interesting idea that violence evolves from miscommunication, never thought of it that way. but i have to disagree with you. ignoring the baby was a passive stance, so the baby responded in frustration. i fail to see how if some one acts neutral that it causes violence. it was not like the Doctor blatantly looked away when say, the baby was hit by an other baby. for instance a famous quote, forgot the speaker who said it but it went like this "all that needs to happen for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing." so in the case that the doctor did nothing and let violence happen then i would say the Doctor in a way could be blamed, but still did no violence.

hmm now back to the question of violence. violence is unfortunately necessary in specific problems. if Russia nuked America, America would have to go to respond in violence in order to save its self. if America did not nuke japan, more violence would have occurred in a amphibious assault. so when is violence right to use? well if we all had respect and empathy for each other, never. but we don't so some one causes the domino effect of violence to happen in almost every situation. so all well, violence is justified for justified reasons, of course mine will differ from yours, which in essences, can cause violence.