How to deal with school bullies

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

In grade school I had the odd but fortunate experience of becoming friends with those who bullied me. They would pick on me, I would ignore it to a point, then we would exchange fists, and afterwards become best friends.  It used to make my grandmother laugh. 

[CrossCuT]

I was bullied and sexually harassed by a group of boys in high school. If I tried to fight back with violence I would have been hurt even worse.

[blazeingstar]

I was bullied and sexually harassed by a group of boys in high school. If I tried to fight back with violence I would have been hurt even worse.

Which is the point I think Winchester is failing to understand.  Average size boys can simply buck up, bulk up and take on a bully but smaller boys, females, younger or smaller children in general don't have that option.  Therefore, it is imperative we teach that physical encounters of bullying are assaults that should be reported.

So, you think that all the countries who have gun control and have a low crim rate should stop gun control ? Because I live in a country with a strong gun control, where I'm 50 less likely to be killed by gun than in the US, and I don't think that we're living in situation of pre-crime here. 

Also, I do recreational shooting (it give me confidence, and I want to hunt later). We just don't keep our guns at home. We let them at the shooting range, where they are keep in safety. Some people take them at home, but you need a lot of authorization. Also, before learning recreational shooting, I had to show that I've never been to jail and was not crazy. Maybe it's a pre-crime, but I'm pretty happy that we don't let murderers and crazy people learn to shoot. 

However, correlation doesn't equal causation.  There are many countries with severe gun bans where gun and other violence is an horrific problem.  There are countries with more guns than the US who are safer.  Even in the US, some of the states with largest gun ownership are much, much safer than those with near or total bans.  There are countries where even law enforcement doesn't carry guns.  And then there's other weird factors.  Some of the "safest" societies when it comes to guns have high suicide rates or astronomical motor vehicle accident rates or a simply declining and aging population.  As Crosscut mentioned part of it has to do with the attitude towards crime and personal rights.  There's alot of ways to die or be killed.

[Winchester]

Which is the point I think Winchester is failing to understand.  Average size boys can simply buck up, bulk up and take on a bully but smaller boys, females, younger or smaller children in general don't have that option.  Therefore, it is imperative we teach that physical encounters of bullying are assaults that should be reported.

 

Or maybe reading comprehension.

[CrossCuT]

Or maybe reading comprehension.

Your aggression is a precrime as it incites aggression in others and it could lead to an explosion or fire.

[Winchester]

Not everyone can fight back. Not everyone in my school could fight back. But I could, and because we had teachers who had common sense, me stopping a bully was ok. Even if I did it for someone who could not fight back. If that option is entirely taken away, bullies become more powerful.

 

Normally, when someone advocates a certain activity (say running), it's obvious that those incapable of the activity are excluded from that recommendation. "Gee, Winnie, what if it's a baby that's bullied? How is a baby going to fight back?" I mean, come on, people.

[CrossCuT]

I like saying pre crime. It makes me giggle.

[blazeingstar]

Not everyone can fight back. Not everyone in my school could fight back. But I could, and because we had teachers who had common sense, me stopping a bully was ok. Even if I did it for someone who could not fight back. If that option is entirely taken away, bullies become more powerful.

 

Normally, when someone advocates a certain activity (say running), it's obvious that those incapable of the activity are excluded from that recommendation. "Gee, Winnie, what if it's a baby that's bullied? How is a baby going to fight back?" I mean, come on, people.

No, I and other have clearly stated many things which are very common, that the child cannot fight back. No one here said baby.  But we have listed many reasons why those who are smaller, weaker and handicapped are often bullied and why your "fight back" or new rendition "have someone fight for you" are still terrible ideas.

It's short sighted to let some smart-arse kid decide that they are the playground enforcer, or to physically hit to hurt and cause a lesson when a bullies are hurting someone.  Again caveat of a minor shove or trip to get the bully off and get away, or to alert an authority.  Defensive move only.  For one, that only makes the kid a target of bullies themselves, it creates a situation where the bullied child is defenseless without the bigger child around an a false air of moral superiority or obligation.  It forces a child to step into an inappropriate adult role (gradeschool) and into an appropriate but uneducated role (highschoo).  Let's not pretend that every kid has good motives for preventing bullying.  Vigilante justice almost always ends badly.

Not only that, but your need to make your thread now only shows me some insight into your character.  Your still instance on name-calling people who go to authority, your acceptance of physical violence as a first answer, your combative stance on the dichotomy of adult hitting adult vs child hitting child.  It's like you're looking for vindication.

Edited September 29, 2015 by blazeingstar

[Winchester]

No, I and other have clearly stated many things which are very common, that the child cannot fight back. No one here said baby.  But we have listed many reasons why those who are smaller, weaker and handicapped are often bullied and why your "fight back" or new rendition "have someone fight for you" are still terrible ideas.

It's short sighted to let some smart-arse kid decide that they are the playground enforcer, or to physically hit to hurt and cause a lesson when a bullies are hurting someone.  Again caveat of a minor shove or trip to get the bully off and get away, or to alert an authority.  Defensive move only.  For one, that only makes the kid a target of bullies themselves, it creates a situation where the bullied child is defenseless without the bigger child around an a false air of moral superiority or obligation.  It forces a child to step into an inappropriate adult role (gradeschool) and into an appropriate but uneducated role (highschoo).  Let's not pretend that every kid has good motives for preventing bullying.  Vigilante justice almost always ends badly.

Not only that, but your need to make your thread now only shows me some insight into your character.  Your still instance on name-calling people who go to authority, your acceptance of physical violence as a first answer, your combative stance on the dichotomy of adult hitting adult vs child hitting child.  It's like you're looking for vindication.

I didn't say anyone said baby, I just pointed out how utterly and completely pointless it was to point out that not everyone can do everything. It is so much a part of common sense that most people don't bother citing all the different groups that cannot accomplish this or that recommended action.

The thread was started tongue in cheek. That's my character.

I've thrown the first punch once in my entire life, and I was in preschool. I've walked away from conflict with a busted nose without offering retaliation. You don't know the first flooping thing about me.

My life didn't play out according to your nightmare scenario. I've defused plenty of bullying simply by standing up. But that standing up requires confidence, and that confidence wasn't developed by hiding behind teacher. Those who can defend should. Yeah, I think it's a moral obligation.

 

[Era Might]

A crime has a victim. Purchasing a weapon is not a crime. Owning a weapon is not a crime. Gun control is enforced like every other legislative law: through force. Since neither the purchase nor possession of a weapon is an act of violence, the initial act of violence is the enforcement of the prohibition. I do not believe it is moral to initiate violence. I do not grant any exceptions to this rule, although most people who live by this rule (which really is most people, even yourself, I'd wager) grant an exception to the State. You perhaps are a utilitarian. I am not.

I think your principle (i.e., not initiating violence) has to be reconsidered in light of what rational behavior, society, and civilization actually are. On one hand, violence can be seen as the capital sin against rational behavior and society, which I don't disagree with. BUT, it seems to me that the institutionalization of rational behavior (what we call society or civilization) only begins as the rational ordering of the natural, violent behavior of nature. In other words, it's not a question of whether society has a distinct right from individuals, but whether there is ANY way of being in nature that does not include violence, and if not, the question just becomes whether it is more rational (and, ultimately, more peaceful) to institutionalize violence rather than leave it to individual impulses. The "individual" only emerges in light of rational institutions like justice systems or legal codes. The "individual" is, in a sense, whatever is NOT covered by those rational systems, and in which case, is not subject to them (you only become subject insofar as you transgress them).

So applying that on a more practical level, in our communities if you abide by the principle of not initiating violence, your premise assumes a common system of justice: you don't do anything to me, I don't do anything to you. I don't think that, in defending that principle, the "individual" is necessarily an "individual," but becomes an enforcer of an institutionalized system, even if it is local.

May be too abstract here, but basically I'm questioning whether the principle of non-initiation of violence is based on questionable assumptions about "individual" vs. "society" (i.e., who creates the other, and whether they are in fact divisible, or simply two ways of managing/distributing an operation such as violence).

[Winchester]

I think your principle (i.e., not initiating violence) has to be reconsidered in light of what rational behavior, society, and civilization actually are. On one hand, violence can be seen as the capital sin against rational behavior and society, which I don't disagree with. BUT, it seems to me that the institutionalization of rational behavior (what we call society or civilization) only begins as the rational ordering of the natural, violent behavior of nature. In other words, it's not a question of whether society has a distinct right from individuals, but whether there is ANY way of being in nature that does not include violence, and if not, the question just becomes whether it is more rational (and, ultimately, more peaceful) to institutionalize violence rather than leave it to individual impulses. The "individual" only emerges in light of rational institutions like justice systems or legal codes. The "individual" is, in a sense, whatever is NOT covered by those rational systems, and in which case, is not subject to them (you only become subject insofar as you transgress them).

So applying that on a more practical level, in our communities if you abide by the principle of not initiating violence, your premise assumes a common system of justice: you don't do anything to me, I don't do anything to you. I don't think that, in defending that principle, the "individual" is necessarily an "individual," but becomes an enforcer of an institutionalized system, even if it is local.

May be too abstract here, but basically I'm questioning whether the principle of non-initiation of violence is based on questionable assumptions about "individual" vs. "society" (i.e., who creates the other, and whether they are in fact divisible, or simply two ways of managing/distributing an operation such as violence).

Could you please just assassinate my character? I'm way better at responding to that sort of thing.

[Era Might]

Could you please just assassinate my character? I'm way better at responding to that sort of thing.

[Socrates]

Sorry, there's a difference between solving your own problems and telling people in power about physical assault.  Are you really suggesting that if a co-worker punched me because I failed to deliver a report, or laughed and they got mad or looked at them funny I should "handle it on my own?"

Absolutely not!

If it's an assault for my co-worker to hit me, it's still an assault when a child hits another child.  It's not helplessness to make sure that you can live and not be physically attacked.  We should be able to solve our problems, and authority is part of that tool box.  Keep in mind we're talking about bullying, not bickering or other issues.

Sometimes going to authorities is appropriate.  But that doesn't mean kids should be punished for fighting back when attacked.

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

What's a "death weapon"?

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

 

If someone was going to rape you but you shot them with a gun, I would say its still violent but its not criminal since it was in self defense. 

So you admit that guns can have a legitimate purpose (self defense).  Good.

Not to mention (as Nihil has) things such as hunting and target shooting.

 

So, you think that all the countries who have gun control and have a low crim rate should stop gun control ? Because I live in a country with a strong gun control, where I'm 50 less likely to be killed by gun than in the US, and I don't think that we're living in situation of pre-crime here. 

And Switzerland, where gun ownership is not just allowed but mandatory, has a lower murder rate than France.

And U.S. cities with the strictest handgun laws also have the highest rates of gun murders.

You can cherrypick data to make it say whatever you want.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Socrates

[NadaTeTurbe]

Gun ownership is mandatory in Switzerland ? I have to say that to my swiss sister-in-law, because she sure doesn't have a gun. I have to say that to my swiss friend who did not did military service and is not a hunter, and thus, have no gun at home. 

So, for your information : in Switzerland, you have the right to keep your weapon after your military service, but you still need a special permit to do that. To have this permit, you need to be in good physical health, and to have a clear criminal record, among other things. And, you are trained to use a weapon, it's not "here's a gun, do whatever you want with it, no matter who you are". To carry a weapon outside, you need to have a special permit (with german name that I have forgotten), and in general, you can not have it if you don't work in security : you don't have the right to walk with a loaded gun in the streets. And you have an examination to check if you know how to properly use it (and they are very demanding, it's a hard test - my brother wanted to work on security, and failed it). Again, swiss have to learn how to use a gun before carrying it loaded everywhere, it's not "you are 6 years old, have fun with your gun". 

Also, in Switzerland, the annual rate of all gun death per 100,000 population was (in 2011), of 3,04, while in France it was of 0,22, so you're wrong. And I'm not speaking about homidice and murder by any means, I'm speaking about homicide and murders by weapons and guns. Have your statistics and facts right. 

(source : http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france and http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland You can read here that the regulation of gun is considered, in Switzerland and in France, as in the same category : restrictive. In Switerland AND in France, the right to possess a firearm is not guaranteed by law. Seriously, read this before saying that gun ownership is mandatory in Switzerland.) 

But my point was not that, honestly I don't care about gun law in the US, what I care is that for Winchester every gun control law (including Swiss law, I guess) is a pre-crime. My point is that not every country is the US (chocking, I know), and we have the right to have gun control law without being some kind of communist dictature.

(BTW, I kind of like Swiss law, because I believe military service should be mandatory in France too.)

[Winchester]

 

But my point was not that, honestly I don't care about gun law in the US, what I care is that for Winchester every gun control law (including Swiss law, I guess) is a pre-crime. My point is that not every country is the US (chocking, I know), and we have the right to have gun control law without being some kind of communist dictature.

 

A crime has a victim. If someone owns a weapon, that is not in itself a crime. There is no victim. Just as there is no victim if someone smokes a particular plant. Is it better in the interests of peace to obey some edicts? Yes. Does that make disobedience a crime in itself? No. If I take my shotgun and cut it below the legal length, there is no victim. There is a victim when I use it to violate the rights of another person. The length of the shotgun has nothing to do with it. If I have a weapon with selective fire, there is no victim. So prohibiting these things in an attempt to stave off some future crime is in fact pre-crime. You might find pre-crime "reasonable" or moral or whatever term you use to justify it.

Political entities don't matter to me. I don't think the State is special. It's just another human organization and it needs to follow the same rules as everyone else. I cannot, for instance, make my neighbors join a military. That's called enslavement. Even if I call myself Prime Minister, and give them really amesome uniforms. Then they're just well-dressed slaves. If I give them leeway to only do nice military stuff like responding to natural disasters, then they're just slaves with some ability to choose how they fulfill the service I demand.

In general, violence is a pretty poor way to solve problems. It is sometimes necessary. Most of the time, very little is necessary. Often, just seeing that someone will not take croutons is enough to bring things down to a reasonable level. In my experience, a little empathy and "verbal judo" is even better. I don't know how your country works. Maybe enforcement of prohibitions is done a little more humanely. Here, people get shackled and thrown in cages. They carry around criminal records that destroy their lives. Even if it got better, I still wouldn't support hurting people and taking their stuff. I'm done with kindergarten. I mind my own business. I don't live in fear that without some sort of surveillance network, my neighbor will stockpile weapons and attack me. Sure it could happen. Or maybe he plays nice and stabs me in the eye with a fork while my guard is down at a dinner party. It's not bloody likely.

It wasn't private gun owners who invaded France. It wasn't private gun owners who attacked the Phillipines. It wasn't a weird little militia that marched Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals to camps for torture, medical experiments, and extermination. The NRA didn't put Japanese-Americans in internment camps. The most horrific crimes have always been committed by governments, and I think that at the heart of these actions is the belief in exceptionalism. I reject exceptionalism wholeheartedly. President Obama is just a guy. The cops are just guys. I'm just a guy. When I act justly, I act with authority. Unjustly, I act without it. Uniforms, titles--they're just signs of some "official" capacity. They don't confer virtue. In fact, they attract the unvirtuous. It's not that power corrupts, it's that it attracts the corruptible. (David Brin, paraphrased).