"You have no conception of what is true, genuine, and untainted love."

Neither do you.  Your conception of love reduces people to servile obedience to their fears.

"This man, in question, was internally, in his heart, happy, that his childe was hurt."

This information was not given in your story.  If you had included this in your story, I would have responded differently.  For one thing, I would have denounced the man's motivations as being unloving, but possibly still affirmed that a beneficial thing had been done.

"Her pain, gave him satisfaction."

This is just SO obvious, given he had warned his daughter of two specific things:

1.  Her new shoes would hurt her feet.
2.  He would not carry her once they did.

If the man had really wanted her to be in pain so that he could have 'satisfaction' he would not have tried to dissuade the girl from wearing the new shoes at all.  In fact, he would have tried to persuade her to wear them.

"He is a deadly poison, and anyone who would stand by him, being his advocate, is a direct enemy to me."

I do not fear being your enemy.  In fact, I will gladly stand up and oppose your bile, as you would, in the name of love, make people wade in such bile and not give them the strength, tools, or attitudes by which they could rise above their circumstances (in this case, your bile).

If the man really did want to inflict pain on her and that was his goal, I might share your view of him.  This information was not in your story, however.  If it was a real event, it sounds to me as though you have no basis other than your interpretation of it, as to the man's motives.  I suspect it to be a real event, though, as it is marked by a loving warning by the father about what would happen if she wore the new shoes, and which she could have avoided if she did not.  In the story, at the line that says, "He was the man"  I think we have nothing but your own interpretation, and you provide no evidence that he really did feel or think that way.

As it seems that we both agree that merely wanting to be a tyrant is something to be rejected, we do not need to be enemies.  What is in doubt is whether or not you thought the mere act of following through with his word (I suppose you would prefer a lying father) ipso facto meant he WANTED her to feel pain.

When my children were learning to walk, they sometimes fell.  On occasion, they felt pain.  And yet I let them fall.  I was satisfied- not that they felt pain, but that they had learned how to walk.  Do you consider this 'poison'?

If so, then to the field of battle we go, and we shall see which one of our worldviews has created truly mighty warriors by which to take the field.  I believe that would be your children running away- I could only just barely make them out, they were fleeing so fast to their papa.

"If you are as your word, have been raising children, as warriors,"

You silly man.  Life is a struggle, even in the little things.  I thought as a man as acquainted with metaphor as you are, cloaking every arrogant assertion in this metaphor or that, you would recognize when someone else was doing the same.

"How many sacred individuals have you carefully dissected, bled, and laughing left to suffer and die, because it just happened to make you feel good?"

Let us assume for a moment that even if I were raising my children to join the military as soon as possible, it does not follow that it would be 'because it just happened to make [me] feel good.'?

This is the same idiocy we encountered in your story above.  Because a man wants to prepare their children for the real world with all its struggles does not mean that I am glad that there are struggles.  I am only glad that my child will not be overcome by such struggles, but rather, will have a chance to overcome the struggles.  That would make me feel good, just as the father in your story probably felt satisfied that his daughter had learned a valuable lesson and when she enters her adult years will be able, not only to make wise decisions, but to make any decisions at all.

You need to grow up, sir.  This world is not made for cowards, and the race of men are not cowards by nature, but they can be made into cowards by sophistic sentimentalistic drivel.  Like yours.

Haven't you ever seen Dharma and Greg?    Dharma may have been able to see things in new ways or was more open minded, but she'd never be able to take a stand on anything, whether big or small.  Greg, on the other hand, knew a principle, and though he may hold it narrowly, was prepared to do the right thing in the work place, in his family, and if it ever came to it, in the world.

I'd rather raise a Greg than a Dharma, but I'm pretty sure that I don't have to raise a narrow Greg, as though that is the only option.

Or, if I might put it another way, I'd rather raise men and women, not eunuchs.

I am enjoying the conversation going on here, especially between sj and wholly.

My view?

"Unconditional Love"????

You cannot have it without some acts of hate...  Otherwise, how could you tell the difference?

ahhhh..you know me. sj.  What can be so negative about being "loathsome"?  Being "loathsome" is just another act of showing a part of your love. :D

Okay.  Never mind my last post expecting an answer from wholly.  What bout you others?  C'mon, where are the brave?  Where are the truelly loving one???