• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Engaged?

Ian Osborne said:
Right, everybody who is still participating in this thread, answer this simple question:

• What is your definition of 'engagement'?

My answer: the time between a couple agreeing to get married and actually getting married. It depends on a definite decision shared by both parties, and is usually - but not always - marked in some way, such as an announcement in the paper, a party or a ring.
Click to expand...

I can live with that as a definition.
 
Ian Osborne said:
Right, everybody who is still participating in this thread, answer this simple question:

• What is your definition of 'engagement'?

My answer: the time between a couple agreeing to get married and actually getting married. It depends on a definite decision shared by both parties, and is usually - but not always - marked in some way, such as an announcement in the paper, a party or a ring.
Click to expand...

I agree with this definition except the "and actually getting married" part, with this wording it gives the impression than an engagement which is broken off never happened. Jaggys earlier "an ongoing agreement to marry" works much better IMHO.

And no, I’m not going to point to a dictionary to define my terms, because dictionaries don’t define words, usage and context do.
 
brodski said:
I agree with this definition except the "and actually getting married" part, with this wording it gives the impression than an engagement which is broken off never happened. Jaggys earlier "an ongoing agreement to marry" works much better IMHO.
Click to expand...

A fair point, but one which over-complicates the definition, IMHO. I already said it 'depends on a definite decision by both parties', so a broken engagement would be covered by the reversal of this decision. The term 'engagement' is defined by the desire to get married, and you wouldn't incorporate divorce into the definition of marriage.
 
Last edited:
Jaggy Bunnet said:
There is nothing to agree UNTIL you agree to accept the definition - do you?

Yes or no?

The only person who can move this forward is you.

To do so all you have to do is agree to accept the definition. Until you do there is nothing else to say.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, since you keep responding, it must mean you are still open for suggestions.

Since you have ruled out mutually agreed criteria, why don't you just list the dictionaries you want to use, and simply disregard whatever I say?

You already do the latter, so why not just state your case?
 
CFLarsen said:
Nevertheless, since you keep responding, it must mean you are still open for suggestions.

Since you have ruled out mutually agreed criteria, why don't you just list the dictionaries you want to use, and simply disregard whatever I say?

You already do the latter, so why not just state your case?
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? Jaggy hasn't ruled out mutually agreed criteria. He is just waiting for you to agree that if you mutually agree criteria for picking the dictionaries that you will accept the result. If you won't accept the result there is no point in discussing what the criteria might be.

So as jaggy keeps telling you, the ball is in your court.
 
Yes, his criteria will not be used, because they are not mutually agreed criteria. Unless you are telling us that you will agree to whatever criteria Jaggy comes up with?
 
Ok, we have a working definition of engaged, supported by jaggy, Ian and I "If you have made a mutual promise of marriage that remains in place, then you are engaged."

Do you agree with this definition, if not why not? And what is your definition of engaged?
Maybe we can move this argument forward.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Yes, his criteria will not be used, because they are not mutually agreed criteria. Unless you are telling us that you will agree to whatever criteria Jaggy comes up with?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I have to see it before I can decide.

Which is what I have been saying for some time now.
 
brodski said:
Ok, we have a working definition of engaged, supported by jaggy, Ian and I "If you have made a mutual promise of marriage that remains in place, then you are engaged."

Do you agree with this definition, if not why not? And what is your definition of engaged? Maybe we can move this argument forward.
Click to expand...

Claus?
 
Ian Osborne said:
Right, everybody who is still participating in this thread, answer this simple question:

• What is your definition of 'engagement'?

My answer: the time between a couple agreeing to get married and actually getting married. It depends on a definite decision shared by both parties, and is usually - but not always - marked in some way, such as an announcement in the paper, a party or a ring.
Click to expand...

All in favour stand a blow a raspberry:

:p

Aye!

Now...watch Claus dodge left and right. It would be funny if not so blatantly tragic that this is what constitutes for a debate with Claus.

Now, Claus, this amazing invisible definition you say you've provided - provide us with the number of the post and a quote, if you'd be so kind. It seems nobody here can find it.

Athon
 
Last edited:
Ian Osborne said:
My answer: the time between a couple agreeing to get married and actually getting married. It depends on a definite decision shared by both parties, and is usually - but not always - marked in some way, such as an announcement in the paper, a party or a ring.
Click to expand...

Jaggy Bunnet said:
"If you have made a mutual promise of marriage that remains in place, then you are engaged."
Click to expand...

CFLarsen said:
I see nothing that hasn't already been covered.
Click to expand...

You've been given two stabs at a definition which are straightforward and agree with each other. Do you agree with them? Yes or No, it's quite simple. Well, that part is, but if you respond "No" then you're going to be asked why you disagree, and to furnish a definition that you would be happy with.
 
CFLarsen said:
Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...

Another lie to add to the pile.

You are well aware that "my criteria" is not the same as "mututally agreed criteria" so to claim I have ruled out the latter is simply dishonest.

Unfortunately this is entirely consistent with your posts throughout this thread.
 
Worth repeating:

CFLarsen said:
That poses a problem: Namely, with a social convention that is impossible to escape. Even though a couple makes a point out of not wanting to go through the whole "engagement" hullabaloo, they can't, because no matter what they do, people will see them as "engaged", with the various social values that come with different groups of people.

A social convention is something we should all be aware of, especially how it influences people's lives and choices.

Inescapable social conventions is something we should be very aware of, especially as skeptics: Consider the situation where the social convention of Christmas imposes a belief in God, baby Jesus and the three wise men.

That wouldn't be good, would it?
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, nobody had any comments on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom