“I agree with the content of your point but I object to how it was delivered”
Why is this sentence so important? Because it then allows us to have a duel conversation. One on the merit of the contents of a conversation and two, on the merits of the behavior while delivering the content.
Now add a few agreed-to basic rules of engagement and we end up with Object123.
My belief is that we confuse these two premises and mix behavior and content together, during a disagreement and end up with a mess or war.
I believe that every dictionary on the planet contributes to this error by not separating out “disagree” vs “object”, going on to define the verb “object” as: “To disagree with something or someone…”
How I can disagree with something is beyond me? I can only disagree with the maker or user of the object, that is the subject. And making no differentiation between disagreeing and objecting is, to me, clearly not helpful.
I believe is that the proper definition of the verb to object is disagreeing specifically with one’s behavior, as opposed to someone or something.