22 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFKaroly never said to 'tolerate' homosexuality. You are misrepresenting the facts.
.. For the way that karoly urged another poster to tolerate homosexuality f.
He said that homosexuality is not a sin becuase it does not harm anyone. Please go read over the thread before making biased conclusions.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999Like RJHinds, you seem to want to obfuscate the real and practical meaning of words in order to lend your hyperbole a bit of oomph. "Force"? "Indoctrinate"? These words mean something and the way you are using them is not appropriate.
Read through the thread on the Bible Accepts Homosexuality.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999Karoly saying "homosexuality is not a sin becuase it does not harm anyone" is not "indoctrination" and him saying this to you is not "forc[ing]" you to do anything.
Karoly never said to 'tolerate' homosexuality. You are misrepresenting the facts.
He said that homosexuality is not a sin becuase it does not harm anyone. Please go read over the thread before making biased conclusions.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFIndoctrination does not mean the learning or ideas are forced on the person,
It can hardly be said that karoly was trying to "imbue" or "inculcate" or even really "teach" rajk999. Karoly was stating his own opinion and suggesting that Rajk999 do likewise. In fact it can not be argued credibly that karoly's opinions amount to a "doctrine". It is your prerogative, of course, to deploy the blandest supposed meanings of words, obliterate the ...[text shortened]... ionist misuse of words in the service of your own specific partisan or biased belief.
however, the intent is to influence the person so they come to believe in the
truth of the indoctrination. What karoly was trying to do, I guess, can only
be answered by him and God. You do not know his heart or mind anymore
than I do. And we do not know the heart or mind of rajk999, who says he
believes an attempt was made to indoctrinate him by karoly. I was only
trying to help define the terms used by pointing out the definitions from
Dictionary.com.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe content of yours or Rajk999's "heart" do not justify the clumsy, meaning-sapping use of words. Rajk999 and you can disagree with karoly's opinion and show it up in a 'bad light' if that's what you want, without resorting to the misuse of words like "indoctrination" and "force". Someone trying "to influence [a] person" is not "indoctrination". We have the word "influence" and we have the word "indoctrination". Trying to conflate them is simply a hyperbolic device which dilutes the effect of the language being used.
Indoctrination does not mean the learning or ideas are forced on the person,
however, the intent is to influence the person so they come to believe in the
truth of the indoctrination. What karoly was trying to do, I guess, can only
be answered by him and God. You do not know his heart or mind anymore
than I do. And we do not know the heart or mind of ...[text shortened]... only
trying to help define the terms used by pointing out the definitions from
Dictionary.com.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFI agree that the use of the word "force" by Rajk is too strong, and that
The content of yours or Rajk999's "heart" do not justify the clumsy, meaning-sapping use of words. Rajk999 and you can disagree with karoly's opinion and show it up in a 'bad light' if that's what you want, without resorting to the misuse of words like "indoctrination" and "force". Someone trying "to influence [a] person" is not "indoctrination". We have the wor ...[text shortened]... mply a hyperbolic device which dilutes the effect of the language being used.
karoly was giving his opinion. But based on the definition an opinion is
open to dispute and karoly presented his opinion like they were facts.
This seems to me more like an attempt to indoctrinate rather than just
to state his personal opinion. So I must agree with Rajk999 except
for the "forced" part.
22 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are misusing the word "indoctrinate" to describe karoly stating his opinion on a forum where people state and debate their opinions. You shouldn't do this as there are times when the word is apt and we need to be able to use it without it having been watered down previously by it being used for the purpose of hyperbole. As you said in your earlier post, karoly was trying to "influence" Rajk999's opinion. So, use the word "influence". The word "indoctrinate" is a very useful word to have at our disposal, unless it is rendered meaningless by suggesting that it means 'someone presenting his opinion like it was a fact'. Your definition of "indoctrinate" could be applied to almost anything and everything anyone ever says on this forum. It is an unnecessary travesty to emasculate a perfectly clear and purposeful piece of vocabulary in this way.
I agree that the use of the word "force" by Rajk is too strong, and that
karoly was giving his opinion. But based on the definition an opinion is
open to dispute and karoly presented his opinion like they were facts.
This seems to me more like an attempt to indoctrinate rather than just
to state his personal opinion. So I must agree with Rajk999 except
for the "forced" part.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFI am not misusing the word "indoctrinate" because I am using it with the
You are misusing the word "indoctrinate" to describe karoly stating his opinion on a forum where people state and debate their opinions. You shouldn't do this as there are times when the word is apt and we need to be able to use it without it having been watered down previously by it being used for the purpose of hyperbole. As you said in your earlier post, karo ...[text shortened]... ty to emasculate a perfectly clear and purposeful piece of vocabulary in this way.
dictionary definition. It is you that is trying to make it mean something
different than it does. I am finished discussing this word for I am very
satisfied that I understand its meaning and you have not presented any
credible evidence otherwise.
22 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou have quoted some dictionary definitions and then proceeded to ignore them. "Imbue"? "Inculcate"? "Teach"? As I said before, it can hardly be said that karoly was trying to "imbue" or "inculcate" or even really "teach" rajk999. You cannot argue credibly that karoly's opinions amount to a "doctrine". Karoly was stating his own opinion and suggesting that Rajk999 subscribe to it too. You yourself used the word "influence" which is probably the most apt way of describing what karoly was trying to do. Your attempt to use the dictionary has let you down. Rajk999 too also tied himself in a knot when he said "Indoctrination does not necessarily want to 'win' over. It wants to force someone to accept a certain opinion" and has pointedly been unable to demonstrate how karoly was using "force" since; even you have stated that this "force" definition is nonsense.
I am not misusing the word "indoctrinate" because I am using it with the
dictionary definition. It is you that is trying to make it mean something
different than it does. I am finished discussing this word for I am very
satisfied that I understand its meaning and you have not presented any
credible evidence otherwise.
22 Nov 11
1 edit
Let it go, FMF.
You made your point.
Going at it over and over again dimishes the whole thing into grammar policing and semantics.
By the way if one says, "homosexual activity is not a sin," they are not merely stating an opinion. An opinion includes things like "I believe," or "In my opinion." When someone states something in that manner, they are not only stating it as a fact, but also implying that any statement to the contrary is false. This goes far beyond a simple statement of opinion.
However, "indoctrination" is, I agree, not an apt word to describe it.
I would describe it more as a claim that should be challenged on its merit, with a request for supporting documents and research -- and by that, links to opinion would not be sufficient because again the statement is claimed to be fact.
But you see the problem is, the word "sin" was used. Unless the claimant wants to argue there is no such thing as "sin," then the claimant is going to have a problem. Because the bible is what defines sin, and the bible--therefore being necessary source material--utterly and completely refutes the claimant's argument.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidIncorrect use of words is not "grammar", sumydid.
Going at it over and over again dimishes the whole thing into grammar policing and semantics.
Nor is this a case of "semantics". Words have meanings. Why tenderize and smudge them and strip them of their specific connotations and nuances? Those of us who cherish language have to reject its enfeeblement at the hands of people who are not eloquent, who are not erudite, and who are - to be perfectly frank - poor practioners of their own tongue and who are only too inclined to distort and purloin words for ideological and discussion-suppressing ends.
Smearing attempts made in good faith to share opinions that one disagrees with, by labelling them indoctrination, comes across as an attempt to poison the discourse and delegitimize dissent.
If the argument is not good then demonstrate that it is not a good argument. Don't lets mislabel it and then attack the label.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidYou might as well ignore this goofball. His arrogance goes way beyond
Let it go, FMF.
You made your point.
Going at it over and over again dimishes the whole thing into grammar policing and semantics.
By the way if one says, "homosexual activity is not a sin," they are not merely stating an opinion. An opinion includes things like "I believe," or "In my opinion." When someone states something in that manner, they ar ...[text shortened]... necessary source material--utterly and completely refutes the claimant's argument.
his intelligence.