|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/19/2008 5:48:15 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1337
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kat_D
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
Wearing clothes is the same as not wearing clothes.
HUH?
Okay, Sherlock... "wearing clothes" is not the same as "not wearing clothes" last time I checked.
Don't assign such stupidity to me. That was a paraphrase of her statement that wearing pants was the same as being naked. You edited my preceding sentence when you quoted me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/19/2008 7:08:38 PM
|
|
|
1love1God1way
Posts: 2196
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
I live in Minneapolis, and MOST places do an excellent job of accommodating for Muslim women's apparel.
Finding a job that meets her needs shouldn't be too hard.
_____________________________
love.ben
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/19/2008 8:39:47 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 5739
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where pigeons are getting their sweaters ready....
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
For me, it has nothing to do with her choice of religion. Employers should definitely have the right to make rules and expect them to be followed, after all it is their business. If someone has a problem following those rules, then they ought to go find another job that suits them better.
Bingo.
end.of.thread.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 10:21:27 AM
|
|
|
Kath
Posts: 17002
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
If she wears a shirt with her pants, is she topless?
I think you are purposely "misunderstanding" so you can continue to mock the woman. Shame on you. 
Once more, to her, wearing pants is *immodest*. It exposes more than is acceptable to her, and is therefore no better than being naked. She cannot anymore wear pants and consider herself modest than she could wear nothing and consider herself modest. It's not about clothing vs. nakedness. She did not say wearing pants is nakedness. She said that to her, it's *like being unclothed* because to her, it's just as immodest/exposes too much.
It's about modesty vs. immodesty. How much clearer do you need it? 
Heck. Why do I even bother?
"For me, wearing pants is the same as being naked." Wearing clothes is the same as not wearing clothes.
A fully clothed person is not naked.
Where did you get that "like being unclothed" quote? I don't see it anywhere.
Wearing pants is not the same as being naked. Going without clothes is the same as being naked.
Before you question my ability to think clearly, consider that it is not difficult to tell the difference between a clothed person and a naked one.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kat_D
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
Wearing clothes is the same as not wearing clothes.
HUH?
Okay, Sherlock... "wearing clothes" is not the same as "not wearing clothes" last time I checked.
That was a paraphrase of her statement that wearing pants was the same as being naked. You edited my preceding sentence when you quoted me.
(emphasis mine) 3cappuccinosmom is perhaps paraphrasing, the same as you did.
quote:
Where did you get that "like being unclothed" quote? I don't see it anywhere.
She didn't put quotes around it like you did. You are editing her post. She has asterisks around the phrase.
< Message edited by Kath -- 6/20/2008 10:33:58 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 10:54:12 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2335
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
naked (adj.) 1. unclothed;nude 2. without the usual coverings; bare exposed. 3. plain, undisguised.
Source: Webster's Handy College Dictionary
Mr. Webster has spoken. What further need have we of witnesses?! If we try to use #2 (without the usual coverings, ignoring the bare and exposed qualifiers) then we are travelling down that same road Bill Clinton trod when trying to define "is"!
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 10:59:18 AM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 750
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
If she feels naked in pants, does she also feel others in pants look naked? That could make for a pretty awkward walk down the street if you were her.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 11:16:34 AM
|
|
|
uncabeeil
Posts: 5785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Joisey. Got a problem wit dat?
Status: offline
|
quote:
Wearing pants is not the same as being naked. Going without clothes is the same as being naked. Can you really be this dense? It's been explained in very plain English twice now. You do realize that posting just to aggravate someone will get you banned from this forum, don't you? It's looking more and more like this is your only purpose in posting in this thread, to aggravate the person who took the time to try to explain things to you.
_____________________________
Confusion reigns, but it shall be conquered. - Damien Spinelli
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 1:24:46 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1337
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kath
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
If she wears a shirt with her pants, is she topless?
I think you are purposely "misunderstanding" so you can continue to mock the woman. Shame on you.
Once more, to her, wearing pants is *immodest*. It exposes more than is acceptable to her, and is therefore no better than being naked. She cannot anymore wear pants and consider herself modest than she could wear nothing and consider herself modest. It's not about clothing vs. nakedness. She did not say wearing pants is nakedness. She said that to her, it's *like being unclothed* because to her, it's just as immodest/exposes too much.
It's about modesty vs. immodesty. How much clearer do you need it?
Heck. Why do I even bother?
"For me, wearing pants is the same as being naked." Wearing clothes is the same as not wearing clothes.
A fully clothed person is not naked.
Where did you get that "like being unclothed" quote? I don't see it anywhere.
Wearing pants is not the same as being naked. Going without clothes is the same as being naked.
Before you question my ability to think clearly, consider that it is not difficult to tell the difference between a clothed person and a naked one.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kat_D
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
Wearing clothes is the same as not wearing clothes.
HUH?
Okay, Sherlock... "wearing clothes" is not the same as "not wearing clothes" last time I checked.
That was a paraphrase of her statement that wearing pants was the same as being naked. You edited my preceding sentence when you quoted me.
(emphasis mine) 3cappuccinosmom is perhaps paraphrasing, the same as you did.
quote:
Where did you get that "like being unclothed" quote? I don't see it anywhere.
She didn't put quotes around it like you did. You are editing her post. She has asterisks around the phrase.
What is your explaination of the use of two asterisks in such a situation?
It was presented as a quote, as it was preceded by, "She said..."
My paraphrase was not preceded by "She said...," nor were there any asterisks, quotes, hyphens or any other symbols used correctly or incorrectly to identify what "She said..."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 1:27:28 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1337
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
Before you question my ability to think clearly, consider that it is not difficult to tell the difference between a clothed person and a naked one.
Oh, I'm sure you can think clearly.
I'm also sure that you are deliberately playing dumb so you can continue your mockery.
I know the difference between a person with pants on and a naked one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 1:28:51 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 750
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kath
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
If she wears a shirt with her pants, is she topless?
I think you are purposely "misunderstanding" so you can continue to mock the woman. Shame on you.
Once more, to her, wearing pants is *immodest*. It exposes more than is acceptable to her, and is therefore no better than being naked. She cannot anymore wear pants and consider herself modest than she could wear nothing and consider herself modest. It's not about clothing vs. nakedness. She did not say wearing pants is nakedness. She said that to her, it's *like being unclothed* because to her, it's just as immodest/exposes too much.
It's about modesty vs. immodesty. How much clearer do you need it?
Heck. Why do I even bother?
"For me, wearing pants is the same as being naked." Wearing clothes is the same as not wearing clothes.
A fully clothed person is not naked.
Where did you get that "like being unclothed" quote? I don't see it anywhere.
Wearing pants is not the same as being naked. Going without clothes is the same as being naked.
Before you question my ability to think clearly, consider that it is not difficult to tell the difference between a clothed person and a naked one.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kat_D
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
Wearing clothes is the same as not wearing clothes.
HUH?
Okay, Sherlock... "wearing clothes" is not the same as "not wearing clothes" last time I checked.
That was a paraphrase of her statement that wearing pants was the same as being naked. You edited my preceding sentence when you quoted me.
(emphasis mine) 3cappuccinosmom is perhaps paraphrasing, the same as you did.
quote:
Where did you get that "like being unclothed" quote? I don't see it anywhere.
She didn't put quotes around it like you did. You are editing her post. She has asterisks around the phrase.
What is your explaination of the use of two asterisks in such a situation?
It was presented as a quote, as it was preceded by, "She said..."
My paraphrase was not preceded by "She said...," nor were there any asterisks, quotes, hyphens or any other symbols used correctly or incorrectly to identify what "She said..."
I'm getting dizzy   
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 3:11:01 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2335
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
But this Muslim lady is being deliberately stubborn. She needs to find a job that won't make her violate her PERSONAL convictions! Just like a Christian wouldn't take a job in an abortion clinic or as an exotic dancer!
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 5:59:06 PM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1337
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
I know the difference between a person with pants on and a naked one.
As do I. And as I'm sure the poor woman you're mocking also knows.
I'm so terribly, terribly sorry she made such a horrible mistake in not phrasing her explanation in perfect English for you.
quote:
"For me, wearing pants is the same as being naked."
It hasn't occurred to you yet (after multiple explanations) that she is talking about a moral equivalent, not a physical reality?
Like I said, I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
"For me, wearing pants is the same as being naked."
The woman had her say. Now you and some others are inventing words for her. Let her speak for herself.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 6:21:08 PM
|
|
|
KuKu
Posts: 785
Joined: 5/20/2005
From: Somewhere out there
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
I know the difference between a person with pants on and a naked one.
As do I. And as I'm sure the poor woman you're mocking also knows.
I'm so terribly, terribly sorry she made such a horrible mistake in not phrasing her explanation in perfect English for you.
quote:
"For me, wearing pants is the same as being naked."
It hasn't occurred to you yet (after multiple explanations) that she is talking about a moral equivalent, not a physical reality?
Like I said, I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
"For me, wearing pants is the same as being naked."
The woman had her say. Now you and some others are inventing words for her. Let her speak for herself.
In the Psalms, David describes God as having feathers and wings (he doesn't even say the same as- he simply says it outright). Am I making up words for him if I say that he does NOT feel that God is a bird?
I find this thread distasteful, and quite honestly painfully sad. Should I ever use a simile (yes, that's junior high grammar- I taught it), I would hope people would understand, rather than people mocking me in trying to prove that their beliefs are 'better'.
< Message edited by KuKu -- 6/20/2008 6:28:30 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 6:39:01 PM
|
|
|
DenimDiva
Posts: 6330
Joined: 9/28/2007
From: CA
Status: offline
|
She is in the wrong line of employment. I fully respect that she feels immodest wearing pants. However, the company she chose to work for has a dress code for a safety reason. I'm sorry that dress code does not fit with her beliefs.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/20/2008 6:42:11 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 750
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
It seems to me that everyone here agrees that she has the right to feel that way, but that she should go find a more suitable job if her employer is requiring her to do something she does not feel comfortable doing. To be perfectly honest I really can't even understand why there is still so much arguing going on in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/21/2008 12:08:21 AM
|
|
|
ljmac
Posts: 1337
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KuKu
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
I know the difference between a person with pants on and a naked one.
As do I. And as I'm sure the poor woman you're mocking also knows.
I'm so terribly, terribly sorry she made such a horrible mistake in not phrasing her explanation in perfect English for you.
quote:
"For me, wearing pants is the same as being naked."
It hasn't occurred to you yet (after multiple explanations) that she is talking about a moral equivalent, not a physical reality?
Like I said, I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
"For me, wearing pants is the same as being naked."
The woman had her say. Now you and some others are inventing words for her. Let her speak for herself.
In the Psalms, David describes God as having feathers and wings (he doesn't even say the same as- he simply says it outright). Am I making up words for him if I say that he does NOT feel that God is a bird?
I find this thread distasteful, and quite honestly painfully sad. Should I ever use a simile (yes, that's junior high grammar- I taught it), I would hope people would understand, rather than people mocking me in trying to prove that their beliefs are 'better'.
Do people who run around naked with clothes on belong on the sexual predator list?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/21/2008 12:16:35 AM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 750
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
Do people who run around naked with clothes on belong on the sexual predator list?
Now seriously, are you just trying to make certain folks around here mad?
Anyway, that did get a chuckle out of me though, but don't tell anyone else, I've been trying really hard to be sensible and stay out of this. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: fully clothed nudity - 6/21/2008 12:23:24 AM
|
|
|
solo_soprano22
Posts: 2397
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kath
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
If she wears a shirt with her pants, is she topless?
I think you are purposely "misunderstanding" so you can continue to mock the woman. Shame on you.
Once more, to her, wearing pants is *immodest*. It exposes more than is acceptable to her, and is therefore no better than being naked. She cannot anymore wear pants and consider herself modest than she could wear nothing and consider herself modest. It's not about clothing vs. nakedness. She did not say wearing pants is nakedness. She said that to her, it's *like being unclothed* because to her, it's just as immodest/exposes too much.
It's about modesty vs. immodesty. How much clearer do you need it?
Heck. Why do I even bother?
"For me, wearing pants is the same as being naked." Wearing clothes is the same as not wearing clothes.
A fully clothed person is not naked.
Where did you get that "like being unclothed" quote? I don't see it anywhere.
Wearing pants is not the same as being naked. Going without clothes is the same as being naked.
Before you question my ability to think clearly, consider that it is not difficult to tell the difference between a clothed person and a naked one.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kat_D
quote:
ORIGINAL: ljmac
Wearing clothes is the same as not wearing clothes.
HUH?
Okay, Sherlock... "wearing clothes" is not the same as "not wearing clothes" last time I checked.
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
