I think a lot of people are misunderstanding Charlatan and Filtherton. They aren't denying the necessity of the use of violence in some extreme situations of self-defense. The issue is with the labelling of the child as a hero. Calling someone a hero affords them the distinction of courage, nobility, strength, and worthiness of being admired.
In my opinion, nothing about this child's actions are admirable or courageous. I see the progression from passiveness to violence as a breakdown in self-control, rather than a mustering of courage or willpower. When I read this story, I don't see David standing up to the big bad Goliath monster and saving all the bullied children by being the one who stands up for himself. I see an abused, emotionally shattered kid pushed so close to the edge he took the closest weapon at hand and went for the face. He raged and lashed out. To me that is weakness, not strength.
Nevertheless, the issue is labelling the kid a hero. This implies his actions are commendable and should be applauded and taught to other children. Are these the values we want youth learning? When somebody bigger than you bullies you, grab a weapon and go for the kill shot?
I don't defend the bully, and I don't profess that I would have had any more self-control than the pencil-wielder in this situation. Who knows, I may have snapped one day just like he did. In retrospect after the incident, though, I think I would be pretty horrified at how close I had come to blinding or paralyzing someone, and if anybody called me a hero I'd try to drag them with me to the anger management class that was clearly necessary.
|