Drawing attention to yourself is not immodesty, however, immodesty can definitely draw attention.
Actually, it is. The dictionary ties it with concepts such as simplicity whereas you guys like to tie immodesty with vanity. The latter obviously creates an attention-seeking attitude.
That’s why I said “potential” and added that they could also be misinformed. I assume nothing. Also I never said anyone was shallow, what are you talking about.
It’s the same thing. You are forging a logically baseless connection between the concept of immodest to something that is superficial.
What party of modesty are you referring to? Or were you being sarcastic again?
It’s a collective term. Period. Now kindly deal with arguments instead of nitpicking the irrelevant.
I’m not saying there’s an absolute standard, as modesty changes based on situations, I’m saying that your approach is more that there is no standard, and it is all relative, and I’m saying we should hold a standard and not deviate merely because culture demands, especially coming from a culture that is becoming worse, not better.
Unfortunately, your focus is still too heavily on the superficial and does not distinguish between meaning and form. When a society as a whole begins changing fashions, what people perceive as modest and immodest changes. Modesty is about blending well with the crowd. Immodesty is about getting as many stares as you can. This can be done though with less awareness of clothing and more with awareness of the context.
You have not proven it wrong. Bare assertions are not a good counterargument.
I will also go further and prove myself right.
Words = Forms of Modesty
Meaning = Concept/Virtue of Modesty
Words have various forms for the same meaning.
Forms of modesty are also various yet carry that same virtue.
Which is why nuns and friars, and priests should still wear there traditional habits. It can serve to remind people that our faith is an all encompassing aspect of our lives, and that the Church should not be bent by the will of a falling culture.
Yet again, I have another who uses the “Reminder of the Faith” excuse. That still does not deny that the logic of the Party of Modesty shoots itself in the foot when its own standards are regarded as attention-seeking by the context of the society.
Which is why I find it ultimately fruitless to judge by appearances at all. In fact, I remember creating a thread that expressed just and you were one of the very first people who tried to come in actual defense of judging appearance.
I can definitely deny that context plays a greater power than clothing. Clothing is the outward expression of modesty, and those with no sense of modesty show it quite clearly in their clothing. The women I know who dress conservatively are the ones who are the most conscious of being modest. Same goes for the men I know who dress in a modest and respectable manner.
Yep, I can definitely see you coming into defense of human shallowness. Have you ever heard of “Never judge a book by its cover”?
I’ve met plenty of horrible people who dressed in ways that the Party of Modesty approved. Likewise, I have made a lot of nice people who dress in ways that would make them shriek. Do I have to make the same generalizations as you do purely based on their appearances?
Discussion of modesty is largely a discussion of clothing, not a pose, or a type of lipstick. No matter what the context, clothing is #1.
Actually that’s your perception because it’s quite clear from your words that appearances are everything to you.
When a prostitute puts their work clothes on, I’m pretty sure they are trying to look like a prostitute. If a person dresses that same way without intending to look like a prostitute, you cannot simply call it judgmental, as the clothes are intended to show something, even if the intention is separate.
If I dressed like a ninja, it doesn’t mean you have every right to assume my clothes are for stealth purposes and hiding weaponry. Because in case you didn’t know, plenty of misconceptions people have about pretty much everything are misconceptions based on appearances. What you might think is a ninja’s outfit may not actually be so (and for the sake of fun fact, the popular image of the ninja could potentially be far off from reality). You can say the same thing about the prostitute.
The real and simple truth is that you can never tell by a person’s looks. End of story. I hate to say this but you’re trying to make poor excuses for what makes man so horrible and shallow.
The clothing can be considered modest regardless of what we know of the person. This is a judgement on an immodest and impure attire, not a judgement on the person, who could be wearing the clothes for any number of reasons.
It doesn’t matter if you separate the clothes from the person. If you call my car evil, it doesn’t matter if you separate me from the vehicle. I still have to drive around it. I may even have to drive other people in it. You’d think a lot of people would want to be in an “evil” car?
Clearly the intention differentiates me from the fashion fanatics. Intention was one of your primary arguments if I remember correctly.
Despite your intention, your mentality is the same. We are to be judged by our appearances.
Just in the same way you would say the socialite bullies of my high school past were right to pick on me because I chose to dress as a nerd instead of Justin Timberlake.
