HAHA

HAHA

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Ready the Hoop!

I'm going to call Bullshit, again.

You really do have a terrible habit of cherry picking portions of a complete statement to fit your narrative, or do you just have issues with reading comprehension?

My point was obvious. While I can't say I'm "Opposed" to an officer "Accidentally" discharging 17 rounds into a murderer's head, you'll note that I did say that should one be captured alive they should be tried and hung on national television. The better to provide an example of what they can expect.
The point being that resistance should be the rule, rather than the exception. We've been teaching our kids to be victims since the 70's { I know because I was there when it started }. The result is adults that accept  cowardice as the "Norm". The only thing this is conducive to is perpetuating the problem.

As far as my "Bullying Experience", that was hardly the only one. That's just how I learned to deal with them. That method has always worked, and always will work, because at heart all bully's are cowards. Your contention that bullying is a "Complex Social Interaction" is bullshit. Bullying is simply one person attempting to establish dominance over another with intimidation. It has been this way since the beginning of human interaction. By lending credence to the notion that it's "Complex" you perpetuate the problem.

"The Columbine shooters were Bullied!" More Bullshit. { Where are my fucking waders? } OK, they were bullied, but hardly exclusively, and the "Bullies" had graduated the year before the shooting. I'll direct you to a paper by Peter Langman Ph.d. His conclusions were that Eric Harris had a "Disturbed Personality" and "Prominent Antisocial, Narcissistic, and Sadistic Traits". If memory serves, he was also on psychotropic drugs. The notion that bullying was responsible for his actions has been debunked Ad Nauseam, and  the fact is they participated in bullying themselves.

I stand by my assertion that you can't prevent evil, you can only kill it where you find it.

These shooters know they will be famous and they plan to die in the act. What makes you think a public execution will dissuade them?

I don't know the specific breakdown of which shooter was bullied for how long but reports did show that they both had been bullied. Yes, most of the bullying was from the class ahead of them but the pain doesn't disappear just because the bullies do. Yes, Erik Harris had some serious mental health issues. But there were also a second shooter who seemed to be more the follower. He also reported bullying and Klebold's motives were revenge, not being a psycopath. Bullying was a factor, this is not a myth. I mention columbine as an example but it goes beyond that. Columbine isn't the only time the bullied have fought back with violence. Not the first and won't be the last. And what does it prove that they participated in bullying? People who bully were frequently the target of bullying, this is why it is complex, this is why you can't approach the subject from such a minimal understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold#Bullying

Bullying is complex not because of the basic interaction but because of all the issues that stem from it. Yes, one person establishes dominance over the other but it is not that simple. People bully for various reasons and they react to bullying in various ways. The whole "just be a tough guy" attitude is harmful and isn't a practical solution. I think your attitude can basically invite more violence. Lets say one kid teases another kid over and over again. His dad tells him to stand up for himself so he goes and hits the kid in the head with a bat or stabs him with a knife. I guess in a simplistic way you are correct, if the bully lives he won't insult this kid anymore. The kid will be in jail for a while but by golly he stood up to the bully! Then you have the kids who just commit suicide instead of lashing out at others, but what is that to you, just culling the herd?


I guess we are forced to disagree on the rest.

Pass a law to stop the media from using the shooter's name, likeness and guns used in their reports. 

They need to stop sensationalizing all mass shootings, including schools.  The only reason the media does it is to push the anti-gun agenda while emotions are high and to boost ratings.  Period.

We did it for suicides.  Studies showed when suicides were given prominence in news reporting, there followed sometimes multiple copycat suicides.  When reporting stopped, so did almost all copycats.

While I agree with you fully, you do realize that such a law would be unconstitutional?

Unfortunately with the media , as they say "if it bleeds, it leads", so I don't think they are ready to heed this advice.

Maybe the police need to take the step and just never publish the shooters name? Not sure if that would work either though because someone would find out eventually.

Copy cat behavior does seem to be involved in the minds of a number of mass shooters so it is something the media needs to realize. The radio show I listen to they vowed never to use names and only call them stupid angry cowards.

While I agree with you fully, you do realize that such a law would be unconstitutional?

Unfortunately with the media , as they say "if it bleeds, it leads", so I don't think they are ready to heed this advice.

Maybe the police need to take the step and just never publish the shooters name? Not sure if that would work either though because someone would find out eventually.

Copy cat behavior does seem to be involved in the minds of a number of mass shooters so it is something the media needs to realize. The radio show I listen to they vowed never to use names and only call them stupid angry cowards.

THEY_ALREADY_DO_THIS_WITH_SUICIDES.

IT_WORKS.

IT_CAN_BE_DONE_VOLUNTARILY.

HELP_US_TO_HELP_YOU.

These shooters know they will be famous and they plan to die in the act. What makes you think a public execution will dissuade them?

I don't know the specific breakdown of which shooter was bullied for how long but reports did show that they both had been bullied. Yes, most of the bullying was from the class ahead of them but the pain doesn't disappear just because the bullies do. Yes, Erik Harris had some serious mental health issues. But there were also a second shooter who seemed to be more the follower. He also reported bullying and Klebold's motives were revenge, not being a psycopath. Bullying was a factor, this is not a myth. I mention columbine as an example but it goes beyond that. Columbine isn't the only time the bullied have fought back with violence. Not the first and won't be the last. And what does it prove that they participated in bullying? People who bully were frequently the target of bullying, this is why it is complex, this is why you can't approach the subject from such a minimal understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold#Bullying

Bullying is complex not because of the basic interaction but because of all the issues that stem from it. Yes, one person establishes dominance over the other but it is not that simple. People bully for various reasons and they react to bullying in various ways. The whole "just be a tough guy" attitude is harmful and isn't a practical solution. I think your attitude can basically invite more violence. Lets say one kid teases another kid over and over again. His dad tells him to stand up for himself so he goes and hits the kid in the head with a bat or stabs him with a knife. I guess in a simplistic way you are correct, if the bully lives he won't insult this kid anymore. The kid will be in jail for a while but by golly he stood up to the bully! Then you have the kids who just commit suicide instead of lashing out at others, but what is that to you, just culling the herd?


I guess we are forced to disagree on the rest.

Do you ever notice that you have a hard time seeing the forest because of all the trees?

BTW, Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source material.

THEY_ALREADY_DO_THIS_WITH_SUICIDES.

IT_WORKS.

IT_CAN_BE_DONE_VOLUNTARILY.

HELP_US_TO_HELP_YOU.

You seem to be under the impression that I am against this tactic. I am not, my post clearly shows I support this practice. I only pointed out that you could not constitutionally prevent the media from reporting suicides with a law. It has to be voluntary cooperation

Do you ever notice that you have a hard time seeing the forest because of all the trees?

BTW, Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source material.

You can't just push aside bullying as a factor just because one of the boys had psychotic issues.

You want to say just be tough and overcome bullying because it worked for you fine but don't pretend to do some magic solution that will work for everyone.

You are glossing over the issue because this isn't just about Columbine. This is about a greater picture where some people will react violently when being bullied too much. When you're tough guy method doesn't work then we see things like suicide and school shootings. So your idea is great in a theory but it is not practical because it doesn't work for everyone.

Look at the other post I made in the general discussion section about the testimony of a man who was going to shoot up a school but didn't. Bullying was clearly a key issue for him. Luckily he didn't stand up to bullies by shooting up a school.

If  you question the Wikipedia accounts just check the sources. Like this one about the bullying.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/col1003a.htm

You can't just push aside bullying as a factor just because one of the boys had psychotic issues.

You want to say just be tough and overcome bullying because it worked for you fine but don't pretend to do some magic solution that will work for everyone.

You are glossing over the issue because this isn't just about Columbine. This is about a greater picture where some people will react violently when being bullied too much. When you're tough guy method doesn't work then we see things like suicide and school shootings. So your idea is great in a theory but it is not practical because it doesn't work for everyone.

Look at the other post I made in the general discussion section about the testimony of a man who was going to shoot up a school but didn't. Bullying was clearly a key issue for him. Luckily he didn't stand up to bullies by shooting up a school.

If  you question the Wikipedia accounts just check the sources. Like this one about the bullying.
http://extras.denverpost.com/news/col1003a.htm

You can't just push aside the fact that one of the boys { The leader of the group in this case } had psychotic issues simply because at some point they experienced bullying.

Your claim that a solution, that works 99% of the time, isn't "Practical" because it doesn't guarantee a 100% outcome? That's the most moronic thing I've ever heard.

Newsflash Hoop Boy, there is no 100% guaranteed solution when dealing with people. We can only go with what works in the vast majority of situations.

I saw the video you posted somewhere else before you put it up. It disgusts me, because it attempts to put the onus for this sick individuals "Issues" on the rest of us for "Not being Kind Enough". Make no mistake, if you feel that killing others because you were bullied, disliked or unpopular, is in any way a normal response, you have psychotic issues. Seek help, blow your brains out, whatever. But don't expect me to take responsibility for your psychosis or absolve you of blame because of it.

You can't just push aside the fact that one of the boys { The leader of the group in this case } had psychotic issues simply because at some point they experienced bullying.

Your claim that a solution, that works 99% of the time, isn't "Practical" because it doesn't guarantee a 100% outcome? That's the most moronic thing I've ever heard.

Newsflash Hoop Boy, there is no 100% guaranteed solution when dealing with people. We can only go with what works in the vast majority of situations.

I saw the video you posted somewhere else before you put it up. It disgusts me, because it attempts to put the onus for this sick individuals "Issues" on the rest of us for "Not being Kind Enough". Make no mistake, if you feel that killing others because you were bullied, disliked or unpopular, is in any way a normal response, you have psychotic issues. Seek help, blow your brains out, whatever. But don't expect me to take responsibility for your psychosis or absolve you of blame because of it.

I wasn't claiming that bullying caused his psychotic issues.

I think your premise is flawed, I don't think it works 99% of the time. It basically condones people fighting all the time and resorting to violence with no clear line. Puna stated he hit a kid in the head with a lunch box, but what if he had instead stabbed the kid in the neck with a fork? It isn't practical because it doesn't solve the problem and because sometimes it makes it worse. Sure, maybe you don't get bullied anymore but what stops the bully from just picking a new target?

I think you miss the point of the video. He was not blaming others for not being nice enough he was saying that it was acts of kindness (love?) that helped him recover.

these ideas sure are rough

these ideas sure are rough

That's because everyone is just getting ideas before they start brain storming.

Which of course, they aren't.  Brain storming involves a process, but I was informed doing the process in reverse is really how it's done. 

Start with an idea, then people .... something, something .... which leads to ..... something else.

Incorrect, it is "filler" for I don't have the answer yet. First you get an idea, then you brainstorm.

Keeping mass shootings out of the headlines and hiding the shooters name would be very difficult and unlikely, but would be effective if done. 

It's different from suicides which are a more normal private affair which don't really attract mass readership.  The mass shootings get everyone's attention and is very emotional.  It can also be tied into a lot of things on the agenda.  All of this means money for the media.

Keeping mass shootings out of the headlines and hiding the shooters name would be very difficult and unlikely, but would be effective if done. 

It's different from suicides which are a more normal private affair which don't really attract mass readership.  The mass shootings get everyone's attention and is very emotional.  It can also be tied into a lot of things on the agenda.  All of this means money for the media.

How about we start with baby steps?  Keep the mass shootings out of the press in which the shooter commits suicide.  Seems like the suicide part would be enough justification, huh?

Keeping mass shootings out of the headlines and hiding the shooters name would be very difficult and unlikely, but would be effective if done. 

It's different from suicides which are a more normal private affair which don't really attract mass readership.  The mass shootings get everyone's attention and is very emotional.  It can also be tied into a lot of things on the agenda.  All of this means money for the media.

All too true.

Unfortunately the MSM doesn't seem to have the best interests of the country or its citizens at heart

Apparently all this talk of "If it saves just one life.." pales in comparison to the almighty ratings and the Dimocrat agenda.

these ideas sure are rough

Perhaps you would like to contribute something useful? A rough idea is better than no idea and sticking her head in the sand

That's because everyone is just getting ideas before they start brain storming.

Which of course, they aren't.  Brain storming involves a process, but I was informed doing the process in reverse is really how it's done. 

Start with an idea, then people .... something, something .... which leads to ..... something else.

Don't get snippy with me just because you don't know the definition of brainstorming. Can we please just avoid such a childish argument? Maybe it will hurt your pride too much to apologize so don't but at least try to be an adult about this topic.

brainstorming
[breyn-stawr-ming]
noun
a conference technique of solving specific problems, amassing information, stimulating creative thinking, developing new ideas, etc., by unrestrained and spontaneous participation in discussion.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse

I wasn't claiming that bullying caused his psychotic issues.

I think your premise is flawed, I don't think it works 99% of the time. It basically condones people fighting all the time and resorting to violence with no clear line. Puna stated he hit a kid in the head with a lunch box, but what if he had instead stabbed the kid in the neck with a fork? It isn't practical because it doesn't solve the problem and because sometimes it makes it worse. Sure, maybe you don't get bullied anymore but what stops the bully from just picking a new target?

I think you miss the point of the video. He was not blaming others for not being nice enough he was saying that it was acts of kindness (love?) that helped him recover.

I didn't say you were. But you were trying to downplay the role his psychosis played in the events at Columbine and insinuate that "Bullying" was the central cause.

Maybe you don't "think" standing up to bullies works, my experience over the years has shown me that it does. Sometimes a lunchbox upside the head is just what someone needs to straighten out their thought processes.

I think what you really have issue with is that fact that sometimes you have to meet violence with violence.

Teaching kids that standing up for themselves isn't "Condoning" violence, nor does it lead to "Fighting all the time". It actually leads to less violence. Even if the person standing up to the bully loses that confrontation, the bully is faced with the realization that he/she { wouldn't want to be sexist now would we } is going to face resistance rather than be rewarded by appeasement. As I said before, and has been proven time and again, bullies are essentially cowards. They're looking for the easy win, not a fight. Once they realize that they'll be facing resistance, those that aren't psychotic change their behavior. People see others resisting and realize they can resist too. The 1% that are psychotic will never change. You can't "Fix" them. They will never be "Normal". They will always have the seed of evil within them.

Yes, my solution to that 1% is to exterminate them with extreme prejudice wherever we find them.

As far as that puling tub of lard is concerned, you can go read the response I posted in that thread.

I didn't say you were. But you were trying to downplay the role his psychosis played in the events at Columbine and insinuate that "Bullying" was the central cause.

Maybe you don't "think" standing up to bullies works, my experience over the years has shown me that it does. Sometimes a lunchbox upside the head is just what someone needs to straighten out their thought processes.

I think what you really have issue with is that fact that sometimes you have to meet violence with violence.

Teaching kids that standing up for themselves isn't "Condoning" violence, nor does it lead to "Fighting all the time". It actually leads to less violence. Even if the person standing up to the bully loses that confrontation, the bully is faced with the realization that he/she { wouldn't want to be sexist now would we } is going to face resistance rather than be rewarded by appeasement. As I said before, and has been proven time and again, bullies are essentially cowards. They're looking for the easy win, not a fight. Once they realize that they'll be facing resistance, those that aren't psychotic change their behavior. People see others resisting and realize they can resist too. The 1% that are psychotic will never change. You can't "Fix" them. They will never be "Normal". They will always have the seed of evil within them.

Yes, my solution to that 1% is to exterminate them with extreme prejudice wherever we find them.

As far as that puling tub of lard is concerned, you can go read the response I posted in that thread.

I focus on the bullying because that is something we can control.  We can't stop a psychotic from being a psychotic but we can decide how we interact with them.

I am not suggesting that standing up to bullies never works but I think it an overly simple solution given to an emotional child and isn't always going to lead to the best outcome. Like I asked you earlier, how is this scared child standing up to a bully know where to draw the line between stabbing them and hitting them with a lunch box?

Not all bullying is physical by the way.  For example the witty kid who can insult someone less socially savvy. I don't want to make an assumption of what you are saying so I want to know if your solution of standing up to a bully by fighting them physically is something you would also suggest when standing up to a verbal bully?

Bullying can also be done to make oneself look better at the cost of somebody else, not just establish control Maybe these people are cowards or maybe they are opportunists seeing ways to increase their popularity at the cost of another's.

Standing up to a bully can often work, I will give you that but the reality is that not everyone will stand up to a bully. For those who can't or won't stand up to a bully, I want to make a difference so that they don't end up choosing to hurt themselves or other people

Exterminating evil after it has run its course does nothing towards preventing it from happening.

EEF, I have been reading what you have been writing. Are you saying that more and more children are becoming more violent than when (let's say) I was a child in the 60's? Because this violence did not occur when I was a child. As a child I wouldn't think of acting out like this. I was too afraid of the consequences. So could it be the child's upbringing that is now different causing these violent outbursts? If so, and this is how I feel, I think the solution here is to make the parents responsible for what their children do. Both criminally and civilly. I think you will see a drastic change in how parents raise their children.

We used to have debtor's prisons why not family prisons? Put 'em all in jail together and let the parents deal with the consequences and the child. Let the MSM in to see how families are living. It is not perfect. And it is probably too simplistic for your complex problem theories. But I am of the idea that simple solutions, to even the most complex problems, are still the best way.

I know you are going to come up with more complex issues stemming from my solution. However, I feel like most here that we have to do what is best for the majority. I think when you start making these problems about the individual and not about what is best for the majority you make things unnecessarily complex. JMHO