Is anyone familiar with the practice of shunning?

Doh! Shame on you! No, me! No you!

 

This is true.

Since this thread is dealing a lot with drinking alcoholic beverages it should be pointed out that drinking alcoholic beverages is not immoral behavior.

 

You are correct.

 

Well, I’m not going to pick on Amy, especially when I got all your rhetoric to contend with which is much more fun. :smilewinkgrin:

Yet, you seem to fail acknowledging the enabling factors, double-mindedness, and truths in what one values are while writing it off as acceptable as long as they don’t literally coerce other’s to engage in the action? There is no reason to think that X will lead to Y? Really?!?

Here we go again…Maybe you missed my point about the “false dilemma perfectionist fallacy”?

Oh brother!...Maybe one issue here could begin by proceeding into an argument over your belief on whether morality and truths exist? But to go forward on that, I’ll first reiterate the “false dilemma perfectionist fallacy” concerning your 1st Amendment argument, because if you will not acknowledge morality and truth as an important value to hold on to then we have bigger issues to begin with. Therefore, by your reasoning, if you truly value your constitutional rights most then why not allow polygamy and pedophilia for others? You don’t, I hope.

In a civil society and within our form of government are we not imposing our morals on others? (Hence, the problem of you continual falling back on FDPF) The system is not perfect, but has purpose nonetheless. The real question is, when and where are you willing to draw the line on moral and truth issues, and is in regard to which you value most, amongst many variables such as what is your guide; is it about governmental liberty for yourself and others or truth in the matter of that particular area of morality? It isn’t an either/or proposition, (that poor reasoning relies on a FDPF) it’s about who one is serving and the truth in the heart. So why did the Pharisees not confess Christ? “For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (John 12). I see way too much of that going on today among Christians!

You are correct that it was not literally secret but my point would be the offense to the opposition here does have to do with privacy, because of being exposed on their decision to enable a change in policy rather than standing on the principle they have previously declared as a moral value which they agreed would otherwise be harmful to society. Again, as above, this relates to which they value most and where they draw the line. You can’t assert one cannot draw the line by reasoning back to the “FDPF” argument or deny the fallacy in “moral relativism” as by doing so you are merely avoiding getting to the truth in the matter by using rhetorical devices.

Further, to assert that the petition did not legalize alcohol consumption is full of semantic ambiguity and neglects the fact they are enabling others to change policy according to what they value most, and this is within the very same governmental system available to them which you so adamantly defend above all other values. Why sign the petiton if the matter is already in law and they don't agree to the change?

 

So you want to throw ministers of other denominations in prison?

1. Drinking alcohol is not a sinful practice.

2. Even if it were sinful, no one is supporting it. All anyone says is that government should get out of the way.

 

Well, I do indeed aim to please.

By your reckoning, we should all oppose Amendment I because it leads to taking the name of the Lord in vain and idolatry.

Your assertion of that here is fallacy.

It is not the government's job to mandate morality and truth. It is the government's job to guarantee freedoms and rights.

Nonsequitor. Polygamy and pedophelia are not constitutionally guaranteed.

No.

In regards to what is legal and illegal? Generally speaking, whenever something infringes upon the right of another, it should be opposed. That's why I oppose elective abortion. It infringes on the rights of the unborn.

The only reason you're using the "semantec ambiguity" argument is because you can't come up with a logically consistent argument. To claim semantec ambiguity does nothign but demonstrate your ignorance of the ballot measure procedure.

 

Then, I will rest while standing on what my prior posts have already addressed of your reasoning and debate practices rather than repeating myself and chasing rabbits.

 

Are you saying that nobody can sell medicines that contain alcohol and not one person can be a pharmacist?

 

Why?..........

 

The damage that alcoholic beverage abuse has done to many families, the many killed from drink driving, the fact that we can't even watch a telly film that every sod and his neighbour must imbibe at every turn, I can't see anything but a moral issue at question.

Including the small amount of alcohol included in some medicines is a ridiculous analogy.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Update: Pastor's pressure on members backfires: Trigg County votes to end prohibition.