Bullying can be good, especially "Anti-gay" bullying

[Reggae Magmia]

No, No, no. Being bullied is the shitiest feeling in the world. I have had the pleasure of being bullied by my own father.... There is nothing good about it. Now, you can turn your experience into a positive, but that doesn't mean that bullying is actually a good thing.

And to the OP, I'm glad you were able to turn such a negative experience into a positive, but your proposition that bullying is a good thing is utter nonsense. It is not a matter of whether the act of bullying itself is a good thing, to say that is absolutely ridiculous. Rather, this is a matter of "can you turn the negative experience of being bullied into a positive thing?"

The answer to that is yes. But again, that does not make bullying a good thing, AT ALL!

The worst type of bulling D:

Indeed. When other people basically say your beneath them, and constantly attack who you are, its bad enough. But when it's one of your parents.....

But in spite of that, I took this negative and made it a positive. I was able to transform this terrible experience, and make it into something where I had more respect for myself, and take more pride in who I am as a person. Now I'm at the point where when he talks shit like that, I say to myself "what an asshole" and shrug it off.

That's the point I'm trying to make to the OP. It is not that bullying can be a good thing, it's that you can take it and try to turn it into something positive.

[Coccygia]

The OP doesn't go far enough. It should be legal to assault and even kill gays, so they'll learn self defense and buy more guns.

In fact, it should be illegal to not kill gays. That will make them the toughest of all.

Indeed, natural selection would soon make them invincible! Thank Cthulhu they can't breed.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

In fact, it should be illegal to not kill gays. That will make them the toughest of all.

Indeed, natural selection would soon make them invincible! Thank Cthulhu they can't breed.

I think i'd rather go to jail.

[Demigueris]

That is not, my friend, a respectable response.

This is an irrelevant ad hominem. Lose it, it only subtracts from the tone of your argument.

Not only have I never - not even once - made the insinuation that I could do such a thing. Merely, I said that suicide is cowardly and selfish, and I have received no counter to this yet.

You just called people who commit suicide selfish and cowardly. The very fact you just wrote it isn't an insinuation: You actively did the thing you claim not to insinuate in the same paragraph you actually did it in. Was that a conscious attempt at dramatic irony?

Otherwise you should consider proofreading to avoid making contradictory statements in the same paragraph; sloppy writing is indicative of sloppy thinking.

Also: relevance. Nothing you can do about it as I stated, so why are you talking about it?

And have I ever denied this? Have I ever made the sanctimonious claim of being above selfishness? What I said is not true simply through inclusion; is that not, may I present to you this, merely proving my point? Suicide is a selfish action; an inconsiderate thing; a shameful disrespect. It is one of the most selfish actions in existence. Undeniably, then, other things are also selfish also, but again, they are not mutually exclusive.

Allow me to summarise your argument;

Premise 1: Suicide is selfish.
Premise 2: Other things are selfish.
Conclusion: Therefore, Zolotoivek's argument is invalid.

Read statements carefully, then post please - you'll find it much easier to summarize things. Sometimes even simple ideas can get away from you if you're not careful. You should practice reading some structured essays, you might find it useful if you're having trouble identifying theses.

My actual argument went something like this:

Selfishness is not in and of itself a valid basis for criticism.
We have to evaluate selfish acts based upon need, and the potential for harm by the act.
Conclusion: Excessive suffering is a reasonable basis to undertake activities to the detriment of others.

Perhaps you may see the ineffectuality of your argumentative posture.

Irrelevant. Adds nothing to your argument.

As appreciative as I am of your view of me as such a respectable adherence to the values of moral good, I must request that the honourable member refrain from so ham-fistedly pushing ill-fitting words into my replies. It is plain for all to see that this is something that never passed my mind, and I have even conceded in several instances that it is wrong - merely not wholly so.

I appreciate the legislative turn of phrase, but it's a actually a poor model if you're actually looking to develop of cogent argument. If your argument is merely that in a tiny minority of cases certain individuals might emerge with stronger personalities as a result of the experience, I'll even grant I agree with you.

But the overall tone of your argument is that there's something to salvage from bullying, and I pretty clearly show it doesn't.

Then, I must presume I cannot expect any better from a forum that has provided me with defunct opponents in discussion so far.

See below.

Ah, ad hominem, the pervasive ad hominem, the killer of logic, the slayer of rationality. Is trolling as to provoke debate? Is a forum not for such things?

I'll grant that, only if you're willing to actually debate.

And you source not one of these supposedly inviolate studies! A queer thing, to be sure; am I to believe they are merely out feasting today?

Okay now you're just not reading what I'm writing at all because I very clearly stated that I would cite and discuss sources in detail later... or you're just failing at being clever.

As I said, allowing the bully free reign is not a point I have commented on. I merely speak of bullying, not the bullies themselves and the consequences thereof, but I will, my august reader, admit that they are tangential in relation.

See below.

"So the discussion is pertinent. If we're not taking society in a larger context, than we should all shut the fuck up about a person's individual choices, but if we are, then you can't selectively choose which effects you want to talk about, ignoring the ones that undermine or complicate your fundamental thesis."

A holistic approach, and fallacious to apply in this context. I talk of one facet, you must presume that to be the whole.

No I don't, you're missing the point of this entire conversation. You're saying bullying has good points under specific conditions. You have yet to provide any evidence, but whatever. But you also keep coming back again and again suggesting that we shouldn't dismiss your argument while we continue with the larger conversation about bullying in society.

If you want to wade in, fine. But if your point is isolated to the fact that some kids didn't fit in during some awkward point in their childhood or adolescence and someone noticed and commented that they were different but then that kid grew a thick skin and moved on stronger than before...

Okay. Great. You're done. Your input was received, we looked at it, then looked at the gay kids slitting their wrists and said "The shit still stinks, but thanks for coming out."

Shame upon me, for I had thought language defined by dictionaries!

Read up on the current state of the linguistics and theories of language... we can have an interesting conversation later.

By the time bullying is claimed to be a pervasive problem, the child has grown out of such a stage of "shitting on the floor" and "running around naked". You project the qualities of a learning toddler over an at least semi-cogent child or teenager, and in doing so, you merely further the foolish facade that you attempt to fleece your fallacies with.

I'm not sure that word(fallacy) means what you think it does.

There is no error of reasoning here. Non-adults are regarded as incompetent under the law. That's why they can't own property. That's why they can't vote. They can't drink. They can't run for public office, or act as legal guardians for other children or act as the executor for your estate. Even when they actively engage in criminal activity, unless its mind warpingly heinous, we still don't treat them the same as adults.

They fuck up socially and at work all the time - but they generally don't get hammered by the full weight of disapproval reserved for adults because they're still learning how the world works. In fact you'll notice that teenagers, as a result, are very rarely allowed to do anything of real importance.

Youthful exuberance is a phrase specifically signalling behaviors unacceptable in adults that we're willing to give a pass to in adolescents and bullying covers much the same ground.

Try and engage the argument presented by your opponent, not the argument you want them to make - it's a classic rhetorical error.

Or, better yet, if you have evidence to refute my claim, by all means, present it.

Theft is theft, and should be treated as such. If we speak of natural rights, it is constant that rights to ownership are consensus amongst political philosophers.

Unless you're suggesting every 8 year old caught stealing cookies from the cookie jar should do hard time, you should be more specific with your statements. And if you are, kindly provide an argument with your reasoning as to how it is morally justifiable.

Natural rights includes the fact that kids are kids. Bullying includes a lot of casual shit we wouldn't tolerate in adults, but which falls under the sub-group of kids not understanding the expectations society imposes on them. The whole issue with bullying is that we've reached a stage where we realize simply looking the other way is indefensible, while slaps on the wrist just doesn't cut it when kids are literally dying as a result.

I added that last part just in case you forgot that while you're arguing this, kids are dying right now. You know, as a result of the trauma they suffered from that bullying you think is so great. Just thought you should know.

A supposition you present to me unfairly.

A counter-supposition, I note, you present without any argument. Are you conceding the point?

With your word only, so far, and what a contradictory word it is! Let us be thankful that language isn't based entirely on common usage, lest you corrupt it so.

Not Proven is a verdict lifted directly out of Scottish Common Law. Although I suppose certain language purists have argued that Scots have been butchering English for years.

"Demonstrate to me a statistical trend in which better life, and mental health outcomes are generated from a bullied vs. non-bullied demographic, adjusting for socio-economic factors."

You ask me to do so much, when you have not supplied anything of the sort yourself! How unfair, I say, I feel quite hard done to.

I will source articles of equal merit to your own, instead.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... er-dislike
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... r-you.html
http://www.news.com.au/world-old/childh ... 5870183280

Okay, I've been keeping the kids gloves on up till now... but are you fucking kidding me? Your response to peer reviewed journal articles by experts in their field is "They're biased by being being biased." Yes. Their years studying in the field have biased them in the direction of knowing more about their field than you ever will, especially since you couldn't even be bothered to look at, much less rationally evaluate for me, their methodology(which we'll get to later).

Which is a cop-out, but one I'd normally expect from a forum thread... I mean, let's face it, I don't expect post-secondary level reasoning on NS forums, but then you turn around and feed me newspaper clippings? Newspaper clippings!? Surely you jest good sir!

Now in my mind, you can only be 1) A poor debater or 2) A particularly insidious troll. And I actually mean that last part as a compliment, because if you intentionally dropped newspaper clippings as a trigger for my wrath - that is impressively clever.

Otherwise you really need to be aware that newspaper reporting of scholarly studies is NOTORIOUSLY bad for not comprehending much less accurately writing about scholarly papers. And I mean, they are epically bad... like as in, half the time they say an article says something like about how "bullying is good", when in fact what the article in actuality says is kids who stand up to bullies don't suffer the same emotional trauma as those that just take it.

What you'll notice isn't implied is any evidence in the study that kids who stand up to bullies have better mental health outcomes than those who were never bullied at all(your thesis). For it to be 'good' after all, you gotta have SOME evidence its better than placebo.

So far, notta.

But even so the article itself defines the bullying they're talking about as "... limited to friendly leg-pulling [that] can be good as long as it doesn't rub the self-esteem of the child. Such kind of bullying can help children to interact with those having diverse points of view."

So if your assertion is "friendly leg-pulling" can be socially normalizing, that brings me back to my previous discussion: mission accomplished... have a fucking Scoobie snack. Seriously, we're talking about rampant homo-phobia and bullying leading to hundreds of kids killing themselves and you're interrupting us with your very important observation: "You know, that time Billy called me scum pants, because I had scum on my pants... that was actually funny and I learned something about standing up to bullies."

Guess what, no one gives a flying fuck.

Perhaps in that context you'll understand why some people are, in my opinion, justifiably irritated with your responses. Personally from your tone, I just get the vibe you're here for a good argument albeit in a manner as condescending in tone as it is flawed in conception... so by all means, let's continue.

The only direct quote in the article(which sadly, in newspapers, are about the only parts that we can have any reasonable expectation will correspond even vaguely with the actual contents of the study paper) that gets even close to your thesis is that children who remain friendly with their bully or just try ignoring it are subjected to increasingly worse bullying over time and that those who return the bullies hostility generally come out with better coping skills.

The paper is an article on bully management advising teachers on strategies for how to help kids deal with bullies.

You know what it doesn't state or show anywhere? That kids that were bullied and dealt with it have any better mental health outcomes than those that don't.

In terms of it's evidence even giving you a pass on the fact you're using a newspaper article that doesn't even give the TITLE of the study it's supposedly based on, the evidence just isn't there. It tells me that kids that stand up to bullies have better health outcomes than kids that don't stand up to their bullies at all... not that they're better off than kids that were never bullied at all.

So I'll give you part marks for an article that, in tone at least, supports the idea that bullying isn't AS BAD for a very particular demographic of kids as it is for others.

So far nothing yet from you on any evidence that it does good.

Next article.

Daily Telegraph? Great... what fresh hell is this? An article covering an open letter by Helene Guldberg... okay fair enough. And what she's saying is just that teachers shouldn't intervene in cases where students being bullied have adequate social networks, in order to let them develop social skills. She's writing off the cuff, not from any evidence or study - just her professional opinion. But you know what, fair enough, that sort of supports your stated thesis. I'll spot you this one. Professional support for your thesis. I'll counter now by putting that in the context that she's a lone voice against the consensus and even your own source mentions how out of the mainstream her opinions are. No evidence per se is presented.

Third article... is a 250 word blub re-reporting on the story listed in your first link... only shittier. Didn't even both really reading them did you, just grabbed the first couple Google results didn't you? Les sigh...

For what it's worth, I've marked worse undergrad papers.

Anyway time to wade into where things really start to break down.

As with all qualitative evidence, it is subject to the bias of researcher(s).

What bias? Don't give me generalized statements, I want specific arguments.

Retrospective data, similarly, as well as anecdotal evidence, is considered similarly unreliable in the academic world - of which this course is naturally rife with.

How is it unreliable in this specific instance, how does it deviate from best practices in the field? Be specific.

Both the researcher and the participants will have some form of inherent subjectivity - the researcher in that they will seek the state their directional hypothesis as true, the participants in that they may unwillingly exaggerate in testament to the fickle nature of Mnemosyne.

Where does this manifest in this(these) particular studies. You have to specify for this to be a valid critique.

Simiarly, the cause and effect relationship that you seek to espouse is impossible in anything other than an experiment, of which this is not. There is no definite connection between the two co-efficients - corrolations, case studies, observations and interviews are not entirely reliable or valid for numerous reasons.

Correlation does not equal causation, true. But the absence of a correlation between say bullying and increased mental health outcomes in the general populace is problematic for your argument in the face of robust correlations between bullying and reduced mental health outcomes is problematic for the overall applicability of your argument.

Even if a few people benefit but the small benefits are insignificant next to the tidal wave of negatives that arise from the same source, we're already done talking about about the small benefits. They're insignificant... unless we're talking about very specific coping strategies. Talk of 'some bullying is good' isn't helpful unless you really start delving into specifics. The pertinent questions then become: which forms of bullying are good and can they be differentially treated... if they can't, we're back to why are we talking about 'good bullying' at all.

Lack of relevance is a legitimate critique of your overall argument.

The content of this link admits itself that the study has significant limitations - if it does not take itself as a serious dissertation, how can I?

In academic discourse, every study has limitations. That's why we discuss them. What are the limitations of this article, and in what contexts are they most valid?

In addition to this, it is also liable to be criticised in that it is an experiment, but a natural one, and therefore with astounding amounts of extraneous variables, of which are stated to be statistically significant, and when combined with low replicability, low population validity and low ecological validity, I am loathe to trust it.

All actually pertinent points to keep in mind. Except for ecological validity, since these were based on real life. You should however be aware that the presence of none of these factors is sufficient to invalidate the findings of any such study - just that the results need to be appropriately evaluated.

The articles I cited are representative of mountains of research projects, methodologies, and researchers. While any individual study of low sample size might be subject to refute, the fact is the overwhelming evidence is that bullying is a net negative with severe mental health outcomes for those subjected to it.

As bullying becomes harassment, so does harassment not be classified as bullying. I have clarified this, yet you ignore me callously - one does have to wonder at what your strengths are, aside from a tenacious grip.

We - that is the rest of us here that is - are not. We're talking about kids slitting their wrists, taking pills, and jumping off bridges in order to escape the miserable fucking existence that is the living hell their tormentors put them through.

Or did you think we all showed up to discuss the merits of guys in sports locker rooms telling each other they have small penises? Is that what you thought this is what we, here, in this forum, in this thread, are here to discuss? Were you under that misapprehension? Because it is a misapprehension.

But if you honestly did not understand we were here to discuss real, serious, issues with real, serious implications for youth and society in general: I forgive you. But now that we've cleared up that you're not actually talking about bullying but casual teasing, you can scoot along while we discuss actual problems in the actual society we live in.

A conclusion that is nothing more than ad nauseam - available evidence might not necessarily be significant, valid, reliable or correct. Psychology is a fickle field, one that requires tending, and in such tenders a loyalty from those who do, but we must remember it is in its infancy. It does nothing more than stumble blindly amidst a solemn blanket that blocks the light of knowledge, but occasionally discovering a thread with which to unravel its cover slightly and sees with that light nothing more than a blurred silhouette.

The pot calls the kettle black methinks. Did you seriously just dismiss the entire practice of psychology? Like not even EvoPsych - which is mad hatter crazy - but the entire field of psychology in general... without any circumspection? Are we supposed to take you seriously.

Do people develop mental issues because they are bullied, or are they bullied because they are the type to be more susceptable to mental issues? A question that no study has yet provided the answer to.

I'll let you do the research on that one(the answer may surprise you!).

Just summing up:

You have no evidence - not even a small sample size data set has been presented showing a net positive for a bullied group that dealt with their bullies vs. their unbullied peers.

Your argument isn't relevant anyway - you're arguing that casual teasing is good but there's no reason we should even be discussing "friendly leg-pulling between friends" anyway (to quote your own source), when the social issue de jeur is homophobia and the wake of corpses it's left around the world as a direct result of bullying. So even if you produce evidence, the relevance question remains.

The evidence I've presented represents thousands of samples, your criticism of the sources was relegated to unspecified claims of biases you couldn't provide a single example from. I could take that more seriously if you had ANY evidence of your own whatsoever, but the evidence you did present were 1) a newspaper clipping citing an unidentified study that didn't actually support your thesis of bullying providing any net benefit even by it's own text 2) Another newspaper article referencing an open letter by a single expert citing claims the same article mentions were immediately disowned by her peers 3) Another newspaper article that is re-reports the article from the first newspaper.

So in conclusion - your counter arguments were vague and lacking specifics and didn't actually address any of the substantive issues raised with your initial statements. You have no evidence. Period. Serious relevance issues even 1) you had evidence to back up your position and 2) even if we even accept your premise that bullying and systematic harassment are functionally different.

And finally you're attacking bully victims, and taking a generally pro-bullying stance. Which I'm actually giving you some argument credits for because it's a tough position to defend. On the other hand, asshole position - so my respect for you as a human being is dramatically reduced.

Try stepping it up for the next round.