Morality has nothing to do with one single posting of mine here. You are stuck in one gear.

And you're entirely missing my point.

I only hope your incomprehension is deliberate

It's sad that your application of the word "principles" to a textbook non-principled area of cultural norms, is not.  You know, it's not very masculine of you to exaggerate the use of principles in an emotional manner.  I would much rather teach my boys how to THINK masculine rather than use fashion.

Nope, not biting.  Cite your original accusation.  You've rephrased this to dodge the fact that you distorted my position.

I'm not going to waste endless hours debating the likes of yourself.  People can go back and search what I actually said.  EVERY single one of my positions entails qualifications or secundum quids that you are dishonestly omitting in order to create a false impression and to further slander me.

So, for instance, what if I said:  "St. Thomas teaches that women can wear makeup."

Is that true?  Technically, yes.  But he put conditions on it ... "in order to conceal some defect or disfigurement."

So while the statement that "St. Thomas teaches that women can wear makeup" is TECHNICALLY true, it's also a lie because you're omitting a crucial qualification and giving the false IMPRESSION that St. Thomas approved of makeup in general, and without any qualifications, i.e. simpliciter.  That is exactly what you have done in distorting my positions in your previous post.

Idiot: It was me who introduced the "concealing of disfigurements" into the conversation.

Figured as much.
Habitually playing the victim until called out, but then picking up his toys and going home.

^^^ NOTE:  another ad hominem.

Johnson, I'm simply not going to waste my time arguing with you.  PS ... as far as picking up my toys and going home, you are notorious here on CI for the following modus operandi:

When losing an argument:

1) start emoting, insulting, and launching ad hominems

2) when that doesn't work and you lose the argument, abandon the thread

3) then start a new thread on the same subject in an attempt to hit the "reset" button

4) if that fails and you are argued into a corner again, then you start demanding that Matthew ban your opponents

then, once, after your call for #4 went unheeded by Matthew, you stormed off the forum vowing to never return.  But then you quickly start posting in the Anonymous forum.  Then when you were not satisfied with the limits of Anonymous, you created a new registration, and returned to the forum despite your vows never to return.  Even though you had not been banned, you felt the need to create a new user since you were embarrassed to return as your original account after your bluster and temper tantrum and vows never to return.

^^^ NOTE:  another ad hominem.

Johnson, I'm simply not going to waste my time arguing with you.  PS ... as far as picking up my toys and going home, you are notorious here on CI for the following modus operandi:

When losing an argument:

1) start emoting, insulting, and launching ad hominems

2) when that doesn't work and you lose the argument, abandon the thread

3) then start a new thread on the same subject in an attempt to hit the "reset" button

4) if that fails and you are argued into a corner again, then you start demanding that Matthew ban your opponents

then, once, after your call for #4 went unheeded by Matthew, you stormed off the forum vowing to never return.  But then you quickly start posting in the Anonymous forum.  Then when you were not satisfied with the limits of Anonymous, you created a new registration, and returned to the forum despite your vows never to return.  Even though you had not been banned, you felt the need to create a new user since you were embarrassed to return as your original account after your bluster and temper tantrum and vows never to return.

Figured you would back out.  Your tactics never change.

By the way, its pretty rich being lectured on ad hominems by a man who leads the entire forum in their ussage by a margin of at LEAST 25:1!

then, once, after your call for #4 went unheeded by Matthew, you stormed off the forum vowing to never return.  But then you quickly start posting in the Anonymous forum.  Then when you were not satisfied with the limits of Anonymous, you created a new registration, and returned to the forum despite your vows never to return.  Even though you had not been banned, you felt the need to create a new user since you were embarrassed to return as your original account after your bluster and temper tantrum and vows never to return.

It takes a special kind of someone to even attempt to pull that off.

Thank you for agreeing that this is an issue.
As for my “presumptions,” whatever are you talking about?  
I posted a pic of the Academy boys all in shorts, and contrasted that pic to the teaching of the SSPX here that shorts were not appropriate attire for boys.
Of what presumption are you speaking?

You assumed the first photo from 1900 I posted was "some secular non-catholics". How do you know this?  It seems to me you presume all too easily. 

 "The idea that the SSPX would have paraded boys in shorts in its RC Report America in the 1990’s is absurd, since at that time they were also teaching shorts were not appropriate."

So you think the sspx in 1990 more modest than the Catholic Church of the early 1900s?
 
 St. Mary's roman Catholic school, Otis Indiana, circa 1900

St. Patrick's Catholic School, Illinois, circa 1910

Kenilworth Roman Catholic School, UK, circa 1926


St. Nicholas Ukranian Catholic Church, NJ, circa 1909


First holy communion circa about 1905

"The idea that the SSPX would have paraded boys in shorts in its RC Report America in the 1990’s is absurd, since at that time they were also teaching shorts were not appropriate."

So you think the sspx in 1990 more modest than the Catholic Church of the early 1900s?

If you would consider the question you have just asked, you would have perceived the answer was self-evident:

If the SSPX was preaching, until recently, that boys should not wear shorts, whereas you have posted pics of 1900's era Catholic boys in shorts, then it should have been obvious to you that yes, "the sspx in 1990 was more modest than the [American] Catholic Church in the early 1900's.

How so?

Americanism:

The same worldly desire to "fit in" which caused the American clergy not to want to stand out from other Americans, and forego their cassocks, had the same effect on many lay Catholics, who also desired to blend in with their Protestant neighbors.  

And in their defense, Testem Benevolentiae didn't condemn this Americanism until 1899.

And when it did so, the Americanist bishops (which was nearly all of them, lef by Archbishop John Ireland in the west, and Gibbons in the east) immediately declared their intention to resist, and in fact they did resist.

Americanism (i.e., the idea of assimilation into mainstream American Protestant culture to prove Catholics could be good Americans) was the prevailing norm, and combined with the lack of any strong declarations from the magisterium until Pius XI in 1928, it is not at all surprising to see dress for young boys lax in comparison to what the SSPX had been preaching.