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

[Zottistan]

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.

[Cameroi]

So, you have (or "had") homosexual tendencies, and yet you condone homophobia? Interesting.

assuming this is referring to the op, sounds rather like those holier then thou anti-gay politicians, who just happen to keep getting caught in bed with their same gender office help.

[Dragonplains]

A robbery, as I have stated, is a crime, and should be hounded by the dogs of the law to the apropos extent. Robbery is not bullying, nor is theft, assault, or harassment, because they are seperate articles with stronger implications.

Indeed, and that point I had. That is why I said "is closer to", and not "is equal as". Maybe I should have used the word "theft" instead. But thanks anyway, it's an interesting answer I still find that any good that could came from something like that is the same good we all try - succeedingly or not - to draw out of any bad situation : it's here, sure, but was it the only way to learn that ? I guess we're not having a unanimous answer any soon.

i would also like to point out, that in as increasingly overpopulated world, such as surrounds us in that mysterious thing called reality, any increase in the popularity of non-fertile unions, is VERY good thing.

Funny, talking with a friend a while ago also led us to think that these unions could be the natural evolution's answer to overpopulation, like some autoregulation of the species ^^

[Ifreann]

So, you have (or "had") homosexual tendencies, and yet you condone homophobia? Interesting.

Hardly going to rattle the foundations of the psychological world. I mean, how many battered wives have insisted that it was their own fault or some such?

[Demigueris]

You do not give due credence to what argumentative skills I am positive must lie beneath your fallacies - constructing a point superficially similar to my own, yet fundamentally altered, does not diminish what I have said in reality. Clearly, you agree that suicide is selfish, having stated quite obviously so, and thus conform to my stance.

To perhaps desecrate the beaten corpse of your argument further, how are you positive of this right? Who assigned this right to this individual, to be so unduly selfish? When, and how, was this individual told, you are primus inter pares, you are above your equals, you above everyone deserve the right to sole happiness? Who bestowed upon you the right to take away the hope of others for your own benefit? At which interval in life were you announced exempt from your social duty?

Let me flip this one on it's head for you. Where did you, or society get the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do with their own lives?

Face it. In reality, if someone wants to commit suicide, there's not really much you can do to stop them other than provide counselling. Unless you're suggesting locking them up with a ball gag so they can't bite off their own tongue in which case, you can stop arguing from the basis of morality right now.

In knowing the selfishness, the trauma, the suffering you will inflict on a thousand times your person, you are culpable, I think, for each iota of agony born of your act. What you cause is your responsibility, and again, in committing suicide, you evade that responsibility. You push that blame on other people, others who are salient to your act, others who merely view your circumstance and experience distress merely through vicarious association?

People are selfish all the time, for a number of reasons. I mean, clearly you enjoy argumentative debate, and make use of the suffering of others here to ply your trade - potentially triggering any number of readers - while you judge for engaging in selfish acts. The difference is they're motivated to undertake their actions by a fundamentally negative force in their lives driving them towards it: your 'selfish' activity on the other hand is just for shits'n'giggles.

Living in suffering sucks: welcome to every day in the life of someone suffering crippling depression. If someone doesn't want to deal with the aftermath of suicide, then it seems we should be working to improve quality of life for those at risk, not arguing whether it's selfish of them or not.

You know what else is selfish - eating or breathing. The measure of selfishness as a negative isn't in doing something for yourself, it's in doing something for yourself to the detriment of others.

But in practice, we as a species do this all the time.

We eat other living things all the time. We're selfish to one another all the time. When is the last time you passed on a job offer, or entry to a school program, because you knew the same position could benefit some other person? Taking that job is a selfish act after all, one in which you purposefully deny that means of livelihood to another human being - causing them consternation and suffering.

So really, if you want to boil down to essentials, you're not really any different from the people you presume to judge. The difference between the two cases is that in one - the person on the verge of suicide - the stakes are much, much higher. So really, we're talking about a matter of degrees.

The two(bullying and dealing with bullies) are not mutually exclusive. We are talking specificially of the acts of bullying and the individual subject thereof, august co-poster, rather than the repercussions for the perpetrators.

No we're not. We're talking about bullying and someone's asinine proposition that it serves some sort of moral good - presumably as a form of trolling. The question is one of whether bully can serve net social benefit. Setting aside that we're asked to set aside the array of painstakingly researched data bases from a horde of peer reviewed and published clinical studies, along with professional, expert testimonials from psychologists and psychiatrists that do this shit for a living who overwhelmingly indicate the opposite(which I'll get to) and that we're supposed to accept the anecdotal wisdom of an anonymous online poster...

Setting all that aside... you can't divorce the conversation about 'net benefit' from other effects of the phenomenon.

I posit that the damage to our social fabric caused by rampaging assholes is greater than the limited impact socially isolated individuals have on their surroundings. That is: one person committing suicide is capable of generating a one-time only effect on a small group of people. One asshole however is capable of generating an entire lifetime of jackassery, not only this, but the general asshattery has the potential for generating additional assholes as a direct consequence, either through personal suffering or in emulation of the original asshole.

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.

Perception does not affect truth. Allow me, dominus (-ae), the privilege of yet another hypothetical, a force of habit. If I were to, perhaps, look upon a dog, and treat it not as a dog, but as a watch. Imagine if I were to stare at this canine in expectation, counting its barks as hours, its whines as minutes, the wag of a tail as seconds. Does not this dog, then, become a watch? Is it no longer a dog, as I do not treat it as such? Would you, upon witnessing my acts, instead tell me, "are you mad?!", rather than infer that the dog must thusly be a watch, considering my behaviour?

In much the same way, it is theft by definition.

Language is defined by the common usage. All language is fundamentally just sounds. We collectively attach meaning to them, and meanings are changed and altered all the time depending on how we use, appropriate, or re-evaluate our use of the language in question.

Children are routinely treated different from adults all the time, in a variety of contexts for the social reasons that they can't rationally be expected to be born with a complete understanding of the nuances of their social surroundings. The rules for children are different. Things that would be COMPLETELY unacceptable for adults(i.e. throwing up on another adult, where no alcohol is involved, running around naked, shitting on the floor and making others clean it up for them) is fine for kids. Accomplishments for children are exaggerated. Violations of social norms are downplayed.

It's only reasonable that different words, and strategies should be adopted to deal with this reality.

Unless you're suggesting that we discuss the meaning of words from any consideration of context - in which case you are literally just arguing semantics.

Bullying, much as anything else, is not entirely good. I have given my opponents this province of point, as I feel it is only fair, but neither is it all completely bad.

Case not proven.

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.

In fact the existent literature coming from examinations of clinical patients, and surveys on bullying from among the adult populations have shown that bullying does not produce better mental health outcomes in the majority of persons.

Long-Term Effects of Bullying: Exploring the Relationships among Recalled Experiences with
Bullying, Current Coping Resources, and Reported Symptoms of Distress.
http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewc ... t=cps_diss

Bullying victimisation and risk of self harm in early adolescence: longitudinal cohort study
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2683

Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 0001723594

Does School Bullying Affect Adult Health? Population Survey of Health-Related Quality of Life and Past Victimization
http://anp.sagepub.com/content/43/12/1163.short

Let me summarize the above for you.

The above studies were of differing levels of rigor, but are examples of a broader sampling of extent literature on a subject of which we actually know a great deal about. Bullying has been studied.

What the above studies indicate is that while there is resiliency among children to casual bullying, but as frequency and duration of bullying increases, mental health outcomes are drastically reduced. Adjusted for socio-economic factors, which have proven strong correlations with physical and mental health outcomes in adulthood none of these studies - and not a single study of which I am aware - there is NO instance in which a bullied demographic group had better mental or physical health outcomes than a non-bullied control and that these issues follow them into later life.

That bears repeating:

Out of the THOUSANDS of datapoints taken into consideration, in NOT ONE, does the bullied demographic show any improvement over a non-bullied demographic.

In fact, while it's not a definitive work, the Cooper et. al. article suggests that not only bullied populations, but bullies themselves and people who later on just recall witnessing bullying ALL show worse mental health outcomes compared to groups that did not recall any significant encounters with bullying during their youth.

There is a word of caution in taking information from such statistical studies. For one they control for socio-economics. And more than IQ, EQ, any other any testable ability or general educational attainment... or even whether you were bullied. The single best indicator of your future health and economic success has traditionally and remains your parents' income. Individual variation always trumps statistical trends, but among statistical trends, parental income as an indicator is where the smart money puts its bets.

So in conclusion:

All the available evidence shows bullying is bullshit, potentially hurts everyone involved, and as a phenomenon, cannot statistically generate anything but worse outcomes in just about every measurable category on the population exposed to it.

Also: fuck bullying in it's stupid face-hole.

[Martean]

The human race it's prepared to live in community, we lived in caves in COMUNITY, otherwise, why do you think we have countries? caves let to cities, that to more cities and that to states, so, according to you argument no, bulling has made you a WEAK person, becouse you have to handle all by yourself. (I am not saying you're weak phisically, but it's obvius 2 people are stronger than 1 person)


Trust? A symptom of the weak? Which is the most powerful person in your country? The president/king/ect. And do you think they've reached such a massive power by not trusting anyone? (see: minister, party, voters, elections...)

Those who rely on others are incapable of achieving by themselves.

"No man is an island" because no mere man is capable of being fully disassociated from everyone else.

Well, no man except for me. Trust is something I've abandoned long ago. I have friends, sure, but if you ask them they'll admit they barely know a damn thing about me, and I know almost everything about them.

It sickens me, how they let me read them like an open-book, blissfully ignorant of the fact that I could easily tear them down one day with a single dark secret exposed, a single tryst revealed. I almost feel bad for them, in a way, because they have no idea the carnage I am capable of wreaking upon their lives.

1st: I've given you arguments, that people need other people in order to survive, that's why we live in community, now, instead of saying bullshit like ''trusting=weak'' give me arguments.
2nd: (This is serious and i DON'T WANT TO HURT YOUR FEELINGS) but I think you should go to a psychiatrist or something so (s)he can help you, becouse i think you've got a trauma (I'm sorry but this it's true, and i repeat i don't want to upset you) You'll see you'll feel much better after therapy .

[The Reasonable]

I...really don't know what to say here. I was bullied too and to a certain extent it made me "tougher" in that once I stopped thinking myself as a victim and just stood up to them, I was fine, but as with most things, I'm more exception than rule (I always wonder why I nearly always defy statistics when it comes to stuff like bullying, abuse, socioeconomics, and their effects on mental health and achievement).

As for the OP's proposition though: I usually don't lose my temper on the forums...but fuck you. Seriously. Simply beating someone down doesn't make someone tougher- not having a victim mentality and having self-respect does, and the best way not to have a victim mentality...is to not condone victimization in the first place! Now, for those who are being bullied, it's important to encourage them to take matters into their own hands and stand up for themselves, but why is bullying, especially anti-gay bullying, right in the first place? And...while being bullied...what if I did succumb to the suicidal thoughts? What if I actually did lose my sanity? What am I, a hopeless loser because some assholes didn't like me? Just be glad I'm not face-to-face with you. Yeah, it might have "benefited" me in a perverse way, but self-esteem is something that is taught by encouragement, not beating someone down. Even the military knows this- they build camaraderie and support- encouragement- after forcing you out of your former undesirable characteristics.

Honestly, I get frustrated when people say bullying "builds character" because oftentimes those were the people who were never bullied or were bullies themselves.

If you got beaten as a kid and you can say it "builds character", then you're a better man than me. All I can say it did was build a distrust of the common man and a disgust/spite for humanity in general. If we were to all die - an omnicide, so to speak - I would be happy (at least prior to death, since death is oblivion) because the worst, most insolent and violent species on this planet would be eradicated.

But us all dying out is a bit much to hope for, so the next best thing is to eradicate bullying.

You know what? I pretty much agree with you. I'm a recovering cynic myself, no doubt because of the endless bullying and treachery that was inflicted on me and my mother throughout the years. Did it build character for me? Perversely, it did- I definitely improved my sense of self-esteem and increased level of respect that I demand of others, built within me a determination to prove those assholes wrong. But it didn't come without its negative effects- honestly, CSI's Sara Sidle reminds me of myself- highly self-criticizing, angry, often suicidal, and often angry at and even derisive towards those who aren't as successful at school as I am while having a better home environment and background.

[Zolotoivek]

Let me flip this one on it's head for you. Where did you, or society get the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do with their own lives?

That is not, my friend, a respectable response. 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.

People are selfish all the time, for a number of reasons. [...] causing them consternation and suffering.

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.

Perhaps you may see the ineffectuality of your argumentative posture.

No we're not. We're talking about bullying and someone's asinine proposition that it serves some sort of moral good

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.

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

presumably as a form of trolling.

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?

The question is one of whether bully can serve net social benefit. Setting aside that we're asked to set aside the array of painstakingly researched data bases from a horde of peer reviewed and published clinical studies, along with professional, expert testimonials from psychologists and psychiatrists that do this shit for a living who overwhelmingly indicate the opposite(which I'll get to) and that we're supposed to accept the anecdotal wisdom of an anonymous online poster...

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?

I posit that the damage to our social fabric caused by rampaging assholes is greater than the limited impact socially isolated individuals have on their surroundings. That is: one person committing suicide is capable of generating a one-time only effect on a small group of people. One asshole however is capable of generating an entire lifetime of jackassery, not only this, but the general asshattery has the potential for generating additional assholes as a direct consequence, either through personal suffering or in emulation of the original asshole.

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.

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.

Language is defined by the common usage.

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

Children are routinely treated different from adults all the time, in a variety of contexts for the social reasons that they can't rationally be expected to be born with a complete understanding of the nuances of their social surroundings. The rules for children are different. Things that would be COMPLETELY unacceptable for adults(i.e. throwing up on another adult, where no alcohol is involved, running around naked, shitting on the floor and making others clean it up for them) is fine for kids. Accomplishments for children are exaggerated. Violations of social norms are downplayed.

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.

It's only reasonable that different words, and strategies should be adopted to deal with this reality.

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 that we discuss the meaning of words from any consideration of context - in which case you are literally just arguing semantics.

A supposition you present to me unfairly.

Case not proven.

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.

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

Long-Term Effects of Bullying: Exploring the Relationships among Recalled Experiences with
Bullying, Current Coping Resources, and Reported Symptoms of Distress.
http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewc ... t=cps_diss

As with all qualitative evidence, it is subject to the bias of researcher(s). Retrospective data, similarly, as well as anecdotal evidence, is considered similarly unreliable in the academic world - of which this course is naturally rife with. 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.

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.

Bullying victimisation and risk of self harm in early adolescence: longitudinal cohort study
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2683

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 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.

Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 0001723594

I am unable to judge, considering the source is unavailable.

Does School Bullying Affect Adult Health? Population Survey of Health-Related Quality of Life and Past Victimization
http://anp.sagepub.com/content/43/12/1163.short

Sadly, and as much as I value rhetoric enough to understand the value of repetition, I must tell you that this suffers the same absence of legitimacy that the others do.

Let me summarize the above for you.

A kind offer, but one I shall have to decline.

What the above studies indicate is that while there is resiliency among children to casual bullying, but as frequency and duration of bullying increases, mental health outcomes are drastically reduced.

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.

All the available evidence shows bullying is bullshit, potentially hurts everyone involved, and as a phenomenon, cannot statistically generate anything but worse outcomes in just about every measurable category on the population exposed to it.

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.

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.

[Stoner Country]

i myself am not a homosexual but i dont have a problem with them. Live and let live. Diffrent strokes for diffrent folks. you know?
As long as they aint trying to kiss on me or nothing i dont have a problem with homos its there life it aint like there hurting me. Infact good i hope there are more gays in the future so there is less compeition for females.

[Stoner Country]

bully might actuall be good it teachs kids to have thicker skin and prepares them for the dick heads there gonna meet in the real world.

[Ovisterra]

Infact good i hope there are more gays in the future so there is less compeition for females.

Tip: Lesbians exist.

[Immoren]

Infact good i hope there are more gays in the future so there is less compeition for females.

Tip: Lesbians exist.

Nonsense. Lesbians are just a myth.

[Ovisterra]

Tip: Lesbians exist.

Nonsense. Lesbians are just a myth.

Like Belgium.

[Sapiens Isles]

Tip: Lesbians exist.

Nonsense. Lesbians are just a myth.

Are you kidding me? Lesbians, a myth? Next you're gonna say dragons and unicorns are legend.

[Immoren]

Nonsense. Lesbians are just a myth.

Are you kidding me? Lesbians, a myth? Next you're gonna say dragons and unicorns are legend.

No, dragons and unicorns are real of course.

[Trotskylvania]

It is harassment to, you know, harass a child about their sexuality if it isn't public, and to hound them about their sinfullness and "illegality".

Homosexuality isn't illegal, by the way.

I agree, but now, most homosexuals in public high schools fell the need to tell everyone about their sexuality. If they are going to be public about their sex life, they have to have the fact that not everyone is going to agree with them because they "need" everyone's approval.

You are a horrible human being.

[Greater Phenia]

To summarise... Bullying is, no doubt, hurtful. But is it entirely bad? No, I don't believe it is. Hurt occurs anywhere, from all directions, much like how angles meet in the centre of a circle. To deprive children of their opportunity to accustom themselves to experiencing this does nothing but hamper their ability to do so.

Since hurt occurs anywhere, prevention of bullying is not depriving any child of the opportunity to deal with hurt, merely one form of it.

Somewhat like how child labor laws are not making kids grow up with no concept of diligence.

[Sapiens Isles]

I agree, but now, most homosexuals in public high schools fell the need to tell everyone about their sexuality. If they are going to be public about their sex life, they have to have the fact that not everyone is going to agree with them because they "need" everyone's approval.

You are a horrible human being.

Seconded.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

You are a horrible human being.

Seconded.

Both of you knock it off. Flaming - argument not player is open to attack. This is nothing new. And if I see any more of it, the *** Red Text of Doom *** is gonna get brought to the party. So let's not. Mkay?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Tip: Lesbians exist.

Nonsense. Lesbians are just a myth.

Invented by the porn industry.

[Alaje]

bully might actuall be good it teachs kids to have thicker skin and prepares them for the dick heads there gonna meet in the real world.

Bullying isn't good. I was bullied during the entirety of my middle school years, it made me into a cynical asshole that has a rather hard time finding anything to be "happy" about. If you want more people to be like that be my guest.

[East Ormania]

bully might actuall be good it teachs kids to have thicker skin and prepares them for the dick heads there gonna meet in the real world.

Bullying isn't good. I was bullied during the entirety of my middle school years, it made me into a cynical asshole that has a rather hard time finding anything to be "happy" about. If you want more people to be like that be my guest.

I support this post in any way possible.
What some people suffer is going to go with them for the rest of their lives.
Words of a experienced man.

[Reggae Magmia]

bully might actuall be good it teachs kids to have thicker skin and prepares them for the dick heads there gonna meet in the real world.

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!

[Martean]

bully might actuall be good it teachs kids to have thicker skin and prepares them for the dick heads there gonna meet in the real world.

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:

[Incendiux]

It is harassment to, you know, harass a child about their sexuality if it isn't public, and to hound them about their sinfullness and "illegality".

Homosexuality isn't illegal, by the way.

I agree, but now, most homosexuals in public high schools fell the need to tell everyone about their sexuality. If they are going to be public about their sex life, they have to have the fact that not everyone is going to agree with them because they "need" everyone's approval.

Those heterosexuals in high school just irk me ya'know? They are always going around holding hands and kissing in the hallways, the guys are always talking about some chick they "banged",and all those girls worrying if they are pretty enough. I hope they get bullied because they "need" everyone's approval to their lives :nods: