Good job taking the quote out of context and thereby misinterpreting it and its meaning. I never said anything about gumdrops or goodwishes fixing the issue. Its not a philosophical difference, its a literate one apparently.

I'm not sure what the rules are in the US, but over here you can't just take a kid out of school and keep them at home. Sure you could home school, but what if you already have a full time job? Maybe you should quit to support your child, but then, how will the bills get paid?

It's just not that simple.

Resorting to violence is a last resort, and most parents would encourage their children to try all other avenues, but sometimes they just don't work.

Sure systems could/might be implimented maybe in the future, but what if it's happening now?

It's just like all the other social issues. There's no quick fix, so we have to 'make do' with the best solution until something better comes along.

eta: My recent posts are not so much about this particular thread, but trying to explain what some of you feel is the 'cheering on' of the victim. Trying to help you understand why some of us feel less than sympathetic to the bully and why we recognise that the victim felt he had no other choice. That's real life. That's the way it is, and wishing it were something different is pointless.

Misinterpret? Let me back up then and see if I understand you correctly.

MTP's position: All conflict and violence should be avoided. Taken to its logical conclusion then a victim of bullying bears the responsibility(let's not forget the expense) to follow a progression of walking away, involving a bunch of authorities, then changing schools if the situation doesn't change. Do I have that right?

Lookout's position: Conflict and violence are best avoided but not to be pulled off the table as an option as they are unfortunately sometimes necessary and effective.

Just remember that if I'm a bad guy I don't really give a shit how you feel or what happens to you tomorrow. If I know (because you have made it clear) that no matter what I do you will not stand up to me, then I am free to take from you or do to you anything I want because you're an easy mark.

Here's what I taught my kids. Try to walk away or ignore. If they lay a hand on you, then it is katie bar the door. I dont care if you pick up a stick, bite, kick or whatever. Just fight back using any means possible. You don't have to win, but you better leave a mark on them. I've learned that way they won't mess with you again. Hey it worked for me & has seemed to work pretty darn well for my kids.

No, you don't understand my position. Violence is not always effective, and it is dangerous. The child should not have the responsibility of "taking matters into their own hands." It is fully the parent's responsibility to protect their underage child, and yes sometimes that does mean a significant expense if all other alternatives fail. Leaving your child in a position you know they may well have to turn to violence in order to protect themselves? Unacceptable.
Not being willing to become violent, does not mean I will not and do not have the means to stand up for myself.

Finally, a statement I can agree with. Violence usually is not effective. But for those rare times when it is, it may be the only effective tool left and then it should be employed. It is potentially dangerous. Yep, and so is continuing to allow yourself to be a victim.

This kind of parenting creates bullies.

You're obviously not christian.

How did you get that from what she wrote? She wrote that there are systems that have been ceated by society to resolve conflict in a civilized way. Use them. If the systems are slow, it is still incumbent upon the parent to protect a child's wellbeing.

Is that right, Moretp?

Did the kid in the video try anything but violence before this incident?

Use a sharper stick, maybe I'll respond.

Typically evasive.

What would all you "go victim" people think if the little one had gotten up and he and his crew had beaten the big kid until he was unconscious? Still and epic win, because he stood up to his attackers?

Have you answered Pete Zicato's question yet?

Let me know when you do and I'll take that as a signal you actually want a discussion.

Boys have been fighting since the beginning of time. If there wasn't such a 'zero tolerance' at school then maybe the kid getting hit in the face would have felt free to shove him away.

Many times the person getting bullied has to suck it up because he has been taught not to retaliate. Many times that base instinct to protect oneself raises it's head and the bully gets hurt.( too ) Most of the time it isn't caught on film. If there had not been a video of this, or any witnesses, guaranteed that big kid would be charged with assault, given community service and for the instigator?, nothing.

I understand the reasons for zero tolerance but I cannot fathom their ( the kids ) reality, when at home they are taught to stand up for themselves, yet school teaches you a contradictory rule. The rule is not stand up for themselves. There is a rule but no tool other than what the parents teach them at home that doesn't apply to the school yard.

I highly doubt that little kid would have punched him outside of school. The fighting field would have been a little more fair. There would not have been the 'schools rule' that kept that big kids fists down long enough to take it in the face once or twice.

For the parents that teach their kids to ignore or walk away, how do they do that when they are getting punched in the face? or verbally taunted? Ignoring isn't a great tool. They don't ignore it. They take it home and it seethes until they cannot take it anymore and someone gets body slammed into the concrete.

OR they start all kinds of self-destructive habits...
Cutting, drinking, drugs...

Ignoring a problem hoping it will go away rarely works. In fact, it usually gets worse..


Good points sky.

Except for teeth. If you have a problem with your teeth and you ignore it, then eventually your teeth and your problem will go away.
Disclaimer: I am not a professional dentist.

But if you just let me hit you the problem will go away faster.
Disclaimer: I am not Ghandi

Remember the good, old days when kids could beat eachother up without all the analysis?

Yes. I remember when solutions to problems were handled at the lowest level possible without meetings, handwringing, and fingerpointing.

Seiously though I remember in 4th grade "fighting" Tommy T over a girl we both liked. The towncop was standing there chuckling and the only instruction he gave was to take off our gloves so we wouldn't tear any skin if we somehow miraculously hit eachother.

you said anal ysis

I'm tired of repeating myself and continuously having you blatantly ignore my point. Your testosterone fueled, knee-jerk reactions annoy me.

*Walking away*

I'm not ignoring your point. I'm pointing out that your point is incompatible with the real world. If it makes you feel better to discount a different viewpoint as testosterone fueled and knee jerk then go right on ahead. My views on the application of force aren't something I've just popped out in response to some youtube video, they are considered and consistent. (you might notice that if you follow the link that Spexx took the trouble of looking for after almost 3 years)

Maybe they should give them baseball bats and let them beat the shit out of each other. Now that would make for some youtube video.

Yeah. And look how you turned out.:rolleyes:

Oh oh oh, look my stalker troll has come out to play.

Don't shoot me, poser.:sniff:

Who is stalking you?

Nope, that would be like getting a tank to deal deal with a housefly.

Here's a riddle: what do you call a person who can't discuss ideas rationally, without resorting to histrionics?

I guess we're done here.

Wait - I see a pattern here. Someone asks a question... Spexx posts that the discussion is over. I guess he really does believe in avoiding conflict at all costs.

Honestly I think someone has stolen Spexx's login. I've never liked the guy but I thought he actually posted some worthwhile stuff. Recently he is like a clone of TW if you changed the flavor of paranoia and removed the original content.

This philosophy is used in almost all martial arts. You NEVER start a fight and try to avoid them if you can but if you are ever placed in a situation where you need to fight, train so you can defend yourself. This philosophy will usually not create bullies but quite the opposite.

Bullies are not created from learning how to fight. Bullies are created when learning and embracing that using force on someone you perceive as weaker than yourself will benefit you somehow.

Oh oh oh, look my stalker troll has come out to play.

This discussion is over.


Look look, I'm walking away... does this mean I'm growing?

You seriously have to quit losing weight Jim. I like the hair though.

I'd suggest that picking someone up, turning them upside down and slamming them bodily onto a concrete surface with a brick wall in the way has way more potential to cause crippling injuries than a shove or punch. Not to say shoves and punches are risk free, but the pile drive move is really something that should only be used when on a sprung surface. Preferably having both had training in how to fall.

That's total nonsense. That's like saying if I am in favour of the kid throwing a punch I am equally in favour of him pulling out a knife and slashing the other kid across the face. Violence exists on a sliding scale.

Violence can be an effective way to end conflict. There are times when it is the only way. But that doesn't mean all levels of violence are acceptable.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a discussion and expressing our opinions on the issue. I don't 'get to decide' for anybody what level of violence is right. Nor do you. Stalemate. ffs.

You can whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks ... :blush:

All I'm saying is that no matter what level of violence you use, there is a potential to cause serious harm. What if he'd shoved him and the boy had hit his head on the concrete? Same outcome.



My point is Dana, that you're saying it's ok to go so far, but not as far as that. Why is one thing ok and not another? Maybe the victim had tried pushing himself away in the past and to no effect? Maybe he decided on a definitive ending to the situation. That's what it looked like to me.

As I said, no disrespect intended at all, but I don't understand (honestly), how you can say it's ok to push or punch someone, but it's not ok to use a different level of force.

Oh sure I understand the concept of reasonable force and all that, but seriously, we're expecting kids to be able to make that sort of judgement call when they're in a desperate situation? I don't think so.

^wss

I still say, beat the fuck out of the bullies and diminish their base of operation....

Here is the other boy's side of the story.....

He seems like a smart intuitive kid.

Right on Casey. I hope you never need to do that again.