Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Fifty Plus Cohousing + ?

[racheli (racheli]

Hi Howard,
I suppose your post is meant to exemplify/model how NOT to write an
inflamatory email :) ...

I'm not going to get into a talmudic debate with you about what I said or
didn't say and what it meant (or didn't), since it seems  to me to be a
waste of my time.

Regarding the use of the term "hostility": Yes, I stand by it. I do think
there are quite a few people in cohousing (as
well as out of it) with hostile attitudes towards children.
I used the terms because it reflects my thinking, not so as
to offend you or anyone.  Judging from some of the responses
I got (privately), there are others who agree with me.
Regardless of whether we are right or wrong, the perception
exists.  Perhaps it's even rooted in reality.
R.  
  


>> It WOULD be stereotyping to say that "anyone who would prefer to live
>> without something is hostile to that things".  However,  I didn't say it,
>> You did.  and I don't think I implied it, either.   What I DID say was
>> that it makes sense for those who are hostile to children to live in
>> a place where there are no, or very few children.  

>You implied, because you were replying to someone who simply said she
>didn't wish to live with children at this stage of her life, that such a
>person was necessarily or likely "hostile to children".  Also, in a later
>email, you *insisted* on the term "hostility":

>> Just because you met people out of cohousing who feel
>> that way doesn't prove that it isn't hostility

>(Actually, it does.  If you make a blanket statement that purports to be
>universally valid, then it only takes one counterexample to prove it
>false.  He was responding to your original apparent position, but here
>you shifted your apparent position from "must be hostility" to "might be
>hostility sometimes".)

>I felt your choice of "hostile" was inflammatory, insulting, and not
>logically justifiable.  It's a very strong and emotionally loaded term
>(see the definition below).  And I'm not the only one who felt that. You
>don't seem aware that insulting people might cause a reaction. Or maybe
>you didn't expect anyone to feel insulted?

>Anyway, I was trying to point out that the (unstated) logic you appeared
>to be following simply didn't make sense.  To do that, I had to state
>what you left unstated, that is, explicitly state the logical premise
>that you appeared to be using.  Since you now say that you disagree with
>it as well, I'm puzzled about how you reached your conclusion.  You leapt
>from "doesn't want to live with children" to "is hostile to children". 
>How did you get there?

>       Howard A. Landman
>       River Rock Commons
>       Fort Collins CO

>hostility, n:
>  1. a feeling of enmity, ill will, unfriendliness, etc.; antagonism.
>  2. (a) expression of enmity and ill will; active opposition;
>     hostile act; (b) a state of war; acts of war; warfare.
>_______________________________________________
>Cohousing-L mailing list
>Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
>http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L