You are reading way too much into what I say. But then, it doesn't matter what I say, you will do that regardless.
Tell me; how can one read into 'Do people in your country get engaged?'.
You keep ignoring our request for a definition.
.....so? Does that make me "wrong"? Does that make me a "liar"?
You're a liar because you claim to have provided a comprehensive definition, and clearly have done nothing of the sort. You can prove me wrong, of course, by pointing out the post in which you did this. Or, better yet, just quoting yourself clearly here.
You won't do this, it seems. I can only assume it's because such a definition has not been provided.
Why do you feel people should "deny" they are engaged?
I don't feel they should. Point out where I said people should deny that they are engaged. If anything, I said the opposite - I don't see how people can truthfully say they are
not engaged when by definition they are. I can understand avoiding mentioning it, or suggesting they prefer to not use the word. I'm fine with that.
It's like a woman who prefers to call her husband her 'partner'. There's no problem with that. For her to say, however, 'he's not my husband' is patently false.
Why do you feel you have the right to ask people if they are engaged in the first place?
I don't, and never said I did. I have filled out forms that requested the information, however, so people do ask. There's no problem with them not mentioning it at all, or even lying if they wish. Cool with me. But to say it isn't a lie, that they aren't engaged, is just plain incorrect.
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?
Claus, you've seriously lost the plot. I wouldn't say anything, probably. I'd smile and nod and respect they fact they feel that way. If somebody said 'That's not my husband, it's my partner', I'd also comply and refer to them as a partner. They would be incorrect by definition, but this discussion is not about me being inflammatory. It's about the accepted definition of a term.
How is that not imposing your own social values on them?
Because it's not a value, it's a definition. People can add values to the definition as connotations, but fundamentally it's a definition. Don't tell me you want to extend this educational spanking you've received to include a lesson on what a 'value' is as well?
When someone is telling a couple who insist that they won't be part of the "engagement" thing that they are "engaged", with all the societal baggage that comes with it ("Ooooo, fancy that, dear! You're engaged! Where's your ring, dear? Can we 'ave a look? When's the weddin'? 'ow many people did you invite?"), they most certainly are imposing their own social values.
Complete with a cockney accent as well? How quaint.
You're yet to demonstrate such 'baggage' is the universal definition of engagement. The fact that some people make associations with engagements could well be reason people don't want to make a big deal out of it. But the fact that people might not make an issue out of it doesn't negate it being an engagement. By your suggestion, I've not been engaged twice yet still been married. Thus to echo you, 'how dare you impose your values on me!'
See how ridiculous it is?
Your argument is becoming more and more pathetic the longer you drag it out.
Athon
