• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The bullies win again[W710; 739]

wolfman24 said:
This is compassionless and wrong as well as offensive.
Click to expand...
No, it is not wrong.
She is responsible.
And saying so, is not lacking compassion.

And if a person is offended by speaking the truth of the matter, they are overly sensitive.



wolfman24 said:
Why don't you go tell her family that. I am sure they will be impressed.
Click to expand...
Puh-lease!
Your ridiculousness is noted.
Save it!





Appeal to emotion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also, this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

Appeal to consequences
Appeal to fear
Appeal to flattery
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Wishful thinking

Analytical assumptions
Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[1]

Unjustifiable
Conclusively, the appeal to emotion fallacy presents a perspective intended to be superior to reason. Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.[2][3][4]​

Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
 
DA60 said:
Whatever.

Anyone that thinks someone that molested a child for years bares ZERO moral responsibility if that child commits suicide because of the molesting; like you do; is someone who I could care less what they think. At least in this thread.

That you think that is just creepy to me.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

I could care less about the moral aspect of the case since we are dealing with legal punishments and human rights.

Sure it is wrong to inflict mental harm on another, but mental harms make no sense to be illegal.
 
Wiggen said:
Bullying may be a part of human nature, but so is violence. So what?
Click to expand...
So what?
It serves a natural process. That is what.


Wiggen said:
Sorry, anybody who thinks bullying someone to the point of suicide is just 'part of human nature' and therefore acceptable is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
iLOL
Is that what is being said?
Secondly; this "to the point of" is ridiculous. She took her own life. She was unstable and is responsible for it. No one else.
That we should not place blame on others for such is the point.


Wiggen said:
And I repeat, those who defend bullies and see nothing wrong with it were, in all probability, bullies themselves.
Click to expand...
And I say again that you are wrong.
I see more people who have been bullied speaking out in what you would call "defense of".
 
Henrin said:
I could care less about the moral aspect of the case since we are dealing with legal punishments and human rights.

Sure it is wrong to inflict mental harm on another, but mental harms make no sense to be illegal.
Click to expand...

Yes, attempting to make mental harms, thoughts, or ill wishes illegal would not only be stupid, but just an attempt at trying to stifle human emotion, and with trying to stifle human emotion, we would probably see even worse tendencies come out, as controlling authority tends to bring out the worst in people, as a natural tendency to rebel surfaces.
 
Henrin said:
I could care less about the moral aspect of the case since we are dealing with legal punishments and human rights.

Sure it is wrong to inflict mental harm on another, but mental harms make no sense to be illegal.
Click to expand...

What are you blathering about?

I said NOTHING about making 'mental harm' illegal.

I just wanted to see how morally bankrupt you were.

And the fact you think there is no moral responsibility to a child molestor who repeatedly rapes a child who later kills them self due to the constant rapes speaks volumes about you.


Have a nice day.
 
Legisilation on "bullying" when it takes the verbal form is difficult if not impossible. Even if it was possible it wouldn't take long before it would be bastardized to the point of repressing all kinds of speech which I hope most people don't want.

Why she was bullied is really the problem in my opinion. She was bullied because she felt shame about flashing her tits and a roll in hay. I suspect the shame she felt is probably what kept her from standing up for herself. She felt she deserved it. The fact that she felt she deserved it is what is a total load of bulls***. She was fourteen. A fourteen year old starting to have sexual feelings is the most natural thing in the world and nothing to be ashamed of. The absurd notion that "good girls" don't do that needs to be done away with once and for all.
 
DA60 said:
What are you blathering about? I said NOTHING about making 'mental harm' illegal. I just wanted to see how morally bankrupt you were. And the fact you think there is no moral responsibility to a child molestor who repeatedly rapes a child who later kills them self due to the constant rapes speaks volumes about you. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Reading though all of the posts on this thread, it's obvious that you're subtlely misinterpreting sentences, changing meanings and not understanding stated points of view, specifically so that you can create false opinions from other posters and then self-righteously attack them for the false opinions that you yourself created.

There's no point in that sort of infantile behavior.

Take your time and fully understand posts, read them several times if you have to and then state your honest opinion of the actual stated subject matter. Otherwise you create a dissolution into meaninglessness and cut off civil discourse.
 
When I was going through school, the teachers didn't really care about bullying. They just cared about disruptions. The bullies usually didn't get in trouble because they would harass people when the teachers weren't around. The only people who would get in trouble were those who stood up to the bullies.

Teachers did to start giving a damn. But that's true for more than just bullying. Too many teachers don't even want to do their jobs, period. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions, but that is becoming too much of the norm.
 
Ray410 said:
Reading though all of the posts on this thread, it's obvious that you're subtlely misinterpreting sentences, changing meanings and not understanding stated points of view, specifically so that you can create false opinions from other posters and then self-righteously attack them for the false opinions that you yourself created.

There's no point in that sort of infantile behavior.

Take your time and fully understand posts, read them several times if you have to and then state your honest opinion of the actual stated subject matter. Otherwise you create a dissolution into meaninglessness and cut off civil discourse.
Click to expand...

Okaaaaay.

I asked the guy a hypothetical question, he answered it and I am simply restating his answer.

Plus, I said nothing about making mental harm illegal.

So what you yourself are blabbing on about is totally beyond me.


But, I will ask you, do you think that a person who commits unspeakable acts of physical abuse to another person has zero moral responsibility if the person they abused kills themselves directly due to that physical abuse?
 
Henrin said:
Anyway...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm not exactly sure how anyone being honest can say the limits we are talking about here is actually constitutional.
Click to expand...

As DA60 pointed out, First Amendment freedoms do not extend to slander or blackmail. Nor does it extend to shouting "fire" in a theater. Similarly, the Second Amendment doesn't extend to the right to shoot somebody.

In other words, your rights extend as far as they don't harm somebody. I'm not sure of the difference between "I'm going to kill you," and "You should kill yourself" other than who does the killing.
 
rocket88 said:
As DA60 pointed out, First Amendment freedoms do not extend to slander or blackmail. Nor does it extend to shouting "fire" in a theater. Similarly, the Second Amendment doesn't extend to the right to shoot somebody.

In other words, your rights extend as far as they don't harm somebody. I'm not sure of the difference between "I'm going to kill you," and "You should kill yourself" other than who does the killing.
Click to expand...

That distinction is the difference between a threat and a suggestion. I am going to kill you ... puts control into the hand of someone who wishes malice, and the other puts the power to harm in a self-interested party... if you do not understand the distinction I will try better to clarify.
 
I don't want to legislate speech! I just got pissed when I read the awful BLAME GAME that was going on in this thread. The lack of compassion for a teenage girl who felt desperate enough to take her own life is just disgusting and pitiful. Blaming this one or that one is NOT helpful nor does it solve the problem. Is that REALLY what matters here? Who is to blame?
 
Schutzengel said:
That distinction is the difference between a threat and a suggestion. I am going to kill you ... puts control into the hand of someone who wishes malice, and the other puts the power to harm in a self-interested party... if you do not understand the distinction I will try better to clarify.
Click to expand...

I can understand the legal distinction, but perhaps laws that extend to suggesting self-harm be held in the same regard.

There is a case of somebody being convicted on advising people on suicide online.

Minnesota Man Assisted Internet Suicide - ABC News

The case is awaiting appeal, but as it stands now, the man is in prison for telling people to kill themselves and giving advice on how to do it.
 
Must be that time of season. I've heard of 3 suicides in the space of a week. Sorry but I have no sympathy for those that commit suicide. Particularly because of bullying. Medical conditions, fine. But bullying? Give me a break. I was bullied constantly in school. Being the smallest in class and always moving around (reticent because of it) tends to do that to a boy. I was constantly getting into fights, at least once a week. Guess what? I'm still here and have never had any psychological issues because of it.

Personally I blame it on societies current view, and mantra, of "everyone is a winner". Kids need to learn about failure and disappointment. That is probably why I survived. My parents never pulled that crap with me. I either succeeded or failed. There was no hedging or hawing about it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Must be that time of season. I've heard of 3 suicides in the space of a week. Sorry but I have no sympathy for those that commit suicide. Particularly because of bullying. Medical conditions, fine. But bullying? Give me a break. I was bullied constantly in school. Being the smallest in class and always moving around (reticent because of it) tends to do that to a boy. I was constantly getting into fights, at least once a week. Guess what? I'm still here and have never had any psychological issues because of it.

Personally I blame it on societies current view, and mantra, of "everyone is a winner". Kids need to learn about failure and disappointment. That is probably why I survived. My parents never pulled that crap with me. I either succeeded or failed. There was no hedging or hawing about it.
Click to expand...

I think the difference now is that with social media, etc., it's so much more prevalent. Used to be we could go home and forget about it. Now it's on facebook, getting text messages. That's just technological, yes, but sometimes newer technology requires more.
 
rocket88 said:
I think the difference now is that with social media, etc., it's so much more prevalent. Used to be we could go home and forget about it. Now it's on facebook, getting text messages. That's just technological, yes, but sometimes newer technology requires more.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Maybe Facebook needs to grow some corporate social responsibility towards those it professes to care about, its customers, and have a link to report such matters and actually ACT on them. The reason this was able to follow this poor girl from city to city is because facebook was their medium to conduct a bullying campaign against her.

Im not saying legislate it, but I am saying Facebook could definitely do more to curtail such activity.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Hmm. Maybe Facebook needs to grow some corporate social responsibility towards those it professes to care about, its customers, and have a link to report such matters and actually ACT on them. The reason this was able to follow this poor girl from city to city is because facebook was their medium to conduct a bullying campaign against her.

Im not saying legislate it, but I am saying Facebook could definitely do more to curtail such activity.
Click to expand...

They have ways to flag posts and file complaints on FB. Personally, I would have just deactivated my account.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Hmm. Maybe Facebook needs to grow some corporate social responsibility towards those it professes to care about, its customers, and have a link to report such matters and actually ACT on them. The reason this was able to follow this poor girl from city to city is because facebook was their medium to conduct a bullying campaign against her.

Im not saying legislate it, but I am saying Facebook could definitely do more to curtail such activity.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, except that expecting a corporation to "care" about anything but the bottom line is chasing after rainbows.
 
rocket88 said:
That's a good point, except that expecting a corporation to "care" about anything but the bottom line is chasing after rainbows.
Click to expand...

I agree, their primary duty will always be to that bottom line. That's why government has the power of law and regulation.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Must be that time of season. I've heard of 3 suicides in the space of a week. Sorry but I have no sympathy for those that commit suicide. Particularly because of bullying. Medical conditions, fine. But bullying? Give me a break. I was bullied constantly in school. Being the smallest in class and always moving around (reticent because of it) tends to do that to a boy. I was constantly getting into fights, at least once a week. Guess what? I'm still here and have never had any psychological issues because of it.

Personally I blame it on societies current view, and mantra, of "everyone is a winner". Kids need to learn about failure and disappointment. That is probably why I survived. My parents never pulled that crap with me. I either succeeded or failed. There was no hedging or hawing about it.
Click to expand...

Why does everyone feel the need to place blame somewhere? IMO, this was an unfortunate tragedy that could have been avoided, but is NOT necessarily anyone in particular's fault! An unfortunate chain of events led to this girl doing what she did. Bad decision-making surely played a role, but laying blame on anyone in this situation IMO is unwarranted.

The girl took her life, not to hurt anyone else but to end her own pain (bad decision). The bullies who picked on her (no matter what cruel things they said), I am sure it was not THEIR goal for her to actually die. Her parents and the school and teachers missing signs or not paying close enough attention, human fallibility.
 
rocket88 said:
That's a good point, except that expecting a corporation to "care" about anything but the bottom line is chasing after rainbows.
Click to expand...

Got news for you, more and more of these things are occurring and Facebook isnt doing much of anything. Eventually, they are going to recieve a fat lawsuit for acting as the medium in which people conduct these bullying campaigns and there will be mountains of evidence that its happened over and over. Their bottom line is going to dictate they get a handle on this sooner (before a lawsuit) or later (after one).

CSR isnt just about doing whats right, its also about doing things that promote the company image. This sure isnt the image Facebook wants to project to the world. They need to work at changing it.
 
ChrisL said:
Why does everyone feel the need to place blame somewhere? IMO, this was an unfortunate tragedy that could have been avoided, but is NOT necessarily anyone in particular's fault! An unfortunate chain of events led to this girl doing what she did. Bad decision-making surely played a role, but laying blame on anyone in this situation IMO is unwarranted.

The girl took her life, not to hurt anyone else but to end her own pain (bad decision). The bullies who picked on her (no matter what cruel things they said), I am sure it was not THEIR goal for her to actually die. Her parents and the school and teachers missing signs or not paying close enough attention, human fallibility.
Click to expand...

This is double sided here. On one hand you're trying to tell me that its no one in particulars fault and then on the other hand you're singling out parents, school and teachers. In my eye's all that you're doing is shifting the blame. It is after all, far easier to place blame than to accept it.

In anycase I disagree with you. Society plays a large role in how people act and behave. If society accepts a certain type of action then that action will prevail more than actions that are looked down upon. People are overall sheeple. Even those that claim to not follow any "code" still end up following some ideal or another that some other group promotes. I would argue that there isn't even any more originality to humans anymore. But that would have to go in its own thread. ;)

Anyways hope this makes sense. I've been up for 31 1/2 hours....need sleep....
 
rocket88 said:
I think the difference now is that with social media, etc., it's so much more prevalent. Used to be we could go home and forget about it. Now it's on facebook, getting text messages. That's just technological, yes, but sometimes newer technology requires more.
Click to expand...

I basically agree, but still think that the "everyone's a winner" has played its part also.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I basically agree, but still think that the "everyone's a winner" has played its part also.
Click to expand...

We haven't figured out yet how to lose without being a loser. My son's baseball coach always said there's no shame in striking out if you go down swinging.
 
rocket88 said:
As DA60 pointed out, First Amendment freedoms do not extend to slander or blackmail. Nor does it extend to shouting "fire" in a theater. Similarly, the Second Amendment doesn't extend to the right to shoot somebody.
Click to expand...

And your prove of this is where in the first amendment? Please show how can they pass a law against it when they can't pass a law against it?

In other words, your rights extend as far as they don't harm somebody. I'm not sure of the difference between "I'm going to kill you," and "You should kill yourself" other than who does the killing.
Click to expand...

Both are fine according to the first amendment and how speech actually works to begin with. Your argument basically says that if I hurt your feelings I'm a bad man and should be thrown in jail. Real free society you got there and really I want no part of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom