Jump to content

Nov 20: "Kick A Ginger Day"


kimmy

Recommended Posts

Anyone who doesn't recognize that encouraging children to fight can lead to dire consequences is dangerously clueless as to what can happen when kids "fight it out" amongst themselves, especially with the blessings of adults who more or less encourage them to 'take it to whatever level is necessary,' because 'they deserve it.'

You seem to have missed the point. No one advocated just "fighting it out amongst themselves". The premise was that if the "system" refused to do its job in an effective manner THEN victims had the right to use violence in self-defence, including the use of a champion if they were not physically able to compete.

From the tone of your arguments you seem to feel that victims have no right of defense EXCEPT through the "system" and if it doesn't work they should still not defend themselves, as "any violence is bad". In effect, you would rather a victim be a "punching bag" than have any other method used to stop the bully's inappropriate behavior but "time outs" and "anger management" sessions.

It reminds me of the usual admonition against vigilantism. It's as if some folks believe vigilantism springs from some instinct to drive a pickup truck with a gun rack, just for the sheer joy of it! Nothing could be more wrong. Most human beings WANT the system to work! However, when it fails or is controlled by people with ineffective ideas on behavior modification victims are often left with NO OTHER CHOICE but vigilantism!

In other words, vigilantism is an illustration of the failure of the "system" to protect its citizens.

Perhaps that's why some bleeding hearts are so vocally against it. It's the embarrassment! That would explain how the first approach is not to truly fix the problem but just to "shut the victim up".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

You seem to have missed the point. No one advocated just "fighting it out amongst themselves". The premise was that if the "system" refused to do its job in an effective manner THEN victims had the right to use violence in self-defence, including the use of a champion if they were not physically able to compete.

I haven't missed the point at all. Furthermore, I've never argued that the victim doesn't have the "right" to "use violence in self defense," because I don't see whether or not they have the right as the issue. They have the right to fight back, but they don't have the right to "use violence" if that violence is beyond protecting oneself. In other words, to put it in the extreme, you don't have the right to shoot someone because they punched you in the face. But here's the thing that I've been saying all along-- even if kids had the "right" to go to extremes to protect themselves from bullies, it could end badly. Who's to say the bully isn't going to pull a knife or come back with a gun or their own "champion" to fight back? As I said, it's the gang mentality when this happens, and it does happen.

From the tone of your arguments you seem to feel that victims have no right of defense EXCEPT through the "system" and if it doesn't work they should still not defend themselves, as "any violence is bad".

I said I didn't begrudge a kid who fought back, and I said it quite clearly. What I've said, and I've said it over and over, is that I see a problem with adults advocating violence, and encouraging kids to fight it out, to take it to the next level, and I've explained why over and over; I've explained that there can be terrible results, and if adults encourage them to fight back and they are out of their league, if weapons are used, there can be terrible results, and the adult is responsible for putting them in that mindset in the first place.

In effect, you would rather a victim be a "punching bag" than have any other method used to stop the bully's inappropriate behavior but "time outs" and "anger management" sessions.

That is blatantly false, and clearly, from all that I've said, you are way off base making such a statement.

I've brought up alternate solutions that had nothing to do with "time out" or "anger management." You dismissed my suggestions that the parents become involved with 'why should I have to do that? I'm busy!' amd 'why should I have to pay taxes to support special classes for kids who are expelled?' So you, while admitting the system doesn't work, only promote violence as a solution, and I think that is asking for trouble.

It reminds me of the usual admonition against vigilantism. It's as if some folks believe vigilantism springs from some instinct to drive a pickup truck with a gun rack, just for the sheer joy of it! Nothing could be more wrong. Most human beings WANT the system to work! However, when it fails or is controlled by people with ineffective ideas on behavior modification victims are often left with NO OTHER CHOICE but vigilantism!

I gave other choices, and again, you dismissed them; you don't want to have to personally spend time or money, so let's resort to violence.

In other words, vigilantism is an illustration of the failure of the "system" to protect its citizens.

Whether it's an illustration of the failure of the system to protect it's citizens or not, it's against the law. There are other ways of fixing the system, but if one doesn't want to get involved, if they are too busy, if they don't want to pay taxes, who's to blame then?

I don't see putting kids' well-being on the line as a solution.

Perhaps that's why some bleeding hearts are so vocally against it. It's the embarrassment! That would explain how the first approach is not to truly fix the problem but just to "shut the victim up".

Yes, clearly that's exactly what I, a "bleeding heart," have been advocating; shutting the victim up. :rolleyes:

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,766
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CouchPotato
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...