Thanks MA #4.
Not to disagree per se, but to provoke a broader understanding:
Psychologist Joy Browne opposes spanking children for discipline in most cases.
Her example is spanking a child for fighting on the school playground.
Fighting on the school playground is often a larger stronger child imposing on a smaller weaker child.
Browne observes that an adult exercising physical superiority to spank a child isn't much different than the playground bully punching a lower-schooler.
BUT !!
Browne cites an exception. If the child to be punished has transgressed dangerously, Browne's example is stepping off the sidewalk into motor vehicle traffic, that the rare exception of swatting the child's bottom will be noticed, and the potentially life-saving message more likely received.
Browne adds, to a young child that is cruel, it is appropriate for parents to teach to be not cruel. And that may include exposing the cruel child to being victim of cruelty, to better understand why it is wrong.
Excellent rule!
But there are exceptions.
Another good rule. But also with exceptions.
When being attacked by machine-gun fire, taking cover or concealment might technically qualify as cowering. But I wouldn't consider it imprudent.
Perhaps this point was made a bit sharper by Thomas Jefferson.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson
" – hate is always foolish…and love, is always wise."
A useful guideline.
But again, there are exceptions.
Is one who hates hate a hater?
If the U.S. & the U.K. had loved the Nazi party, would the world be better off today?
I don't dismiss the intended message.
But these principles must be implemented as guidelines, not absolutes.