• 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]

Excon said:
Gee look at that it fits what Anonymous did and intended to accomplish. Go figure, huh?
Of course it is Bullying, and even though what they did was wrong you still obviously supported it it because it coincides with with your wishes/desires, thoughts/feelings on the matter.
Click to expand...

'repeated, aggressive behavior' - no, that does not fit.

'an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person' - no, that does not fit either.

Anonymous did nothing 'repeatedly' and they gain nothing over the person. They are simply releasing information.

If that were bullying, then everytime the media releases the name of an accused person, then they are bullying that person.

Which is of course nonsense.

Sorry pal, imo, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.


And still you continue to strongly defend the bullies and belittle the effects of their bullying actions...with such passion, no less.

Interesting.


Have a nice day.
 
Excon said:
What is strange is that you would say such when that isn't the case.
Click to expand...


I did not say anything was the case.

I said it 'seem's.

Funny, that you deny something that I did not accuse you of.


Have a nice day.
 
DA60 said:
'repeated, aggressive behavior' - no, that does not fit.
Click to expand...
iLOL
:doh
Most certainly it does.
How many attempts were made to get his private info before they succeeded?
Each and every attempt would be "one" aggressive act, especially if done in an illegal manner.


DA60 said:
'an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person' - no, that does not fit either.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
Their actions were that of gaining power over the person in question and releasing his private info.


DA60 said:
Anonymous did nothing 'repeatedly' and they gain nothing over the person. They are simply releasing information.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
(see first reply)


DA60 said:
If that were bullying, then everytime the media releases the name of an accused person, then they are bullying that person.

Which is of course nonsense.
Click to expand...
Which of course isn't nonsense, because there is a difference between the authorities releasing the information to the press, and a group acting as vigilantes releasing, not just his name, but address as well. And most likely breaking the law in their attempt to get it.

Which of course are the actions of a bully. If they were trying to do the right thing, they would have just turned the info over to the authorities. But they didn't. What they did was for nefarious purposes. They acted as a bully and you supported what they did.

So yeah, you are wrong again.


DA60 said:
Sorry pal, imo, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
:doh:lamo:doh
As shown, it is you who do not.


DA60 said:
And still you continue to strongly defend the bullies and belittle the effects of their bullying actions...with such passion, no less.

Interesting.
Click to expand...
Yes it is interesting that you continue to make false accusation after being told you are wrong.
I guess you are just cut like that. What a shame.
 
Excon said:
iLOL
:doh
Most certainly it does.
How many attempts were made to get his private info before they succeeded?
Each and every attempt would be "one" aggressive act, especially if done in an illegal manner.



Wrong!
Their actions were that of gaining power over the person in question and releasing his private info.


Wrong!
(see first reply)


Which of course isn't nonsense, because there is a difference between the authorities releasing the information to the press, and a group acting as vigilantes releasing, not just his name, but address as well. And most likely breaking the law in their attempt to get it.

Which of course are the actions of a bully. If they were trying to do the right thing, they would have just turned the info over to the authorities. But they didn't. What they did was for nefarious purposes. They acted as a bully and you supported what they did.

So yeah, you are wrong again.


:doh:lamo:doh
As shown, it is you who do not.


Yes it is interesting that you continue to make false accusation after being told you are wrong.
I guess you are just cut like that. What a shame.
Click to expand...

One - you are obviously wrong.

And two, I am not going to debate with someone that cannot even answer simple 'yes or no' questions/hypotheticals.

I have already wasted WAAAY to much time on you.


Have a nice day.
 
Excon said:
You most certainly did.
And it is false.

​
Click to expand...

Ohhh...I am sorry.

I thought you were interpreting my statement as me accusing you of belittling the negative effects of bullies because you yourself are/were a bully.

Which of course, I was not necessarily doing.

My mistake.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
One - you are obviously wrong.
Click to expand...
Yeah, except that I am not, and you are, as shown.

DA60 said:
And two, I am not going to debate with someone that cannot even answer simple 'yes or no' questions/hypotheticals.
Click to expand...
You have already been told under what circumstance I will answer what you asked. Sorry you don't like that.
But I assure you that my position on replying isn't going to change. Provide a real case, or push on. Your choice.

And secondly, your hypothetical had no bearing on this case at all, which made it, besides being absurd, nothing but an intentional distraction.
 
DA60 said:
I don't know if she is right or not (I suspect she is, at least partly).

But before calling her statement 'ridiculous', maybe you could supply some reasons as to why it is 'ridiculous'?
Click to expand...

1 She was clearly an unstable moron

A moron for committing suicide and a moron for not getting or at least seek help.

She started the ball rolling by revealing her boobs all across the intranets
 
ric27 said:
1 She was clearly an unstable moron

A moron for committing suicide and a moron for not getting or at least seek help.

She started the ball rolling by revealing her boobs all across the intranets
Click to expand...

She was a child. She made a childish decision and was punished for it for the rest of her very short life.

I would hazzard a guess that if you thought real long and hard about it, you could think of some moronic thing you've done in your past that you really wish you hadn't done. I mean, other than the post I'm quoting here.
 
mac said:
She was a child. She made a childish decision and was punished for it for the rest of her very short life.

I would hazzard a guess that if you thought real long and hard about it, you could think of some moronic thing you've done in your past that you really wish you hadn't done. I mean, other than the post I'm quoting here.
Click to expand...

I've done some crazy ****...won't lie, but to kill myself over a fixable issue is moronic
 
PirateMk1 said:
The problem Pinky, with this law is it regulates speach. It is suprisingly simple for a law none the less, it is incredibly bad law. Who ever wrote it did not bother to look at the constitution. If they did the law would be a whole lot diffrent, if it even existed. i live by the philosophy that in order for freedom to florish the stupid must be allowed to be stupid, despite the costs, for in the end I believe that those costs will be more than made up for by other less more inteligent people who learn from the stupid what NOT to do, which is just as important, maybe more so than knowing what to do. That may sound cruel but in the end, I believe everyone has a purpose even if it is to be the idiot who sticks their hand in a blender while it running. (I actually saw someone try that move, they are lucky I interviened quickly. Believe it or not they were offended that I did. I suppose no good deed goes unpunished.)
Click to expand...

Two little girls are among many changing their clothes at school, after a gym class. One photos the other whilst naked and sends that photo to almost the entire school, where it is in turn sent to the net and can never be retrieved.

Using the "no new laws" motif, the 9 year old photographer is a child pornographer and a sex criminal, for life -- which is about the amount of prison time we routinely impose on such criminals.

I'm thinking you realize that we need new laws, and that what we all want is to preserve our freedom as far as possible.

I don't need the "freedom of speech" to mentally dominate a child and drive that child to suicide -- do you? I don't need the freedom of speech to entice a child to take photos of her naked body and email them to me -- do you? I don't need the freedom of speech to entice a child to do live sex shows on the net -- do you?

We are not considering criminalizing new behaviors, Pirate. We are considering criminalizing the most serious offenses any adult can commit, short of murder, by a new mechanism. If that adult could not speak as he did face to face to your child, why should we immunize his speech when he does so over the net?

(The story of the two little 9 year old girls is a true one, BTW. I can find a link to the news story, if anyone wants it.)

 
ric27 said:
I've done some crazy ****...won't lie, but to kill myself over a fixable issue is moronic
Click to expand...

You are an adult, not a young child. This plague did not exist when you were a little man, and I am 100% positive you have no idea what your emotions would have been or how you would have reacted.
 
Excon said:
Yeah, except that I am not, and you are, as shown.

You have already been told under what circumstance I will answer what you asked. Sorry you don't like that.
But I assure you that my position on replying isn't going to change. Provide a real case, or push on. Your choice.

And secondly, your hypothetical had no bearing on this case at all, which made it, besides being absurd, nothing but an intentional distraction.
Click to expand...

You have written posts on this thread with a gleeful tone that is highly disturbing to me, so I will be ignoring your posts from now on. I hope I am wrong, but if you really do take pleasure in the suicides of children, you are not a person I want to know better.

 
Pinkie said:
You have written posts on this thread with a gleeful tone that is highly disturbing to me, so I will be ignoring your posts from now on. I hope I am wrong, but if you really do take pleasure in the suicides of children, you are not a person I want to know better.
Click to expand...
Not only have you been wrong about Amanda being responsible for taking her own life, now you are wrong about me (again). What a shame.
Then be disturbed. I can't help what you wrongfully interpret.
 
Last edited:
JohnWOlin said:
I think as a girl it must be harder. I got past bullying by being a 6'1 wrecking machine and I just beat ass. My youngest brother had it rough but he can't harm a fly. Me, I've broke noses, arms, and ruined others **** over much less than this girl took. I was designed to not take **** from anyone and that's carried on into adulthood. It helps out, but unfortunately gets you into trouble too.
Click to expand...

There are no 6ft1in "wrecking ball" sized 9 year olds, John. ALL little kids are vulnerable and all little kids deserve our protection from sadistic adults.
 
Excon said:
And secondly, your hypothetical had no bearing on this case at all, which made it, besides being absurd, nothing but an intentional distraction.
Click to expand...

And yet again folks, he spends hundreds of words making excuses why he will not simply answer either 'yes' or 'no'.

How about I make it easier for you?

You just have to type 'y' or 'n'.

Can you get it together enough to do even that?

I'll even repeat it for you:


What if a father (who is a cop) rapes his 8 year old child every day for 4 years. Finally, the child takes her own life because she cannot see any other way to stop him from raping her.

Now is he morally responsible at all for her suicide?

Yes or no?

Sorry, too many characters for you....I mean 'y' or 'n'?
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
And yet again folks, he spends hundreds of words making excuses why he will not simply state either 'yes' or 'no'.

How about I make it easier for you?

You just have to type 'y' or 'n'.

Can you get it together enough to do that?

(I think we ALL know the answer to that one is 'no').
Click to expand...
As I already told you, my position on answering is not going to change.
Did you have problems understanding that?
Do you need someone else to interpret my words for you?

You already know the circumstances under which I will answer your question, no matter how much you cry and harp about it.
So provide it or push on.
 
Excon said:
As I already told you, my position on answering is not going to change.
Did you have problems understanding that?
Do you need someone else to interpret my words for you?

You already know the circumstances under which I will answer your question, no matter how much you cry and harp about it.
So provide it or push on.
Click to expand...

Sure enough...still more excuses.

Excon cannot even answer either 'y' or 'n' to a simple question.

Noted.

I will let others decide for themselves why he won't answer.



Have a braver day.
 
Last edited:
Pinkie said:
You are an adult, not a young child. This plague did not exist when you were a little man, and I am 100% positive you have no idea what your emotions would have been or how you would have reacted.
Click to expand...

or what they would have been if he were a pre-teen female.
 
Pinkie said:
Boys are less frequently the victims of bullicide, but not never, Mac. ALL our kids deserve protection.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. Girls, however, are more negatively impacted by "whore-based" bullying than are boys. Like Ric was when he was young.

By "whore-based" I mean the particular type of bullying implying that a young girl is a whore, or slut.
 
mac said:
I don't disagree. Girls, however, are more negatively impacted by "whore-based" bullying than are boys. Like Ric was when he was young.

By "whore-based" I mean the particular type of bullying implying that a young girl is a whore, or slut.
Click to expand...

The particular shaming techniques are usually different for boys, yes. Most involve accusations that they are gay.

But the use of shame is the same on either gender.

I don't have any issue with exploring the impact of bullicide on boys v. girls, as long as we agree that all kids deserve protection.

 
Pinkie said:
There are no 6ft1in "wrecking ball" sized 9 year olds, John. ALL little kids are vulnerable and all little kids deserve our protection from sadistic adults.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid everyone seemed like a giant to me. When I was in elementary school these kids picked on me. One time they followed me home from school. Knowing they were to powerful for me I picked up a stick and hit the one in the face and kicked the other one in the balls and ran like hell. I was raised not to take **** from anyone sadly as time went on my younger brother didn't get those lessons. I think with my daughter, I'll make sure that I find a more balanced and less violent approach but I certainly wont let anyone push her around.
 
JohnWOlin said:
When I was a kid everyone seemed like a giant to me. When I was in elementary school these kids picked on me. One time they followed me home from school. Knowing they were to powerful for me I picked up a stick and hit the one in the face and kicked the other one in the balls and ran like hell. I was raised not to take **** from anyone sadly as time went on my younger brother didn't get those lessons. I think with my daughter, I'll make sure that I find a more balanced and less violent approach but I certainly wont let anyone push her around.
Click to expand...

I love that you are a protective Daddy, but what I am suggesting is that your child will need you to protect in ways that did not exist when you were young, and that may not seem dangerous to you at first glance.

If I had a little kid living at my house, there would not be an internet connection, that child would not have a cell phone, and none of that child's friends would, either. Etc.

This **** scares me snotless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom