Engaged?

[CFLarsen]

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

If you are so convinced that it will never appear (despite this not being true, of course), why do you keep this up?

It is hypocritical to blame me for making this thread so long, when you are the one keeping it alive.

 

[Rasmus]

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.

Yes, but those weren't called "Christmas", were they?

So, anyone who is celebrating "Christmas" could be seen as celebrating the birth of Jesus, yet presumably not on the day that Jesus was actually born - if that occured at all. It is not totally unheared of that people celebrate their birthdays on a day other than their birthday.

Likewise, anyone who celebrates x on Christmas day is just celebrating something. It doesn't have to be the birthday of Jesus, though.

Since a lot of people are just celebrating (or partying, more likely) their friends, family, etc. on Christmas day, that is now also an accepted meaning of celebrating Christmas. (But, like I said, I would concede that it shouldn't be. It's funy that you no longer evenn otive when people are agreeing to you somewhere...)

Still, "engaged" is what you are between the time that you decide to get married and either revise that descision or get married. It's no more than shorthand for "having decided to marry but not being married yet". What you want to be seen as doesn't even enter into it. Values have nothing to do with it.

If someone doesn't want to be seen as "engaged", there is a very, very simple solution: Do not get engaged. Do not agree with your parnter that you will get married. The moment you do, you are as engaged as a woman is pregnant who carries a new human inside her.

Unless, of course, you were to think that "engaged" didn't mean that. But since you refuse to honestly discuss that issue I am not even going there.

 

[Gurdur]

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

Once again you appear to have no contact with reality at all. Most aware Christians would acknowledge they were merely celebrating the putative birth of their Christ, not actually claiming that their Christ was born on 25th December. D'oh.

And churches other than the Catholics and many Protestants don't even celebrate 25th Dec, but a different date, such as January 06, instead, while noting that it is an arbitrarily chosen date to celebrate that thingy.

 

[athon]

Let's go back to the Larsen list, just for giggles:

1) What is the definition of 'engaged'?

I have been trying to get Jaggy Bunnet to tell me what "process" this demands. Curiously enough, there seems to be no willingness there to settle the matter.

Evaded (lost count of how many times).

I ask again: what is the definition of engaged. Provide a post number if you feel you already answered it.

4) If a person wishes to not refer to their partner as a 'husband' or 'wife', is said partner no longer by definition a husband or wife?

I have already answered that: Naturally not.

According to Claus, one can choose to denotatively not be a husband or wife. Language, it seems, is open to being manipulated by the individual.

I ask, therefore, where does this end? Can I choose to not be Australian? Not be male? Not be human? Can I not be a teacher? Can I choose to call myself something? Can I denotatively call myself a dog? A wife? A book?

This would be useful if I was a convicted criminal, because I could simply say I wasn't.

Can I call an object by another term? Can I call my arm a hammer? My car a horse?

I would say not, for language is a text through which people communicate ideas and information. To change it at whim is to risk altering the information. If I were a woo, I could define all manner of things differently and call foul on any who took away my right to define terms as I wished to.

What does this have to do with engagement? Marriage is a legal matter, engagement is not.

[/quote]

So whether it is defined by the law makes all the difference? Why? In Australia being 'de facto' has legal status. You don't even have to call yourself a de facto couple - if you fall into the understood description, you have that legal protection. Are all definitions excluding legal ones open to such manipulation?

1) What is the definition of 'engaged'?

3) How should one use dictionaries in defining a term?

5) Define, in your own words or by reference to a definition, what a 'value' actually is.

A "define 'define'" type of question.

Another evasion. Now Claus suggests he doesn't understand what it means for a person to 'define' something.

I'm asking in each of those for you to explain the term so we all understand what you mean when you say 'engagement', 'value', or 'using a dictionary'.

Let's try again:

1) What is your definition of engagment?
2) How should one use dictionaries in defining a term?
3) Define, in your own words or by reference to a definition, what a 'value' actually is.

Answered: If a person no longer wishes to be a 'husband', are they a still a husband? : Claus: No, they aren't.

Sort of answered: If a person asks another to marry them, and they provide no ring, party or announcement, are they still 'engaged'?
Claus: Depends entirely on whether you want to be engaged and seen as engaged.

This is essentially meaning that Claus believes language is denoted not by the community but by the individual. Dictionaries, therefore, are useless, I assume, given that a word has no community-owned definition?

Athon

 

[athon]

If you are so convinced that it will never appear (despite this not being true, of course)

So it will appear? Great. When?

Oh, as for why I keep this up - why do you keep battling woos? Same reason - bad reasoning skills and poor arguments need to be highlighted as poor. Consider me your highlighter, Claus. Although you are correct; I think it has run its course, as I personally think most people in this forum already know you for the joke you've become.

Now, enough evading - definition?

Athon

 

[Gurdur]

Claus as the ultimate wannabe-tyrannical subjectivist proclaiming an anathema upon intersubjectivity?

Probably a valid summation of his stance.

 

[Rasmus]

There is only meaning to Wednesday if you worship Odin.

Really?

So, if I agree with a friend to meet them at 4:30pm next Wednesday, neither of us will be able to make the appointment unless we're both Odin worshippers?

Seems to me, Wednesday carries just as much meaning as it needs to: It indicates one particular day in the ... heaven's no, I can't call it a "week", can I? There is no market day here, neither at the beginning nor end of it - and my friend might live in a different part of town with different market days than what I have here...

but I digress: I am going to travel to my parent's on Thursday, and even thoug neither of us worhips Thor I assure you I will be expected. I will meet some old friends on Friday. Most of these are atheists, as far as I know there are no worshippers of Thor amongst them, yet saying "Friday" has a lot of meaning to all of us, which will be evidenced come Friday (that is the day after tomorrow for you, unless you have issues with me calling a day a day because of time zones, daylight saving times or polar ... no, they are also called "day" and "night", and giving you the dates wouzld force me to refer to some ancient Greek or Roman deities that at least I do not worship) when we'll all meet. At 8 o'clock. I am just glad it's in the afternoon.

 

[Ian Osborne]

If a person asks another to marry them, and they provide no ring, party or announcement, are they still 'engaged'?
Claus: Depends entirely on whether you want to be engaged and seen as engaged.

But, from Claus' beloved Post #29:

in my corner of the world, and in the US, and in the UK, [agreement to marry] is an engagement. Sometimes the date isn't set in stone due to planning or funding constraints, but it's still an intent to marry.
Claus: Engagement in Denmark is the same.

So not only do we have to trawl through 14 pages and piece together snippets of information to pick up on Claus' definition of 'engagement', doing so provides completely contradictory definitions anyway.

And all because Unter won't offer a direct answer to a simple question...

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, but those weren't called "Christmas", were they?

So, anyone who is celebrating "Christmas" could be seen as celebrating the birth of Jesus, yet presumably not on the day that Jesus was actually born - if that occured at all. It is not totally unheared of that people celebrate their birthdays on a day other than their birthday.

It is to me. Examples?

Likewise, anyone who celebrates x on Christmas day is just celebrating something. It doesn't have to be the birthday of Jesus, though.

You make my case for me.

Since a lot of people are just celebrating (or partying, more likely) their friends, family, etc. on Christmas day, that is now also an accepted meaning of celebrating Christmas. (But, like I said, I would concede that it shouldn't be. It's funy that you no longer evenn otive when people are agreeing to you somewhere...)

Still, "engaged" is what you are between the time that you decide to get married and either revise that descision or get married. It's no more than shorthand for "having decided to marry but not being married yet". What you want to be seen as doesn't even enter into it. Values have nothing to do with it.

That's the key: Values have everything to do with it. If you say "I'm engaged", you get all sorts of social values heaped onto you. "Where's the ring?", "When's the engagement party?", and so on.

You cannot escape the values that come with "engagement".

If someone doesn't want to be seen as "engaged", there is a very, very simple solution: Do not get engaged. Do not agree with your parnter that you will get married. The moment you do, you are as engaged as a woman is pregnant who carries a new human inside her.

That's the terrible consequences of inescapable social customs: If you don't want to be engaged, or be seen as engaged, you should not marry at all.

Once again you appear to have no contact with reality at all. Most aware Christians would acknowledge they were merely celebrating the putative birth of their Christ, not actually claiming that their Christ was born on 25th December. D'oh.

And churches other than the Catholics and many Protestants don't even celebrate 25th Dec, but a different date, such as January 06, instead, while noting that it is an arbitrarily chosen date to celebrate that thingy.

You miss the point entirely: It doesn't matter if there is reality behind: It is celebrated as the birth of Jesus.

So it will appear? Great. When?

It has appeared. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

Oh, as for why I keep this up - why do you keep battling woos? Same reason - bad reasoning skills and poor arguments need to be highlighted as poor. Consider me your highlighter, Claus. Although you are correct; I think it has run its course, as I personally think most people in this forum already know you for the joke you've become.

You don't complain about me, when I challenge the woos. Only when I challenge you.

How do I "represent" skepticism?

Really?

So, if I agree with a friend to meet them at 4:30pm next Wednesday, neither of us will be able to make the appointment unless we're both Odin worshippers?

Seems to me, Wednesday carries just as much meaning as it needs to: It indicates one particular day in the ... heaven's no, I can't call it a "week", can I? There is no market day here, neither at the beginning nor end of it - and my friend might live in a different part of town with different market days than what I have here...

but I digress: I am going to travel to my parent's on Thursday, and even thoug neither of us worhips Thor I assure you I will be expected. I will meet some old friends on Friday. Most of these are atheists, as far as I know there are no worshippers of Thor amongst them, yet saying "Friday" has a lot of meaning to all of us, which will be evidenced come Friday (that is the day after tomorrow for you, unless you have issues with me calling a day a day because of time zones, daylight saving times or polar ... no, they are also called "day" and "night", and giving you the dates wouzld force me to refer to some ancient Greek or Roman deities that at least I do not worship) when we'll all meet. At 8 o'clock. I am just glad it's in the afternoon.

Again, you make my case for me: To most, the meaning of the week days have been lost.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

It is to me. Examples?

Queen Lizzy has an "official birthday" which is not on the anniversary of the day of her birth.

(so much for me not responding anymore...sigh).

 

[Ian Osborne]

Queen Lizzy has an "official birthday" which is not on the anniversary of the day of her birth.

(so much for me not responding anymore...sigh).

You beat me to it. Also, plenty of people who want to celebrate a mid-week birthday do so at the weekend, for reasons which should be obvious even to Claus.

 

[Rasmus]

To most, the meaning of the week days have been lost.

Oh, so you are telling me there is one, true meaning of the days of the week?

I wish you weren't imposing your values on me like that.

 

[Rasmus]

You beat me to it. Also, plenty of people who want to celebrate a mid-week birthday do so at the weekend, for reasons which should be obvious even to Claus.

I have celebrated my own birthday on weekends (that weren't my actual birthdays) and even on other people's birthdays. (Happens if you have one celebration/party for two or more events that take place on different days.)

Why, I hear even people born on a 29th of February will often celebrate their birthday every single year.

 

[Ian Osborne]

That's the terrible consequences of inescapable social customs: If you don't want to be engaged, or be seen as engaged, you should not marry at all.

Of course. Not marrying is indeed the only way of avoiding the label 'engagement', though as you can quite easily get engaged without making a fuss about it, why would you want to?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Why, I hear even people born on a 29th of February will often celebrate their birthday every single year.

Either that or pay half fare on the bus until they're 64!

They'd need to be 72 before they could go down the pub, though...

 

[CFLarsen]

Queen Lizzy has an "official birthday" which is not on the anniversary of the day of her birth.

Sometimes, yes, sometimes, no.

The exact date of the celebration varies from country to country, and it does not usually mark the real birthday of the sovereign (the current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, was born on 21 April 1926).

Another custom with (little or) no link to reality.

 

[athon]

That's the terrible consequences of inescapable social customs: If you don't want to be engaged, or be seen as engaged, you should not marry at all.

More evidence that you haven't a clue what you're arguing. Now you're agreeing that you can't get married without being engaged, while for all this thread you've said that you don't have to be 'engaged' if you don't want to be.

Why have you changed this from 'if you don't want to be seen as engaged, you don't have to be'?

You're a fool.

It has appeared.

Evidence?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Of course. Not marrying is indeed the only way of avoiding the label 'engagement', though as you can quite easily get engaged without making a fuss about it, why would you want to?

That's not for you to decide. That should be entirely up to the couple. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Inescapable customs.

 

[CFLarsen]

More evidence that you haven't a clue what you're arguing. Now you're agreeing that you can't get married without being engaged, while for all this thread you've said that you don't have to be 'engaged' if you don't want to be.

Why have you changed this from 'if you don't want to be seen as engaged, you don't have to be'?

You're a fool.

No, I am not agreeing that you can't get married without being engaged. I am saying that it is inescapable that people are seen as engaged, whether they want to or not.

Evidence?

Post #29.

How do I "represent" skepticism?

 

[Ian Osborne]

That's not for you to decide. That should be entirely up to the couple. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Once again, you act like The People's Front of Judea, battling for a man's right to have babies, even though he can't actually have babies.

Whether they have a party, a ring and a fuss is indeed up to the couple. The fact that their relationship is correctly defined as 'engaged' is not.