Once again, why is betrothal or the announcement of same, ridiculous?
So you agree that your "tradition for tradition's sake" argument is bogus.
What then, is your problem with people announcing their betrothal?
Because it has lost all meaning. Nobody expects it to really last for a lifetime. Especially not with the divorce rates.
I seem to understand from previous conversation with him that Claus is not married.
I think that bears on this topic in at least one way.
My personal life is none of your business.
That's exactly right. 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.
Claus, you can say I misread your posts all you want. I might even agree I've misunderstood. Yet I keep asking for clarification, which you dodge again and again. Yes, this is indeed ridiculous. If you would just articulate in one post what engagement means, clearly, without obfuscating to some historical and obviously outdated interpretation, we might conclude something. Instead you've continued to embarrass yourself.
Like the drumstick debacle, you not only demonstrate a failure to understand how language operates but you refuse to be educated on it by a number of people.
You have "misunderstood" so many times that it is very hard to believe that it isn't intentional. To say the least.
Exactly. If formal means 'as per custom', does that mean one cannot wed until the man gets down on knee with a ring? Of course not. How ridiculous.
You are quite right. Still, nobody has claimed that. You can get married simply by going to city hall. That's not a "custom", that's simply what is required to get married that way.
I know a lot of arguments come down to a difference in meaning, but this one is just ludicrous. The easiest thing is to go around and ask people if you can intend to marry and not be engaged. I so far haven't gotten anything but blank looks from people, followed by a confused line of questions (namely 'why the hell are you asking such a silly question?). Nobody's saying you have to feel comfortable with any connotations, or that you can't have parties and rings...but to insist that that is the meaning of engagement is laughable.
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?
I'm trying to think how the OP could have been worded to have made for a more productive thread instead of turning into a dictionary pissing contest.
Maybe something like "Don't you think the traditions surrounding people's engagements are silly?" would have worked better. I would have gladly railed against lavish engagement parties and gaudy diamond rings.
If I posted that, I would have been criticized for voicing such a strong opinion. Instead, I chose to simply ask people what the situation was in their own country.
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.
You know, I fully agree. I suggested the same thing. I'm not one for rings and stuff, and bought the pendant for NC because it was a nice thing to celebrate the occasion with. It makes her happy. As for a party, well we're getting married once the paperwork can be processed, so there's hardly a call for any such thing.
I don't begrudge anybody who wants to have the whole shebang, nor do I care if people want to just quietly tell a few close friends and relatives the situation and keep it all simple.
This argument started with Claus' assumption that engagement required those things, and he assumed this view extended out into the wider community. Had he started with 'does anybody else feel the celebrations often surrounding engagements, as per history, are outdated', I'm sure it would have been a worthwhile discussion.
I did not assume that my view extended out into the wider community. I asked what the situation was in other countries.
Good question. In other words, we're still waiting for Claus's definition of engagement.
No, you are not. You merely dismiss it out of hand, because it does not conform with your own perception.
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".
I think Claus has shown himself once again to be out of touch with reality. Responding with infantile comments seems appropriate when a person shows they are merely arguing because they can't stand the thought they might be wrong.
"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.
Claus continues to dodge, obfuscate and lie, playing word games, being pedantic and all the while absolutely convinced that engagement requires ceremony and gifts symbolise ownership...hence he's not serious about really finding out how others feel about the concept of engagement. Why continue to take it seriously?
You can call what I do dodging, obfuscating, playing word games and being pedantic all you like. But don't call me a liar merely because you don't like the evidence I provide.
You, OTOH, have gotten it so wrong so many times that you cannot possibly say that you have merely "misunderstood" me. Especially after you persist after I have explained it to you.
