We've probably heard about this on TV or the Internet by now, one or more
young men locked a door and started to threaten a disabled girl, and the
teacher took out the ringleader, who then sniveled to his mama, who, in the
grand tradition of doting mothers of rapists, serial killers, torturers, gang
sex on unwilling or no longer willing or drugged up girls at fraternity parties,
and other scum, screamed to the authorities, instead of smacking her son
and threatening to disown him and telling him how he had shamed her by
his behavior.
The teacher was put on leave, then terminated. A damn fool blonde chick
(I am female myself) on the news on TV last night, asked her how as a
mother she could beat a "child," and she answered that as a mother she
protected a child who was about to be attacked.
That boy is not really a "child." A kid that size and age is capable physically
of every kind of violence, and murder, and even worse of rape. Once they
start acting adult, treat 'em adult.
the violence in schools is because teachers and parents don't legally
have the power to take physical action against the students.
And under cover of supposed anti violence and anti abuse efforts, a
culture of injustice and violence, whether physical or emotional, flourishes,
because JUSTICE is opposed. JUSTICE is about retribution, and about
defense with enough extra damage thrown in to not only stop the attack,
or prevent the attack being started, but to make the perpetrator afraid
to try it again.
If you doubt that justice is about retribution, consider, "the punishment
should fit the crime." While death for theft is going too far, eliminating
death for rape, for murder without additional issue, for pimping and
so forth, is NOT good. The self defense laws are so strict, that the
real problem is NOT that "they are gonna grab our guns." The problem
is what happens when you use the gun, or a knife, or a rock, or a
correctly aimed special damage blow with two knuckles to a weak
point. It has gotten bad enough, that one state is considering making
the self defense claim something that the prosecutor has to actively
disprove, not that you have to actively prove. (They having already
established you killed the person, the issue is not innocent until
proven guilty. But the self defense thing is often difficult. I recall
reading of a woman who got trouble for shooting her husband, who
was holding up their baby saying he was going to bash its brains
on the car hood or break its neck, whatever. the argument
against her was that she couldn't be sure what he would do, and
shouldn't have fired. But if he HAD killed the child, she would
then be rightly liable to be charged for failure to protect and the
object of public scorn since she was armed and did nothing.
The argument is made that once you have a person at gunpoint
you have control, so nothing they do should validate pullling
the trigger, but the control is not real if you don't have that
option.)
Weirdo ideas about justice not being about retribution have come in
and perverted even fairly decent people. "Evil succeeds when good
men do nothing," someone once said. Well, the game has been as
follows. Isolate the targets and empower the perpetrators, by denouncing
snitching, and isolate the targets and empower the perpetrators by
removing corporal punishment.
People are more influenced by fear of immediate retaliation, by the
CREDBILE THREAT of IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES than
by serious consequences that may or may not play out much later
after a series of hearings and stuff that can be avoided by terrorizing
witnesses, or snivelling to the namby pamby authorities.
A certain amount of freedom to do summary justice keeps peace
on the streets and at home and in school.
The modern ideas of corporal punishment and retaliation being bad
in themselves, no matter the cause, are the latest tool of evil, to make
sure that the good do nothing to stop the evil.
God warns in one of the Prophets, "woe to him who calls evil good,
and good, evil."
No comments:
Post a Comment