LogFAQs > #959682285

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Except those facts don't exist

They do if the original article goes into further detail. Why are you afraid of confirming that?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No it's a problem on your end because you'll be denied what you want. You should have been more clear the first time.

It's your misinterpretation. I've tried clarifying, but you're making it very clear that you don't actually want to understand me, so there's not much more I can do.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Is that not self explanatory? I'll pick one for example.
2 Chronicles 9:25
Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem.

Do you think this passage is relevant to our discussion of how this person was treated?

That's not a teaching, so it's not something that anyone can follow. Not exactly the most analogous example.

I'm asking a very simple question: Why are you cherrypicking passages that you feel need to be followed absolutely literally (to such an extent that anyone who doesn't do so is a hypocrite)?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm starting to worry that you might actually believe that.

You're welcome to explain why they aren't logically analogous. I'll give you an important hint before you try: Analogies don't have to match in scale.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not true. They would first have to be exposed to the virus in order to be a carrier of it. I asked you to demonstrate that the guy had been exposed, not whether he had symptoms. Unlike you I was specific with my wording.

I was also specific with my wording. The existence of the pandemic means that there is a risk of any person infecting any other person. Period. Effectively managing that risk entails assuming that everyone is a carrier unless you can conclusively prove otherwise, which in a mass public setting is not at all feasible. As such, everyone needs to wear masks and distance in indoor public settings. There's no reason to except any one random individual from this, nor can you manage the risk effectively if you rely on conclusively determining that each individual is infectious before requiring them to take precautions.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Let's just say they didn't.

Then they wouldn't be close enough to punch and it's a moot point. If somebody is refusing to take Covid precautions and I've explicitly told them to call me instead of meeting in person, they're going to get awfully bored waiting for me to open my door if they try to meet in person instead.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Apparently the part where that was ever included in this conversation. At no point was it being "the only way" ever discussed.

You've been awfully fixated on the idea that not letting him join their service means they aren't extending compassion to him. People don't demonstrate that kind of fixation if they think there are other alternatives.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.