|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
Quote:
We are talking about 12-14 year old boys (and not just 1 or 2 but a bunch of them) ganging up on a 68 year old woman with taunts and insults and language the likes of which she has probably never been subjected to in her life. She can't leave because she's on a moving bus trying to do her job, she can't fight back because that's illegal (not to mention she is extremely outnumbered and... she's 68 years old).
Three points here: (1) There were, at most, five boys making comments, and I heard mainly three making repeated comments. (2) "Incompetence" is a description, not a value judgment. Therefore, mentioning her age and life experience only proves her incompetence. Stick her in another environment and she would no longer be incompetent. But on this bus, she's incompetent. (3) Do I really have to say again that there were legal options available to her? Remember, I've already acknowledged that these options did not actually have to work in order for her to stand up to the bullies and redeem herself to a large degree.
Quote:
The message to these kids ought to be that what you did was wrong on any number of levels and you should be extremely ashamed of yourself... not, if everybody doesn't toughen up to meet your standards, feel free to do this again.
Of course that should be one of the messages, and that message was received loud and clear when the video went viral. These kids have been vilified for their actions, as they should be. The parents claim the kids feel bad about it, and I doubt anyone will be harassing a bus monitor anytime soon.
But what does any of this have to do with the tv interviews and the money this woman has received? Do these things contribute in any significant way to the lesson the bullies are learning. I seriously doubt they care what this woman has received as a result of being bullied. Any lesson they are learning is a direct result of the punishment and public ostricism they have received.
So, you are misunderstanding my original point which had nothing to do with what the bullies learned or should learn from this incident. In this particular discussion, the focus has been squarely on the bus monitor's behavior, her personality, her mentality, and how all of this contributes to her incompetence. And, additionally, how the subsequent treatment she has received from the media and the majority of the American public has sent the message that victimhood is a sacred status.
Quote:
Where does that line of thinking lead? Let's see, if somebody isn't tough enough to defend their bike, you are justified to take it. If somebody isn't smart enough to pick up their basketball out of the driveway, you are justified to take it. If some kid has a better lunch than you and you happen to have 20 pounds on him and more friends around, you are justified to take it. If somebody doesn't live up to your expectations of what tough enough or smart enough is, then feel free to walk all over them in any fashion you see fit.
In everything I have written thus far, I challenge you to find one sentence where I said that the behavior of the bullies is justified. Indeed, there behavior is most certainly not justified because the ethical standards I hold people to have nothing to do with the response one receives from another.
I've noticed this type of sloppy thinking in many of the responses. I argue that this bus monitor is incompetent, and you people say I must think she deserves to be bullied. I say she is partly responsible for what happened to her, and you people say I am absolving the bullies of all responsibility. I say the bus monitor was incapable of standing up for herself, and you people say I must think the bullies, and all bullies, are justified in doing whatever they want as long as they are unopposed. These are unwarranted generalizations you are making about my argument, and rebutting them is becoming tedious.
Quote:
I guarantee you that if this was my mom or my grandmom, I would be making some house calls to visit some young boys... what I wouldn't be doing was blaming my mom or grandmom for not being "tough enough"...
Why not do both? These are not contradictory actions. I know you wouldn't do this because you don't believe the victim has any responsibility for what happens to him/her, but doing both is perfectly valid, logically speaking. Perhaps you would not do both because you don't want to hurt your grandmother's feelings, but I don't think that would be doing her any great favor.
Quote:
and if your son happened to be one of them, then I would ask you to step aside and let's see if his scrawny little 110 pound arse is "tough enough" to handle it when he's on the other side and without all of his friends.... then what would you do?
Well, since I've already refuted your assertion that I hold a "might makes right" ethic, this hypothetical doesn't make sense. But, since I make an effort to answer all questions, I would not let you bully my scrawny 110 pound son. He would have already received severe punishment from me, and getting his arse kicked by a grown man would be a little over the top, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Let me try to clear up my point. I'm not saying that if you are being bullied and you defend yourself that makes you a "bully" but it is a bullying act.
Bullying is simply using mental or physical intimidation over another person to get a desired result (to see them in fear or to see them cry or to have them give you their lunch money)... hitting them back is a physical act to intimidate them into a desired result, to get them to stop. Make sense? That doesn't mean you are a bully, but defending yourself against a bully is a bullying act... because once he stops, you will stop, which is why you aren't a bully.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Middle Schoolers Harrass Bus
Monitor
