How to deal with school bullies

[Era Might]

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

Well, not entirely. It's to distinguish "something" from others, but to distinguish a "self" is something different. I'm thinking along existentialist lines here that being precedes essence...e.g., the waiter acts the part of the waiter, but does so in "bad faith"...he distinguishes "himself" in terms of what is expected of a waiter, but that is not his "self," he is acting a role, which seems to be the basis of society/civilization, acting a role vs. just going on instinct like a lion. When we commit violence, aren't we usually acting a role in some way, as an executioner of a common standard of right and wrong...and when someone is truly not acting a role we call it a "crime of passion."

Edited September 30, 2015 by Era Might

[blazeingstar]

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.

You may "own yourself" or even your property, but by your defination even roads would be "pre crimes"   Those dastardly roads forcing you to go around the block when you could just drive through people's backyards to your house.  Even if no damage was done we have authority in place to put their hands on you.

And this thread is not about grown adults, but school children.

Basically, you adhere to this strange idea that your violence can solve anything.  That you have a right to not simply defend yourself, but to take revenge and make it so that person cannot ever harm you again.  And that thought, that attitude makes me really glad that we only communicate via computer screens.

I know of a family of 4 boys, the youngest was a mean little brat who often would go around the neighborhood doing naughty things like bashing up lawn ornaments and blaming his brothers.  One day his brothers decided it would be a good idea to loosen the wheels on his bikes, preventing him from getting far.  So long story short the boy went base over apex and ended up nearly knocking out his front teeth.  He tried to "get them back" by beating them up, but they just shoved him away.  In that generation kids were expected to handle it themselves.  Bad idea.  Years later as a teenager this boy saw someone "messing" with his motorbike.  Without asking any questions he decked the guy...and of course was charged with assault.  The guy who got decked had actually noticed a broken spoke. This sort of behavior is only a perpetuating cycle.  Had the older brothers told the adults what was going on, had the younger brother told adults after his older brothers injured him this situation would of been rectified in childhood.

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

No.  In fact, there are many cultures, mostly aborigine (American, Asian, Australian) to which they view themselves as wholly them but as fully part of a whole.  To which an individual has responsibility much like fingers have.   The reconginze their unique role but do not see themselves as "Thing" from the Munsters.

[Winchester]

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?

I really don't think there's a way to prove self-ownership to someone. I don't sign on to Hoppe's argumentation ethics. I mean, people behave like they own themselves in general. In general, they don't treat each other like property. Until they really want something. Like a cake, or for other people to not have certain types of guns. Or even for nobler reasons, like making sure nobody can decide to not hire people for race or ethnicity. But proving that's reality? Hell, I'm not sure it is. You're in the same boat with God. You can't prove He exists. You can prove believing in Him isn't contrary to reason, but that's it. I don't think people acting as if they owned themselves really proves anything. I think it provides a nice guide for behavior, but that doesn't mean people are going to feel obliged to tolerate all behaviors they see as immoral.

I'd say paleontology plays that role. I don't see anarchism as a problem for Catholics. I don't conflate the State with governance, although I play loose with the terms most of the time.

[Nihil Obstat]

I really don't think there's a way to prove self-ownership to someone. I don't sign on to Hoppe's argumentation ethics. I mean, people behave like they own themselves in general. In general, they don't treat each other like property. Until they really want something. Like a cake, or for other people to not have certain types of guns. Or even for nobler reasons, like making sure nobody can decide to not hire people for race or ethnicity. But proving that's reality? Hell, I'm not sure it is. You're in the same boat with God. You can't prove He exists. You can prove believing in Him isn't contrary to reason, but that's it. I don't think people acting as if they owned themselves really proves anything. I think it provides a nice guide for behavior, but that doesn't mean people are going to feel obliged to tolerate all behaviors they see as immoral.

I'd say paleontology plays that role. I don't see anarchism as a problem for Catholics. I don't conflate the State with governance, although I play loose with the terms most of the time.

Still not seeing much substance here.
Yes or no, are we operating from the same assumptions? That God is real, that He established a Church, that the Catholic Church is the one He established, and that the Catholic Church possesses authority both temporal and spiritual?
This is a material question because it fundamentally changes how we approach these questions. Do we discuss this as if you are an atheist, or as if you are a Catholic?

[Winchester]

Well, not entirely. It's to distinguish "something" from others, but to distinguish a "self" is something different. I'm thinking along existentialist lines here that being precedes essence...e.g., the waiter acts the part of the waiter, but does so in "bad faith"...he distinguishes "himself" in terms of what is expected of a waiter, but that is not his "self," he is acting a role, which seems to be the basis of society/civilization, acting a role vs. just going on instinct like a lion. When we commit violence, aren't we usually acting a role in some way, as an executioner of a common standard of right and wrong...and when someone is truly not acting a role we call it a "crime of passion."

The waiter cannot act a part unless he already exists as a for-itself.

Still not seeing much substance here.

Then I reckon we're done, here.

[CrossCuT]

I smell the escaped fluffy air extractions of a witch hunt brewing with Nihil leading with his plastic sword of shame. 

[KnightofChrist]

I smell the escaped fluffy air extractions of a witch hunt brewing with Nihil leading with his plastic sword of shame. 

Meh, I think you're exaggerating.

[Nihil Obstat]

Johnny, you are walking a dangerous path. You have let what is frankly a fanatical devotion to a secular cause lead you to forget the moral principles that led you to that cause in the first place.

 [19] Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal. [20] But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal.

[21] For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also. [22] The light of thy body is thy eye. If thy eye be single, thy whole body shall be lightsome. [23] But if thy eye be evil thy whole body shall be darksome. If then the light that is in thee, be darkness: the darkness itself how great shall it be! [24] No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. [25] Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat: and the body more than the raiment?

 

Please be careful, Johnny. Your heart was in the right place.

I smell the escaped fluffy air extractions of a witch hunt brewing with Nihil leading with his plastic sword of shame. 

Mind your own business.

[CrossCuT]

Mind your own business.

pfffftttttt

There is no event more singularly exciting to a self righteous catholic than to be able to strain out the the inferiors. 

Edited September 30, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Winchester]

 

Basically, you adhere to this strange idea that your violence can solve anything.  That you have a right to not simply defend yourself, but to take revenge and make it so that person cannot ever harm you again.  And that thought, that attitude makes me really glad that we only communicate via computer screens.

 

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 have also said that retaliation (I guess that's the word that upset you, but that's what a response is, connotation aside) must be proportional. I think I also said the poll was really intended as tongue-in-cheek.

 

 

 

I smell the escaped fluffy air extractions of a witch hunt brewing with Nihil leading with his plastic sword of shame. 

I've been burned before.

[Nihil Obstat]

pfffftttttt

There is no event more singularly exciting to a self righteous catholic than to be able to strain out the the inferiors. 

You have no idea what you are talking about. Mind your own business.

[KnightofChrist]

pfffftttttt

There is no event more singularly exciting to a self righteous catholic than to be able to strain out the the inferiors. 

Sounds like you're getting your own hunt going now.

[CrossCuT]

I've been burned before.

 Serves you right, plebe.

Sounds like you're getting your own hunt going now.

I have no reason to hunt anyone, Im just observing.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Mind your own business.

QQ

[Nihil Obstat]

You are on a Catholic forum. If you have a problem with Catholic ideas and Catholic obligations being taken generally as a given, then best for you to find a more heretical corner of narcissism to inhabit. I am not going to sit here and pretend that your banal, faux-outraged opinions are on par with Church teachings.

[KnightofChrist]

 

I have no reason to hunt anyone, Im just observing.

Meh, pure observation doesn't include executing judgement calls about another person. But I'm going to go read my book now. Doctor Who: Beautiful Chaos, be jealous lol.