Originally Posted by honeybeedreams
i think your intention was (known to you or not) that you would present this issue in a particular way (hence not being direct and up front, but convoluted and highly intellectual) and that would "turn on the light" for those of us that get hot about the issue and change our minds about the topic, ie that the medium *is* the message, and we would be reformed.
if you really meant to simply state the fact that you were offended by the way some approach this issue, then you would have done just that. since you did not, i would have to assume that something else was going on for you.
just because you present someone with an intellectual argument that makes sense, it doesn't mean that they will always be swayed by it, or even interested in seeing another prespective.
I was/am looking for a conversation based on intellect and logic, as opposed to one based on emotion....that is my comfort zone, and that is what 'moves' me, OTOH, I recognize that is not what moves most, so I welcome the emotional arguments as well though I admit, and not proudly, that they tend to frustrate me and I think that much of what is meant to be communicated is lost on me and dismissed as "being emotional". As for being "convoluted" and not being "up front", I disagree. I think my original post did state what I was trying to better understand, though I also recognize that my attempt failed and my message was not clearly received by many.
You have previously questioned why I did not take an "I am offended" approach, and I tried to respond to that in post#93 and I am going to avoid repeating, but I would like to add that I think there is a big difference between the giver of a message being offensive, the giver of a message sending an offensive message, and the reciever of the message taking offense. I don't think I have been in any way secretive about that fact that I have taken offense (in this thread and others) and it generally seems to be directed back as 'my problem'. Earlier in this thread, someone introduced the idea that if someone takes offense, that is between them and their conscience, which in my opinion is a cop-out, and it doesn't address people like me, people who take offense despite a clear conscience. I wasn't looking for discussion about why people take offense to the message, I think that is clear, I was looking for discussion about whether or not people knew that they were being offensive in thier delivery of the message, whether or not they knew they were delivering an offensive message and whether or not they thought it mattered. From the original OP
Originally Posted by OP
Do you think using words like abuse and violence to describe non-GD parenting likely would be offensive to parents practicing non-GD parenting?
[added for this post - i.e, do you recognize the message IS offensive?]
If you use words like abuse and violence in talking about non-GD parenting choices, do you care if others take offense? Would you change your vocabulary if you knew you were causing offense? Is it your intent to cause offense?
[added for this post - i.e, do you recognize the message IS offensive? do you recognize that the delivery of the message is offensive? Does it matter?]
Do you think using words like abuse and violence to discribe non-GD parenting styles does a disservice to GD? What do you think the over-all effect is?
[added for this post - i.e, Does it matter?]
IMO, this is pretty clear. *You* can ask why I didn't use different words, but I chose my words very carefully, particularily to try to avoid people taking offense to the questions. In hindsite, I think this topic ironically 'has a lot of noise' in it, i.e., a lot of emotion, and I'm not sure any words or any delivery can make *you* hear the message that I am trying to send.
I think that many of the messengers who deliver offensive messages (IMO) and who deliver messages offensively (IMO) do so without being aware that they are part of the problem when the message is not recieved. They feel justified that their message was "right" or "accurate" or "truth" or ________, and they turn the fact that it is also offensive back on the receiver, stating that the receiver TOOK offense, rather than realizing that 'I (or the message) GAVE offense'. I don't deny that I was hoping (though NOT hopeful) that some might take that message to heart. I have however long ago realized that my technical-manual style of persuasion, never works on topics with emotional aspects (which is almost all topics!) but I did hope (and it has happened IMO) that some others would also weigh in more eloquently on the topic.