Whether it’s in the New York Times, CNN or countless other places, the George Zimmerman case is becoming a well organized campaign against “Stand your ground” laws, which is a thinly veiled war against self defense itself.
As I told M. Simon (who has been sending me links) in an email, I should probably be screaming “I TOLD YOU SO,” because I have been kvetching about this ever since the Zimmerman case became high profile.
What worries me the most about the case does not involve the actual merits of who did what, who started it, and whether or not Zimmerman legally defended himself against Trayvon Martin so much as the importance of these questions being asked.
Many people don’t think they should be asked, and that is what I see as a bigger problem. I worry that there is an entire generation of children who have been raised in a culture of ZERO TOLERANCE for self defense, and now that they are of age, it is considered time to tap into their naive mindset in order to bring about a better world in which (so it is claimed) all violence will be finally eliminated.
I often say that I am glad not to be a parent today, and one of the reasons is that I cannot count the number of times I have been told by angry parents that children are no longer allowed to defend themselves. The perverse modern rule (imposed by progressive educrats for decades now) is that the child who dares to defend himself against a bully is just as bad as the bully. Because violence is bad. That I consider this anathema makes me little more than a relic of our violent past.
When I was a kid, it mattered who started it. Who was the aggressor? And in cases where it was unclear and the two boys just wouldn’t stop fighting, they would actually have them put boxing gloves on and settle it at the gym.
No more. Now the question of “Who started it” has been made deliberately, malevolently irrelevant. I say malevolently, because I cannot think of a better way to empower bullies than assigning equating them an equal status with their victims, especially those who fight back. And I can think of few things more malevolent than punishing a child for standing up to a bully. That this has become standard education policy makes me glad I don’t have children. I honestly don’t know what I would do if I had kids and couldn’t afford a private school which refuses to indoctrinate children with the noxious idea that it is evil to fight back against evil.
Who started it matters. Damn it, it matters a lot. Who attacked whom is such a basic principle that it goes to the heart of what we call civilization. The civilized world was outraged when Hitler invaded Poland and France. History is replete with example after example. Unless the invaded countries were aggressors in the first place, invaders are usually seen as the bad guys.
Who started it? and Who was the aggressor? — these questions lie at the essence of self defense. The people who don’t want “who started it” to matter see the Zimmerman case as a perfect foot in the door. To them it really does not matter who started it, nor should it matter.
And they want the law changed to reflect the new reality which is at war with reality.
If Zimmerman is found to have been attacked and was justified in defending himself, that is the entire problem.
We are living in a new era and we need new laws.
It’s something any school child ought to able to understand.
Comments
31 responses to “The war against self defense began in the schools”
It seems to me that the most effective riposte to this sort of nonsense is to ask them why that hate battered women. I believe the history shows that “stand your ground” laws were devised to protect battered partners (mostly women) to avoid jail when they took action against their partners. To restrict or eliminate “stand your ground” is therefore part of the liberals “war on women.”
I don’t have kids, thank God. But if I did I would tell them what my Old Man would have said.
My old man was a Golden Gloves boxer. I hated my old man, but he taught me lots of stuff. One was how to defend myself.
If I had a kid I would tell him this:
If some a**hole is picking on you, defend yourself. Beat that other kid into the ground. Getting in ‘trouble’ in some sissified school is nowhere near as bad as growing up afraid.
Beating the crap out of bullies is a service to mankind. It clears up the problem for other kids, and teaches the bully an important life lesson.
Oh here’s a good one. We shouldn’t trust bureaucrats and government administrators to with decision making powers over local affairs, because they are too deattached
. . . but listen to my take on it. I’m only a 60, 70ish year old white guy, who doesn’t have kids, and I know the solution to bullying based on what parents have told me “numerous times.” Really, listen to me because of what I say parents have told me!
Let’s look at a hypothetical situation here, lets just say a young buck in 11th grade decides to practice his religious freedom, and you know, defend the culture in the culture wars by calling some 9th grader a homo. Every day. Every hour. In public, in private, in front of his friends, in front of girls. On Facebook.
How do you recommend he stand his ground? Within the legal framework, what recourse does he have here? Should he throw a first punch, a premptive strike, perhaps? Should he turn to the evil school bureaucrats? What’s the next step? The bully started it . . now who gets to finish it?
See, if you had actually been around a school setting not in the 70s, you would know that the overwhelming majority of bullying is verbal and mental. They seek to assert that control before ever needing to even assert physical control.
“When I was a kid, it mattered who started it. Who was the aggressor? And in cases where it was unclear and the two boys just wouldn’t stop fighting, they would actually have them put boxing gloves on and settle it at the gym.”
Who started it? Right now, our culture warriors are telling us that it is the the gays that are bullying poor little culture warriors. And the results are evident from all the Christians that have resorted to committing suicide thanks to all the bullying. I don’t think you give a crap who started it.
In terms of settling it with boxing gloves – are we trying to determine who was the aggressor or are we trying to play “might makes right?”
“Now the question of “Who started it” has been made deliberately, malevolently irrelevant.”
Again, you’re in your 60s or 70s, who knows. Please shut up and don’t act like you know anything about how is school is run. Nobody gives equal status to the bullied and bullies. This is just anecdotal, conventional wisdom BS.
“And I can think of few things more malevolent than punishing a child for standing up to a bully.”
Well you’re a moron, because one obvious thing would be the enabling of bullies. Of course, this is something you, either sheepishly, or malevolently, do not even bother to touch on – why bullies bully and who enables them. You went to school at a time when schoolchildren caught something beside a Tiger by the toe, and Smear the queer was a fun game to play. Oh the good ol days right? Can’t have no school bureaucrats come and destroy our great culture!
“Beating the crap out of bullies is a service to mankind.”
I think so too, but like I said before, a lot of these bullies can hide behind the “just expressing my wholesome religious views.”
How many Republicans and Classical Warriors and Culture Warriors would need to be beaten to a pulp by Obama before the constant Muslim bullying stops?
“I don’t have kids, thank God.”
“me glad I don’t have children.”
What are you guys, pussies or something? Are ya’ll so insecure you don’t believe in your own ability to raise your kids right?
That was… interesting.
TheAJ,
Perhaps you’d care to reconsider your little rant, and try to produce a coherent argument instead of this disjointed mush that reads like it came off someone’s list of talking points.
To start with, no-one should be trusted with decision making power: anyone with such power should be watched by everyone affected by it because power corrupts and because people make mistakes. Whether or not they’re “too detached” as you claim is hardly at issue.
For seconds, your little hypothetical has played out many times in many places, and tends not to stop until that 9th grader gets himself some kind of training and takes the bully down. He doesn’t even need to do any damage. The only other way that one ends is when the bully leaves the school – although not necessarily if the bully is unemployed and likes to hang around the school area.
Settling it with boxing gloves is a reasonable option when both sides are more or less the same age and strength. It’s certainly better than punishing the bullied kid for fighting back.
Your crack about “culture warriors” is totally insane on this site. In case you’d failed to notice, Classical Values is not “conservative”, and certainly not “social-conservative”. They don’t support “smear the queer” OR “smack the socon”.
Oh, and the notion that bullies are misunderstood fragile flowers with poor self-esteem has been thoroughly busted by multiple psychological studies. Google it. Bullies are almost all overly entitled and use convenient targets to keep their hangers on hanging on.
Now, if you’d care to rephrase your objections in a polite fashion, without calling your host a moron because you disagree with his conclusions, you might get a bit of respect.
Failing that, well, feel free to continue to make an ass of yourself. The rest of us can use the laugh.
Thanks!
I just posted a link at a blog. I’ll spread it around some more.
And AJ. My own dad thought I was a homo for a number of years because I was very nerdy (back when that was uncool) and girls didn’t go for me. Until I far exceeded his “score”. Some years later.
Dad was a Golden Gloves boxer. Was I supposed to take a shot at him?
The real problem as Eric points out is the school system.
I posted the link here:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/30/eric-holder-sends-cbs-blank-pages-fast-and-furious/#comment-108395
The AJ,
What world have you been living in? Obviously, not this one. Sorry, but you don’t have a clue. Zero tolerance in schools has resulted in giving exactly the same standing to bullies that it does to victims. No, let me correct that. It gives bullies better standing because, when the poor kid who has been bullied for ages finally has enough and either talks back or pushes back, that is the kid to get in trouble.
That same zero tolerance policy enables bullies because they know the “good” kids won’t stand up to them because they don’t want to get in trouble. Even if the kid being bullied does want to and takes it off school grounds, a lot of districts will still stick it to the kid just trying to protect himself. Don’t believe me, google it. There are any number of situations where kids have gotten into fighting off campus. Same with drinking or doing other activities off-campus that should be under the auspices of parents, not administrators.
As for your second posted comment, I call troll. There’s no other reasonable explanation for the last part of that comment. But then, it’s obvious you are either too stupid to read what Eric wrote — and what the others wrote in comment — or you are a paid shill, going to blogs just to stir up trouble. Just as obvious is the fact you have no idea what values CV stands for. So, before folks decide to really start shredding you, go away.
Having taught two sons as I was taught by a “man” . . .
If I start the fight, I’ll get a whupping at home. If I didn’t start it, but didn’t fight back, I’ll get a whupping at home.
And it is precisely the same for me right now. The pussifed culture we have become is evident for all to see.
Touch me, my wife, or my own, and I will go very radical Irish on whomever. My ancestors painted their naked bodies blue and chased the Romans the hell out of Ireland.
The remnants of that remain in my genes, thankfully!
“To start with, no-one should be trusted with decision making power: anyone with such power should be watched by everyone affected by it because power corrupts and because people make mistakes. Whether or not they’re “too detached” as you claim is hardly at issue.”
This is fair.
“For seconds, your little hypothetical has played out many times in many places, and tends not to stop until that 9th grader gets himself some kind of training and takes the bully down. He doesn’t even need to do any damage. The only other way that one ends is when the bully leaves the school – although not necessarily if the bully is unemployed and likes to hang around the school area.”
Well great, so the only way to take down a bully is to fight back, and defeat the bully. Forget the fact that very few people can win a 1 v 6, forget that fact that not every can be Nadin Khourry and get a DeSean Jackson to watch their back. Realistically, you seem to agree that fighting back does not really work.
“Settling it with boxing gloves is a reasonable option when both sides are more or less the same age and strength. It’s certainly better than punishing the bullied kid for fighting back.”
Again, if the bully wins this, has justice prevailed? Assuming both sides are more or less the same age or strength is a HUGE assumption.
“Your crack about “culture warriors” is totally insane on this site. In case you’d failed to notice, Classical Values is not “conservative”, and certainly not “social-conservative”. They don’t support “smear the queer” OR “smack the socon”. ”
Hmm? I’m not the one who posted the “back in my day” remarks. That was the OP. Whats wrong with pointing out some other great facets of living back in the day?
“Oh, and the notion that bullies are misunderstood fragile flowers with poor self-esteem has been thoroughly busted by multiple psychological studies. Google it. Bullies are almost all overly entitled and use convenient targets to keep their hangers on hanging on”
Did I ever say they were? In fact I pointed out that bullying occurs through covenient targeting, hence the reason why victims are younger, smaller, more shy. Victims are not less likely to fight back because they are weak, they are less likely to fight back because the bully deliberate stacks the odds in his favor – either leveraging his size, strength in numbers, intelligence, or anything else at his disposal. You admit yourself that bullies don’t even pick on people their own size, and the you suggest that the best method of resolution is have them duke it out, assuming they are of even strength? And I’m wrong to call you a moron on this?
“Now, if you’d care to rephrase your objections in a polite fashion, without calling your host a moron because you disagree with his conclusions, you might get a bit of respect.”
Earning respect on the internet? Who cares? The conclusions are moronic, offensive and disgusting. Its attempt to misplace blame of a societal ill on “educrats” through only conjecture.
“Failing that, well, feel free to continue to make an ass of yourself. The rest of us can use the laugh.”
Hey, on the internet somewhere, some guy named AJ gave some guy named Kate a good laugh. Whats not to like?
“And AJ. My own dad thought I was a homo for a number of years because I was very nerdy (back when that was uncool) and girls didn’t go for me. Until I far exceeded his “score”. Some years later.”
Okay . . what’s the point here. Would you say you were “bullied” or not? There’s a difference between someone thinking one thing and someone harassing you over it.
“Dad was a Golden Gloves boxer. Was I supposed to take a shot at him?”
I don’t know how much you were bullied, but isn’t that the point here? That we don’t know the appropriate response, and that violence isn’t exactly an end-all solution, like zero-tolerance? What if the bully is a linebacker, does Eric expect the computer nerd to put up his dukes?
“The real problem as Eric points out is the school system.”
I think this is a convenient way to deflect blame and responsibility. So are you blaming your dad’s actions on the school system? Why did his pre-zero tolerance schooling fail him?
“Would you say you were “bullied” or not? There’s a difference between someone thinking one thing and someone harassing you over it.”
Beat badly. I still have PTSD remnants to this day.
I got my dad to apologize for years until I forgave him and we reconciled. Bless him.
And why was he that way? He got it worse from his mom.
My kids? I never laid a hand on them. I found other ways.
“What world have you been living in? Obviously, not this one. Sorry, but you don’t have a clue. Zero tolerance in schools has resulted in giving exactly the same standing to bullies that it does to victims. No, let me correct that. It gives bullies better standing because, when the poor kid who has been bullied for ages finally has enough and either talks back or pushes back, that is the kid to get in trouble.”
“That same zero tolerance policy enables bullies because they know the “good” kids won’t stand up to them because they don’t want to get in trouble.”
See you are just incorrect here. “Good” kids don’t stand up because they don’t have the power to. The Czechs didn’t fail to stand up to the Germans because they didn’t want to get in trouble. They failed because they simply didn’t have enough power. Bullies rarely pick on someone their own size, which is why, for the 12th time, I say that “settling it with some boxing gloves” is moronic.
“Even if the kid being bullied does want to and takes it off school grounds, a lot of districts will still stick it to the kid just trying to protect himself.”
The last thing bullied kids want to do is deal with off school grounds. There is a reason why districts will stick it to a kid that takes it off grounds, and that is because it could have been an assault, etc or something like that. You get to be a Monady morning quarter, but for the school, how do they know it wasn’t just an assault? How do they know if he was bullied or not? Where do we draw the line between what amount of fighting back we’ll tolerate for a given amount of bullying. Like I said, if Obamas been called a Kenyan Muslim two hundred times, can he pick up a baseball bat now?
“Don’t believe me, google it.”
Hey its on the google!
“There are any number of situations where kids have gotten into fighting off campus. Same with drinking or doing other activities off-campus that should be under the auspices of parents, not administrators.”
Blame parents for Zero-Tolerance. I think zero tolerance is a failure but its a monster of our own making, a response to the stubborn demands on suburban parents. Parents don’t want their awesome kids going to school with other parent’s crappy kids.
“As for your second posted comment, I call troll. There’s no other reasonable explanation for the last part of that comment. But then, it’s obvious you are either too stupid to read what Eric wrote — and what the others wrote in comment — or you are a paid shill, going to blogs just to stir up trouble. Just as obvious is the fact you have no idea what values CV stands for. So, before folks decide to really start shredding you, go away.”
I apologize for the trolling. I read a number of blogs that I don’t ever comment on, but the fact that Eric decided to relate the Trayvon case with bullying and stand your ground is absolutely disgusting. And for him to discuss why bullying occurs and failing to even mention the people who enable and turn a blind eye to bullying, is inexcusable.
TheAJ,
You said: “Good” kids don’t stand up because they don’t have the power to.
Bullshit. Good kids usually don’t stand up to bullies because they are all too aware of what will happen if they do and they don’t want to screw their chances of getting into the college of their choice.
Comparing a kid being bullied in school to the Czechs falling in 1968 is so much crap. The Czechs fell because they had ineffectual leadership, no organization AND because the Soviets rolled in during the middle of the night. Apples and oranges and then more.
As for blaming parents for zero tolerance, only to a degree. But where did the impetus for it come from? From administrators who didn’t want to have to deal with a problem, especially if that problem might revolve around a star athlete. As for this parent — no, you don’t get to call me a pussy and you really do owe Eric and the others an apology — I told my kid never to start a fight but to damn sure finish it. Sorry, I’ve taught in the public schools, I know what goes on in the hallways and on the playgrounds and I did not want my son to be a victim.
As for your comment about suburban parents not wanting their kids going to school with crappy kids and that’s why we have zero tolerance, I again call bull. For one, I’m a suburban parent who sent my son to an inner city school. For another, most parents — affluent, middle class or not — don’t want their kids punished for standing up for themselves. No, this is all about administrators taking what they see is the easiest way to discipline. If there’s zero tolerance, you don’t have to worry about who was in the wrong. You just punish everyone who did or said something in violation of the rules. There is no sliding scale of culpability.
Finally, you may not agree with what Eric said, and that’s your right. But that doesn’t give you the right to come in an throw aspersions on him or anyone else who might not have kids. You don’t know their circumstances. That is what is inexcusable.
TheAJ,
“Bullshit. Good kids usually don’t stand up to bullies because they are all too aware of what will happen if they do and they don’t want to screw their chances of getting into the college of their choice.”
“Google it.” Google Nadin Khourry. Youtube the video of the girl invited over to a house before being assaulted by half a fozen girls. How would they have fought back? Some sort of guerilla assault tactics? Are gay students so scared of bureaucrats that they would rather kill themselves instead of risk their college admission chances by fighting back. What is this, some kind of a joke?
“Comparing a kid being bullied in school to the Czechs falling in 1968 is so much crap. The Czechs fell because they had ineffectual leadership, no organization AND because the Soviets rolled in during the middle of the night. Apples and oranges and then more.”
I wasn’t aware that the Germans invaded Czechoslavakia in the 60s. I could have sworn it occured 30 years prior.
“As for blaming parents for zero tolerance, only to a degree. But where did the impetus for it come from? From administrators who didn’t want to have to deal with a problem, especially if that problem might revolve around a star athlete.
Please, most bullies are dumbasses, and typically not the star athlete. This is not Saved by the bell, Amanda. Punk rockers, goths, nerds, jocks, cheerleaders all bully. People of all stripes get bullied.
“As for this parent — no, you don’t get to call me a pussy and you really do owe Eric and the others an apology — I told my kid never to start a fight but to damn sure finish it. ”
I never called you a pussy. Please, learn to read. As far as your advice to your child – okay, good for you? You don’t think you’re engaging in some unique form of parenting here do you?
“Sorry, I’ve taught in the public schools, I know what goes on in the hallways and on the playgrounds and I did not want my son to be a victim.”
I’m sure you have!
As for your comment about suburban parents not wanting their kids going to school with crappy kids and that’s why we have zero tolerance, I again call bull. For one, I’m a suburban parent who sent my son to an inner city school.
Well thank goodness for exceptions that prove the rule.
“For another, most parents — affluent, middle class or not — don’t want their kids punished for standing up for themselves. No, this is all about administrators taking what they see is the easiest way to discipline. If there’s zero tolerance, you don’t have to worry about who was in the wrong.”
Again, why can’t you tell me where you draw the line on the appropriate response to levels of bullying? Does a good kick to the family jewels offset 3 weeks of Facebook harassment? How does the school take responsibility for the Facebook harassment and what can they do here? Is slapping a girl who stole your boyfriend “finishing” the fight? It just so happens that there are legal limitations to physical confrontation, while there are not as strict with verbal confrontation. I wonder if Trayvon thought he was finishing the fight against the bully Zimmerman?
“You just punish everyone who did or said something in violation of the rules. There is no sliding scale of culpability.”
School doesn’t want to deal with a lawsuit. Like I said, most bullying us under the table and . . well, legal. The reaction, for example, a punch, however well deserved, is not legal under our current legal framework. Don’t blame the schools for having to operate under that framework.
“Finally, you may not agree with what Eric said, and that’s your right. But that doesn’t give you the right to come in an throw aspersions on him or anyone else who might not have kids. You don’t know their circumstances. That is what is inexcusable.”
Sorry, one that is able to cast aspersions shouldn’t have a problem receiving them. Don’t give if you can’t take. Eric and I are on the same side of the Zimmerman debate, but in the end, NEITHER ONE OF US KNOWS trayvon martin’s circumstances, but it did not stop him from insinuating that Travon was a type of bully here. It didn’t stop him from throwing the blame of societal problems onto schoolteachers and principals.
The AJ,
Wow. That’s some good stuff you’re one. Care to share? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone’s grammar and writing style wander around so much in the space of a single day without the help of serious pharmaceuticals.
Now, on to some of your comments: “if the bully wins has justice prevailed?”
Obviously it hasn’t. Neither has it prevailed when the bully takes the sub-critical harassment path until the target explodes and is punished for it. So many schools are pulling the knee-jerk “zero tolerance” nonsense instead of knowing something about the kids (not helped by huge schools with ridiculously overloaded administrator to teacher ratios) and – horrors! – a little preventive maintenance.
“Well great, so the only way to take down a bully is to fight back, and defeat the bully. ”
Now here is a nice case of drawing false conclusions. Note that I did not mention the third option – the one that schools are flatly refusing to implement. Bullies who are taught while young that bullying gets an unpleasant result tend to stop. That means that the third grade kid picking on the first grader gets punished by whatever means he’s capable of understanding. If he’s one of those unfortunates who can only understand greater force, then greater force is needed. More than that, though, boy culture often respects the kid who gives as good as he gets, even if he loses.
Since you seem to want to deliberately misconstrue things here, I am not talking about the level of treatment that goes beyond bullying to torture. The only way to stop that is to remove the culprit or culprits (and by the way, it’s much, much worse when the culprits are female). Usually once someone has escalated to that, they’re not going to reform themselves.
That said, the milder jostling for status within the group can often be settled (among boys – girl dynamics are very different) by the victim fighting back and giving a good account of himself.
What precisely is moronic about either observing this fact or observing that schools appear to be trying to prevent anyone moving from their assigned social status by challenging bullies? What is moronic about the presumption that this is symptomatic of a wider desire among a certain segment of the would-be-elites that everyone else accept their (lower) status without quibbling?
It’s a well known fact that the public school system in the USA was established to turn out good little factory workers. Why do you find it so hard to believe that those who want to control others would use the system to indoctrinate children?
I weep for the race of sissies we’ve become.
What’s worse than death, or a serious beating?
Living afraid.
We have lost that spirit.
Screw school, screw the establishment, screw polite society.
I say you if trade your freedom for security, you deserve neither. So did ‘The Ben’
I didn’t have kids because I thought I would be a rotten Father. Seeing how a lot of folks raise their kids make me second guess that decision.
To the non-honorable TheAJ Lord of ever shifting arguments and Seneschal of inane claims,
I will try to answer what I view as your arguments, in order.
First, you seem to be telling us most bullying is psychological and a verbal answer suffices. If that were true, you would already have quit your attempts at bullying in this blog.
Second — yes, of course only smaller children are bullied… in Saturday morning cartoons. The law of averages dictates that most bullies, and their victims are the same size, with the one or two outliers who aren’t so much mentally or verbally bullying as masters of force. This point, btw, is a contradiction of your first thesis. (I’m all for pot legalization, but put down the pipe before you type is a rule to observe, okay?)
Third — Are you engaging in moral mathematics of the Sinclair variety? Dear sir, the point of equality under the law is equality under the law — NOT “how does this affect so and so” BECAUSE THAT’S NEITHER MORAL NOR MATHEMATICS. (Equality under the law does not mean equality of outcome. We’re not French. The ultimate morality is ALWAYS the right of self defense — more on that later.)
Fourth — NO ONE IS SAYING kids are more afraid of fighting bullies more than they are of committing suicide. You make that argument, and that argument is insane. On the other hand, you are telling those kids — by telling them they can’t defend themselves — that their life is worth nothing.
Okay, self defense is absolutely being cut down in schools, where we were told things like “violence never solved anything.” (Tell it to the city father’s of Carthage, per Robert A. Heinlein.)
BUT more importantly, undermining the right to self defense is undermining the right to exist, unless by fiat of the authorities. What the schools are saying, when they punish bullies and non-bullies alike (and mostly in my experience they punish those who fight back, NOT the bullies because given a sufficiently psychotic bully, the school is afraid of them. I HAVE experienced this throughout my kids’ education.) is that your existence and peace cannot be protected by you but only by the authorities. THIS is the end of civilized society. When you only exist at the sufferance of authorities you’re in communism… or feudalism. In either case, you’re nowhere where an individual can thrive.
Also, when you babble about bullies goading people to answer physically to get them in trouble — are you high? Oh, silly me. Of course you are — bullies have changed since your days. NOW if you answer back with insults, the bullies run to the administration. Bullies are loud and often obnoxious. The administrators will come down on the good kids.
As for your “Half a fozen girls” those who have no ability with the language should never play grammar nazis.
This is, by the way, my only comment to you — I will answer when you pick an argument and stick to it, instead of slithering around like a greased snake at the ice-capades.
PUT DOWN THE HASH PIPE THEN TYPE.
AJ is committing two logical fallacies:
(1) the black-or-white fallacy: The premise of AJ’s rant is that the only alternatives are never fighting back when assaulted vs. always fighting when offended or provoked.
(2) allowing people to fight back when assaulted will lead to bullies using this as an excuse to assault. Therefore self-defense must not be allowed.
Considering the (lack of) quality of AJ’s reasoning–combined with lots of personal abuse–I estimate a 30% probability that AJ is a school administrator. 🙂
Silly AJ.
“This is, by the way, my only comment to you — I will answer when you pick an argument and stick to it, instead of slithering around like a greased snake”
Or maybe a worm.
“Now here is a nice case of drawing false conclusions. Note that I did not mention the third option – the one that schools are flatly refusing to implement. Bullies who are taught while young that bullying gets an unpleasant result tend to stop. That means that the third grade kid picking on the first grader gets punished by whatever means he’s capable of understanding. If he’s one of those unfortunates who can only understand greater force, then greater force is needed.”
Schools are not refusing to implement this. Governments and Family Value warriors are (because they are afraid of the school promoting a pro-gay agenda). I think we both agree that this is the best way to prevent and combat bullying. But it still doesn’t address what the “stand up for your self” crowd wants. What form of “standing up for yourself” is prohibited under zero tolerance? Literally standing down your bully? Talking shit back? Engaging in cyber warfare? The only alternative that is off the table is striking back.
“What precisely is moronic about either observing this fact or observing that schools appear to be trying to prevent anyone moving from their assigned social status by challenging bullies? What is moronic about the presumption that this is symptomatic of a wider desire among a certain segment of the would-be-elites that everyone else accept their (lower) status without quibbling?
It’s a well known fact that the public school system in the USA was established to turn out good little factory workers. Why do you find it so hard to believe that those who want to control others would use the system to indoctrinate children”
Its possible to believe anything. Can you provide evidence of this happening, rather than the reasoning of “it isn’t a stretch to . . .”
“To the non-honorable TheAJ Lord of ever shifting arguments and Seneschal of inane claims,”
The fuck?
“First, you seem to be telling us most bullying is psychological and a verbal answer suffices. If that were true, you would already have quit your attempts at bullying in this blog.”
Yes, absolutely, I believe bullying is a form of pyschological warfare. It is a method of asserting dominance and control. Is this crazy think?
“Second — yes, of course only smaller children are bullied… in Saturday morning cartoons. The law of averages dictates that most bullies, and their victims are the same size, with the one or two outliers who aren’t so much mentally or verbally bullying as masters of force. This point, btw, is a contradiction of your first thesis. ”
Wait, so you deny that bullies do not seek out victims that they can easily . . . bully? I don’t see how the law of averages applies here. You think bullying is random?
“Third — Are you engaging in moral mathematics of the Sinclair variety? Dear sir, the point of equality under the law is equality under the law — NOT “how does this affect so and so” BECAUSE THAT’S NEITHER MORAL NOR MATHEMATICS. (Equality under the law does not mean equality of outcome. We’re not French. The ultimate morality is ALWAYS the right of self defense — more on that later.)”
The fuck?
“Fourth — NO ONE IS SAYING kids are more afraid of fighting bullies more than they are of committing suicide. You make that argument, and that argument is insane. On the other hand, you are telling those kids — by telling them they can’t defend themselves — that their life is worth nothing.”
Eh? I said they their life is worth nothing? The argument was made that victims would choose not to fight back, because they are afraid of the consequences – not getting into college, etc. I found that argument to be ridiculous by noting that a large number of gay students have just committed suicide rather than fighting back. This indicates to me that the mental anguish and pyschological impact clouds the decision-making process more than questions of “am I going to get into college?”
“Okay, self defense is absolutely being cut down in schools, where we were told things like “violence never solved anything.” (Tell it to the city father’s of Carthage, per Robert A. Heinlein.)”
This sounds like a strawman. I mean, I can see someone using the sort of platitude for the sake of cuteness, sort of like unnecessarily quoting Heinlein, but again, students are being indoctrinated with that? Because you said so? I think schools are generally trying to avoid violence disrupting, which is generally a good thing, one of the main reasons being that the majority of violence is between gang members or boys and girls on two ends of a love triangle.
“BUT more importantly, undermining the right to self defense is undermining the right to exist, unless by fiat of the authorities. What the schools are saying, when they punish bullies and non-bullies alike (and mostly in my experience they punish those who fight back, NOT the bullies because given a sufficiently psychotic bully, the school is afraid of them. I HAVE experienced this throughout my kids’ education.) ”
Yes, I’m sure that was your experience. I’m sure it was.
“THIS is the end of civilized society. When you only exist at the sufferance of authorities you’re in communism… or feudalism.”
Who smoked up all my hash?
“Also, when you babble about bullies goading people to answer physically to get them in trouble — are you high? Oh, silly me. Of course you are — bullies have changed since your days. NOW if you answer back with insults, the bullies run to the administration. Bullies are loud and often obnoxious. The administrators will come down on the good kids.”
My days? Your days, and Eric’s . . . are long gone. In fact you were just talking about your kids.
“As for your “Half a fozen girls” those who have no ability with the language should never play grammar nazis.”
I played grammar nazi? When?
“This is, by the way, my only comment to you — I will answer when you pick an argument and stick to it, instead of slithering around like a greased snake at the ice-capades.”
See ya Sarah!
(1) the black-or-white fallacy: The premise of AJ’s rant is that the only alternatives are never fighting back when assaulted vs. always fighting when offended or provoked.
Actually, I’m trying to figure out what the gray area is. What the alternatives are. My requests for someone to provide me with alternative responses have been met with . . . nothing. If “standing your ground” is being banned from schools, then why can’t someone listen actions that “stand ground” and then we can determine whether or not schools have disallowed it.
“(2) allowing people to fight back when assaulted will lead to bullies using this as an excuse to assault. Therefore self-defense must not be allowed.”
Actually, my argument is, put yourself in the place of a school administrator or a teacher. If you see two kids going at it, what do you do? How do you know who is the bully and who is the victim? How do you gather evidence from 16 year old kids locked in popularity wars? How do you know an entire class hasn’t turned against the victim, and might accuse her of being the bully? (This happened with Nadin Khourry)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDc05MpfpQ4
What if you saw Bully #1 and Victim #1 fighting, and then you try to ask other students what happened, you end up talking to Bullies #3,4 and 6. Now what?
What if you have to deal with this every day? How many distractions do you let get in the way of running a school? How should schools allow victims to utilize self-defense? What more should they do? Is it too much to ask for you to think of the consequences?
Or is it just easier to identify a) problem. Notice that a) exists while B) the school system, exists. Conclude that (B) causes (A) to happen.
Again, why are we so focused on the self-defense part . . Kate was the only commenter to hint at the fact that . . . make schools should do more to ingrain kids with the notion that bullying is not allowed?
“This is, by the way, my only comment to you — I will answer when you pick an argument and stick to it, instead of slithering around like a greased snake”
Or maybe a worm.”
The Worm, Dennis Rodman, was one of the most effective bullies in the NBA. Google Frank Brickowski if you want a 101 on how solid bullying techniques.
Simon:
I got my dad to apologize for years until I forgave him and we reconciled. Bless him.
And why was he that way? He got it worse from his mom. My kids? I never laid a hand on them. I found other ways.
Looks like all this happened independent of the school system.
“The fuck?”
I bet TheAJ says that every time he’s momentarily self-aware and actually hears the swooshing sound that clearly expressed, well-thought-out ideas make as they fly right over his head.
This is my last post on this thread because, duh, TheAJ isn’t worth any more time. First, I did misread which invasion he was so idiotically using to make his point about bullying, but my point still stands. Using the invasion of one country by another as a means to prove your point about bullying is taking apples and oranges to the extreme. As for the rest of it, no matter what any of us say, he’s going to come back and reorder, change and dance his way around so he can keep trying to show how we are all wrong. I called troll. I still call troll and say to quit feeding him. It’s obvious he’s getting off on the attention and, I’m beginning to think, is probably one of the paid trolls. So, in case he is, let’s quit putting money in his pockets.
“First, I did misread which invasion he was so idiotically using to make his point about bullying, but my point still stands. Using the invasion of one country by another as a means to prove your point about bullying is taking apples and oranges to the extreme.”
Amanda,
Then criticize the OP.
“Who started it matters. Damn it, it matters a lot. Who attacked whom is such a basic principle that it goes to the heart of what we call civilization. The civilized world was outraged when Hitler invaded Poland and France. History is replete with example after example. Unless the invaded countries were aggressors in the first place, invaders are usually seen as the bad guys.”
Wow, rarely have I seen such determination from a single commenter. Sometimes I enjoy my comments policy.
I will vouch for this. I’ve been bullied in school many times before, some of them physically. The teacher couldn’t take care of it, and when you finally get the courage to stand up for yourself, you always back out of it because the school officials will tear you a new one, self defense or not. This was especially hard for me, because I was bigger than most of these kids, so I basically had to back down and continued to be bullied for the sake of one of the stupidest ideologies that ive ever heard of. Now that is what I can’t stand.
[…] what I said more than a year ago: Who started it? and Who was the aggressor? — these questions lie at the essence of self defense. […]