Sylh Alanor wrote:Seppen wrote:I was talking about that above. As conviced pacifist and antimilitarist, I think that schools should never teach violence (both physical or other forms), not even as defensive solution.
This is where I'm at as well. I think I'd be fine with this proposal if it wasn't mandatory. My nation (admittedly an exception here) is entirely non-violent and the people in it are pacifists. They have no need to address how to mitigate violence or potential violence in situations, making pushing this into classes a waste of time. If it were a requirement to provide this as an elective for primary and secondary schools, I wouldn't mind it.
Croanique wrote:As a nation which has outlawed guns (and encourages all others to do the same), we take issue with the implications of Article d. Furthermore, Croanique is a pacifist nation with a low crime rate, and we cannot encourage the use of violence among our youngest citizens, even as self-defense. There's nothing stopping anyone receiving a formal education regarding self-defense from using that knowledge to further harm others in non-defensive ways. Finally, we cannot support any resolution stressing the importance of staying "physically able" as though that is a choice everyone gets to make. Physical education classes are notoriously ableist and fatphobic environments which breed contempt among the majority of people and rarely teach much of anything valuable in a long-term sense. Croanique votes wholeheartedly AGAINST this resolution.
Thank you, I feel really comforted, knowing that I have allies on the path of pacifism and non-violence.