What are the limits of "Slut shaming?"

[Grenartia]

You truly DONT have any idea what you're talking about.
Learn what delinquency means. Because it aure as hell doesn't mean teens who engage in sex.

A delinquent is a minor who commits crimes or immoral actions, so yes, teens who engage in sex are delinquents.

Again, prove its inherently immoral.

[The Flood]

I advise you learn what consent is.

Rape is not casual sex.

Consider: The poster in question is in a repetitive loop and is stating his position in the broadest and most absolute manner possible. When challenged, for several pages, he simply restates the broader terms of his stance.

Someone truly vested in such an argument would have at the very least considered it slightly if only to justify a dogged adherence to it and would have, at some point, created at the very least some nuance to the way they express it.

Further, in the absolute closest he is able to come to what could be considered a support or defense for his position is to apply a bizarre caricature of the logic to arguments about evolution and young earth creationism, suggesting not only a familiarity with them but an acceptance to them. While it is entirely possible for a Christian super-moralist to also accept science as science and does not in and of itself denote someone who is having a laugh, the fact that such detail in one area while lacking in another, plus the increasing ridiculousness of various statements does lead one to a particular conclusion.

Taking that all into account: How much sincerity do you want to assume the poster has?

I am 100% sincere, and I can assure you, I fully believe in science.

[The Flood]

A delinquent is a minor who commits crimes or immoral actions, so yes, teens who engage in sex are delinquents.

Mutual sex isn't a crime. Try again.
So are we to make casual sex a cRime now and hear cases on the matter? I thought compensation cases were frivolous.

Read the post again. Delinquent does not exclusively specify criminality.

[Cupola]

Consider: The poster in question is in a repetitive loop and is stating his position in the broadest and most absolute manner possible. When challenged, for several pages, he simply restates the broader terms of his stance.

Someone truly vested in such an argument would have at the very least considered it slightly if only to justify a dogged adherence to it and would have, at some point, created at the very least some nuance to the way they express it.

Further, in the absolute closest he is able to come to what could be considered a support or defense for his position is to apply a bizarre caricature of the logic to arguments about evolution and young earth creationism, suggesting not only a familiarity with them but an acceptance to them. While it is entirely possible for a Christian super-moralist to also accept science as science and does not in and of itself denote someone who is having a laugh, the fact that such detail in one area while lacking in another, plus the increasing ridiculousness of various statements does lead one to a particular conclusion.

Taking that all into account: How much sincerity do you want to assume the poster has?

I am 100% sincere, and I can assure you, I fully believe in science.

He's not serious, guys. He's not sincere. He's here to irritate us.

[Gaelic Celtia]

Mutual sex isn't a crime. Try again.
So are we to make casual sex a cRime now and hear cases on the matter? I thought compensation cases were frivolous.

Read the post again. Delinquent does not exclusively specify criminality.

A delinquent is one who commits crimes. So I suggest you read the definition of delinquency again.

[Condunum]

Mutual sex isn't a crime. Try again.
So are we to make casual sex a cRime now and hear cases on the matter? I thought compensation cases were frivolous.

Read the post again. Delinquent does not exclusively specify criminality.

So basically, it's nothing more than an insult.

[The Flood]

A delinquent is a minor who commits crimes or immoral actions, so yes, teens who engage in sex are delinquents.

Again, prove its inherently immoral.

The only way I could do so is to prove that the Catholic Church is the True Church; which I could do, but you would dismiss my evidence as biased or any number of other cop outs, so I will not. I've attempted it before, and I shall not attempt it again when all I am met with is scoffs and remarks of 'that's invalid because I said so, give me more sources that I can dismiss'.

[Grenartia]

Except, its hardly "acting like an animal". And I'm not a delinquent.

I actually don't get that reference...

A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones reference, there is a character called Gren

But I must ask, how can you reconcile Christianity with the fact that you reject Christian morality? Surely any Christian must at least acknowledge their sins, rather then pretending they don't exist, or trying to justify any un-Christian action they partake in to absolve themselves of feeling guilt.

Ah. I never got into that series.

I don't reject Christian morality. I just fail to see how the ideas of a rational, loving, merciful God, as inherently required by Christianity, can be reconciled with the ideas of a God who would consider things that don't inherently deprive others of their God-given rights without informed consent to be sins. Either Christianity's basic assumptions about the nature of God are wrong, or the people who are claiming that God considers certain things (which harm nobody) to be a sin are wrong. Personally, I prefer to believe the latter over the former.

Which isn't saying that I have not sinned. I have certainly done certain things in my past that have deprived people of their rights. And I own that, and try my best to not do them again.

[Grenartia]

Again, prove its inherently immoral.

The only way I could do so is to prove that the Catholic Church is the True Church; which I could do, but you would dismiss my evidence as biased or any number of other cop outs, so I will not. I've attempted it before, and I shall not attempt it again when all I am met with is scoffs and remarks of 'that's invalid because I said so, give me more sources that I can dismiss'.

You could try to do so using basic facts and logic. You don't have to appeal to the Catholic Church's authority.

[The Flood]

Read the post again. Delinquent does not exclusively specify criminality.

A delinquent is one who commits crimes. So I suggest you read the definition of delinquency again.

1de·lin·quent
noun \-kwənt\

: a young person who regularly does illegal or immoral things

[Cupola]

A delinquent is one who commits crimes. So I suggest you read the definition of delinquency again.

1de·lin·quent
noun \-kwənt\

: a young person who regularly does illegal or immoral things

On what site is that definition?

[Gaelic Celtia]

Again, prove its inherently immoral.

The only way I could do so is to prove that the Catholic Church is the True Church; which I could do, but you would dismiss my evidence as biased or any number of other cop outs, so I will not. I've attempted it before, and I shall not attempt it again when all I am met with is scoffs and remarks of 'that's invalid because I said so, give me more sources that I can dismiss'.

Wanting irrefutable fact and reasoning is not a cop out, sorry. If only mysticism and unprovable dogma are your defenses, it is best not to bring up a subject as ot will be disregarded by most of the community.

[Neutraligon]

A delinquent is one who commits crimes. So I suggest you read the definition of delinquency again.

1de·lin·quent
noun \-kwənt\

: a young person who regularly does illegal or immoral things

According to oxford

(Typically of a young person or that person’s behavior) showing or characterized by a tendency to commit crime, particularly minor crime:

[The Flood]

The only way I could do so is to prove that the Catholic Church is the True Church; which I could do, but you would dismiss my evidence as biased or any number of other cop outs, so I will not. I've attempted it before, and I shall not attempt it again when all I am met with is scoffs and remarks of 'that's invalid because I said so, give me more sources that I can dismiss'.

You could try to do so using basic facts and logic. You don't have to appeal to the Catholic Church's authority.

It is impossible to definitively prove anything is immoral from a secular standpoint. If there is no God, then morality does not exist.

An argument can be made to lend credence to certain moral views from a secular standpoint, but none of them can be proven beyond any doubt. I am admittedly not very skilled at debating, and lack the tools to make such an argument effectively, however I know such arguments exist, because I've seen them, many times. It all makes sense within my mind, but I cannot figure a way to express my thoughts in a way that can be understood argumentatively.

[Gaelic Celtia]

A delinquent is one who commits crimes. So I suggest you read the definition of delinquency again.

1de·lin·quent
noun \-kwənt\

: a young person who regularly does illegal or immoral things

Immorality has nothing to do with any definition Ive ever read. Not inclined to beleive it.

[Neutraligon]

You could try to do so using basic facts and logic. You don't have to appeal to the Catholic Church's authority.

It is impossible to definitively prove anything is immoral from a secular standpoint. If there is no God, then morality does not exist.

An argument can be made to lend credence to certain moral views from a secular standpoint, but none of them can be proven beyond any doubt. I am admittedly not very skilled at debating, and lack the tools to make such an argument effectively, however I know such arguments exist, because I've seen them, many times. It all makes sense within my mind, but I cannot figure a way to express my thoughts in a way that can be understood argumentatively.

Not true, but not the thread to argue this in.

[Grenartia]

You could try to do so using basic facts and logic. You don't have to appeal to the Catholic Church's authority.

1. It is impossible to definitively prove anything is immoral from a secular standpoint. If there is no God, then morality does not exist.

An argument can be made to lend credence to certain moral views from a secular standpoint, but none of them can be proven beyond any doubt. I am admittedly not very skilled at debating, and lack the tools to make such an argument effectively, however I know such arguments exist, because I've seen them, many times. 2. It all makes sense within my mind, but I cannot figure a way to express my thoughts in a way that can be understood argumentatively.

1. Not true at all.

2. All it takes is practice.

[Gaelic Celtia]

You could try to do so using basic facts and logic. You don't have to appeal to the Catholic Church's authority.

It is impossible to definitively prove anything is immoral from a secular standpoint. If there is no God, then morality does not exist.

An argument can be made to lend credence to certain moral views from a secular standpoint, but none of them can be proven beyond any doubt. I am admittedly not very skilled at debating, and lack the tools to make such an argument effectively, however I know such arguments exist, because I've seen them, many times. It all makes sense within my mind, but I cannot figure a way to express my thoughts in a way that can be understood argumentatively.

Really? So the secular legal system doesnt exist then?

You realize people have an inkling of what is right and wrong without a mystical figure, right?

[The Flood]

1. It is impossible to definitively prove anything is immoral from a secular standpoint. If there is no God, then morality does not exist.
An argument can be made to lend credence to certain moral views from a secular standpoint, but none of them can be proven beyond any doubt. I am admittedly not very skilled at debating, and lack the tools to make such an argument effectively, however I know such arguments exist, because I've seen them, many times. 2. It all makes sense within my mind, but I cannot figure a way to express my thoughts in a way that can be understood argumentatively.

1. Not true at all.
2. All it takes is practice.

It's completely true. If God does not exist, then morality is a meaningless invention of man, and is completely subjective, and thus no single moral stance can be proven as true.

[Gaelic Celtia]

1. Not true at all.
2. All it takes is practice.

It's completely true. If God does not exist, then morality is a meaningless invention of man, and is completely subjective, and thus no single moral stance can be proven as true.

It can easily be said god is a construct of man ad well, but this is not the topic.

[Condunum]

1. Not true at all.
2. All it takes is practice.

It's completely true. If God does not exist, then morality is a meaningless invention of man, and is completely subjective, and thus no single moral stance can be proven as true.

Yes, the painful truth of reality is that there is no one thing that will ever be an absolute truth. Absolute truths don't exist in reality.

Edit: Except Math. Math deals with absolutes.

[Grenartia]

1. Not true at all.
2. All it takes is practice.

It's completely true. If God does not exist, then morality is a meaningless invention of man, and is completely subjective, and thus no single moral stance can be proven as true.

It would be an invention of man, yes, but not necessarily meaningless, at least, not any more than things like language are meaningless. Social constructs still have meaning.

[The Flood]

It's completely true. If God does not exist, then morality is a meaningless invention of man, and is completely subjective, and thus no single moral stance can be proven as true.

It would be an invention of man, yes, but not necessarily meaningless, at least, not any more than things like language are meaningless. Social constructs still have meaning.

If that were the case, you would have to acknowledge the meaning and validity of the supposed social construct that denounces promiscuity.

[Gaelic Celtia]

It's completely true. If God does not exist, then morality is a meaningless invention of man, and is completely subjective, and thus no single moral stance can be proven as true.

Yes, the painful truth of reality is that there is no one thing that will ever be an absolute truth. Absolute truths don't exist in reality.

Edit: Except Math. Math deals with absolutes.

And Sith.

[Condunum]

It would be an invention of man, yes, but not necessarily meaningless, at least, not any more than things like language are meaningless. Social constructs still have meaning.

If that were the case, you would have to acknowledge the meaning and validity of the supposed social construct that denounces promiscuity.

No, you do not.