Basically the question is, in cases such as bullying and parents who physically abuse their children is the best response to beat up the bullies and parents right back? Or are we better off trying to find more peaceful ways to solve the problem?

--The rest of this is background on why I'm posting it here and why the last one elsewhere got sour. If you don't wish to read that and just answer the question above them stop reading now--

This was a debate I originally got into in a group I'm in, but the people who supported beating up the bullies and parents (and there case, to the extent of breaking limbs) the three of them waited until all the others who would disagree were offline and them bombarded the topic with just me left. And they basically resorted to pointless insults and that "The only way to stop abuse and bullying is by beating kids up" over and over again with no proof outside of self-claimed experience or using fear.

Now, I'm not telling people this to suddenly paint anyone here who may take the solve violence with violence option as bad or evil. I'm actually explaining this because:

1) I want to give people who are actually able to give proper arguments a chance to defend this side before I dismiss is as 100% wrong

2) Because although I left the debate with them because it was clear these three specifically cared nothing for fact but rather letting out their anger on others, I'm still rather irritated and annoyed at their ignorance, cheap tactics and frankly just very poor debating skills. So this is kind of a pre-explanation/warning that if I seem to get too hostile or aggressive to those who may advocate to using violence that my reaction is not on purpose, I don't mean it and will work my best to not let such hostility slip in.

^With that said though, my general position/opinion has already been given though.
I'll go into more specifics once some responses get flowing though.

You do not stop a tyrant by waggling your finger and telling them to stop. You stop a tyrant by hitting them so fucking hard they never do it again. All of human history shows this, but I suppose a prominent example is Hitler. He conquered, and was allowed to conquer, unopposed, through the entirety of multiple nations, and he didn't stop. Had the western world not decidedly stand up and fight him at a certain point, he would have just kept on going until he went insane or literally steamrolled the world under tank treads.

There have been people who have attacked me for utterly no more reason than to get a rise out of me, or out of boredom, or to try and "win" the favour of someone they look up to or find attractive, or for a hundred other reasons really. I could have just said no and gotten the shit kicked out of me again and again, but I didn't. I stood up to them, and they eventually, one by one, fell away.

Simply put: Bullies are malevolent predators. They prey on the weak. If you don't fight back, they will continue to prey on you as an easy target. That is the hunter mentality. After all, if you're going to pick on someone, who are you going to pick on? The guy who doesn't fight back, or the guy who will bite and kick and punch and spit on you with everything he's got every time you try?

As for abusive parents, that's entirely different and is usually a case by case basis. It's not like a child could possible win a fist fight with an adult in all realism, so this is a lose-lose situation at the best of times.

But, but, Brovo! Eye for an eye!!!!! EYE FOR AN EEEEEYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But in all seriousness, the only real way to stop violence is WITH violence in some capacity. Not saying you need to go fucking apeshit ballistic, but you need to physically fight back, not just scorn the aggressor and "feel bad" for the person said aggressor attacked. Know what that does? It allows the aggressor to keep BEING an aggressor, they will NEVER change just because someone sent them a letter or message that is filled with emotionally charged words. Words can only stop something BEFORE it happens, they can't stop it from happening as it happens.

Simply put:

I am a product of this pacifistic movement that started in the 70s. All of my childhood, it was drilled into me that I should not fight back against bullies, I should "ignore them". I should "turn the other cheek". "Be the better man," "Tell a teacher".

Problem is, none of that actually stops the bully, it encourages them. The bully is not looking for a challenge. It's why they pick on people weaker than themselves. Yes, to stop their predatory aspects outright, their actions need attention other than violence. They need counseling, or other therapy to get to the underlying cause of why they are being a bully.

But teaching kids that they should not stand up for themselves, that the only solution to the problem is to either;
A: Ignore it, or
B: tell an "authority" figure to do something about it...

...Just does not make sense to me. Having these ideals drilled into my head made me feel powerless, it made me feel worse. What happens when you ignore the bully? They just bully you more, because you are easy prey. The primary tool you are told will work against the bully, is useless. So you turn to the other tool, you tell a teacher. What happens? The bully gets in trouble, their parents might reprimand them....and then they come back and take it out on the person who is the cause of their new problem.

Ahem.
Well, yes. We must somehow stop a bastard from acting like a bastard. If the jerk does something like this to a child, they must be stopped. I would prefer we get to mash their balls to paste so they never get to abuse another child again from their own progeny but I KNOW that's wrong. lol.

But in all seriousness, there's nothing wrong in giving them some sort of physical pain equal to what they've done to a child, or at least close enough to it so that they won't harm them again. You could, for example, cane them the French way, until their ass cheeks are almost sliced off lol. One thing that is possible is that a perpetrator only succumbs to a moment of lunacy and/or idiocy once, and never does their crime again. In that case, perhaps very light corporal punishment and a fine is good. If they are repeat offenders, the said child must be given to the custody of a compassionate person, and the "Father" or whomever abused the child should be punished severely. Not necessarily permanently, but in a way which is very hurtful to drive home the point that they are being punished and WILL NOT abuse children again, or ELSE!

Something like this should be done for non-Parents, just abusers in general as well.

It is not typically the role of an individual to serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Sometimes, it is. Violence, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. Violence is an extension of force, the fundamental building block of power and the cornerstone of all human civilization. Some power rests with individuals, who can use it for good or ill, and that's a reflection of the person -- not of the nature of violence. People are taught non-violence, because it's more efficient and easier than teaching responsibility.... the truth is that responsible use of power is the only method of doing good in the world. Sometimes that means voting, sometimes that means economic sanctions, sometimes that means dropping a bomb on Hiroshima. Typically though, it means putting kids in time-out when they punch a bully on the chin, because even good intentions can do harm. Jail is a better and more humane response to crime..... but the guards carry night sticks and guns, as they must.

In other words, systematic force consolidates power into a more controllable and less intrusive form. Most of the time we don't need the sheriff to sling guns on main street, because law and order prevents most situations from escalating to that point. And sure, threat of pain and death is part of that system of order; uniformed police with badges and guns prevent crime.

Sometimes though, our proactive, preventative, systematic methods don't stop bad things from happening. At that point we're reacting to violence, and well.... shit's gone to hell at that point anyway. You're in a different scenario after the shit has already hit the fan. Negotiations stop when they start killing hostages, you know? There comes a point beyond which unmitigated violence is the only rational response. All our systems of education and prevention and peaceful interaction are designed to keep that line from being crossed; they can't protect you from what's on the other side of the line. Shepherds used to carry crooks to guide the sheep, and slings to kill the wolves -- if you neglected one or the other you lost your flock. To an extent, the concept of justice needs to serve both of those functions.

Still, answering violence with violence is a human response, and not an innately flawed one. Dangerous, yes; higher stakes, yes; but not wrong. You'll experience this at some point in your life -- the urge to protect something, or someone, or even simply yourself. It's guttural and vicious, and sometimes, the right thing to do.

Brovo said
You do not stop a tyrant by waggling your finger and telling them to stop. You stop a tyrant by hitting them so fucking hard they never do it again. All of human history shows this, but I suppose a prominent example is Hitler. He conquered, and was allowed to conquer, unopposed, through the entirety of , and he didn't stop. Had the western world not decidedly stand up and fight him at a certain point, he would have just kept on going until he went insane or literally steamrolled the world under tank treads.There have been people who have attacked me for utterly no more reason than to get a rise out of me, or out of boredom, or to try and "win" the favour of someone they look up to or find attractive, or for a hundred other reasons really. I could have just said no and gotten the shit kicked out of me again and again, but I didn't. I stood up to them, and they eventually, one by one, fell away.Simply put: Bullies are malevolent predators. They prey on the weak. If you don't fight back, they will continue to prey on you as an easy target. That is the hunter mentality. After all, if you're going to pick on someone, who are you going to pick on? The guy who doesn't fight back, or the guy who will bite and kick and punch and spit on you with everything he's got every time you try?As for abusive parents, that's entirely different and is usually a case by case basis. It's not like a child could possible win a fist fight with an adult in all realism, so this is a lose-lose situation at the best of times.

I'm not goin' anywhere love.

<3

Yes, sometimes, you have to understand that ill-will is ill-will. The person wont just stop beacause it hurts you, because it's wrong, beacause it's prohibited: they made a decision, and it indeed is often hard to understand to motivation of such people, to change their views, and to do so in time. Violence allows to beat one into surrendering, either silencing them for a while, or outright breaking them. A fearsome tool, yet it only allows opression, never actualy solving the misunderstandings; i deem neither of the extremes - pacifism, tyranny - viable, but agree that the use of violence must be kept at bay.

As others have said in various ways, violence in some capacity is necessary to deal with bullies and abusive people in general. Non-violent methods simply enable or encourage the predatory habits of those kinds of people, so they're not a viable solution. As barbaric as it may sound, the question should not be "is violence an acceptable answer to violence?" it should be "how much violence is an acceptable answer to this instance of violence?" It all comes down to a matter of proportionality and severity, and it varies a lot from case to case.

A kid roughly shoved another kid? A firm swat to the head will probably suffice.

A kid beat the crap out of another kid? I don't care what modern coddling parenting nonsense says, that deserves some ass whooping with a belt.

An adult hit another adult? Return it to the attacker with interest and call it good, they're old enough to know better. Exceptions to this include if they injured the person (ie more than just pain and bruises), or they're attacking a defenseless person, or it's a repeated thing where they didn't learn from past times getting punched for hitting someone else; in any of those cases you can slap their shit and also call the cops because they deserve to get their shit slapped legally as well as physically at that point.

An adult physically abused a child? This is one of those situations where if you just trade violence for violence and leave them be afterward, odds are very good they'll later go and vent their ire on the same target and that's no good. Luckily it turns out that whooping ass isn't the only kind of violence, and that's where jail comes in. Throw them into jail for a few years to cool down, slap a felony child abuse charge on their record, and bam, you've just beat the shit out of their entire life without needing to resort to traditional physical violence (though there's the fun bonus that child abusers and molesters tend to get their asses kicked regularly in jail).

All of those should be coupled with some of those non-violent methods, by the way. All that counseling and explaining why it was wrong and how they should feel bad and so forth should come during and/or after the administration of violence. Alone that stuff does little to nothing, but coupled with a fresh reminder of the direct penalties of further transgressions it might actually work. Violence to answer violence is not pretty and it's not a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better than the non-violent routes.

Brovo said
You do not stop a tyrant by waggling your finger and telling them to stop. You stop a tyrant by hitting them so fucking hard they never do it again. All of human history shows this, but I suppose a prominent example is Hitler. He conquered, and was allowed to conquer, unopposed, through the entirety of , and he didn't stop. Had the western world not decidedly stand up and fight him at a certain point, he would have just kept on going until he went insane or literally steamrolled the world under tank treads.

[2]

Pacifism is a nice idea until you think about it for a few seconds and realize what a terrible idea it is.

Early on in my college education I remember taking my first psychology course. The focus was on child development, something I looked into further with a family friend who specializes in that area. We spoke about violence as it relates to punishment, I guess really we were speaking about what to do when a child does something 'bad'. After you get past the existential definitions of violence, badness, and whatever else, you get to a strange place. See, as a group we had varying backgrounds and memories. We spoke about bullies, about how our parents enforced their teachings, and how these types of experiences shaped us. What marked me was how clearly our studies reflected reality. The texts did not blatantly disagree with some level of violence in parenting or in response to bullying, but it paid a lot of time on the repercussions. When we are taught with violence the difference from wrong and right we develop associations. We learn that if we're going to take a cookie without asking, we should sneak that, that doing wrong is deserving of physical pain, and of course my favourite, that it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. The fact is that when you're raising a small child you probably aren't going to convince them why eating a dozen cookies every day is bad for them. You snap them and they stop -- great. But all too often we respond by sneaking around to achieve what we desire. Worse, the actual reasoning for what's right and wrong only comes after years upon years of conditioning. People will believe, but not really understand why. I see a few problems there.

Basically, I don't agree that violence is a great way to teach, because it develops too many ill-associations. The idea that power determines right and wrong and that those who defy this are reminded with physical pain seems very crude. As a young parent with experience with many other families, I really do believe that the best way to raise a child is with love -- that's it. Whether you spank or deny treats or favour a reward system, as long as your child knows they're safe and loved you'll probably do just fine. I choose to avoid violent behaviour, though, because it doesn't match who I am. Before my mother left our family, I remember being hit when I did wrong. I also remember my half-brother's father beating my mother before he was born when I'd come to visit. He beat her because she defied his idea of what she should and should do. The examples are very drastic, I admit, but the reasoning is too close in my mind.

So that was parents-to-child, what about child-to-child? That's really tough, isn't it? For a long time I was down with kids settling their scores personally. My buddies and I used to box from our pre-teens until the middle of our high school experience. We enjoyed the rush, feeling like you were in Fight Club didn't hurt either. But some guys came into it because they needed something. When they took a hit they'd walk away very deeply frustrated, probably more with themselves than us. I saw the same mentality with the bullies. We had a few fights outside of the boxing break out, which I saw in this tribal-justice sort of way, but that changed when knives came into play. Weapons are equalizers, and in this country, we all seem to feel like the underdog. We lived in a pretty standard, tamed, white suburban area, yet we had youths coming away with serious wounds that should be avoidable. We assume civility and communication, because. We don't really teach youth how to descalate or humanize themselves to the aggressor. As a visible member of our Queer community in high school I also received a lot of attention, good and bad. The 'fragile' among our ranks, chiefly the young, female minorities got the worst of the bullying. Our response came in a few ways. First, our group swelled to 75 members in a school of 2000. We were big enough to cause one to look over their shoulder, that's for certain. Second, we started trainings on how to handle perpetrators and invited figures with experience from local colleges to help give us these skills (Washington State University, Portland State University, for example). Finally, we approached our school's staff and did not just note the issue, but made it clear we would not stay quiet. For the most part, this worked for us.

My point here isn't to say that the threat of violence is a solution to bullying. We live in a time where the world may be large physically, but virtual mediums have made it a rather small thing. Relatively little effort is required to speak out for those being victimized. Even better, resources to help deal with these situations are at our fingertips. Now I agree that if someone seen as weak is being bullied for that reason, and in the fray they give the bully a hearty whack, I wouldn't see them as in the wrong. In the same way that someone might shoot a robber, crippling them for the rest of their life. The victim is still the victim, but it's really clear that there must be a better way. Just because the answer isn't easy, or isn't in our minds right now, that does not mean we should settle. The best way to end bullying is to find the roots of the problem and do what we can to create change. Answering with violence promises a pent up resentment and, in all likelihood, will reap violence in return. It isn't a wild thought today that whacking that bully could mean tomorrow the bully comes with a knife. There is no end to bullying if we answer the same way, because bullies are people and can arise in anyone, anywhere.

That's a silly mindset, Harris. The "root" of the problem is, 9.5 times out of ten, that the aggressor is just a fucking sociopath who knows nothing of human decency. They NEED their shit kicked in, multiple times, and MAYBE, MAAAAAAYBE coupled with therapy on why they should stop being assholes.

lol, Frizan.

we talkin' 'bout kids 'ere.

Fight back only when necessary, but do not give yourself over to the hatred. Learn to forgive, as well. Self defense is important. Protecting others is important.

Vengeance, pay back, putting another person in his place, letting your emotions get out of control, or justifying your violence with "logic"...These are not important and--even worse--self destructive and only continue the violence.

Fight back to protect what you love--not to destroy something you hate.

Edit: I'm a pacifist and an optimist--sometimes an idealist--so feel free to disregard this: violence will never solve the heart of the problem.

So I'm really liking the replies going here on both sides, unlike on the original place this debate was on I'm actually seeing decent arguments from the side in favor of fighting back and not things that simply boil down to "I'm angry and want an excuse to punch people".

Though I feel I should clarify the 1st post a bit, by Parent abusing a child I'm not suggesting the child fighting back/beating up the parent. I'm suggesting say you're a third person witnessing the child abuse take place? Would you step in and beat up that parent, or you would protect/save the child in another way?

---

Now sadly the past 2 days I ended getting overfilled with stuff which made me lose track of this thread until now... and it's damn late now and I have to wake up early for plans tomorrow so I don't got time for a long response now (though I did read everyone's reply). I'll come back later with a full blown response.

Just a few notes I want to say though for now:

-> When people in the old debate argued beating up an abusive adult prevented abuse they meant to the point of say breaking their arms in two so they have no means to beat the child up with. Would anyone here suggest such a response to abusive parents?

-> Jorick, don't ever worry about sound too barbaric. Your bluntness and willingness to be honest and call shit out for what it is, is one of the things I like about you so much! :P

-> Mostly what I've seen here (Majority, Jorick was an exception here) was people either going "You need violence to solve these problems" with no mention of other means or people going "You need words, understanding, love, therapy etc. to stop bullying. Violence makes it worse".

Now, although I mainly agree with the latter point (I'll go more into why when I come back later and give people proper replies) do people here feel that there is more of a balance we need to reach? Or is it more strictly do violence or avoid violence?

So... I'm going to go against the flow here and say that I'm wholly against using violence just to 'teach people a lesson'. I mean, using violence to stop someone from harming a third person at this moment makes perfect sense to me; it's not like mostly anyone will listen to rationality in the heat of a fight anyway, regardless of the reason of said fight. This also includes the somewhat over-the-top tyrant argument; I can completely understand using violence to break up a spree of abuse. However, when such immediate danger is not present, using violence against someone will more than likely only cause them to be more pissed off. The underlying problem, the reason that they're acting out in the first place, has not been fixed at all. In fact, it might very well reinforce their thought pattern of "Might makes right." Not to mention Harris's note that, in this day and age, using violence against a school bully could just cause said bully to bring a weapon next time.

Mind you, I am NOT saying we should just say "Bad Peter, you shouldn't punch Jimmy in the face, that's not a nice thing to do", then simply walk away. What I am saying is that there are other ways to stop people like that. When we're speakig about adults, throw them in jail for the crime of physical abuse and force them to undergo therapy. If it's still a child (Which, as far as I care, would be anything below 16 at the least, possibly anything below 18 even), punish them by taking away their priviliges and, if it's more than a momentary outburst, force them to undergo therapy -- which, of course, should be age appropriate. The main goal here is to, especially with children, make them understand that using violence is flatout unacceptable in current society and to show them what effects their actions have on their victims.
Now, I hear you thinking; 'But what if the guy is a true sociopath?'. Well, in that scenario I doubt that using violence will magically cure said sociopathy. They tried that in the past, and generally it only made things worse, further screwing up the person in question. The best we can do is to just protect society as a whole and cast them out/throw them in jail.

Anyway, short version:
Using violence to stop something that's happening right now: Okay, within reason (No bringing a fully automatic assault rifle to a school bully, to give an extreme example)
Kicking someone while they're already on the ground, or so to speak: Not okay.

Magic Magnum said
"You need words, understanding, love, therapy etc. to stop bullying. Violence makes it worse".

Now, although I mainly agree with the latter point...do people here feel that there is more of a balance we need to reach?

That's exactly what I believe. I didn't straight up say it but I hinted at it with my edit: violence can only put a pause on the problem. It doesn't solve it. That's why it's important to turn to only as a last resort.

If you beat someone up to make them stop beating someone else up, you might accomplish your goal, but there is no way this person learned how to be a better human being from the experience. You'll still have a hateful--probably even more hateful--person who needs to see an example of compassion being made to work. Otherwise you're just perpetrating the idea that violence is the right choice in accomplishing your goal. It's not.

You do need that balance. You need to--if you decide to resort violence--follow up with compassion. The bully needs just as much help as the victim. Rehabilitation is important. People--especially in the US (I say this based on our prison systems, which doesn't help the prisoners get back on their feet to contribute positively to society at all)--don't seem to understand that.

Don't fight violence with violence you fight violence with even greater violence.

If a bully hits you, put his ass in the hospital. If a bully breaks your arm or whatever put his ass in the ground.

Revans Exile said
Don't fight violence with violence you fight violence with even greater violence.
If a bully hits you, put his ass in the hospital. If a bully breaks your arm or whatever put his ass in the ground.

I'll ask you a very simple question: Why? Why do you feel this way?

Note: If you bother reading all of my (or simply a number) of my replies to people you may noticed for those I am currently mainly in agreement with that I snipped their post and simply stated so with only about one question or rebuttal.

This is not meant to imply though that those I did go into more detail with are wrong though, it simply means there is a current difference of stance/opinion between us. So I bothered to go into more details with responses and questions in order to get a better understanding of your side and arguments.

I've come into debates on this site heavily believing in one standpoint before and have had someone give good enough arguments and points that after some reflection I changed my position. But that was only when I was able to counter their point with those of my own, in order to better understand their side and see if they have appropriate counters or any counters I may bring up.

If the person had simply gone "No, you clearly disagree with me. I will not debate this" or "I'm right, you're wrong. Stop trying to debate it or go on about it" than I have never changed my position because they never responded with the points and clarification I needed to better understand and evaluate their position.

So that's what I'm doing when I go into so much detail in replying to your points and questioning them. I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything like that, I'm trying to better understand it so I learn the most that I can from those positions and grow from them.

Brovo said You do not stop a tyrant by waggling your finger and telling them to stop. You stop a tyrant by hitting them so fucking hard they never do it again. All of human history shows this, but I suppose a prominent example is Hitler. He conquered, and was allowed to conquer, unopposed, through the entirety of , and he didn't stop. Had the western world not decidedly stand up and fight him at a certain point, he would have just kept on going until he went insane or literally steamrolled the world under tank treads.

Most cases of bullying and abuse are not like Hitler in the sense that they will keep beating up everyone until they're in charge. They pick very specific targets that they have an easy time dominating over and then rub their ego with the dominance over said individuals may it be a classmate, their own defenseless child etc. In most cases they pick target's who cannot defend themselves to the point of scaring off the aggressor as detailed, if a third person comes in and defends the victim (and succeeds) it's only a temporary fear factor.

It either only lasts as long or during the time the third part is involved, if say the victims new friend is absent the bully uses the opportunity. If it was an abusive parent who was stopped by a stranger in public, said stranger is unlikely to be around again. And assuming said third party was constantly present, it only lasts as long as the fear comes in place. One said bully/abuser get's friends, decides to use a weapon or whatever method you can image that can have them get over the fear inflicted on them.

Brovo said Simply put: Bullies are malevolent predators. They prey on the weak. If you don't fight back, they will continue to prey on you as an easy target. That is the hunter mentality. After all, if you're going to pick on someone, who are you going to pick on? The guy who doesn't fight back, or the guy who will bite and kick and punch and spit on you with everything he's got every time you try?

Having been bullied growing up in elementary school, fighting back does nothing but give the bully the reaction they wanted.
They know they can get to you and push your buttons, it just makes them laugh and encourages more bullying in the future. Even if said bully walks away with more bruises than you do they consider it worth it just cause they got you to react. And if they're half smart they'll come back with friends the next time to prevent being on the losing side of the fight next time. While the person who never reacts may be bullied verbally (which can have a ton or zero effect depending on the persons self-confidence and amount of thick skin) they're days of being bullied physically are very numbered because theirs simply not rise or enjoyment gained from fighting them.

Goldmarble said Simply put: I am a product of this pacifistic movement that started in the 70s. All of my childhood, it was drilled into me that I should not fight back against bullies, I should "ignore them". I should "turn the other cheek". "Be the better man," "Tell a teacher".

Problem is, none of that actually stops the bully, it encourages them. The bully is not looking for a challenge. It's why they pick on people weaker than themselves. Yes, to stop their predatory aspects outright, their actions need attention other than violence. They need counseling, or other therapy to get to the underlying cause of why they are being a bully.

My response to this is basically the same as I my last response to Brovo above.

Goldmarble said But teaching kids that they should not stand up for themselves, that the only solution to the problem is to either;
A: Ignore it, or
B: tell an "authority" figure to do something about it...

...Just does not make sense to me. Having these ideals drilled into my head made me feel powerless, it made me feel . What happens when you ignore the bully? They just bully you more, because you are easy prey. The primary tool you are told will work against the bully, is useless. So you turn to the other tool, you tell a teacher. What happens? The bully gets in trouble, their parents might reprimand them....and then they come back and take it out on the person who is the cause of their new problem.

A: That is oddly enough (except in one friends case) what I saw actually did work for people. They would ignore it and then people would deviate to those who would either break down and a give a reaction, or those who would fight back cause they found the fight an entertaining enough reaction.

-However, I should note most cases of bullying I have experience in is elementary school (Grades 1-8). Where bullying was mainly done for the reactions they got from people. It was High School where ignoring the bullies didn't work for a friend of mine (and bullying I faced myself turned from physical fights to people simply saying stupid/illogical/incomprehensible shit in the form of an insult. The attempts they tried on me were rather sad/pathetic) but in High School culture largely changed with people where it was no longer about getting a reaction but rather establishing social dominance and superiority over people. People entered a school culture we cliches and popularity was the be all and end all for people, and one of the things that made people popular was being an asshole to others. Even if there was zero reaction the meer act of pretending to be tougher/better than others made you more popular/liked.

B: This in my experience has a big flaw involved in that authority figures are just largely useless in this case. They have no backbone to punish the bully even, they're just as (if not more likely) to punish the victim (Exceptions being: Special Needs/Learning Resources Teacher and/or already knows the victim well from a class they teach) because without either that personal relationship with the student or overwhelming experience of bullying and it's effects by dealing with those victim of it the most, they authority is even capable of giving in to high school popularity and seem bail out with reasoning like "We can't take your word for it, despite the overwhelming physical proof and testimony we are getting".

(Note: That is all in reference of High School, in elementary school teachers had no issues calling it out for how it was).

Now, this aside though. Let's assume this bias/fear among authority was non-existent and across the board they called out and punished the bullies for their wrong-doings. A lot of it could be due to our approach to stopping the bullies once brought to the teachers attention (Because I agree, authority is largely useless with bullying. But I don't think that means we need to default to violence). How often for example have we seen things like therapy for the bully, to try to find the root/cause of the problem? Trying to eliminate at it's source? And how often do you say, just give them a talking to and leave, or actually tell them to stay home and play Xbox for a few days?

ActRaiserTheReturned said If they are repeat offenders, the said child must be given to the custody of a compassionate person, and the "Father" or whomever abused the child should be punished severely. Not necessarily permanently, but in a way which is very hurtful to drive home the point that they are being punished and WILL NOT abuse children again, or ELSE!

Two points/questions to pose here.

1. I get you used the term "Father" in air quotes here because you recognize it's not truly the case, so I'll spare the whole "Not all abusive parents/people are men" speech. But I just wanted to note to try to avoid using the term "Father" to refer to child abusers even if in air quotes because it still helps contributes to the assumption/mindset of some people (Typically those who simply echo what they hear/not able to think about it on their own) that it's the men always responsible for these sort of things.

2. If we are to suggest punishments to the parent that will prevent child abuse, we should trying to suggest specific approaches/responses. Those we can prove (or at least have stronger reasoning/theory for than our current approach) can work in that regard even if only some of the time (but more than our current amount of success). So what is it do you think we would need to do to prevent parents from doing such things?

mdk said Sometimes though, our proactive, preventative, systematic methods don't stop bad things from happening. At that point we're reacting to violence, and well.... shit's gone to hell at that point anyway. You're in a different scenario after the shit has already hit the fan. Negotiations stop when they start killing hostages, you know? There comes a point beyond which unmitigated violence is the only rational response. All our systems of education and prevention and peaceful interaction are designed to keep that line from being crossed; they can't protect you from what's on the other side of the line.

Fair reasoning, we are mainly debating avoiding crossing the line.

However, once that line is crossed is it not also important to try to make it so crossing the line can have the most minimal amount of damage possible?
Or if we can't do that, at least learn how to react once over the line so if you're out their again it's not even worse for you the second time?

Jorick said As barbaric as it may sound

Like I said in my last post, don't ever worry about sounding too barbaric. :P

[quote=Jorick]-snip-[quote]So basically if I'm reading this right then the suggestion here is to return violence with more violence and in some cases (repeated offences, or child abuse) they be thrown in Jail? Is this not only temporary though? And the same things can happen once they're out?

Prison has constantly be criticized for being modeled on prisoners returning rather than being helped, so they can have a successful life after leaving.

Jorick said All of those should be coupled with some of those non-violent methods, by the way. All that counseling and explaining why it was wrong and how they should feel bad and so forth should come during and/or after the administration of violence. Alone that stuff does little to nothing, but coupled with a fresh reminder of the direct penalties of further transgressions it might actually work. Violence to answer violence is not pretty and it's not a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better than the non-violent routes.

I assume this might be what is meant to answer my earlier response/question.

But I assume then this is taking place for those already arrested in that case. Regardless though my following point remains the same. If I am also reading this right then the argument is we want violence combined with therapy to solve these issues? And that this is at least better than the sole use of violence and/or the sole avoidance of violence.

To determine this though I'll take the default of the approach with the most evidence behind it, therapy. Is there anything the use of violence would aid in the therapy? I can see this having different results depending on who is responsible, is it a Parent? The victim in self defense? The therapist themselves? Is it a separate employee hired for this purpose? Also would the effect change once the bully/abuser realises that the violence they faced themselves was a planned part of the therapy and other approaches? Because let's face it, if such a model was adopted as the main way to help people, eventually people would be well aware that the violence against them is also intentional and planned by those providing the help.

Lastly assuming this say a case of someone who abuses/bullies because they were abused themselves by their parent's they already know what it's like. So it's not going to give them say a new perspective that they didn't already grow up with. Now I realize you highlighted this solution as not pretty or perfect, but even then I think it's best we try to find as many flaws as possible so as to why to address or fix them (or if we can't, at least be aware of them).

ShonHarris said -snip-

Wow, I feel [b]really[b] bad not giving this a longer/more detailed response considering how much time and effort seemed to come into this and how well thought out and explained the points are. But I simply can't find anything to pull out and disagree with or debate with. I'm almost 100% agreement with what you've said here. :)
I would ask about self defense though, if say you're being beat up like crazy is it appropriate to fight back enough to remove yourself from the situation? Or is there is still a better way to protect yourself?

Neobullseye said -snip-

There's almost nothing here I feel the need to debate or question either.
However I would vary on one thing, I think therapy should be given to all people when a problem is identified. In fact I find therapy for the children even more necessary/essential than for the adults.

That when people's minds are still growing, being wired and most influential to change, other people, experiences and their environment. You want to get to them and address their issues young so they have a more healthy development as they get older.

Kidd said -snip-

It's odd these all seem to of came in a row like this, but once again I mainly agree and have very little to counter.

But there is still that little bit. :P In this case it's compassion with violence, I understand and mainly agree with the principle. I know it's possible, this is more a question as to how you would personally approach it more than anything, but how would you try to use compassion after violence? So that the person feels/understands that it's legitimate compassion after having been beat up rather than feeling that it's not say a "Good cop, Bad cop" routine?