Dio, you are just wrong.

[bup]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Tell me what I’m wrong about. Don’t just drive by and drop a random, meaningless insult. Have the guts to debate me.

You’re coercing me!

[Giraffe]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It is if other people keep trying to say they are the same thing.

Link me to a post where someone said that setting someone up on a date is the same thing as arranging a marriage.

I’ll wait.

[Jackmannii]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Do you believe that the threat of disownership by one’s parents is as trivial as getting a “look” in a coffee shop.

With disownership there is a mandatory 10% restocking fee.

@even sven

If you can’t drive in it, it’s not a driveway. That’s simple enough.

But why is it we park in a driveway and drive on a parkway??

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@bup

You’re coercing me!

Still gutless.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Giraffe

Link me to a post where someone said that setting someone up on a date is the same thing as arranging a marriage.

I’ll wait.

It’s all over this thread and the last one. Start with the OP.

[Giraffe]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It’s all over this thread and the last one. Start with the OP.

Oh, you mean this post:

@even_sven

Regarding this hijack about arranged marriages.

What fuck is your problem? You are wrong. Nobody is “changing the definition of the word.” Everyone is using it as it is commonly used.

Now there may was a time that arranged marriages were forced. Indeed, in the most remote parts of some countries that is still true. But you know what? 99% of people referring to a modern arranged marriage are talking about what we are talking about. That’s just how it is. You’re just fucking wrong. Suck it up.

Since you’re too dumb/lazy to make a link, how about you just quote this post and bold the part where the OP says arranged marriages and setting someone up on a date are the exact same thing? (It’s the [noparse]****[/noparse] tags.)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

She said it in the other thread then. Whatever.

For the record, my post was said in direct response to this post by Freudian Slit:

In my own family, my cousin really wanted to get married and was asking my mom to set up some meetings with guys, which would have entailed looking for guys with a good family background/good job/nice/whatever other criteria my cousin considered important. It wouldn’t have mattered if in the end my cousin chose some guy who was of a different race/culture, but most likely the guys my mom knew of would have been of our same background.

To which I said, “setting people up on dates is not arranging a marriage.”

even sven has also (in both threads) compared it to online dating and matchmaking, as has ZPG.

[The_Weird_One]

Has either side bothered to lay down their definition of “arranged marriage” yet? That may help clear things up.

To my mind, the distinguishing characteristics of an arranged marriage are:

1. The partners are chosen on the basis of something other than love (distinguishing it from a love marriage)
2. Marriage is the deliberate purpose of their relationship (distinguishing it from a shotgun wedding, drunken mistake in Vegas, etc.)

[Giraffe]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

She said it in the other thread then. Whatever.

For the record, my post was said in direct response to this post by Freudian Slit:

To which I said, “setting people up on dates is not arranging a marriage.”

even sven has also (in both threads) compared it to online dating and matchmaking, as has ZPG.

Let me spell it out for you: you aren’t contributing anything to the conversation if you just sit back and respond to people’s arguments and analogies with “no, that’s different”. Your statement by itself is meaningless, because no one is postulating the thing you’re actually saying. But the obvious implication behind your statement is that the situations you’re responding to are fundamentally different in some way such that their analogy is inappropriate. Use your words and explain why you think that, instead of being such a lazy nuisance.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I would agree with both of those but add that the selections (or at least the demarcations of the candidate pool) are done by people other than the prospective nuptial couple.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Giraffe

Let me spell it out for you: you aren’t contributing anything to the conversation if you just sit back and respond to people’s arguments and analogies with “no, that’s different”.

That’s not what I’m doing. I’m responding to attempts to move the goal posts. You are fixating on one post. No one can refute me on arranged marriage being coercive, so they’re trying to change the definition.

But the obvious implication behind your statement is that the situations you’re responding to are fundamentally different in some way such that their analogy is inappropriate. Use your words and explain why you think that

I already have. Read the threads.

[The_Weird_One]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I would agree with both of those but add that the selections (or at least the demarcations of the candidate pool) are done by people other than the prospective nuptial couple.

Okay, but even if we add that stipulation, there’s nothing in the resulting definition that stipulates the marriage is coerced or rules out the possibility of the prospective couple going on dates to decide if they actually want to get married.

[RTFirefly]

@Giraffe

Link me to a post where someone said that setting someone up on a date is the same thing as arranging a marriage.

I’ll wait.

How about:

@Freudian_Slit

I’ve heard of it working the way that even sven And One and Only Wanderer mention it. The way my mom explained it to me (and no, I’m not getting into one) is more like parents or relatives will introduce you to some people–kind of a set up. It’s no more forceful than a blind date or matchmaking.

[RTFirefly]

@even_sven

Dio.

If I walk up to an Indian friend and say “my marriage was arranged,” they are going to picture my parents freaking out that I’m approaching 30, going on Shaadi.com, and setting me up on dates that I grudgingly go on to please them, until I find someone who I actually hit it off with and we decide to make a go of it,

They are not going to picture whatever situation you are imagining.

The only meaning of a word is the way people use it. What you imagine the word must mean has nothing to do with anything expect the bizarre world you have inside your head.

I agree that the meaning of a word is ultimately decided by how people use it. In fact, I get rather irritated at people who say that the real meaning of a word is the way it’s used by some profession (usually lawyers) rather than the way it’s used by people in general.

But this is the first time, in my 56 years, that I’ve heard the term “arranged marriage” used to mean the process you describe here.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Do you believe that this is a valid analogy? Do you believe that the threat of disownership by one’s parents is as trivial as getting a “look” in a coffee shop.

No, I’m mocking you. I’m pretending that I’m you in a coffeeshop, complaining about things that are not as I choose to define them, then about how oppressed I am because I have to order from the items for sale in the coffeeshop, then complaining about how everyone yells at me when I ask for an item by a name that does not denote the item. Then I change the goalposts and complain about how I have to order from the menu in the coffeeshop, and claim that that is what I’m upset about.

I could go elsewhere. I could not order coffee. I could pay attention to the definition of the words as used by the rest of the world.

You ignore the many examples of arranged marriages that are not coercive while insisting that ‘arranged marriages are coercive’. Then you redefine what you said, and what you meant, while still insisting you’re right. Sometimes I doubt you even read your own posts.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension

No, I’m mocking you. I’m pretending that I’m you in a coffeeshop, complaining about things that are not as I choose to define them, then about how oppressed I am because I have to order from the items for sale in the coffeeshop, then complaining about how everyone yells at me when I ask for an item by a name that does not denote the item. Then I change the goalposts and complain about how I have to order from the menu in the coffeeshop, and claim that that is what I’m upset about.

I could go elsewhere. I could not order coffee. I could pay attention to the definition of the words as used by the rest of the world.

You ignore the many examples of arranged marriages that are not coercive while insisting that ‘arranged marriages are coercive’. Then you redefine what you said, and what you meant, while still insisting you’re right. Sometimes I doubt you even read your own posts.

I don’t know what you’re on about, but none of this in any way relates to this thread or to my posts in this thread. I’m not the one trying to change the definitions here. If you’re trying to mock me, you’re doing it wrong.

Do you believe that setting up a date is equivalent to arranging a marriage?

[Peremensoe]

@RTFirefly

There’s a big difference between “no more forceful than a blind date or matchmaking” and what **Crotalus **just described:

What Crotalus described is matchmaking.

[Malthus]

There is obviously a wide spectrum of what people mean by an “arranged marriage”.

My brother in law was a shy fellow, didn’t meet women much, wanted to get married. His parents contacted their distant relations in Ukraine, who found among them a woman who was similarly inclined … he flew over there to meet her, they got along, they were married & he imported her to Canada.

I dunno if this is an “arranged marriage” or not; I sort of thought it was. Though obviouisly both parties had a veto on the whole thing, the matter was "arranged’, not by them, but by their relations; the expectation was that, barring a positive dislike of each other, they would be married to this person they have never seen (outside of photographs) … but OTOH both wanted to be married.

[Voyager]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I would agree with both of those but add that the selections (or at least the demarcations of the candidate pool) are done by people other than the prospective nuptial couple.

I’d add that these selections are restrictive - in that the couple has no or limited opportunity to look outside of them. Otherwise match.com is the biggest arranger of marriages in the world.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Voyager

I’d add that these selections are restrictive - in that the couple has no or limited opportunity to look outside of them. Otherwise match.com is the biggest arranger of marriages in the world.

agreed.