Bullying and teen suicides

[Cosmo_ac]

I support freedom of speech and make no apologies for it. If somebody doesn't like what you have to say, they are free to disregard it.

Freedoms end where somebody elses nose begins.

My apologies. I thought we were talking about laws that would apply to everybody equally. Normally, that's a given.

Yes, your right. We have jumped around a bit. And your right, it would apply to everybody equally, not just the subject of this post.

Wherever that line is drawn, it's definitely far away from your definitions of harassment.

Oh, there not my deffinitions. there the deffinitions of judges and in some cases like slander, the supreme court. However, keep in mind Slander, i believe, is something for civil courts, not public courts. More then likely those politicians choose not to engage in legal actions, for whatever reason.

 

[Driver Ed]

<p>A multi-point discussion is interesting, but sometimes a recap is in order to preserve the flow of discussion.</p><hr /><blockquote><p><font color="#CC0066" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>Cosmo_ac:</u></strong> First, freedoms only extend so far. Hence why there are harrassment laws. However, it's good to know where you stand and that you support verble abuse of people.</font></p><p><font color="#003399" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>Driver Ed:</u></strong> I support freedom of speech and make no apologies for it. If somebody doesn't like what you have to say, they are free to disregard it.</font></p><p><font color="#CC0066" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>Cosmo_ac:</u></strong> Freedoms end where somebody elses nose begins.</font></p></blockquote> "Freedoms end where somebody else's nose begins." So my freedom of speech ends when I start criticizing somebody's nose?? WTF??</p><hr /><blockquote><p><font color="#003399" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>Driver Ed:</u></strong> I believe in freedom of speech, yes. Listen to any political commentary and you'll hear some serious "verbal abuse." It's all legal and sanctioned.</font></p><p><font color="#CC0066" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>Cosmo_ac:</u></strong> Second, we're not really talking about politics, we're talking mainly about teenagers. Big difference.</font></p><p><font color="#003399" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>Driver Ed:</u></strong> My apologies. I thought we were talking about laws that would apply to everybody equally. Normally, that's a given.</font></p><p><font color="#CC0066" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>Cosmo_ac:</u></strong> Yes, your right. We have jumped around a bit. And your right, it would apply to everybody equally, not just the subject of this post.</font></p></blockquote><p>So since there is no difference, I maintain that political commentaries, particularly heated ones, demonstrate clearly that freedom of speech must by definition trump anybody's so-called "right" not to be offended. I put that in quotes because you've yet to demonstrate where that right comes from outside of your own opinion.</p><hr /><blockquote><p><font color="#CC0066" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>Cosmo_ac:</u></strong> Third, i'm not exactly sure where the legal standing on what your talking about is. Sometimes what a politician says can be construed as slander. I'm not sure where that line is drawn on public officials and celebrities though.</font></p><p><font color="#003399" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>Driver Ed:</u></strong> Wherever that line is drawn, it's definitely far away from your definitions of harassment. </font></p><p><font color="#CC0066" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>Cosmo_ac:</u></strong> Oh, there not my deffinitions. there the deffinitions of judges and in some cases like slander, the supreme court. However, keep in mind Slander, i believe, is something for civil courts, not public courts. More then likely those politicians choose not to engage in legal actions, for whatever reason.</font></p></blockquote><p>Riiiight. Because they're all such good sports. Remember, we're talking about laws that protect everybody equally. You said so yourself. So whether we're talking about teenagers, politicians, celebrities, whomever -- the same principles apply. That being the case, since celebrities and politicians "harass" each other with verbal "abuse" on a daily basis, any attempt at prohibition of freedom of speech is going to be a very slippery slope. I'm thinking glacier.</p>

 

[Cosmo_ac]

"Freedoms end where somebody else's nose begins." So my freedom of speech ends when I start criticizing somebody's nose?? WTF??

As it stands, freedoms are not an absolute.

So since there is no difference, I maintain that political commentaries, particularly heated ones, demonstrate clearly that freedom of speech must by definition trump anybody's so-called "right" not to be offended. I put that in quotes because you've yet to demonstrate where that right comes from outside of your own opinion.

Already showed you that. Allow me to demonstrate again.

The 2008 General Laws of Massachussetts defines criminal harassment at Chapter 265, §43A as follows:

"Whoever willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment....

"Such conduct or acts ...shall include, but not be limited to, conduct or acts conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications or facsimile communications."

Riiiight. Because they're all such good sports. Remember, we're talking about laws that protect everybody equally. You said so yourself. So whether we're talking about teenagers, politicians, celebrities, whomever -- the same principles apply. That being the case, since celebrities and politicians "harass" each other with verbal "abuse" on a daily basis, any attempt at prohibition of freedom of speech is going to be a very slippery slope. I'm thinking glacier.

Juggling laws vs. freedoms always is. Usually people can find a good middle ground. However, every once in a while, the current system gets challenged.

 

[Driver Ed]

As it stands, freedoms are not an absolute.

Neither are rights. And you've yet to explain what a person's nose has to do with it. Good luck with that.

Already showed you that. Allow me to demonstrate again.

The 2008 General Laws of Massachussetts defines criminal harassment at Chapter 265, §43A as follows: ...

I didn't see the word "right" anywhere in that. Can you show me exactly where it talks about our so-called "right" not to be offended? This makes twice I've asked you and twice you've responded with the same non-relevant Massachusetts legalese. I don't live in Massachusetts and neither do you. So how do laws that apply to neither one of us demonstrate our rights?

Juggling laws vs. freedoms always is. Usually people can find a good middle ground. However, every once in a while, the current system gets challenged.

Juggling unnecessary laws vs. freedoms becomes needlessly challenging.

Laws protect us from thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. There are laws against certain types of speech, but they are very careful to make sure any laws governing speech are easily proved broken. For example, one must prove a statement to be false in order for it to be slander.

When you make laws against offending people, how are you going to prove what is generally speaking a matter of opinion. The people who support such legislation only think in conceptual terms. They don't think it through. They have no imagination to play out the likely scenarios. They just think, "sigh, oh wouldn't it be such a marvey world if nobody was ever offended? We should make it illegal to offend anybody! yeah!" They don't stop to consider how such legislation opens doors to even more ludicrous impediments to our freedoms.

Moreover, such laws help nobody. If a person is so weak-minded, he or she has trouble dealing emotionally with negative feedback, it's because they haven't had enough of it. They've been over-protected their whole lives. Sometimes it's good to get a verbal ass-kicking. Keeps us on our toes. Keeps us humble. Keeps us thick-skinned so that we don't whine and whimper at the drop of a hat.

Cosmo, any way you look at it, it's just a really, REALLY stupid idea.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

Neither are rights. And you've yet to explain what a person's nose has to do with it. Good luck with that.

It's a saying, Ed.

I didn't see the word "right" anywhere in that. Can you show me exactly where it talks about our so-called "right" not to be offended? This makes twice I've asked you and twice you've responded with the same non-relevant Massachusetts legalese. I don't live in Massachusetts and neither do you. So how do laws that apply to neither one of us demonstrate our rights?

Actually, it's very relevant, as it shows how rights are limited by laws. You have the right to say what you like, until you break the law. I have shown you where the law draws the line.

Juggling unnecessary laws vs. freedoms becomes needlessly challenging.

Laws protect us from thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. There are laws against certain types of speech, but they are very careful to make sure any laws governing speech are easily proved broken. For example, one must prove a statement to be false in order for it to be slander.

When you make laws against offending people, how are you going to prove what is generally speaking a matter of opinion. The people who support such legislation only think in conceptual terms. They don't think it through. They have no imagination to play out the likely scenarios. They just think, "sigh, oh wouldn't it be such a marvey world if nobody was ever offended? We should make it illegal to offend anybody! yeah!" They don't stop to consider how such legislation opens doors to even more ludicrous impediments to our freedoms.

hence why we have judges to decide. They aren't always right, but in cases where an extreme decision is made, it is usually challenged and overruled by more moderate judges.

Moreover, such laws help nobody. If a person is so weak-minded, he or she has trouble dealing emotionally with negative feedback, it's because they haven't had enough of it. They've been over-protected their whole lives. Sometimes it's good to get a verbal ass-kicking. Keeps us on our toes. Keeps us humble. Keeps us thick-skinned so that we don't whine and whimper at the drop of a hat.

Cosmo, any way you look at it, it's just a really, REALLY stupid idea.

The families of those who have committed suicide might feel differently.

 

[Driver Ed]

It's a saying, Ed.

What's the saying saying, Cosmo? You used it in a debate, and you're not even prepared to explain how it applies??

Actually, it's very relevant, as it shows how rights are limited by laws. You have the right to say what you like, until you break the law. I have shown you where the law draws the line.

And that would be a wonderful answer if I had asked you, "Cosmo, can you show me where Massachusetts law draws the line where our freedom of speech ends?"

But we both know that's not what I asked you. I will remind you yet a third time. You said,

Children and other people have the right to live their lives without harrasment.

This was stated as fact and not prefaced with "well I think that..." or "in my opinion..."

So I asked where you get that information. Twice now, your answer has been to quote Massachusetts law, which applies to neither of us. I keep reminding you that we're looking for something that supports your claim that "children and other people have the right to live their lives without harassment." And you just keep dodging...and dodging. Why don't you just admit you have no source other than your own opinion? We could have saved a lot of time and typing.

hence why we have judges to decide. They aren't always right, but in cases where an extreme decision is made, it is usually challenged and overruled by more moderate judges.

Which proves my point even more. Even judges can't agree on matters of opinion. That being the case, neither they nor anybody else has any business deciding what's offensive and what isn't.

The families of those who have committed suicide might feel differently.

Then again, they might not. Either way it's irrelevant, unless you can demonstrate how they have more of a say-so as to which bills are passed and which aren't. Hey, maybe you could quote some more Massachusetts law! That's worked so well for you.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

What's the saying saying, Cosmo? You used it in a debate, and you're not even prepared to explain how it applies??

The saying means that people have the right to do what they want, until it impacts on other people.

This was stated as fact and not prefaced with "well I think that..." or "in my opinion..."

So I asked where you get that information. Twice now, your answer has been to quote Massachusetts law, which applies to neither of us. I keep reminding you that we're looking for something that supports your claim that "children and other people have the right to live their lives without harassment." And you just keep dodging...and dodging. Why don't you just admit you have no source other than your own opinion? We could have saved a lot of time and typing.

If sources to laws don't show you that it is more them my opinion, then nothing will. If you believe that harrasment laws don't exist, thats your call.

Which proves my point even more. Even judges can't agree on matters of opinion. That being the case, neither they nor anybody else has any business deciding what's offensive and what isn't.

And yet, Judges decide on issues all the time.

Then again, they might not. Either way it's irrelevant, unless you can demonstrate how they have more of a say-so as to which bills are passed and which aren't. Hey, maybe you could quote some more Massachusetts law! That's worked so well for you.

Their have been studies which link bullying and suicide, so it seems that there is logic behind it.

 

[Redmage]

So I asked where you get that information. Twice now, your answer has been to quote Massachusetts law, which applies to neither of us. I keep reminding you that we're looking for something that supports your claim that "children and other people have the right to live their lives without harassment."

Well, I reckon it depends on what sort of harassment we're talking about.

For example, threatening behavior - whether or not the threat is carried out - is covered by laws against assault (actually carrying out the threat is covered by battery). Laws against assault and/or battery - in Massachusetts or anywhere else - thus stipulate a right to protection against harrassment by threatening behavior or physical violence.

Taking something that belongs to another person - whether as a joke or otherwise - is covered by laws against theft.

Destroying personal property is covered by laws against vandalism.

Making recordings of a person's actions without their knowledge (whether or not they're then posted on the Internet) is illegal in almost all states, and the young people who did so in the recent gay suicide case may face prosecution as a result.

And that doesn't even cover the laws against childhood bullying specifically, which is illegal to one degree or another in all but 13 US states.

"Harassment" may not be legally defined, but the behaviors that are generally understood to be part of it are almost all forbidden by existing laws.

 

[Driver Ed]

Well, I reckon it depends on what sort of harassment we're talking about.

For example, threatening behavior - whether or not the threat is carried out - is covered by laws against assault (actually carrying out the threat is covered by battery). Laws against assault and/or battery - in Massachusetts or anywhere else - thus stipulate a right to protection against harrassment by threatening behavior or physical violence.

Taking something that belongs to another person - whether as a joke or otherwise - is covered by laws against theft.

Destroying personal property is covered by laws against vandalism.

Making recordings of a person's actions without their knowledge (whether or not they're then posted on the Internet) is illegal in almost all states, and the young people who did so in the recent gay suicide case may face prosecution as a result.

And that doesn't even cover the laws against childhood bullying specifically, which is illegal to one degree or another in all but 13 US states.

"Harassment" may not be legally defined, but the behaviors that are generally understood to be part of it are almost all forbidden by existing laws.

Thank you. And that's the way to go about it. You forbid SPECIFIC activities, like assault, steeling, and slander, which as Redmage said, has already been done.

There's no need for further lawmaking here. It's the height of stupidity to feel that new laws should be enacted simply to appease the families of suicide perpetrators. It's typical reactionist thinking. There's a law against something. That something happens anway. Let's create a new law for no other reason than to say, "well hey, at least some 'good' came out of this 'tragedy.'"

That's a really bad reason to make laws.

 

[goddess_nemesis]

Thank you. And that's the way to go about it. You forbid SPECIFIC activities, like assault, steeling, and slander, which as Redmage said, has already been done.

There's no need for further lawmaking here. It's the height of stupidity to feel that new laws should be enacted simply to appease the families of suicide perpetrators. It's typical reactionist thinking. There's a law against something. That something happens anway. Let's create a new law for no other reason than to say, "well hey, at least some 'good' came out of this 'tragedy.'"

That's a really bad reason to make laws.

I'm certainly not asking for further lawmaking with this. It's more along the lines of more education (parents teaching their children that bullying is wrong) and schools doing something to help students who are being bullied.

In the case of Tyler Clementi, it's a huge what if, if the school had done something when he reported what happened, maybe he wouldn't have committed suicide. Maybe he still would have. The fact that they didn't is something that needs to change because too often bullied teens feel they can't get help.

 

[tickmankyle1]

i think they need to take the kids and have a public hanging with everyone watching and let the parents of the child pull the trapped door. Believe it or not hangings are the most human way to die. I'm sure in real life the kids don't even get a slap on the wrist.

 

[SlaverTickler]

This explains a lot.
Like why Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are your heroes.

To say that I see them as heroes is an exaggeration. I don't know if I agree with what they did, but I understand why they did it. If you had gone through anything like what they had, maybe you could understand it as well. Maybe if they had been more selective in who they shot, singling out the people who had been harassing them, and hadn't killed themselves after, so they could testify in court as to why they did it... maybe then they could be called heroes. However, if you've been crushed emotionally to the point where you feel your life is fucked to the point that you want to end it, then why not take out the people who fucked you on your way out. Nobody cries when an abused woman takes out her abusive husband, why should I cry over bullies getting waisted by their victims.

Maybe what should happen is, the next time one kid thinks about picking on a another kid, he or she should imagine the intended victim in a trench coat with a semi coming into school for a little payback. Then maybe they will reconsider their actions. Perhaps then the innocent people who got caught in Eric and Dylan wake won't have died for nothing. Because if you think that type of shit isn't going to keep happening, then you are in dream land.

 

[SlaverTickler]

So I asked where you get that information. Twice now, your answer has been to quote Massachusetts law, which applies to neither of us. I keep reminding you that we're looking for something that supports your claim that "children and other people have the right to live their lives without harassment." And you just keep dodging...and dodging. Why don't you just admit you have no source other than your own opinion? We could have saved a lot of time and typing.

As long as there are people like you around there always be people like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

 

[NonConRon]

To say that I see them as heroes is an exaggeration. I don't know if I agree with what they did, but I understand why they did it. If you had gone through anything like what they had, maybe you could understand it as well.

Not likely. Everyone has been bullied at one time or another. What they "went through" is not out of the ordinary, and most of it was brought upon themselves. To make martyrs out of them is ridiculous.

Maybe if they had been more selective in who they shot, singling out the people who had been harassing them, and hadn't killed themselves after, so they could testify in court as to why they did it... maybe then they could be called heroes.

No fucking way. Seriously, are you that fucked up? If they shot the "right people" as in the ones who pissed them off, that qualifies them as heroes?!?
Damn son, someone really did a number on you.

However, if you've been crushed emotionally to the point where you feel your life is fucked to the point that you want to end it, then why not take out the people who fucked you on your way out. Nobody cries when an abused woman takes out her abusive husband, why should I cry over bullies getting waisted by their victims.

There's a phrase for what you are describing, it's called Vigilante Justice, and it's wrong on so many levels I shouldn't have to explain why, even to you.
It amounts to playing God... or Judge, jury and executioner. If you can't wrap what's left of your mind around that, then there's absolutely no hope for you.

Maybe what should happen is, the next time one kid thinks about picking on a another kid, he or she should imagine the intended victim in a trench coat with a semi coming into school for a little payback. Then maybe they will reconsider their actions. Perhaps then the innocent people who got caught in Eric and Dylan wake won't have died for nothing. Because if you think that type of shit isn't going to keep happening, then you are in dream land.

Oh, I'm sure it happens every day, and no one is immune. But going to school locked and loaded is just not acceptable, to say the least.
Even though you live in Canada, I still don't feel comfortable sharing the same continent as you or anyone who subscribes to your twisted logic.

Grab some popcorn and watch the Matrix for the 176,824,286th time and fantasize that it's you blasting away at the bullies who teased you in school.
You can even butter your own popcorn in the process.

 

[Doubledutch]

I support freedom of speech and make no apologies for it. If somebody doesn't like what you have to say, they are free to disregard it.

You're absolutely right.

I've disregarded just about everything you've had to say so far. You're free to continue to spew though.

 

[Driver Ed]

You're absolutely right.

I've disregarded just about everything you've had to say so far.

Sure, I can see that. You've disregarded me so much you just couldn't resist throwing a jab. I'm convinced.

You're free to continue to spew though.

And you are free to my

 

[Driver Ed]

If sources to laws don't show you that it is more them my opinion, then nothing will. If you believe that harrasment laws don't exist, thats your call.

I never said they don't exist. There are two huge flaws in your argument. First, you're talking about laws in Massachusetts, which apply to neither of us, and therefore are not a valid demonstration of your point, which yet again I remind you for the (fourth?) time, is to demonstrate where it's written somewhere other than your opinion that "children and other people have the right to live their lives without harassment."

Secondly, you're making an unwarranted correlation. You're assuming that rights are implicit according to current laws. You point to a law as though it proves the right. It doesn't work that way. The rights are decided first, as in the Bill of Rights. THEN laws are enacted to protect those rights.

Now you're probably thinking in typical liberal fashion, "Well, if the law is there, doesn't that prove the right was there in the first place?"

No, it doesn't. As hard as it may be for you to grasp, there actually ARE other issues of concern. It's not always about people's rights. *gasp*

(Feel free to take a moment to recover your composure, grab a tissue, whatever)

Laws are there to govern safety, regulate commerce, curb violence...a whole world of things that have absolutely nothing to do with rights.

You've been putting the cart before the horse, assuming that the presence of the law infers rights to those protected under those laws.

And once again, you've failed to provide any source for your ridiculous statement that "children and other people have the right to live their lives free of harassment."

I mean, think about the depth of ludicrosity in such a statement. If that were true, creditors wouldn't be permitted to contact you for missed payments. You'd never be able to honk at that numbskull on the road doing 35 in the left lane. You'd never be able to complain about lousy service.

Are you starting to see why you're having so much trouble supporting that statement?

 

[Backstep]

The problem with bullying at schools goes way beyond homosexuality and way beyond rules and regulations. Being a student as a teenager is like living in a completely different subculture.

If I was walking at work one day, saw some gawky guy with glasses and a graphing calculator and for no good reason hip checked him head-first into a cubicle and said, 'go jump off the roof, ya fuckin' nerd!' people would think I'd gone insane.

Set up the same scenario in middle school, and the students around generally don't care, find it funny, or feel bad but know they aren't supposed to talk about it. And if the bully in that scenario is caught, it's maybe a couple days of detention.

Things happen in schools which are ignored or condoned by peers that would get adults censured, fired or even tossed in jail for a while. We can talk about rules and regulations all you want, but kids will find ways to be cruel to each other; they're very creative. And teachers and supervisors and regulators aren't always the solution to the problem.

 

[obama666]

Bullying has always taken place with adolescence but with the dynamic of the internet it has manifested itself into suicide (copycats). When I was growing up young people were bullied but rarely commited suicide. I am totally pro free speech, non-taxed internet. I guess schools are going to have to start enforcing zero tolerance with bullying to combat increased suicide.

 

[Doubledutch]

And you are free to my

I'd be here all day- you've got enough acreage to rebuild the Mall Of America.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

I never said they don't exist. There are two huge flaws in your argument. First, you're talking about laws in Massachusetts, which apply to neither of us, and therefore are not a valid demonstration of your point, which yet again I remind you for the (fourth?) time, is to demonstrate where it's written somewhere other than your opinion that "children and other people have the right to live their lives without harassment."

Perhaps your confusion lies in that your missed before when i said

That asside though, i wasn't speaking so much literally about "Right". Simply stating that people should be able to live their lives free of harrasment. Do you feel differently?

As i already stated, i wasn't talking about a literal right.

As for where its written, i've already shown one case. I have no desire to look up each individual states deffinition. Your welcome to do that if you like.

Secondly, you're making an unwarranted correlation. You're assuming that rights are implicit according to current laws. You point to a law as though it proves the right. It doesn't work that way. The rights are decided first, as in the Bill of Rights. THEN laws are enacted to protect those rights.

Actually laws are created to both protect and curb those rights. If they didn't, you wouldn't have things such a Libal or slander.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Not likely. Everyone has been bullied at one time or another. What they "went through" is not out of the ordinary, and most of it was brought upon themselves. To make martyrs out of them is ridiculous.

That's right, I keep forgetting the USA is pro bully. That's why they get involved in civil wars in 3rd world countries and then kill the leaders they help put in power when they find they can't control them anymore.

No fucking way. Seriously, are you that fucked up? If they shot the "right people" as in the ones who pissed them off, that qualifies them as heroes?!?
Damn son, someone really did a number on you.

Yep, and don't call me son Junior.

There's a phrase for what you are describing, it's called Vigilante Justice, and it's wrong on so many levels I shouldn't have to explain why, even to you.
It amounts to playing God... or Judge, jury and executioner. If you can't wrap what's left of your mind around that, then there's absolutely no hope for you.

Vigilante justice huh, maybe we should see more of it. By the way, if you had done any actual research, you would have learned that those two kids were suffering from mental illness, and probably would have been found not guilty by way of mental defect had they gone to trial. They probably would have been locked away forever in a hospital somewhere, but they wouldn't have gone to jail.

Oh, I'm sure it happens every day, and no one is immune. But going to school locked and loaded is just not acceptable, to say the least.
Even though you live in Canada, I still don't feel comfortable sharing the same continent as you or anyone who subscribes to your twisted logic.

And I don't like sharing a continent with somebody who blames the victim. So since we agree on that, why don't you go live someplace else. Oh wait, you can't. Because you come from a country that bases it entire structure on being a bully, and if you went anywhere else you could risk running in to terrorist who would probably saw off your head.

Grab some popcorn and watch the Matrix for the 176,824,286th time and fantasize that it's you blasting away at the bullies who teased you in school.
You can even butter your own popcorn in the process.

I hated the Matrix movies.

 

[AmericaRocks]

Not likely. Everyone has been bullied at one time or another. What they "went through" is not out of the ordinary, and most of it was brought upon themselves. To make martyrs out of them is ridiculous.

Says someone who had no trouble in grade school.

Seriously, they weren't heroes or martyrs. Saying that is fucking ridiculous. But it really shits me off that you're trying to dismiss bullying as something that isn't an issue. While everyone's been bullied a bit, some kids are tormented to the point where it really affects them. I'm embarrassed to say it, but I was bullied quite a bit in grade school, and I saw friends that went through much worse.

Maybe what should happen is, the next time one kid thinks about picking on a another kid, he or she should imagine the intended victim in a trench coat with a semi coming into school for a little payback. Then maybe they will reconsider their actions.

No, they won't, because kids are dumb. If they see another student as the type who might shoot up the school one day, they generally bully them even more. I'm speaking from personal experience.

That's right, I keep forgetting the USA is pro bully. That's why they get involved in civil wars in 3rd world countries and then kill the leaders they help put in power when they find they can't control them anymore.

And I don't like sharing a continent with somebody who blames the victim. So since we agree on that, why don't you go live someplace else. Oh wait, you can't. Because you come from a country that bases it entire structure on being a bully, and if you went anywhere else you could risk running in to terrorist who would probably saw off your head.

I was kinda on your side until you started dissing my country. :/

 

[SlaverTickler]

No, they won't, because kids are dumb. If they see another student as the type who might shoot up the school one day, they generally bully them even more. I'm speaking from personal experience.

I agree that bullies are stupid, since time and again the nerdy kids have been busted for building bombs or bringing guns into school You would think that after Columbine they would reconsider that sort of behavior. The "nerds" are the brainy kids are smart, maybe not so social, but smart. If you push a smart person to far, they will use their strenth to get you, and smart will always be big in the long run. Smart knows how to rig you car so that the last thing you ever hear is your engine starting.

I was kinda on your side until you started dissing my country. :/

I am sorry if it offends you, but the truth is since the fall of the USSR the United States have become global bullies. When the Russian had their empire (digusting as it was) it kept a balance. Both sides knew they could only push so far. Now there isn't anybody keeping the the USA in check and now they feel like they can do whatever they want to whomever they want. Hell I am suprised they haven't tried to invade us up north, since we reffused to go to Iraq.

 

[He-Man]

I guess schools are going to have to start enforcing zero tolerance with bullying to combat increased suicide.

Some already do...and unfortunately, the vicitms get in as much trouble as the bullies (I don't remember exactly where I read those things, but googling for "zero tolerance nightmares" should bring up some of those stories or message board posts).