Engaged?

[CFLarsen]

Correct - that was the question you asked.

Now are you going to tell us how you see engagement?

I'm sorry, but you have forbidden me to refer to my own explanations.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Quick, someone forbid him to talk nonsense!

 

[Rasmus]

Quick, someone forbid him to talk nonsense!

We would just end up in a discussion as to how nonsense is defined, plus if we suggested possible defintions for "nonsense", we would just be accused of imposing our values ...

 

[quixotecoyote]

We would just end up in a discussion as to how nonsense is defined, plus if we suggested possible defintions for "nonsense", we would just be accused of imposing our values ...

Well Ian made some forbidding stick, apparently. Maybe we can ask him how he did it and then hone the process for better accuracy.

 

[brodski]

I'm sorry, but you have forbidden me to refer to my own explanations.

I know, and the really terrible thing about this forum software is that you're never allowed to post an explanation for something twice.

Remember this point, because I won't be able to repeat it, or even expand on it in the future...

 

[Ian Osborne]

...Even if it was only half an explanation which raised more questions than answers the first time around.

 

[athon]

You know I think in the beginning, all Claus was saying was that though people in Denmark agree to marry, they don't go through all the rigmaroll that people seem to do in other countries. he designated the second as "getting engaged" (as opposed to just getting engaged...) Do the silly finger quotes - it works! I think at some point he realised an actual conversation about this would be rather boring, so he decided that if he included the rigmaroll inside the definition of engaged, he would get a silly nitpicking argument, which would amuse him much more. At some point he could then switch back to his original stance of not saying that the definition of engagement included the hullabaloo, just to annoy people further.

You're dead on correct. What's amazing considering this 14 page Larsen embarrassment that most people here would agree; engagement doesn't need the added nonsense. The fact he continues to insist it does, yet won't define engagement as needing the ceremony and rings, is the travesty.

When you ask a woo to point out their definition, they do what Claus does - says they've already said it. When you ask a woo politely to reiterate, as nobody can find their definition, they do what Claus does - ignore the request and insist 'it's there'. When you point out to a woo that others have different definitions for terms they do what Claus does - obfuscate and evade the questions. When you point out that a woo is lying, they do what Claus does - lie again, ignorant of the rather hilarious fact that the truth is there in text to demonstrate plainly their lie.

And then he has the audacity to insinuate that because somebody asks 'who else thinks Clays is lying', they are using 'Creationist tactics'.

Friggin' classic.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

You're dead on correct. What's amazing considering this 14 page Larsen embarrassment that most people here would agree; engagement doesn't need the added nonsense. The fact he continues to insist it does, yet won't define engagement as needing the ceremony and rings, is the travesty.

When you ask a woo to point out their definition, they do what Claus does - says they've already said it. When you ask a woo politely to reiterate, as nobody can find their definition, they do what Claus does - ignore the request and insist 'it's there'. When you point out to a woo that others have different definitions for terms they do what Claus does - obfuscate and evade the questions. When you point out that a woo is lying, they do what Claus does - lie again, ignorant of the rather hilarious fact that the truth is there in text to demonstrate plainly their lie.

And then he has the audacity to insinuate that because somebody asks 'who else thinks Clays is lying', they are using 'Creationist tactics'.

Friggin' classic.

Athon

Would you not be seriously pissed off if someone told you that you were celebrating the birth of Jesus?

 

[noblecaboose]

goddamn...sorry, I forgot to sign in as Athon...

 

[athon]

Would you not be seriously pissed off if someone told you that you were celebrating the birth of Jesus?

Nope. Not at all. They'd be wrong, as Jesus doesn't come into it for me; my family does. But then so what?

Happy with the diversion? Let's get back to those uncomfortable questions you won't answer. Like, what is the definition of engagement?

What's that? You want to divert the course away again? Well, you're the woo...so, boss, what do you want to talk about now that has abso-freakin'-lutely nothing to do with the topic?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Nope. Not at all. They'd be wrong, as Jesus doesn't come into it for me; my family does. But then so what?

Yep. You think they would be wrong, because you, despite what other people think, do not think celebrating Christmas means you celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Yet, you have no problems enforcing your views on what engagement is on other people who do not want to be engaged, or be seen as engaged.

You have a double-standard.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Yep. You think they would be wrong, because you, despite what other people think, do not think celebrating Christmas means you celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Yet, you have no problems enforcing your views on what engagement is on other people who do not want to be engaged, or be seen as engaged.

You have a double-standard.

Your analogy fails.

He is celebrating Christmas, even though it has a different value to him.

People are engaged when they agree to get married, even though it has different values to different people.

It's a matter of definition, not value.

 

[Rasmus]

Yep. You think they would be wrong, because you, despite what other people think, do not think celebrating Christmas means you celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Most people so far have agreed that celebrating Christmas can be different things to different people.

Yet, you have no problems enforcing your views on what engagement is on other people who do not want to be engaged, or be seen as engaged.

And again: Just as I will enforce my views of what pregnancy or thursday is.

And for what it's worth: I doubt any one from Japan would deny that today is Wednesday - even though a friendly discussion about time zones, the international date line, language, culture and calenders might ensue.

Nobody will complain that rteferring to today as Wednesday would be enforcing anyone's values.

You have a double-standard.

Not at all.

I can have a celebration for whatever I chose, whenever I chose. Therefore, I can celebrate things other than the birth of Jesus on Christmas.

I would concende that saying one was celebrating Christmas would mean to celebrate the birth of Jesus, technicialy. But as far as i can see a few other other usages are common, and for those, celebrating at Christmas can be substrituted.

Am I imposing my values if I call someone pregnant who's carrying a child inside her?

Were my teachers imposing their values on me when they called me a student?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Once again, Claus knows very well his position is untenable, and obfuscation is the only means available to him if he's to avoid total defeat. As soon as he defines what 'engagement' means to him he opens the door for others to question that definition and to ask whether the OP's contention that Danes don't go in for it is really the case. So instead, like an exhausted, punched-out boxer clinging his opponent, he obstructs the contest instead of allowing it to satisfactorily conclude. If this really was a boxing match, the ref would've stepped in several pages ago.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Since it doesn't matter what I say, you don't have to concern yourself with that.

Nice to see you still refuse to acknowledge your lies. Oh sorry, did I say nice? I meant pathetic.

There is a universally accepted definition of engagement? One that transcends all cultures? One that everyone must adhere to?

That is what the word means in English - if it means something else in Larsenese then I really don't care.

 

[athon]

Yep. You think they would be wrong, because you, despite what other people think, do not think celebrating Christmas means you celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Oh noes, you got me. I'm such an idiot. Of course!

Yet, you have no problems enforcing your views on what engagement is on other people who do not want to be engaged, or be seen as engaged.

Ah, I see now; you're dead set right that 'Christmas' can be used to define a particular day, and doesn't have to include all the 'hullabaloo' such as Jesus worship. And since they insist it does, that's them imposing their values on a literal definition.

It would be just like if somebody thought 'engagement' needed the hullabaloo, regardless of whether that was necessary for the occasion or not.

There's only so many times a man can shoot himself in the foot and still remain standing. Claus must have either have iron feet or be shooting blanks. I'll put money on the latter.

You have a double-standard.

I'd take a single standard from you right now. Standard for 'engaged'? No? Still not? Nothing?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Nobody will complain that rteferring to today as Wednesday would be enforcing anyone's values.

Only if they said that you were worshipping Odin.

I would concende that saying one was celebrating Christmas would mean to celebrate the birth of Jesus, technicialy.

No, it wouldn't. Because the date of Christmas was not chosen because it is the actual birth date of Jesus, but because it was close to the various winter festivals - pagan holidays.

 

[athon]

Yep. You think they would be wrong, because you, despite what other people think, do not think celebrating Christmas means you celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Yet, you have no problems enforcing your views on what engagement is on other people who do not want to be engaged, or be seen as engaged.

You have a double-standard.

BTW, now that the evasion is over, we're still waiting for a definition for 'engaged'. 14 pages....and still nothing.

Athon

 

[Ian Osborne]

Only if they said that you were worshipping Odin.

But the definition of 'Wednesday' doesn't depend on worshipping Odin any more than the definition of 'engagement' depends on having a party and giving the lady a ring. Whether you worship Odin on a Wednesday is up to you, but either way, it's still Wednesday.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[CFLarsen]

But the definition of 'Wednesday' doesn't depend on worshipping Odin any more than the definition of 'engagement' depends on having a party and giving the lady a ring. Whether you worship Odin on a Wednesday is up to you, but either way, it's still Wednesday.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Because Wednesday has lost its meaning to most people.

There is only meaning to Wednesday if you worship Odin. If Odin-worshippers told you you were really worshipping Odin, you'd reject that.

Since Christmas is not the birth of Jesus, are Christians correct when they say that that is the birth of Jesus?