JW Insider

It's because I believe that if a non-Jewish person could eat an unbled animal that died naturally, then they could also trap or hunt or net an animal (mammal/fish/bird/etc) and eat it unbled. But even if it were only animals that died naturally, which might have been ideal, then it was still OK for people of the nations to eat unbled animals. Narrowing it down to distinguish which kinds were OK doesn't change that overall fact.
With the Jews, they had Moses read in their synagogues week after week so they would know the Mosaic Law. Did all the nations have Noah (Gen 6-9) read to them every week, so they would know the Noahide Law?
(Acts 15:20, 21) . . .but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. 21  For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”
 
Also, the lines can get blurred. If I create a grazing path for bison at a precarious edge of a cliff, is it NATURAL that one might slip and fall to its death now and then? If a dog is trained to bring back a duck that I didn't quite kill when I hit it with a slingshot, but the dog kills it by holding it by the neck, did it die naturally? What if the dog brings me one that it caught on its own? What about the chipmunk the cat brought to my doorstep that dies after several hours of torture by the cat? If I take an animal from the mouth of a lion that just killed it by chasing away the lion, did it die naturally? 
I don't know the taboo you mean, but the above could just as well mean that Noah could NOT eat carrion. He could not eat an animal found dead of natural causes. And he couldn't eat an animal that still had blood (or breath) flowing in it. So he could only eat meat he purposely killed. He just couldn't eat it with the blood.
Blood made it taboo, and therefore blood WAS considered a sacred substance by decree of God himself. 

It's because I believe that if a non-Jewish person could eat an unbled animal that died naturally, then they could also trap or hunt or net an animal (mammal/fish/bird/etc) and eat it unbled. But even if it were only animals that died naturally, which might have been ideal, then it was still OK for people of the nations to eat unbled animals. Narrowing it down to distinguish which kinds were OK doesn't change that overall fact.
With the Jews, they had Moses read in their synagogues week after week so they would know the Mosaic Law. Did all the nations have Noah (Gen 6-9) read to them every week, so they would know the Noahide Law?
(Acts 15:20, 21) . . .but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. 21  For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”
 
Also, the lines can get blurred. If I create a grazing path for bison at a precarious edge of a cliff, is it NATURAL that one might slip and fall to its death now and then? If a dog is trained to bring back a duck that I didn't quite kill when I hit it with a slingshot, but the dog kills it by holding it by the neck, did it die naturally? What if the dog brings me one that it caught on its own? What about the chipmunk the cat brought to my doorstep that dies after several hours of torture by the cat? If I take an animal from the mouth of a lion that just killed it by chasing away the lion, did it die naturally? 
I don't know the taboo you mean, but the above could just as well mean that Noah could NOT eat carrion. He could not eat an animal found dead of natural causes. And he couldn't eat an animal that still had blood (or breath) flowing in it. So he could only eat meat he purposely killed. He just couldn't eat it with the blood.
Blood made it taboo, and therefore blood WAS considered a sacred substance by decree of God himself. 

First she gets perceived condescension from MM, and now you are going to give her a superiority complex.

True. It says something more like "flesh with its nephesh,blood" where "nephesh" can often mean breath/life/self/being).
I tried to overstate the point as part of the odd "kill-it-first" interpretation that says they could not eat living, moving, breathing animals that still had breath,blood flowing in them. So when verse 4 mentions "flesh with its soul,blood," that's the reason that if you go here, for example, https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/9/1/t_bibles_9004 you only see the word life [that is] blood and life-blood as a translation of nephesh,blood. (Except one of the Spanish translations has "alma [o vida])."
You had said: "Animals" are like "man". Each is "soul".  That is not the meaning in the context of Genesis 9. Verse 4 is not using "soul" [nephesh] in the same way that Genesis 2:7 and the most of the Hebrew Bible uses the term. (Even the NWT stopped using the term "soul" as a consistent translation for "nephesh" in the 2013 NWT.) 
We are always taught that the living animal or human does not HAVE a soul but it IS a soul. It is different here. Here the animal is not a soul, but it HAS a soul.
(Leviticus 20:25) You must make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean and between the unclean bird and the clean; you must not make your souls loathsome by means of an animal or a bird or anything that creeps on the ground that I set apart for you to regard as unclean.
Or "psyche" (soul) in Greek:
(Acts 15:24) Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert your souls . . . [NWT leaves out the term souls, here and just says "trying to subvert you."]
(1 Thessalonians 5:23) . . .And may the spirit and soul and body of you brothers, sound in every respect, be preserved blameless at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
It's similar to the term "spirit" here in Ecclesiastes:
(Ecclesiastes 3:21) Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?
 
So, I'm arguing, as most translators also do, that this is a special case of "nephesh" just as the NWT often treats special cases of nephesh and psyche without translating it as "soul."

Maybe. Maybe not. The Jews of the Hebrew Bible did not necessarily consider Jehovah to be an invisible Spirit the way we do. They considered Jehovah to have a body that could see and hear and EAT and SMELL. (FWIW, ancient Jewish rabbis had no trouble agreeing that Jehovah was circumcised!!!) The idea that smoke from "incinerated" meat created a kind of smoky incense that ascended upwards toward heaven was likely an indication of this consumption by God, leaving only a few ashes. And this idea was spelled out even more clearly in other nearby cultures.
When the Jews would be scattered, they would have to serve gods that were not real and therefore could NOT eat and smell.
(Deuteronomy 4:27, 28) 27 Jehovah will scatter you among the peoples, and just a few of you will survive among the nations to which Jehovah will have driven you. 28 There you will have to serve gods of wood and stone made by human hands, gods that cannot see or hear or eat or smell.
(Leviticus 26:31) . . .I will give your cities to the sword and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell the pleasing aromas of your sacrifices.
 
I agree that the intent of Leviticus 3 and similar passages was probably to identify ALL the major fatty places for sacrificed animals. It can also be read as: "Don't eat any of the fat, sacrifice all of it, and this INCLUDES the fatty pieces of the inner organs and intestines." That's why I quoted the passage about animala that died naturally or were killed by another animal. In that case, it was NOT about a sacrifice or a priest's portion. 

It's because I believe that if a non-Jewish person could eat an unbled animal that died naturally, then they could also trap or hunt or net an animal (mammal/fish/bird/etc) and eat it unbled. But even if it were only animals that died naturally, which might have been ideal, then it was still OK for people of the nations to eat unbled animals. Narrowing it down to distinguish which kinds were OK doesn't change that overall fact.
With the Jews, they had Moses read in their synagogues week after week so they would know the Mosaic Law. Did all the nations have Noah (Gen 6-9) read to them every week, so they would know the Noahide Law?
(Acts 15:20, 21) . . .but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. 21  For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”
 
Also, the lines can get blurred. If I create a grazing path for bison at a precarious edge of a cliff, is it NATURAL that one might slip and fall to its death now and then? If a dog is trained to bring back a duck that I didn't quite kill when I hit it with a slingshot, but the dog kills it by holding it by the neck, did it die naturally? What if the dog brings me one that it caught on its own? What about the chipmunk the cat brought to my doorstep that dies after several hours of torture by the cat? If I take an animal from the mouth of a lion that just killed it by chasing away the lion, did it die naturally? 
I don't know the taboo you mean, but the above could just as well mean that Noah could NOT eat carrion. He could not eat an animal found dead of natural causes. And he couldn't eat an animal that still had blood (or breath) flowing in it. So he could only eat meat he purposely killed. He just couldn't eat it with the blood.
Blood made it taboo, and therefore blood WAS considered a sacred substance by decree of God himself. 

Maybe. Maybe not. The Jews of the Hebrew Bible did not necessarily consider Jehovah to be an invisible Spirit the way we do. They considered Jehovah to have a body that could see and hear and EAT and SMELL. (FWIW, ancient Jewish rabbis had no trouble agreeing that Jehovah was circumcised!!!) The idea that smoke from "incinerated" meat created a kind of smoky incense that ascended upwards toward heaven was likely an indication of this consumption by God, leaving only a few ashes. And this idea was spelled out even more clearly in other nearby cultures.
When the Jews would be scattered, they would have to serve gods that were not real and therefore could NOT eat and smell.
(Deuteronomy 4:27, 28) 27 Jehovah will scatter you among the peoples, and just a few of you will survive among the nations to which Jehovah will have driven you. 28 There you will have to serve gods of wood and stone made by human hands, gods that cannot see or hear or eat or smell.
(Leviticus 26:31) . . .I will give your cities to the sword and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell the pleasing aromas of your sacrifices.
 
I agree that the intent of Leviticus 3 and similar passages was probably to identify ALL the major fatty places for sacrificed animals. It can also be read as: "Don't eat any of the fat, sacrifice all of it, and this INCLUDES the fatty pieces of the inner organs and intestines." That's why I quoted the passage about animala that died naturally or were killed by another animal. In that case, it was NOT about a sacrifice or a priest's portion. 

That's one way around it, I guess. I take it that fat, like blood, is never going to be completely removed from the meat. And several of the Jewish priestly sacrifices paid special attention to the liver, kidneys, and intestines where large chunks of fat could be cut away and made to smoke on the fire or with the 'fatty ashes.' 
But this was not the whole story. First of all the two verses I quoted separately before actually go together:
(Leviticus 3:16, 17) . . .The priest will make them smoke on the altar as food, an offering made by fire for a pleasing aroma. All the fat belongs to Jehovah. 17  “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”
It wasn't just the major organs containing fat, and it wasn't just in relation to priestly sacrifices:
(Leviticus 7:22-27) Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: 23 “Tell the Israelites, ‘You must not eat any fat of a bull or a young ram or a goat. 24 The fat of an animal found dead and the fat of an animal killed by another animal may be used for any other purpose, but you must never eat it. 25 For whoever eats fat from an animal that he presents as an offering made by fire to Jehovah must be cut off from his people. 26 “‘You must not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether that of birds or that of animals. 27 Anyone who eats any blood must be cut off from his people.’”

First she gets perceived condescension from MM, and now you are going to give her a superiority complex.

I think that MM's questions here to Thinking were pertinent. Did the elders in Jerusalem mean it in Moses' terms, Noah's terms, or some new terms that was different from both of those?
And, per Paul's explanation for at least 2 of the terms of that decree, was it possibly only a necessary but temporary injunction to allow the congregation to accommodate coexistence with gentiles for the time when Jewish Christians were still "condemning" themselves to live by the Law. 
(Acts 21:20, 21) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21  But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to . . . follow the customary practices. 
(Galatians 2:11-14) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned.*  12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself,. . . 14  But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”
 
*The 2013 NWT decided not to translate the Greek of Galatians 2:11 (as was done previously) with "Peter ... stood condemned." They decided to water it down a bit and say that only that "Peter . . . was clearly in the wrong."

First she gets perceived condescension from MM, and now you are going to give her a superiority complex.

First she gets perceived condescension from MM, and now you are going to give her a superiority complex.

Adding to Thinkings list, of which each item is different, so that I think that would have answered your question, is just plain ‘ol human error. Anyone who has ever worked in healthcare (my wife is a retired nurse) knows there is plenty of it. 
In my area, hospitals laid off nurses who would not accepted the Covid shot. This led to collapse of the hospital system, as there were a lot of them, not easily or affordably replaced, so largely not replaced, making the remaining staff take up the slack over which they protested and went on strike. Do you think this worked to increase the safety of transfusion protocol?
Just recently local hospitals were found to be in severe violation of a law that they must not be understaffed. It’s a LAW—how could that have not fixed the problem? It’s as though administrators say, ‘If our nurses quit, the very stones will take care of you!’
Everything is collapsing. And whereas JW’s stand on war, tobacco, alcohol and drug abuse, and compliance with safety laws, place them BY FAR among the safest religions out there, you keep flailing a on a number so relatively tiny that neither Thinking nor myself can think of an example we personally know of. And neither of us are youngsters, especially Thinking.
In a revolving population of several million you are going to find countless examples of anything. But there is such a thing as focusing on the trees so minutely as to not see the forest.

I think that MM's questions here to Thinking were pertinent. Did the elders in Jerusalem mean it in Moses' terms, Noah's terms, or some new terms that was different from both of those?
And, per Paul's explanation for at least 2 of the terms of that decree, was it possibly only a necessary but temporary injunction to allow the congregation to accommodate coexistence with gentiles for the time when Jewish Christians were still "condemning" themselves to live by the Law. 
(Acts 21:20, 21) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21  But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to . . . follow the customary practices. 
(Galatians 2:11-14) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned.*  12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself,. . . 14  But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”
 
*The 2013 NWT decided not to translate the Greek of Galatians 2:11 (as was done previously) with "Peter ... stood condemned." They decided to water it down a bit and say that only that "Peter . . . was clearly in the wrong."

True. It says something more like "flesh with its nephesh,blood" where "nephesh" can often mean breath/life/self/being).
I tried to overstate the point as part of the odd "kill-it-first" interpretation that says they could not eat living, moving, breathing animals that still had breath,blood flowing in them. So when verse 4 mentions "flesh with its soul,blood," that's the reason that if you go here, for example, https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/9/1/t_bibles_9004 you only see the word life [that is] blood and life-blood as a translation of nephesh,blood. (Except one of the Spanish translations has "alma [o vida])."
You had said: "Animals" are like "man". Each is "soul".  That is not the meaning in the context of Genesis 9. Verse 4 is not using "soul" [nephesh] in the same way that Genesis 2:7 and the most of the Hebrew Bible uses the term. (Even the NWT stopped using the term "soul" as a consistent translation for "nephesh" in the 2013 NWT.) 
We are always taught that the living animal or human does not HAVE a soul but it IS a soul. It is different here. Here the animal is not a soul, but it HAS a soul.
(Leviticus 20:25) You must make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean and between the unclean bird and the clean; you must not make your souls loathsome by means of an animal or a bird or anything that creeps on the ground that I set apart for you to regard as unclean.
Or "psyche" (soul) in Greek:
(Acts 15:24) Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert your souls . . . [NWT leaves out the term souls, here and just says "trying to subvert you."]
(1 Thessalonians 5:23) . . .And may the spirit and soul and body of you brothers, sound in every respect, be preserved blameless at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
It's similar to the term "spirit" here in Ecclesiastes:
(Ecclesiastes 3:21) Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward, and whether the spirit of animals descends down to the earth?
 
So, I'm arguing, as most translators also do, that this is a special case of "nephesh" just as the NWT often treats special cases of nephesh and psyche without translating it as "soul."

I think that MM's questions here to Thinking were pertinent. Did the elders in Jerusalem mean it in Moses' terms, Noah's terms, or some new terms that was different from both of those?
And, per Paul's explanation for at least 2 of the terms of that decree, was it possibly only a necessary but temporary injunction to allow the congregation to accommodate coexistence with gentiles for the time when Jewish Christians were still "condemning" themselves to live by the Law. 
(Acts 21:20, 21) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21  But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to . . . follow the customary practices. 
(Galatians 2:11-14) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he stood condemned.*  12  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself,. . . 14  But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”
 
*The 2013 NWT decided not to translate the Greek of Galatians 2:11 (as was done previously) with "Peter ... stood condemned." They decided to water it down a bit and say that only that "Peter . . . was clearly in the wrong."

I've weighed in on the blood issue discussions before, but I don't feel competent to add anything of value. Just opinions. Miles seems to have given it more thought and had more direct experience with it, so I'm glad to hear him out.
It happens too rarely these days but now and then someone stops by ready to share and discuss information in more depth on a topic. I'm always happy for that even if I end up with nothing to offer, or end up being unconvinced about a position, because I always learn something.
I'm not sure exactly what Miles' position is but I'd like to go back and catch up with what's going on in this topic.
And why is the blood topic in a discussion that started out about Malawi anyway?

To me, a distinction without a necessary distinction. Dead of natural cause could include a cow, sheep, horse, goat, or snake that had been strangled around the neck by a lion that ran off or was chased off before eating it.
Genesis 9 is also open to interpretation:
(Gen: 9:3,4) Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
Technically, it doesn't say anything about bleeding an animal before eating it. Although that's a common-sense way to interpret it, especially in light of the Mosaic Law. One odd, but possible interpretation is this: You may now eat anything that lives and moves, but just don't eat it while it is still living and moving. You must kill it first. (or, even more technically: It must have died first.)
Some of the rabbis interpreted this to mean that you couldn't strangle off a portion of meat to eat it while keeping the poor animal alive. If you had a goat giving good milk, or raising a baby goat (kid), you couldn't strangle off a leg just because you were starving. You had to kill the whole goat. You couldn't have your cake and eat it too. 
By the way, I knew a Witness who killed their chickens by strangling them: wringing their neck until the neck twisted off. 

I've weighed in on the blood issue discussions before, but I don't feel competent to add anything of value. Just opinions. Miles seems to have given it more thought and had more direct experience with it, so I'm glad to hear him out.
It happens too rarely these days but now and then someone stops by ready to share and discuss information in more depth on a topic. I'm always happy for that even if I end up with nothing to offer, or end up being unconvinced about a position, because I always learn something.
I'm not sure exactly what Miles' position is but I'd like to go back and catch up with what's going on in this topic.
And why is the blood topic in a discussion that started out about Malawi anyway?

For me the issue is still a bit too complex:
I would agree with the Watchtower publication quoted earlier that we are not under the Mosaic Law and that, as far as blood is concerned, we are being held to a LOWER standard than what the Mosaic Law stated concerning blood. The primary basis for the Acts 15 stance on blood was not the Mosaic Law, but the decree that Jehovah gave to Noah regarding eating animal blood and bloodguilt. By that LOWER standard after Noah, a non-Jewish person could eat an animal that was not bled. According the Mosaic Law, a Jewish person could still make money off an unbled animal and would have no qualms of conscience about selling it to a gentile living in their midst, for them to make any use they wanted of that unbled animal, including eating it. 
But then there is the question about whether we are really held to that same lower standard that the gentile had. When the congregation and the elders at Jerusalem wanted to solve the problem of gentiles and Jews coming together as Christians, they agreed with the elders' statement that gentiles should "abstain from blood, things strangled, from things sacrificed to idols, and from fornication." Some commentators have said that this was a necessary solution until the Jewish Christians realized they no longer needed to follow the Mosaic Law which was still keeping them separate, not even eating at the same table as gentiles.
That temporary nature would seem to fit Paul's statements in Galatians and in 1 Corinthians about it being OK to eat things sacrificed to idols, and OK to eat anything set before them by a gentile (which could apparently even include unbled meat, of from a strangled animal). That would mean that Paul might have thought Christians were still held to the LOWER standard of people under Jehovah's decree to Noah (with respect to blood and things sacrificed to idols). In Galatians, Paul dealt with the matter of Jews eating at the same table with gentiles. But Paul still argued against those who thought their liberty and freedom under Christianity could include fornication. But for those other things, Paul said it only held for the times when Jews around them were still "weak." 
Of course, this isn't the only way to interpret why Paul said Christians could eat anything a gentile set on the plate in front of them making no question about it. 

Well it’s one of them..do you want me to find four more…

Miles himself raised that objection. But I told him to suck it up. He’d already gotten his licks in. Time to move on. I knew Pudgy would back me and the card-catalog Librarian would be too tipsy to notice.

I've weighed in on the blood issue discussions before, but I don't feel competent to add anything of value. Just opinions. Miles seems to have given it more thought and had more direct experience with it, so I'm glad to hear him out.
It happens too rarely these days but now and then someone stops by ready to share and discuss information in more depth on a topic. I'm always happy for that even if I end up with nothing to offer, or end up being unconvinced about a position, because I always learn something.
I'm not sure exactly what Miles' position is but I'd like to go back and catch up with what's going on in this topic.
And why is the blood topic in a discussion that started out about Malawi anyway?

That being the case, it saves swaths of time if we can discover what are the glasses another is using.
It has been mentioned before that if one is atheist, it will so heavily influence anything they utter that you simply waste your time addressing them—unless you are speaking specifically of atheism or if you are speaking to those beyond them.  Atheism is for them the force that refreshes, and if you could demonstrate that each and every accusation against human organized worship is false, they still would say, ‘Well, there’s no god anyway.’ So why should you go there with them? What you as a Christian view as commendable delayed gratification they view as a woeful and willful flushing of one’s life down the toilet. When you say, ‘Well, every project needs headship, so I’ll cooperate with these people,’ they say, ‘They’re even more deluded than you! Cult leaders, through and through! The farther you can get from them, the better.’
Within the realm of religion, find out if the other believes we’re in the last days, for it will so heavily influence anything they say as to make any other criticism of theirs irrelevant. There is no sense swatting the water downstream, for it is immediately replaced. Unless you go to the source—are we in the last days or not?—any subsequent conversation, unless it is directed at those lying beyond, is fruitless. The entire ‘life boat’ scenario that so much Witness action and thinking depends upon is absurdity to them. Addressing some controversy about ‘Tight Pants Tony’ as though that was something that really troubled them, is just spitting into the wind. Even if you win, you haven’t gotten anywhere. I’ll wear pants the size of parachutes if it fits in with lifeboat protocol. 
Find out, as soon as possible, how they feel about ‘the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.’ Many people, even those religious, are repelled by the thought—how could God be so mean! they say. Find this out as soon as you can, because it will determine much of what they subsequently say and, again, you can find yourself quibbling with a point so far downstream—critiques over how Witnesses do this or that—as to quibble all day over a comparative nothing.
And, Lord knows, find out whenever you can if the person is ‘Proud to have come out of the closet’ gay, because if he or she is, you don’t stand a chance in discussing anything involving traditional morals as found in the Bible. Whatever you are debating, with you thinking that if you can make the point it may stick will not. Their ‘sexuality’ trumps all else.
All the above are largely matters of the heart, not the head. The heart makes a grab for what it wants, then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale. This leads the unobservant to think the head is calling the shots, but it is the heart all along. This is why one might buck at ‘rationality’ as the be-all and end-all. Rationality offers good insight into the head, but poor insight into the heart.
The best talks and writings are those that, while not ignoring the head, appeal primarily to the heart. Jesus did things that would infuriate any strict devotee of reason. He routinely spun parables that he declined to explain—let the heart figure it out. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. He answered questions with counter-questions. Try doing that with a modern ‘critical thinker.’ He launched ad hominem attacks. People may say that the ad hominem attacks of Matthew 23 are not really ad hominem attacks because the scribes and Pharisees actually were that way, but this wlll be said by anyone launching such an attack.
Allen Guelzo the historian lectures about how subjective history is, not at all how most of us suppose it. We get a hint he may be right when we recall the expression, ‘History is written by the victors,’ but he greatly expands on the idea by including new trends and waves of thinking among the ‘victors.’ That’s why (he does not make this point, but likely would if his lectures were given today) Americans pull down statues of Columbus and the forefathers that they once put up. History has (once again) flipped. The good guys have become the bad guys.
But doesn’t our modern day critical thinking solve the problem of subjectivity? he asks. No, it only makes the situation worse, he says, because it repackages our dubious biases as laudable critical thinking. “When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity,” Dale Carnegie said. The trouble with critical thinking is that those who most heavily advocate it too often assume they have a lock on the stuff.
Accordingly, while your remarks must make sense so as not to explode the head, to go exclusively there is to miss where the action is. It is the heart that is the seat of motivation. One may be dubious of a discussion that appears purely intellectual, as though coming across ones fighting a battle that does not matter.
 

A sobering reminder that a benefit-to-risk analysis is critical for any biological tissue transplantation, and transfusion of any product rendered from blood is precisely that. This is why, for example, transfusion of products like cryosupernatant are not recommended for basic need of a volume expander. In that case, there are much safer products. But, if a patient presents with TTP and they need plasma exchange therapy to survive, then cryosupernatant rises in terms of a benefit-to-risk analysis.