Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
That's an example of a show of force, not reasoning. Telling mom is using authority to stop you, which is force. Using a gun is, obviously, force.
|
No, both are examples of reasoning. A show of force is telling mom or pulling the trigger. You are giving the bully options with repercussions, and he can choose to continue the bullying and call your bluff or stop.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
The act of bullying someone is to (at the minimum) establish dominance. You cannot reason with a person who feels they rightfully dominate you.
|
That's my whole point about bullies being more than the unthinking wrecking machines that everyone in this thread seems hellbent on calling them and the reason that I'm calling bullshit on everyone who says that they've never bullied anyone. Bullying is a short-cut to power and status in a group (a group being 2 or more people). If you've never said anything mean to anyone or made sure your younger brother/sister/cousin/neighbor didn't pass you in the pecking order, then I apologize, but since we're all human animals, I think that we're all guilty of it to some degree or another. You may have never beaten up someone smaller and weaker than you, but I am sure that you asserted your dominance in other ways. That's just the way we're all wired.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
If you can reason with a "bully", then you're not dealing with a "bully", you're just dealing with a kid who has a simple propensity for violence (doesn't understand "right from wrong"). They can be reasoned with simply because they need direction and to learn that's it's bad to hit people. This type of person, however, would most likely not target specific people, or continually focus their violence on one person.
|
I really don't get what you mean here. Are you really saying that anyone who can be reasoned out of a violent act has a propensity for violence or is this some sort of typo? I can't believe that you actually think that since it seems completely disconnected from the real world. Someone with a propensity for violence is going to be impossible to reason with and pursues violence for violence's sake. Somebody who can be reasoned with is a rational person. They may be a bully, but the two things are mutually exclusive. A rational bully realizes that you don't pick on the wierd kid who has a gun or that you don't beat up the kid who's dad just got out of prison for assaulting a police horse. Irrational, stupid or ignorant bullies might make those mistakes, but the rational ones wouldn't.
As far as your experience with your bully, I'd say you were complete justified in your response since you defended yourself after you were hit. Let me point out yet again that the original point of this thread was verbal harrassment with some physical abuse. Throughout this thread, there's been a kneejerk reaction calling for Kelsie to bring the smackdown on Donald, and all I'm saying is that there are better ways to handle it, especially since any sort of physical response to verbal abuse is assault, pure and simple. With that kind of response, Kelsie gives away the moral high ground and opens herself up to punishment. If he hits her, I'll happily be the one who pins his arms back while she knees him, but hitting someone because they made fun of you is never acceptable.