Does the word "repugnant", to you, imply malice?
by 
hedge-rider
ANSWERS: 9
-
No, to me it implies "disgusting" and "lowly" as in, "His beavior was repugnant."
-
No. Something can be unpleasant to look at (like a wound or excrement) and not have anything to do with malice. Even acting repugnant doesn't imply malice; a person can be a jerk and not do it with any harmful intent...it just may be the way the person is.
-
No, it means repeat, malice means of a mean nature, fore thought.
-
lmao. how about that. no, repugnant does not imply malice
-
To me, the word repugnant meant disgusting, foul, hateful, rotten, but not malice.
-
"Adjective repugnant (comparative more repugnant, superlative most repugnant) offensive or repulsive and arousing disgust or aversion" Source and further information: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/repugnant In the sense of "offensive", it could contain malice. However, it must not be, and in the other meanings, it does not.
-
You could use it to describe something of malicious nature, but technically it means like; omg EW.
-
"Repugnant" implies that the person saying it feels the need to sound more offended than if she said, "No, I don't think I care for that at all, sir."
-
No malice needed. You could step in a pile of doggie diarrhea, which would be repugnant. Or like George Bush senior, you could throw up on the Japanese Prime Minister. That too would be repugnant. But it's not intentional.
iwnit RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC