Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 9:10:06
In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on June 1, 2006, at 6:59:33
> Sigh. In the "I" statement context, I think Dr. Bob is correct. Tabitha is right, as I see it.
To use your arguments, you have just called me wrong. All by inference. If they're right, and I'm different........
Do you not see the circularity in that? There are simple declaratory I-statements that use comparators, which do nothing more than reveal an individual's preference.
She said what she thought was better, between two selections. Others may list their own preferences, without prejudice.
We just had a thread on Social about Starbucks treats. There was some disagreement there, about what was favoured. Should all get blocks, for daring to speak of what they liked, once someone else had spoken?
> My objection wasn't in that area.
>
> Incidentally, similar rules are observed on the Faith board about statements putting forth one faith as being a superior path. So that, for example, I don't think it would be acceptable under board guidelines to assert that the world would be better if everyone were Christian. Or that the world would be better if there was no liberal movement or no conservative movement.Then, my conclusion would be that the Faith board needs fixing, too. It uses an unsupportable argument.
> Were she to have said "I sometimes wonder what the world would be like without religion." she would have been imagining what the world would be like without religion, and probably wouldn't have been flagged. But that's not what she said.
>
> It's not just semantics.
>
> But I grow weary.Correct. It is not just semantics. She merely combined two thoughts in one simple sentence. And unless you can show me where either one was uncivil, literally, then this is the civility issue writ large.
This is precisely why I grow angry (historically).
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:646675
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/651403.html