Rewriting the dictionary

by rebel8 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rebel8

  I got a really lengthy PM from a poster I don't know, scolding me for saying there is a difference between rape and religious abuse. (Honestly it took me a while to figure out what the person was even talking about.) The dictionary begs to differ. If you want to equate 2 things, go ahead, but don't rewrite the dictionary.
  
  I recently had a conversation with someone who says eating oysters is vegetarian. When I pointed out it isn't, the person said we all have different definitions of vegetarian. Again, words mean what they mean. If you want to make up a new word, go ahead, but rewriting the dictionary doesn't happen just by you wishing it. Make up your own word if you feel you need a title to describe what's on your plate.
  
  I am remembering how the j-dubs rewrite the dictionary all the time.

  An "in-group" language is usually constructed.

  Don't like the definition of cult? Too bad. It means what it means. Protesting that its definition applies to too many religions doesn't make the word magically not apply to you. Not ready to accept or use it in terms of your current or former religion? That's fine, but that's something inside of you, not inside the dictionary.
  
  Oy vey.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Here, here! Your post is literally a breath of fresh air.
• 

  slimboyfat

  My post above, as well as intending to signal agreement, was meant to be an ironic nod to this news story I heard on the radio the other day.

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2392586/Oxford-English-Dictionary-admits-used-wrong-sense-word-literally.html

  I was literally shocked when I heard about the new dictionary entry for literally.
• 

  Scully

  The WTS likes to bandy about the word "rape" when you have a child of JWs being administered a court-ordered blood transfusion.

  People can call it sensationalizing or whatever, but frankly, I believe we should not be stooping to the WTS's level. Let them play games with semantics - we are better than that. Let's just say what we mean, and mean what we say.
• 

  jgnat

  Good, plain description can be devastating. For instance, meetings are dull. Deadly dull.
• 

  rmt1

  The operative concept is 'to seize'. That covers what TWS does to its young.

  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rape

  rape (v.)

  late 14c., "seize prey; abduct, take by force," from rape (n.) and from Anglo-French raper (Old French rapir ) "to seize, abduct," a legal term, probably from past participle of Latin rapere "seize, carry off by force, abduct" (see rapid).
  
  Latin rapere was used for "sexually violate," but only very rarely; the usual Latin word being stuprare "to defile, ravish, violate," related to stuprum (n.), literally "disgrace." Meaning "to abduct (a woman), ravish;" also "seduce (a man)" is from early 15c. in English. Related: Raped ; raping . Uncertain connection to Low German and Dutch rapen in the same sense.

  rape (n.1)

  early 14c., "booty, prey;" mid-14c., "forceful seizure; plundering, robbery, extortion," from Anglo-French rap , rape , and directly from Latin rapere "seize" (see rape (v.)). Meaning "act of abducting a woman or sexually violating her or both" is from early 15c., but perhaps late 13c. in Anglo-Latin.
• 

  smiddy

  The WT is always re-defining the meaning of words like : Generation,{ Truth ( new ? and old ? )} , Imminent , Immediately , etc.etc.

  smiddy
• 

  Phizzy

  Words do change their meaning over time, due to common usage, and the Dictionary must keep up, perhaps for a while giving a nod to both usages.

  The WT though, as Scully rightly points out, uses words in a way that does not fit the word's meaning, or they TOTALLY change the definition, to suit themselves, as Smiddy says, Generation, where else, apart from WT LaLa Land , will you find the word applied to someone born in 1914 and someone living now, as though they were part of the same Generation ?

  They are masters of Propaganda, so they use words for that purpose, to scare and to coerce.

  They are quite shameless about this.
• 

  Chariklo

  Dead right, Phizzy. Masters of propaganda they certainly are.

  To be honest, I think it's a bit much to assert that rape and religious abuse are one and the same, though each most definitely is abuse. No doubt about that.

  Also, come to think of it, each comes about because of predatory behaviour. What could be more predatory than the planned spiritual and psychological onslaught of JW propaganda.

  Wolves in sheep's clothing with a vengeance!
• 

  TotallyADD

  Any kind of bad abuse has the same effect on your life. Who are we to question what effect a certain abuse has on us. It's all bad. Those of the cult have many abuses to overcome. Totally ADD