LogFAQs > #959992567

adjl posted...

All of those assumptions are necessary to create a situation analogous to this one.

Your assumption about the purpose of the question is wrong. At this point I doubt we agree on moral values under normal circumstances let alone extenuating ones. That was what I was trying to determine and applying your response to the story would come later. So I do not care about the question being analogous at this stage. What I care about is how you respond.

adjl posted...

Acts of hypocrisy are instantaneous, but judging somebody as a hypocrite requires a pattern of hypocritical behaviour.

Looking back through the discussion I said "The hypocrisy is obvious". That refered to a single event where they acted hypocritical. At post 58 I responded to something in way where it sounded like you had established a pattern of Christians being hypocrites. Then in post 61 you characterized my position as "otherwise they are hypocrites". Now you want to distinguish between a single act of hypocrisy and being a hypocrite when it was you who equated those in the first place. I suppose my mistake was not realizing what you were doing in order to correct you then.

adjl posted...

That book predates germ theory by a couple thousand years.

I imagine you've forgotten what we were talking about. We were on the subject of "showing compassion to him in some other way". We were debating if being hostile at one time is made up for by showing kindness another time. That debate is not impacted by the advent of germ theory.

---

No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.
Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB