Definition of a cult

Originally posted by googlefudge
However it's not up to you to define the term.

You are free to define it any way you like but everyone else will ignore you and continue to use it as they see fit.


If the exercise is to see what people generally mean when they use it then how it
is popularly used is germane.

I can define the term through that which can be observed, please tell me why this is the incorrect approach. Again, how many times must I state it, I could not care less about the opinions of others, is that not obvious?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are free to produce any empirical evidence that you wish, as far as i am aware the scientific method has been approved for establishing criteria for nigh on 150 years or more.

You reckon "the scientific method" has been used by lexicographers for 150 years or more. That's an interesting assertion. I think you may not want it scrutinized too much. 😵

Originally posted by FMF
I reckon I made a really good stab at defining this contentious word. If you find my offering futile, irrelevant, useless, duplicitous, obfuscating, or uninteresting, as you say you do, why don't you have a go?

I am and I have, shall I produce my finding again, based on that which is observable rather than touting mere opinion?

Originally posted by FMF
You reckon "the scientific method" has been used by lexicographers for 150 years or more. That's an interesting assertion. I think you may not want it scrutinized too much. 😵

more irrelevancy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I see, so you refer the opinions of others to the scientific method, how very interesting, i would have thought that a rampant materialist would have found no objection to establishing criteria which can be established through observation, wow, how wrong could i be, it really does seem that opinion and dogma have taken the day over that which can be established empirically, oh well.

The definitions of words are established by looking at how people use them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I see, so you refer the opinions of others to the scientific method, how very interesting, i would have thought that a rampant materialist would have found no objection to establishing criteria which can be established through observation, wow, how wrong could i be, it really does seem that opinion and dogma have taken the day over that which can be established empirically, oh well.

Demonstrate to us how you use the 'scientific method' in this particular instance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am and I have, shall I produce my finding again, based on that which is observable rather than touting mere opinion?

But it is merely your opinion that your definition adequately encompasses the actual real world ways in which the word is used, and it is merely your opinion that your definition is not severely limited. Your determination to dismiss stuff you disagree with and that does not suit your purpose is "observable" too.

Originally posted by FMF
The definitions of words are established by looking at how people use them.

we are not talking of words we are talking of cults and how they behave. As far as i am aware one can define a term through observing behavior, thus a criminal is defined by the way they act, shall we refer to a criminal by looking up terms and appealing to popular opinion, no? well now you see what a nonsense your approach is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we are not talking of words we are talking of cults and how they behave.

We are talking about the word "cult" and what it means when people use it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Demonstrate to us how you use the 'scientific method' in this particular instance.

by referencing that which is observed, how else? No you can argue that I have not personally observed secrecy or charismatic leaders, but others have and its well documented. Will you state why this is the wrong approach?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
by referencing that which is observed, how else? No you can argue that I have not personally observed secrecy or charismatic leaders, but others have and its well documented. Will you state why this is the wrong approach?

So you define the word cult by observing the behaviour of cults....

Please tell me you are not too stupid not to be able to see the flaw in that...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we are not talking of words we are talking of cults and how they behave. As far as i am aware one can define a term through observing behavior, thus a criminal is defined by the way they act, shall we refer to a criminal by looking up terms and appealing to popular opinion, no? well now you see what a nonsense your approach is.

"What a criminal waste of time that was. The support band blew them away!"

Originally posted by FMF
We are talking about the word "cult" and what it means when people use it.

sorry you are talking of the word cult, I am talking of defining the term through observation of cult behavior, the same as a criminal is defined through criminal acts. If someone steals your property, will you go to the police and offer a lexical definition, yes officer, it was according to Rogets thesaurus, a criminal wot did it! Haha, what a nonsense.

Originally posted by FMF
"What a criminal waste of time that was. The support band blew them away!"

yes officer wait till I look up my thesaurus to get a definition.

Originally posted by googlefudge
So you define the word cult by observing the behaviour of cults....

Please tell me you are not too stupid not to be able to see the flaw in that...

sorry if you cannot remain civil then you should not take part in any discussions here, once you apologise, ill answer your questions.