Poll of the Day > Church is called EVIL for NOT allowing MASKLESS MAN Pray and caused a BRAWL!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

adjl posted...

Why would you assume an alternate explanation than the one that is explicitly and definitively presented?

Because the original post says that the church has had a problem with him before but does no into detail about what that problem was.

adjl posted...

So you would expect them to open their doors to a gunman that was shooting every Christian he could find?

That is not my expectation but the expectation of the god they supposedly worship.

adjl posted...

Should they share the cup of communion with somebody with an active case of Ebola?

They should serve him communion. Whether they all use the same cup depends on the tradition of that church. Many churches today use those trays that hold individual cups.

adjl posted...

Or are they permitted to shun people that are openly dangerous and/or hostile to them?

No.

---

adjl posted...

So his status as a leper (voluntarily so) contributes no moral obligation to welcome him?

Correct.

adjl posted...

Meaning they should instead focus on the practical reality of how safe such a decision is?

Wrong. That is entirely beside the point.

adjl posted...

So do you plan on presenting an argument in favour of not kicking out somebody

That's what I've been doing the entire time.

adjl posted...

That being the prerequisite for the conclusion that you seem to think I've reached

I think you expect an argument that focuses on the person being right or wrong to be there. My argument has focused on the church rejecting someone.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Because the original post says that the church has had a problem with him before but does no into detail about what that problem was.

We've seen enough Duckbear posts at this point to pretty safely presume that the anti-masking thing was the basis for the previous trespassing problems, based on his wording. If you can find any indication that this is inaccurate, I'm open to changing that presumption, but until then, believing otherwise is just baseless speculation.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That is not my expectation but the expectation of the god they supposedly worship.

If you actually believe that it is immoral and hypocritical of Christians to turn a literal mass murderer away from their church for their own safety, then I really don't know how to deal with you. That's simply not the way practical reality works. Nobody has that expectation, nor should anyone have that expectation, because that expectation is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. I don't know how you're so detached from reality as to think that's a reasonable suggestion, but know this: It is not. Under any circumstances.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's what I've been doing the entire time.

You really have not. You have said nothing here that actually reflects an understanding of practical reality, let alone a logical conclusion based on those constraints. You have taken a ridiculously extreme, hyperbolically literal interpretation of scripture and based your entire position around the rules you think that sets forth instead of actually thinking for half a millisecond about how realistic that interpretation is. That's not an argument. I'm not even sure what that is.

---

adjl posted...

We've seen enough Duckbear posts at this point to pretty safely presume that the anti-masking thing was the basis for the previous trespassing problems, based on his wording.

We've seen enough Duckbear posts at this point to know that if he says two things together in a sentence they're unrelated and he just didn't know how to incorporate extra details. Calling the man maskless is no different than when he calls the subjects of other stories heifers. Unless you think the sole reason for the events that transpired was that those people were unattractive.

adjl posted...

I don't know how you're so detached from reality as to think that's a reasonable suggestion, but know this: It is not. Under any circumstances.

Do you think I'm a god? Do you think I'm the god they worship? I thought I was holding them to their own standard. You seem to think I'm the one who set that standard myself.

adjl posted...

You have said nothing here that actually reflects an understanding of practical reality, let alone a logical conclusion based on those constraints.

What does any of that have to do with religion?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

We've seen enough Duckbear posts at this point to know that if he says two things together in a sentence they're unrelated and he just didn't know how to incorporate extra details. Calling the man maskless is no different than when he calls the subjects of other stories heifers. Unless you think the sole reason for the events that transpired was that those people were unattractive.

adjl posted...

If you can find any indication that this is inaccurate, I'm open to changing that presumption, but until then, believing otherwise is just baseless speculation.

The challenge has been issued. Either meet it or concede that you can't.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Do you think I'm a god? Do you think I'm the god they worship? I thought I was holding them to their own standard. You seem to think I'm the one who set that standard myself.

Do you not have free will? You're holding them to the standard to which you want to hold them. Don't blame anyone else for that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What does any of that have to do with religion?

In case you haven't noticed, religious practice exists in the real world. That generally means the constraints of reality are applied to religious practice.

---

adjl posted...

The challenge has been issued. Either meet it or concede that you can't.

I believe I've done that.

adjl posted...

You're holding them to the standard to which you want to hold them.

Well if I held them to the standard of serving me cake and ice cream you would still argue that's not very realistic, plus there would be no indication that they would agree to that standard. The standard I'm holding them to is not the one I want but the one they profess through faith.

adjl posted...

That generally means the constraints of reality are applied to religious practice.

Quite the opposite. Religion is about spiritual matters, not worldly ones. Their own scripture says so.
"Unfaithful people! Don't you know that to be the world's friend means to be God's enemy?"
They are God's enemy in while in the house of God.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I believe I've done that.

Doing that entails finding the original article (Duckbear gets most of his news from Dailymail, as a starting point, though presumably this has been reported elsewhere) and finding something in there that indicates his prior trespassing offences were not mask-related. You have not done that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Well if I held them to the standard of serving me cake and ice cream you would still argue that's not very realistic,

That would indeed be unrealistic (though in pre-covid times, it was not at all uncommon for churches to serve snacks after services, sometimes including cake and/or ice cream, so perhaps not as unrealistic as you might think).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The standard I'm holding them to is not the one I want but the one they profess through faith.

Nobody actually does that. I'm increasingly convinced you've never actually interacted with a religious person and are instead basing your understanding on some caricature you've come up with based on learning very vaguely about the concept. Absolutely nobody follows every letter of the Bible literally. It's axiomatically impossible to: there are numerous mutually exclusive contradictions in there. Religious practice entails interpreting the teachings of scripture through the lens of modern life for the sake of applying them to become a better person. Interpreting all of it literally with no consideration of how it can be applied in a practical sense is useless.

Again, literally nobody holds the standard of "it's better to be shot than to turn somebody away from church." Especially when - as I mentioned earlier - turning somebody away from church whose entry would be genuinely dangerous does not mean denying them compassion and forgiveness. It's just tempering those goals with an understanding of the reality that letting somebody into church isn't worth getting shot over. You can extend that compassion to them much more practically and safely by visiting them in jail to read scripture to them or show them a recording of the service (though, realistically, somebody who was trying to shoot up a church probably doesn't actually care about getting to hear the sermon).

---

adjl posted...

Doing that entails finding the original article

You asked why I would assume there's an alternate explanation than the one given. I have explained to you why. The original article has nothing to do with how I interpret a Duckbear post.

adjl posted...

You have not done that.

No, but I have done what was asked of me. What was it you said previously about goal posts being moved?

adjl posted...

so perhaps not as unrealistic as you might think

Interesting... So thinking that total strangers will show up at my residence to feed me desert is a more realistic expectation than thinking that people in a church will treat others how the bible says to. It almost sounds like you're supporting my claim that they're hypocrites.

adjl posted...

Absolutely nobody follows every letter of the Bible literally.

I'm not interested in whether they've sacrificed a sheep for ever horse that has born on their land. Nor do I care that they don't have a pile of stones that has been anointed with oil to serve as an alter.
I'm interested in what the bible says about this one thing. I hope you can understand how one of them is relevant to the topic of discussion despite all the other things which are not.

adjl posted...

turning somebody away from church whose entry would be genuinely dangerous...

Do we know that to be the case? What makes you think that by ignoring him and allowing him to attend service would have resulted in anyone being harmed?

adjl posted...

...does not mean denying them compassion and forgiveness

That comes down to how you turn them away. Do you seriously think the video shows an example of compassion?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You asked why I would assume there's an alternate explanation than the one given. I have explained to you why. The original article has nothing to do with how I interpret a Duckbear post.

The original article is the authoritative source on how to interpret a Duckbear post. If there's ever any question, that not only has something to do with how you should be interpreting it, it's the only thing that does.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, but I have done what was asked of me. What was it you said previously about goal posts being moved?

I've clarified what I asked of you, since you misinterpreted the request. Providing clarification that corrects your mistaken assumption is not moving goal posts.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Interesting... So thinking that total strangers will show up at my residence to feed me desert is a more realistic expectation

Nah, you have to go to them. Deliveries are pretty rare and usually just a special favour from somebody in the congregation that feels bad that you weren't able to be there (such as taking a slice of cake home to a sick family member). Expecting delivery without involving yourself with the church at all would indeed be unrealistic.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm not interested in whether they've sacrificed a sheep for ever horse that has born on their land. Nor do I care that they don't have a pile of stones that has been anointed with oil to serve as an alter.
I'm interested in what the bible says about this one thing. I hope you can understand how one of them is relevant to the topic of discussion despite all the other things which are not.

If you've established a precedent of accepting non-literal interpretations of certain parts of the bible, then you cannot paint non-literal interpretations of other parts as being hypocritical simply for being non-literal. You're going to have to do actual work to justify literally interpreting those sections.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Do we know that to be the case? What makes you think that by ignoring him and allowing him to attend service would have resulted in anyone being harmed?

There's a goddamn pandemic, dingledorf. Pay attention.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That comes down to how you turn them away. Do you seriously think the video shows an example of compassion?

The video? Not so much. The offers of virtual services that pretty much every church has been providing for the past year and a half to those that can't or won't attend in-person services safely (which I presume this church also offers)? That qualifies as their due diligence to welcome him into their congregation. Meeting his repeated acts of aggression with an appropriate amount of hostility for the sake of removing him from the premises and ensuring everyone else's safety doesn't change that. They may also subsequently forgive his trespass and again welcome him to experience the service virtually in the future, or extend offers of pastoral care as needed, or permit him to join in person so long as he meets the necessary conditions. All fine examples of compassion and forgiveness.

---

adjl posted...

The original article is the authoritative source on how to interpret a Duckbear post.

I'm quite capable of forming my own opinions. I don't need to be told what to think.

adjl posted...

I've clarified what I asked of you, since you misinterpreted the request.

No, you made two separate requests.

adjl posted...

You're going to have to do actual work to justify literally interpreting those sections.

But those sections aren't relevant. It doesn't matter how they get interpreted. You really don't understand this concept, do you?

adjl posted...

There's a goddamn pandemic, dingledorf. Pay attention.

You have been comparing the guy to a "a gunman that was shooting every Christian he could find". When I suspect that there is more to the story you want me to prove that it is so rather then accept why I suspect that. Using your standards of proof demonstrate to me that the existence of a pandemic makes him the equivalent of an active shooter. Find the guy's medical records and show that he was both infected and contagious at the time. You can't fire bullets without a gun. You can't expose others if not infected yourself.

adjl posted...

That qualifies as their due diligence to welcome him into their congregation.

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? So long as you give them an alternative that excuses how you treat them any other time?

adjl posted...

permit him to join in person so long as he meets the necessary conditions

So show compassion when someone earns it? That expressly goes against the instruction in the bible as I explained earlier.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm quite capable of forming my own opinions. I don't need to be told what to think.

You shouldn't form opinions when facts exist to define what is right and wrong. Your opinion on the sum of 2 and 2 doesn't matter. It's going to be 4 (in base >4), no matter what you want to think.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, you made two separate requests.

Not from where I stand. That's a problem on your end.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

But those sections aren't relevant. It doesn't matter how they get interpreted. You really don't understand this concept, do you?

Your pretense is that Christians should categorically follow the passages in question, with no room for subjective, practical interpretation, otherwise they are hypocrites. If you're not going to hold other passages to the same standard, you need to present justification for why those aren't relevant such that Christians aren't hypocritical for failing to follow them.

For that matter, though, there's a fair chance that they are actually relevant to the congregation at hand. You can see in the video that the church has an altar. Why do you not call them hypocrites for using that table instead of a pile of stones anointed with oil? Do you call every Christian horse breeder hypocritical if they don't sacrifice a sheep whenever a new foal is born? These passages aren't relevant to the immediate discussion at hand, but they are relevant to the everyday lives of many Christians. Why, therefore, have you explicitly granted them a free pass while insisting on rigid, literal adherence to other passages?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You have been comparing the guy to a "a gunman that was shooting every Christian he could find".

Yes, that's correct. Those are logically analogous situations.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Using your standards of proof demonstrate to me that the existence of a pandemic makes him the equivalent of an active shooter.

The existence of a droplet-borne pandemic that can be spread asymptomatically means there is a risk of any person infecting any other person. This risk can be managed by enforcing distancing and masking requirements. Refusing to comply with those requirements is a refusal to mitigate that risk, which means that is a decision that endangers those around you and justifies employing countermeasures to mitigate the additional risk you are creating.

Because the pandemic exists, the risk exists. That risk can only be mitigated by everyone present taking preventative actions. Anyone who refuses to do so presents an elevated risk, and should be treated accordingly.

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? So long as you give them an alternative that excuses how you treat them any other time?

If they force their way into my house during a pandemic, without any sort of protective measures, and having been explicitly requested and ordered to call me instead of coming in? Yes. Absolutely. That's trespassing and wilfully endangering me. I'm perfectly willing to interact with them more safely, but it's not worth endangering myself because they don't know how to listen.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So show compassion when someone earns it? That expressly goes against the instruction in the bible as I explained earlier.

What part of "letting somebody into your church service regardless of how dangerous it is to do so is not the only way to show them compassion" are you struggling to understand?

---

Not wearing a mask in a close cut religious prayer service or any place in a close interior during a pandemic is evil.


---

I didn't see a brawl.
---

adjl posted...

You shouldn't form opinions when facts exist to define what is right and wrong.

Except those facts don't exist. The only way they would is if the preacher went into more detail about the history when being interviewed. Barring that, one of us would have to interview him ourselves.

adjl posted...

That's a problem on your end.

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.

adjl posted...

you need to present justification for why those aren't relevant such that Christians aren't hypocritical for failing to follow them.

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?

adjl posted...

Why do you not call them hypocrites for using that table instead of a pile of stones anointed with oil?

Mostly because we're not talking about their altar. Secondly there are different types of altars mentioned in the bible. Some golden, some made of cedar, some with horns.

adjl posted...

Do you call every Christian horse breeder hypocritical if they don't sacrifice a sheep whenever a new foal is born?

No, because Jesus has already made that sacrifice on their behalf.

adjl posted...

These passages aren't relevant to the immediate discussion at hand

You seem to not actually understand that.

adjl posted...

but they are relevant to the everyday lives of many Christians.

No, not really. It's hard to find any application for the passage I mentioned earlier in this post.

---

adjl posted...

Yes, that's correct. Those are logically analogous situations.

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

adjl posted...

The existence of a droplet-borne pandemic that can be spread asymptomatically means there is a risk of any person infecting any other person.

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.

adjl posted...

If they force their way into my house

Let's just say they didn't.

adjl posted...

What part of "letting somebody into your church service regardless of how dangerous it is to do so is not the only way to show them compassion" are you struggling to understand?

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

---

I wish more churches were like this. The church my parents go to, nobody wears a mask

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.

---

No, but some Christian fanatics believe anything that shows human intelligence is evil.

---

adjl posted...

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

If the original article does then why haven't you used it to prove me wrong? I guess we're both lazy.

adjl posted...

That's not a teaching, so it's not something that anyone can follow.

Did you limit your criteria to a teaching? Looking back at the post you just said "the passages in question".

For that matter I don't think of Jesus inviting himself to diner at Zacchaeus's house is much of a teaching. But he was one of those tax collectors I mentioned.

adjl posted...

Why are you cherrypicking passages that you feel need to be followed absolutely literally

I don't believe I have. Do you have passages in mind that I've either excluded or have taken a different approach to? I think arguing about whether passages are literal is pointless. Especially since I'm not so sure how literal my use of it is. I gave examples where the meaning behind them supports that the church should not treat someone this way. Do you know of any passages that support shunning someone from joining in worship?

adjl posted...

You're welcome to explain why they aren't logically analogous.

You kept saying that the guy being there placed people at risk. Well shooting people is pretty definitive. You can very easily tell that a bullet was fired and hit someone. A bullet that is never fired has no potential to harm. Can you demonstrate that his droplets had the potential to harm?

Until you do that, the risk he posed is only your interpretation. You were not satisfied with reasoning alone to support my interpretation. So do yourself what you asked of me and gather external information which proves your interpretation to be correct.

adjl posted...

The existence of the pandemic means that there is a risk of any person infecting any other person.

Absolutely false. Only certain people can infect others. You cannot claim there was a risk unless you demonstrate that the guy was one of those people.

adjl posted...

Then they wouldn't be close enough to punch and it's a moot point.

So no one can get within arms length without first breaking into your house? Somehow I don't doubt that this is true for you. But for the sake of argument lets treat the question as if it pertains to people who aren't paranoid.

adjl posted...

You've been awfully fixated on the idea that not letting him join their service

That's what is shown in the video. As a church it was not appropriate for them to remove him, but also the way they went about it was unfitting. I'm not measuring their level of compassion at any other time because this is the point in time we're talking about. And in case I wasn't clear about where I stand, I don't think that showing compassion to him in some other way makes up for not doing so then.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If the original article does then why haven't you used it to prove me wrong? I guess we're both lazy.

You're the one claiming there's something deeper than face value. Burden of proof and whatnot.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Did you limit your criteria to a teaching?

If we're talking about passages that should influence behaviour, that's axiomatically limited to teachings. I don't have to impose any limitations myself.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

For that matter I don't think of Jesus inviting himself to diner at Zacchaeus's house is much of a teaching. But he was one of those tax collectors I mentioned.

I'd call that part of a teaching, given that it ties into the whole "everybody hates this guy but Jesus thinks he's pretty cool" thing.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't believe I have. Do you have passages in mind that I've either excluded or have taken a different approach to?

Well, when I said that nobody takes the entire bible literally, you pretty explicitly said there are parts that they don't need to. That's textbook cherrypicking.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Especially since I'm not so sure how literal my use of it is. I gave examples where the meaning behind them supports that the church should not treat someone this way.

If you're interpreting it subjectively, you've got to do a lot more to justify that interpretation than just say "this is what it says and you're a hypocrite if you don't follow that." Your position is a literalist one, which is generally not a very sensible way to approach these matters.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You kept saying that the guy being there placed people at risk. Well shooting people is pretty definitive. You can very easily tell that a bullet was fired and hit someone. A bullet that is never fired has no potential to harm. Can you demonstrate that his droplets had the potential to harm?

Analogies can differ in scale while still being logically analogous. What you're arguing is not that they are not analogous, but that the pandemic doesn't meet an arbitrary risk threshold that would justify excluding the man. If that's the route you want to take, then you need to quantify both risks to be able to make a proper comparison, specifically define the risk threshold, then justify choosing that threshold. Hop to it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Absolutely false. Only certain people can infect others. You cannot claim there was a risk unless you demonstrate that the guy was one of those people.

Quite the opposite: Until you can prove for certain that he is not infectious, you cannot claim that there is no risk. Without proving that, the risk always exists that he is infectious, which in turn means the risk always exists that he infects others. Of course, the actual probability of that risk is going to vary based on the circumstances, but during a pandemic, it is high enough to warrant taking precautionary measures as a default (including excluding those that refuse to take those measures from higher-risk activities).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
So no one can get within arms length without first breaking into your house?

You're moving those goalposts awfully quickly, given how much broader a question this is than the one you initially asked. Given all of the assumptions I've already presented, though (which I notice you conveniently did not quote, despite how dramatically they narrow the scenario), that is correct. If I'm meeting with somebody who is unwilling to take Covid control protocols, I will not be inviting them to meet me in person. If they attempt to do so despite my stated preference that they meet remotely instead, that's going to entail forcing their way into whatever space I'm occupying at that moment, in which case treating them as a trespasser and removing them from that space for my safety is justifiable.

Fortunately, that's not something that's ever come up for me. Everyone that I've interacted with has been sensible enough to comply with the appropriate protocols.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
I'm not measuring their level of compassion at any other time because this is the point in time we're talking about.

You're painting them as hypocrites. That's a much broader judgement than can be made based on a single incident.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
And in case I wasn't clear about where I stand, I don't think that showing compassion to him in some other way makes up for not doing so then.

Sure it does. Especially given how necessary (let alone justifiable) excluding him from this service was. Showing compassion to people in a general sense does not entail never doing anything they don't like, nor giving them carte blanche to endanger you and refraining from exercising the necessary force to prevent that.

---

adjl posted...

You're the one claiming there's something deeper than face value. Burden of proof and whatnot.

I don't even care about that. You asked me why I thought something and I explained my reasoning. Any aspect beyond that was entirely made up by you.

adjl posted...

If we're talking about passages that should influence behaviour, that's axiomatically limited to teachings.

So now passages that aren't teachings don't have to be explained as to why they aren't relevant.

But earlier you said this:
"If you're not going to hold other passages to the same standard, you need to present justification for why those aren't relevant such that Christians aren't hypocritical for failing to follow them."

The "other passages" you referred to were in regard to sacrificing a sheep and how altars are built. Neither of which are anything I would call a teaching.

That only came up because you wanted to argue about taking "every letter of the Bible literally". Which I'm not even arguing in favor of. I picked those as an example of something that doesn't matter how it's interpreted.

And the issue of relevancy came up because their own standards are relevant where as any arbitrary standard of my own would not be. So thank you for finally agreeing with me that this should have been obvious from the start.

adjl posted...

I'd call that part of a teaching, given that it ties into the whole "everybody hates this guy but Jesus thinks he's pretty cool" thing.

Yes, that's why I brought it up. Would you like to say anything about that?

adjl posted...

Well, when I said that nobody takes the entire bible literally, you pretty explicitly said there are parts that they don't need to. That's textbook cherrypicking.

According to wikipedia...
Cherry picking - is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.
The parts that I'm saying can be ignored are not related, or similar, or even contradict what I was saying earlier.
Now if there was a passage that is related to the subject and contradicts my position go ahead and point that out.

adjl posted...

If you're interpreting it subjectively... Your position is a literalist one

I think you contradicted yourself there.
I interpret the story of Zacchaeus to have a meaning which applies to this discussion. I could go into more detail about my interpretation, how it's similar to the situation, and in what way the people were not following that example. I think all of those details are quite obvious.

If I were being absolutely literal I would ignore the story of Zacchaeus because...
a) What do I care if no one has invited them self to his house?
b) I would think that it only applies to tax collectors.
and c) because the guy was in a church instead of sitting in a tree.

adjl posted...

What you're arguing is not that they are not analogous

They are not analogous because for the gunman the harm is obvious and intended. For the guy in the story harm has not been demonstrated.

---

adjl posted...

If that's the route you want to take, then you need to quantify both risks to be able to make a proper comparison, specifically define the risk threshold, then justify choosing that threshold. Hop to it.

I said the church is called to welcome them both. There is no threshold that would make one welcome when the other is not.

adjl posted...

Until you can prove for certain that he is not infectious, you cannot claim that there is no risk.

I say risk hasn't been proven. You say risk hasn't been disproven. Each of us will continue to interpret the situation differently. I think it's sufficient to support my interpretation through reasoning. How unfortunate for you that you don't. So go on, support your interpretation.

adjl posted...

Without proving that, the risk always exists that he is infectious, which in turn means the risk always exists that he infects others.

That's reasoning. Earlier you said reasoning was not enough to support an interpretation. Support what you're saying using your own standards.

adjl posted...

You're moving those goalposts awfully quickly

You're the one that started making stuff up. Now that's my doing?

adjl posted...

all of the assumptions I've already presented

All of those assumptions were wrong. You didn't answer the question. You twisted it into being about something you wanted to answer instead.

adjl posted...

You're painting them as hypocrites. That's a much broader judgement than can be made based on a single incident.

No, hypocrisy can occur on a moment to moment basis.

adjl posted...

Sure it does.

That would be a moral judgement. One that I think is contrary to the book which serves as the basis for christian morality.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So now passages that aren't teachings don't have to be explained as to why they aren't relevant.

But earlier you said this:
"If you're not going to hold other passages to the same standard, you need to present justification for why those aren't relevant such that Christians aren't hypocritical for failing to follow them."

The "other passages" you referred to were in regard to sacrificing a sheep and how altars are built. Neither of which are anything I would call a teaching.

They're explicit directions. That's as much a teaching as anything else in there. It's not a teaching that's particularly relevant or useful for everyday life, but deeming them as such is exactly the kind of subjective interpretation I'm talking about.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yes, that's why I brought it up. Would you like to say anything about that?

There's not much to say about it. The basic message is to make an effort to be kind to people that you and/or society don't like. That's generally a good thing. That doesn't, however, entail being a doormat to people that are actively seeking to harm you, or otherwise putting yourself in unnecessary danger. You'll notice Zacchaeus was previously making efforts to incorporate Jesus into his life, climbing trees and whatnot (I might be thinking of a different tax collector that nobody liked, but it's the same message). He wanted to be Jesus' friend, so Jesus befriended him. Jesus did not befriend him in spite of outright hostility, which is what would need to happen for this situation to be analogous..

You seem to be approaching this issue (both here and in similar topics) under the belief that people entering places that require masks without masks are making an innocent mistake. That's very much not the case in the vast, vast majority of instances. Everyone that has paid even the remotest amount of attention to the world around them for the past two years knows masks are expected in public places. All of these places have explicit signs posted indicating their mask requirements. Anyone not wearing a mask at this point is not doing so out of ignorance or a hapless error. They're doing so because they have made a choice to deliberately disregard public health recommendations. To actively choose to do something that disregards the safety and comfort of those around you is a voluntary act of hostility, no matter how much these people dinsgenuously try to paint it as simply "exercising their rights." They do not become victims when people act to protect themselves from that decision.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I said the church is called to welcome them both. There is no threshold that would make one welcome when the other is not.

You then proceeded to walk that back because welcoming an active shooter into a church is very obviously insanely idiotic. Unless you're going back to saying it's unreasonable and hypocritical for a church to shut its doors on such a person (which is not an expectation that anyone has any reason to have and I don't know why you would ever say something so ridiculous), there is a distinction being made between the danger posed by an active shooter and the danger posed by somebody ignoring public health recommendations during a pandemic. That distinction requires justification, and because the situations are logically analogous, that means identifying and justifying a threshold of acceptable risk.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I say risk hasn't been proven.

The mere existence of the pandemic proves the risk. Literally every human in the world is at risk of being infectious unless proven otherwise. That is an objective fact. I don't understand why you're struggling to grasp this.

Let's try a different approach: Do you genuinely believe that it is possible to get the Covid-19 pandemic under control by waiting until somebody is confirmed to be infectious before expecting them to follow infection control precautions?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

All of those assumptions were wrong. You didn't answer the question. You twisted it into being about something you wanted to answer instead.

All of those assumptions are necessary to create a situation analogous to this one. If none of those are true, the answer is no, but that answer isn't particularly relevant here. What we have here is a person who is refusing to take Covid precautions, who has been explicitly told not to enter the church because of that (which every "Mask required" does to everyone without a mask), who has been given the option of attending the service virtually, and has instead chosen to brazenly trespass in the church instead.

To make that analogous to a personal meeting with me, the hypothetical person would have to have refused precautions, been told not to come to me, been given a remote option for communicating, and insisted on instead coming in through a door that I would not open for him (roughly, "forcing his way into my house"). You may notice that that is an exact list of the assumptions that I made in answering your question, all of which are prerequisites for the answer of "yes, I would remove him by force if necessary" because they are prerequisites for a situation in which somebody is trespassing in a manner that endangers me. Naturally, I wouldn't jump straight to punching him, but if telling him to leave failed (and, realistically, if he's come in despite being told not to, it's probably going to), I would be justified in escalating the situation to remove the trespasser. Interestingly enough, that's exactly what happened here. Imagine that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, hypocrisy can occur on a moment to moment basis.

There isn't a single person on this planet that hasn't committed a hypocritical act at some point. Acts of hypocrisy are instantaneous, but judging somebody as a hypocrite requires a pattern of hypocritical behaviour.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That would be a moral judgement. One that I think is contrary to the book which serves as the basis for christian morality.

That book predates germ theory by a couple thousand years. It's inevitable that you're going to have to take some liberties in interpreting it during a public health crisis if you want to ensure the safety of those involved. Fortunately, new technologies like the Internet make it possible to welcome people to church without needing them to be physically present, so there's no need to humour those that insist on showing up and endangering people unnecessarily.

---

adjl posted...

They're explicit directions. That's as much a teaching as anything else in there.

Wrong. The altar example is more in line with 'this person did this at this time'. Unless I'm mistaken there isn't a passage which says when you build an altar you must do it this way. As for redeeming a horse it says that if you don't it's better that you snap its neck, however it's generally thought by theologians that the mandate for animal sacrifices was a temporary measure until Jesus served as the true sacrifice. So we have one case of not an instruction to follow, and one case of being countermanded later on.

adjl posted...

You'll notice Zacchaeus was previously making efforts to incorporate Jesus into his life

The guy in this story was there to worship and join in what the church was doing. Much more like Zacchaeus than the hypothetical gunman you keep comparing him to.

adjl posted...

Jesus did not befriend him in spite of outright hostility, which is what would need to happen for this situation to be analogous.

I think you can argue that about a gunman shooting Christians. But not the guy in this story. That is, he wasn't showing hostility until they tried to remove him. Even then the hostility was defensive to the hostility they enacted on him.

adjl posted...

You seem to be approaching this issue (both here and in similar topics) under the belief that people entering places that require masks without masks are making an innocent mistake.

Not a mistake. I think they are in the right and mandates are wrong. But that's an argument about civil liberties and government overreach. Other places don't really have a position already in place regarding that. I think this church is in the wrong for the reason of going against scripture which tells them not to treat people the way they did.

adjl posted...

Do you genuinely believe that it is possible to get the Covid-19 pandemic under control by waiting until somebody is confirmed to be infectious before expecting them to follow infection control precautions?

Yes, and here's an example to back up that belief. I recall reading about how the Amish community were effected. They were hit hard and early. But once they recovered it hasn't been a problem again. Plus with everything else shut down the situation has been rather lucrative for them since thy can move around freely and do jobs that others are stopped from doing. The restrictions are prolonging the pandemic and making things worse for society. The current approach is detrimental to resolving it.

adjl posted...

The mere existence of the pandemic proves the risk.

This is demonstrably false. There are ample cases of people testing positive and never developing symptoms. There is also the under-reporting of comorbidity, where people didn't die of the infection but of pre-existing conditions that were made worse. These factors serve as a basis to determine who is and is not at risk.

---

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.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Wrong. The altar example is more in line with 'this person did this at this time'. Unless I'm mistaken there isn't a passage which says when you build an altar you must do it this way. As for redeeming a horse it says that if you don't it's better that you snap its neck, however it's generally thought by theologians that the mandate for animal sacrifices was a temporary measure until Jesus served as the true sacrifice. So we have one case of not an instruction to follow, and one case of being countermanded later on.

You mean interpreting a biblical teaching in the context of other passages and/or modern life can lead to disregarding or tweaking it to ensure it's properly applicable? Man, if only somebody else in this discussion had tried to make that point already.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Not a mistake. I think they are in the right and mandates are wrong.

So they're deliberately acting in a manner that places those around them at unnecessary risk? Not just making an innocent mistake and being crucified for it? And here I thought you were trying not to paint them as being hostile.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

But that's an argument about civil liberties and government overreach.

Yeah, but you've previously indicated that you think traffic laws are an immoral infringement on personal freedom, so I think those of us that live in reality can safely disregard anything you have to say about civil liberties and government overreach.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yes, and here's an example to back up that belief. I recall reading about how the Amish community were effected. They were hit hard and early. But once they recovered it hasn't been a problem again. Plus with everything else shut down the situation has been rather lucrative for them since thy can move around freely and do jobs that others are stopped from doing. The restrictions are prolonging the pandemic and making things worse for society. The current approach is detrimental to resolving it.

Tell you what: You go and dig up actual statistics on how the Amish have been doing compared to the rest of the world over the past year and a half, as well as their compliance rates with other precautions, show conclusively that they have managed to resolve the situation more effectively than anyone else, and then I'll accept that as a legitimate example. It still isn't going to make much of an argument, given that a single, vague anecdote never does, but at least it'll be a legitimate example and I can work on your misconceptions from there. Until then, I can say with the utmost certainty that you have no reason to believe that the pandemic will be resolved without taking precautions like this (at least, not without racking up a catastrophic body count in the process).

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This is demonstrably false

It's axiomatically true. The risk of being infectious exists for every single human that has not gone to considerable lengths to prove that they are safe. I don't know why you're struggling so much with understanding this fact.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

There are ample cases of people testing positive and never developing symptoms. There is also the under-reporting of comorbidity, where people didn't die of the infection but of pre-existing conditions that were made worse.

Well, that might explain it. Asymptomatic transmission is a thing, and dying because of pre-existing comorbidities indicates nothing about the risk of transmitting it to others. If that's your reason for believing there's no risk, then believing there's no risk means you just plain don't understand how infectious diseases work.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

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.

Then my response is "No, I wouldn't randomly punch somebody for coming to visit in person instead of calling unless there were extenuating circumstances that warranted such a response." I don't know why you're asking that, since that has nothing to do with the situation at hand unless additional conditions are applied to make it analogous, but you do you.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
Looking back through the discussion I said "The hypocrisy is obvious".

In that case, there's no further reason to pursue that line of argument. The hypocrisy is not obvious, because nothing about Christian practice requires people to be such doormats as to compromise personal safety just so somebody doesn't have to wear a a mildly uncomfortable piece of cloth or watch the service from home, but if you're not trying to more broadly paint them as hypocrites, then carry on.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
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.

The advent of germ theory, however, indicates that allowing this guy to worship in person compromises personal safety to such an extent that booting him out by force is justifiable (provided suitable non-violent means were tried first, which they were). A justifiable violent act doesn't have to be made up for, because it's already justified. Therefore, being kind enough to invite him to attend service virtually or while properly masked satisfies the call to be compassionate to him.

---

adjl posted...

Man, if only somebody else in this discussion had tried to make that point already.

You're snarkily implying here that you did that. Let's chalk it up to the length that this has been going on that I don't recall that happening.

adjl posted...

So they're deliberately acting in a manner that places those around them at unnecessary risk?

As I've explained, not everyone is at risk. If individuals are concerned that they are at risk then they should take precaution. They should not impose those precautions on others who don't share their concern.

adjl posted...

but you've previously indicated that you think traffic laws are an immoral infringement on personal freedom

I recall not having a position on that until you argued that was the case. Don't hold me at fault that you managed to be persuasive that one time.

adjl posted...

You go and dig up actual statistics

I'll add that to my to do list after I interview the preacher and find those medical records. Oh wait, one of those are your task. I'm noticing a pattern in how you demand more of others than you demand of yourself.

adjl posted...

It's axiomatically true.

I don't think that word means what you think it means seeing as how I can challenge the validity of everything you've applied it to.

---

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.

---

You guys are acting like a married couple.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You're snarkily implying here that you did that. Let's chalk it up to the length that this has been going on that I don't recall that happening.

Pretty much everything I've said on the subject amounts to "you don't have to take the bible that literally."

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

If individuals are concerned that they are at risk then they should take precaution.

They are taking precautions: They're excluding unmasked people from the building.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I recall not having a position on that until you argued that was the case. Don't hold me at fault that you managed to be persuasive that one time.

The only thing I did to persuade you of that was to point out how analogous your logic was to claiming that traffic laws shouldn't exist. The intent was to help you realize how absurd you were being. Instead, you just adjusted your other views to be equally absurd. I applaud your willingness to update your views for the sake of logical consistency, but being intellectually honest about holding absurd views that are blatantly incompatible with reality doesn't make them any less absurd.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'll add that to my to do list after I interview the preacher and find those medical records. Oh wait, one of those are your task.

Interviewing the preacher and finding medical records would add nothing to the discussion. The corresponding pieces of information (that is, the previous trespassing incidents and the possibility that he's infectious, respectively) have already been sufficiently established (by Duckbear saying so and the mere existence of the pandemic, respectively). Meanwhile, without providing statistics on the case, hospitalization, and death rates among both the Amish and general populations, claiming that case, hospitalization, and death rates among the Amish population are lower than those among the general population is just a teensy bit completely baseless.

Therefore, providing statistics to substantiate the claim on which you're basing your entire argument would add appreciably to the discussion. Specifically, it would give you an actual point.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

a) If someone has not been exposed there is no risk of exposing others.

This is true, but that's a hell of a condition to prove, and until you prove it, you cannot conclude that there is no risk.

In practice, what people tend to do in this regard is to estimate the risk of exposure for whoever they're interacting with, and use that to assess how risky it is to interact with them in person. In a public setting like this, however, you can't really do that for every stranger that walks through the door. It's just not practical, and even for regulars, the risk assessment has to take into account the comfort levels of everyone present, which gets unreasonably complicated. Given that difficulty and how utterly trivial mask-wearing is, everyone's just assumed to be risky enough to warrant masks for the sake of erring on the side of caution. It's not a big deal, until somebody like this decides to make it into one by trying to fight it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

b) If someone doesn't develop symptoms then being exposed posed no risk to them.

This is objectively false. Covid can spread asymptomatically for up to two weeks after the initial exposure. This has been common knowledge since nearly day 1 of this whole mess, which is a major part of why it's so difficult to prove that somebody has not been exposed and the sole reason all of these preventative measures are being applied so proactively.

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.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

c) If someone has a condition that places them at risk the responsibility is theirs alone to avoid exposure.

Should hemophiliacs wear body armour at all times to offset their increased risk of death if somebody stabs them? Or should we expect the rest of the world to just not stab them?

Moreover, part of avoiding exposure can include prohibiting people that might pose a risk from exposing them. In turn, part of that can include people that care about them enacting such measures for their protection. If those running the church want to kick out people that aren't wearing masks for the sake of protecting their more vulnerable congregants, that's their prerogative. If those running the country want to restrict those that won't wear masks for the sake of protecting their more vulnerable citizens, that's their prerogative.

Further still, those without comorbidities are still at considerable risk from Covid. People love to cling to the assumption that it's just unhealthy old people dying from it, but that's just not true at all. Everyone should be trying to avoid infection, and everyone should be trying to avoid infecting others.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
But as you said you wouldn't it has become clearer that your answer changed based on a perceived act of aggression.

That is indeed how all of those "assuming the person was actively endangering me" conditions should be interpreted, yes. I don't really know how else they would have been interpreted, but I'm glad we're on the same page now.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
The next step is to convince you that disregarding your preference to be called on the phone is not an act of aggression.

Any deliberate decision to expose me to harm (or the risk thereof) against my wishes is an act of aggression. You're not going to convince me otherwise, nor should you, because that's pretty much exactly what any reasonable person would say "act of aggression" means.

---

adjl posted...

Pretty much everything I've said on the subject amounts to "you don't have to take the bible that literally."

Yeah, that's what I thought. So I don't recall that happening because, by your own admission, it didn't happen.

adjl posted...

They are taking precautions: They're excluding unmasked people from the building.

You missed the second part. They should not impose those precautions on others who don't share their concern. If they are so concerned that it leads them to remove other people from a public place then they are the ones who shouldn't be there.

adjl posted...

Instead, you just adjusted your other views to be equally absurd.

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.

adjl posted...

Interviewing the preacher and finding medical records would add nothing to the discussion.

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.

adjl posted...

Meanwhile, without providing statistics on the case, hospitalization, and death rates among both the Amish and general populations, claiming that case, hospitalization, and death rates among the Amish population are lower than those among the general population is just a teensy bit completely baseless.

Well here's the problem with having read something. They didn't provide statistics any more than Full Throttle provided medical records.

adjl posted...

This is true, but that's a hell of a condition to prove, and until you prove it, you cannot conclude that there is no risk.

You conceded it is true so I don't have to prove anything further.

adjl posted...

It's just not practical, and even for regulars, the risk assessment has to take into account the comfort levels of everyone present, which gets unreasonably complicated.

If someone is not comfortable with that then they are the one who should not be there. Anyone attending has implicitly agreed that they are comfortable with the level of risk. This remains true whether there is currently a pandemic or not.

---

adjl posted...

This is objectively false.

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...

Should hemophiliacs wear body armour at all times to offset their increased risk of death if somebody stabs them?

If that is the precaution they want to take.

adjl posted...

Or should we expect the rest of the world to just not stab them?

It's been a few years since I was last stabbed. It seems like a rather rare occurrence already.

adjl posted...

If those running the church want to kick out people that aren't wearing masks for the sake of protecting their more vulnerable congregants, that's their prerogative.

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.

adjl posted...

If those running the country want to restrict those that won't wear masks for the sake of protecting their more vulnerable citizens, that's their prerogative.

Public servants hold their position at the behest of those they represent. If their policies are unpopular they are obligated to reverse them.

---

adjl posted...

Everyone should be trying to avoid infection, and everyone should be trying to avoid infecting others.

This will only prolong the pandemic and worsen the impact it has on society.

adjl posted...

That is indeed how all of those "assuming the person was actively endangering me" conditions should be interpreted, yes.

This is wrong. The person talking to you doesn't intend you harm.

adjl posted...

I'm glad we're on the same page now.

It seems like you're making erroneous assumptions again.

adjl posted...

Any deliberate decision to expose me to harm (or the risk thereof) against my wishes is an act of aggression.

This is why I called you paranoid earlier. None of this is part of the example I presented.

---

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.

---

having traffic laws is a necessary prerequisite for removing dangerous drivers from the road

Nah, dangerous drivers would remove themselves if not so protected by traffic laws.

Medical records from the time of this incident cannot prove that he was not contagious.

Sure it can. If it shows he had a negative test then he can't possibly infect others since he was not infected himself.

basing your entire understanding of the pandemic

It's the only example I've given. It's not the only data point I'm using.

You have to prove that it's relevant.

You were talking about the risk of infecting others. Now you need proof that infection status is relevant. If you are unsure then I'd like to take the position that talking about the risk of infecting others was not relevant to the discussion.

What you're saying is analogous to saying that hemophiliacs are the only ones responsible for ensuring they don't bleed to death

That's not even an analogy. I plainly stated it. You're just applying what I said to a specified condition.

by extension, that anyone who does stab them should suffer no consequences for doing so

I don't know where you got that from. It's still illegal to stab people. More so if they die from it. They should face the exact same consequence as they would for stabbing anyone.

they want to create an environment that is safe enough for people to worship in person even if they are concerned

This has resulted in making it unsafe for people who don't share their concern.

---

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,

If your claim is that you distrust authority as much as I do then why would you want them making decision about public health?

Is this still based on that one thing you read that said the Amish are doing alright

No, I've thought this from the beginning of the restrictions.

They intend to expose me to more risk than I am willing to accept

You're assigning intent when it's you who are interpreting events in that way. The person talking to you doesn't hold that interpretation.

---

Church is evil.

Most of the people who are there are just innocent victims but,

he is evil for wanting to spread disease in church.

people like this should be treated no differently than a man in a ww1 gas mask walking down the street spraying something out of a giant container that has the words mustard gas or chlorine gas written on it.


---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Nah, dangerous drivers would remove themselves if not so protected by traffic laws.

Generally not without causing considerable other harm. That's not a remotely practical solution.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Sure it can. If it shows he had a negative test then he can't possibly infect others since he was not infected himself.

PCR tests (the most reliable ones) take 1-3 days to provide results and cannot say anything about infections in that time frame, as well as having a ~9% false negative rate. Even if we can definitively say that he had a negative test and that he remained completely isolated between his test date and trying to go to church (which is very much not something I'm inclined to trust an anti-masker to do, given their history of flaunting public health precautions that they feel infringe on their freedoms), that's still only reduced the risk that he is infectious by 91%, not completely eliminated it.

Moreover, even if all of these conditions are true and we discount the possibility of a false negative, the church is not in a position to verify that claim reliably enough to incorporate it into their decision-making process, nor is there any reason (unless you can find evidence of it) to believe that he offered his test results and an affirmation that they accurately reflected his status. As such, this is not something that should be considered in assessing how reasonable the church's decision was.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It's the only example I've given. It's not the only data point I'm using.

It doesn't exactly set the bar high for the rest of your data, but you're welcome to share more if you think anything else might be more meaningful.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You were talking about the risk of infecting others. Now you need proof that infection status is relevant. If you are unsure then I'd like to take the position that talking about the risk of infecting others was not relevant to the discussion.

Infection status is relevant to the risk of infecting others. Infection status is not relevant to the decision-making process involved in enacting precautionary measures to reduce the risk of infecting others, given that it's so difficult to conclusively prove that somebody isn't infectious. Precautionary measures operate from the presumption that everyone is infectious and therefore everyone should follow precautions. That's obviously going to be erring on the side of caution in the vast majority of situations, but the cost of erring on the side of caution here is wearing a slightly uncomfortable piece of cloth for an hour. The cost of erring in the other direction can potentially be fatal, so that's not exactly a difficult cost analysis to make.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't know where you got that from.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I plainly stated it.

Yep. If the responsibility lies purely on the hemophiliac to armour themselves, that means there's no responsibility left to assign to Stabby McButtFace and therefore no basis for legally punishing him for failing to not stab somebody. If you want to legally punish Stabby McButtFace, that requires you to assign him some responsibility to not stab people.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This has resulted in making it unsafe for people who don't share their concern.

Not at all. People who don't share their concern can still attend the service in perfect safety. They just have to put on a mask. What endangered this man was not his lack of concern for others' safety, it was his decision to trespass.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
If your claim is that you distrust authority as much as I do then why would you want them making decision about public health?

Because I'm capable of thinking for myself and assessing what they're saying. I don't categorically accept their decisions. When the CDC announced that fully vaccinated people didn't need masks back in May, for example, I was not remotely shy about saying that was a stupid idea because it would result in businesses eschewing mask requirements entirely and people lying about their vaccination status (which, surprise surprise, it did, and cases exploded accordingly).

By and large, what governments are mandating (when they actually mandate things) makes sense. I want them making those decisions because they (or at least the public health agencies advising them, since many governments aren't listening very well to those agencies) have a pretty good track record of aligning with what I know to be accurate. Given that the alternative is letting a bunch of laypersons with little to no understanding of public health make decisions that personally benefit them, that's good enough for me.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
No, I've thought this from the beginning of the restrictions.

Based on what? That's what you provided as your justification for that belief; if you have further basis, you should have included that as well.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
You're assigning intent when it's you who are interpreting events in that way. The person talking to you doesn't hold that interpretation.

If I explicitly tell somebody not to do something because I'm concerned about the risk it exposes me to, then doing it anyway is an intentional decision to expose me to that risk. That's not accidental, that's not ignorant. They know full well what my concerns are and are deliberately pushing forward. If they disagree with my concerns, they can try to convince me otherwise, but if they don't do that, then they are intentionally exposing me to the risk that I have pointed out to them.

You seem to be ignoring one key point in this hypothetical situation: If I've told somebody not to come over, I'm not going to open my door for them, and in fact would lock it ahead of their arrival to keep them out. You've insisted that they're not forcing their way in, but that is literally the only way by which they are going to enter, in which case, I will indeed use force to eject them as necessary (and be justified in doing so because they're trespassing). If they aren't forcing their way in, then, as I said, I'm not going to be able to reach them for punching purposes and the issue is moot. That's the inescapable physical reality of the matter.

---

adjl posted...

That's not a remotely practical solution.

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?

adjl posted...

Infection status is not relevant to the decision-making process involved in enacting precautionary measures to reduce the risk of infecting others

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.

adjl posted...

If the responsibility lies purely on the hemophiliac to armour themselves, that means there's no responsibility left to assign

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.

Imagine this... Person A is intent on stabbing person B. But first they ask person B if they are a hemophiliac. If person B says yes do you think person A will change their mind about stabbing them?

Before you say that's no different from the person not wearing a mask, see my comment about assigning intent.

adjl posted...

Not at all. People who don't share their concern can still attend the service in perfect safety.

They assaulted someone over it. I doubt assault was something that occurred in the church before they "create an environment that is safe".

---

adjl posted...

Because I'm capable of thinking for myself and assessing what they're saying.

From the way this discussion has gone you seem to think that this is a unique ability which only you have.

adjl posted...

Based on what?

I'm capable of thinking for myself and assessing situations.

adjl posted...

If I explicitly tell somebody not to do something because I'm concerned about the risk it exposes me to

That's not in the scenario I presented. You added that yourself. As such everything you said after this is invalid.

adjl posted...

You seem to be ignoring one key point in this hypothetical situation: If I've told somebody not to come over

Quote me where that is part of the scenario.

---

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.

---

adjl posted...

That ideal isn't worth literally sacrificing lives to achieve

You said that people acting on their own was your ideal. Yet you're placing something with lower priority above your ideal. And in doing so advocating for something that works against your ideal.

adjl posted...

Absolutely nothing about what you just said follows any sort of logical train of thought.

You said infection status was not relevant. Thus the infection status of anyone else is also not relevant. It's perfectly logical. I think you just don't want to admit that you undermined your own argument.

adjl posted...

We're talking about who's responsible if somebody that's at a higher risk ends up dying due to somebody else's actions

No, we're not. What I've been saying applies to everyone, not just those at higher risk.

adjl posted...

You have stated that you are of the belief that somebody should be punished more harshly for stabbing somebody if their victim dies.

No, I don't believe that. I said it's more illegal to stab someone if they then die from it. That's not an indication of how I believe the justice system should work. The stabber performed a singular action. That action should merit a consistent punishment. At least in the US there are suppose to be protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Yet there are factors which allow cruelty by giving one person a harsher sentence than another when both people committed the same infraction.

adjl posted...

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.

At first it looks like you're saying an assault didn't occur by describing the use of force in different terms. Then you say an assault did occur but for different reasons than you think I attributed it to. But you differentiated two things that are one and the same. The "safety reasons" were that he didn't share their concern. Then that's even what I attributed it to.

adjl posted...

I definitely understand the issue of public health a whole lot better than you do.

What you suggest is a lack of understanding stems from a disagreement about priority. You can't accept that I place other notions above it in importance which you regard as lower notions, therefore I must not understand it.

---

adjl posted...

it's generally considered polite in scientific discussions

I've been discussing philosophy. If you thought this was a scientific discussion then where's your data?

adjl posted...

That's me telling them not to come over.

So punching them in the face is you telling them? In the part you quoted it didn't say anything about informing them prior to that.

adjl posted...

In the context of a goddamn pandemic (which is the context of this discussion and is therefore dictating most of my responses)

As I explained earlier, this branch of the discussion doesn't share that context.

adjl posted...

But then it also stops being remotely analogous to the situation here

Which I said it wasn't. So...

adjl posted...

You're not going to get anywhere with this particular arguing strategy.

I really think we're onto something with how you assign malicious intent to people you disagree with. I'm starting think it points to a deeper issue of not being able to see things from another person's perspective. I don't expect to be able to change you position with any of this. But I do want to study it further.

---