Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

[Jesse]

You have explained nothing re: Deut 15, only made assertions and tried to cast doubt.

And look: here you are again quoting authorities that doesn't make your case


Jesse: here you have shown yourself incapable of proper argument. You merely assert, and claim that your opponents aren't doing the homework and that you're "tired of explaining". When backed to the wall you quote chunks of texts from authorities in place of actually verbalising and defending an argument.

Deut 15 is wealth distribution. Nothing in what you cited contradicts the facts that people are mandated to loan money to the poor which will often become a gift due to remission of the debt every seventh year- as God himself recognised. In spite of this God still commanded his people to give freely to the poor.

Wow. You really are out of your depth aren't you. There really isn't much that needs to be said after this post from you.

[Paprika]

What is this - your attempt to save face from your prior error?

What error, pray tell?

[Cow Poke]

You quoted that post in this post of yours, dumbass.

As long as you're happy, Papster.

[Paprika]

Wow. You really are out of your depth aren't you. There really isn't much that needs to be said after this post from you.

Again, nothing of substance from Jesse. As to be expected, of course.

[Paprika]

DRAT! I amen'd this post before realizing it was yet another load of jackassery.

I recommend a talk with your subconscious.

[Jesse]

I gotta say. I am a bit shocked. Never seen such a quick deflection like that to a post. That's some crazy stuff right there.

[Cow Poke]

To be fair I don't recall Cow Poke having argued anywhere that forced wealth redistribution is immoral.

I have not.

But it is a reasonable conclusion to come to, given that he was digging in his heels to not recognise that redistribution was a reasonable interpretation of Jubilee because he thought it was to be used to support Obama's policies or some other.

Here is what you had originally claimed....

That's a false dichotomy. Scripture also advocated giving by force, eg the Jubilee laws. Because this is lilpix I suppose I have to spell out that this doesn't imply that all forced giving is good, but it surely means that not all forced giving is bad.

And you were responding in that post to this....

Why do you suppose the Bible advocates cheerful giving vs taking from one, by force, and giving to another?

You were presenting Jubilee EXACTLY as support for "taking from one, by force, and giving to another".

Perhaps you forgot that part.

It is the notion that Jubilee was in any way a basis for FORCED "redistribution" against which I 'dug in my heels' -- Jubilee did not FORCE anybody to "redistribute" anything.

[Paprika]

I gotta say. I am a bit shocked. Never seen such a quick deflection like that to a post. That's some crazy stuff right there.

Yes, you did outdo yourself there.

[Jesse]

Yes, you did outdo yourself there.

Keep trying to save face bro.

[Paprika]

But it is a reasonable conclusion to come to, given that he was digging in his heels to not recognise that redistribution was a reasonable interpretation of Jubilee because he thought it was to be used to support Obama's policies or some other.

It is the notion that Jubilee was in any way a basis for FORCED "redistribution" -- Jubilee did not FORCE anybody to "redistribute" anything.

Sure, sure. You were merely upset over people doing incorrect exegesis

Which was why you refused to budge until Adrift and I pointed out that no one had actually used Jubilee to argue for Obama's or (or any other politician's or internet blogger's) concept of redistribution).

[Paprika]

Keep trying to save face bro.

I would suggest that when trying to cheer yourself up you don't actually post what you say to yourself. No one's all that interested.

[Cow Poke]

Sure, sure. You were merely upset over people doing incorrect exegesis

Which was why you refused to budge until Adrift and I pointed out that no one had actually used Jubilee to argue for Obama's or (or any other politician's or internet blogger's) concept of redistribution).

Well, what, exactly, do you think Pix was talking about there, Pappie?

[Sam]

Well, of COURSE, cause you're mind's already made up!



Where have I ever made that claim, Sam?



Perhaps you should argue this with somebody who has actually made a claim that this is "immoral".

You're the one who wants to argue the topic without examining the context: if you had read the previous thread about this prior to assuming what the argument was about, we might not be in this mess. The original context was about the immorality of wealth distribution in light of ancient Israelite law. I'm not saying this is your

Entering into commerce with the understanding that Jubilee law will force redistribution of wealth is no different than entering into commerce with the understanding that taxes will force redistribution of wealth. It's not any more or less "forcing" that redistribution.

On which, I believe, we now agree.

[Cow Poke]

Sure, sure. You were merely upset over people doing incorrect exegesis

Which was why you refused to budge until Adrift and I pointed out that no one had actually used Jubilee to argue for Obama's or (or any other politician's or internet blogger's) concept of redistribution).

Here is the post to which you responded with your brilliant idea that Jubilee was a good example of FORCED redistribution.

[Paprika]

Well, what, exactly, do you think Pix was talking about there, Pappie?

I was merely correcting her statement about Scripture: that Scripture advocated cheerful giving and not giving by force, which is clearly contradicted by Jubilee and other laws.

If you actually read carefully, I was careful to clarify (for the lil one, but it looks like I need to put a disclaimer for you too next time) that "this doesn't imply that all forced giving is good, but it surely means that not all forced giving is bad."