posted
Stealing your best friend's wife comes to mind. (As long as stealing is figurative, and not a literal kidnapping.) Definitely immoral. Definitely legal.
Morality is personal and not everyone even agrees on what is and is not moral. Take homosexuality, for example.
The law is there to create order and help us all live together. Ideally, it keeps people from infringing on other's rights.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do not believe they bear any legal responsibility for the girl's DEATH...in that, they only have moral responsibility, but their actions do come with real, legal consequences.
Those of this mind, could you be more specific? In other words, what specifically makes these kids so clearly morally responsible for the girl's death and yet so clearly not legally?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do not believe they bear any legal responsibility for the girl's DEATH...in that, they only have moral responsibility, but their actions do come with real, legal consequences.
Those of this mind, could you be more specific? In other words, what specifically makes these kids so clearly morally responsible for the girl's death and yet so clearly not legally?
The law can only deal in facts and the fact is, the bullies, however deplorable their actions, did not physically kill the girl. Nor is there any way to prove that they had her death in mind by their actions. (It is even unlikely that they intended for her to die.) The law can only charge them with their actual provable actions and their actual provable intentions. They actually harassed and assaulted this girl. They intended to inflict emotional and physical harm. They did not kill her.
And yet, despite all of that, their actions did drive her over the edge. Perhaps there were other things going on in her life; we may never know, but the bullying caused a great deal of harm. Perhaps they didn't know how much harm it would have caused (though they should not have done it at any rate), but it ended in a loss of life, and they are partly to blame for that. They may or may not see it this way, but it is part of my own personal moral code.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points, Christine. I must admit that, as a former victim of bullying, and especially given some of the responses here, it's difficult to be fully objective about this. I don't think anyone who has been subjected to bullying - especially over an extended period of time - can not take it personally when someone insinuates that the victim had any choice in the matter.
To me, the causal link from bullying to suicide is crystal clear. Level of intent isn't wholly important here for the same reason it isn't if you were to intentionally trip a person with, say, osteogenesis imperfecta, and they ended up dying as a result of those injuries. Ignorance of precondition may lesson culpability, but it doesn't eliminate it. Direct action is also not a necessity for legal responsibility. Think Manson and other similar cases (probably more relevant cases, but I think you can get my point).
Having said that, a direct causal link from bullying to suicide can not - at least at this time - be exemplified by physical evidence or universally accepted studies, and so I'll concede - for now - that even negligent homicide is not an appropriate charge in this case.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:. I don't think anyone who has been subjected to bullying - especially over an extended period of time - can not take it personally when someone insinuates that the victim had any choice in the matter.
I was subjected to bullying over an extended period of time.
Victims quite often have multiple choices in the matter.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Of course everyone has multiple choices in any matter. I could have acquired a gun and taken out anyone who did me wrong. But you know I mean *real* choice. "Pulling a Stilson", for example, isn't a real choice for many victims.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm gonna take a stab at here and guess that what rollainm meant was that bullying is not the victims fault and it shouldn't be the victims responsibility to stop it.
Victims of bullying can't usually simply choose not to be bullied. That option isn't on the menu. The simple idea that if the victim would fight back, or laugh, or just ignore the bullying, the bullies would stop just isn't true most of the time. It makes cute little anecdotes, but life isn't that simple.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that case, I still agree with what I said. Many victims of bullying do have options that will stop or decrease the bullying.
Many, however, do not.
quote:bullying is not the victims fault and it shouldn't be the victims responsibility to stop it.
Even if the situation isn't their fault, I think we all have a responsibility to try to improve our lives where we can.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: In that case, I still agree with what I said. Many victims of bullying do have options that will stop or decrease the bullying.
Many, however, do not.
quote:bullying is not the victims fault and it shouldn't be the victims responsibility to stop it.
Even if the situation isn't their fault, I think we all have a responsibility to try to improve our lives where we can.
Of course. I agree with all of this. My issue is with the assumption that the individual victim absolutely has options, which is certainly not true. If that's not your claim, then I have no disagreement with you on this.
BTW, physical retaliation, aside from being morally questionable or just wrong for many, now carries much stronger consequences than it has in the past as "zero tolerance" is more strictly enforced. The one time I responded to bullying with significant physical force (which, fyi, resulted in only temporary relief followed by retaliation), I got detention. Had the same thing happened a year later at the same school, I would have been arrested.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My issue is with the assumption that the individual victim absolutely has options, which is certainly not true.
If by "has options" you mean "has options that will eliminate the bullying", then I am not making that claim.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people allow themselves to be victims. Some don't have a choice, but some simply refuse to accept that they have a choice.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Some people allow themselves to be victims. Some don't have a choice, but some simply refuse to accept that they have a choice.
The attitude really pisses me off. We aren't talking about mature adults here, we are talking about kids. We are talking about people who are supposed to be immature. We are talking about kids who are not supposed to have mastered social skills and the subtleties of group dynamics and power.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the bullies are old enough to be responsible for their bullying, the bullied of the same age are old enough to be responsible for how they respond to that bullying.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If the bullies are old enough to be responsible for their bullying, the bullied of the same age are old enough to be responsible for how they respond to that bullying.
My initial response was to disagree, but I think you may be right.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
However, the problem here is that children own varying degrees of responsibility for their actions depending on age (and location, and crime, unfortunately, look at the young teenagers charged as adults). So when we say, "They are responsible," we do not necessarily mean totally responsible, the way an adult would be. And even adults are not always totally responsible in the eyes of the law.
The other problem is that while a bully has a responsibility not to be bullied, both morally and sometime legally, the victim does not necessarily have a moral and certainly never a legal responsibility to find a way to cope with it that doesn't bother them.
I don't think you mean it this way, Porter, but suggesting that a victim has the responsibility to respond properly to bullying has an air of claiming that if my child punches yours in the arm, hard, every day for an entire school year...well, my child has responsibility for doing it, but your child could have avoided mine, or worn a jacket to cushion the blow, or told someone, or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:well, my child has responsibility for doing it, but your child could have avoided mine, or worn a jacket to cushion the blow, or told someone, or something.
Are you saying that this is not the case?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. I'm saying pointing out that it was possible and saying, "Responsibility," smacks of...well, cruelty, however accurate it is. Yes, it's true and yes, parents ought to teach (it's a very important lesson, in fact) their children what to do when things go badly, especially when there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that telling someone that they have a choice in how they respond to the crap they can't control is the opposite of cruel.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telling that person, yes. In fact it's very helpful. Doing so while pointing out that both parties had responsibility - equating both of them, or at least that's how it looks - will lead to confusion, is all.
Put another way, which responsibility is greater? The responsibility not to victimize others, or the responsibility to respond to being victimized in an effective way?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only equating I've done is equating the capacity of like-aged people to be responsible for their own actions.
Of course it is more important to not be cruel. But that is only tangentially related to what I was talking about.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you're saying that if you read something I didn't say into what I wrote, it comes off like something I didn't mean? Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread seems to have this very large assumption that physical violence = bullying. But that's hardly the important factor here. Many people here have experience with bullying that was only physical, and then have a hard time understanding exactly how that can lead to depression and how it can be allowed to continue for long periods of time. This is largely understandable.
The problem here is cyberbullying. This is a beast of an entirely different nature. Its nigh impossible to avoid cyber-bullying. There are next to no laws to protect people from it. You can't simply "avoid" the bully to avoid cyber bullying, as they're going to continue to defame you regardless of how you interact with them. The dangerous thing here is social ostracization, as this has been shown to lead to depression. When a child is turned into a social outcast, it is far more likely that it will cause depression, and it is not nearly as easy to assign any responsibility to the bullied. There simply isn't anything they can do when the children who hold the power in their school want them gone and use the internet to make it happen.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If the bullies are old enough to be responsible for their bullying, the bullied of the same age are old enough to be responsible for how they respond to that bullying.
Not true, you are comparing apples and oranges. The level of maturity needed to understand that bullying someone for fun is wrong is not the same as the level of maturity needed to be able to control ones emotions and actions under extreme provocation.
The level of maturity needed to understand that pulling a girls hair is likely to make her scream, is not the same as the level of maturity needed to understand that screaming when a bully pulls your hair may entice the bully to pull your hair more often. The level of maturity needed to control whether you pull someones hairs, is not the same as the level of maturity required to control whether or not you scream when your hair is pulled.
The level of maturity needed to know its wrong to join in when a group is harassing someone, it not the same as the level of maturity needed to know how to persuade the group not to do it.
The level of maturity required to not pressure your teenage girl/boyfriend to have sex, is not the same as the level of maturity needed to say no to sex under extreme pressure from a girl or boyfriend.
Controlling how you respond when deliberately attacked by others requires a much greater level of maturity than controlling whether or not you attack others with out provocation. These things are simply not equivalent.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:well, my child has responsibility for doing it, but your child could have avoided mine, or worn a jacket to cushion the blow, or told someone, or something.
Are you saying that this is not the case?
It is the case, though of course that has the stink of putting some of the blame on the rape victim for wearing a skirt that's too short.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is the case, though of course that has the stink of putting some of the blame on the rape victim for wearing a skirt that's too short.
So, you're offended by reality? I can't help you there.
quote: The level of maturity needed to understand that bullying someone for fun is wrong is not the same as the level of maturity needed to be able to control ones emotions and actions under extreme provocation.
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with everything you just wrote, but there is definitely some truth there. I'll have to think about this more.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is the case, though of course that has the stink of putting some of the blame on the rape victim for wearing a skirt that's too short.
So, you're offended by reality? I can't help you there.
Now, just a second.
Leaving the rape issue aside for a moment (and I sincerely hope you were not saying that a girl who wears a short skirt is "asking for it"), there are lots of things kids do -- or ARE -- that attracts bullies that are either not in their control, or barely so. Or are you suggesting that bright kids act dumb to avoid getting other kids mad, or that socially inept kids magically become ept?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
No. I'm suggesting nothing of the kind. I'm not suggesting anything. What I've said has been, I think, pretty clear, if only people would stop assuming that I'm suggesting something else.
In regards to what you quoted -- the "reality" that I referred to is the fact that something that jeb thinks is true "stinks of" something he finds repugnant. I can't help him there.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:there are lots of things kids do -- or ARE -- that attracts bullies that are either not in their control, or barely so.
When I was in middle school I was picked on because I was shorter and less physically mature than most of the other kids. I guess I should have just chosen to be taller and have bigger breasts.
My husband was bullied because his family was poor. He should have chosen to be born to wealthier parents.
And this completely ignores the fact that many of the character traits that attract bullying, are character traits I'd want my kids to have like being smart, following the rules, being sensitive.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read that girls who develop earlier tend to get teased more and have lower self esteem, while the same tends to be true for boys who develop later.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mr_porteiro_head, I think I understand what you are trying to convey but it is tricky. Instead of giving us the sparsest possible information and having us guess, it would be helpful if you were just explicit.
ETA: Not about breasts. About responsibility. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
:shrug: I don't know what to say beyond what I've already said. Anything else would just be repeating myself.
You say I should be explicit -- I'm not hinting around or suggesting anything. I meant what I said, and that's it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I guess you mean is that every person has the ultimate responsibility when it comes to how to feel about what others do to them, how much they let it affect them. Is that right?
If so, saying that "no, what I do mean is x" is often more helpful than just, "no, I don't mean that."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I've read that girls who develop earlier tend to get teased more and have lower self esteem, while the same tends to be true for boys who develop later.
Sort of.
Girls who develop earlier get teased and tend to be the target of older boys' sexual interests.
Girls who develop late also get teased, although not in the same way. I was in this last group...and to make matters worse in my case, I went away one summer, begrudging the fact that I didn't even need a bra when all the other girls did, and came back the next year in a C cup. So that fall I had to put up with endless talk about my having stuffed my bra.
The best thing is really to develop when everyone else does.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What I guess you mean is that every person has the ultimate responsibility when it comes to how to feel about what others do to them, how much they let it affect them. Is that right?
Close, and partially.
Close:
While I am a big proponent of the idea that we get to control our own feelings, I don't think that control is absolute. But yes, we are all responsible for how we emotionally react to crap that happens to us. (Part of that emotional reaction is what we do to influence and control our own feelings.)
It's kinda like riding a horse. Depending on the temperament and training of the horse, your skill as a rider, and the situation at hand, you can have anywhere from total to zero control. Most riders, on most horses, in most situations, can get the horse to do generally what they want.
I think that most people underestimate the amount of control they have over their own emotions.
Partially:
I many situations, people do have options that can reduce the bullying they're subjected to, or its effect. In this realm too we are responsible for how we react to the crap life throws at us.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've known short and tall, fat and skinny, smart and dumb, rich and poor, kids who have and have not been bullied. Not every short kid or every nerdy kid, or every uncoordinated kid gets bullied.
So what is it that keeps some kids from being bullied, or lets them turn the bullying around? Luck? Some action or attitude on their part?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that is all many are able to do but that controlling ones emotions is a delicate business that requires some skill, some apptitude, and a lot of practice.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
