Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 140
- 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I just find it interesting that effectively someone can sit there drinking one hot drink while condemning someone else for drinking a different hot drink, or potentially a drink that has never been hot, under the authority of and despite the relevant passage unambiguously referring to "hot drinks".
I'm not trying to start an argument but this seems like it's purpose built for starting arguments.
The entire premise here is fuzzy. Nobody's condemning anyone, hence your perplexity. Upon our baptism, we have entered a voluntary agreement to abstain from specific beverages. Nobody is imposing that framework on people who do not adhere to our Church. Once again, it is a sacrifice we make akin to the Jewish kosher laws wrt shellfish.
"I just find it interesting that effectively someone can sit there eating chocolate with cherry liqueur in it while condemning someone else for slamming jägerbombs at the bar."
My perplexity is in learning that "hot drinks" is interpreted by those it affects in a way that includes certain cold drinks and precludes certain hot drinks. That's all. It's such a simple rule with such low stakes that I find it difficult to think of how it became contentious.
Well again, in 1830s America, it was well understood that hot beverages colloquially referred to tea and coffee as opposed to yerba mate. It is a whole-to-part synecdoche, a colloquial irregularity that appears in every spoken language.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link