LogFAQs > #960082985

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 11/17/21 11:57:43 AM #92:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Earlier you said "having people drive safely of their own volition is the ideal". Which policy encourages that, and which one allows them to foist responsibility onto others? That ideal isn't worth literally sacrificing lives to achieve, which is exactly what would happen if we just waited for dangerous drivers to kill themselves off with their dangerous driving. Those that wish to drive safely regardless of the laws will still do so. Those that don't will either begrudgingly comply or be forcibly taken off the road, hopefully before they hurt somebody. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... If his infection status is not relevant, then the infection status of anyone else as a result of him being there is also not relevant. Therefore reducing the risk of infecting others is not relevant to the decision-making process. Absolutely nothing about what you just said follows any sort of logical train of thought. Please try again. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... We were talking about the responsibility for taking precautions. Such as wearing armor, or not going to places where a stabbing may occur. We were not talking about the responsibility for the stabbing itself. We're talking about who's responsible if somebody that's at a higher risk ends up dying due to somebody else's actions that likely wouldn't have killed a less vulnerable person. You have stated that you are of the belief that somebody should be punished more harshly for stabbing somebody if their victim dies. That means you assigning at least some of the blame for the hemophiliac's death to the person who stabbed them. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... They assaulted someone over it. No, they used force to remove a trespasser. They did not assault him for not sharing their concern, they assaulted him for entering a building from which he was barred for safety reasons. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... From the way this discussion has gone you seem to think that this is a unique ability which only you have. It's certainly an ability a whole lot of other people seem to lack, based on how they seem to treat "I disagree with the government" as somehow automatically validating their position. From what you've demonstrated, I definitely understand the issue of public health a whole lot better than you do. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I'm capable of thinking for myself and assessing situations. That's nice, but it's generally considered polite in scientific discussions to present evidence that supports any conclusions you present, unless those conclusions are common knowledge/sense. A conclusion like "trying to keep the pandemic from exploding uncontrollably is going to make it worse" definitely is not common sense, so that applies here. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Quote me where that is part of the scenario. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... So if you preffer that someone call you on the phone that justifies punching them in the face if they talk to you in person? That's me telling them not to come over. In the context of a goddamn pandemic (which is the context of this discussion and is therefore dictating most of my responses), if I tell somebody I'd rather have a phone meeting than an in-person one, that's not something I'm going to be compromising on (since the only reason for that would be me not being comfortable with how risky their behaviour is, outside of obvious issues like "I'm not going to be home"). If politely requesting a phone meeting doesn't work, I'm going to be outright telling them that I don't want them coming over, which brings us to the rest of my response. Once again, outside of the context of a goddamn pandemic, this becomes a non-issue and I wouldn't be particularly objecting. But then it also stops being remotely analogous to the situation here, so there's not much point in bringing that up. I don't know why you're so bent on trying to construct this particular strawman, but I assure you that every single answer I give that is analogously applicable to the topic at hand will be logically consistent with my opinion on said topic. You're not going to get anywhere with this particular arguing strategy. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:960082985] in Church is ... [t:79731933]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Earlier you said "having people drive safely of their own volition is the ideal". Which policy encourages that, and which one allows them to foist responsibility onto others?</quote> That ideal isn't worth literally sacrificing lives to achieve, which is exactly what would happen if we just waited for dangerous drivers to kill themselves off with their dangerous driving. Those that wish to drive safely regardless of the laws will still do so. Those that don't will either begrudgingly comply or be forcibly taken off the road, hopefully before they hurt somebody. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>If his infection status is not relevant, then the infection status of anyone else as a result of him being there is also not relevant. Therefore reducing the risk of infecting others is not relevant to the decision-making process.</quote> Absolutely nothing about what you just said follows any sort of logical train of thought. Please try again. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>We were talking about the responsibility for taking precautions. Such as wearing armor, or not going to places where a stabbing may occur. We were not talking about the responsibility for the stabbing itself.</quote> We're talking about who's responsible if somebody that's at a higher risk ends up dying due to somebody else's actions that likely wouldn't have killed a less vulnerable person. You have stated that you are of the belief that somebody should be punished more harshly for stabbing somebody if their victim dies. That means you assigning at least some of the blame for the hemophiliac's death to the person who stabbed them. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>They assaulted someone over it.</quote> No, they used force to remove a trespasser. They did not assault him for not sharing their concern, they assaulted him for entering a building from which he was barred for safety reasons. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>From the way this discussion has gone you seem to think that this is a unique ability which only you have.</quote> It's certainly an ability a whole lot of other people seem to lack, based on how they seem to treat "I disagree with the government" as somehow automatically validating their position. From what you've demonstrated, I definitely understand the issue of public health a whole lot better than you do. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>I'm capable of thinking for myself and assessing situations.</quote> That's nice, but it's generally considered polite in scientific discussions to present evidence that supports any conclusions you present, unless those conclusions are common knowledge/sense. A conclusion like "trying to keep the pandemic from exploding uncontrollably is going to make it worse" definitely is not common sense, so that applies here. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Quote me where that is part of the scenario.</quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> So if you preffer that someone call you on the phone that justifies punching them in the face if they talk to you in person? That's me telling them not to come over. In the context of a goddamn pandemic (which is the context of this discussion and is therefore dictating most of my responses), if I tell somebody I'd rather have a phone meeting than an in-person one, that's not something I'm going to be compromising on (since the only reason for that would be me not being comfortable with how risky their behaviour is, outside of obvious issues like "I'm not going to be home"). If politely requesting a phone meeting doesn't work, I'm going to be outright telling them that I don't want them coming over, which brings us to the rest of my response. Once again, outside of the context of a goddamn pandemic, this becomes a non-issue and I wouldn't be particularly objecting. But then it also stops being remotely analogous to the situation here, so there's not much point in bringing that up. I don't know why you're so bent on trying to construct this particular strawman, but I assure you that every single answer I give that is analogously applicable to the topic at hand will be logically consistent with my opinion on said topic. You're not going to get anywhere with this particular arguing strategy. --- 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