[Libertina]

A look at my article coming out in September's WAC GUN NEWS.

“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.

[Libertina]

Here's another great liberal extremist quote form deep inide the propaganda bowels of our schools:

Violence is any mean word, look, sign, or act
that hurts a person's body, feelings, or belongings.

[Riverman94610]

I feel these sentiments are fine.People should treat one another with kindness,respect and love.
Yet the STATE has no business in dictating human relationships.Decency and tolerance should come from the heart,not mandated by the soulless bureaucracy.

[Publius]

Your first "Libertina Essay"? Kudos.

[Howie]

“Violence is any word or action that hurts another person.”

I don't get it. Where did this definition come from? Who said it?

regards

[dighton]

Violence is any word or action that hurts another person.

T--gh t-tt--s.

[tpaine]

Your supposed right to destroy yourself infringes on my right to pursue happiness, being sad at having to sit by and watch people needlessly suffer and die. When you abrogate the unalienable right to life, doing so abrogates my unalienble right to pursue happiness, being sad at watching people needlessly suffer and die." -The Forecastle

[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.

[Libertina]

P I N G !

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

bump for a good read

[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.

[Chad Fairbanks]

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

[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 !

[Libertina]

A ping for those on the homeschool thread to an education/2nd Amendment/ article by me.

[dansangel]

BTW (sorry, my rant got in the way) EXCELLENT article, Libertina!

[Mr. Bungle]

Great post. If you really want to infuriate a pacifist, try this:

"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.

[RobRoy]

Wow, you surprised me. Good job!

[Fred Hayek]

Based on the pretzel logic of re-defining the word "violence", is it then "violence in the workplace" to expect a person to show up for work? Is it "violence in the workplace" to expect a person to know how to do their job? Yes, if the employee-parasite perceives it as "hurtful".

Which way to Galt's Gulch?