Originally posted by Melanerpes Going by this definition - almost every post in this forum (or any other forum) would be an attempt to "indoctrinate" others.
In the way most people use the term, "indoctrination" involves an attempt to forcefully impose one's own beliefs on others. It generally works only in an environment in which all other beliefs can be suppressed.
As for karo ...[text shortened]... , and karoly disagrees with some of Rajk's beliefs. But this is NOT "indoctrination".
Maybe dictionary.com is incorrect in their definitions of "indoctrination" and
"opinion" then. I was going by their definitions. Do you have another
source that gives more accurate definitions?
Originally posted by karoly aczel Could you elaborate? -I am intrigued.
I thought it was like a sudden "change" and not a gradual process as you seem to infer.
Many people think they can bow down, pray, convert, then it's a done deal. I look at it similar to the alchemical great work. Converting base metal to gold.
Afterall my friend, are we not all a work in progress? I just try to improve a bit day by day, learn from my past transgressions, try not to make the same mistakes over and over again.
Some may be born again in an instant, I know I can't.
Originally posted by RJHinds Maybe dictionary.com is incorrect in their definitions of "indoctrination" and
"opinion" then. I was going by their definitions. Do you have another
source that gives more accurate definitions?
To me at least, Dictionary.com gives a rather neutral definition of the word "indoctrinate" - implying that it means the same thing instructing or teaching. This is probably what the word originally meant -- since it comes from the word "doctrinare" which means "to teach".
But going by this definition, you could seemingly say something like "the first grade math teacher will today indoctrinate his students about addition and multiplication". But this sentence sounds wrong - it makes addition and multiplication seem almost menacing.
I think dictionary.com tried to capture this negative connation when it refers to "a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view".
Originally posted by RJHinds Maybe dictionary.com is incorrect in their definitions of "indoctrination" and
"opinion" then. I was going by their definitions. Do you have another
source that gives more accurate definitions?
You claim you were "going by [dictionary.com's] definitions" and yet you quoted some definitions of "indoctrination" which hinge on the words "instruct", "doctrine", "imbue", "partisan", "teach", "learning" and "inculcate" and then pointedly ignored the nuance created by all these words so that you could apply it to karoly expressing his opinion.
Originally posted by Melanerpes To me at least, Dictionary.com gives a rather neutral definition of the word "indoctrinate" - implying that it means the same thing instructing or teaching. This is probably what the word originally meant -- since it comes from the word "doctrinare" which means "to teach".
But going by this definition, you could seemingly say something like "the first e connation when it refers to "a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view".
Yes, I included that portion in my definition and used it in coming to my
decision on which was the correct word "indoctrination" or "opinion".
Originally posted by RJHinds Yes, I included that portion in my definition and used it in coming to my
decision on which was the correct word "indoctrination" or "opinion".
Those few words that you are referring to - ""a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view" - don't contain a verb. The verbs are the key words that you are ignoring - "instruct", "imbue", "teach" and "inculcate" - and this is why you are misusing the word "indoctrinate" by applying it to karoly expressing his opinion.
Originally posted by FMF You claim you were "going by [dictionary.com's] definitions" and yet you quoted some definitions of "indoctrination" which hinge on the words "instruct", "doctrine", "imbue", "partisan", "teach", "learning" and "inculcate" and then pointedly ignored the nuance created by all these words so that you could apply it to karoly expressing his opinion.
Yes, I quoted all the definitions given. Why not? Merely expressing his
opinion did not seem to fit the context of what he said as well, in my
opinion. I am not saying you are wrong, only that I have a different
opinion.
Originally posted by RJHinds I am not saying you are wrong, only that I have a different
opinion.
The meanings and uses of words cannot be surrendered to people who don't don't know their meanings well and who use them incorrectly. You are not eloquent, RJHinds, and you are an ineffective and often incoherent writer. Your mangling of the English language does need to be resisted, respectfully, but firmly! 😀
Originally posted by FMF Yes, you quoted the definitions given. And then ignored the words that those definitions used.
It was my opinion that karoly's expression of his opinion went further by
his attempt to imbue his biased belief or point of view on the reader.
This is what the reader felt karoly was trying to do.
Originally posted by RJHinds It was my opinion that karoly's expression of his opinion went further by
his attempt to imbue his biased belief or point of view on the reader.
This is what the reader felt karoly was trying to do.
Karoly tried to "imbue his biased belief [sic] or point of view on [sic] the reader"?
You aren't even able to use the word "imbue" in a syntactically correct way, in conjunction with the correct preposition or correct object, so your "opinion" about how to use the word indoctrinate is worth whatever English speakers will make of it. As for me, your error over your word use has been pointed out to you now and your opinion is noted.
Originally posted by FMF Karoly tried to "imbue his biased belief [sic] or point of view on [sic] the reader"?
You aren't even able to use the word "imbue" in a syntactically correct way, in conjunction with the correct preposition or correct object, so your "opinion" about how to use the word indoctrinate is worth whatever English speakers will make of it. As for me, your error over your word use has been pointed out to you now and your opinion is noted.
Would it be better if I said the following:
Karoly attempted to imbue the reader with a biased belief or point of view.
Therefore, he attempted to indoctrinate the reader with that biased opinion.
Originally posted by RJHinds Would it be better if I said the following:
Karoly attempted to imbue the reader with a biased belief or point of view.
Therefore, he attempted to indoctrinate the reader with that biased opinion.
No, because your use of the word "indoctrinate" suggests that you still don't quite fully understand what it means, and - now - the same goes for the word "imbue".
Your inability, in your previous post, to use the word "imbue" correctly in a fairly straight forward English sentence tells us much about the credibility of your opinions about our shared tongue. It's not that I am being prescriptive, per se. It's just that the loss of the meaning of certain words, because of the laziness or lack of learning on the part of some people who use them, needs to be counteracted by those of us who cherish the nuances of our wonderful language.
Originally posted by FMF No, because your use of the word "indoctrinate" suggests that you still don't quite fully understand what it means, and - now - the same goes for the word "imbue".
Your inability, in your previous post, to use the word "imbue" correctly in a fairly straight forward English sentence tells us much about the credibility of your opinions about our shared tongue. ...[text shortened]... ds to be counteracted by those of us who cherish the nuances of our wonderful language.
If I used the word "infuse" instead of "imbue" would that make more sense
to you?
Originally posted by RJHinds If I used the word "infuse" instead of "imbue" would that make more sense
to you?
I know what you mean and I appreciate your effort to make light of your own missteps on this matter. However, the issue here is that you are attempting to use a word - "indoctrinate" - which has certain conventional connotations - in a way that could apply to virtually everything that anyone ever says, every or any day, about anything, since whenever, in reference to whatever, and by whoever, as long as something - a belief or an opinion - is stated in the post. To render a perfectly good word - like "indoctrinate" - as meaningless and as bland as this, is unnecessary and of no benefit to anyone. It effectively obliterates the actual meaning of the word. Rajk999 is doing so - tongue in cheek, without a doubt - to yank karoly's chain. And, as you can see, karoly's chain has been yanked. As has yours it seems.
Who is christian?
22 Nov '11 20:25
Back to Top