Engaged?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It is dishonest to take exasperation with your repeated false claims as an admission of guilt.

The one making false claims is you.

You have claimed that I demanded you used this definition. The post quite clearly shows I asked what definition you were using, gave an example and asked if that was NOT the definition you were using, you would provide it.

The fact that you then lie by claiming I demanded something I clearly did not is not my fault, it is yours.

You have the opportunity to prove me wrong by highlighting the parts in the quote that YOU chose that show me DEMANDING you use this definition. You can't because you are lying - that is not my fault. If you want to behave like a woo by making claims that are wholly inconsistent with the evidence and using evasive tactics in the hope that you can wriggle out of your lies, that is your choice.

Here we go, once again:



....oh, wait! You were not talking about me? Is that your way out of this?

You claimed that I made a statement that you never admitted being wrong, all I am asking you to do is point out where I made such a statement. If you can't do so, you are a liar.

So far you can't.

Let's get your exact words:

Yes lets. Remember your claim is that I did not suggest using a representative sample:

Me - You don't get to choose the dictionary. How about we take a representative sample of, say, 10?

So you are lying when you make the claim that I did not suggest using a representative sample.

10 indeed. Which you have now abandoned.

Another lie - I am quite happy to use a representative sample. I am awaiting confirmation from you that YOU are willing to accept the definition found in a representative sample of dictionaries.

Are you now willing to give that confirmation?

Which criteria are you using to select those 10 dictionaries? Why would that be a representative sample?

If you agree to accept the definition found in a representative sample, I'm sure we can agree the specifics between us. Do you?

 

[CFLarsen]

You have the opportunity to prove me wrong by highlighting the parts in the quote that YOU chose that show me DEMANDING you use this definition. You can't because you are lying - that is not my fault. If you want to behave like a woo by making claims that are wholly inconsistent with the evidence and using evasive tactics in the hope that you can wriggle out of your lies, that is your choice.

It is dishonest to take exasperation with your repeated false claims as an admission of guilt.

You claimed that I made a statement that you never admitted being wrong, all I am asking you to do is point out where I made such a statement. If you can't do so, you are a liar.

So far you can't.

Are you saying that you weren't talking about me? Really? My perception of what you said is wrong?

Yes lets. Remember your claim is that I did not suggest using a representative sample:

So you are lying when you make the claim that I did not suggest using a representative sample.

I didn't claim that you did not suggest using a representative sample. I pointed out that you had - seemingly - abandoned the idea of going with 10.

Since I did that, how can I then claim that you didn't suggest using a representative sample?

Another lie - I am quite happy to use a representative sample. I am awaiting confirmation from you that YOU are willing to accept the definition found in a representative sample of dictionaries.

Are you now willing to give that confirmation?

Again, I didn't claim that you did not suggest using a representative sample.

If you agree to accept the definition found in a representative sample, I'm sure we can agree the specifics between us. Do you?

You have to explain what you think is a representative sample first. Which criteria are you using to select those 10 (or how many you currently want to include) dictionaries? Why would that be a representative sample?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It is dishonest

No, you are dishonest.

You made a claim. You were asked for evidence. You failed to provide it.

You are a liar.

Are you saying that you weren't talking about me? Really? My perception of what you said is wrong?

Irrelevant.

You made a claim. You were asked for evidence. You failed to provide it.

You are a liar.

I didn't claim that you did not suggest using a representative sample.

Liar.

The relevant posts:

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
You don't get to choose the dictionary. How about we take a representative sample of, say, 10?

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!

Originally posted by CFL
No, you didn't. You chose one dictionary above all others.

No matter how much you try and evade or lie, the facts are plain to see. You claimed that I had not suggested using a representative sample. Post #209 shows that this claim is untrue.

You have to explain what you think is a representative sample first. Which criteria are you using to select those 10 (or how many you currently want to include) dictionaries? Why would that be a representative sample?

Do you agree to the principle? The detail can be agreed later.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, you are dishonest.

You made a claim. You were asked for evidence. You failed to provide it.

You are a liar.

You know that is not true. But I can understand why you are so eager to call me a liar.

Irrelevant.

You made a claim. You were asked for evidence. You failed to provide it.

You are a liar.

It is my perception that you were talking about me. If you want to call me a "liar", you have to tell me that my perception is wrong.

Was my perception wrong? A simple yes or no, please.

No matter how much you try and evade or lie, the facts are plain to see. You claimed that I had not suggested using a representative sample. Post #209 shows that this claim is untrue.

I am neither evading or lying. How can I possibly say that you are not suggesting a representative sample, if I at the same time criticize you for not being able to find 10?

Do you agree to the principle? The detail can be agreed later.

Tell you what, let's take a look at the ones you listed in post 234 (not 10, but since you obviously can't find 10 that agree with you, let's let that slide):

A few more definitions, to help in finding a representative sample (found from a google search on "ditionary definition engaged" (including typo!)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/engagement
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/engagement
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/engagement
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861608474/engagement.html
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ENGAGEMENT
http://www.dictionary.net/engaged

The Free Dictionary is:

The general English dictionary's main source is Houghton Mifflin's premier dictionary, the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

MerriamWebster is definitely one I would go for.

Yahoo's dictionary is the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Same as the first.

Encarta is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Their dictionary could be acceptable, though, although its origins are somewhat shrouded.

WorldWebOnline is the brainchild of Antony Lewis.

The WordWeb database is based on Princeton's WordNet project, however there are many thousands of corrections and additions to this base.

Nice initiative, but...I can't really see what qualifies Antony Lewis as an authority on dictionaries. Perhaps you could elaborate on your choice here?

Dictionary.net:

dictionary.net queries the following dictionaries:

* Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (G & C. Merriam Co., 1913, edited by Noah Porter), is provided by Patrick Cassidy of MICRA, Inc., Plainfield, NJ, USA.
* The Jargon File - The Jargon file is a public domain lexicon of hacker jargon, edited by Eric Raymond.
* Devils Dictionary 1911
* The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing - FOLDOC is a searchable dictionary of acronyms, jargon, programming languages, tools, operating systems, in fact anything to do with computing.
* CIA World Factbook 2002
* The Elements Database - A freely-distributed database of elemental information, edited by Jay Kominek.
* Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary - Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary is derived from Hitchcock's New and Complete Analysis of the Holy Bible, published in the late 1800's.
* */ ?> Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms
* The WordNet® 2.0 Database - WordNet is a lexical database for English.

So, there's Webster, and Princeton's WordNet, once again.

What, you didn't check to see if some of the dictionaries were the same?

Or, did you, but simply used duplicates to boost your number of "representative" dictionaries?

In any case, why do you think you make a compelling case of you being the one choosing the "representative" dictionaries? Either you just pick the ones you find without checking if they are the same, or you do check, but make it seem as if your list is more impressive.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You know that is not true. But I can understand why you are so eager to call me a liar.

You know it is true. That is why you refuse to point out the bits of the post where I supposedly "demand" that you accept the definition. To help you, here is the post again:

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Is your definition of engagement that found in the dictionary?

American Heritage Dictionary entry for engage:

To obtain or contract for the services of; employ: engage a carpenter.
To arrange for the use of; reserve: engage a room. See Synonyms at book.
To pledge or promise, especially to marry.
To attract and hold the attention of; engross: a hobby that engaged her for hours at a time.
To win over or attract: His smile engages everyone he meets.
To draw into; involve: engage a shy person in conversation.
To require the use of; occupy: Studying engages most of my time.
To enter or bring into conflict with: We have engaged the enemy.
To interlock or cause to interlock; mesh: engage the automobile's clutch.
To give or take as security.

If not, then can you please explain what definition you ARE using.

What "formal stuff" is required to turn a "promise to marry" into an "engagement" under the definition you are using?

So we start with a question, we have an example of a dictionary definition and then a request that is that is not your definition you please explain what your definition is.

It is a simple lie to claim I demanded you use that definition.

It is my perception that you were talking about me. If you want to call me a "liar", you have to tell me that my perception is wrong.

Was my perception wrong? A simple yes or no, please.

Your perception is irrelevant. You made a specific claim about what statement I made, not how you perceived it.

I take it that you will not admit that I made no such statement? Or will you continue to lie?

I am neither evading or lying. How can I possibly say that you are not suggesting a representative sample, if I at the same time criticize you for not being able to find 10?

So you claim that you have never denied that I suggested a representative sample?

Then you will have to explain what this exchange of posts means:

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!

Originally posted by CFL
No, you didn't. You chose one dictionary above all others.

What did you mean when you posted "No, you didn't" as a reply to my claim that I had suggested using a representative sample? Sounds very much like a denial to me.

Tell you what, let's take a look at the ones you listed in post 234 (not 10, but since you obviously can't find 10 that agree with you, let's let that slide):

Yawn, yawn - I have never claimed that I would produce a list of 10 or that they would be representative. Pretending I have is yet more evidence of your strange relationship with honesty.

The Free Dictionary is:


MerriamWebster is definitely one I would go for.

Yahoo's dictionary is the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Same as the first.

Encarta is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Their dictionary could be acceptable, though, although its origins are somewhat shrouded.

WorldWebOnline is the brainchild of Antony Lewis.



Nice initiative, but...I can't really see what qualifies Antony Lewis as an authority on dictionaries. Perhaps you could elaborate on your choice here?

Dictionary.net:



So, there's Webster, and Princeton's WordNet, once again.

What, you didn't check to see if some of the dictionaries were the same?

Or, did you, but simply used duplicates to boost your number of "representative" dictionaries?

Yawn, yawn - I specified exactly how they were found, from a google search, I even gave you the exact term I used.

I never claimed it was a representative sample.

In any case, why do you think you make a compelling case of you being the one choosing the "representative" dictionaries?

Never said I should be the one choosing the representative sample. In fact I have specifically made it clear that the specifics would need to be agreed between us. You know this, but choose to lie. Pathetic.

There is no point in agreeing the specifics unless you accept the principal - do you?

Either you just pick the ones you find without checking if they are the same, or you do check, but make it seem as if your list is more impressive.

You know how the list was compiled. Pretending you don't is simple dishonesty.

 

[CFLarsen]

You know it is true. That is why you refuse to point out the bits of the post where I supposedly "demand" that you accept the definition.

Now, how about you answer the question? Are YOU going to go with the dictionary definition?

Said dictionary definition was the one you pointed to. That's a demand.

Your perception is irrelevant. You made a specific claim about what statement I made, not how you perceived it.

I take it that you will not admit that I made no such statement? Or will you continue to lie?

But my "claim" derives directly from what my perception was.

Why is it so hard for you to simply answer "yes" or "no" to the question if my perception was wrong?

No need for lengthy explanations. Just "yes" or "no": Was my perception wrong?

What did you mean when you posted "No, you didn't" as a reply to my claim that I had suggested using a representative sample? Sounds very much like a denial to me.

It is clear by now that you will derive whatever meaning out of my posts that suit you. I was referring to your insistence that we go with your choice of dictionary. See above.

Yawn, yawn - I have never claimed that I would produce a list of 10 or that they would be representative. Pretending I have is yet more evidence of your strange relationship with honesty.

Here is your post:

You don't get to choose the dictionary. How about we take a representative sample of, say, 10?

If you couldn't produce such a list, how can you suggest that we do use a list of 10?

Yawn, yawn - I specified exactly how they were found, from a google search, I even gave you the exact term I used.

I never claimed it was a representative sample.

Then, why did you post it? What possible use could it be, if it was not a representative sample?

Never said I should be the one choosing the representative sample. In fact I have specifically made it clear that the specifics would need to be agreed between us. You know this, but choose to lie. Pathetic.

You have made it clear that I don't get to choose.

There is no point in agreeing the specifics unless you accept the principal - do you?

I'm sorry, but I have to know what you think is "representative". Given your previous waffling on what sources are admissible, I think I have a right to know.

You know how the list was compiled. Pretending you don't is simple dishonesty.

OK, so it is the first, then: You simply did a google search, without bothering to check your sources.

I simply can't take anyone who is that lousy at research seriously.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Said dictionary definition was the one you pointed to. That's a demand.

No that is a question - "Do you accept this definition?". A demand is "You must accept this definition".

You know the difference, pretending you don't is simply an attempt to avoid admitting that you lied when you claimed I demanded you use that definition.

But my "claim" derives directly from what my perception was.

Why is it so hard for you to simply answer "yes" or "no" to the question if my perception was wrong?

No need for lengthy explanations. Just "yes" or "no": Was my perception wrong?

Your perception is irrelevant. You claimed I made a specific statement. You and I both know that I did not make that statement.

Therefore you are a liar.

It is clear by now that you will derive whatever meaning out of my posts that suit you. I was referring to your insistence that we go with your choice of dictionary. See above.

In response to my statement that I had suggested using a representative sample, you replied "No, you didn't."

What meaning do you expect to be derived from those four words?

And as you well know there is no insistence that you use any definition, which is why I have asked you so often to post the one that you are using.

Another obvious lie.

Here is your post:



If you couldn't produce such a list, how can you suggest that we do use a list of 10?

We agree criteria and select those dictionaries that meet those criteria. Really not difficult to understand.

Then, why did you post it? What possible use could it be, if it was not a representative sample?

A sample is a selection from a larger population, I gave an example of a search criteria, and the results, that could be used to identify the population involved. If you have other suggestions for how to identify the sample, I'm all ears.

Assuming of course that you are willing to accept a representative sample - can you confirm that you are? Yes or no will be fine.

You have made it clear that I don't get to choose.

That's right - because I made it clear we would need to agree. Pretending that because you don't get to choose means I do is a false dichotomy.

I'm sorry, but I have to know what you think is "representative". Given your previous waffling on what sources are admissible, I think I have a right to know.

How about this?

Do you agree that, if we can agree a mutually acceptable basis for identifying a representative sample, you will accept the majority definition from that sample?

A simple yes or no will do.

OK, so it is the first, then: You simply did a google search, without bothering to check your sources.

I simply can't take anyone who is that lousy at research seriously.

Yes I did exactly what I said I did.

You on the other hand continue to lie about what I posted and about what you posted - I leave it to others to judge which is the more serious offence.

 

[CFLarsen]

No that is a question - "Do you accept this definition?". A demand is "You must accept this definition".

You know the difference, pretending you don't is simply an attempt to avoid admitting that you lied when you claimed I demanded you use that definition.

How you wiggle...

Your perception is irrelevant. You claimed I made a specific statement. You and I both know that I did not make that statement.

Therefore you are a liar.

OK. I'm going out on a limb here, because you leave me no alternatives. I have to work from the assumption that you do, in fact, say that my perception is wrong. I was wrong in thinking that you were, in fact, talking about me, when you said this:

What is fascinating is to observe the effort that certain posters make to avoid ever admitting making an error. Certainly not the behaviour you would expect of someone who identifies themselves as a skeptic.

OK. Sure, it could be perceived as if you weren't talking about me.

Now, let's take the exchange in context:

I, for one, can't believe that a thread has gone on for 5 pages about the definition or common use of a word with Claus on one side and just about everyone on the other and no one has mentioned 'drumstick' yet.

To which you responded:

It's been mentioned.

What is fascinating is to observe the effort that certain posters make to avoid ever admitting making an error. Certainly not the behaviour you would expect of someone who identifies themselves as a skeptic.

...and now, you want people to believe that you weren't talking about me?

Such contempt you have of people here, if you think they are stupid enough to fall for that.

In response to my statement that I had suggested using a representative sample, you replied "No, you didn't."

What meaning do you expect to be derived from those four words?

And as you well know there is no insistence that you use any definition, which is why I have asked you so often to post the one that you are using.

Another obvious lie.

I have explained what I meant, yet you choose to believe your own version. As usual.

We agree criteria and select those dictionaries that meet those criteria. Really not difficult to understand.

And I have repeatedly asked you what your criteria are. You have repeatedly refused to answer that. How can we ever proceed, if you refuse to tell me that?

A sample is a selection from a larger population, I gave an example of a search criteria, and the results, that could be used to identify the population involved. If you have other suggestions for how to identify the sample, I'm all ears.

Assuming of course that you are willing to accept a representative sample - can you confirm that you are? Yes or no will be fine.

The example of a search criteria you gave was a generic google search. That's not a "criteria", that's shooting wildly with a shotgun, expecting each hit to be what you are looking for.

That's right - because I made it clear we would need to agree. Pretending that because you don't get to choose means I do is a false dichotomy.

If that's what you fall back on, fine with me. What are your criteria for selecting the dictionaries?

How about this?

Do you agree that, if we can agree a mutually acceptable basis for identifying a representative sample, you will accept the majority definition from that sample?

A simple yes or no will do.

Let's hear your criteria first.

Yes I did exactly what I said I did.

You on the other hand continue to lie about what I posted and about what you posted - I leave it to others to judge which is the more serious offence.

Come on! How can you possibly expect me to accept a generic google search as valid, especially since you don't even bother to check if the hits cover the same dictionaries?

You make a piss-poor case for yourself as being capable of choosing "representative" dictionaries, even if they are only meant as your own suggestions. You have to shape up, a hell of a lot more than you have done, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

How you wiggle...

Oh the irony. Still no withdrawal of your claim that I demanded you use a definition I see - and still no evidence to support it.

OK. I'm going out on a limb here, because you leave me no alternatives. I have to work from the assumption that you do, in fact, say that my perception is wrong. I was wrong in thinking that you were, in fact, talking about me, when you said this:



OK. Sure, it could be perceived as if you weren't talking about me.

Now, let's take the exchange in context:



To which you responded:



...and now, you want people to believe that you weren't talking about me?

Such contempt you have of people here, if you think they are stupid enough to fall for that.

You made a specific claim that I had made a specific statement. I take it you acknowledge that this claim was untrue?

I have explained what I meant, yet you choose to believe your own version. As usual.

Because you expect me to believe that when you posted "No you didn't." after quoting part of a post of mine which contained a specific claim, you were not referring to that claim, but to something else entirely. Perhaps you were referring to another poster on another thread? Maybe even a different website?

Even you are not stupid enough to expect anyone to believe that - the evidence is right there in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2915431&postcount=232

It is very clear that you claimed I had never suggested a representative sample. Post #209:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2915081&postcount=209

proves that is a lie.

And I have repeatedly asked you what your criteria are. You have repeatedly refused to answer that. How can we ever proceed, if you refuse to tell me that?

There is no point in agreeing how to identify a representative sample unless you are willing to accept the definition produced from that sample. Trying to divert the thread into a pointless argument about criteria if you are unwilling to accept the outcome is simply a waste of time.

So - once again - are you willing to accept the definition of a representative sample of dictionaries?

The example of a search criteria you gave was a generic google search. That's not a "criteria", that's shooting wildly with a shotgun, expecting each hit to be what you are looking for.

Further evasion that there is no point on commenting on until you confirm whether or not you will accept the definition from a representative sample.

If that's what you fall back on, fine with me. What are your criteria for selecting the dictionaries?

I'm glad you agree that your post was a false dichotomy. Thank you.

Further evasion that there is no point on commenting on until you confirm whether or not you will accept the definition from a representative sample.

Let's hear your criteria first.

Further evasion that there is no point on commenting on until you confirm whether or not you will accept the definition from a representative sample.

Come on! How can you possibly expect me to accept a generic google search as valid, especially since you don't even bother to check if the hits cover the same dictionaries?

You make a piss-poor case for yourself as being capable of choosing "representative" dictionaries, even if they are only meant as your own suggestions. You have to shape up, a hell of a lot more than you have done, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Further evasion that there is no point on commenting on until you confirm whether or not you will accept the definition from a representative sample.

I said the sample would be identified on a mutually acceptable basis. You therefore are not committing to any set of criteria by agreeing to abide by the outcome. Your continual failure to answer that question may lead anyone left reading this thread to draw conclusions about why that might be.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Cute but old fashioned.

So if I were to ask a typical Dane "what does it mean for a couple to be engaged?" what would the answer be?

"cute but old fashioned."?

I guess if I asked a typical Dane "what does it mean for someone to be racist?" the answer would be "bad."

Your answer doesn't make sense. I meant how would a typical Dane define engagement not what his/her sentiments would be about it.

It would be very helpful if you could, as one of the JREF's resident Danes, define what "engaged" means. It seems like a simple and reasonable request.

It's very simple: based on usage here in the USA I would define it as when a couple agrees to marry.

So based on usage in Denmark how would you define engaged?

 

[Oliver]

Something struck me recently.

Danes don't get engaged. We tend to skip that part. Usually, people decide to live together, and if people do agree to get married (often after the kids have arrived), it seems like a good occasion to have a great party, fill up the house with blenders and microwave ovens, and get the tax issues out of the way. The latter matters a lot here.

In this day and age, what's the point of getting engaged? Historically speaking, getting engaged apparently was to ensure that someone could make a fuss, if "legal impediments" were discovered.

Let's face it: Betrothal is ridiculous: What will you do, if your betrothed one breaks up with you? Sue for breach of promise? So much for female empowerment.

Today, it seems more like a tradition for the sake of tradition. But what is the point of upholding a tradition, if it doesn't mean anything?

What about your country? Do people (still) get engaged? If so, why?

No, Betrothal isn't a scam or ridiculous. And it's no issue of man or woman at all - if I feel that I wan't to be with "her" or "him", I see no fallacy about engagement.

So the point is an emotion that says: "I love her/him from the bottom of my heart - and I want to be with him/her in my future life.

So what don't you understand about that?

 

[athon]

Claus' argument, which he either vaguely refers to a 'historical' definition or suggests it concerns a ring, a ceremony and an announcement, rests on the fact that engagement = 'hullabaloo'. The very fact so many people have said that the hullabaloo isn't necessary to be engaged (and while there might be pressure from the parents to have a party, that hardly equates some wider meaning to engagement), he ignores.

No, I don't ignore it. I disagree with it. Call it what it is, not what you want it to be.

I believe this might be getting somewhere. This is close as to a definition as Claus is going to give.

An engagement requires 'hullabaloo'.

Now, what does this mean? Rings, a party, and a notice in the paper? Can the rings be substituted for other gifts and it still be an engagement?

If a person doesn't provide gifts and a party, is it still an engagement?

I did not assume that my view extended out into the wider community. I asked what the situation was in other countries.

Complete and utter bollocks. The OP demonstrates just as much:

In this day and age, what's the point of getting engaged? Historically speaking, getting engaged apparently was to ensure that someone could make a fuss, if "legal impediments" were discovered.

'In this day and age, what's the point in getting engaged' is followed by an indication that modern engagement is defined by historical ceremony. The question you asked was not 'how do you view the meaning of engagement?'. The question, as clear as day, is 'what's the point in getting engaged?', where the meaning of 'engaged' is an assumed part of the question.

To deny that is a blatant, bold face lie that conflicts with this very opening post. It's not even subtle - it's there! The amazing thing isn't how we can disagree over that. The amazing thing is that you can still deny it when the quote is there.

An analogy is:
'How can you eat vegetables like tomatoes?'
'Tomato technically isn't a vegetable.'
'I was asking how other people view what a vegetable is.'
'Umm...no you weren't.'
'Yes I was. How can you misunderstand me so badly?'

Do I get the million if he lies again and vaguely says he's said it already, and neglects to point out exactly where, or repeat it?

You can dismiss it out of hand, but that doesn't make me a "liar".

Woohoo! Give me the million now!

Still waiting on that definition. Sooo easy to prove Jaggy and I wrong. Just provide where you gave a definition for engaged. Go on. You know you want to prove us wrong. I will retract calling you a liar if you can point out where you spelt out for us your definition of what 'engaged' means today.

"Wrong"? Since when do the customs in your own country invalidate customs in other countries? There are different customs in different places, but that doesn't mean that those different from yours are wrong.

Well, first you need to show that 'engaged' is a custom and not simply the term describing an intention to marry. I could appreciate that in Denmark the word has some culturally significant meaning, if you provided evidence. But this doesn't seem to be the case outside of Denmark, going on the responses here.

But don't call me a liar merely because you don't like the evidence I provide.

Evidence? I must have blinked. Where was that? You can't still mean that link to 'historical meaning of engagement'? Haha. No, seriously, where is the evidence?

Don't make me hassle you with a Larsen List of questions you refuse to answer.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh the irony. Still no withdrawal of your claim that I demanded you use a definition I see - and still no evidence to support it.

I think it would be in your best interest to let this die.

You made a specific claim that I had made a specific statement. I take it you acknowledge that this claim was untrue?

Do you really think people will believe you weren't talking about me?

Why do you have such disdain for people here? Do you really think they are that dumb?

Come on! Have some guts! Admit you were talking about me. You were - of course you were! Why not have the balls to stand by your insults?

Because you expect me to believe that when you posted "No you didn't." after quoting part of a post of mine which contained a specific claim, you were not referring to that claim, but to something else entirely. Perhaps you were referring to another poster on another thread? Maybe even a different website?

Even you are not stupid enough to expect anyone to believe that - the evidence is right there in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2915431&postcount=232

It is very clear that you claimed I had never suggested a representative sample. Post #209:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2915081&postcount=209

proves that is a lie.

Yay, yay, yay....

There is no point in agreeing how to identify a representative sample unless you are willing to accept the definition produced from that sample. Trying to divert the thread into a pointless argument about criteria if you are unwilling to accept the outcome is simply a waste of time.

So - once again - are you willing to accept the definition of a representative sample of dictionaries?

What definition?

That's what I have been trying to get you to tell us.

Tell us your definition!

Further evasion that there is no point on commenting on until you confirm whether or not you will accept the definition from a representative sample.

You really want to argue that a random google search constitutes a "representative sample" of dictionaries?

I'm glad you agree that your post was a false dichotomy. Thank you.

I did no such thing.

Further evasion that there is no point on commenting on until you confirm whether or not you will accept the definition from a representative sample.

How can it be an "evasion" to ask you what your criteria are for choosing which dictionaries we should use?

Further evasion that there is no point on commenting on until you confirm whether or not you will accept the definition from a representative sample.

I can't do that, until you explain what you mean by that.

Further evasion that there is no point on commenting on until you confirm whether or not you will accept the definition from a representative sample.

I said the sample would be identified on a mutually acceptable basis. You therefore are not committing to any set of criteria by agreeing to abide by the outcome. Your continual failure to answer that question may lead anyone left reading this thread to draw conclusions about why that might be.

Why do you continuously refuse to tell me what your criteria are for choosing the dictionaries? If you really want this to progress, you have to tell me.

So if I were to ask a typical Dane "what does it mean for a couple to be engaged?" what would the answer be?

"cute but old fashioned."?

I guess if I asked a typical Dane "what does it mean for someone to be racist?" the answer would be "bad."

Your answer doesn't make sense. I meant how would a typical Dane define engagement not what his/her sentiments would be about it.

It would be very helpful if you could, as one of the JREF's resident Danes, define what "engaged" means. It seems like a simple and reasonable request.

It's very simple: based on usage here in the USA I would define it as when a couple agrees to marry.

So based on usage in Denmark how would you define engaged?

Read the answers already given.

No, Betrothal isn't a scam or ridiculous. And it's no issue of man or woman at all - if I feel that I wan't to be with "her" or "him", I see no fallacy about engagement.

So the point is an emotion that says: "I love her/him from the bottom of my heart - and I want to be with him/her in my future life.

So what don't you understand about that?

That's fine - for you. Just don't impose that on those who deliberately have chosen not to be engaged, and who does not want to be seen as being engaged.

 

[Oliver]

That's fine - for you. Just don't impose that on those who deliberately have chosen not to be engaged, and who does not want to be seen as being engaged.

That doesn't make sense. If you're in love and prefer to be engaged - why should this be an issue of personal reasoning?

To feel "engaged" is not a problem at all if both people in love feel this way, is it?

 

[CFLarsen]

Complete and utter bollocks. The OP demonstrates just as much:

'In this day and age, what's the point in getting engaged' is followed by an indication that modern engagement is defined by historical ceremony. The question you asked was not 'how do you view the meaning of engagement?'. The question, as clear as day, is 'what's the point in getting engaged?', where the meaning of 'engaged' is an assumed part of the question.

To deny that is a blatant, bold face lie that conflicts with this very opening post. It's not even subtle - it's there! The amazing thing isn't how we can disagree over that. The amazing thing is that you can still deny it when the quote is there.

An analogy is:
'How can you eat vegetables like tomatoes?'
'Tomato technically isn't a vegetable.'
'I was asking how other people view what a vegetable is.'
'Umm...no you weren't.'
'Yes I was. How can you misunderstand me so badly?'

You are reading way too much into what I say. But then, it doesn't matter what I say, you will do that regardless.

Woohoo! Give me the million now!

Still waiting on that definition. Sooo easy to prove Jaggy and I wrong. Just provide where you gave a definition for engaged. Go on. You know you want to prove us wrong. I will retract calling you a liar if you can point out where you spelt out for us your definition of what 'engaged' means today.

Keep ingoring facts.

Well, first you need to show that 'engaged' is a custom and not simply the term describing an intention to marry. I could appreciate that in Denmark the word has some culturally significant meaning, if you provided evidence. But this doesn't seem to be the case outside of Denmark, going on the responses here.

.....so? Does that make me "wrong"? Does that make me a "liar"?

Evidence? I must have blinked. Where was that? You can't still mean that link to 'historical meaning of engagement'? Haha. No, seriously, where is the evidence?

Don't make me hassle you with a Larsen List of questions you refuse to answer.

You deliberately blinked.

You also "blinked", when you didn't see this:

Why do you feel people should "deny" they are engaged?

Why do you feel you have the right to ask people if they are engaged in the first place?

If they say "No", but then say they plan to get married, do you tell them "Well, you're engaged, whether you like it or not!", even though it clearly means a lot to them that they are not engaged, and not perceived as being engaged?

How is that not imposing your own social values on them?

 

[CFLarsen]

That doesn't make sense. If you're in love and prefer to be engaged - why should this be an issue of personal reasoning?

To feel "engaged" is not a problem at all if both people in love feel this way, is it?

I'm not saying that. If you want to feel engaged, with whatever you think comes with it, fine.

Just don't impose your own social values on those who go out of their way to reject them.

 

[Oliver]

I'm not saying that. If you want to feel engaged, with whatever you think comes with it, fine.

Just don't impose your own social values on those who go out of their way to reject them.

I'm not sure if I understand your point here.

The OP asks what sense engagement makes. Now if two people feel that they want to engage each other - what third opinion is relevant at all?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not sure if I understand your point here.

The OP asks what sense engagement makes. Now if two people feel that they want to engage each other - what third opinion is relevant at all?

It isn't. It only becomes a problem when someone wants to impose their own social values on those who don't want to be seen as being engaged.

What business is it of those who insist on calling that "engagement", if some specifically reject the notion of being "engaged"?

How dare they impose their own social values on others?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think it would be in your best interest to let this die.

I know you would like me to let it die so people are not reminded of the lies you have told, but I will choose if and when I do so, not you.

Found anything that resembles a "demand" that you use a specific definition yet? Or ready to admit you lied when you claimed I made such a demand?

Do you really think people will believe you weren't talking about me?

Why do you have such disdain for people here? Do you really think they are that dumb?

Come on! Have some guts! Admit you were talking about me. You were - of course you were! Why not have the balls to stand by your insults?

Irrelevant - you claimed that I made a specific statement. You and I both know that no such statement exists.

Claiming it does makes you a liar.

Yay, yay, yay....

Still not big enough to admit when caught in a lie.

How sad.

What definition?

That's what I have been trying to get you to tell us.

Tell us your definition!

My definition or your definition is irrelevant. I am trying to agree a process for an impartial definition - that found most commonly in a representative sample of dictionaries.

You seem desparate to avoid this happening - now why could that be?

You really want to argue that a random google search constitutes a "representative sample" of dictionaries?

Nope, so it is just as well I never made such a claim - try and remember that there is a difference between the real world and your delusions.

How can it be an "evasion" to ask you what your criteria are for choosing which dictionaries we should use?

I can't do that, until you explain what you mean by that.



Why do you continuously refuse to tell me what your criteria are for choosing the dictionaries? If you really want this to progress, you have to tell me.

Because the criteria to be used will be agreed between us, neither party can impose their own criteria. Therefore mine, and your, criteria are irrelevant. All that matters is the mutually agreed criteria - are you ready to move to that stage by agreeing to accept the definition of a representative sample yet? Or is it to be more evasion?

That's fine - for you. Just don't impose that on those who deliberately have chosen not to be engaged, and who does not want to be seen as being engaged.

If someone weighs 30 stone they are obese. Whether they choose to use that term to identify themselves does not change the facts.

Same thing applies with engagement.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It isn't. It only becomes a problem when someone wants to impose their own social values on those who don't want to be seen as being engaged.

What business is it of those who insist on calling that "engagement", if some specifically reject the notion of being "engaged"?

How dare they impose their own social values on others?

I assume you have no problem with woos describing themselves as skeptics or scientists then?

After all, how dare anyone seek to impose their own social values on others?