An anti-smacker has attacked a much younger pro-smacking campaigner in a shopping mall. Most people will understand the hypocrisy revealed to all in this heinous act.
However, I'd like to offer my personal theory on why an anti-smacker, who you would think would be a pacifist type, has flipped out and used physical force (she had to be wrestled off her victim by the mall security guard) on a pro-smacker.
Anti-smackers most likely believe, as many people do, that everyone else is like them. These people probably have trouble controlling themselves and their violent urges. Violence of any type therefore must be repressed. Obviously, everyone else is like them in this regard, therefore a law change (repeal of s59) was the most appropriate way that everyone can suppress their own violent instincts, especially around children that they care for.
Now this is where it becomes interesting. The violent, angry, suppressed anti-smacker most likely blames their own violent outbursts on their own parents, or maybe on their school-teachers. As they have trouble controlling this violence, it must not be innate, but taught to them at an early age by those who should have known better.
Therefore, the s59 repeal will save all the children of NZ from becoming uncontrollably violent when they grow up and the violent anti-smacker will have something to feel good about.
In the mean time, the violent anti-smacker just has to work out a way to make campaigning against the S59 repeal illegal so that they will not be accidentally provoked to lose control and attack some one when they innocently enter a shopping mall.
Related Link: Anti-smacker smacks pro-smacker
However, I'd like to offer my personal theory on why an anti-smacker, who you would think would be a pacifist type, has flipped out and used physical force (she had to be wrestled off her victim by the mall security guard) on a pro-smacker.
Anti-smackers most likely believe, as many people do, that everyone else is like them. These people probably have trouble controlling themselves and their violent urges. Violence of any type therefore must be repressed. Obviously, everyone else is like them in this regard, therefore a law change (repeal of s59) was the most appropriate way that everyone can suppress their own violent instincts, especially around children that they care for.
Now this is where it becomes interesting. The violent, angry, suppressed anti-smacker most likely blames their own violent outbursts on their own parents, or maybe on their school-teachers. As they have trouble controlling this violence, it must not be innate, but taught to them at an early age by those who should have known better.
Therefore, the s59 repeal will save all the children of NZ from becoming uncontrollably violent when they grow up and the violent anti-smacker will have something to feel good about.
In the mean time, the violent anti-smacker just has to work out a way to make campaigning against the S59 repeal illegal so that they will not be accidentally provoked to lose control and attack some one when they innocently enter a shopping mall.
Related Link: Anti-smacker smacks pro-smacker