The bullies win again[W710; 739]

Wiggen said:

If I were a betting man, I'd wager a lot on the following: those who defend bullying, or who minimize its effect on the weak, are or were bullies themselves. Those who bully, or who take pleasure in inflicting emotional and/or physical harm on their victims are defective human beings.

Click to expand...

Please define "Bullying". Is someone saying, "Your dress looks awful" a bully? Where does one objectively draw the line between what is permissible and impermissible negative commentary? Does the intent matter or is just merely the consequence? These are important questions, and until I have them answered, I err on the side of defending bullying even though it is more opposition to limiting speech in an ambiguous subjective way.

Fisher said:

Please define "Bullying". Is someone saying, "Your dress looks awful" a bully? Where does one objectively draw the line between what is permissible and impermissible negative commentary? Does the intent matter or is just merely the consequence? These are important questions, and until I have them answered, I err on the side of defending bullying even though it is more opposition to limiting speech in an ambiguous subjective way.

Click to expand...

I'm sure counselors and mental health professionals would be happy to explain the difference to you between bullying and good natured teasing. I think it's self evident, but maybe you don't.

Had you ever been a victim of bullying, you would know how odd your post is. Freedom of speech? Really? Defending the rights of a gang of punks to terrorize and humiliate a kid is now part of freedom of speech? Or is it the actual bullying freedom of speech?

I repeat, people who bully are defective human beings who enjoy inflicting pain on others.

Excon said:

I would say you are wrong.
Secondly; Bullying/teasing is part of human nature.
The defective ones, are the ones who take their own life over it.

Click to expand...

Bullying may be a part of human nature, but so is violence. So what? Sorry, anybody who thinks bullying someone to the point of suicide is just 'part of human nature' and therefore acceptable is simply wrong. And I repeat, those who defend bullies and see nothing wrong with it were, in all probability, bullies themselves.

I shake my head when I see certain people ardently defend bullying. There's no excuse.

Wiggen said:

Had you ever been a victim of bullying, you would know how silly your post is. Freedom of speech? Really? Defending the rights of a gang of punks to terrorize and humiliate a kid is now part of freedom of speech? Or is it the actual bullying freedom of speech?

I repeat, people who bully are defective human beings who enjoy inflicting pain on others.

Click to expand...

Being a rude and mean SOB is part of the freedom of speech. There is nothing silly about it.

As for physical harm like beating someone up that is entirely different.

Wiggen said:

Had you ever been a victim of bullying, you would know how silly your post is. Freedom of speech? Really? Defending the rights of a gang of punks to terrorize and humiliate a kid is now part of freedom of speech? Or is it the actual bullying freedom of speech?

I repeat, people who bully are defective human beings who enjoy inflicting pain on others.

Click to expand...

I have been the victim of bullying many times. I could report it or I could hit back, or I could do nothing. What more should be done? Yes, Freedom of Speech because I hear people saying "Other kids used to pick on me because I am a guy who took dance. End the bullying."

As a matter of fact, calling my post silly is bullying so you should be ashamed of yourself you thug (see how easy that works). Define bullying in a way that makes sense where I line can be drawn and I will discuss it with you further. Otherwise, I see you just trying to skip over the most important line there can be in a discussion--understanding a term.

Henrin said:

Being a rude and mean SOB is part of the freedom of speech. There is nothing silly about it.

As for physical harm like beating someone up that is entirely different.

Click to expand...

So emotionally destroying a human being is OK. It's just the physical destruction that you have a problem with?

Fisher said:

I have been the victim of bullying many times. I could report it or I could hit back, or I could do nothing. What more should be done? Yes, Freedom of Speech because I hear people saying "Other kids used to pick on me because I am a guy who took dance. End the bullying."

As a matter of fact, calling my post silly is bullying so you should be ashamed of yourself you thug (see how easy that works). Define bullying in a way that makes sense where I line can be drawn and I will discuss it with you further. Otherwise, I see you just trying to skip over the most important line there can be in a discussion--understanding a term.

Click to expand...

If there is ever an over-used and overworked justification for thuggish behavior, surely 'Freedom of Speech' is at the top of the list.

Here's several definitions of bullying, which hopefully might help you as you struggle to grasp this difficult concept. Just to clear up any potential misunderstandings, we are not referring here to the archaic definition.

bullying - definition of bullying by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

ChrisL said:

That's not true. There are plenty of people who have suicidal ideation and NEVER go through with actual suicide. This stuff can be treated! The problem is recognizing the signs (if there are any - there are NOT always signs that are so easily recognizable).

I used to feel the same way until suicide affected ME personally. Let me tell me, if it ever does, you will have MUCH more compassion for these people.

Click to expand...

Not dogging on you, but for me it's having to see the trauma to the families who remain after someone suicides.

So for me it's pretty hard to have anything beyond contempt for anyone who does that to people they are supposed to care about and not supposed to traumatize


So yeah, they're ****ing cowards for bailing on their problems with little regard to how it will effect their loved ones.

Henrin said:

Very nicely worded in a way to try to make me sound like an evil asshole. The crime the molester is guilty of is molesting the child and if the child decides to later kill themselves perhaps in part from what was done to them, that is on them.

Click to expand...

So your answer is 'yes'.

Noted.


Have a nice day.

Wiggen said:

If there is ever an over-used and overworked justification for thuggish behavior, surely 'Freedom of Speech' is at the top of the list.

Here's several definitions of bullying, which hopefully might help you as you struggle to grasp this difficult concept. Just to clear up any potential misunderstandings, we are not referring here to the archaic definition.

bullying - definition of bullying by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Click to expand...

Bully for you. So by your apparent definition, anything intimidating or aggressive in nature should be outlawed? When you can offer me a realistic concrete definition of what you wish to be outlawed that is not currently against the law, then we can have a discussion. I have seen much better definitions out there in discussion land than some general definition that could be applied in an overly-broad way. If you just want to rant about a bad set of facts that you do not like and can do nothing about, proceed without me.

Wiggen said:

So emotionally destroying a human being is OK. It's just the physical destruction that you have a problem with?

Click to expand...

So you think you have the right to be treated nicely by those around you? What exactly would be the power of the freedom of speech if everything that hurt someones feelings was against the law?

Henrin said:

So you think you have the right to be treated nicely by those around you? What exactly would be the power of the freedom of speech if everything that hurt someones feelings was against the law?

Click to expand...

Freedom of speech includes telling someone they should kill themselves?

rocket88 said:

Freedom of speech includes telling someone they should kill themselves?

Click to expand...

Last I checked.

Henrin said:

Last I checked.

Click to expand...

Bans on assisted suicide have been found Constitutional by the Court: Washington v. Glucksberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In fact, Washington v. Glucksberg was a unanimous decision. It's slightly different, but it would be interesting to hear if counseling a person to commit suicide is legal.

Granted, I understand that in your mind, the Supreme Court is only correct when they agree with you.

ChrisL said:

That's not true. There are plenty of people who have suicidal ideation and NEVER go through with actual suicide. This stuff can be treated! The problem is recognizing the signs (if there are any - there are NOT always signs that are so easily recognizable).

I used to feel the same way until suicide affected ME personally. Let me tell me, if it ever does, you will have MUCH more compassion for these people.

Click to expand...

Psychology recognizes Four different types of suicide "victims"

The letter writer - May take pills but not enough to kill or seriously injure. Not considered a threat to self.

The waiter - May slash wrists or take enough pills to kill self but has already notified someone in enough time to be save them

The depressant - Not UNSTABLE just suffering from severe anxiety or depression. Makes letter or tape of intentions and why in hopes of changing the attitude of the group that created the environment. This is not woe is me. such a comment is bull**** and cold. Person effectively kills self some time afterward. Ledge and bridge jumpers who advertize their prescence are among these.

The departed - Leave no note or indication of intentions just do it.

The 3rd group is the only one that needs long term help and care. The second just needs intensive counselling until the percieved crisis has passed.
The problem with the second group is some of them tend to be repeaters and some of them do end up dead.

Excon said:

iLOL
:lamo
Wrong!
There is nothing disgusting about it.

Whether you like it or not, she is solely responsible for her actions.



Not if it is going to be debated.
And nobody should be ashamed for participating except those who are criticizing other posters.


Nothing but uncalled for emotional and hypocritical tripe.

Whether you like it or not, she is solely responsible for her actions.



So what?
[sarcasm]Your above statement is why all the children are out there committing suicide right?[/sarcasm]
Of course not. All the kids are not commuting suicide, because the vast majority cope just fine, even with similar circumstance.
She was unstable.

Whether you like it or not, she is solely responsible for her actions.

Click to expand...

This is compassionless and wrong as well as offensive. Why don't you go tell her family that. I am sure they will be impressed.

Wiggen said:

I'm sure counselors and mental health professionals would be happy to explain the difference to you between bullying and good natured teasing. I think it's self evident, but maybe you don't.

Had you ever been a victim of bullying, you would know how odd your post is. Freedom of speech? Really? Defending the rights of a gang of punks to terrorize and humiliate a kid is now part of freedom of speech? Or is it the actual bullying freedom of speech?

I repeat, people who bully are defective human beings who enjoy inflicting pain on others.

Click to expand...

Maybe you do not know the difference between disturbed, developementally disabled or depressed. I have my own opinion on your last statement

Henrin said:

So you think you have the right to be treated nicely by those around you? What exactly would be the power of the freedom of speech if everything that hurt someones feelings was against the law?

Click to expand...

Freedom of speech does not include slander, defamation, blackmail and threats of physical violence.

All of these are actionable/illegal.

rocket88 said:

Bans on assisted suicide have been found Constitutional by the Court: Washington v. Glucksberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In fact, Washington v. Glucksberg was a unanimous decision. It's slightly different, but it would be interesting to hear if counseling a person to commit suicide is legal.

Granted, I understand that in your mind, the Supreme Court is only correct when they agree with you.

Click to expand...

What they were dealing with is nothing like this so don't mix the two issues. Anyway, the phrase "a fundamental liberty interest" makes no sense at all. We all have a right to kill ourselves and while assisted suicide is not exactly a wonderful thought people should be able to assist those they love in doing it. Still, you can't just have people claiming that is what they were doing so its probably best to have it happening at the hospital or some sort of controlled environment where at the least the intention of all parties is understood. Though I'm not endorsing anything of plan to allow this, but it shouldn't be all out illegal either.

His state interest argument was also nonsensical because honestly since when have our actions had to be interest of the state? What kind of illogical nonsense is that? To even claim that the states interest is to always keep us alive as if we don't have a say on the matter is insulting to the meaning of freedom to begin with. The only thing I can say postive about his decision is that he has a point about the mentally ill and coercion , but beyond that it's all garbage.

Like I said though, it makes no sense to say some liberties are more important than others because that is simply not how liberties work.

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.

wolfman24 said:

Maybe you do not know the difference between disturbed, developementally disabled or depressed. I have my own opinion on your last statement

Click to expand...

Good for you. Now does that mean you defend bullies, or do you criticize them? I repeat my statement, which I think will be much clearer than yours. People who enjoy inflicting emotional and physical pain on others, solely for their own enjoyment, are defective human beings.

DA60 said:

Freedom of speech does not include slander, defamation, blackmail and threats of physical violence.

All of these are actionable/illegal.

Click to expand...

Yes it does, but yes, they are illegal and actionable as it stands.

Fisher said:

Bully for you. So by your apparent definition, anything intimidating or aggressive in nature should be outlawed? When you can offer me a realistic concrete definition of what you wish to be outlawed that is not currently against the law, then we can have a discussion. I have seen much better definitions out there in discussion land than some general definition that could be applied in an overly-broad way. If you just want to rant about a bad set of facts that you do not like and can do nothing about, proceed without me.

Click to expand...

OK. It's a deal.

And if you wish to continue to defend emotional and mental harrassment as just good clean fun, protected by the First Amendment, you can continue without me.

Wiggen said:

OK. It's a deal.

And if you wish to continue to defend emotional and mental harrassment as just good clean fun, protected by the First Amendment, you can continue without me.

Click to expand...

How can I continue something I have never even started? I defy you to find a post by me that says bullying is good clean fun or even acceptable as you allege. It is a reality, as is the fact the the Supreme Court knocks first amendment infringing laws down by either unanimous or near unanimous decisions most every time they encounter one that could even remotely infringe upon speech.

Henrin said:

Yes it does, but yes, they are illegal and actionable as it stands.

Click to expand...

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.