Posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 10:55:39
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 9:10:06
What would be the harm in saying, "I prefer buttertarts with raisins" instead of saying, "Butter tarts are 'better' with raisins"? The former is inarguable. it's your preference, based on whatever criteria and evaluations of criteria you choose. No one can take that away from you. However, the latter is arguable and does include a judgment about what is "best" for butter tarts.
Similarly, star-bellied sneetches are not necessarily the best on the beaches, and saying so could offend plain-bellied sneetches. However, my preference for plain-bellied sneetches is my own, and is what's right for me. Stating that I prefer plain-bellied sneetches does not include the notions that they are "the best on the beaches", are "what's best for the sneetches", or that anyone else should think so, too.
The messages are different. Yes, rephrasing into an appropriate thought-owning "I" statement can change the original message. But isn't the original message as it reads, (i.e. plain-bellied sneetches are "best" of the sneetches) truly not civil given that there are non plain-bellied sneetches, too? Whereas the message of what I personally prefer regarding the belly appearance of sneetches is a single data point of what might be "best" and does not contain the message that what I prefer is globally "best".
Regards,
gg
poster:gardenergirl
thread:646675
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/651438.html