LogFAQs > #960009123

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 11/14/21 11:23:53 PM #85:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I still thought the behaviors themselves were mutually beneficial. You persuaded me that the punishment imposed by the laws were counter productive. I'd rather someone stop at a red light because they understand the natural consequences if they don't and accept the responsibility for operating their vehicle. As opposed to only being concerned with getting a ticket if they are caught ignoring the red light. Except that having traffic laws is a necessary prerequisite for removing dangerous drivers from the road. Yeah, having people drive safely of their own volition is the ideal, but not everybody does, and there needs to be a framework to fix that. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... The medical records would meet your standard for proving if he caused any harm to others by being there. The preacher could say for certain if they removed him over health concerns or some other reason. Proving that he was contagious or that the church had other problems with him would defend the actions of the church. Proving that he was not contagious or that the mask was the only reason would condemn the actions of the church. Medical records from the time of this incident cannot prove that he was not contagious. Medical records from after the incident are irrelevant because they could not have been used to make a decision at the time. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Well here's the problem with having read something. They didn't provide statistics any more than Full Throttle provided medical records. Then perhaps you should do some more digging to validate what you read before basing your entire understanding of the pandemic response on it. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... You conceded it is true so I don't have to prove anything further. You have to prove that it's relevant. Go on, then: Prove that this man was conclusively known to not be contagious at the time these decisions were made. If you cannot, then you cannot base any conclusions off of the belief that he is not infectious, let alone the entire premise of your argument. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... It seems like you didn't follow what was said there. Someone is exposed. They never develop symptoms. How has exposure harmed them? adjl posted... Unless, of course, you're talking about assessing the situation after the fact to determine whether or not any harm has come from it, but assessments after the fact are utterly useless for deciding whether or not to take precautionary measures (by virtue of happening after the decision has already been made), so that's not even worth considering in such a context. Are you even reading what I'm saying? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... It's been a few years since I was last stabbed. It seems like a rather rare occurrence already. Doesn't matter how rare it is. What you're saying is analogous to saying that hemophiliacs are the only ones responsible for ensuring they don't bleed to death, and that nobody else has a responsibility to not stab them (and, by extension, that anyone who does stab them should suffer no consequences for doing so because their exsanguination was their own fault for being so unprepared). Why would you argue such a ludicrous thing? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... As you have been arguing, the vulnerable people can just attend church some other way and not impose their concerns onto those who are comfortable attending in person. They could, but why would you infringe on the church's right to decide whether or not they wanted to run their service that way? They have decided that they want to create an environment that is safe enough for people to worship in person even if they are concerned about being infected. Why should some jackass' unwillingness to wear a mask for an hour supersede that? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Public servants hold their position at the behest of those they represent. If their policies are unpopular they are obligated to reverse them. Right. I bet you think you can actually own land, too. Nice little fantasy, isn't it? Governments act however they feel is best for their view of the country. If that ends up conflicting with their constituents' desires to enough of an extent, they can potentially be voted out, and there's plenty of room to argue that some of the things they do aren't actually good for the country, but "they're obligated to reverse unpopular policies" isn't remotely true. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... This will only prolong the pandemic and worsen the impact it has on society. Trying to avoid spreading the disease will prolong the pandemic. Right. Is this still based on that one thing you read that said the Amish are doing alright but didn't actually provide any statistics or anything else that might help you validate that claim? Or do you have an actual basis for that that takes real data and public health expertise into account? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... This is wrong. The person talking to you doesn't intend you harm. They intend to expose me to more risk than I am willing to accept for something as pointless as meeting in person instead of over the phone. That has been defined as part of the scenario: If I have refused an in-person meeting because I don't want to be exposed to their carelessness, then I have expressed that I'm unwilling to accept that risk. If they nevertheless insist on coming in, they are willingly disregarding my wishes, not doing so in ignorance. That is intent, and that is trespassing, in which case they will be dealt with accordingly. Again, any deliberate decision to expose me to harm (or the risk thereof) against my wishes is an act of aggression. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:960009123] in Church is ... [t:79731933]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>I still thought the behaviors themselves were mutually beneficial. You persuaded me that the punishment imposed by the laws were counter productive. I'd rather someone stop at a red light because they understand the natural consequences if they don't and accept the responsibility for operating their vehicle. As opposed to only being concerned with getting a ticket if they are caught ignoring the red light.</quote> Except that having traffic laws is a necessary prerequisite for removing dangerous drivers from the road. Yeah, having people drive safely of their own volition is the ideal, but not everybody does, and there needs to be a framework to fix that. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>The medical records would meet your standard for proving if he caused any harm to others by being there. The preacher could say for certain if they removed him over health concerns or some other reason. Proving that he was contagious or that the church had other problems with him would defend the actions of the church. Proving that he was not contagious or that the mask was the only reason would condemn the actions of the church.</quote> Medical records from the time of this incident cannot prove that he was not contagious. Medical records from after the incident are irrelevant because they could not have been used to make a decision at the time. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Well here's the problem with having read something. They didn't provide statistics any more than Full Throttle provided medical records.</quote> Then perhaps you should do some more digging to validate what you read before basing your entire understanding of the pandemic response on it. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>You conceded it is true so I don't have to prove anything further.</quote> You have to prove that it's relevant. Go on, then: Prove that this man was conclusively known to not be contagious at the time these decisions were made. If you cannot, then you cannot base any conclusions off of the belief that he is not infectious, let alone the entire premise of your argument. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>It seems like you didn't follow what was said there. Someone is exposed. They never develop symptoms. How has exposure harmed them?</quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Unless, of course, you're talking about assessing the situation after the fact to determine whether or not any harm has come from it, but assessments after the fact are utterly useless for deciding whether or not to take precautionary measures (by virtue of happening after the decision has already been made), so that's not even worth considering in such a context.</quote> Are you even reading what I'm saying? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>It's been a few years since I was last stabbed. It seems like a rather rare occurrence already.</quote> Doesn't matter how rare it is. What you're saying is analogous to saying that hemophiliacs are the only ones responsible for ensuring they don't bleed to death, and that nobody else has a responsibility to not stab them (and, by extension, that anyone who does stab them should suffer no consequences for doing so because their exsanguination was their own fault for being so unprepared). Why would you argue such a ludicrous thing? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> As you have been arguing, the vulnerable people can just attend church some other way and not impose their concerns onto those who are comfortable attending in person. They could, but why would you infringe on the church's right to decide whether or not they wanted to run their service that way? They have decided that they want to create an environment that is safe enough for people to worship in person even if they are concerned about being infected. Why should some jackass' unwillingness to wear a mask for an hour supersede that? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> Public servants hold their position at the behest of those they represent. If their policies are unpopular they are obligated to reverse them. Right. I bet you think you can actually own land, too. Nice little fantasy, isn't it? Governments act however they feel is best for their view of the country. If that ends up conflicting with their constituents' desires to enough of an extent, they can potentially be voted out, and there's plenty of room to argue that some of the things they do aren't actually good for the country, but "they're obligated to reverse unpopular policies" isn't remotely true. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> This will only prolong the pandemic and worsen the impact it has on society. Trying to avoid spreading the disease will prolong the pandemic. Right. Is this still based on that one thing you read that said the Amish are doing alright but didn't actually provide any statistics or anything else that might help you validate that claim? Or do you have an actual basis for that that takes real data and public health expertise into account? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> This is wrong. The person talking to you doesn't intend you harm. They intend to expose me to more risk than I am willing to accept for something as pointless as meeting in person instead of over the phone. That has been defined as part of the scenario: If I have refused an in-person meeting because I don't want to be exposed to their carelessness, then I have expressed that I'm unwilling to accept that risk. If they nevertheless insist on coming in, they are willingly disregarding my wishes, not doing so in ignorance. That is intent, and that is trespassing, in which case they will be dealt with accordingly. Again, any deliberate decision to expose me to harm (or the risk thereof) against my wishes is an act of aggression. --- 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