Is this a waste of taxpayers time and money?

[Nartwak]

What do you mean by bull?

He's saying your conflating of self-defense with retaliation is fallacious.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Nartwak

[Walsingham]

Like hurlshot I too have experience of actually teaching kids and perhaps this is why I agree with him. It's the difference between being in prison and being a prison guard.

 

Firstly a really expert bully can subdue not just a class of fifty, but can (by franchising and various other methods) extend that fear over groups of up to 2000 kids. I've seen this in action. Certainly part of the equation is to have individual targets defend themselves when attacked. This is the equivalent of the 'armed village' concept . But unless you intend for every person passing trhough the school to spend time buffing up when they are really are there to study then you need to dismantle the bullying apparat.

 

I could go on all day (and there's no guaranteeing I won't) about the process of dismantling a bully. But suffice to say that I have done so on at least one occasion without so much as a cracked knuckle. Unfortunately the methods I used were far too devious for the UK - a number of lies and misinformation were used - and would almost certainly have got me fired if I'd done so in the UK. However, the bullies themselves were by the end beginning to engage in class, and had more or less quit their shenanigans.

 

This approach does not preclude toughening up the kids en route. But it is my belief that a stable secure foundation is the best environment in which to do that.

 

As for net bullying being somehow evidence of a feeble victim I think you're misunderstanding the power of psychological warfare. Female bullying typically takes ONLY this form, but can still result in cripplingly low self-esteem, drug use, attempted suicide etc etc. This is particularly true of teenagers, who are usually extremely plastic in their attitudes towards themselves. They're trying to work out who they are and where they fit into life. If they spend five years being told they're scum and deserve to be abused, where do you THINK they will end up?

 

However, like I say, you should really be asking yourself why bullies should enjoy the luxury of bullying, rather than why their victims should have the luxury of state defence.

[alanschu]

I could go on all day (and there's no guaranteeing I won't)

 

I wholeheartedly support that you do!

 

I'd love to know what it was you did, though I imagine if you felt it prudent you would have already shared it.

[metadigital]

In other words, might doesn't make right but it helps.

 

I'm sure Meta will know which ancient philosopher we're mimicking!

How about two from the Age of Enlightenment?

To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; it is at best an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a moral duty ... once might is made to be right, cause and effect are reversed, and every force which overcomes another force inherits the right which belonged to the vanquished. As soon as man can obey with impunity, his disobedience becomes legitimate; and the strongest is always right, the only problem is how to become the strongest. But what can be the validity of a right which perishes with the force on which it rests? If force compels obedience, there is no need to invoke duty to obey, and if force ceases to compel obedience, there is no longer any obligation. Thus the word 'right' adds nothing to what is said by 'force'; it is meaningless. 'Obey those in power.' If this means 'yield to force' the precept is sound, but superfluous; it will never, I suggest, be violated. ... If I am held up by a robber at the edge of a wood, force compels me to hand over my purse. But if I could somehow contrive to keep the purse from him, would I still be obliged in conscience to surrender it? After all, the pistol in the robber's hand is undoubtedly a power.

... [T]he law of the strongest seems to be entirely abandoned as the regulating principle of the world's affairs: nobody professes it, and, as regards most of the relations between human beings, nobody is permitted to practise it.

[Gfted1]

^Oh, so might DOES make right.

 

Not in my opinion. It's been my observation that folks as enjoy that theory cease doing so as soon as the inevitable meeting occurs 'twixt them and someone mightier than they are.

 

But your friend *is* the bully you so despise. He does the exact same thing as a bully, enforce his will upon the weaker based purely on his narrow definitions.

[Diamond]

I find the whole notion of cyberbullying confusing. How does it equate to normal (off-line) bullying? It doesn't. You can not avoid bullying in the classroom, but you can easily remedy it on the Internet. Get a new e-mail or IM screen name and don't tell about it to unwanted parties. It is that simple.

 

 

What was the problem again?

[Hurlshort]

I find the whole notion of cyberbullying confusing. How does it equate to normal (off-line) bullying? It doesn't. You can not avoid bullying in the classroom, but you can easily remedy it on the Internet. Get a new e-mail or IM screen name and don't tell about it to unwanted parties. It is that simple.

 

 

What was the problem again?

 

Those are very sensible options Diamond, but the fact is many 13 year old kids don't have that type of common sense.

 

Also, a lot of bullying takes place on blogs like Myspace. Now even if the victim doesn't have a Myspace site, it's still psychologically debillitating to know that someone's website has slanderous things about you on it. For example, I went to a website a couple years back called ratemyteacher.com. Most of the comments were favorable, but there was one that really got under my skin, even as an adult. The student had referred to me as a "glorified copy machine". My solution to that problem was to avoid the website and make a few less copies, but a 13-year old kid probably won't make that decision, and just the knowledge that they are the target of such comments is a serious blow.

[Walsingham]

^Oh, so might DOES make right.

 

Not in my opinion. It's been my observation that folks as enjoy that theory cease doing so as soon as the inevitable meeting occurs 'twixt them and someone mightier than they are.

 

But your friend *is* the bully you so despise. He does the exact same thing as a bully, enforce his will upon the weaker based purely on his narrow definitions.

 

I know what you mean. And one day I may try and fix him... once we tackle all the regular bullies.