Sure you'd be proud, that's your personal opinion. Now you need to look for a new school, which costs money, and may mean moving which costs more money. You'd look out for your kid but it's not an ideal solution and full of negatives.

Really at this point you aren't NEGATING the negatives you are just trying to cushion them but really why should we take an option where the guaranteed outcome is negative anyway.



Except you DON'T know nobody will pick on you again, you are isolated, you are a target, you are a mysterious person. Some might take that as a challenge.

EVEN THEN this is still trying to cushion the massive negative of getting expelled.

If all you can do is say "Yeah the worst things happen but look on the bright side" then it's no longer an acceptable argument when the diplomatic option avoids the "worst things" from happening in the first place.



I was never in disagreement about that, that's why I agreed with someone else when they need to increase awareness about diplomatic resolutions to bullying and alternatives to violence. We can recognise what the bad option is that's why we need to think up other solutions.

---

Umm... Online public school... And of course you'd be putting the onus on other people to compensate for a problem you created... You made a problem because there was another, bigger problem that they failed to correct and it forced your hand...



At least then you know they're avoiding/targeting you for something you did and not something stupid like good grades and hobbies or something you can't control like orientation or race.



Gee, maybe because one of the effects bullying has on victims is depression, and depression can affect grades negatively? By "educational life is down the drain anyway" I meant that so long as the bullying is still going on, the victim's grades are pretty likely to drop. Even if it's only for a little while, it can kill your GPA to the point where you don't get the honors you would've otherwise.

I should know; my GPA was actually pretty darn close to a 4.0 for most of high school except in my sophomore year, where I got an F in the first semester and a D in the second, and a C in another class in both semesters... I barely got the honor cord when I graduated >_<;



Nah, it's alright, I don't mind. I know I'm often childish. It's not going to get me a whole lot of respect from anyone, really, but at least the kids have an adult who's not going to write them off just because they haven't been exposed to certain angles about things.

You see, my entire life I've had this doctrine of "Run to the teachers! They'll help you solve your problems! =D =D =D " shoved down my throat, and yet I've seen, more than once, a student being entirely written off by a teacher. Serious issue, trivial issue, whatever, the adults don't listen. The point I was trying to make was that diplomacy is not the only valid option; maybe violence won't necessarily end in a good outcome, but it's better than trying again and again to ask an adult for help and have them tell you they can't or won't do anything, if they take the time to listen in the first place. It's something the kids can do if no one cares enough to hear them out, at least.



The American Revolution...?



you're not optimistic enough*cough*

Um, for the record, I've been writing under the assumption the victim was in worst-case scenario, the system is shit, and the parents are either not there or not helpful... I do agree that, in a working system, the victim should always try to ask for help from parents and such first. But in a situation where the system is not working, violence should be a valid option. Because again, I stress -- if the system is not working, what the hell else is the victim supposed to do? Lay down and die?

---

No...no it really didn't. The individual threw caution to the wind knowing full well they might get in trouble for what they did.

There were alternatives. If an individual turns to violence and gets expelled they've created a problem for their parents, their hands weren't forced. Nobody made they fight or resort to violence, no one said it'd be a good idea.

Again all of these are only trying to justify the ABSOLUTE negative outcome of being expelled. Nothing good comes of the violent approach, at least with the diplomatic approach there's a chance it'll be resolved peacefully.



The hell does that change? They are still avoiding or targeting you, does the motive matter? The outcome is still the same!

Also I'd argue resorting to violence to get yourself expelled IS something stupid.



Sure it CAN, it MIGHT happen. I know many smart individuals who were bullied who got past it. Sadly most of them got past it by being rather conceited and self-certain in their own intelligence (and derogatory towards the bullies' intelligence) but they persevered. It's not a guaranteed side effect and a lot of things can cause depression in school years.

It's a possibility but it's not a cause-and-effect guarantee. Just because you are bullied doesn't mean your grades will plummet.



The problem is you keep suggesting Violence has a positive outcome. By saying it "won't necessarily end in a good outcome" it's a phrase tinged with positivity. It hints that it'll probably end up well but might not necessarily.

How? I've said repeatedly how the only outcomes are negative. Your responses are to say "Sure you might get expelled but hey the bullies are gone?" or "Sure you might be dying but hey, don't need to deal with bullies anymore!"

You acknowledge the bad points but you don't consider them bad. Dying and being expelled are objectively negative outcomes. So why take a path that only leads to negatives?

Bullying: Diplomacy or Violence?
*Diplomacy: Effective or Ineffective?
*Ineffective (Bullying continues)
*Effective (Bullying stops or is controlled in some manner that the problem disappears)

*Violence: Victory or Defeat?
*Victory (Bullies are aggravated, School Authorities are incensed, You are punished, Bullies can still retaliate)
*Defeat (Bullies beat you, potential other torments at the mercy of the bullies, bullies get a laugh out of it. the threat remains)

Note also that unlike a violent approach the Diplomatic one can be tried multiple times with different individuals to find someone who will follow through on the issue. If one teacher brushes you off take it a level above them, this is the sort of thing the teachers should care about, you could take it to a local paper or the parent-teachers association and disgrace said teacher and in the rush to make amends the school absolutely would focus on sorting the problem.



I reject this comparison, we were talking about just hurting another human being, Wars are fought for much greater consequences than the violence example we were talking about.



No the victim should keep fighting diplomatically, as I stressed above, the diplomatic solution is something that can be doggedly pursued, you can get public opinion on your side, turn the power of the press against the school. This is assuming that the school doesn't buckle and try and resolve it when you merely threaten them with the press.

The world is slowly turning against the accepted assumption that "Boys will be boys" such violent attitudes (not to say that it's exclusive to boys) are no longer tolerable and any school that is caught shrugging off bullying as schoolyard fun will surely find itself facing the cold stony judgement of a higher authority and facing consequences for it.

Violence is not an option because it can only end badly, even when you win the fight. Diplomacy is a repeatable option, as I stated earlier there is no 'perfect' solution for bullying so the least we can do is give ourselves the best chance.

---

I am not saying you have to care. I am not saying that understanding the bully excuses or justifies the behavior in any way. It doesn't. You can understand people's motives without making excuses for their behavior. But trying to deal with someone or something when you're armed only with assumptions will likely backfire. You may get lucky, and that punch to the nose may be what some dumb kid needed. Or you might end up liking the wrong boy and wonder why the girl you've been friends with for months is suddenly spreading nasty rumors behind your back while laughing about it in front of you with her new best friend. I don't think a facepunch will work then, though it might feel satisfying to you.





Oh, I wasn't talking about proving justified self-defense to the authorities. But since you asked, I'm talking about the difference between fighting back long enough to make a person stop attacking you, and going beyond that to make an example of bullying (such as, harassing/attacking anyone associated with the bully that harassed you first).

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with fighting back when appropriate, to an extent. You may find yourself in a situation where it's unavoidable (hopefully this will not be the case). But taking on twelve jerks with the intention of going down fighting is just reckless and stupid, IMO.

---

Whew, it's hot in here.

I never once mentioned that my willpower tactics would work all the time. It's why there's no one solution to bullying. People can take multiple options and somehow resolve matters.

I've stoutly argued against resorting to violence, but I'm a reasonable person. Violence can be the answer in one very specific situation - when you know you can defend yourself; when you have legit experience with blocking or dodging hits. Watching kung fu films doesn't count, but at least getting a little knowledge of how to restrain someone or break free of someone's grasp helps. It works even better when you can use your backpack or something relatively soft as a sort of shield.

The point is, when you absolutely have to get violent, you have to be considerate of the bully's health as well. Ironic, I know, but it's kinda like diplomacy with more physical movement. It's for the good of both parties that you prevent either side from getting beaten up, to reduce the risk of getting reprimands. If you have to wrestle someone to the ground, make sure to offer to help them back up.

Now, if you could have talked the bully out of attacking you in the first place, then it's your whole victory. Prevents you the hassle of having to defend yourself with your fists.

And if you're hesitant for even a second that you might lose, then just bolt. Don't let the bullies keep you there. It's not cowardice when you need to escape. It's just retreating for preparations.


Parents will be proud of their kids no matter what. But they'll be even more impressed if their kids could defeat their opponents without resorting to violence.

---