Terms that are thrown a round

[butterbumps!]

And I would argue that there are many levels of evil and atrocities are one of them

Ok, but you have to realize that your definition of this term is a non-standard, non-canonical one, and yelling at us about not adopting your personal definition of this term is rather futile. If you do not approve of the canonical, accepted denotation and connotation of "atrocity," then don't use it, but don't scold others who are actually using it correctly.

I already provided a list of synonyms on the last page, but here it is again. Truthfully, I think enormity and atrocity (perhaps also abomination, though it's more vitriolic) do fit the best connotation for what's being described.

enormity

barbarousness

heinousness

monstrosity

fiendishness

evilness

abomination

turpitude

Do you actually find any of these more suitable?

[Dany Girl]

No if I said there was nothing wrong with it it would be disgusting and deplorable but I didn't say that. I said that evil acts should be kept in perspective because honestly yes rap is a terrible thing but there are worse things still and in that perspective I wouldn't use the word atrocity

to the victim, there really aren't worse things out there. Sorry, you're wrong.

[pamparius]

atroc·i·ty

noun \ə-ˈträ-sə-tē\

: a very cruel or terrible act or action

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atrocity

sounds like rape to me, dude. But, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. Now I'm gonna respectfully bow out of this before i get banned again.

[JonathanTheBold]

to the victim, there really aren't worse things out there. Sorry, you're wrong.

Your kidding right. I think our disconnect is your speaking from an emotional stand point and I'm speaking in the areas of logic

[Dany Girl]

Your kidding right. I think our disconnect is your speaking from an emotional stand point and I'm speaking in the areas of logic

or you know, the 5 times people have provided the dictionary definition of "atrocity" and yet you still seem to think only the Holocaust can qualify. I suggest you go speak to a victim of rape, a woman who was violated on a physical, mental and emotional level. I guarantee they will define what happened to them as an atrocity.

You have your opinion, but mine coincides with the dictionary definition.

[Consigliere]

And I would argue that there are many levels of evil and atrocities are one of them

I'm sorry man but you are just wrong. The dictionary definition of atrocity is an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury. If you have issue with that then take it up with Oxford dictionary. Your stance that people who use "atrocity" to describe Tyrion's actions don't know what the word means, is simply incorrect.

[outofthecage]

I was being cheeky

It was rude.

Regarding the topic: We have words to be used. That's the whole point. For communication, be it verbal or written, to share our thoughts and feelings and opinions with others. So long as the use of the word fits in with the written definition of the word, and so long as the people we're communicating with understand us, there's no reason not to use our words. (Unless, of course, words are being used in a harmful way, but that's a whole other thing.)

It's like the word "awesome." The comedian Louis CK complains that people think of things like cheeseburgers as awesome when that word should be reserved for things like your child being born and other life-changing events. But wait. According to Mirriam-Webster (the first site to come up on my Google search) one of the definitions of the word is "causing feelings of awe," and if a cheeseburger gives someone that feeling, then by all means they should say it's awesome. The second definition of "awesome" is "extremely good" which could also describe a cheeseburger, so in this example the word isn't being used incorrectly.

The definition of "atrocity" - again, according to Mirriam-Webster - is "a very cruel or terrible act or action." It says nothing about how cruel or terrible the action must be to be considered an atrocity. That's something up to the person who uses the word. You may feel that some things that are decribed that way actually aren't, and you're certainly welcome to that opinion, but not everyone is going to feel the same way. Many other posters have already stated, the use of the word "atrocity" in these instances is correct by the definition of the word. Just because you feel the word is being used incorrectly, that doesn't make it so. Sure, we all have different opinions as far as the level of atrocities and crimes committed, but that doesn't give any of us the right to say anyone else can't use that word just because we disagree. And quite frankly, people are going to object - and they should object - when someone try to tell them they can't, just because of their own personal interpretation. There's room for debate, but no room for prohibition.

[butterbumps!]

so.........if we're passed the "atrocity" atrocity, I'd like to submit "defenestration" as a word that is thrown around not nearly enough. Since we actually have a word that means "the act of throwing someone out a window," it's kind of a shame not to take advantage of that given our ample excuses to in this series.

Could we technically also apply that to going out the Moon Door?

Yes, I'd say so.

[BanzaiZ]

so.........if we're passed the "atrocity" atrocity, I'd like to submit "defenestration" as a word that is thrown around not nearly enough. Since we actually have a word that means "the act of throwing someone out a window," it's kind of a shame not to take advantage of that given our ample excuses to in this series.

Could we technically also apply that to going out the Moon Door?

[Mladen]

so.........if we're passed the "atrocity" atrocity, I'd like to submit "defenestration" as a word that is thrown around not nearly enough. Since we actually have a word that means "the act of throwing someone out a window," it's kind of a shame not to take advantage of that given our ample excuses to in this series.

You are completely right. We should all protect the right of "defenestration" and defend it against those that call Jaime's "defenestrative" act anything else...

[BanzaiZ]

Then I'm definitely renaming some of my "era's" in my GoT CK2 game. :laugh:

[Consigliere]

so.........if we're passed the "atrocity" atrocity, I'd like to submit "defenestration" as a word that is thrown around not nearly enough. Since we actually have a word that means "the act of throwing someone out a window," it's kind of a shame not to take advantage of that given our ample excuses to in this series.

Agreed. From now on using any word other than "defenestration" to describe Jamie pushing Bran from the tower or LF sending Lysa for a trip out the moon door, will be considered an atrocity.

[Ygrain]

I am not asking anyone to go on a word hunt.

I simply mean if you don't completely understand a word then don't use it, it as simple as that.

Yea, and sometimes people don't know that they don't know a word.

Indeed. It is really impossible for non-native (and sometimes even for native) speakers to know every possible context of every possible word. The more extensive their knowledge, the more contexts they know, but never all of them, and the words with more uses than they currently know do not carry red flags saying "you don't know all my contexts". It's prefectly alright to explain when and why they use a word incorrectly but the attitude presented by the OP is rather entitled.

[Dr. Pepper]

I don't know what to tell u read a book

I think the use of "u" demeans the English language. There is a standard definition of "u" and it doesn't work in the sentence you are using. Would you tell the 21st letter of the alphabet or Uranium to go read a book? That seems an atrocious use of the letter. Using "u" in this way is crazy madness. This usage should be defenestrated.

I am not asking anyone to go on a word hunt.

I simply mean if you don't completely understand a word then don't use it, it as simple as that.

There are varying degrees of communicative skills on here, regardless of native language. Some have learning disabilities while others are allergic to logic, patience and reason. Sometimes people don't know what they don't know. I mean, when I see someone who doesn't completely understand what they are talking about, I don't feel inclined to tell them that the fix to their problem is as simple as no longer talking. I feel inclined to patiently explain where their problem arises.

[Mladen]

This usage should be defenestrated.

I am sorry, dear, but you are new to this discussion. We came to conclusion that a word has to have one meaning and one meaning only. The word atrocious is used for only one crime, and the word defenestration now has only one meaning - "Jaime pushing Bran off the window". Although I am one of those rebellious people who wrongly believe that words should have context, the word here seems to explain only one thing. So, in order not to confuse our dear OP, and several other posters, I recommend you to change the bolded word, because simply, it doesn't make any sense. I mean: "This usage should be thrown off the window" is meaningless. You can't throw the word off the window unless you see it on the window.

Of course, you might be entering the huge philosophical debate here. If you use the defenestration in sentence that says "throwing the word off the window", then are you suggesting that Bran is the logos(Ancient Greek for word) of ASOIAF? Interesting presumption, given the metaphysical analysis of ASOIAF. We also have to remember that logos in Bible has the meaning of God's word, which ties us to ADWD and the scene where Bran through his greenseer magic is actually "word of a God"... In that case, I bow to your brilliance...

[butterbumps!]

I think the use of "u" demeans the English language. There is a standard definition of "u" and it doesn't work in the sentence you are using. Would you tell the 21st letter of the alphabet or Uranium to go read a book? That seems an atrocious use of the letter. Using "u" in this way is crazy madness. This usage should be defenestrated.

Say the word, and I will defenestrate u with glee.

[Rickeen Baratheon]

or you know, the 5 times people have provided the dictionary definition of "atrocity" and yet you still seem to think only the Holocaust can qualify. I suggest you go speak to a victim of rape, a person who was violated on a physical, mental and emotional level. I guarantee they will define what happened to them as an atrocity.

You have your opinion, but mine coincides with the dictionary definition.

Fixed for ya'! :)

[Señor de la Tormenta]

I am sorry, dear, but you are new to this discussion. We came to conclusion that a word has to have one meaning and one meaning only. The word atrocious is used for only one crime, and the word defenestration now has only one meaning - "Jaime pushing Bran off the window". Although I am one of those rebellious people who wrongly believe that words should have context, the word here seems to explain only one thing. So, in order not to confuse our dear OP, and several other posters, I recommend you to change the bolded word, because simply, it doesn't make any sense. I mean: "This usage should be thrown off the window" is meaningless. You can't throw the word off the window unless you see it on the window.

Of course, you might be entering the huge philosophical debate here. If you use the defenestration in sentence that says "throwing the word off the window", then are you suggesting that Bran is the logos(Ancient Greek for word) of ASOIAF? Interesting presumption, given the metaphysical analysis of ASOIAF. We also have to remember that logos in Bible has the meaning of God's word, which ties us to ADWD and the scene where Bran through his greenseer magic is actually "word of a God"... In that case, I bow to your brilliance...

Or you can just say .... Hodor, said Hodor. Thats the beauty of it!

Jaime hodor Bran, when bran hodor jaime, while Jaime was hodor cersei

[Dr. Pepper]

In that case, I bow to your brilliance...

Yes, this is the conclusion one should make after reading any of my posts.

Say the word, and I will defenestrate u with glee.

Which word, fool? You must be specific about these things. Defenestration is a serious and atrocious offense (unless it's from a ground floor window, then that's a reasonable method of egress and totally fine), so one must know exactly what word is to be spoken and utilize a specific definition of that word, determined by the defenestrated.

[Mladen]

Yes, this is the conclusion one should make after reading any of my posts.

After this, I would make another conclusion but you know the "one word for one event" rule prevents me... So, here we go:

PSA:

atrocious = Holocaust

defenestration = throwing children off the window

brilliance = Dr. Pepper's post

If I see anyone using any of these three words in any other context, you will have to deal with OP.

Which word, fool? You must be specific about these things. Defenestration is a serious and atrocious offense (unless it's from a ground floor window, then that's a reasonable method of egress and totally fine), so one must know exactly what word is to be spoken and utilize a specific definition of that word, determined by the defenestrated.

OP, Dr. Pepper used atrocious as adjective to defenestration. How dare she? To think that the time has come to use atrocious for such crimes... This is a chaos, chaos, people, and the good people of this thread should stop this...

What do we want? One meaning. When do we want it? Now. Why do we want it? Gods be good, ask someone else...