Engaged?

[Mashuna]

He can, he just pretends not to. I'm quite convinced that he's actually the perfect troll. Clausian threads always follow the same pattern:

Claus makes stupid statement, then defends it for 60 posts.
Changes subject, then defend it for 60 posts...
and so on...

That would make another change of subject due in...... 11 ....... more posts.

.

Ha! You were way off. He made it over 17 posts

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?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Worth repeating:



Oddly enough, nobody had any comments on that.

Because nobody knows what you mean when you use the term engaged as you refuse to provide a definition.

How can you expect anyone to make a meaningful response to your posts when they don't know what you mean when you use key terms?

Nice try at diversion BTW.

 

[brodski]

Worth repeating:



Oddly enough, nobody had any comments on that.

Mainly because it's a complete straw man. There is no need to go through the "hullabaloo" in order to be engaged, engagement is just the period between agreeing to marry and the termination of the engagement either through marriage or though one or both partners deciding not to marry. That’s it.

Unless you wish to offer, and defend, your own definition of engaged. Perhaps you can clearly state which rituals one must go though in order to be engaged, because at the moment you have no argument what so ever.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

I didn't claim they were.

 

[CFLarsen]

Christmas is an annual holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus.
Source

Pretty clear. I doubt there is much disagreement on what that custom means.

Because nobody knows what you mean when you use the term engaged as you refuse to provide a definition.

How can you expect anyone to make a meaningful response to your posts when they don't know what you mean when you use key terms?

Nice try at diversion BTW.

Both are customs with a well-defined meaning. Right?

Do you celebrate Christmas?

Mainly because it's a complete straw man. There is no need to go through the "hullabaloo" in order to be engaged, engagement is just the period between agreeing to marry and the termination of the engagement either through marriage or though one or both partners deciding not to marry. That’s it.

Unless you wish to offer, and defend, your own definition of engaged. Perhaps you can clearly state which rituals one must go though in order to be engaged, because at the moment you have no argument what so ever.

Do you celebrate Christmas?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

How about we draw a line under the silly "he said, she said" stuff and start again?

Which participants will agree that if mutually agreeable criteria for choosing dictionary definitions can be decided, then they will agree that the definition provided by the majority of these mutually agreed sources will be the definition we use in this thread?

 

[richardm]

Do you celebrate Christmas?

Brave Sir Larsen ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Larsen turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Larsen!

Come on, Claus, own up - you're having a little troll, aren't you?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

When I had a foetus inside my womb, I heard that if I was pregnant lots of people would like to make a fuss and pat my belly and offer advice. All sorts of hullabaloo. So I decided I wouldn't be pregnant, I would just tell people I was going to have a baby in x months time. Funnily it didn't stop the making fuss, patting belly, advice offering etc. Those people foisting pregnancy on me, its just not on!

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by CFL

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle
What on earth are you talking about? Jaggy hasn't ruled out mutually agreed criteria.

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet
This is totally illogical - there would be no point in my deciding what my criteria are because they will not be used.

Emphasis mine.

Originally posted by CFL
I didn't claim they were.

Yes you did, liar.

When you emphasise part of a post about "my criteria" as your evidence for me having ruled out "mutually agreed criteria" then you are claiming they are the same, otherwise the post you quoted would be totally irrelevant.

Another nice try at diversion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes you did, liar.

When you emphasise part of a post about "my criteria" as your evidence for me having ruled out "mutually agreed criteria" then you are claiming they are the same, otherwise the post you quoted would be totally irrelevant.

Another nice try at diversion.

I am saying that there can't be mutually agreed criteria, if your own won't be used.

Do you celebrate Christmas?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Pretty clear. I doubt there is much disagreement on what that custom means.

[CF Larsen mode]That is nonsense! Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus, that is just you trying to impose your social values on others, it means something else entirely but I refuse to tell you what as I have already told you.[/CF Larsen mode]

Both are customs with a well-defined meaning. Right?

Yes, but for some reason you are not using the well-defined meaning for "engaged".

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I am saying that there can't be mutually agreed criteria, if your own won't be used.

Makes no sense.

Do you celebrate Christmas?

Another nice try at diversion.

 

[Rasmus]

Actually, I don't think engagement is a custom. There are some customs associated to it, but that's not the same.

A pregnancy isn't a custome, even thouigh some people may decide to have baby showers.

Engagement is a state of being. i't something you are, not something you do.

On the same note, it's still christmas regardless of who does or doesn't celebrate it.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Oddly enough, nobody had any comments on that.

What are you talking about? It was dealt with ages ago - everyone here except you agreed that 'engagement' is automatic when two people make a definite decision to get married, but whether it's accompanied by a 'hullaballoo' is up to them.

An engagement is marked by the party, the ring and the announcement in the local paper, but it isn't defined by them.

Now how long are you going to take with that definition of engagement?

 

[Mashuna]

Unless you wish to offer, and defend, your own definition of engaged. Perhaps you can clearly state which rituals one must go though in order to be engaged, because at the moment you have no argument what so ever.

I consider people to be engaged when I go through the ritual of dialling their phone number and getting a repetitive beeping sound. I wish to foist my own cultural norms on them by making them get voice mail instead.

 

[brodski]

Do you celebrate Christmas?

Yes I do. Do you use the names of the days of the week?

Oh, you do?
PAGEN PAGEN! How can you be a skeptic when you use gods names in that way? You are forced by social convention to worship the old gods, what are you doing about this, eh?

Or perhaps social conventions change over time, and eth meanings of words change, and the significance or necessity of ritual also change. Because were I live, Christmas these days has next to sod all to do with religion.

Of course, this is just your latest attempt at a derail to avoid the fact that you cannot defend your position.

 

[CFLarsen]

[CF Larsen mode]That is nonsense! Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus, that is just you trying to impose your social values on others, it means something else entirely but I refuse to tell you what as I have already told you.[/CF Larsen mode]

The emphasised part is the point.

Yes

Good!

Makes no sense.

That's precisely what it does. We cannot find mutually agreed criteria if you say your own won't be used.

Another nice try at diversion.

You have just agreed that both are customs. Do you celebrate Christmas?

What are you talking about? It was dealt with ages ago

Where was my post addressed?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes I do. Do you use the names of the days of the week?

Oh, you do?
PAGEN PAGEN! How can you be a skeptic when you use gods names in that way? You are forced by social convention to worship the old gods, what are you doing about this, eh?

Or perhaps social conventions change over time, and eth meanings of words change, and the significance or necessity of ritual also change. Because were I live, Christmas these days has next to sod all to do with religion.

But it does to some. Some actually celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus.

Correct?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Where was my post addressed?

In this thread.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

.

Meaningful, non diversionary content removed.