Posted on 08/28/2002 2:54:37 PM PDT by Libertina
A simple word like violence.
“Violence is any word or action that hurts another person.”
Truly? Does this really mean that because I feel hurt by the sentiments expressed in this extremely silly slogan, “violence” has been done to me? After all, I am truly hurt.
As a substitute teacher in several local school districts I have seen anti-violence signs posted in school halls and offices. Although I might charitably say they reflect an educator’s concern for children - rather than a covert attempt to break down their belief system - this twisting of common sense and redefining of simple words is frightening.
“Violence is any word or action that hurts another person.” The illogic and distortion in this statement exemplifies the way in which our children, your childrenn, are being trained to associate any disagreement, even verbal, as “violent.” Using this wrong definition of “violence,” anything our kids say may put them at risk of reprimand. All they must do to commit “violence” is say something considered hurtful by another person. Who would believe such a ridiculous notion? Yet little by little, our children are indoctrinated into this intelligence-defying belief system.
Gun owners and citizens who support the right to bear arms, take note that this “new-and-improved” definition of violence makes no distinction between an act of protecting families or illegal criminal behavior! All hurting is “violence” and “violence” is only a word away.
The twisting of words is used during school to tear down our family-instilled, traditional values. We read news stories of children in other states being suspended for drawing a gun or saying “bang bang.” Library books are removed because they include paintings of patriots bearing arms. A pointed finger is a dangerous weapon.
Here in Washington, an elementary school principal addresses her students for several mornings over the intercom intimating that certain kinds of play may be harmful or violent. Tag is forbidden here. Kids wouldn’t so much as dream of playing cowboys and Indians. Although they may not mean to, she warns further, the words students say and the way in which they play could be “misunderstood” as well. Some students tell me recess isn’t fun anymore. A student is sent to the office because he physically defends himself after being hit by another boy. Although these non-academic policies may seem inconsequential to some parents, think of the values they diminish and how our children’s beliefs are purposefully molded further and further from our own.
Our rights are sacred, including the right to protect our families and our selves. Rosie you-know-who hires armed gunmen…er…bodyguards, to shadow her own dear children, while loudly decrying any private gun ownership that protects our loved ones. Gun “safety” extremists insist that our government be responsible for our safety, when facts show we must protect ourselves.
Back at school, under the glare of publicly posted anti-violence signs, students in some of our local schools swear, throw chairs, and walk out of classrooms with no more consequence than writing a begrudging apology, filing papers in the principal’s office, or chatting with fellow trouble-makers under the watchful eye of the school secretary.
Clearly, the true reason for the anti-violence signs, playground policies, politically correct books, and special “sensitivity training” curricula, is to condition our kids to believe any conflict is bad. A passive, non-judgmental, quiet citizenry is being promoted. This is especially troubling in light of the attack of September 11, 2001. Under the guise of tolerance, there are intolerant consequences for those who support carrying guns, fighting back, or standing up for one’s self. Our boys are in double jeopardy with this “Policy of Passive.”
We know our rights have been targeted for years, and taking away our guns has been the goal. Even the mention of the 2nd Amendment brings accusations of “gun nut.” But now, by twisting and redefining our language; extremists are trying to link the very words “ 2nd Amendment” with “violence.” 2nd Amendment rights are not “violence!”
We must be responsible, Self-responsible. And we must raise a ruckus. Not only must we speak up loudly for our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, we must educate our children to understand clearly their importance in our country’s proud history. We must pass on to our children the true story of the amazing courage and greatness of our founding fathers and our Constitution.
But we can’t stop here. Please take a walk through your children’s schools. See what is written, what is posted on the walls and presented in their classrooms. There are fine, dedicated educators in our schools who deserve our support, but also misguided individuals who desire to abolish American values and liberties by slyly influencing our children in the classroom. Choose to call administrators and educators on the carpet for ridiculous or extreme philosophies rather than remaining silent. Decline to have your children participate in “special” school activities with which you disagree. Not rabidly, but righteously, demand common sense policies for student play and expression, but real consequences for true student violence. Make undeniably clear that our 2nd Amendment rights will not be part of the “violence” end game of those whose agenda is to surrender our liberties and tear down cultural America
Finally, refuse to allow the twisting and redefining of “simple” words like “violence” before the true meanings are lost forever.
.
You, in your response applied caveats to it. I used that simple example purposely because most people will come to that same conclusion. Which was basically I didn't intend to inflict actual harm so therefore I'm not morally culpable for the harm or the result of his harm was because of something he failed to do. Either of them work but nevertheless they are still caveats
You make the statement, You'll find no example of inflicting actual harm on another without having force or fraud involved. I'm assuming that this statement is defining when an individual is ethically wrong or legally culpable in the infliction of an actual harm and not whether an actual harm has been inflicted. Because I can think of plenty of examples of the infliction of actual harm which doesn't meet this criterion.
As a definition of what constitutes the unethical or illegal infliction of actual harm it works as a general moral principle. But I can think of plenty of cases of where it collapses. These cases are most likely due to differences in the choice of first principles and of course that's something we can choose to disagree on.
An Example: If I deny a patient medical help because he hasn't health insurance and they died as a consequence one might say that I unethically or illegally inflicted actual harm and one could probably say that force was somehow involved or maybe fraud. Force: because he had to come to my facility. Fraud: because I made a promise that I would treat all patients. Now actually neither of these might apply and some may callously say that no, no actual harm was inflicted except by the individual himself because he had no health insurance and that's why he died. That kind of presents a conundrum; in my denying him medical care am I inflicting actual harm or no? I would say that by denying him the care I am inflicting actual harm and whether force or fraud has anything to do with it or not my behavior is still immoral and wrong. Whether I can be held legally liable is a different question.
If anyone described me to my co-workers as "violent" they would be laughed right out of Atlanta.
However, if the government school gestapo had their way, that's exactly what I would be labeled because of my CCW, my Beretta and my fierce support of the 2nd Amendment.
No, that is not 'reasonably' said, in a logical sense.
- You took no direct action which 'hurt' your competition in the job market. Your competitors hurt themselves by not being prepared for that market. Your action to educate yourself has no bearing on their failure to do so.
You'll find no example of inflicting actual harm on another without having force or fraud involved. 37 - tpaine
Not to split hairs, but my statement was one could reasonably say that that person had been hurt.
Logically, your action in getting educated did not 'hurt' your competion.
You are using faulty logic, not just 'splitting hairs'.
My original premise was that one could not make that simple statement about hurting others and use it as an ethical principle without applying caveats to it. You, in your response applied caveats to it.
You cannot make a pronoucement, and declare that it unassailable. "No caveats" is a ludicrous attempt to do so.
I used that simple example purposely because most people will come to that same conclusion. Which was basically I didn't intend to inflict actual harm so therefore I'm not morally culpable for the harm or the result of his harm was because of something he failed to do. Either of them work but nevertheless they are still caveats
You seem to think that claiming an argument is a 'caveat' makes that point somehow invalid. Weird use of the word.
You make the statement, "You'll find no example of inflicting actual harm on another without having force or fraud involved." I'm assuming that this statement is defining when an individual is ethically wrong or legally culpable in the infliction of an actual harm and not whether an actual harm has been inflicted.
You lost me. The statement is clear english. Your assumed 'definition' is an attempt to obscure that meaning.
Because I can think of plenty of examples of the infliction of actual harm which doesn't meet this criterion.
Put them up then.
As a definition of what constitutes the unethical or illegal infliction of actual harm it works as a general moral principle. But I can think of plenty of cases of where it collapses. These cases are most likely due to differences in the choice of first principles and of course that's something we can choose to disagree on.
That paragraph is nonsense bafflegab. A bunch of words strung together for effect.
An Example: If I deny a patient medical help because he hasn't health insurance and they died as a consequence one might say that I unethically or illegally inflicted actual harm and one could probably say that force was somehow involved or maybe fraud. Force: because he had to come to my facility. Fraud: because I made a promise that I would treat all patients. Now actually neither of these might apply and some may callously say that no, no actual harm was inflicted except by the individual himself because he had no health insurance and that's why he died. That kind of presents a conundrum; in my denying him medical care am I inflicting actual harm or no? I would say that by denying him the care I am inflicting actual harm and whether force or fraud has anything to do with it or not my behavior is still immoral and wrong. Whether I can be held legally liable is a different question.
Whatever. -- I'm sorry, but this stream of consciousness writing style defeats me. I refuse to spend the time to try deciper what you're saying.
"Violence is a necessity, otherwise the initiation of violence has no cost, and absent that, no deterrent."
Simple, but it reinforces the simple truth that violence is morally neutral absent its result.
Thank you,
Have you no sense of mercy?
tough t_tties
Ohhhhhhh, the pain.....
This is a pretty simple statement. On their face value the words: as long as one doesn't do anything which hurts anybody else isn't too difficult to understand, but that's why it's a lousy moral dictum. Which was the point I was trying to make in the first place. You've refined it's interpretation by reading into it your definition of what constitutes "inflicting actual harm" and implying that's how it should be interpreted. You're reading that into it, not me, I'm just dealing with it on its face value.
Which way to Galt's Gulch?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.