- Oct 14, 2005
- 9,711
- 6
- 76
So I was listening to someone at work talk about their kid and an incident at school. Apparently his son and another boy got in a fight. His son was smacked by another kid and he did nothing. The aggressive kid took another swipe but this time cupped his hand around his neck and pulled him forward. At that point his son started throwing blows. Commendable that he didn't fire back the first time. This is where it gets interesting. The principle stated that they don't want you to fight back, that you are supposed to take it to them to take care of. I have some serious problems with this mentality.
1. Conditioning people not to defend themselves
2. Reliance on "authority" to protect you
3. Removing the responsibility of thought to determine right from wrong
Now how does this affect them as adults? If all they know is to reference some authority figure before making a move then its easier to remove guns from them because, you know, they shouldn't need to defend themselves. If right and wrong is decided by authority then morality is thrown out the window and any whim bureaucrats is heeded with righteous fervor. When defending yourself at school garners same punishment as aggressor its time to think about home based education IMO.
1. Conditioning people not to defend themselves
2. Reliance on "authority" to protect you
3. Removing the responsibility of thought to determine right from wrong
Now how does this affect them as adults? If all they know is to reference some authority figure before making a move then its easier to remove guns from them because, you know, they shouldn't need to defend themselves. If right and wrong is decided by authority then morality is thrown out the window and any whim bureaucrats is heeded with righteous fervor. When defending yourself at school garners same punishment as aggressor its time to think about home based education IMO.