The dangers of believing in the improbable...

[Barry Shnikov]

it may be news to you then, that holy books are often interpreted differently by the members of the religion in question.

THEY ARE????

Gosh. How confusing. How is a person to work out which is the correct interpretation?

[Barry Shnikov]

You are free to use the word to mean whatever you like.

No, I'm not; and neither is anyone else. I sense a pernicious element of relativism creeping in here. A word must be used in the way which it is most commonly understood; dictionaries can provide assistance in determining this. They are not really definitive, though the Oxford English Dictionary is - for us over here - exhaustive within the limitation that it cannot be frequently updated.

If you wish to contend for a narrow interpretation of the word 'impose', so that you don't have to say "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't have the wider definition in mind in my earlier post", then fine.

Everybody else here seems to have no problem with the definition for which I contend, which includes, but is not confined to, something like this: "to impose a belief on A means to act in a way you believe to be consistent with and even required by that belief and whereby A suffers a restriction of his or her or their freedom or rights, and to claim that your action was justified by the belief".

[David Bailey]

Gosh. How confusing. How is a person to work out which is the correct interpretation?

PM me, I'll tell you. But don't spread it around, or everyone'll want to know.

[Barry Shnikov]

PM me, I'll tell you. But don't spread it around, or everyone'll want to know.

So - what, you'll be my personal guru? Can I ask whether you lean more towards Augustine or Aquinas?

[David Bailey]

So - what, you'll be my personal guru? Can I ask whether you lean more towards Augustine or Aquinas?

Shhh!

[ducasi]

What's Christmas got to do with religion?

Birthday of the alleged Messiah, supposed son of God, sent for the salvation of all Mankind - seems at least tangentially religious to me!

Oh, is that who Santa is?!

[David Bailey]

Oh, is that who Santa is?!

You Son Of Santa, you...

[MartinHarper]

A word must be used in the way which it is most commonly understood; dictionaries can provide assistance in determining this. They are not really definitive, though the Oxford English Dictionary is - for us over here - exhaustive within the limitation that it cannot be frequently updated.

Given that I'm the one using a word according to a referenced dictionary definition, and you're the one making up a definition to suit your own purposes, shouldn't I be giving you that lecture, rather than the other way round?

[El Salsero Gringo]

Everybody else here seems to have no problem with the definition for which I contend, which includes, but is not confined to, something like this: "to impose a belief on A means to act in a way you believe to be consistent with and even required by that belief and whereby A suffers a restriction of his or her or their freedom or rights, and to claim that your action was justified by the belief".

Can't we just agree that you can impose upon someone because of your beliefs (9/11 etc) without having to impose your beliefs on them?

[bigdjiver]

Given that I'm the one using a word according to a referenced dictionary definition, and you're the one making up a definition to suit your own purposes, shouldn't I be giving you that lecture, rather than the other way round?

Barry has trouble accepting dictionary definitions, which is why I have stopped arguing with him.

[Barry Shnikov]

Barry has trouble accepting dictionary definitions, which is why I have stopped arguing with him.

Spoilsport!

In fact, I do not have a problem with Martin's dictionary, I have a problem with his interpretation of what the definition means.

Out of pure interest, do you accept that the definition of the word 'impose' is limited in the way for which Martin contends, or do you think it is wide enough to encompass the way in which I used it?

[MartinHarper]

Do you accept that the definition of the word 'impose' is limited in the way for which Martin contends?

Mu.

I'm not contending for any particular definition or limitation. I have merely explained the sense in which I used the word in my own posts.

[straycat]

Can't we just agree that you can impose upon someone because of your beliefs (9/11 etc) without having to impose your beliefs on them?

That'd probably be too much of an imposition.

[Barry Shnikov]

I'm not contending for any particular definition or limitation. I have merely explained the sense in which I used the word in my own posts.

Well, um, first, that appears to be a distinction without a difference.

Second, you said:

"I can't recall a time when any fundamentalists have imposed their views upon me. Generally they all just vigorously and tediously assert their point of view in inappropriate places."

I responded by saying that fundamentalists don't just assert their point of view, they impose their views on everybody all the time (and I gave examples).

Your response is (as best as I can understand it) 'Oh well, I only meant 'impose' as in 'try to persuade me to adopt their faith' '. OK. In that limited sense, you must be right. At the very least, since you are expressing your own experience, no-one can refute that.

Plugging that in, it seems you intended us to understand "I can't recall a time when any fundamentalists have tried to persuade me to adopt their faith. Generally they all just vigorously and tediously assert their point of view in inappropriate places.

My new answer, to your freshly defined statement is: "What? Not even Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons?"

[MartinHarper]

Well, um, first, that appears to be a distinction without a difference.

I'm sorry that the difference is not apparent to you.

Your response is (as best as I can understand it) 'Oh well, I only meant 'impose' as in 'try to persuade me to adopt their faith' '.

Incorrect. I meant "impose" as in "1 a : to establish or apply by authority b : to establish or bring about as if by force", as previously quoted. I'm unclear how you get words like "try" and "persuade" from words like "force" and "authority".

[El Salsero Gringo]

Time for you two to get a room, I think. How do you both like your eggs in the morning?

[Barry Shnikov]

Time for you two to get a room, I think. How do you both like your eggs in the morning?

Nah. I give up. The lengths some people will go to, to avoid being in the wrong - I don't know...

[Barry Shnikov]

Dictionary definitions don't decide the issue. I'm happy to rest on the comments made within this thread which, as far as I'm concerned, generally support my view that 'impose' includes 'forcing one's views upon others', by one means or another.

Martin and I will have to agree to disagree on whether bombing people in the hope that it will bring about a global state of affairs which you would prefer to the current one is to 'impose' your views on the rest of the world.

[MartinHarper]

I say, I say, I say. My dog has no nose.
She ends up dancing with people she doesn't like.

This thread demonstrates the negative consequences of seeking disagreement without seeking understanding. There is no mutual understanding, and thus it is not even possible to agree to disagree. Instead, reflect upon the sound that is the cessation of noise.

Time for you two to get a room, I think. How do you both like your eggs in the morning?

Generous offer, ESG, but I wouldn't want to impose.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Martin and I will have to agree to disagree

and thus it is not even possible to agree to disagree.

Barry is the shining beacon of compromise? Who would have thought