MrRadish
New member
Well actually I'm on his ignore list so he wouldn't have noticed, though he will now because you've decided to quote me....
Btw, he'll also notice you've spelt 'definitely' wrong itoo...
Stop Internet bullying Lighthouse!
toldailytopic: Internet bullying - where do you draw the line?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Stop Internet bullying Lighthouse!
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
:shocked:
There is no line to draw unless the internet shuts down. It just reveals what we are in part. Though we have grown over time in our collective intellectual understanding, we have remained the same in our collective emotional understanding.
Since there isn't a serious concern for what is required to promote emotional understanding, the only solution is shutting down the Internet. That won't happen so we will just continue promoting lost, dead, kids and fine speeches.
It is possible to rebuke somebody without resorting to the need to insult them and call them names.
He really should stop! Because Lighthouse turns into Whinehouse when he thinks he's getting picked on too much and then Knight has to take action. :allsmile:
:chuckle:
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
Is there nothing to be said about the other side of the story? Where do we draw the line on parents not raising their kids with enough self confidence to deal with harrassment? When do we draw the line and start expecting people to TURN OFF the computer/TV/radio if its something that makes them uncomfortable? Yes, bullies are a problem. They were a problem 10/20/30 years ago, too, but no more than today as far as ACTUAL damage caused. I understand that the bully's availabilty to victims has grown(internet/text/blah blah blah), but did kids in the 60's go suicidal over a fat joke? Did some jocks picking on others cause kids to shoot up high schools in the 40's? Back then, bullies ACTUALLY BEAT PEOPLE UP! They didn't just make fun. Lets teach our kids to STICK UP for other kids that don't have the physical or intellectual ability to defend themselves.
Bullies are wrong. BUT they are there. Shouldn't we be raising kids the deal with it? Shouldn't we be teaching our kids that bullies bully(for the most part) because they feel like crap on the inside?
A line should be drawn, yes, but not just one line and not just in one place. Kids shouldn't go to jail for murder just because someone else's parents didn't teach them that words are just that........WORDS.
Bullies are wrong. BUT they are there. Shouldn't we be raising kids the deal with it? Shouldn't we be teaching our kids that bullies bully(for the most part) because they feel like crap on the inside?
A line should be drawn, yes, but not just one line and not just in one place. Kids shouldn't go to jail for murder just because someone else's parents didn't teach them that words are just that........WORDS.
I'd rather get beat up than have a sex video posted on the internet. Especially if I was a closeted gay man. Sometimes emotional abuse can be worse than physical abuse. The phrase about sticks and stones and words isn't true.
Parents have a job on both sides, but that doesn't mean we can't do anything about these sorts of cases. Teaching children to have strong backbones and punishing bullies aren't mutually exclusive.
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
Sounds like he had issues before the video... where do you think those issues started? With bullies? I doubt it.
And? :idunno: The source of his homosexuality and why he's hiding it (if he was) has nothing to do with my point. Although bullying, of a sort, might indeed have played a role in being in the closet.
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
I am not familiar with the story. There is no point in making assumptions about his sexuality or closet-state.
You said closeted, I thought closeted. In any event, I don't disagree with you at all. I don't think that harrasment/bullying should go unpunished. I just think this whole internet bullying thing is a bigger issue than sending bullies to jail for picking on someone, as wrong as that may be.
Toot toot! I was raised to stick up for kids who couldn't do it, and to know that my worth wasn't defined by what jerks at school thought. I am/was very lucky to have the parents I have. It MAKES ME SICK that in America, nowadays, EVERYTHING that happens to someone(or that they do to themselves) gets blamed on someone else, or on upbringing. I will do my very best to raise my two sons to champion the kids getting picked on, and to know that people can be jerks, but that jerks are jerks for a reason, and that my sons worth isn't based on what those jerks say. I was simply saying in my first post that I think the issue SHOULD be raising our own kids better, not finding a more appropriate punishment for jerks who talk smack online.
Disagree and I will put you in a whooole nother world of pain!
K:<---my 1st attempt at online bullying. How'd I do?
Internet bullying - where do you draw the line?
Depends.
If I think they'll have to start wearing those I've reached my limit.lain:
Depends.
If I think they'll have to start wearing those I've reached my limit.
lain:I'd say it has to be a reasonable person standard with a caveat relating to personal knowledge that might raise the threshold.
I think it is a sign of our weak and overprotective culture. People, anyone with any sense can ignore words! Real bullying is when someone beats you with their fists, or gangs up and breaks your bones, one cannot just ignore that! One cannot just rise above it when someone smashes your jaw with a bat! This verbal form of so called bullying, seems to suggest a mental weakness, perhaps such persons should see a therapist? I wonder if they would be more able to distinguish the difference if they faced real physical violence?
Each forum should have its standards, whatever the web master or owner desires. As to this issue, if one is looking for persons advocating suicide, he or she will always find it, what you seek, so shall you receive.
Don't expect me to pity persons who are called names and teased; I have seen too much extreme violence in the criminal justice system to give this much concern.
Each forum should have its standards, whatever the web master or owner desires. As to this issue, if one is looking for persons advocating suicide, he or she will always find it, what you seek, so shall you receive.
Don't expect me to pity persons who are called names and teased; I have seen too much extreme violence in the criminal justice system to give this much concern.
The video was of him making out with another guy, so the homosexuality is probably a good assumption, but I was questioning the cloestedness. But it doesn't much matter so....
I do mostly agree with you. I think our culture has gotten too sensitive and too PC in some areas. Another thing that concerns me is when you start saying an action is wrong only based on how the other person reacts. So, the action is OK if the victim just shrugs it off and deals with it and the action is a crime if the victim commits suicide. I think that can be a tough line to take. However, when it comes to things like broadcasting videos of someone online without their permission, I think it's safer to say that can be punished no matter what. When it's just verbal abuse, it becomes more of a slope. I think intent is needed and intent can be hard to prove.
Disagree and I will put you in a whooole nother world of pain!
Very well. :noid: :allsmile: :granite:
Had these two lost souls reached out to Christ after having out of wedlock sex (in the case of Tyler Clementi, with another male), we wouldn't be having this debate.
But, as any good Libertarian worth his weight in moral relativism will tell you: "There will be some victims along the way to true liberty."
But, as any good Libertarian worth his weight in moral relativism will tell you: "There will be some victims along the way to true liberty."
This is about bullying, not your pet topics. You who are so persuaded by an avatar, I trained police, worked in the criminal justice system in Texas. I have seen more of the dark side of humans, than you will ever imagine!
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
So, how harsh a sentence is too harsh in this case? Sorry for the threat, I have just always wanted to bully someone, and today was my day!
You're right, Christian values is my "pet topic". Both parties (the two that committed suicide, and the one's that taunted them) didn't follow those "pet topic" values.
Congratulations, that makes two of us that have seem more than our fair share of the dark side of humanity.
What's the solution, MORE LAWS, or perhaps we could persuade society to follow the "pet topic values" of Christianity?
Why not enforce the laws we have? We could be realistic about the true intention of "cruel and unusual'. if all prisoners had to work we would have the beginnings of creating a means of production. All the prison gangs, nonsense and don't you say you know about it because you do not know about the policy and administration of criminal justice. We could put the gangs down for good and force all to work off their time if we had the guts!
MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
I guess I can be outcast with aSC, Christian values is my "pet topic", as well. However, I definitely think that(in my absolutely absent knowledge of the darker side of humanity) more laws would have presented one of my best friends suicide... ooops. No it wouldn't have- better parenting would have.
YES. 100% Agreed. Sherriff Joe Arapaho(I know) is the MAN.
My condolences to your loss of a friend through such tragic circumstances.
While parenting definitely is one of the solutions to our society's moral decline (you're somewhat new here, I'll give my speech again):
"The Lord established three fundamental institutions for the governance of men: family, the Church, and civil government. While these three institutions are separate spheres of authority under God, they clearly have mutually supportive, interwoven functions. The performance — or lack of performance — of each inescapably influences the functioning of the other two. This mutuality of influence derives from an overarching unity of purpose for man and society derived from the eternal will and plan of God for His creation. God's creation manifests His existence and attributes. It is the same with His institutions, provided that men adhere to the Creator's requirements for those institutions. God's institutions have, as does His triune Being, both a unity of purpose and a division of function. The unity of purpose of family, Church and civil government is to glorify God, by teaching, obeying and enforcing His word and law. Family, Church and civil government all are to do these things, but each is given a unique function or sphere of operation. This division of function is not historical, in the sense of historical dispensations in which one or the other of God's institutions is to dominate (the three were united in our first parents), but is rather a continuity of division of labor over time.
The teaching, pastoring function of the ruler or magistrate is of crucial importance. We are popularly told today that the government should not seek to enforce morality — especially (Surprise!) Christian morality — because "you can't legislate morality." Clearly, this contention is at best a half-truth, and as such is a dangerous distortion. It is a distortion which fits quite well with the Humanist canard that "you can't mix religion and politics." All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword. The sword and the word are united in law. And because the word commands action by men, the word of law is necessarily a morel teaching, a teaching which seeks to guide the ruled along a particular way of action, of life. This way of life which the law-word commands is what the ruler or lawgiver considers good, and for this reason it is again inevitably a moral teaching, of one sort or another. By teaching men to obey the ruler or lawgiver's commands, via the punishment of those who disobey, who break the law, and by his personal exam pie, the magistrate can do nothing else than teach people moral principles. His teaching, punishing function is a pastoring function, for by it he guides his sheep toward what he considers green pastures and the safety of the fold, and away from what he considers precipices and beasts of prey. His sword is like the shepherd's staff: "if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (vs. 4). By striking fear into the hearts of the evil, he diverts them from their destruction and toward doing that which is good.
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm
In short, the purpose of the family, the Church, the civil magistrate, hence societal values, should be to glorify God.
- Status