LogFAQs > #959840530

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Church is called EVIL for NOT allowing MASKLESS MAN Pray and caused a BRAWL!!!
adjl 11/09/21 1:44:40 PM #71:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... If the original article does then why haven't you used it to prove me wrong? I guess we're both lazy. You're the one claiming there's something deeper than face value. Burden of proof and whatnot. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Did you limit your criteria to a teaching? If we're talking about passages that should influence behaviour, that's axiomatically limited to teachings. I don't have to impose any limitations myself. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... For that matter I don't think of Jesus inviting himself to diner at Zacchaeus's house is much of a teaching. But he was one of those tax collectors I mentioned. I'd call that part of a teaching, given that it ties into the whole "everybody hates this guy but Jesus thinks he's pretty cool" thing. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I don't believe I have. Do you have passages in mind that I've either excluded or have taken a different approach to? Well, when I said that nobody takes the entire bible literally, you pretty explicitly said there are parts that they don't need to. That's textbook cherrypicking. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Especially since I'm not so sure how literal my use of it is. I gave examples where the meaning behind them supports that the church should not treat someone this way. If you're interpreting it subjectively, you've got to do a lot more to justify that interpretation than just say "this is what it says and you're a hypocrite if you don't follow that." Your position is a literalist one, which is generally not a very sensible way to approach these matters. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... You kept saying that the guy being there placed people at risk. Well shooting people is pretty definitive. You can very easily tell that a bullet was fired and hit someone. A bullet that is never fired has no potential to harm. Can you demonstrate that his droplets had the potential to harm? Analogies can differ in scale while still being logically analogous. What you're arguing is not that they are not analogous, but that the pandemic doesn't meet an arbitrary risk threshold that would justify excluding the man. If that's the route you want to take, then you need to quantify both risks to be able to make a proper comparison, specifically define the risk threshold, then justify choosing that threshold. Hop to it. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Absolutely false. Only certain people can infect others. You cannot claim there was a risk unless you demonstrate that the guy was one of those people. Quite the opposite: Until you can prove for certain that he is not infectious, you cannot claim that there is no risk. Without proving that, the risk always exists that he is infectious, which in turn means the risk always exists that he infects others. Of course, the actual probability of that risk is going to vary based on the circumstances, but during a pandemic, it is high enough to warrant taking precautionary measures as a default (including excluding those that refuse to take those measures from higher-risk activities). SKARDAVNELNATE posted... So no one can get within arms length without first breaking into your house? You're moving those goalposts awfully quickly, given how much broader a question this is than the one you initially asked. Given all of the assumptions I've already presented, though (which I notice you conveniently did not quote, despite how dramatically they narrow the scenario), that is correct. If I'm meeting with somebody who is unwilling to take Covid control protocols, I will not be inviting them to meet me in person. If they attempt to do so despite my stated preference that they meet remotely instead, that's going to entail forcing their way into whatever space I'm occupying at that moment, in which case treating them as a trespasser and removing them from that space for my safety is justifiable. Fortunately, that's not something that's ever come up for me. Everyone that I've interacted with has been sensible enough to comply with the appropriate protocols. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I'm not measuring their level of compassion at any other time because this is the point in time we're talking about. You're painting them as hypocrites. That's a much broader judgement than can be made based on a single incident. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... And in case I wasn't clear about where I stand, I don't think that showing compassion to him in some other way makes up for not doing so then. Sure it does. Especially given how necessary (let alone justifiable) excluding him from this service was. Showing compassion to people in a general sense does not entail never doing anything they don't like, nor giving them carte blanche to endanger you and refraining from exercising the necessary force to prevent that. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:959840530] in Church is ... [t:79731933]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>If the original article does then why haven't you used it to prove me wrong? I guess we're both lazy.</quote> You're the one claiming there's something deeper than face value. Burden of proof and whatnot. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Did you limit your criteria to a teaching?</quote> If we're talking about passages that should influence behaviour, that's axiomatically limited to teachings. I don't have to impose any limitations myself. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>For that matter I don't think of Jesus inviting himself to diner at Zacchaeus's house is much of a teaching. But he was one of those tax collectors I mentioned.</quote> I'd call that part of a teaching, given that it ties into the whole "everybody hates this guy but Jesus thinks he's pretty cool" thing. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>I don't believe I have. Do you have passages in mind that I've either excluded or have taken a different approach to?</quote> Well, when I said that nobody takes the entire bible literally, you pretty explicitly said there are parts that they don't need to. That's textbook cherrypicking. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Especially since I'm not so sure how literal my use of it is. I gave examples where the meaning behind them supports that the church should not treat someone this way.</quote> If you're interpreting it subjectively, you've got to do a lot more to justify that interpretation than just say "this is what it says and you're a hypocrite if you don't follow that." Your position is a literalist one, which is generally not a very sensible way to approach these matters. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>You kept saying that the guy being there placed people at risk. Well shooting people is pretty definitive. You can very easily tell that a bullet was fired and hit someone. A bullet that is never fired has no potential to harm. Can you demonstrate that his droplets had the potential to harm?</quote> Analogies can differ in scale while still being logically analogous. What you're arguing is not that they are not analogous, but that the pandemic doesn't meet an arbitrary risk threshold that would justify excluding the man. If that's the route you want to take, then you need to quantify both risks to be able to make a proper comparison, specifically define the risk threshold, then justify choosing that threshold. Hop to it. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Absolutely false. Only certain people can infect others. You cannot claim there was a risk unless you demonstrate that the guy was one of those people.</quote> Quite the opposite: Until you can prove for certain that he is not infectious, you cannot claim that there is no risk. Without proving that, the risk always exists that he is infectious, which in turn means the risk always exists that he infects others. Of course, the actual probability of that risk is going to vary based on the circumstances, but during a pandemic, it is high enough to warrant taking precautionary measures as a default (including excluding those that refuse to take those measures from higher-risk activities). SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> So no one can get within arms length without first breaking into your house? You're moving those goalposts awfully quickly, given how much broader a question this is than the one you initially asked. Given all of the assumptions I've already presented, though (which I notice you conveniently did not quote, despite how dramatically they narrow the scenario), that is correct. If I'm meeting with somebody who is unwilling to take Covid control protocols, I will not be inviting them to meet me in person. If they attempt to do so despite my stated preference that they meet remotely instead, that's going to entail forcing their way into whatever space I'm occupying at that moment, in which case treating them as a trespasser and removing them from that space for my safety is justifiable. Fortunately, that's not something that's ever come up for me. Everyone that I've interacted with has been sensible enough to comply with the appropriate protocols. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> I'm not measuring their level of compassion at any other time because this is the point in time we're talking about. You're painting them as hypocrites. That's a much broader judgement than can be made based on a single incident. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> And in case I wasn't clear about where I stand, I don't think that showing compassion to him in some other way makes up for not doing so then. Sure it does. Especially given how necessary (let alone justifiable) excluding him from this service was. Showing compassion to people in a general sense does not entail never doing anything they don't like, nor giving them carte blanche to endanger you and refraining from exercising the necessary force to prevent that. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1