How to deal with school bullies

[blazeingstar]

Retaliation is a human right. Obliging students to run away from a fight instead of removing the fight from the attacker is immoral. It is a violation of basic human rights, and it empowers bullies. Immediate reprisal requires no investigation. There's a reason it's better to just remove the combat from the assailant in the first place. Do you believe that an allegation of abuse should result in immediate punishment of the accused?

Retaliation is not a "human right".  Cameras are everywhere now.  You don't really need to "allege" anything.  And again, you're making the false assumption that retaliation is even wise based on size.  Bullying, when done on school grounds, needs to be addressed as a facet of the school life. 

If done off of school grounds than physical bulling should still be addressed by adults.

And "immediate reprisal" still requires investigation. Again, you assume that there's not a power imbalance. Bullies often have numerous victims and don't learn, even with public humiliation. 

[CrossCuT]

I believe a person has the right to defend themselves, my only concern in this scenario is where that thought leads. I dont believe violence is the answer to most situations since as humans, we have a host of other faculties we can rely on. But I do understand that we are also animals and our more feral tenancies can be appealing and useful in some situations. 

 

I do recall Winchester (and this is some time ago so maybe youve changed your mind), you were adamantly against any and all forms of violence. 

[Winchester]

Retaliation is not a "human right".  Cameras are everywhere now.  You don't really need to "allege" anything.  And again, you're making the false assumption that retaliation is even wise based on size.  Bullying, when done on school grounds, needs to be addressed as a facet of the school life. 

If done off of school grounds than physical bulling should still be addressed by adults.

And "immediate reprisal" still requires investigation. Again, you assume that there's not a power imbalance. Bullies often have numerous victims and don't learn, even with public humiliation. 

I didn't say it was an obligation. You're free to turn the other cheek if you like. It is not a crime to defend onesself, and that is retaliation. I'm not demanding people like you fight. I'm just asking people like you to not demand others choose your path. It's a bad lesson for brave and capable children to be taught to run away all the time. It empowers bullies to force the bully-fighters to sit it out until some supposed authority figure shows up. It's generally a little late. Sort of like calling the cops when someone breaks into your house. Yes, it's a choice, but it's not an obligation.

"Cameras are everywhere". And yet there are still crime victims who are never restored. Cameras will not stop battery in progress. Cameras do not tell the whole story. Have you ever been party to any sort of investigation at all?

[blazeingstar]

I believe a person has the right to defend themselves, my only concern in this scenario is where that thought leads. I dont believe violence is the answer to most situations since as humans, we have a host of other faculties we can rely on. But I do understand that we are also animals and our more feral tenancies can be appealing and useful in some situations. 

 

I do recall Winchester (and this is some time ago so maybe youve changed your mind), you were adamantly against any and all forms of violence. 

 

I just want to note....I'm not against violence--I do think it happens. 

 

I do think that the "hit them back" can be helpful, but I think that 95% of the time it actually puts the victim in a far worse place than they were before, especially when it comes to children.  If a child is shoved into a wall and has to trip a bully in order to escape, than so be it.  But bullies who act physically often are simply physically bigger.  In my case I was a teeny 7yo who entered school "early" and my bully, in the same grade was a very large 9yo who repeated kindergarten due to behavioral issues (great idea people...not).    Getting away safely should be the first option as to report the violence, with return violence only needed if getting away requires it. 

[Winchester]

I believe a person has the right to defend themselves, my only concern in this scenario is where that thought leads. I dont believe violence is the answer to most situations since as humans, we have a host of other faculties we can rely on. But I do understand that we are also animals and our more feral tenancies can be appealing and useful in some situations. 

 

I do recall Winchester (and this is some time ago so maybe youve changed your mind), you were adamantly against any and all forms of violence. 

I'm against initiation of violence. I have never in my storied life been a pacifist.

You can worry where it will lead all you want, but until it gets there, you can't do anything. Pre-crime is a crime.

[CrossCuT]

I'm against initiation of violence. I have never in my storied life been a pacifist.

You can worry where it will lead all you want, but until it gets there, you can't do anything. Pre-crime is a crime.

Define a pre-crime

[Winchester]

Define a pre-crime

Making an action illegal based on the idea that said action is a precursor to crime. For instance, gun control. In this case, prohibiting self defense because there is a concern that self defense will cease to be proportional is the pre-crime.

[CrossCuT]

Making said action legal is a pre pre crime since youre knowingly allowing death weapons to circulate resulting people getting killed.

Edited September 28, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Winchester]

Making said action legal is a pre pre crime since youre knowingly allowing death weapons to circulate resulting people getting killed.

It doesn't follow that in selling an item, you are responsible for its misuse.

Not all killing is a crime. The use of deadly force is permitted in self defense. Using a deadly weapon to commit murder is a misuse. If you sell a weapon to someone you know intends to commit murder, then you are complicit in the act. Otherwise, it is the same as selling a knife that isn't explicitly designed as a tool.

Trade is lawful. Legal isn't a measure of morality. I don't care if an act is legal or not. Slavery was legal. Legality is a very poor metric of morality.

 

[CrossCuT]

A gun itself is inherently a weapon of violence; that is its purpose. Their very existence is a pre crime.

[Nihil Obstat]

A gun itself is inherently a weapon of violence; that is its purpose. Their very existence is a pre crime.

[CrossCuT]

This post is a pre crime against civility  

[Nihil Obstat]

This post is a pre crime against civility  

You should pre-complain about it.

[Winchester]

A gun itself is inherently a weapon of violence; that is its purpose. Their very existence is a pre crime.

Is it your argument that all violence is a crime?

[CrossCuT]

Making an action illegal based on the idea that said action is a precursor to crime. For instance, gun control. In this case, prohibiting self defense because there is a concern that self defense will cease to be proportional is the pre-crime.

"Any action that is a precursor to a crime is a pre crime"  

 

Could that also be correct? Does it have to actually result in said crime? Or could an initial action that never comes to fruition still be a pre crime?

Jw. If an action leads to a crime, then its a crime. Or would you say for instance, holding a gun is a pre crime? and shooting it is the crime?

Like driving a car to a robbery...is the action of driving a pre crime?

Edited September 28, 2015 by CrossCuT