I believe that we should be able to stand up for our selves in the form of self-defense, but you guys need to take into consideration that while just because some of you ended your bullying problems by giving the bully a taste of his own medicine, not everyone else can.
Take note that some people who are bullied may be physically weak, or just too shy. Remember that not everyone is you. Not everyone can take their bully down, and even if they could, what's stopping the bully from getting his "friends" to lay a beating on the bullied child? The kid fighting back might even get hospitalized, just because the bully is stronger.
Please, take this into consideration next time you say, "Man up and fight back."
You are speaking of the exact same things that Hitler was talking about, with the 'getting rid of the weak.' Hitler gave out the orders to kill 6 million Jews and 6 million gypsies, Chrisians, and Muslims. Don't ever say things of that nature again.
Oh, and by the way, I don't think you feel that great about being compared to Hitler, so in your opinion, that means you are weak.
^ This is a terrible argument with an incredibly tenuous link to the topic. At no point did he say we should actively wipe out people who are bullied. Whats more you cannot boil Hitler's doctrine down to such a simple view.
Okay, I see your point, I misworded it. He said that people who can't stand for bullying cannot contribute in the future. Hitler thought that Jews and all the other people he killed were not able to contribute, so they must die. He said the exact same thing about bullied people, except, of course, he didn't say he was going to kill them.
Now I want to ask you a question. Do you, honestly, think that bullying is the right thing to do?
And, do you think that people who cant take bullying just have to get over it and let it come, including if they are getting physically abused?
It's hard to agree.... I guess it sounds right to say that people should face real life and stand up for themselves. But at the same time, you can't people be driven by hurt, pain and suicidal thoughts throughout their days. But also, they would NOT allow bullying, since parents and teachers at school wouldnt just watch children attempt to hurt and kill each other. So thats my opinon.
You can't really say kids in school need to stand up for themselves since they get in trouble when they fight back.
It's all pointless. We'll never get along, we'll always fight, and when WE stand up for each ourselves we get in trouble. The best way to solve all this is just to ignore it and not give a ****.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I live on a Planet Called Omicron Persei 8, where I am constantly battling sexual endeavors with the alien race that lives here.
If someone becomes miserable because they are bullied then they need to wake the **** up and realize they shouldn't be babies about it.
EDIT: Although I'm not agreeing with bullying, I also don't agree with these little wimps being babied.
Being wimps? Babies? This has nothing to do with it.
If a scrawny kid is being beat up by a 200-pound 6' 0" beast of a kid, then he can't just "wake up and stop being a baby."
We, as people, should stick together in this fashion. Protecting the weak from the abusive.
By your logic, WWII should never have happened. The people in concentration camps should have just stopped being babies and took their torture "like a man."
It may sound like a stretch, but apathy is apathy.
This thread depresses me. The sheer failure to show compassion by many of the posters I think demonstrates part of the problem. There are relatively few people here who are actively claiming bullying is a good thing, but there are quite a few who want to claim it's just something you have to learn to deal with and that attempting to get rid of it is a bad idea. But this apathy toward the suffering of the bullied ironically seems to come as a result of these people learning to deal with being bullied by being apathetic. It's a self-perpetuating symptom.
Sure, you can grow a thick skin and desenstize yourself to the pain of being bullied or tormented by your peers, but you lose something along the way. It creates an apathy that leads to this defeatist attitude of "learn to suck it up you wimp" which helps no one.
I believe in improving the well-being of everyone, and it seems clear to me that a person who doesn't have to experience being bullied is going to be better off than one who does. It is important for people to learn how to effectively deal with adversity, but the school of thought that the best way to do this is expose them to severe forms of that adversity and letting them figure it out on their own is not really the best way to go here.
I myself experienced what is probably mild bullying in my youth. I was a bit of a loner in school and an easy target. I was tall but non-violent. I didn't really stand up for myself. I prefered to avoid conflict. I learned to deal with it but I was worse off for the lesson. Because of the common bully tactic to feign kindness to lure you into a psychological trap to torment you, I quickly learned to doubt the sincerity of the kindness of others. This was a problem for me until I finally overcame it as you can well imagine.
This attitude of just learning to deal with it teaches people to build up a way of interacting with other people that is more defensive and stand-offish. I don't think this is healthy for the person or for society. "Deal with it" is not anywhere near the optimal way of solving this problem.
So, don't give a **** about people's opinions and stop being a ****ing pansy?
If it REALLY comes to worst, learn some kind of self defense.
You obviously have not been verbally tormented before. I don't think you would have the same attitude if one day you went to school, and a group of kids would repeatable bully you verbally. At first you might brush it off, but if it started to be a everyday thing it would get to you in some way or another. Learn about sympathy bro.
You came to this conclusion, decided that more people should think this, wrote the post, and got rep from 10 people.
Alright. Here we go.
First of all, as I recall from Wikipedia:
The term 'survival of the fittest' is not principally used by modern biologists as the term does not convey the meaning of natural selection properly.
Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a basis in genetics.
'Survival of the fittest' is counterfactual for two important reasons.:
Survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction.
Fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture.
In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. 'Fitness' does not refer to whether an individual is bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective terms.
It refers to a difference in the rate of reproduction from one generation to the next.
An interpretation of the phrase 'survival of the fittest' to mean 'only the fittest creatures will prevail' is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution.
This is often falliciously used by 'Social Darwinists'.
Any individual creature which succeeds in reproducing itself is 'fit' and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the 'best' ones.
A more accurate characterization of evolution/adaptation would be 'survival of the fit enough'.
So your philosophy is not backed by nature, Charles Darwin or indeed the creator of the term, Herbert Spencer.
If anything, bullying is detrimental to evolution/adaptation as it can cause normally fit specimens to kill themselves for the mere reason of psychological stress. Not to mention that bullies tend to be rather oafish and large, rather than the classic 'nerd' body build.
Therefore, if we say bullying is a gene, the continued traumatization and caused-suicides of those without the bullying gene will be weeded out and eradicated under your doctrine.
All that will be left shall be inelegant, ungainly, abusive fools who will lead humanity down a path of infighting, miltaristic governments, and fried food.
Then again, bullying is usually caused by things in the home. It isn't necessarily a gene.
All this evolution basis is needless.
When one is bullied, one tends to bully others. This is why abused children tend to bully other children.
As a basis in psychology, it's a show of dominance.
Therefore if every bullied soul does indeed take your advice and 'suck it up' they'll become just like the original bully. It's as if they're the Borg.
Thus, the scenario described in the evolution scenario is still very plausible, unless you take care in keeping kids from abusing each other.
Have you noticed that bullies generally have a much lower level of intelligence than the people they bully. If we listened to you then everybody in power and control would be a complete nub head with nothing between heir ears and the world would essentially collapse on itself what with the technology and weapons they would be in charge of.
I assume you are a bully yourself and you are trying to justify your wrongful actions...
Bullies should be arrested for their violence and sued for subtracting from a student's learning experience.
There is no such thing as an invalid opinion, and while OP's is a bit extreme, he is still supporting his point with information. I'm not saying I agree with it, because I don't, but it's not invalid.
Being wimps? Babies? This has nothing to do with it.
If a scrawny kid is being beat up by a 200-pound 6' 0" beast of a kid, then he can't just "wake up and stop being a baby."
This is exactly my point I said earlier, but no one seemed to notice. Not everyone can stand up for themselves. Go beat up Stephen Hawking and see if he can resist. (Spoiler: He can't. By the OP's logic, since Hawking would be unable to 'toughen up' and resist the attack, he's a worthless human being and deserves to die because 'survival of the fittest!')
All I hate is the "It takes two to start a fight"
IT DOES NOT.
If someone's trying to get in a fight with me, I should have the right to hit the living **** out of them all I want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not that I hate you, it's just that, if you were on fire and I had water... I would drink it
No bullies=Happier People
Take note that some people who are bullied may be physically weak, or just too shy. Remember that not everyone is you. Not everyone can take their bully down, and even if they could, what's stopping the bully from getting his "friends" to lay a beating on the bullied child? The kid fighting back might even get hospitalized, just because the bully is stronger.
Please, take this into consideration next time you say, "Man up and fight back."
Oh, and by the way, I don't think you feel that great about being compared to Hitler, so in your opinion, that means you are weak.
Okay, I see your point, I misworded it. He said that people who can't stand for bullying cannot contribute in the future. Hitler thought that Jews and all the other people he killed were not able to contribute, so they must die. He said the exact same thing about bullied people, except, of course, he didn't say he was going to kill them.
Now I want to ask you a question. Do you, honestly, think that bullying is the right thing to do?
And, do you think that people who cant take bullying just have to get over it and let it come, including if they are getting physically abused?
That's how the columbine killers thought, and look what happened.
My Youtube!
It's all pointless. We'll never get along, we'll always fight, and when WE stand up for each ourselves we get in trouble. The best way to solve all this is just to ignore it and not give a ****.
Whoa, who took out the defib on Travis?
OP: I actually agree with you.
If people can't though it out, than they shouldn't be here.
Being wimps? Babies? This has nothing to do with it.
If a scrawny kid is being beat up by a 200-pound 6' 0" beast of a kid, then he can't just "wake up and stop being a baby."
We, as people, should stick together in this fashion. Protecting the weak from the abusive.
By your logic, WWII should never have happened. The people in concentration camps should have just stopped being babies and took their torture "like a man."
It may sound like a stretch, but apathy is apathy.
Sure, you can grow a thick skin and desenstize yourself to the pain of being bullied or tormented by your peers, but you lose something along the way. It creates an apathy that leads to this defeatist attitude of "learn to suck it up you wimp" which helps no one.
I believe in improving the well-being of everyone, and it seems clear to me that a person who doesn't have to experience being bullied is going to be better off than one who does. It is important for people to learn how to effectively deal with adversity, but the school of thought that the best way to do this is expose them to severe forms of that adversity and letting them figure it out on their own is not really the best way to go here.
I myself experienced what is probably mild bullying in my youth. I was a bit of a loner in school and an easy target. I was tall but non-violent. I didn't really stand up for myself. I prefered to avoid conflict. I learned to deal with it but I was worse off for the lesson. Because of the common bully tactic to feign kindness to lure you into a psychological trap to torment you, I quickly learned to doubt the sincerity of the kindness of others. This was a problem for me until I finally overcame it as you can well imagine.
This attitude of just learning to deal with it teaches people to build up a way of interacting with other people that is more defensive and stand-offish. I don't think this is healthy for the person or for society. "Deal with it" is not anywhere near the optimal way of solving this problem.
You obviously have not been verbally tormented before. I don't think you would have the same attitude if one day you went to school, and a group of kids would repeatable bully you verbally. At first you might brush it off, but if it started to be a everyday thing it would get to you in some way or another. Learn about sympathy bro.
You came to this conclusion, decided that more people should think this, wrote the post, and got rep from 10 people.
Alright. Here we go.
First of all, as I recall from Wikipedia:
The term 'survival of the fittest' is not principally used by modern biologists as the term does not convey the meaning of natural selection properly.
Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a basis in genetics.
'Survival of the fittest' is counterfactual for two important reasons.:
It refers to a difference in the rate of reproduction from one generation to the next.
An interpretation of the phrase 'survival of the fittest' to mean 'only the fittest creatures will prevail' is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution.
This is often falliciously used by 'Social Darwinists'.
Any individual creature which succeeds in reproducing itself is 'fit' and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the 'best' ones.
A more accurate characterization of evolution/adaptation would be 'survival of the fit enough'.
So your philosophy is not backed by nature, Charles Darwin or indeed the creator of the term, Herbert Spencer.
If anything, bullying is detrimental to evolution/adaptation as it can cause normally fit specimens to kill themselves for the mere reason of psychological stress. Not to mention that bullies tend to be rather oafish and large, rather than the classic 'nerd' body build.
Therefore, if we say bullying is a gene, the continued traumatization and caused-suicides of those without the bullying gene will be weeded out and eradicated under your doctrine.
All that will be left shall be inelegant, ungainly, abusive fools who will lead humanity down a path of infighting, miltaristic governments, and fried food.
Then again, bullying is usually caused by things in the home. It isn't necessarily a gene.
All this evolution basis is needless.
When one is bullied, one tends to bully others. This is why abused children tend to bully other children.
As a basis in psychology, it's a show of dominance.
Therefore if every bullied soul does indeed take your advice and 'suck it up' they'll become just like the original bully. It's as if they're the Borg.
Thus, the scenario described in the evolution scenario is still very plausible, unless you take care in keeping kids from abusing each other.
I assume you are a bully yourself and you are trying to justify your wrongful actions...
OP's opinion is invalid.
Bullies should be arrested for their violence and sued for subtracting from a student's learning experience.
There is no such thing as an invalid opinion, and while OP's is a bit extreme, he is still supporting his point with information. I'm not saying I agree with it, because I don't, but it's not invalid.
This is exactly my point I said earlier, but no one seemed to notice. Not everyone can stand up for themselves. Go beat up Stephen Hawking and see if he can resist. (Spoiler: He can't. By the OP's logic, since Hawking would be unable to 'toughen up' and resist the attack, he's a worthless human being and deserves to die because 'survival of the fittest!')
IT DOES NOT.
If someone's trying to get in a fight with me, I should have the right to hit the living **** out of them all I want.