75 year old chess tutor fights off knife wielding man intent on killing children

[laughing dog]

Stop evading the question with these idiotic strawmen. I will repeat it again:
if a 75 old chess tutor can disarm a knife-wielding homicidal 19 year old, why shouldn't society expect a trained and professional police officer to be able to disarm such people without killing them?

Repeating a wife-beater question doesn't change the situation.

It is not a "wife beater" question. And I do agree that repeating it does not change the situation of your refusal to answer it. The utter nonsense you throw up in order to evade answering it is truly revealing.

You are making two assumptions here:

1) That any injuries he suffered in the process are unimportant.

2) That he could do this virtually 100% of the time.

I am making neither of those assumptions. IMO, those type of injuries are part of the risk of being a police officer. If a 75 year volunteer chess tutor is willing to risk those injuries (or worse) to save 16 children and not kill the assailant, why shouldn't society expect a professional and trained police officer to do so the same in those circumstances?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Repeating a wife-beater question doesn't change the situation. You are making two assumptions here:

1) That any injuries he suffered in the process are unimportant.

2) That he could do this virtually 100% of the time.

Loren, no one has suggested that the same outcome would happen if this incident were repeated 100 times.

No one has suggested that the injuries the older man suffered are not important .

You're just making stuff up.

No, you're not thinking through the implications.

If either of the assumptions are false then shooting would be the right course of action rather than taking him on hand-to-hand.

- - - Updated - - -

2. Unarmed patrol officers backing off and leaving matters for "armed units" would have been an excellent choice in the majority of cases we see in the USA. Examples: Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Deven Guilford - all would be alive if the initial responding officers were not armed with guns.

And how many innocents would die because the cops couldn't apprehend violent suspects?

- - - Updated - - -

Repeating a wife-beater question doesn't change the situation.

It is not a "wife beater" question. And I do agree that repeating it does not change the situation of your refusal to answer it. The utter nonsense you throw up in order to evade answering it is truly revealing.

She's still got a black eye.

You are making two assumptions here:

1) That any injuries he suffered in the process are unimportant.

2) That he could do this virtually 100% of the time.

I am making neither of those assumptions. IMO, those type of injuries are part of the risk of being a police officer. If a 75 year volunteer chess tutor is willing to risk those injuries (or worse) to save 16 children and not kill the assailant, why shouldn't society expect a professional and trained police officer to do so the same in those circumstances?

Because if they were required to run such risks few would sign up for the job.

 

[Bomb#20]

Oh, wait, are you suggesting there's something wrong with gratuitously calling another poster a bloodthirsty racist based on nothing but one's own imagination?

Again: WTF.

Seriously.

Not what I did so I don't know why you are trying to cram feet into that pair of shoes unless you feel fairly confident of the fit.

It is exactly what you did. I don't know why you think you're going to accomplish anything by insisting on your innocence. The people reading your words aren't jurors; they're witnesses. Post #18 is not going away. You called a number of your fellow posters "wannabe cowboys who are so so so certain that what is really needed is more guns to kill more people, especially scary people like brown people and mentally ill people". This was your response to other posters' approval of a hypothetical police officer shooting a non-hypothetical white person. There was no possible reason for you to claim they "especially" want "brown people" killed other than to paint them as bloodthirsty racists. So quit trying to pretend you didn't do it. Don't do it again. Good god, why do you even need to be told this?

 

[Bomb#20]

Just look at the number of posters in this thread who explicitly (or implicitly through an attempt with moronic sarcasm) would excuse a trained police officer shooting this assailant.

I recognize that calling counterarguments "moronic" is more up your alley than actually refuting them; but exactly what is it you think I got wrong? Were you not arguing that if a police officer finds himself in that situation he ought to let the man stab him in two of his arteries when that's what it takes to avoid shooting him? If that's not the position you're arguing for, what the heck is the point of your thread? Please clarify.

Or do you mean that is what you're arguing, but I'm wrong to point out that that's not what American cops signed up for?

 

[laughing dog]

She's still got a black eye.

Why are you still babbling about this?

Because if they were required to run such risks few would sign up for the job.

And your basis for this claim is....?

 

[laughing dog]

I recognize that calling counterarguments "moronic" is more up your alley than actually refuting them; but exactly what is it you think I got wrong? Were you not arguing that if a police officer finds himself in that situation he ought to let the man stab him in two of his arteries when that's what it takes to avoid shooting him? If that's not the position you're arguing for, what the heck is the point of your thread? Please clarify.

I did not call any counterargument "moronic". I did charitably refer to your strawman as an implicit argument. Since you saw no reason to actually address anything that was actually written, I saw no reason to rebut that nonsense.

A 75 volunteer (i.e he works for free) chess tutor disarmed a homicidal knife wielding 19 year old without regard to his safety in order to protect his charges . Yes, he received some injuries. Now, I would think that a younger, more fit, professional and trained police officer should be expected to disarm that same person without the same risk of injury. An injury is always a risk for a police man in just about every situation, but we do not expect them to start shooting in just about every situation. So, I would think it was obvious to even the most obtuse that I was arguing that these types of situations that the "kill first" option is not expected. I would think that was obvious, but I apologize for presuming some basic reasoning skills.

Or do you mean that is what you're arguing, but I'm wrong to point out that that's not what American cops signed up for?

I didn't realize that you were a spokesperson for the US police force. When did you get that position?

 

[laughing dog]

Again: WTF.

Seriously.

Not what I did so I don't know why you are trying to cram feet into that pair of shoes unless you feel fairly confident of the fit.

It is exactly what you did. I don't know why you think you're going to accomplish anything by insisting on your innocence. The people reading your words aren't jurors; they're witnesses. Post #18 is not going away. You called a number of your fellow posters "wannabe cowboys who are so so so certain that what is really needed is more guns to kill more people, especially scary people like brown people and mentally ill people". This was your response to other posters' approval of a hypothetical police officer shooting a non-hypothetical white person. There was no possible reason for you to claim they "especially" want "brown people" killed other than to paint them as bloodthirsty racists.

The term is "scary people like brown people and mentally ill people". One does not have to a bloodthirsty racist to be afraid of scary people like brown people. So there is no logical basis for your accusations. Just stop embarrassing yourself with these baseless accusations.

 

[bilby]

2. Unarmed patrol officers backing off and leaving matters for "armed units" would have been an excellent choice in the majority of cases we see in the USA. Examples: Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Deven Guilford - all would be alive if the initial responding officers were not armed with guns.

And how many innocents would die because the cops couldn't apprehend violent suspects?

Well, it's obviously a total mystery. If only there was a developed nation where police are not routinely armed that we could look at, to see how many more innocents die at the hands of violent criminals; and how many violent suspects are allowed to go free because police are incapable of apprehending them.

Oh, wait, we do.

And the average UK citizen does not live in fear of being stabbed or shot. Not even by the police! And not ONE violent offender is allowed to go free by the police due to their inability to apprehend them. It never happens.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That story is irrelevant - the pastor is not a trained police officer.

If a 75 year old man can disable an assailant while putting himself in danger, then so can a presumably well-trained police officer. The mindset implicit in your post is the problem.

You are making a really bad assumption that all people are equal physically and only training makes the difference in a struggle.

That's not an assumption, that's just a FACT: training more than anything else makes the difference in a struggle.

More to the point, police officers should be expected to be physically fit to the point that their training will prevail in any such situation. If they're not fit enough for that, they are not qualified for policework, right?

A hundred and fifty pound person with eight hours of training is no match for a two hundred and sixty pound street fighter on crack.

So you know what's probably NOT a good idea?

Take a 150 lb man, give him eight hours of self-defense training, then hand him a gun and tell him to start enforcing traffic violations in a neighborhood that he believes -- rightly or wrongly -- to be infested with two hundred and sixty pound crack-addicted street fighters.

You have to look at each case individually to figure out what was necessary and needed to be done.

And we have multiple individuals that seem to behave like short-tempered cowards who try to shoot their way out of any given confrontation because they live in constant fear of their lives in dealing with the public.

How many does it take to establish a pattern?

A more ironic statement could not come from you.
Since I am the one who mentioned his injuries in the OP, either you lack reading comprehension or are you are being disingenuous. And, Mr Vaughn was in Morton, Illinois, and he did endure his injuries and he did save the lives of the 16 children even though that was not his job nor was he a trained professional. I repeat, if a 75 old chess tutor can disarm a knife-wielding homicidal 19 year old, why shouldn't society expect a trained and professional police officer to be able to disarm such people without killing them?

Good luck trying to find applicants for the police department if the job description requires them as part of their normal duty to subdue knife wielding subjects without harming them.

I'm not sure why "Without harming them" would be the deal breaker here.

I trust the police officers in my community because I know they value my life. I know for a FACT that they value my life more than they value their own. They will and do put themselves at risk every day to protect me, my neighbors, my children and my friends. In 7th grade we had an officer stand in front of my class and say point blank "I would gladly take a bullet for any one of you. All I ask in return is not take a bullet from any one of you."

Can I trust a police officer if I know he values his life more than mine? Or, for that matter, if he values his HEALTH AND SAFETY more than my life? The answer to that is an absolute and unequivocal "No." I CANNOT trust a man who is guaranteed to put his own interests ahead of my own. That man is neutral to me at best, an adversary at worst. And I know for a fact that if it comes to a conflict between me and him it is in my best interest to kill him before he can kill me, because we have a clear understanding that this officer would rather kill me than take the risk of being harmed by me.

I REFUSE to live in a community where police officers are trained that way. It is not safe, it is not wise, and it is not how a civilized community operates.

I don't think a city could pay me enough to take such a job.

Good thing nobody asked you to.

 

[Bomb#20]

I did not call any counterargument "moronic". I did charitably refer to your strawman as an implicit argument.

It wasn't a strawman and you have zero basis for thinking it was.

Now, I would think that a younger, more fit, professional and trained police officer should be expected to disarm that same person without the same risk of injury. An injury is always a risk for a police man in just about every situation, but we do not expect them to start shooting in just about every situation.

A homicidal madman coming at you with a knife does not constitute "just about every situation". In the words of the master, "I would think that was obvious, but I apologize for presuming some basic reasoning skills."

So, I would think it was obvious to even the most obtuse that I was arguing that these types of situations that the "kill first" option is not expected.

Help we out with your superior reasoning skills. What the hell is the practical difference between the "kill first" option being not expected and the officer being expected to choose slashed arteries over a bullet in the perp? Those sound to me like two ways to phrase the same expectation.

Or do you mean that is what you're arguing, but I'm wrong to point out that that's not what American cops signed up for?

I didn't realize that you were a spokesperson for the US police force. When did you get that position?

Why on earth would someone have to be a spokesperson for the US police force in order to determine that that's not what they signed up for? Cops shoot suspects attacking them with knives from time to time here; it's reported in the media; the ensuing inquiries normally decide they were justified shootings; and this fact is not kept secret from would-be cops. People therefore become cops knowing they will be allowed to shoot to avoid being knifed. Try to apply those reasoning skills of yours.

 

[laughing dog]

It wasn't a strawman and you have zero basis for thinking it was.

Stomping your feet is not a rebuttal. Your post attributed ideas to my post that were not made. That means I have a basis for knowing it is a straw man.

A homicidal madman coming at you with a knife does not constitute "just about every situation". In the words of the master, "I would think that was obvious, but I apologize for presuming some basic reasoning skills."

Please start using those basic reasoning skills you appear to think you have. Police officers face risks in just about every situation they encounter. It is moronic to claim that they have to avoid those risks or to shoot anyone who poses any sort of risk. Now, perhaps you meant that this type of risk was so great that it is a different sort of risk. Well, as other posters in this thread have shown, police in Great Britain deal with this very same sort of risk without initially resorting to shooting to kill. And this 75 year old chess tutor took the kid down. As I have posted, I don't think it unreasonable to expect a younger, fitter, more trained professional to be able to do the same thing without getting injured.

Help we out with your superior reasoning skills. What the hell is the practical difference between the "kill first" option being not expected and the officer being expected to choose slashed arteries over a bullet in the perp? Those sound to me like two ways to phrase the same expectation.

The kill first option is pull out the firearm and blow the perp away. The second option is to use the other training skills (and maybe some other non-lethal weapon). I don't know you would assume the only alternatives are "shoot" or be slashed.

Why on earth would someone have to be a spokesperson for the US police force in order to determine that that's not what they signed up for? Cops shoot suspects attacking them with knives from time to time here; it's reported in the media; the ensuing inquiries normally decide they were justified shootings; and this fact is not kept secret from would-be cops. People therefore become cops knowing they will be allowed to shoot to avoid being knifed. Try to apply those reasoning skills of yours.

I realize that your emotions are clouding what little reasoning skills you appear to have, but try to calm down and focus. The issue is not whether police are legally permitted to gun down perps. The issue is whether they ought to gun them down.

Unless you have scientifically surveyed police officers, you do not know what they signed up for and what they didn't. As you have down, you can try to deduce or assume your answer, but you really cannot expect anyone to take your word that you know what people were thinking when they signed up to be a police officer. I used to think that took an unique combination of arrogance and ignorance, but this forum has shown me that combination is all to commonplace.

 

[ronburgundy]

A 76 year old fought off a knife wielding 19 year old who was intent of killing some children in a chess class the man was tutoring. James Vernon said his 50 year old army training helped him fight the man off. Vernon suffered injuries in the incident, but no children were injured. (full story: http://time.com/4077440/75-year-old-chess-teacher-fights-off-knife-wielding-man-threatening-to-kill-children/). Vernon had no weapons other than his training and human decency.
If a 75 year old man can disarm a knife-wielding attacker by himself, what does that say about police who shoot such attackers (i.e. attackers with firearms)?

It says nothing more than that if cops didn't use their guns in such situations, they wouldn't be killed or seriously maimed 100% of the time. If the situation were repeated a 100 times, many of those times this guy (and those kids) would have died or been seriously maimed. That number would be much higher than it would if he used a gun on the violent criminal. IOW, it tells us what all isolated anecdotes tell us, almost nothing.

 

[laughing dog]

It says nothing more than that if cops didn't use their guns in such situations, they wouldn't be killed or seriously maimed 100% of the time.

It suggests that instinct or advice to shoot to kill first is not always the best option.

If the situation were repeated a 100 times, many of those times this guy (and those kids) would have died or been seriously maimed.

That tells us nothing more than you like to wave your hand.

That number would be much higher than it would if he used a gun on the violent criminal.

This tells us nothing more than you like to wave your hand.

IOW, it tells us what all isolated anecdotes tell us, almost nothing.

In that case, it tells us more than your response.

 

[arkirk]

It suggests that instinct or advice to shoot to kill first is not always the best option.

If the situation were repeated a 100 times, many of those times this guy (and those kids) would have died or been seriously maimed.

That tells us nothing more than you like to wave your hand.

That number would be much higher than it would if he used a gun on the violent criminal.

This tells us nothing more than you like to wave your hand.

IOW, it tells us what all isolated anecdotes tell us, almost nothing.

In that case, it tells us more than your response.

Dammit Laughing Dog, why can't you just climb on board the NRA express and quit caring too much about lives? According to Loren and Bomb, you are just a bit too squeamish to handle these matters like a "real man" (Dirty Harry). I don't think they fully comprehend what they are saying. Their solutions to conflict all too often are "kill the bastards." I find myself saying things twice to them. They really love violence and actually imagine it is a solution to a great many problems weak ones like you (and perhaps me) might shrink from. Their ideas cheapen human life. In their world all the wonder of living has long since vanished and life is reduced to a kind of book keeping that ignores the value of living itself and living things.

 

[Bomb#20]

Stomping your feet is not a rebuttal. Your post attributed ideas to my post that were not made. That means I have a basis for knowing it is a straw man.

That's a reasoning error on your part. Attributing ideas to your post that were not made would be a misunderstanding, not a strawman. Further, you assume facts not in evidence. You have not so far produced any substantive difference between the ideas you expressed and my characterization of them. Feel free to produce some.

A homicidal madman coming at you with a knife does not constitute "just about every situation". In the words of the master, "I would think that was obvious, but I apologize for presuming some basic reasoning skills."

Please start using those basic reasoning skills you appear to think you have. Police officers face risks in just about every situation they encounter. It is moronic to claim that they have to avoid those risks or to shoot anyone who poses any sort of risk.

So? That is an idea that my posts didn't contain. Are you attributing that idea to me? If so, what's your basis? If not, why are you filling your response with red herrings?

Now, perhaps you meant that this type of risk was so great that it is a different sort of risk.

Yes, I'd say being attacked with a knife is a different sort of risk from being attacked with a fist or a suspect resisting arrest by going limp and putting you at risk of back strain. YMMV.

Well, as other posters in this thread have shown, police in Great Britain deal with this very same sort of risk without initially resorting to shooting to kill. And this 75 year old chess tutor took the kid down.

British police and chess tutors have no choice in that matter, because they don't have guns. It is entirely plausible that that same chess tutor would have shot the attacker rather than had two of his arteries cut open if he'd had a gun; likewise, British police would likely make the same choice if they had guns. You appear to be making a virtue of necessity.

It is of course true that the British police sign up to accept the risk of getting knifed without getting to shoot. They know they're not going to be issued guns. But that's a tradeoff, not moral superiority. If the British police were routinely carrying guns, British criminals would be much more likely to arm themselves in response. The advantage to the police of having criminals without guns outweighs the disadvantage of having to face knives with their hands. But that's a tradeoff not available to American police. Our criminals already have guns. They would not give up their guns if our cops gave up theirs. So if we didn't issue guns to our police then that would simply mean they'd have to face knives AND guns with their hands.

So if your judgment that cops shouldn't shoot attackers with knives comes down to the theory that American cops accepting a 2% chance of being shot, plus British cops accepting a 2% chance of being knifed, equals it being reasonable to demand that police officers accept a 4% chance of being knifed OR shot, because you add 2 and 2 and you get 4, then your arithmetic is impeccable but your logic is faulty.

Help we out with your superior reasoning skills. What the hell is the practical difference between the "kill first" option being not expected and the officer being expected to choose slashed arteries over a bullet in the perp? Those sound to me like two ways to phrase the same expectation.

The kill first option is pull out the firearm and blow the perp away. The second option is to use the other training skills (and maybe some other non-lethal weapon). I don't know you would assume the only alternatives are "shoot" or be slashed.

Once again, that is an idea that my posts didn't contain. Obviously there are other alternatives, such as being stabbed with the point, or getting lucky and not getting cut at all. You've misunderstood. (Note that I did not accuse you of a strawman. See how it works?) I wasn't listing outcomes; I was listing expectations. I asked you to tell me the practical difference between the expectations, and you responded with theoretically possible outcomes. So now would be a great time for you to produce a substantive difference between the ideas you expressed and my characterization of them, and thereby clear up my misunderstanding.

So can you give me a specific example of some situation in which a police officer is allowed to take some particular action against an attacker, if we're going by the "should be expected to disarm that person without shooting him" rule, but the officer would not be allowed to take that same action against that same attacker, if we're going by the "expected to choose slashed arteries over a bullet in the perp" rule?

Why on earth would someone have to be a spokesperson for the US police force in order to determine that that's not what they signed up for?...

I realize that your emotions are clouding what little reasoning skills you appear to have, but try to calm down and focus. The issue is not whether police are legally permitted to gun down perps. The issue is whether they ought to gun them down.

That's the larger issue; but the immediate issue is whether conforming to that moral judgment of yours is in point of fact what they signed up for.

Now, if what you're saying is they should have signed up for that, feel free to urge your extra sacrificial moral code upon them; but I suspect if police were required to accept all the dangers of American police PLUS all the dangers of British police then we might have more trouble attracting people to the profession.

Unless you have scientifically surveyed police officers, you do not know what they signed up for and what they didn't. As you have down, you can try to deduce or assume your answer, but you really cannot expect anyone to take your word that you know what people were thinking when they signed up to be a police officer.

But I made no claim about what they were thinking privately. "Signing up" isn't something in one person's mind. It's a commitment the recruit makes to the government recruiting him. Even the subset of cops who feel a moral obligation not to shoot murderers who use edged weapons did not make any such commitment to the government. You might as well argue that a judge can't figure out what a contract means unless she has ESP.

 

[laughing dog]

That's a reasoning error on your part. Attributing ideas to your post that were not made would be a misunderstanding, not a strawman.

Attempting to refute an argument that is not made is a straw man. So the reasoning error is yours.

Further, you assume facts not in evidence. You have not so far produced any substantive difference between the ideas you expressed and my characterization of them. Feel free to produce some.

That is a reasoning error on your part.
I have produced them. Your failure to understand them is not the same as failure to produce.

So? That is an idea that my posts didn't contain. Are you attributing that idea to me? If so, what's your basis? If not, why are you filling your response with red herrings?

You're the one who is talked about "risks' without specifying them, not me. Police face risks of varying degrees most of the time. Risk cannot be avoided.

British police and chess tutors have no choice in that matter, because they don't have guns. It is entirely plausible that that same chess tutor would have shot the attacker rather than had two of his arteries cut open if he'd had a gun; likewise, British police would likely make the same choice if they had guns. You appear to be making a virtue of necessity.

Nope. Just noting the reality that a gun is not required as the first option to deal with this situation.

Once again, that is an idea that my posts didn't contain. Obviously there are other alternatives, such as being stabbed with the point, or getting lucky and not getting cut at all. You've misunderstood. (Note that I did not accuse you of a strawman. See how it works?) I wasn't listing outcomes; I was listing expectations. I asked you to tell me the practical difference between the expectations, and you responded with theoretically possible outcomes. So now would be a great time for you to produce a substantive difference between the ideas you expressed and my characterization of them, and thereby clear up my misunderstanding.

No, those were practical differences.

So can you give me a specific example of some situation in which a police officer is allowed to take some particular action against an attacker, if we're going by the "should be expected to disarm that person without shooting him" rule, but the officer would not be allowed to take that same action against that same attacker, if we're going by the "expected to choose slashed arteries over a bullet in the perp" rule?

I have no idea what any of this means. Are you asking for the equivalent of a "frame by frame" description or what?

That's the larger issue; but the immediate issue is whether conforming to that moral judgment of yours is in point of fact what they signed up for.

"Moral judgment"? What are you talking about?

Now, if what you're saying is they should have signed up for that, feel free to urge your extra sacrificial moral code upon them; but I suspect if police were required to accept all the dangers of American police PLUS all the dangers of British police then we might have more trouble attracting people to the profession.

We might. Then again we might not have more trouble attracting the right people to the profession. Or, we might have to train them more and pay them more. There are all sorts of ways to deal with this.

But I made no claim about what they were thinking privately. "Signing up" isn't something in one person's mind. It's a commitment the recruit makes to the government recruiting him. Even the subset of cops who feel a moral obligation not to shoot murderers who use edged weapons did not make any such commitment to the government. You might as well argue that a judge can't figure out what a contract means unless she has ESP.

You could argue that. I don't know why one would. Just like I don't know why anyone would bring up such a point in this discussion. But thank you for clarifying the specific meaning you were using for "signing up". However, that specific meaning does not alter my case. A person who commits to being a police officer is not committing to blowing people away as the first option.

 

[ronburgundy]

It suggests that instinct or advice to shoot to kill first is not always the best option.

It suggests no such thing. If you jump off a cliff and by sheer random luck don't hit anything that harms you and happen to land in a 2 foot wide mud pit that breaks your fall with minimal injury, does that event suggest that jumping off that cliff is a good option where you won't get harmed, and that it was a better option than not jumping? No it doesn't. That outcome was unlikely and based upon random luck factors that you cannot control or repeat. So, anytime you jump in the future you are likely to get hurt and not likely to get so lucky. That means it was and will be in future situations a better and safer option not to jump.

If the situation were repeated a 100 times, many of those times this guy (and those kids) would have died or been seriously maimed.

That tells us nothing more than you like to wave your hand.

No, it says that unlike you I like to engage in rational thought and actually reason validly about what isolated events do and do not imply. This requires taking into account the fact that since statistically improbable outcomes occur regularly given the many opportunities (see lottery), that isolated events are often improbable outcomes that don't occur in that situation most of the time. Thus, it is completely irrational to assume as you have that an isolated event represents the norm and thus the actions and reactions entails represent a valid prescription for consistently achieving that outcome. IOW, it tells us that, unlike you, I actually understand what evidence is and how to reason from it.

That number would be much higher than it would if he used a gun on the violent criminal.

This tells us nothing more than you like to wave your hand.

No again, it tells us that I understand how to reason about evidence and apply relevant facts to drawing inferences from isolated cases. Your reply tells us that you have no ability to form an argument and are only capable of regurgitating the same mindless response that fails to address the fatal flaws in your invalid interpretations.

IOW, it tells us what all isolated anecdotes tell us, almost nothing.

In that case, it tells us more than your response.

My response and your response are both extremely informative. They both inform us of your blindly ideological misuse of facts to reach whatever your preferred conclusion is.

 

[laughing dog]

It suggests no such thing.....

I apologize. I omitted " to those with even minimal levels of reason and human decency" which would have saved you the effort to respond.

 

[ronburgundy]

It suggests no such thing.....

I apologize. I omitted " to those with even minimal levels of reason and human decency" which would have saved you the effort to respond.

Great argument. Sadly, its no worse than the fact-free, thought-free arguments you provide us with on every topic we are unfortunate enough to hear your faith-based opinion on.

 

[laughing dog]

I apologize. I omitted " to those with even minimal levels of reason and human decency" which would have saved you the effort to respond.

Great argument. Sadly, its no worse than the fact-free, thought-free arguments you provide us with on every topic we are unfortunate enough to hear your faith-based opinion on.

No one forces to read my posts. I could say the same things about your posts. Interestingly, no one forces you to respond with such ironic drivel.