Originally posted by FMF
I'd advise her against it or at least try to get to the bottom of what's making her behave like that and see if I can help or support her. I am certainly not going to condemn her as a "whore". Sorry FreakyKBH, "sewage" is in the eye of the beholder. Your stuff about young women being "whores" is "sewage".

I honestly couldn't care less about your moral valuations on my "stuff."
You're going to advise her against it... why?
Is her action of multiple sexual partners wrong?
Or is "wrong" one of those "sewage" words, too?

If one of your children steals, are you just going to advice them against it, or do you call what they do stealing?
God forbid anyone gets offended, right!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow retrospective trolling, how droll.

It came up on this thread: "The PRINCIPLES of the OT Law were not wrong." About page 7 or 8 onwards.About a week ago.

Originally posted by FMF
It came up on this thread: "The PRINCIPLES of the OT Law were not wrong." About page 7 or 8 onwards.About a week ago.

so.....?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

I honestly couldn't care less about your moral valuations on my "stuff."
You're going to advise her against it... why?
Is her action of multiple sexual partners wrong?
Or is "wrong" one of those "sewage" words, too?

Is her action of multiple sexual partners wrong? No.
You're going to advise her against it... why? I might. More to the point, I would be worried if emotional problems were behind her actions and if it was going to end up with her hurting herself. I'm her father right?
Your use of the word "whore" in this situation is "sewage".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so.....?

So whatever "retrospective trolling" is supposed to be, I cannot imagine it applies to this.

Originally posted by FMF
So whatever "retrospective trolling" is supposed to be, I cannot imagine it applies to this.

oh but it does, its drawing matters up from the past with the intent of using what they said in the past in an attempt to illicit an emotive response or to embarrass them in some way. So your motivation is purely to provide what Freaky said as an example of what you term 'sewage', if so, so what?

Originally posted by FMF
[b]I honestly couldn't care less about your moral valuations on my "stuff."
You're going to advise her against it... why?
Is her action of multiple sexual partners wrong?
Or is "wrong" one of those "sewage" words, too?

Is her action of multiple sexual partners wrong? No.
You're going to advise her against it... why? I might. More to the point, I would ...[text shortened]... ng herself. I'm her father right?
Your use of the word "whore" in this situation is "sewage".[/b]

Is her action of multiple sexual partners wrong? No.
Do you see where the disconnect might be here?
If you see "action of multiple sexual partners" (what is that, exactly? Do you see how tortured language becomes when you refuse to call something what it is?) as anything but wrong, of course you would consider calling a woman who behaves like a whore an actual whore.
Same thing for a thief, I imagine?
A murderer?
A pedophile?

I'm all ears waiting for your justifications...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh but it does, its drawing matters up from the past with the intent of using what they said in the past in an attempt to illicit an emotive response or to embarrass them in some way. So your motivation is purely to provide what Freaky said as an example is what you term 'sewage', if so, so what?

I don't think FreakyKBH is "embarrassed" about his use of the word "whore". I think it is something he has thought through. I don't think he and I are going to agree about it being or not being an example of "sewage".

Originally posted by FMF
I don't think FreakyKBH is "embarrassed" about his use of the word "whore". I think it is something he has thought through. I don't think he and I are going to agree about it being or not being an example of "sewage".

ok

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Is her action of multiple sexual partners wrong? No.
Do you see where the disconnect might be here?
If you see "action of multiple sexual partners" (what is that, exactly? Do you see how tortured language becomes when you refuse to call something what it is?) as anything but wrong, of course you would consider calling a woman who behaves li ...[text shortened]... thief, I imagine?
A murderer?
A pedophile?

I'm all ears waiting for your justifications...[/b]

I would not call a sexually active young woman a "whore". I would not call a woman with multiple partners [nor a man for that matter] a "whore". I don't even call the sex workers I know "whores" because I think it's a completely pejorative word, unmistakably so. Murderers and pedophiles have got nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If you see "action of multiple sexual partners" (what is that, exactly? Do you see how tortured language becomes when you refuse to call something what it is?)

Well, "Is her action of multiple sexual partners wrong?" was actually your turn of phrase not mine.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow retrospective trolling, how droll.

I assume "retrospective trolling" is a concept you are going to use to dodge questions in the future when you get caught contradicting yourself, or denying you said something in the past when people can see that you did.

Originally posted by FMF
I would not call a sexually active young woman a "whore". I would not call a woman with multiple partners [nor a man for that matter] a "whore". I don't even call the sex workers I know "whores" because I think it's a completely pejorative word, unmistakably so. Murderers and pedophiles have got nothing to do with what we are talking about.

But you were the one who set the whole thing up it the first place, with your trolling "would you call" scenario.

The fact is, in most situations, none of us "would call" anyone anything deemed socially unacceptable.
I certainly wouldn't call even someone with whom I have no relational bonds (family/friend or etc.) any pejorative name, no matter what descriptor I give their activities.
But that doesn't mean they aren't still behaving in that manner.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
But you were the one who set the whole thing up it the first place, with your trolling "would you call" scenario.

The fact is, in most situations, none of us "would call" anyone anything deemed socially unacceptable.
I certainly wouldn't call even someone with whom I have no relational bonds (family/friend or etc.) any pejorative name, no matter what d ...[text shortened]... iptor I give their activities.
But that doesn't mean they aren't still behaving in that manner.

You called young women who engage in promiscuous sexual activity "whores" and you also said that to call them anything else would be an affront to "moral valuation". So you would or you wouldn't call your own daughter a "whore" if she engaged in "promiscuous sexual activity"?

Originally posted by FMF
I assume "retrospective trolling" is a concept you are going to use to dodge questions in the future when you get caught contradicting yourself, or denying you said something in the past when people can see that you did.

It is what it is FMF an attempt to draw matters up from the past to elicit some kind of emotive response or to embarrass or discredit an individual.