alcohol

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 11:31 AM 2/16/99 -0600, Jim Washburn wrote:


>TILL

>Oh, dear, I knew not to reply as I did, but I did it anyway, so I will

>make one more comment.  You seem to be arguing that because Saudi

>Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan have certain laws that are repulsive to you,

>then their laws forbidding alcohol must be repulsive too.  If you can't

>see the logical fallacy in that, then I can't see that it would do any

>good to try to reason with you.  Whether permitting alcohol to be

>consumed or not is a matter that should be decided on its own merits and

>not on the basis of what OTHER laws may exist in societies that do

>forbid alcohol.



>WASHBURN

>No, I'm not arguing as you say I seem to be.  If I were I would have to

>argue that since Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan forbid murder (at

>least, murder of men), then I find laws forbidding murder to be

>repulsive. 


Adnan
What do you mean by "at least, murder of men"? Do these countries allow
murder of women?  Or are you implying that killing animals is murder?
 
WASHBURN

> What I am trying to point out is that you seem to be in

>favor of laws that exist only in places that are dominated by religious

>fundamentalism, and I think you should feel obliged to explain that.


ADNAN
Above you said that if Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan forbid murder that
does not mean law forbidding murder is repulsive. Why then law forbidding
alcohol must be repulsive if Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan have this
law? I can't see any connection here. 

• Previous message: alcohol
• Next message: alcohol
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]