W
Walking_Home
Guest
Or on her holiness.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Or on her holiness.
E
Edward_H
Guest
I can’t believe this Pope is judging people!
This is terrible!!!For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Tact? Clothing bears little to tact. Actions and words are more likely to define tact (especially in the long run of things). To add an excessive value of tact on clothing is to throw a grenade that would strike even the clergy.Instead of trying to throw a hand grenade into a discussion…not sure why you felt the need to do this…think of modesty as a way of expressing oneself charitably, that is out of love.
It’s much much closer to “tact”
A nun’s attire isn’t the most tactful when said nun is walking by an arcade.
A friar’s garments look out of place on a skateboard park.
Besides, with the changes of fashion tastes, even certain types of modest are going to draw attention even more than “immodest ones”. (Muslim women in burkas are a nice example).
What logical loophole did you go through to reach that? Forget a parallel. This is the complete opposite of what I’m saying.To apply your logic to it, the giver has absolutely no responsibility to expressing that criticism in a refined manner. Just be blunt, and the other person needs to take it like a man.
Again, let me repeat: You don’t blame victims just because their attackers claim that their appearances tempted them.
And FYI, I didn’t just use rape. There were at least three other different scenarios yet each had the same idea.
When I get beat up by bullies, you don’t blame me for dressing like a nerd.
Someone else also gave an example that you don’t blame a baker for displaying nice cakes when some glutton comes in and eats it all.
Lemme add some more.
You don’t blame a fruit vendor for putting his wares on display when thieves come and cart it off.
You don’t blame a bank’s logo for luring its bank robbers.
You certainly don’t blame the Twin Towers for being iconic as the cause of why the nutso Bin Laden targeted them.
Need. I. Say. More?
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Source? Here’s mine.Sorry…even dictionaries are catching up to our mental laziness.
Classically:
“Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.”
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Yet you have people who say that bikinis are immodest even in the beach setting.I can’t believe this Pope is judging people!
This is terrible!!!
Honestly, the Party of Modesty never seems to run out of complaints.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Tact? Clothing bears little to tact. Actions and words are more likely to define tact (especially in the long run of things). To add an excessive value of tact on clothing is to throw a grenade that would strike even the clergy.
A nun’s attire isn’t the most tactful when said nun is walking by an arcade.
A friar’s garments look out of place on a skateboard park.
/QUOTE]
I sensed that the connection between the act of modesty as expression and the act of criticism as expression would be too subtle for one who - spring-loaded - throws the words rape and Twin Towers into discussions on modesty.
And so you give me more grist.
A nun’s attire is entirely appropriate at an arcade. The purpose of religious attire is to remind others of the supernatural. My goodness.
Sounds like you’re judging based on appearances, to me!!
E
Edward_H
Guest
Yours is good enough to support my point. :>Source? Here’s mine.
Did you read the full entry? Did you not get the repeated feign, lie aspect?
Wikipedia or Britannica
britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=hypocrisy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
To get the classic understanding of the word, look up its etymology
etymonline.com/index.php?search=hypocrisy&searchmode=none
hypocrita, from Gk. hypokrites “stage actor, pretender, dissembler,” from hypokrinesthai
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
You know words like this, I actually ignore because it’s a complete and deliberate misconstruing of my position.I sensed that the connection between the act of modesty as expression and the act of criticism as expression would be too subtle for one who - spring-loaded - throws the words rape and Twin Towers into discussions on modesty.
I did not equate modesty with rape. I can’t believe you’re taking this long to figure that out.
I’m saying that the people in the Party of Modesty think like folks who blame victims for their appearances.
Are you really intellectual as you like to make yourself out to be?A nun’s attire is entirely appropriate at an arcade. The purpose of religious attire is to remind others of the supernatural. My goodness.
Are you really a practicing Catholic?
Here is what the dictionary says about tact:
Obviously, the sight of a nun at an arcade isn’t exactly pleasing to its occupants (try awkward or ridiculous). In other words, a nun’s outfit makes one look out of place, just like a women in a bikini looks out of place in a Church.tact noun]
- a keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offense; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations.
- a keen sense of what is appropriate, tasteful, or aesthetically pleasing; taste; discrimination.
- touch or the sense of touch.
Then again, you like to dodge points to avoid understanding them so I can’t say I’m expecting much anymore.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Yes indeed. You’re feigning to be intellectual and charitable yet you are not.Yours is good enough to support my point. :>
Did you read the full entry? Did you not get the repeated feign, lie aspect?
Then again, it’s no surprise that hypocrites can be blind to their own hypocrisy.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I can’t believe this Pope is judging people!
For example, there is nothing immodest about the use of a bathing costume at a bathing place, but to wear it in the street or while out for a walk is contrary to the dictates of modesty.
He is putting clothing in context. A swimsuit – is fine for the pool and/or beach–but we don’t use it for general everyday wear-- like going to the grocery store.
E
Edward_H
Guest
This is a wonderful contribution to the discussion. ‘Tact’ does help us.Here is what the dictionary says about tact:
tact [noun]
- a keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offense; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations.
- a keen sense of what is appropriate, tasteful, or aesthetically pleasing; taste; discrimination.
- touch or the sense of touch.
It’s a keen sense to avoid offense, skill.
This is precisely the sense of modesty that I hold to. Not to some Puritanical form, but instead to refinement, to Christian attentiveness and sensibility.
Wonderful. It’s this charitable caution that we all need to bring to our interactions, physical and otherwise.
Thank you. I mean it, sincerely.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Why so. What is it that offends them or makes them awkward? Why should they care or pass judgement?Obviously, the sight of a nun at an arcade isn’t exactly pleasing to its occupants (try awkward or ridiculous). In other words, a nun’s outfit makes one look out of place, just like a women in a bikini looks out of place in a Church.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Oooh! Thank you! Also, when one reads this and keeps in mind the ever-changing nature of cultural contexts (and thus, fashion), you might as well start cutting down whatever significance you hold to physical appearances entirely.
How is this from Blessed Pope John Paul II.
E
Edward_H
Guest
No, I am pointing out a shortcoming in your understanding of a once useful word that has been coopted and defined down. You should thank me for that.Yes indeed. You’re feigning to be intellectual and charitable yet you are not.
Then again, it’s no surprise that hypocrites can be blind to their own hypocrisy.
E
Edward_H
Guest
I get it. I was being facetious.
He is putting clothing in context. A swimsuit – is fine for the pool and/or beach–but we don’t use it for general everyday wear-- like going to the grocery store.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Notice how it doesn’t make mention to clothing and in fact, implies more to action (refer to definition #1).This is a wonderful contribution to the discussion. ‘Tact’ does help us.
It’s a keen sense to avoid offense, skill.
This is precisely the sense of modesty that I hold to. Not to some Puritanical form, but instead to refinement, to Christian attentiveness and sensibility.
Wonderful. It’s this charitable caution that we all need to bring to our interactions, physical and otherwise.
Thank you. I mean it, sincerely.
You know I once mentioned it in another thread that I’d rather sit next to a girl in a bikini at a beach, writing my fantasy stories than next to a hollering fundamentalist in 50s style dress telling me I’ll go to hell for promoting witchcraft.
Because it’s out of place. However, it’s interesting that you mentioned passing judgment because that’s the sort of thinking I’ve been arguing against.Why so. What is it that offends them or makes them awkward? Why should they care or pass judgment?
I for one, would not actually mind seeing a nun in an arcade. It’s just a nun. Her outfit does not tell me anything else. She’s just a nun.
Look the fact is, you’re placing a value on physical appearances the same way the Party of Sex does. This has been my position since I first posted on this thread. It has been consistent. It has not changed.
Do not judge a book by by its cover.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Sorry but unless you’ve published your own dictionary, I’m sticking to what mine says.No, I am pointing out a shortcoming in your understanding of a once useful word that has been coopted and defined down. You should thank me for that.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Who are you to say this?N Because it’s out of place.
Who are you to pass judgement?
Who made you the arbiter of attire?
Are you from the ‘Party of Attire Police’?
What gives you the right?
I am appalled!
E
Edward_H
Guest
I told you…read the whole source you gave us…and if you don’t get the deception, deceive, feign element, you need to slow down and read the full definition, vs. just selectively eyeballing for proof text.Sorry but unless you’ve published your own dictionary, I’m sticking to what mine says.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Either you’re deliberately highlighting your own hypocrisy or just proving my point. Have you ever asked yourself these questions whenever you mentally call out women in mini-shorts, mini-skirts, and sleeveless?Who are you to say this?
Who are you to pass judgement?
Who made you the arbiter of attire?
Are you from the ‘Party of Attire Police’?
What gives you the right?
I am appalled!
Again, reread by responses and actually put the pieces together. What I am demonstrating is how your glorification of earthly appearances can also work against religious and clergy. A nun will look out of place in an arcade because of your very logic that places some golden value on physical attire.
I for one would not care if I saw a nun in an arcade, computer cafe, or a hobby shop. I don’t let it bother me. In the same way, you shouldn’t let girls in “immodest” clothing bother you.
Lesee… deception, feign element, deceive… yep. I’ve seen it all in your posts. It worked so well even you yourself have been fooled.I told you…read the whole source you gave us…and if you don’t get the deception, deceive, feign element, you need to slow down and read the full definition, vs. just selectively eyeballing for proof text.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.