"A Simple Word Like Violence"

Libertina ^ | August 28, 2002 | Libertina

[dighton]

Unfortunately it is tactics such as these which propagandize our kids ...

I agree, no question about it.

#12 is a running joke between Shenandoah and me. Sometimes he takes it the wrong way and weeps hysterically. Maybe he'll even get me banned this time. All I can say, Shen, is t--gh t-tt--s.

;-)

[Libertina]

BTTT a pregnant woman who smokes is doing violence to her child, but that same woman can break the sixth commandment and murder her child and it's a RIGHT!
Excellent point knoxienne!

[Libertina]

Violated, huh?
how harsh!

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater … confidence than an armed man." --- Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).

[Coeur de Lion]

“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.”

Even without including the redefinition as a word versus just an action, the statement is reflective of the simplemindedness of some. I have friends, who I refer to as coffeehouse philosophers, who make silly statements such as, "One can do anything one wants as long as one doesn't do anything which hurts anybody else."

They use this for the foundation of their system of ethics, without realizing that without certain caveats being applied, the statement doesn't standup on its own.

They're a variety of things I can do which may hurt somebody else but isn't necessarily either violent of immoral. For example, if I have a college degree such that I'm able to get a particular job and someone else with whom I'm in competition, doesn't get the job because he hasn't the degree, one can reasonably say that that person has been hurt. The same thing can be said if he didn't get the job and I did because I'm more articulate, or more attractive etc.

Now some might say, "well yes but that's not what we meant by the statement. We meant one actually intentionally physically or emotionally hurts someone else." Of course, I can say well what if I'm an alcoholic or substance abuser and that results in pain to my family. Not physical pain just emotional pain. Some will say, "No we meant physically hurt someone, since it's only emotional pain you're not doing anything wrong." Others will say, "no the emotional pain is just as bad so you're doing wrong."

I could then use the example of a soldier in combat killing another enemy combatant. You get some really interesting answers to that one. My only reason for including all those hypotheticals is that basically the whole premise One can do anything one wants as long as one doesn't do anything which hurts anybody else.Doesn't provide much of a unifying foundation for a moral code, though it may constitute a useful precept. Such simplistic precepts can do as much harm as good depending on how they're interpreted. The use of such precepts usually are indicative of sloppy thinking.

Someone once said to me, "Oh, that makes a lot of sense murdering murderers in order to teach them not to murder." Of course, I've heard lots of inanities in my life but this was one of the better ones. And no matter what I told her she remained convinced in the soundness and the logic of her argument.

I tried to tell her that there's some reasonable arguments to being opposed to the death penalty but that wasn't one them. I tried to explain that murder is illegal homicide and if the state executes someone in accordance with the law it's just killing. Of course I included the caveat that most people including myself felt that the state should only be able to execute someone for certain crimes, but what crimes or whether the state should execute at all has always been debatable. I also tried to explain that the state wasn't trying to teach the murderer anything, the states interest was in teaching potential murderers.

All of these arguments were to no avail. Just, indicative of where sloppy thinking might get someone, without they ever realizing how stupid, logically inconsistent and lacking in cogency are the arguments supporting their own beliefs.

[IronJack]

By that definition of "violence," how many acts of outrage were committed by the Reparations marchers last week? How many acts of "violence" are perpetrated daily by (c)rap "artists" the media regard as heros? How many slanders are directed against white males? Right now, a bestselling book is entitled Stupid White Men. Can I sue Michael Moore for "violence" against me? Can I have him arrested (for anything other than felony ugly)?

This Orwellian redefinition of terms seems to be ominously selective in its breadth.

[ladylib]

"Violence" is hitting somebody over the head with a chair. It is not any word or action that "hurts" another person. Maybe parents should just look over the school handbook with a fine-tooth comb and make their own decisions as to whether they want to send their children to a school with this kind of policy, or better yet, just take the damn handbook down to their lawyer (might be a good idea to pay a lawyer a monthly fee if your kid is in a government school, just in case) and let him translate it for them. How many kids' lives have been f-uped by stupid school administrators and their detrimental zero tolerance policies? Too many stupid people (school administrators) have too much power to destroy too many kids' lives. Folks, the average school administrator is dumber than a sack of hammers and wants to keep his job so bad, he is more than willing to sell your kid down the river if he thinks it's going to save his job. I've read about it too many times.

[Riverman94610]

My goal when I am out in the schools is to teach children HOW to think,not WHAT to think.Yes,the Left has no doubt been guilty of a lot of indoctrination but even in college I was a crtical thinker who tried not to be restrained by ideology.
I am in full support of the Second Amendment,BTW,tho I feel it is a good idea if felons,juveniles and mental patients not be allowed to have firearms.I think it is also a great idea to give gun safety and proper use lessons to all novice gun owners who are law abiding citizens.
An aside to this issue-I work around mostly blue collar blacks in a large government agancy notoious for its inefficiency-oops,did I give it away?-Anyway,almost all of them have guns.I think it is the phony limousine liberals who are behind the gun control movement.
As for Jerry Spinger,how did he ever get elected mayor of Cincinatti?That is absolutely bizarre.

[anniegetyourgun]

Heck, by that definition I consider every vile thing that comes out of James Carville to be violent!

Seriously, good job, Libertina!

[Libertina]

P I N G !

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

bump for a good read

[Libertina]

Heck, by that definition I consider every vile thing that comes out of James Carville to be violent!
LOL He certainly annoys the heck out of me!

[Teacher317]

Another victory for the "all sex is rape", "America is a democracy", "only whites can be racist", and "what is is" crowd.

Let's define everything down to nothing...
War = Peace.
Up = Down.
Arbeit macht Frei.

[Libertina]

Thoughtful reply, heart-of-lion. And you're correct that our present day sloppy, imprecise language exacerbates the miscommunication. But also, I believe that some of these ideas presented to our kids are made with full intent by people with socialist agendas. And some, as you say, are just silly remarks made by unthinking individuals.

[Libertina]

This Orwellian redefinition of terms seems to be ominously selective in its breadth.
"Violence" is hitting somebody over the head with a chair"

Ladylib, your definition of violence is in keeping with mine. If we want to have less violence we must emphasize good character, bravery, standing up for what is right, courtesy, hard word, and responsibility. (Rather than sensitivity, getting along, and "world robotics.")

[Libertina]

BUMP!

[Chad Fairbanks]

Oh crap! I committed several random acts of violence today... how utterly monstrous of me...

[tpaine]

"They're a variety of things I can do which may hurt somebody else but isn't necessarily either violent of immoral. For example, if I have a college degree such that I'm able to get a particular job and someone else with whom I'm in competition, doesn't get the job because he hasn't the degree, one can reasonably say that that person has been hurt." - CdL -
_________________________________

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.

[Libertina]

LOL No wonder we have kids with heads full of mush. MUMO (mush in mush out :)

[Libertina]

BTTT Suggested lesson plans compiled by the NEA (for September 11th) recommend that teachers "address the issue of blame factually," noting: "Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise."

The NEA has allowed its own propaganda to infect its collective "brain" sinkhole...

BTW - New Gates Foundation report released today. Tacoma School District CORRECT statistics - only 51% of kids graduate high school.

[Libertina]

P I N G !