How to deal with school bullies

[Nihil Obstat]

If we get down to philosophical bases for ethics, 

1. Why does crime require a victim? (Who is the victim?)
2. To what extent can the victim be abstracted to a collective? Certainly a group can be harmed. How large is too large before that group is not capable of being harmed by a single person's action?
3. Does the concept of non-aggression beg the question with regards to 'aggression' versus justified coercion?

[blazeingstar]

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

But that's not the proposition Winchester stated.  He gave 2 options "fight back" or "be a dirty snitch"   This makes the better option--letting things be handled by people who can handle them--sound bad.  Stepping away from violence is always the preferable action.  I have never said that a person can't fight back, or should be punished for doing so.  I've said that in a physical altercation the victim should do what is needed to remove themselves.

Some here believe that the only way to stop bulling is to become a vigilante and beat the bully to a pulp.  Not only is that often impossible, but in some cases it could be a crime.  That's why I advocate first getting away, then, if needed doing the minimal physical altercation needed to do so.  What Winnie suggests is the opposite...bust heads and take names.

[CrossCuT]

The dirty snitch thing is just Winchester being a huge, hyperbolic man child. Its an ironic stance though and it highlights a predicament that a lot of children find themselves in. Someone who seemingly favors standing up to bullies would also in the same breath bully people who wouldnt choose that route. That certainly wasnt an option for me and its something that is difficult for school aged children to deal with as well. There is pressure from both sides that are essentially bullying them to act in a particular way.

[Anomaly]

Winchester is adept at clandestine verbal bullying.  Not all coercion is physical or overt.  

[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).

Rational behavior begins not with society, but with the individual perceiving himself in a situation.

[Winchester]

If we get down to philosophical bases for ethics, 

1. Why does crime require a victim? (Who is the victim?)
2. To what extent can the victim be abstracted to a collective? Certainly a group can be harmed. How large is too large before that group is not capable of being harmed by a single person's action?
3. Does the concept of non-aggression beg the question with regards to 'aggression' versus justified coercion?

1. It's sort of in the definition. A crime is a violation of one right or another, so it's apparent there's a victim. I think people generally believe the victim in the case of prohibited actions is society. Victims are restored by throwing the bad actors in cages. I think maybe there's some kind of alchemical process involved or something. I'm not real clear on the metaphysics of collectivism. Spirit animals, maybe?

2. It can happen, but there must be some violation. That means there's a right in there somewhere. I have a right to have people not gamble, for instance.

3. Coercion is a much broader concept, but the term "justified coercion" seems like question-begging in itself. I believe in self-ownership, so NAP comes from that. We can change it to self-stewardship to avoid the problems associated with the idea of people actually owning themselves.

Winchester is adept at clandestine verbal bullying.  Not all coercion is physical or overt.  

Clandestine?

[blazeingstar]

The dirty snitch thing is just Winchester being a huge, hyperbolic man child. Its an ironic stance though and it highlights a predicament that a lot of children find themselves in. Someone who seemingly favors standing up to bullies would also in the same breath bully people who wouldnt choose that route. That certainly wasnt an option for me and its something that is difficult for school aged children to deal with as well. There is pressure from both sides that are essentially bullying them to act in a particular way.

Its not bullying for an adult to report that a co-worker physically hit them.  It's only in the very sickest of society that an adult staying silent about physical abuse in the workplace occurs.  And let's be honest, it happens more than we think, even ins countries with great human rights or low violence.  Many people are in a place where they must deal with abuse because this is the only job they are eligible for or whatnot.  However, if we set them up as children to know only "fight back" and not "report" the outcome can be even more devastating as an adult.

Kids should be in a safe environment, but unfortunately, many times they are not.  They do not have an adult to go to.  This is disgusting.  However, it doesn't mean that as adults we should advocate violence and minmimise making ourselves a safe adult, or encouraging those in authority to act properly.

The question posed is "how should school bullies be dealt with" and the answer ideally is the same way an adult physical bully would be dealt with. 

The whole "pressure to act a certian way"  is bull hockey.  We have tons of pressure to act certain ways.  We teach children not to play with their genitals, fluffy air extraction, burp and do other crass things in public.  By the end of toddlerhood there's a ton of pressure on children to "behave" and that's for a regular child.   Those who aren't neurotypical hear it all the time.  I know a young man who was autistic who hand flapped, it was silent and didn't affect anyone but him.  It didn't take away from his work, and yet it seemed everyone in his life (but me, his employer and a few of our customers and his co-workers) seemed to find it their duty to tell him that it was not appropriate.  I didn't care, it didn't affect me.  However, some of his vocal trills did hurt my ears, so I worked with him to find ways we could work around it.  Sometimes it was him going into my office for a minute to decompress.  The point is that as children and adults there's always pressure.  Teaching a kid the right thing to do when they are physically harmed is not undue pressure.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

1. It's sort of in the definition. A crime is a violation of one right or another, so it's apparent there's a victim. I think people generally believe the victim in the case of prohibited actions is society. Victims are restored by throwing the bad actors in cages. I think maybe there's some kind of alchemical process involved or something. I'm not real clear on the metaphysics of collectivism. Spirit animals, maybe?

2. It can happen, but there must be some violation. That means there's a right in there somewhere. I have a right to have people not gamble, for instance.

3. Coercion is a much broader concept, but the term "justified coercion" seems like question-begging in itself. I believe in self-ownership, so NAP comes from that. We can change it to self-stewardship to avoid the problems associated with the idea of people actually owning themselves.

1. It is in your definition. Is your basis sound? In the case of society being the victim, as you put it, is this reasonable? (And what is society anyway? Just an aggregate of everyone in an area?)
2. "I have a right to have people not gamble". Wut?
3. Ultimately we need a deeper basis as justification for either the NAP or for something else which allows for justified coercion. Your basis for NAP relies on self-ownership, and self-ownership is not justified a priori, nor is NAP fully entailed by self-ownership.

[Winchester]

1. It is in your definition. Is your basis sound? In the case of society being the victim, as you put it, is this reasonable? (And what is society anyway? Just an aggregate of everyone in an area?)
2. "I have a right to have people not gamble". Wut?
3. Ultimately we need a deeper basis as justification for either the NAP or for something else which allows for justified coercion. Your basis for NAP relies on self-ownership, and self-ownership is not justified a priori, nor is NAP fully entailed by self-ownership.

1. I know of no definition wherein a crime is believed to not involve a violation of rights, unless one is using it in a symbolic sense ("It's a crime that woman ain't married"). It seems to me that most people who believe in that stuff view society as being those within the boundaries of their particular government. You would have to ask them, though.

2. Exactly. "I have a right to have people not become intoxicated" would be another. "I" in this sense isn't my for-itself, but that of the adherents to the belief that such things as gambling are crimes.

3. You can go with me owning myself or you can give it a shot at violating it. Attempting to convince someone of that principle if they don't accept it is probably doomed to failure. It's like trying to convert people via the sword.

[Nihil Obstat]

1. I know of no definition wherein a crime is believed to not involve a violation of rights, unless one is using it in a symbolic sense ("It's a crime that woman ain't married"). It seems to me that most people who believe in that stuff view society as being those within the boundaries of their particular government. You would have to ask them, though.

2. Exactly. "I have a right to have people not become intoxicated" would be another. "I" in this sense isn't my for-itself, but that of the adherents to the belief that such things as gambling are crimes.

3. You can go with me owning myself or you can give it a shot at violating it. Attempting to convince someone of that principle if they don't accept it is probably doomed to failure. It's like trying to convert people via the sword.

1. Whose rights are violated when a serious personal, internal sin is committed? Nobody 'in society' generally, except in a highly abstracted sense. "Victimless". Rights of man trump all! Except not really. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself if the rights of God mean anything, or if they are just a fairy-tale, just like the authority of the state. For an atheist, I really do not care. A Catholic has an important choice to make.
2. Honestly, that is getting pretty silly. Not sure if that was your intention or what... The problem with rejecting the concept of victimless crimes is that there is very little room remaining for morality in the internal forum. 
3. You do not own yourself, and sometimes you should be forced to do or not do things even  when, and perhaps especially when you would rather do otherwise. There, I said it. If any man can have authority to rule over any other, under any circumstances and any situation whatsoever, then I think this is plainly true. And I think few people actually truly believe that they should be free from all coercion at all times and in all situations.

The possibility to choose evil is a defect of the mind and will of man. Not a necessary feature of liberty. This is what radical libertarianism does not understand.

 

LIbertas - Leo XIII

6. Since, however, both these faculties [of reason and will] are imperfect, it is possible, as is often seen, that the reason should propose something which is not really good, but which has the appearance of good, and that the will should choose accordingly. For, as the possibility of error, and actual error, are defects of the mind and attest its imperfection, so the pursuit of what has a false appearance of good, though a proof of our freedom, just as a disease is a proof of our vitality, implies defect in human liberty. The will also, simply because of its dependence on the reason, no sooner desires anything contrary thereto than it abuses its freedom of choice and corrupts its very essence. Thus it is that the infinitely perfect God, although supremely free, because of the supremacy of His intellect and of His essential goodness, nevertheless cannot choose evil; neither can the angels and saints, who enjoy the beatific vision. St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection. This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery. It will suffice to quote his subtle commentary on the words of our Lord: "Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin."(3) "Everything," he says, "is that which belongs to it a naturally. When, therefore, it acts through a power outside itself, it does not act of itself, but through another, that is, as a slave. But man is by nature rational. When, therefore, he acts according to reason, he acts of himself and according to his free will; and this is liberty. Whereas, when he sins, he acts in opposition to reason, is moved by another, and is the victim of foreign misapprehensions. Therefore, `Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.' "(4) Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; and by the term "wise man" was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtue.

7. Such, then, being the condition of human liberty, it necessarily stands in need of light and strength to direct its actions to good and to restrain them from evil. Without this, the freedom of our will would be our ruin. First of all, there must be law; that is, a fixed rule of teaching what is to be done and what is to be left undone. This rule cannot affect the lower animals in any true sense, since they act of necessity, following their natural instinct, and cannot of themselves act in any other way. On the other hand, as was said above, he who is free can either act or not act, can do this or do that, as he pleases, because his judgment precedes his choice. And his judgment not only decides what is right or wrong of its own nature, but also what is practically good and therefore to be chosen, and what is practically evil and therefore to be avoided. In other words, the reason prescribes to the will what it should seek after or shun, in order to the eventual attainment of man's last end, for the sake of which all his actions ought to be performed. This ordination of reason is called law. In man's free will, therefore, or in the moral necessity of our voluntary acts being in accordance with reason, lies the very root of the necessity of law. Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For, law is the guide of man's actions; it turns him toward good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments.

Anyone who says that man should not be bound by law as a condition of freedom, then, treats man like a base animal without use of reason.

 

 

[Era Might]

Rational behavior begins not with society, but with the individual perceiving himself in a situation.

But to "perceive himself" you are assuming that he first distinguishes a "self" from others. The child who begins to speak does so in imitation, and only later does he perceive a "self" with the freedom to speak as he chooses. But I would say that even adults live, largely, in imitation. Somebody says "How are you" and we respond, "Good, thanks." We aren't really saying anything, just engaging in empty communication, applying the code to the situation.

So taking that as my starting point, I would ask where does violence come from? What makes a lion kill an antelope? It could be invasion of space, satisfaction of a need or desire, opportunity striking, etc. So I guess each of those is a "situation" as you put it. But the lion lacks the abstract ability for rational thought, so he just acts on natural instinct. But man comes with his rational thought and is able to abstract both himself, the antelope, and the situation. Man abstracts himself to say, for example, I am a predator, the antelope is my prey, and we are in a situation of need, or desire, or opportunity. The problem is that the situation is going to be defined by the one doing the abstracting. The man may think he has a need to eat, but what if his need to eat has negative consequences for other men? Is his need to eat greater than the need of the group to eat? Is his opportunity greater than the possibility of other opportunities for the group?

So at this point I'm just speculating, but it seems that from here arises the rational/abstract application of "rights." Rights being what you are free to do APART from the rational/institutionalized system...and violence becomes a transgression of that system (or an enforcement of it). This could be, for example, sacrificial violence, where a victim stands in for the community. What does the sacrificial victim accomplish? It gives the community a common point of guilt to direct their mutual violence, and make peace. In this sense all society/civilization is based on an initial violence...that is, based on the premise that human nature can only be exercised communally, and to threaten that is to be an "individual" who does not accept the violence of the common good.

What is the "sacrificial victim" of a modern society? Maybe it's property, the sacrifice of the land, or capital, the sacrifice of the community to individual profit. I think that is the context we are speaking in when we talk about "not initiating violence," we are assuming society where the "individual" is abstractly defined as someone who does not threaten the property or capital of others. When we intervene in other countries, do we do so because people are dying or because violence is going to hinder that country (and ours) from the smooth practice of property and capital? Imagine a society where social violence was personalist, i.e., it was exercised purely on the consideration that only human life is inviolable. That would have tremendous consequences for foreign policy (maybe good, maybe bad, I don't really know).

But on an individual level, when we talk about not doing violence to others, we are assuming our society of individualist property and capital, where those things are carved up through legal and economic means, not personal violence. But that is arbitrary, I think, to a certain extent...didn't Socrates defend his own execution, if he was truly guilty? He had a different sense of how violence could be applied, it was NOT only based on property and capital, but on ideas and the common good. He did not have the exaggerated individualism that we do, assuming that violence is wrong because it's bad for business and civil society.

So basically I'm arguing that our view of violence is distorted by our abstraction of the "individual" in terms of property and capital. Consider something such as dueling...what did it accomplish? I think it provided a neutral social outlet for violence that where the consideration was NOT the "individual" as a person, but the honorable exchange of violence blows. The individual is largely a figment of imagination and an anachronistic personification of social structures.

All that rambling was off the top of my head, so I make no guarantees any of it makes sense or that I believe it.

[Winchester]

 

1. Whose rights are violated when a serious personal, internal sin is committed? Nobody 'in society' generally, except in a highly abstracted sense. "Victimless". Rights of man trump all! Except not really. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself if the rights of God mean anything, or if they are just a fairy-tale, just like the authority of the state. For an atheist, I really do not care. A Catholic has an important choice to make.
2. Honestly, that is getting pretty silly. Not sure if that was your intention or what... The problem with rejecting the concept of victimless crimes is that there is very little room remaining for morality in the internal forum. 
3. You do not own yourself, and sometimes you should be forced to do or not do things even  when, and perhaps especially when you would rather do otherwise. There, I said it. If any man can have authority to rule over any other, under any circumstances and any situation whatsoever, then I think this is plainly true. And I think few people actually truly believe that they should be free from all coercion at all times and in all situations.

The possibility to choose evil is a defect of the mind and will of man. Not a necessary feature of liberty. This is what radical libertarianism does not understand.

 

LIbertas - Leo XIII

Anyone who says that man should not be bound by law as a condition of freedom, then, treats man like a base animal without use of reason.

 

 

I honestly don't need you to believe I own myself. I just need you to not act you own me. Whatever nonsense you want to believe other than that is fine, but you lay hands on me (or hire some people to do it, or participate in some ritual with ballot boxes), then we have an issue. As long as you can keep your hands to yourself, we will get along just fine. Thing is, most pietists don't use their own hands. They hide behind rough men.

[CrossCuT]

Everyone has their own truth.

[Nihil Obstat]

I honestly don't need you to believe I own myself. I just need you to not act you own me. Whatever nonsense you want to believe other than that is fine, but you lay hands on me (or hire some people to do it, or participate in some ritual with ballot boxes), then we have an issue. As long as you can keep your hands to yourself, we will get along just fine. Thing is, most pietists don't use their own hands. They hide behind rough men.

Come on. You know I have been through that rhetoric. You are plugging your ears and singing Sex Pistols now. You can argue more cogently than that.

Unless you are telling us that your anarchism has replaced your Catholicity. Is that not what has happened?

[Winchester]

But to "perceive himself" you are assuming that he first distinguishes a "self" from others.

It's not an assumption. To perceive himself is to distinguish himself from others.