Just being a kid or something more deep seated?

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I don't detract those words.

To clarify:

I'm not advocating bullying. Bullies are assholes. They try to drag people down to their level. But, I also believe we live in a cry baby society. I do believe that parents need to man up first and teach their children how to do the same. This does not involve solving problems with celebrities on PSAs, nor does it involve solving problems by delegating responsibility to other non-vested parties. Clearly you believe we can somehow solve the problem through PSAs and delegating personal parental responsibility to other sources.... if so, I'm glad I'm not your child.

What do you mean, "parents need to man up"? Both mother and father should "man up". :roll:

:fp:

It's a figure of speech:

I meant it in terms of taking on your responsibilities. Basically, don't pass it off to a celebrity, teacher or the media... if it's your responsibility.

OK, that makes sense.

brianlux

I've been thinking about some things inlet has said here and to a degree I can agree about one thing. It's not a bad thing to learn to not be overly sensitive to somethings. For example, I had a boss once who was an ex-army sergeant. This guy was very scary to me. If I didn't do something exactly the way he wanted he would growl at me like a vicious dog. I finally went to his office to give notice. I told him I wasn't comfortable with his approach to me. He said, "Jesus Christ, Brian, don't be so thin skinned. I'm just trying to help you do a better job." All of the sudden he seemed more like a father figure than a mad dog. I learned a lot from that experience.

But physical bullying is different. When I was in high school a big kid who was older than me sat behind me in my Spanish class. On a number of occasions, when the teacher wasn't watching, he pounded my back with his fist. I was a scrawny kid and even though my friends told me I should hit him back I was afraid that if I did he might kill me- I mean literally kill me. And I received no help from any adults in this situation. It was- take the pounding or die. I could have used some help back then, somebody to stand up against bullying. Any kind of help. Maybe if I'd had some help back then I would have to see my chiropractor as often today. And at times this experience still fucks with my head today.

So there's a difference between verbal bullying and physical bullying. I think they're both wrong and yeah, maybe some of us need to learn not to be so sensitive to words, but I think we should definitely stand up against physical bullying.

inlet13

pjhawks wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

My answer is the money (or opportunity cost) would be better spent in other areas. Bullying is not priority #1 for our nation right now - in my opinion.

clearly you don't have children or children of that age or even any family members that age. look one of those kids in the eye and tell us it's not a priority. your attitude will change when you do i suspect. although i imagine by your tone here your child might end up on the wrong side of the bully issue. good day sir.

and money spent on this issue is a mere pittance compared to what is wasted on so many other things.

I do have children. And, once again, you don't understand, nor are you trying to understand. I've said repetitively that children are the parents responsibility. I never once said it's not a priority to THOSE PARENTS. I said as a nation, that bullying is not the #1 priority. Why you feel the need to debate that is beyond me.

If my child was being bullied, I'd be proactive. I'd find out how he/she was being bullied first. If it was verbal, I'd teach my child why it's happening and try to teach them how to respond. If it was physical, I would be much more proactive. I'd go to the authorities. I would not simply go to a teacher and expect them to handle it and be done with it. I would consider talking to a teacher about it, but most importantly I would equip my child with resources to handle these situations when I'm not around. That's what I would do. Clearly, owning up to the fact that the child is your responsibility is a "no-no" around these parts. Instead, you all are pretending like celebrity commercials will handle the problem. :fp:

inlet13

JonnyPistachio wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

But, I also believe we live in a cry baby society. I do believe that parents need to man up first and teach their children how to do the same. This does not involve solving problems with celebrities on PSAs, nor does it involve solving problems by delegating responsibility to other non-vested parties. Clearly you believe we can somehow solve the problem through PSAs and delegating personal parental responsibility to other sources.... if so, I'm glad I'm not your child.

This could easily be misconstrued as you suggesting that they take it into their own hands and physically fight back....which is another interesting argument. My Dad used to say, just knock him out (bullies) before they get to you. Of course, I never took that advice, and it would likely get a kid in more trouble today than it used to.

I suppose I can see why you'd think that, but that's not what I meant. Look - if someone is physically harming your child, like beating them up, that's completely different. You should report that because by definition it's abuse. What I meant when I said that was in regards to a different kind of bullying... name calling and whatnot. That sort of thing can be diffused quickly. You can learn how to do that. Bullies are often very insecure. So, if you know how to deal with that once they begin picking on you, say through humor, you'll often find that you minimize the problem.

It's just logical. Bottom line - teach your child to stand up for themselves is what I'm advocating. If it's abuse, standing up for one's self can be as simple as disclosing information.

inlet13

:idea:

Maybe we should start an awareness campaign on murder. We'll make it a commercial. I think if we hire Tom Hanks to star in it, less murders will certainly take place!

:corn:

inlet13

Came up with another idea :idea: ...

Let's make a commercial talking about the value of abstinence. Since, we want less teen pregnancies and less abortions... the obvious answer is PSAs. If we do one with a celebrity, say Britney Spears (for example) saying people teens should be abstinent, that surely means that there will be less abortions and teen pregnancies.

Right?

polaris_x

hey ... victims of drunk drivers ... stop whining ... just because madd sponsors an ad with a celebrity telling us not to drink and drive ... it's gonna happen anyways ... suck it up and deal with your loss ... man up ...

two can play games of absurdity ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

hey ... victims of drunk drivers ... stop whining ... just because madd sponsors an ad with a celebrity telling us not to drink and drive ... it's gonna happen anyways ... suck it up and deal with your loss ... man up ...

two can play games of absurdity ...

You're for the abstinence PSAs, right?

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

You're for the abstinence PSAs, right?

let me check to see where it is in the nation's priority list first ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

You're for the abstinence PSAs, right?

let me check to see where it is in the nation's priority list first ...

To quote you: "oh dear"

pjhawks

polaris_x wrote:

hey ... victims of drunk drivers ... stop whining ... just because madd sponsors an ad with a celebrity telling us not to drink and drive ... it's gonna happen anyways ... suck it up and deal with your loss ... man up ...

two can play games of absurdity ...

well played.

JonnyPistachio

inlet13 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

But, I also believe we live in a cry baby society. I do believe that parents need to man up first and teach their children how to do the same. This does not involve solving problems with celebrities on PSAs, nor does it involve solving problems by delegating responsibility to other non-vested parties. Clearly you believe we can somehow solve the problem through PSAs and delegating personal parental responsibility to other sources.... if so, I'm glad I'm not your child.

This could easily be misconstrued as you suggesting that they take it into their own hands and physically fight back....which is another interesting argument. My Dad used to say, just knock him out (bullies) before they get to you. Of course, I never took that advice, and it would likely get a kid in more trouble today than it used to.

I suppose I can see why you'd think that, but that's not what I meant. Look - if someone is physically harming your child, like beating them up, that's completely different. You should report that because by definition it's abuse. What I meant when I said that was in regards to a different kind of bullying... name calling and whatnot. That sort of thing can be diffused quickly. You can learn how to do that. Bullies are often very insecure. So, if you know how to deal with that once they begin picking on you, say through humor, you'll often find that you minimize the problem.

It's just logical. Bottom line - teach your child to stand up for themselves is what I'm advocating. If it's abuse, standing up for one's self can be as simple as disclosing information.

Ok, I get it. And your post above this one was good too.
But to generally say that a PSA campaign on anti-bullying is a waste is incorrect. My boss used to work with an organization that touted anti-bullying measures and I spoke to many of the people involved. Awareness is a good thing sometimes, and while it might not prevent a lot of bullying, if it stops just one, its worth it. They arent always celebrity fronted cheesy commercials, they extend into the schools. Many of them encourage kids to report or step in and help when a classmate, such as in the story Brian told, is being bullied.

But, in the end, you're right, many bullies are just insecure kids who have parents that lack the skills to raise their kid right.

usamamasan1

usamamasan1 wrote:

If there was a pattern it would be disturbing. This is a non-issue.

Most Americans by far dismiss the relevance of accusations that Mitt Romney bullied a high-school classmate, calling it off-point in the election debate - and indicating they'd say the same about Barack Obama's behavior as a high-school student, as well.

Three-quarters in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the account of Romney's high school behavior is not a serious matter, about as many say it doesn't provide relevant information on his character, and nearly all - 90 percent - say it's not a major factor in their vote preference.


While those are direct assessments, there could nonetheless be slight indirect impacts. Obama leads Romney on having "the better personal character to serve as president," and, controlling for other variables, both this view, and vote preference overall, are independently predicted by the belief that the bullying issue is a serious one. But the effect in each case is minor compared with many other predictors.

Most Americans, in any case, see the general approach as inappropriate: Seventy-five percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, say it's unfair to bring up things a political candidate did in high school. Given the context of the bullying story, 89 percent of Republicans say so; that slips to 73 percent of independents and 66 percent of Democrats.

Further, 72 percent think the specific bullying incident, first reported by The Washington Post, does not provide useful information about Romney's character. That, too, engenders partisan divisions: Almost all Republicans (94 percent) think the incident isn't relevant; 71 percent of independents and 59 percent of Democrats agree.

Seventy percent likewise say information about Obama's high school behavior would not reveal relevant information about his character. Interestingly, again in the context of the current news, Republicans are the most apt to say so, 83 percent; Democrats least, 59 percent. (Republicans, though, are 11 points less apt to say it's irrelevant for Obama than for Romney; Democrats and independents are constant on both candidates.)

METHODOLOGY - This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 17-20, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,004 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points for the full sample. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.