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.
.
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.
;-)
"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).
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.
This Orwellian redefinition of terms seems to be ominously selective in its breadth.
Seriously, good job, Libertina!
Let's define everything down to nothing...
War = Peace.
Up = Down.
Arbeit macht Frei.
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.