re: Is it wrong to expect thots to cover themselves around children?

quote:

---

That depends on the "beauty" and the beholder, doesn't it though?

E.g., Do you think the girls in the OP intended to be sexually attractive to the lunatic. Of course not! Yet he obviously felt such was their effort.

---

It doesn't matter if the girls in the OP intended to be sexually attractive to the specific person calling them out. They were wanting to be seen as objects of desire to someone, maybe potentially everyone, or every male that walked by, even if they weren't wanting to reciprocate.

quote:

---

Words have meaning.
Consider that meaning in terms of the word "attractive".

---

Attractive means means being beautiful or pleasing to the eye, in particular. It doesn't have to have anything to do with sexual attraction or lust in particular.

quote:

---

We already addressed pedophlia.
You seem to hold parents rather than pedophiles responsible for the kid's "attractiveness". You actually went so far as to say the kid should not be allowed outside the house if a neighbor is a suspected pedophile and might get off on the visual.

---

Obviously pedophiles must be responsible for their actions and not put themselves in situations where they will be tempted to sin. I've already said as much previously. What I was talking about specifically in terms of the parents guarding their children by not making them tempting to a hypothetical pedophile was to not provide availability to the pedophile to lust after their kids. Ideally planting trees or erecting some structure or shade to block visibility into the yard from the neighbor's house would be considered in addition or instead of altering actions of the children.

The point was that it isn't the responsibility of the individual to consider the special use cases when going out in public, but to consider them as those situations arise.

quote:

---

An attractive Swedish girl innocently sashaying down Norr Mälarstrand in shorts and sandals might not get a second turn from you or I. But for an 18y/o testosterone infused Arab who's never seen a girl outside of a beekeeper's outfit, "lust" might lead to attempted rape. Is that the girl's fault?

---

Of course it's not her fault that the lust of those men overcame them in that example. It's their fault for not fleeing from temptation and for giving in to their desires in such a terrible way. With that said, everyone should try to act in wisdom and avoid tempting others based on circumstances we find ourselves in.

It might be fine to park a nice, expensive car in a nice part of town, but it may be foolish to do the same thing in a bad part of town. In that situation, the car is too tempting, and while it's not the "fault" of the car owner if it gets stolen, it certainly is unwise to present an opportunity for temptation for thieves that won't likely suffer repercussions for the theft. Likewise, a single, attractive girl walking alone in an area where groups of potentially violent men are huddled may not be a wise decision on her part even if it's not her fault if she gets assaulted. If she didn't know better, then it's not a matter of wisdom at all, but simply one of evil in the hearts of the perpetrators.

quote:

---

Exactly, so preface any discussion on abortion with an admission that you're "Pro-God's choice" and I'll preface any moral claim I make that ultimately it's just an opinion.

Your request of me is as ridiculous, or as necessary, as mine is of your.

---

I don't think it's ridiculous to say that you should qualify your condemnation of "immorality" as simply your opinion, because the common understanding is that any condemnation is already believed to be an objective moral condemnation; very few people have thought enough about their own worldviews to think anything different.

I, on the other hand, almost always have to justify my position about abortion as being based on God's standard of morality, so I almost always get to that point naturally with my condemnation of the practice.

I know you won't preface your comments with anything you don't want to. I'm just calling out your inconsistency by portraying an assumed sense of objective moral indignation when you know better.

quote:

---

But you brought them up, not me. I wanted to stick to abortion.

---

My clarification was in response to you say "you don't believe in the absolute sanctity of life".

quote:

---

I don't see any explanation in there of why you're making assumptions about my moral claims containing any sort of objective backing. We've discussed this topic in depth several times and you still keep acting as if I believe something that I do not. It's moved past the point of ignorance and into pure dishonesty.

---

Every time you make a public moral condemnation, you are acting inconsistently with what you profess to believe about morality. I keep calling you out on that. It's not ignorance or dishonesty. It's a response to your own inconsistency.

quote:

---

I'm saying that just like beauty, people can have their own opinions on what is moral and what isn't moral. You can ignore how human societies actually operate and smugly ignore those opinions while you clutch your Bible, but don't expect people to be impressed by that sort of behavior.

---

Most people are irrational and haven't thought through the implications of their own beliefs. I'm concerned with truth claims, not with going along with the irrationality of the world. And no, I'm not expecting anyone to be impressed. I actually expect people to respond like you do: with incredulity, mockery, and inconsistency.

quote:

---

Any moral quandary traps you see are of your own imagination. I'm of the mindset that many Christians are indoctrinated to see the grotesque parts of the Old Testament through the lens of rose colored glasses. I was in my 20s before I even realized that God didn't just drown murderers and rapists in that flood. Everything relating to that event had been carefully crafted to hide that fact. Everything from the coloring sheets at Vocational Bible Schools over the summer on up.

You may be surprised, but actually looking at the Bible from an neutral perspective turns a lot of Christians off to large swaths of the religion. This is why you're seeing Christianity waning in Western/Modern societies.

Sure there are the staunch people like yourself who would defend pedophilia if it were in the Bible, but many people are turned off about singing praise and worship to a God who drowned children to solve a problem he could have without drowning children.

Sure, ultimately that's just an opinion, but it does speak to a lot of people who don't want children to be drowned.

---

There are a lot of ignorant Christians who profess faith out of tradition, nostalgia, or community be don't study the Bible at all. It's not about neutrality (no one is neutral), but ignorance. Even the belief that God is a cruel monster for drowning children and pregnant mothers in the flood is based on an ignorant or misguided notion that people are "good" and that God is unjust in punishing anyone who isn't a rapist and murderer.

It's my belief that the Church has been waning in the west because the Church over the past century has sought more and more to look just like the world and make the worship of God less about God and more about getting butts in pews, resulting in worship services that can't hardly be differentiated from a secular rock concert with a secular self-help guru giving a pep talk between sets. The Church in the west hasn't been offering a substantial alternative to the world and the world has seen that.

quote:

---

You do realize that women are attracted to male bodies as well, don't you? Women do watch male strippers...

---

Of course I do, and male strippers are doing the very thing I'm saying they shouldn't be doing: tempting women to sin.

quote:

---

You mentioned earlier that you wouldn't wear green if you knew that wearing that color would make a woman lust after you. Maybe wearing the color green will make some women lust after you, but being shirtless is arguably going to be more effective than wearing green.

---

Possibly, depending on the scenario and person in question. My point here was to highlight that if I know what causes an individual to be tempted to sin, I should try my best to avoid providing that temptation. That would be equally true if the friend was turned on by shirtless men with dad bods. I'd just wear a different shirt instead of taking mine off.

quote:

---

If you'll go to that extreme for wearing green, surely you'll not be shirtless in public. What's your facebook profile, I wanna look for beach/pool pics!

---

As someone else said, you don't have to worry about that. I've got nothing to ooh and ahh about. But to that point, if I believed that women generally would be turned on my by physique, I'd wear a shirt at the beach. I've had enough assurances from women that I know that it's not a problem, though. It's certainly not the equivalent to women walking around topless or in bikini tops, given the differences in men and women generally.

quote:

---

That's not true at all.

---

What characteristics of the female figure do you think a bikini highlights?

And whatever characteristics you mention, they cannot signify being "Youthful, healthy, mature enough to bear, and nurture, children." because that'd make me correct.

quote:

---

I'd imagine Muslism forcing non-Muslim women to cover up utter something similar.

God you're such a radical fundamentalist.

---

Believe what you want about me but at least I'm trying to be consistent with what I believe to be true.

Also, while I believe it's indecent for women to walk around in public with their breasts mostly exposed, I don't think it's the role of the civil magistrate to necessarily enforce a ban on it. I do believe in the Reformed view of the relationship between Church and State, which is that they should be separate but working together for the glory of God. The Church is to promote holiness through the gospel and teaching the people while the State should wield the sword of justice, not for conversion. They are working in two different spheres of authority.

quote:

---

Citation needed.

---

I'd actually like a citation for the converse if you would dispute what I said. Those who believe that something is immoral, believe that it is immoral, as in a true reality, not as a mere possibility or personal opinion. To say that something is immoral is to assume it is such in an absolute sense, otherwise they would qualify their condemnation (which is what I've asked you to do). It's why people don't get into serious disagreements about what the "best" color is, because people know that there isn't an objectively best color, but only what one prefers. If people thought through their worldviews, they might be less passionate about moral issues and their enforcement on others, but most people don't think through them, so here we are.

quote:

---

Yet you still don't want to self identify as "Pro-God's choice".

---

Only because it doesn't really add anything to the conversation. I would have to explain what that means with the same detail as I would otherwise but without making up my own moniker that is foreign to the person I'm talking to. I'm not asking you to come up with your own moniker. I'm only asking that you be honest and upfront that you don't actually believe anything is objectively moral or immoral but that your objections or support for particular policies are purely out of personal preference. That may actually be helpful, both in you being consistent with your position as well as potentially helping others see their own inconsistency in holding their own personal opinion up as objective moral truth.

quote:

---

Do pro-lifers cite the sanctity of life when addressing self defense and capital punishment? No? Then this is just a red herring.

---

Perhaps not in the words that I use, but yes, pro-lifers do often times explain that their position is based on preservation of life with those topics, just as I have done. It's almost necessary these days because any time a person says they are "pro-life", their opponents will counter with citing those exact points to try to prove that they aren't.

quote:

---

Nope, I've been honest, open, and consistency with my views on morality. You keep wanting to drag this, and every single other, conversation into a discussion about objective backing of moral claims because it's the only trick you know. Even as I repeatedly tell you that I'm not appealing to some objective source you still revert back to "muh objective standards!".

Stop.

---

I do this because I'm not having a private conversation with you. This is a public forum and it's important that others see that you have no leg to stand on to condemn anything within the realm of morality precisely because you don't appeal to an objective source. Not everyone is as aware of their own lack of basis for moral indignation as you are, so I believe it's necessary to call out the inconsistency of attempting to judge God or others when your own worldview precludes the activity.

quote:

---

Your stance is that women need to cover up because all people have to obey God. You're setting yourself up for the incredulity and mockery by adhering to a standard you cannot make consistant.

---

There is a standard that can be applied consistently within the public space and then held to with wisdom in the private space. Decency laws and standards have existed for a long, long time, and mockery and incredulity comes from those who see no need for such standards or who actively oppose them due to enjoying dressing provocatively or seeing others do so.

quote:

---

So you're ok with ugly women being topless.

AND

Not ok with attractive men being topless?

Yea, I bet. You're so consistent.

---

I'm not OK with ugly women being topless and I've said as much. The comment you quoted was self-deprecating commentary given the differences in men and women. A muscular young man with his shirt off is generally more lust-inducing than a hairy older man with a beer gut, however common decency entails covering sex organs, which is why women are generally required to cover their breasts, even if they are flat-chested or 90 years old with saggy breasts and not commonly attractive.

quote:

---

IDGAF how you label it, peoples feelings about various issues influence policy and set law. If everyone "didn't like abortion" it wouldn't be legal. If 90% of the population "didn't like abortion" it wouldn't be legal.

---

How many people do you think like taxes?

quote:

---

Sure, if you change your label from "pro-life" to "Pro-God's choice" just to clarify you don't believe in the absolute sanctity of life, you just believe only the children God doesn't want dead have a right to life.

---

Since you are commenting on a God that you do not believe in, I think it's fair to ask what conception of God we're talking about.

If it's the common conception of a transcendent, perfectly benevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being who created the universe and everything and everyone in it, then it's hard to see how you think anything that being could choose to do could be immoral.

It's pretty easy to see how created beings ending each other's lives could be considered immoral. They didn't create life and it wasn't theirs to take. So they took something that didn't belong to them.

If the being described above takes life, however, would it not be his/hers/its to take?

Is the created equal to or subordinate to the creator?

It appears to me the girls took every precaution to isolate from the general public, by positioning down by the jetties.

Nobody should want to sunbathe next to the Jetties or swim there.

Jetties attract biting flies,sand gnats on shore, and things that will eat you if you swim there.

Tell the guy to go into the dunes and hunt Rattlesnakes.