LogFAQs > #959995017

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!!!
SKARDAVNELNATE 11/14/21 2:44:44 PM #79:	adjl posted... I don't know why you're struggling so much with understanding this fact. a) If someone has not been exposed there is no risk of exposing others. b) If someone doesn't develop symptoms then being exposed posed no risk to them. c) If someone has a condition that places them at risk the responsibility is theirs alone to avoid exposure. Which of these points are you struggling with? adjl posted... I don't know why you're asking that Like I said. I don't think we agree on moral values under normal circumstances. But as you said you wouldn't it has become clearer that your answer changed based on a perceived act of aggression. The next step is to convince you that disregarding your preference to be called on the phone is not an act of aggression. adjl posted... In that case, there's no further reason to pursue that line of argument. The hypocrisy is not obvious I'm satisfied with this. How obvious it appears to individuals will depend on the level of knowledge they have about the bible. As such it would be clear to some while others struggle recognize it. adjl posted... allowing this guy to worship in person compromises personal safety to such an extent that booting him out by force is justifiable That's is what we're debating. Clearly I disagree with this assessment and have given my reasons why. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:959995017] in Church is ... [t:79731933]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>I don't know why you're struggling so much with understanding this fact.</quote>a) If someone has not been exposed there is no risk of exposing others. b) If someone doesn't develop symptoms then being exposed posed no risk to them. c) If someone has a condition that places them at risk the responsibility is theirs alone to avoid exposure. Which of these points are you struggling with? adjl posted... </cite> <quote>I don't know why you're asking that</quote>Like I said. I don't think we agree on moral values under normal circumstances. But as you said you wouldn't it has become clearer that your answer changed based on a perceived act of aggression. The next step is to convince you that disregarding your preference to be called on the phone is not an act of aggression. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>In that case, there's no further reason to pursue that line of argument. The hypocrisy is not obvious</quote>I'm satisfied with this. How obvious it appears to individuals will depend on the level of knowledge they have about the bible. As such it would be clear to some while others struggle recognize it. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>allowing this guy to worship in person compromises personal safety to such an extent that booting him out by force is justifiable</quote>That's is what we're debating. Clearly I disagree with this assessment and have given my reasons why. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1