you. To quote your own phrase, I am no longer in the mood for your nonsense.”
I meant it.
Mark,
You cannot respond because I generally place inconvenient facts in front of you, just like I do with Father K. I do not allow you nor Father K to get away with the nonsense you post. You are like most professors, incapable of seeing another point of view and you are not accustomed to being challenged. You are a good little leftist and Obama Cult member.
Mark,
When you have no arguments, you avoid them. Unlike you, I was a partner in an international law firm where people paid a $1000 an hour for my advice. What is the going rate for faculty, armchair lawyers?
By way of additional explanation, the second paragraph quoted in my previous post had another sentence in it, completing the premise for my decision. It read in full:
“So, once again my attempt to engage in reasonable and rational conversation is thwarted. It is pointless, so as I said I have now reached the point Father Kavanaugh reached some time ago and am done with you. To quote your own phrase, I am no longer in the mood for your nonsense.”
Like Plato’s Thrasymachus, TJM can thrash about all he wants. The fact remains that he does not engage in good faith reasonable and rational conversation, and so any direct response to him is pointless.
If TJM was indeed what he says he was, then all I can say is that I hope he starts acting like it here on this Blog. If he does, I will reengage with him. If he does not, but continues his usual antics, then what I wrote as my FINAL communication to him will stand.
As for the “my ____ is bigger than yours” comment, it is my experience that only those who are insecure feel the need to engage in such Trumpian strutting around and chest thumping.
Post a Comment