Bullying, damaging or helpful?

[IshCong]

Only the weak allow certain tiny vibrations in the air to cause them pain.

Hurray for bullying apologists.

Hurray for people who would victimize victims, prohibit them from getting vital medical attention, and protect those who violate the law by implying their victims deserved it somehow.

[IshCong]

You apparently are unaware that your brain also has chemical signals that cause you to feel pain when you are tormented psychologically.
This can manifest itself as various neuroses, heightened stress, blood pressure changes, and more.
Everyone experiences this to one degree or another, just as everyone bleeds to one degree or another.

Your degradation of the victims only shows your ignorance to basic psychology.

4 Edits? Tch.
"Only the weak can't tolerate small amounts of pain."
OH? So now everyone who cannot tolerate physical or emotional pain is weak, by your standards. REALLY?

The number of edits has nothing to do with the point I am making. The first three were minor spelling/grammar corrections and the last one was the addition of the last line, if you must know.

"Only the weak can't tolerate small amounts of pain."
OH? So now everyone who cannot tolerate physical or emotional pain is weak, by your standards. REALLY?

Can you read? I said small amounts of pain. Small amount of pain being a prick with a needle, small burn, etc.

Yes, everyone feels them. They hurt. They feel pain. Doing that repeatedly can seriously damage you.

You apparently are unaware that your brain also has chemical signals that cause you to feel pain when you are tormented psychologically.

If verbal insults are psychological torment to everyone, then why is it that most people who are verbally bullied do not care for it? There is your answer. They are not weak, they are strong, they take it on the chin and get over it.

No, the extent to which it harms them is different. Probably due to differences in their support structures, such as not having a bunch of people constantly telling them they're weak, refusing them any sort of help, defending their tormentors, etc.
Or due to differences in how it is applied, whether periodic doses of relatively minor attacks (physical pinpricks) or constant and repetitive attacks on a broad scale by a perceived majority (like getting stabbed).

Hurray for bullying apologists.

Are you trying to say that I am a bully?
No.
I stuck up for people who were getting physically bullied,
I was verbally bullied myself quite extensively when I was young (pre-secondary school). I took it on the chin because I am not weak. And because of that, when I entered secondary school I had emerged a much stronger person.

Only weak people let it bring them down.

He's saying you're a bully apologist. And you are.

[IshCong]

Evidence from Psychology Today that refutes the claim that abusive language, verbal bullying doesn't affect the victim.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... -the-brain

Words do hurt. Ridicule, distain, humiliation, taunting, all cause injury, and when it is delivered in childhood from a child's peers, verbal abuse causes more than emotional trauma. It inflicts lasting physical effects on brain structure.

When that environment is hostile or socially unhealthy, development of the brain is affected, and often it is impaired. Early childhood sexual abuse, physical abuse, or even witnessing domestic violence, have been shown to cause abnormal physical changes in the brain of children, with lasting effects that predisposes the child to developing psychological disorders. This type of brain scarring is well established now by human brain imaging studies, but prior to the recent study by Martin Teicher and colleagues at Harvard Medical School, taunting and other verbal abuse experienced by middle school children from their peers was not thought to leave a structural imprint on the developing brain. But it does, according to their new study published on-line in advance of print in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

The results revealed that those individuals who reported experiencing verbal abuse from their peers during middle school years had underdeveloped connections between the left and right sides of their brain through the massive bundle of connecting fibers called the corpus callosum. Psychological tests given to all subjects in the study showed that this same group of individuals had higher levels of anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, dissociation, and drug abuse than others in the study.

Verbal abuse from peers during the middle school years had the greatest impact, presumably because this is a sensitive period when these brain connections are developing and becoming insulated with myelin.

Finally. Thanks for the source Itani....wait.
You're not Itanica! Nevermind.

AHEM: Thanks for the source Nanatsu.

[IshCong]

None of your sources explain why not everyone is so "psychologically tormented" and "damaged" from verbal abuse.

Many of the people I know who were verbally bullied, they lead very successful lives now and never suffered from any psychological trauma.
Show me where I said noone suffers from psychological trauma. I said only the weak. And it is true.

[citation needed]

[IshCong]

[citation needed]

I don't understand. You want me to call up several people I hardly talked to and tell them to prove my point for me on some random forum on the internet?

Of course not. That's the anecdotal fallacy.

You want me to prove that it is only the weak?

Yup. Prove it.

Weak is a term that has different definitions in different scenarios. In this scenario, a weak person is someone who cannot take verbal bullying. Thus, my point is automatically correct as I am defining weak as someone who cannot take verbal bullying. I need no source, it is just my definition.

Circular logic is circular.
Ignoring circular illogical posts in 3...2...1...now.

[IshCong]

That you're aware of, that is.



Weakness has nothing to do with it. People can put on facades, and still be feeling terrible inside because of verbal abuse. Just because they show you a 'strong' face means crap.

And you haven't sourced your claims. I sourced mine. We're waiting.

Yes, your sources don't explain why not everyone feels that way. Not everyone is psychologically tormented and damaged from verbal abuse.

And, what the fuck, can you even read? I have said multiple times I suffered from extensive verbal bullying myself - Are you telling me I don't know how I feel?

Yes. Now, source.

[IshCong]

Of course not. That's the anecdotal fallacy.



Yup. Prove it.



Circular logic is circular.
Ignoring circular illogical posts in 3...2...1...now.

I am just defining a weak person in this context as someone who cannot take verbal bullying. You want me to source that people who can't take verbal bullying are people who can't take verbal bullying? Then you obviously lack intelligence.

No. I want you to source something that isn't blatantly circular logic.
I hereby deem you weak, because only the weak call people who suffer from mental abuse 'weak'.

[IshCong]

No. I want you to source something that isn't blatantly circular logic.
I hereby deem you weak, because only the weak call people who suffer from mental abuse 'weak'.

If that's your definition of weak in this scenario, then fine, I am by your definition weak. I don't get what you're trying to prove here.

That your sorry excuse for 'logic' is entirely meaningless, and literally not worth the bytes given to preserving it on this forum.

Can you read?

I suffered extensive bullying too. I have a successful career, a loving family and yet I did suffer psychological trauma. I am a strong person, yet I was affected by the bullying. Anecdotes, yadda yadda yadda.

We're waiting.

I suffered no psychological trauma. There are thousands, if not millions like me. Why don't you just go and look anywhere on the internet and you'll find that?
See: Any board on 4chan and many people in places such as facebook (any social networking site)

You cited 4chan? To rebut Psychology Today and Harvard? Lolno.

[IshCong]

That your sorry excuse for 'logic' is entirely meaningless, and literally not worth the bytes given to preserving it on this forum.



You cited 4chan? To rebut Psychology Today and Harvard? Lolno.

The feelings of real people is infinitely more reliable than a study made based on not what actual people have felt, but rather a very limited understanding of the human brain.
Also, regardless of what any study says, there are exceptions.

I think, we are going to have to agree that there are many people who are not affected by verbal bullying, just as there are many who are. I feel no desire to carry out an argument against someone for several days as I do have better things to do with my time.

Do you know what the anecdotal fallacy is?
You're claiming that somehow, that is an actual rebuttal to scientifically vetted peer reviewed papers carried out by researchers studying, you got it, real people.

[IshCong]

I hope you realize that self-diagnosis is virtually the biggest no-no in the history of psychiatry (and, really, virtually any semi-respectable intellectual field). You have a biased viewpoint, and might be too ashamed or lack perspective to acknowledge psychological damage. Only a third party who is trained in psychology, psychiatry, child development, or some other relevant field can tell you whether you've suffered psychological trauma from bullying.

Psychological trauma is not that big of a thing to self diagnose, you know. I had a great social life from the point of the bullying, I always felt happy, etc. So I don't really see how I'm so badly traumatised as many people here seem to claim.

Self-diagnosis period is a bad idea.
You apparently don't understand the 'fallacy' part of 'anecdotal fallacy', or you wouldn't try to claim your singular instance overrules an entire research project, which never once said that it would happen in all instances.

Then you'll just fall back to your "well, it is my definition" thing, completely ignoring that you've manipulated that definition to fit your own flawed, circular logic.

"People are weak so they're harmed by mental abuse so they're weak."

[IshCong]

In order to reach the conclusion that verbal abuse causes changes in brain structure, any scientist who is worth at least the paper that his/her degree(s) is/are printed on has to show that no other phenomena creates such changes. I.E., they MUST talk to both people who have been verbally abused, and people who haven't been (at least not enough to make a difference), in order to rule out all other possible alternative explanations.

Its called the scientific method. If you came up with some hypothesis A for observed phenomena B, in order to convince the rest of the scientific community that A is the best explanation for B, you must not only show experimental evidence clearly demonstrating (or at the very least, very strongly suggesting) a link, but you must also provide evidence that rules out alternative reasonable explanations C, D, E, F, G, and so on.

Not a facepalm emoticon, damn - You really had me there!

You want a better reply?
I suffered no psychological trauma and led a great life, there is nothing wrong with my head.
Their research is thus not 100% true.

That's not what their research said. Did you read the links?

[IshCong]

Self-diagnosis period is a bad idea.
You apparently don't understand the 'fallacy' part of 'anecdotal fallacy', or you wouldn't try to claim your singular instance overrules an entire research project, which never once said that it would happen in all instances.

Then you'll just fall back to your "well, it is my definition" thing, completely ignoring that you've manipulated that definition to fit your own flawed, circular logic.

"People are weak so they're harmed by mental abuse so they're weak."

I never said it completely overrules their project, I said that it shows there is at least one exception to it.
Also I don't get it, you want me to pay to go visit apsychiatrist and bring the results here to show you that nothing is wrong with me?

1: No, it doesn't, because that's not what the study said.
2: Go for it. I can wait.

Not a facepalm emoticon, damn - You really had me there!

You want a better reply?
I suffered no psychological trauma and led a great life, there is nothing wrong with my head.
Their research is thus not 100% true.

That's not what their research said. Did you read the links?

The research stated that verbal bullying can leave a significant imprint on the person's brain as it develops. It really did not for me.[/quote]

See, that's what their study said. That it can, not that it will 100% of the time have X effect in Y days.
You've created a strawman.

But, hey, you admit words can hurt. And you admit your 'logic' with regards to 'weakness' is circular and contrived.
Sounds like you admit the crucial stuff.

[IshCong]

1: No, it doesn't, because that's not what the study said.
2: Go for it. I can wait.


The research stated that verbal bullying can leave a significant imprint on the person's brain as it develops. It really did not for me.

See, that's what their study said. That it can, not that it will 100% of the time have X effect in Y days.
You've created a strawman.

But, hey, you admit words can hurt. And you admit your 'logic' with regards to 'weakness' is circular and contrived.
Sounds like you admit the crucial stuff.

prior to the recent study by Martin Teicher and colleagues at Harvard Medical School, taunting and other verbal abuse experienced by middle school children from their peers was not thought to leave a structural imprint on the developing brain. But it does, according to their new study published on-line in advance of print in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

That is not saying that it can, but it will.[/quote]

They said an imprint. And it does.
They did not say that it will always, in 100% of cases, result in a significant negative impact.
Your entire argument is based on the anecdotal fallacy.

And no, why should I go and spend money to prove nothing is wrong with me just so I can prove someone on an internet forum wrong?

Well, you were the one to suggest it.

But anyway, you've admitted the actually important stuff. Now it is just quibbling.

[IshCong]

First, your statement actually supports my argument. Even if you do extensive research on cancer, no self-diagnosis you make will mean anything until a doctor confirms it. Likewise, no matter what you think you know about psychological trauma and verbal bullying, you're simply not qualified to tell anybody that your psychological health is tip-top.

Until you come across a third-party expert who can confirm your amateur self-diagnosis, your personal anecdote is meaningless to me. Don't use it as part of an argument suggesting that people who suffer from psychological trauma via verbal bullying are weak.

Use actual evidence supported by actual facts that can be supported by actual efforts. This is a very basic, rudimentary rule of any intellectual debate.

By my definition of weak, they are weak. For example, there is no universal definition for how much you have to be able to bench press to be weak or strong, etc. By my definition of mentally weak, these people are mentally weak.

Right. It's entirely contrived, self-fulfilling, and circular.

[IshCong]

I felt nothing wrong with me and even asking people I am close to, it has never been noticed that there has been any form of mental problems with me.
I will say the same to you.
You want me to pay to go visit a psychiatrist and bring the results here to show you that nothing is wrong with me?

How many of those people you asked are psychologists?

If you really want to, then go on ahead, let him/her pick your brains clean. While you're at it, get your brain scanned so that you can prove you have no abnormal brain structures. But, nobody's holding a gun to your head to do so.

It seems that you're being really, really defensive about the subject of there being absolutely no negative effects on your personality/brain structure due to your bullying experience. As I said before, I'm not a professional, but I seem to recall extreme defensiveness to be a sign of denial.

The more amusing thing is that defensiveness is, of course, a defense mechanism to shield from, say, mental torment.
He's self-evidently weak under his own definition, because it is quite clear we're affecting him. =T

[IshCong]

By my definition of weak, they are weak. For example, there is no universal definition for how much you have to be able to bench press to be weak or strong, etc. By my definition of mentally weak, these people are mentally weak.

So, by YOUR definition of psychological trauma, you don't have it, and by YOUR definition of psychologically-fragile, victims of verbally bulling are psychologically-fragile?

Well, forgive me if I don't really care what you think, because, unless you use Psychology Today as a bathroom reader and/or shadow a Psychiatrist as part of a Pre-Medical internship, I doubt you have the perspective or the expertise to attach remotely qualified or informed definitions to either of those terms.

Yeah, he said awhile ago that it is his definition, and admitted it is contrived and circular.
Which is why this is pointless, talking to him. He's fallen back on circular arguments and the ability to summon warped definitions into play to always make himself right.

[IshCong]

The more amusing thing is that defensiveness is, of course, a defense mechanism to shield from, say, mental torment.
He's self-evidently weak under his own definition, because it is quite clear we're affecting him. =T

Oh no, you are most certainly not getting to me. Don't think that you are.

Every post you make shows that you've been affected.
By our words.
Our words affected you.
QED.

Also: The wall-o-sauce that Nanatsu has so generously been providing.

[IshCong]

Yeah, he said awhile ago that it is his definition, and admitted it is contrived and circular.
Which is why this is pointless, talking to him. He's fallen back on circular arguments and the ability to summon warped definitions into play to always make himself right.

No, just no.

I'm sure a guy like this considers someone like this guy's max bench press to be really low, even though to the latter it is really high. Weakness has no universal set rule, everyone defines weak in different ways - That's a fact.
I never gave my own definition to psychological trauma anyway, you are twisting my words.

Your definition of 'weak' is self-fulfilling, and circular. People are weak, so they are affected by mental abuse, so they are weak, so...
You've created a definition that makes your entire argument right, despite the fact the definition serves only to make your argument right, and is otherwise totally arbitrary.

You pretty much just admitted what I've said with your post, only you tried to justify it. But there's no real justification for it, so you've failed. =T

[IshCong]

See, that last part is what makes this whole circular argument of yours total piffle. A strong person can still suffer lasting damage from having being bullied.

I can't help but think that you just want to remain willfully ignorant of this, and that no matter how many sources are provided to you, you already made your mind. And oh what a narrow minded approach it has been.

If you are verbally bullied in the sense that you are ganged up on 24/7, then you don't have to be weak for it to get to you. You are just very strong if it doesn't
If you are verbally bullied moderately, 1 or 2 people regularly insulting you, and it gets to you - You are mentally weak.

Is that a more precise definition for you?

More precise? Sure.
Still self-fulfilling and circular and arbitrary? Yup.
Still pointless? Yup.

Still a step in the right direction, I suppose. At least you have finally admitted the 'mentally strong' can suffer.

[IshCong]

I've been to the doctor, and actually lived with a Pediatrician for 17 years of my life. Also, my parents did all the pre-birth and infant-age tests for virtually any condition you can think of, including the pre-natal test for Downs Syndrome.

I don't have it. Find another condition to use as an example. Again, I lived with a doctor for 17 years. I've been subjected every medical, psychological, and developmental test you can think of.

So, if you can think of a condition that would actually require me to book yet another visit to the doctor and/or psychologist in order to demonstrate that I don't have it, please, fire away.

You probably have Cancer. It's very possible.
Prove me wrong.

Only the weak get cancer.
I am not weak.
Thus, I do not have cancer, and thus I am not weak.

[IshCong]

Only the weak get cancer.
I am not weak.
Thus, I do not have cancer, and thus I am not weak.

Touché my friend, touché.

Glad to hear it. Do you understand now?

[IshCong]

Glad to hear it. Do you understand now?

Yes, but that was merely just an extension to my main argument - That bullying is not always damaging. I stand firm in my point there. It is not always damaging.

It isn't always severely damaging. But whether it is damaging or not has no bearing on whether somebody is 'weak' or not.
Even the strongest can fall. Implying that they fell because they are weak belittles their pain, and prevents them from properly seeking the help they need to recover, and so makes the situation worse for everyone.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

Hmm...I arguably became stronger. I also fantasized about killing my tormentors before. Then I used to cry because thinking that my vivid fantasies questioned my humanity...either way, people have told me I need help. So I'd say it's more harmful than helpful.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

Hmm...I arguably became stronger. I also fantasized about killing my tormentors before. Then I used to cry because thinking that my vivid fantasies questioned my humanity...either way, people have told me I need help. So I'd say it's more harmful than helpful.

The fact that you wanted revenge proves you aren't a robot.

I suppose I'm too empathetic. To the point I even felt sorry for a certain tormentor after a make-believe rampage involving a sharpened screwdriver. Either way, I need a healthier way to release these emotions. The bullying has stopped, and they never got teh best of me, but I still feel bad.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

Only the strange, weird, out-of-place and insecure people are bullied. And they deserve it. See it as corrective treatment to get them to adjust themselves to the norm.

I bullied a lot of kids in my younger years. I taught them to act normal. They owe their future to me.

I was picked on for being foreign, I had no foreign accent and I didn't look foreign...you sound alot like the people in my past revenge fantasies.