Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"A Simple Word Like Violence"
Libertina ^ | August 28, 2002 | Libertina

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.

.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; education; gungrabbers; schools; violence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last
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.
1 posted on 08/28/2002 2:54:37 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libertina; big ern; Publius; Billthedrill; Judai; holyscroller
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.

2 posted on 08/28/2002 2:57:08 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
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.

3 posted on 08/28/2002 2:59:33 PM PDT by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TxBec; summer; clasquith; diotima; Bob J; GarandGirl; Macbeth; angry elephant; anniegetyourgun; ...
What is violence??? What is propaganda!
4 posted on 08/28/2002 2:59:43 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Riverman94610
Sorry Riverman, violence is not a "mean look. Saying so diminishes acts of TRUE violence.
5 posted on 08/28/2002 3:00:48 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
Your first "Libertina Essay"? Kudos.
6 posted on 08/28/2002 3:06:11 PM PDT by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius
BTTT Thanks Publius!
7 posted on 08/28/2002 3:08:54 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
“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
8 posted on 08/28/2002 3:25:10 PM PDT by Howie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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


These are on signs posted in local elementary schools teaching our kids that the meaning of violence is a mean look or word. Imagine!
9 posted on 08/28/2002 3:39:13 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
Good Lord! I would ask them what dictionary it came from, after all, "words have meanings". Thanks.
10 posted on 08/28/2002 3:41:41 PM PDT by Howie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
I'm a little dense sometimes, I apologise. I reread it and now I understand that is the actual wording on the signs.
11 posted on 08/28/2002 3:44:26 PM PDT by Howie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Shenandoah
Violence is any word or action that hurts another person.

T--gh t-tt--s.

12 posted on 08/28/2002 3:44:45 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
True,a "mean look"is very trivial and I have been a "victim"thousands of times!!
Yet as a current part time sub in the school system I am often shocked by the cruelty today's youth inflict upon each other.Is it lack of proper home training?Very possibly since kids emulate what they see at home and if they see mom and dad or mom and stepdad going at it like pit bulls this will be the model they pattern themselves after.
Again,the school's overreaction by banning tag and dodgeball is patently absurd.These activities are helpful in letting off steam and aggression in a pretty harmless sort of way.
13 posted on 08/28/2002 3:45:25 PM PDT by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
,,, this new languange is a fabulous tool for getting results in the Family Court. I have a Court Order enabling me to phone my kids on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7pm sharp. Outside these times it's possible, according to my ex's lawyer's written submission to the judge, for the ex to feel "violated".
14 posted on 08/28/2002 3:48:46 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
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
15 posted on 08/28/2002 3:49:11 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Probably true... but only hemophiliacs die from kitten scratches.

16 posted on 08/28/2002 3:53:41 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howie
And the kids take full advantage of them.
17 posted on 08/28/2002 4:01:46 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Ubfortunately it is tactics such as these which propagandize our kids, turning them from American family values. (Unless, of course, your family value is total wimpiness and hatred of self-defense.) It's also a handy tactic to squelch any student from criticizing "lifestyle" choices and "wright and wrong." They don't dare - they would hurt another person. (Vilence.) I feel this is more insideous than it appears at first read.
18 posted on 08/28/2002 4:05:56 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: Riverman94610
I think you're correct, Riverman, we are schooling in many instances a very "Jerry Springer" culture. The kids are living hellish lives and possibly someone wants to make them less cruel by signs such as these. However, a big lie doesn't erase a bad home life. A mean look is a mean look, NOT violence. But the point of the article is that this is how the extreme left is litle by little attacking our rights. The words 2nd Amendment is being linked to violence, NOT self-protection and hunting. Can't make their point with conservative adults, they seek to recondition our children. They care not about what these children really need. Many times actions such as these are dismissed as trivial and no big deal. I believe they are of much greater consequence than is seen at first glance. How do you tear down a nation without guns?
Abraham Lincoln said:"The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow."
20 posted on 08/28/2002 4:15:50 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Libertina; Shenandoah
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.

;-)

21 posted on 08/28/2002 4:17:05 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: knoxienne
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!
22 posted on 08/28/2002 4:17:11 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel
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).

23 posted on 08/28/2002 4:20:05 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
“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.

24 posted on 08/28/2002 4:33:49 PM PDT by Coeur de Lion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
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.

25 posted on 08/28/2002 4:46:00 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
"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.
26 posted on 08/28/2002 5:16:14 PM PDT by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
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.
27 posted on 08/28/2002 5:25:34 PM PDT by Riverman94610
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IronJack; Libertina
Heck, by that definition I consider every vile thing that comes out of James Carville to be violent!

Seriously, good job, Libertina!

28 posted on 08/28/2002 5:38:07 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Billie; dansangel
P I N G !

29 posted on 08/28/2002 5:42:58 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
bump for a good read
30 posted on 08/28/2002 5:55:15 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
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!
31 posted on 08/28/2002 5:59:02 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
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.

32 posted on 08/28/2002 5:59:38 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Couer de Lion
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.
33 posted on 08/28/2002 6:05:18 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: IronJack; ladylib; Riverman94610
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.")
34 posted on 08/28/2002 6:11:19 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
BUMP!
35 posted on 08/28/2002 6:12:12 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
Oh crap! I committed several random acts of violence today... how utterly monstrous of me...
36 posted on 08/28/2002 6:22:13 PM PDT by Chad Fairbanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Couer de Lion
"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.
37 posted on 08/28/2002 6:35:13 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
LOL No wonder we have kids with heads full of mush. MUMO (mush in mush out :)
38 posted on 08/28/2002 6:43:07 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sleavelessinseattle; StarfireIV; SW6906; goodnesswins; GretchenEE
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.
39 posted on 08/28/2002 9:17:28 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kancel; MarkM; ethical; In veno, veritas; mlibertarianj; MadameAxe; Free the USA; RobRoy
P I N G !

40 posted on 08/28/2002 9:29:59 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama; madfly; Carolina; OldFriend; 2Jedismom; cantfindagoodscreenname; ...
A ping for those on the homeschool thread to an education/2nd Amendment/ article by me.
41 posted on 08/28/2002 9:52:30 PM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Not to split hairs, but my statement was one could reasonably say that that person had been hurt. 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. 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.

42 posted on 08/29/2002 1:33:19 AM PDT by Coeur de Lion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
I agree, but most people with socialist agendas are sloppy thinkers in the first place. Secondly, they're unaware of the fact.
43 posted on 08/29/2002 1:51:03 AM PDT by Coeur de Lion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Libertina
More PC ***BS*** from the government schools.

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.

45 posted on 08/29/2002 4:09:04 AM PDT by dansangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN
Get the Barf-bag ready PING!
46 posted on 08/29/2002 4:12:18 AM PDT by dansangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
BTW (sorry, my rant got in the way) EXCELLENT article, Libertina!
47 posted on 08/29/2002 4:13:38 AM PDT by dansangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skull stomper; dansangel
Steal the words, steal the language. Steal the children, steal the culture
because of my CCW, my Beretta and my fierce support of the 2nd Amendment.


Yes, that's the plan - unless we put a stop to it. BYW I've just started reading book 2 of Jeff Head's series. His US president character has just done something of which I believe you two would approve! (But I won't spill the beans here :)
48 posted on 08/29/2002 4:34:45 AM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: skull stomper
I prefer the word 'de-balling'...
49 posted on 08/29/2002 6:11:51 AM PDT by Chad Fairbanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Couer de Lion
"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. 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.

50 posted on 08/29/2002 9:45:00 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson