# Bullying



## Polednice

I read an article in the Guardian today about an "anti-anti-bullying" movement, which fights against policies in school that try to put a stop to bullying. I'm sure it will not surprise you in the least that the main proponents of "anti-anti-bullying" are Christian groups who don't want homophobic bullying to be curbed - some have even asked for exemptions for students who bully gay kids out of firm religious convictions.

I don't want to focus on any one issue though - what do you think about bullying in general? As a target of prolonged bullying myself (it wasn't for my sexuality, by the way), I can attest for the fact that it can really mess you up (of course, at one extreme, there is suicide). I think it's a vile practice that a school must take adequate measures to stop, and, contrary to what these groups say, putting anti-bullying measures in place does _not_ therefore endorse whatever attributes were picked on - telling a kid to stop bullying a gay peer, for example, does not mean that the school says it's OK to be gay; the school is simply saying that there is no reason to treat someone like a piece of ****.

Personally, I find more annoying than anything else the argument that bullying is "natural" - a feature of the human species since before recorded history that we have no place tampering with. First, I would say that I'd like to see some substantial evidence for this claim, and, second, I'd like not to have to do another run-down of the naturalistic fallacy.


----------



## violadude

There are people who support bullying?  This confuses me greatly. I got picked on quite a bit growing up. First because I couldn't run as fast as the other kids because of my prosthetic leg and later because I'm not exactly the most masculine fella in the world. I know for a fact all of that combined with possibly other factors slowed down my social development considerably. 

That's horrible though. This anti-anti-bullying group couldn't possibly have any effect on anything could they? I would hope that most people have enough common sense to recognize them as a ridiculous group that should just be ignored. Those must be some fairly extreme Christians though...most of the Christians I know wouldn't support bullying in any case despite their views on homosexuality being "sinful." Is this a group based in England? Or is it an international group? Here in Seattle most Christian churches are pretty liberal. The surrounding, more suburban cities are more conservative, but not that bad as far as I know. 

I donate 15 dollars a month to the Southern Poverty Law Center for an anti-bullying program  Thought this was the appropriate time to give myself a public pat on the back for that lol


----------



## NightHawk

Unbelievable. Such so-called Christian groups are not only endorsing the bullying of gays they are bullies themselves - hardly Christian in my book. In the USA we now have laws regarding hate crimes. Of course, there will always be bullies and bullying especially in schools. You may find these references of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

*Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act*
Main article: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
On October 28, 2009 President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which expanded existing United States federal hate crime law to apply to crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.


----------



## Ukko

During my school years in a small town, 1943-1955, there was no bullying. Wonder what the significant difference is.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

NightHawk said:


> In the USA we now have laws regarding hate crimes.


So, if anyone beats you up just because he's mad or he wants to rob you or whatever, he gets say, five years in prison, but if he beats you up because you are black or gay or both, he gets seven or eight years? If that's how it works, it looks pretty sick to me.


----------



## violadude

Hilltroll72 said:


> During my school years in a small town, 1943-1955, there was no bullying. Wonder what the significant difference is.


How diverse were the kids? If it was a small town with a fairly homogenous population maybe there was just less things to pick on from kid to kid?... I'm just taking a guess there.


----------



## Cnote11

My state of Michigan recently passed a law that makes it legal for Christians to bully homosexuals and within the bill states they are exempt due to their "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction” (direct quote). The funny this is that it probably doesn't cover anything outside of Christianity.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> There are people who support bullying?  This confuses me greatly. I got picked on quite a bit growing up. First because I couldn't run as fast as the other kids because of my prosthetic leg and later because I'm not exactly the most masculine fella in the world. I know for a fact all of that combined with possibly other factors slowed down my social development considerably.
> 
> That's horrible though. This anti-anti-bullying group couldn't possibly have any effect on anything could they? I would hope that most people have enough common sense to recognize them as a ridiculous group that should just be ignored. Those must be some fairly extreme Christians though...most of the Christians I know wouldn't support bullying in any case despite their views on homosexuality being "sinful." Is this a group based in England? Or is it an international group? Here in Seattle most Christian churches are pretty liberal. The surrounding, more suburban cities are more conservative, but not that bad as far as I know.
> 
> I donate 15 dollars a month to the Southern Poverty Law Center for an anti-bullying program  Thought this was the appropriate time to give myself a public pat on the back for that lol


It's a U.S. movement (another probably unsurprising fact  ). The effect that they have varies by region, but I have read of various school districts where these Christian groups have pressured schools into having policies that do not defend children being bullied for their sexuality, so when kids go to them and state that that's the reason they're being targeted, teachers have chosen not to intervene in case they're fired.


----------



## kv466

I was never a part of nor experienced any bullying of any sort; similar to Trolls.


----------



## kv466

I was never a part of nor experienced any bullying of any sort; similar to Trolls.


Okay, okay...I admit it. At times I can be a Gould bully.


----------



## Taneyev

Hilltroll72 said:


> During my school years in a small town, 1943-1955, there was no bullying. Wonder what the significant difference is.


Agree. I went to elementary from 46 to 53, and to school 54/59, and there wasnt' bullying of any kind.


----------



## Cnote11

I am kind of doubting that there was zero bullying whatsoever. Have you ever submitted to the possibility that perhaps you were not aware of it? It becomes increasingly difficult these days, especially in schools like I went to with 3,000 children.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> It's a U.S. movement (another probably unsurprising fact  ). The effect that they have varies by region, but I have read of various school districts where these Christian groups have pressured schools into having policies that do not defend children being bullied for their sexuality, so when kids go to them and state that that's the reason they're being targeted, teachers have chosen not to intervene in case they're fired.


Dear Lord, how putrid.


----------



## Yoshi

My school was pretty bad, I saw and experienced bullying all the time and there was nothing we could do. People who worked at school and even teachers were afraid of students. I guess it was because the school was near the worst neighbourhood here. The problem was that nothing ever happened to bullies. This kid I knew was beaten up by 3 other kids one day who filmed it. The parents complained about it to the school, showed the video but nothing ever happened to the students who did it. What could we do about it if nobody cared?
I think bullying in any form should never be allowed in any school. It's sick that you can't even have a safe environment in a learning place. It's really not fair to students who want to learn and have a good future.


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> My state of Michigan recently passed a law that makes it legal for Christians to bully homosexuals and within the bill states they are exempt due to their "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction" (direct quote). The funny this is that it probably doesn't cover anything outside of Christianity.


Dear Lord, how putrid. 

I know, it's the same thing I just said to Polednice's post but I can't think of any other way to describe it.

What is the name of the law or the bill or whatever? I want to share that with my dad but he won't believe me unless I provide evidence.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

During my school years I experienced a bit of bullying, but it was never anything really bad and certainly didn't make me think of suicide. Of course a gay kid in my school would have probably remained as deeply closeted as he only could.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Bullying is a big problem in Russia too. I've heard in criminal news recently about a schoolboy in province who lost his kidney because he had been beaten by some school gang.

I've never been really beaten, but I had been also bullyed during my school years, mostly because I was a high achiever and had high grades and most other boys were ignoramuses, who did not want to learn and did not want others to learn. 

Unfurtunately the intellectual level of pupils became very low in Russia during 1990, because scientific and other intellectual work lost its prestige during the transition from lanquid communism to wild capitalism...


----------



## Cnote11

violadude said:


> Dear Lord, how putrid.
> 
> I know, it's the same thing I just said to Polednice's post but I can't think of any other way to describe it.
> 
> What is the name of the law or the bill or whatever? I want to share that with my dad but he won't believe me unless I provide evidence.


The bill is called Matt's Safe School Law. Here is a news article:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Parenting/...er-matt-epling/story?id=14885102#.T33tvaum-W0

Here is the law from the Michigan Legislature website:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2011-SEBS-0137.htm


----------



## PetrB

Hilltroll72 said:


> During my school years in a small town, 1943-1955, there was no bullying. Wonder what the significant difference is.


Homogeneity of the community, socioeconomic similarity, perhaps racial and cultural similarity, and 'less diversity' are often to account - not 'better people' per se, but a group more or less 'on the same page' to begin with will have less differences and be less at variance with each other.


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> Homogeneity of the community, socioeconomic similarity, perhaps racial and cultural similarity, and 'less diversity' are often to account - not 'better people' per se, but a group more or less 'on the same page' to begin with will have less differences and be less at variance with each other.


Interesting. The community was 'homogeneous' to the extent that - in a community of ~1000 inhabitants - every family knew something of every other family. Socioeconomic similarity did not exist, but racial/cultural similarity sort of did. A significant percentage of 1st and 2nd generation Finnish/Italian/Polish-Americans, but no 'nobility'. I suppose we _were_ pretty much 'on the same page'. The Depression created in the countryside a partial barter economy, throughout the simplified social strata that existed. The callused hand that dug potatoes and milked cows was apt to shake the somewhat less callused hand of the shopkeeper. Making a living; getting by.


----------



## Cnote11

How old are you, Hilltroll?


----------



## Lunasong

I find it amazing that Christians are excluding and bullying people. This is so against what I believe Jesus would do. "All are welcome." "All" is an inclusive word that doesn't leave anyone out.

In our local news, a HS student will be allowed to wear his "Jesus is not a homophobe" T shirt for one designated day. In today's TV news reports, most interviewees supported the student, which pleased me.


----------



## mmsbls

I looked into the Michigan bullying law. As far as I can tell, the State Senate originally passed a version excluding bullying for deep moral convictions or religious beliefs. The House passed a law without that exclusion. The bill passed by the whole legislature is the House version which does not include the exemption. 

Critics point out that other anti-bullying laws explicitly include common causes of bullying such as instances based on race, religion or sexual orientation as well as detailed reporting requirements for instances of bullying but that the Michigan law does not include these. The view is that when laws don't state explicitly what types of bullying are prohibited instances of bullying will not decrease enough.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> How old are you, Hilltroll?


Too old to cut the mustard anymore.


----------



## Cnote11

"Republicans ultimately dropped the amendment, and the language included all students and prohibits bullying 'without regard to its subject matter or motivating animus.'"

It appears they did indeed drop that out of the bill on the final signing on December 6, 2011.


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> I looked into the Michigan bullying law. As far as I can tell, the State Senate originally passed a version excluding bullying for deep moral convictions or religious beliefs. The House passed a law without that exclusion. The bill passed by the whole legislature is the House version which does not include the exemption.
> 
> Critics point out that other anti-bullying laws explicitly include common causes of bullying such as instances based on race, religion or sexual orientation as well as detailed reporting requirements for instances of bullying but that the Michigan law does not include these. The view is that when laws don't state explicitly what types of bullying are prohibited instances of bullying will not decrease enough.


Should the *NO* be capitalized, bolded and italicized?


----------



## NightHawk

Hilltroll72 said:


> During my school years in a small town, 1943-1955, there was no bullying. Wonder what the significant difference is.


I was raised in a town of less than 1000 people pre-LSD, and we had plenty of _psychological_ bullying, meaning there was no actual violence that I remember, just threats and insults - the fights that broke out were generally among equally matched meat heads. I think, in my case, being related to a large number of students in grades ahead of me made a lot difference. My mom was the youngest of 13, so there was a small army of first cousins in the grades ahead of me (one large rambling school house for all 12 grades). Also, a possible factor: my grandfather was the County Sheriff for most of my elementary and junior high school years.


----------



## PetrB

Cnote11 said:


> My state of Michigan recently passed a law that makes it legal for Christians to bully homosexuals and within the bill states they are exempt due to their "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction" (direct quote). The funny this is that it probably doesn't cover anything outside of Christianity.


Fair enough, as long as those "Christians" will accept being bullied for Their beliefs, though I bet they would be the first to whine they are 'being persecuted.'

These laws are ridiculous - only an agreed upon general more and social pressure 'work.'

Anybody bullying, ideally, would have the majority taunting them because they are a bully, period, the subject matter / rationale for their bullying is moot.

Bullies are cowards: it is fear that has them acting out. Most cowards, called out for being cowardly, back down immediately, because, uh, they are cowards.


----------



## NightHawk

I can only give an example, as I understand it - if a person is lured into a truck under false pretenses, driven into the middle of nowhere, badly beaten, then hung up on a barbed wire fence to die from exposure to the cold (as Matthew Shepard was and did) _because_ they're gay (or Jewish, or Black, or like Wagner), then a conviction can be more severe.



SiegendesLicht said:


> So, if anyone beats you up just because he's mad or he wants to rob you or whatever, he gets say, five years in prison, but if he beats you up because you are black or gay or both, he gets seven or eight years? If that's how it works, it looks pretty sick to me.


----------



## Crudblud

"They're distracting you from your work by throwing paper balls at your head and trying to goad you in to starting a fight? I'm just the teacher, it's not like I'm supposed to be in control of this class or anything. Get on with your work."

"They held you down and kicked you in the ribs and stomach repeatedly? Just ignore them!"

"He tried to stub a cigarette out on your face? Well, I'm sure someone will catch him doing something _serious_ eventually."

There's my experience of anti-bullying efforts in the UK, not quite verbatim quotes but the essential message of each one is conveyed perfectly. If there's a group of people promoting bullying I don't see what they hope to change; in my experience the bullies already get their way with minimal resistance.


----------



## Ukko

Originally Posted by SiegendesLicht
"So, if anyone beats you up just because he's mad or he wants to rob you or whatever, he gets say, five years in prison, but if he beats you up because you are black or gay or both, he gets seven or eight years? If that's how it works, it looks pretty sick to me."



NightHawk said:


> I can only give an example, as I understand it - if a person is lured into a truck under false pretenses, driven into the middle of nowhere, badly beaten, then hung up on a barbed wire fence to die from exposure to the cold (as Matthew Shepard was and did) _because_ they're gay (or Jewish, or Black, or like Wagner), then a conviction can be more severe.


Hate crimes are frowned upon. If somebody beats you up in the course of robbing you, he's just trying to make a living.


----------



## Guest

So are non-hate crimes generally committed out of an act of love or mutual respect? If somebody beats me, should I feel better if they did it with no apparent malice towards me? Should a convicted murderer be given special considerations if he/she can prove they killed the person without an ounce of hate in their body?

The term "hate crime" seems rather ludicrous. All crime stems from some degree of antisocial behavior.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> So are non-hate crimes generally committed out of an act of love or mutual respect? If somebody beats me, should I feel better if they did it with no apparent malice towards me? Should a convicted murderer be given special considerations if he/she can prove they killed the person without an ounce of hate in their body?
> 
> The term "hate crime" seems rather ludicrous. All crime stems from some degree of antisocial behavior.


Besides being awkwardly stated, your first paragraph is irrelevant - to approximately everything. Your conclusion in the second paragraph is incorrect. All crime stems from some degree of _illegal_ behavior.

:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

So it isn't antisocial to violate the laws of a society?


----------



## Guest

The concept of a hate crime is fundamentally disturbing to me - disturbing in the fact that is essentially a thought crime. We are punishing people for thinking in a way that we don't want them to. Free speech means that you are going to get people saying and thinking things you may not like. So long as they aren't violating the rights of others, though, they are free to hate whomever they want. In the words of Mark Twain, "I don't discriminate - I hate all people equally."

How can you punish a person for the way they think? Who then sets what qualifies as hate? I understand that some people don't like the constitutional protection clause added to the Michigan bill, but at its core, it was seeking to set some limit on what you could characterize as bullying. Should I be afraid to speak my religious beliefs for fear that someone will claim that I am bullying them? Now, that doesn't mean that I should hector someone for not sharing those beliefs, but I should be free to speak my mind in a public setting. 

And it isn't like "hate" crimes were previously unprosecuted before hate crimes legislation. In the case of Matthew Shepard, his murderers both received two life sentences. In the case of James Byrd, Jr., one of the three men was sentenced to life in prison, and the other two were sentenced to death - one of them has already been executed. How would hate crime legislation have changed any of this? We already have laws against murder and assault.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> So it isn't antisocial to violate the laws of a society?


Lawmakers are not even close to infallible. There are a slew of laws 'on the books' that can be broken without being antisocial. For instance, bigamy is illegal in the US. It is not _necessarily_ antisocial.


----------



## Polednice

I largely agree with DrMike on the idea of hate crime, which is why I think school policy and law should not be written in favour of protecting certain groups (sexual, religious, age etc.) but to stop bad/illegal behaviours regardless of target and intention (it doesn't matter if a child is being punched in the face for being gay, what matters is that they're being punched in the face).

There are rightfully limits to free speech though. For example, I think it was right for police in the UK to charge two Muslim men who preached on the streets that gay men should be hanged. I would consider that a form of "incitement", though they are entitled to hate gays in the privacy of their own minds.


----------



## mmsbls

As I understand the legislation related to hate crime and bullying laws, which specifically call out certain groups, the rational seems to be that the crime is not only against an individual but also against a group. Some believe (I don't know how much evidence there is) that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm. There can be significant psychological harm that can disempower a group of people. Presumably, then, society can suffer more from a hate crime than an equivalent crime not motivated by hate. 

I think rape is generally punished much more severely than assault due to psychological effects on the woman and her family. I have read that killing a police officer often increases penalties (more often death penalty) over murder of others. Society feels a special need to protect police officers.


----------



## Cnote11

I honestly see nothing wrong with trying to stomp out bad strains of thought in society. I refuse to accept the ideology of a Klansman as valid and I wish to destroy it.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> I honestly see nothing wrong with trying to stomp out bad strains of thought in society. I refuse to accept the ideology of a Klansman as valid and I wish to destroy it.


I would also wish to destroy it, but not with legislation. Confidence in the absolute goodness and rightness of your morality, when codified in law, is what leads to tyrannies, whether your morals really are good or not.


----------



## Cnote11

That just isn't true whatsoever. What are the majority of our laws if not confident in their goodness and rightness of their morality? There have been hundreds of thousands passed and I don't see any tyranny.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> That just isn't true whatsoever. What are the majority of our laws if not confident in their goodness and rightness of their morality? There have been hundreds of thousands passed and I don't see any tyranny.


I see tyranny where two people cannot marry because of their gender; where a suffering individual cannot have access to certain illegal drugs, or cannot end their lives on their own terms; where women are forced to jump through invasive hoops in order to have control over their uteruses. These are all the result of an elite believing they know the difference between right and wrong - I wouldn't want to become a confident elite myself by passing laws against ideas I dislike. The law ought to serve moral diversity, and that means no one can be in control of declaring what is good and bad. Then and only then can gay people marry - and people who dislike gay marriage not have one; the suffering can find pain relief or die - and those who dislike it can choose not to; and women can have autonomy over their bodies - those who dislike abortion being free to not have one.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> That just isn't true whatsoever. What are the majority of our laws if not confident in their goodness and rightness of their morality? There have been hundreds of thousands passed and I don't see any tyranny.


You are using 'tyranny' in a narrow sense. In a broader sense there is a tyranny of law each time one of them is enforced. Some city-states of ancient Greece entertained the concept of benevolent tyranny; that too probably expands your understanding of the word.

If the separation of church and state were truly practiced, the state would promulgate no moral laws, only ethical ones. When has that ever happened? Religions would be free to promulgate moral laws, intended to be observed by their constituents and not enforceable for others. Has any religious hierarchy accepted willingly that constraint?


----------



## Cnote11

At large the state is not a tyranny just because it has a few laws deemed oppressive. Also, your idea of moral diversity is deemed "good" by you and "bad" by others. It is still a moral judgement and that is impossible to escape. The problem is when the elite make laws based on what they don't "like" or what they don't have a clue about. There is a difference between intellectual lawmaking and simply rubbish lawmaking. We have plenty of laws that are moral judgements that can be defended from an intellectual standpoint. An obvious one is the law of not murdering other people. Some people may believe murdering someone isn't bad and others might label them a psychopath, but they really are only a psychopath from the perspective of that moral judgement. Murder itself isn't inherently bad, but it is harmful in creating a society that serves the greater good of the people, which is why it gets the moral judgement of negative.

My point is, when you say we should serve moral diversity and allow gay people to marry you're making a judgement that gay marriage isn't bad (harmful to society) and that moral diversity is good. It still is a judgement. I refuse to pander to moronic tendencies in society and have this P.C. tolerance which is steeped in anti-intellectualism and based on emotions instead of reason.


----------



## Guest

The problem with laws against thought is that the lines drawn are very arbitrary. I think exploring a person's ideology and words can be useful when trying to determine motive, or possibly even profiling (which, despite the bad name it has acquired, is not inherently bad), but should not be criminal in and of itself, within reason. Yet how do you truly prove hate? Sure, some people may be more open about their hatred than others, but if you had two separate individuals beating up gay people, the one doing it while saying vicious and hateful things against the person for their sexual orientation, and the other only doing it because, say, he was just generally violent and the person looked at him wrong, do you punish the first one more than the second one? Or what if someone was hostile to gay people, but beat up a gay man without knowing he was gay. Would they still be guilty of a hate crime, because they are generally hateful towards gay people?

I tend to fall on the side of maximum punishment for crimes, so if someone has committed a crime, especially if they have injured another, then throw the book at them - but they shouldn't be "more" guilty just because they were hateful when they committed the crime. For crying out loud - can cracking a gay joke land you an extra 5 years in prison?

As to issues of rape, of course the punishment should be more severe than mere assault - because the crime is more severe. Think of what all can occur from rape - not only is there assault, but there is the potential of passing along disease, or even impregnating the female. Assault injures the body, but rape further violates it. And the killing of a police officer is a direct attack, not only on the individual, but on the law enforcement wing of the justice system. Killing a police officer directly makes the society less safe. Police officers not only control crime, but diminish the need for private citizens to see to their own safety. Those are, in fact, greater crimes than mere murder or assault, regardless of the psychology underlying the crime.


----------



## Cnote11

Hilltroll72 said:


> You are using 'tyranny' in a narrow sense. In a broader sense there is a tyranny of law each time one of them is enforced. Some city-states of ancient Greece entertained the concept of benevolent tyranny; that too probably expands your understanding of the word.
> 
> If the separation of church and state were truly practiced, the state would promulgate no moral laws, only ethical ones. When has that ever happened? Religions would be free to promulgate moral laws, intended to be observed by their constituents and not enforceable for others. Has any religious hierarchy accepted willingly that constraint?


You realise that constraint is absolutely impossible under most religious doctrine? What you're asking religious people to do is betray their very beliefs. They do it daily anyway but don't want to admit it to themselves. The whole concept completely undermines the idea of most religion though. Ethics is the philosophy of morality and majority-wise there isn't even a distinction made, so yes they would still be moral based. Morality isn't a purely religious phenomenon. Also, you're granted that I was defining tyranny as the state at large being oppressive in nature.


----------



## Cnote11

I see your point, Dr. Mike, but I can't agree with it due to me being more of a pro-rehabilitation person. You're right that it can be very difficult to establish intent. Luckily the law tends (or should) to err on the side of not passing judgement without clear cut evidence. So unless they can prove the guy was aware of the mans sexuality at the time of beating him up, he would not be charged with a hate crime.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> You realise that constraint is absolutely impossible under most religious doctrine? What you're asking religious people to do is betray their very beliefs. They do it daily anyway but don't want to admit it to themselves. The whole concept completely undermines the idea of most religion though. Ethics is the philosophy of morality and majority-wise there isn't even a distinction made, so yes they would still be moral based. Morality isn't a purely religious phenomenon. Also, you're granted that I was defining tyranny as the state at large being oppressive in nature.


Do _you_ realize that the hierarchy of a religion is not the same beastie as the religion? Witness the regime of Pius XII before and during WW2.

Defining ethics (note the lower case 'e') as the philosophy of morality is misleading, distorts understanding, and misplaces the impetus for compliance.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Polednice said:


> I see tyranny where... women are forced to jump through invasive hoops in order to have control over their uteruses.


How about having some control over their ******* first? Or rather over their heads and not let this control be overthrown by animal instincts?


----------



## Cnote11

Hilltroll72 said:


> Do _you_ realize that the hierarchy of a religion is not the same beastie as the religion? Witness the regime of Pius XII before and during WW2.
> 
> Defining ethics (note the lower case 'e') as the philosophy of morality is misleading, distorts understanding, and misplaces the impetus for compliance.


What I said has nothing to do with the hierarchy of religion but the actual teachings within the Bible and other religious doctrinal foundations. I don't even know how you pulled that from what I said. That's a major random assumption you made there.

Also, the difference between ethics and morality is trivial at best. The word ethics itself comes from ethos/ethikos which means moral character, which became ethica which we took up as ethics, meaning moral philosophy. To act like there is some definite clear-cut difference between morality and ethics is silly and up to your personal interpretation of the terms and not an at-large defined philosophy. There is a reason why ethics is also referred to as "moral philosophy" you know.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> Also, your idea of moral diversity is deemed "good" by you and "bad" by others. It is still a moral judgement and that is impossible to escape.


I don't think that's a problem because I'm not trying to escape all moral judgements and base a state on complete relativism, what I'm advocating is a legal system that gives room for people to express their own moral frameworks without harming others. For example, you state that certain laws concerning morals and ethics can be argued from an intellectual standpoint. With what familiarity I have with your general world-view, I'd probably agree with you both on the morals and on your reasoning. However, there are people who choose to live under completely different frameworks - faith-based, for example, rather than evidence-based. For such people, I believe the law must leave room for differences in moral "opinion", as I stated earlier.

On the questions of gay marriage, euthanasia, or abortion et. al., I would say that the law should give room for freedom of choice because there is no evidence that any of these cause harm to society (an empirical, not a moral assertion), but if people choose to believe that committing such acts is an affront to their god, they are free to have that moral conviction and act accordingly.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> You realise that constraint is absolutely impossible under most religious doctrine? What you're asking religious people to do is betray their very beliefs. They do it daily anyway but don't want to admit it to themselves. The whole concept completely undermines the idea of most religion though. Ethics is the philosophy of morality and majority-wise there isn't even a distinction made, so yes they would still be moral based. Morality isn't a purely religious phenomenon. Also, you're granted that I was defining tyranny as the state at large being oppressive in nature.


I would agree and have stated elsewhere (perhaps in the religion group) that secularism, though it offers religious freedom, is something fundamentally at odds with most religious belief as it undermines the absoluteness of a deity and its commands.



SiegendesLicht said:


> How about having some control over their ******* first? Or rather over their heads and not let this control be overthrown by animal instincts?


I don't know what this means.


----------



## Cnote11

What is moral "opinion" though when it comes to faith-based things? You say they would have the option not to have gay marriage, but that is automatically an option under anything legalised for the most part. I'm rather confused by what you mean by that and I'd like for you to elaborate on leaving room for moral "opinion" when it comes to faith-based things. It just sounds redundant to me. Also, if they are allowed to have that moral conviction then that allows them the room to attack others, as per their doctrine in their Bibles. It is completely hypocritical to tell a Christian they are allowed to hold their belief but not allowed to carry out the act of their beliefs i.e. stoning homosexuals. It is by their duty to their religion to combat these things that are against their moral convictions.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> What is moral "opinion" though when it comes to faith-based things? You say they would have the option not to have gay marriage, but that is automatically an option under anything legalised for the most part. I'm rather confused by what you mean by that and I'd like for you to elaborate on leaving room for moral "opinion" when it comes to faith-based things. It just sounds redundant to me. Also, if they are allowed to have that moral conviction then that allows them the room to attack others, as per their doctrine in their Bibles. It is completely hypocritical to tell a Christian they are allowed to hold their belief but not allowed to carry out the act of their beliefs i.e. stoning homosexuals. It is by their duty to their religion to combat these things that are against their moral convictions.


I'm not sure exactly how you want me to elaborate - choosing to do or not do something that's legal is a simple concept. And I stated earlier that people should be allowed to think all the hateful things they want, but that doesn't mean they can speak or act hatefully towards other people. That's where scriptural demands for stoning are prohibited, and why I said I'm not being completely relativist.


----------



## Cnote11

Yes, but what I mean by that is, isn't the idea of passing a "liberal" law by default giving room for moral "opinion" on more "conservative" frameworks? It isn't like you have to go out of your way to make those differences. All I meant by that was that it was entirely redundant, as it becomes a non-issue with having to actually attempt to leave the differences. It sort of is incidental in that way. The only problem I have is that it is restraining religious belief and it seems like some kind of pseudo-tolerance. To me it would be the same if you flipped sides with Christians giving tolerance to homosexuals and telling them that it is okay to be gay and hold their conviction about being gay but not actually act on those convictions. Like you say, religion and secularism are incompatible. I feel it is a bit odd to make "provisions" for the religious but in essence you are stripping them of their religious belief in every way except them practicing in private, which is sort of antithetical to a lot of doctrine. In this way, aren't you oppressing them out of your moral belief that religion is negative towards what you morally deem as positive? Wouldn't that be tyrannical in the same way that the current laws are towards those you mentioned? 

Maybe we have a misunderstanding from the get-go, but I feel like they are the same but on different sides of the coin. One just happens to be based on better ground in my opinion, but both seem to be able to accuse each other of the same thing, which is why that evidence based foundation becomes more important. This is why when things seem equal it doesn't mean they are. This brings me full circle back why I don't think it leads to necessary tyranny and only perspective tyranny.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> What I said has nothing to do with the hierarchy of religion but the actual teachings within the Bible and other religious doctrinal foundations. I don't even know how you pulled that from what I said. That's a major random assumption you made there.
> 
> Also, the difference between ethics and morality is trivial at best. The word ethics itself comes from ethos/ethikos which means moral character, which became ethica which we took up as ethics, meaning moral philosophy. To act like there is some definite clear-cut difference between morality and ethics is silly and up to your personal interpretation of the terms and not an at-large defined philosophy. There is a reason why ethics is also referred to as "moral philosophy" you know.


Tut-tut. _I_ previously used the term hierarchy - and _you _ ignored it. Please try to pay attention. 'The difference between ethics and morality' is hardly trivial to a non-religious person. As you most likely know, the historical derivation of a word can have very little to do with its present meaning. the term _Ethics_ may be referred to as 'moral philosophy' from now until the Sun burns out; that has diddly-squat to do with what ethics is.

It appears to me that you may be over-educated and under-learned; happens all the time. You are still young, no reason to lose hope.

:devil:


----------



## Polednice

I think this is a question of framing, and the perhaps subtle but important distinction I would make is that it's not OK to prohibit the manifestation of a belief that regards an individual committing act X, but it is OK to prohibit the manifestation of a belief that regards prohibiting others from committing act X.


----------



## Cnote11

Hilly, what you just said makes no sense, as you continually fail to provide context. It comes off more as cryptic remarks which reek of self-esteemed superiority. I'm a non-religious person, as are a lot of ethics professors, and they continually make no real distinction between morality and ethics. As I stated, morality is not a purely religion phenomenon. There are some schools of ethics that do make a distinction, but they still are perspective at best and non-difficult to translate into other terms to equate with other schools of thought. If you wish to educate then please by all means do so, but your current posts leave nothing to be learned from. Please, if you wish to do so then please stop dancing about and actually throw a punch.


----------



## Cnote11

I actually withdraw the question asked as I know the answer and I feel it is pointless and won't lead to further discussion of any merit.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> Hilly, what you just said makes no sense, as you continually fail to provide context. It comes off more as cryptic remarks which reek of self-esteemed superiority. I'm a non-religious person, as are a lot of ethics professors, and they continually make no real distinction between morality and ethics. As I stated, morality is not a purely religion phenomenon. There are some schools of ethics that do make a distinction, but they still are perspective at best and non-difficult to translate into other terms to equate with other schools of thought. If you wish to educate then please by all means do so, but your current posts leave nothing to be learned from. Please, if you wish to do so then please stop dancing about and actually throw a punch.


That would be unethical. Maybe better for you to hang with your Ethics professors. It's a jungle out here.


----------



## Cnote11

I'm rather confused about your "ethics with a lowercase e" thing you said, by the way Hilly. Could you clarify? Also, it isn't unethical for you to give information. Maybe you misunderstood my metaphor, but I just meant that instead of dancing around the topic you should deliver actual information.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> The concept of a hate crime is fundamentally disturbing to me - disturbing in the fact that is essentially a thought crime. We are punishing people for thinking in a way that we don't want them to. Free speech means that you are going to get people saying and thinking things you may not like. So long as they aren't violating the rights of others, though, they are free to hate whomever they want. In the words of Mark Twain, "I don't discriminate - I hate all people equally."
> 
> How can you punish a person for the way they think? Who then sets what qualifies as hate? I understand that some people don't like the constitutional protection clause added to the Michigan bill, but at its core, it was seeking to set some limit on what you could characterize as bullying. Should I be afraid to speak my religious beliefs for fear that someone will claim that I am bullying them? Now, that doesn't mean that I should hector someone for not sharing those beliefs, but I should be free to speak my mind in a public setting.
> 
> And it isn't like "hate" crimes were previously unprosecuted before hate crimes legislation. In the case of Matthew Shepard, his murderers both received two life sentences. In the case of James Byrd, Jr., one of the three men was sentenced to life in prison, and the other two were sentenced to death - one of them has already been executed. How would hate crime legislation have changed any of this? We already have laws against murder and assault.


I don't think we need specific legislation against the many possible forms of hate crime. The judge has the maximum possible sentence available to him for any given crime. In the case of murder, in the UK, this is life in prison with no possibility of parole. In some American states, it's that, and in others it is execution. The judge will look for any possible mitigating circumstances when deciding whether to impose the maximum sentence, or a lesser one. The convicted person can appeal to a higher court to have either his conviction or his sentence overturned--potentially up to the highest judicial level, where the matter will finally be decided, possibly setting a legal precedent. There, the process will stop, unless the case is so exceptional that the law itself might need to be changed because of it.

It's never going to be perfect, but I can't see any other practical way of getting a system of justice to work.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> I'm rather confused about your "ethics with a lowercase e" thing you said, by the way Hilly. Could you clarify? Also, it isn't unethical for you to give information. Maybe you misunderstood my metaphor, but I just meant that instead of dancing around the topic you should deliver actual information.


I suspect it would be unethical to modify your understanding of ethics, when your misunderstanding does you no harm. However, it seems clear that my explanation won't have that effect, so what the hey.

Upper case Ethics is a course of study; ethics is something else. Back in the mists of time, when the world and I were young, I bought one of those little blue-covered books that the Oxford press used to publish (I bought several of them, but that's several other stories). This one was on Ethics. It was of no help to me, because it offered no explanation for ethics - it was devoted to Ethics.

I was hoping to understand the process by which I was well on the way to establishing a means of _feeling_ the difference between a right act, the failure to do a right act, and a wrong act. The answers weren't in that Ethics book.

Necessary background: My family was not church-going during my existence; I received no specific instruction, formal or otherwise, regarding 'the right thing'. I have read in both testaments of the Bible, and in the Koran (another of those little blue books), but with the intent to gain knowledge, not conviction. I was never 'preached at'.

And I certainly never took an Ethics course.

I am certain that many other people have an ingrained sense of ethics, but I am _uncertain_ how they got it.

That's why I have been 'dancing around the topic'. I see no precise way to explain that Ethics isn't ethics; it just ain't.

:tiphat:


----------



## Cnote11

Interesting HillTroll. It would have been helpful to explain that at the very beginning of your posts you know! Ethics isn't capitalized in regular writing, unless of course it is proper, so I wasn't sure what you meant by that. Thanks for the explanation. I also like to believe feeling follows from understanding, or misunderstanding even. Overall, I'm never too concerned about _feeling_, but rather _thinking_. I too have read and collect the scriptures of all religions and have read them over, including commentaries. I can't say I gained a great deal of knowledge from them, although I find some rather touching stuff out of the Hindu and Buddhist camps. I was/am quite fascinated by Islamic more so than anything. In the end though, your idea sounds a little to abstract for me to get with, and of course too abstract to debate you on anything dealing with it!


----------



## Ukko

OK. BTW 'ingrained' is not a synonym for 'instinctive', or 'inherited'. It is something that gets woven into the woof and warp of personality, by a process I don't understand. But it's there, friend, your disbelief not withstanding.


----------



## Cnote11

I'm aware what ingrained means. I study personality and the impact of culture on people for a living. I disagree with your concept is all and I don't mean that people don't have an ingrained sense of right or wrong, or better yet a cultivated sense one should say. I do not believe this to be necessarily fixed. Perhaps what you say is true in the way you understand it, but I disagree with your terminology and how you go about conceptualizing it. That is what I meant to express with that sentence, although obviously it never could. Only in my mind.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> I'm aware what ingrained means. I study personality and the impact of culture on people for a living. I disagree with your concept is all and I don't mean that people don't have an ingrained sense of right or wrong, or better yet a cultivated sense one should say. I do not believe this to be necessarily fixed. Perhaps what you say is true in the way you understand it, but I disagree with your terminology and how you go about conceptualizing it. That is what I meant to express with that sentence, although obviously it never could. Only in my mind.


"Cultivated" by who or what, and how. If you can answer that to my satisfaction, I will be moderately delighted and much impressed. If I could recognize _failure to do the right thing_ before the opportunity to _do the right thing_ was lost, the remainder of my life would very likely be less stressful. These reveries wherein I kick myself in the *** almost put me off my feed.


----------



## Cnote11

I don't like to bring my work home Hilly  I don't feel like I would be able to give you a satisfactory answer at the moment due to me focusing on the television, but I'd be happy at one point to discuss it with you.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> I don't like to bring my work home Hilly  I don't feel like I would be able to give you a satisfactory answer at the moment due to me focusing on the television, but I'd be happy at one point to discuss it with you.


That's OK. Focus on the TV. There should be reruns of The Big Bang Theory on there somewhere. I'm pretty sure that _Poley_ needs your professional help more than I do anyway.


----------



## Cnote11

:lol: You're evil, Hilly. The only time I turn on the television is for sports. Otherwise, I do everything online, and I make sure to avoid that show at all costs! And this is more about having a lovely discussion than anything! Don't be such a bitter 90-something, Hilly.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> That's OK. Focus on the TV. There should be reruns of The Big Bang Theory on there somewhere. I'm pretty sure that _Poley_ needs your professional help more than I do anyway.


Only because your life-span has nearly come to a close.


----------



## Cnote11

I'm sitting here contemplating what tone I'm supposed to read that in.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> I'm sitting here contemplating what tone I'm supposed to read that in.


The ambiguity is delicious, isn't it?


----------



## TresPicos

Polednice said:


> I read an article in the Guardian today about an "anti-anti-bullying" movement, which fights against policies in school that try to put a stop to bullying. I'm sure it will not surprise you in the least that the main proponents of "anti-anti-bullying" are Christian groups who don't want homophobic bullying to be curbed - some have even asked for exemptions for students who bully gay kids out of firm religious convictions.


Wow, these Christians really have problems separating good from evil. Someone should give them a moral code or a book or something to guide them.


----------



## Guest

k


Polednice said:


> I read an article in the Guardian today about an "anti-anti-bullying" movement, which fights against policies in school that try to put a stop to bullying. I'm sure it will not surprise you in the least that the main proponents of "anti-anti-bullying" are Christian groups who don't want homophobic bullying to be curbed - some have even asked for exemptions for students who bully gay kids out of firm religious convictions.
> 
> I don't want to focus on any one issue though - what do you think about bullying in general? As a target of prolonged bullying myself (it wasn't for my sexuality, by the way), I can attest for the fact that it can really mess you up (of course, at one extreme, there is suicide). I think it's a vile practice that a school must take adequate measures to stop, and, contrary to what these groups say, putting anti-bullying measures in place does _not_ therefore endorse whatever attributes were picked on - telling a kid to stop bullying a gay peer, for example, does not mean that the school says it's OK to be gay; the school is simply saying that there is no reason to treat someone like a piece of ****.
> 
> Personally, I find more annoying than anything else the argument that bullying is "natural" - a feature of the human species since before recorded history that we have no place tampering with. First, I would say that I'd like to see some substantial evidence for this claim, and, second, I'd like not to have to do another run-down of the naturalistic fallacy.


Could you post a link to the article, by any chance? I would like to read for myself what the article says, and if Christians were really behaving as toy described.


----------



## Cnote11

Would it honestly surprise you, Dr. Mike?


----------



## Moira

Cnote11 said:


> Would it honestly surprise you, Dr. Mike?


There is a wonderful spoof site, http://www.landoverbaptist.org, which a lot of people have mistaken for the real thing. I am _hoping_ that it is just something like that.


----------



## Cnote11

It isn't, refer to my previous posts. It was actually a law they nearly passed in Michigan. Also, I find it absolutely hilarious when people mistake satire with the real thing. Its like people have never read satire before or something. Imagine that.


----------



## Moira

Cnote11 said:


> It isn't, refer to my previous posts. It was actually a law they nearly passed in Michigan. Also, I find it absolutely hilarious when people mistake satire with the real thing. Its like people have never read satire before or something. Imagine that.


Cnote11, I have learned never to underestimate how stupid people can be. One also learns not to argue with them as that is simply a waste of time. But stupid people can be dangerous for others because of "a law they nearly passed" (or worse! actually did pass).


----------



## Guest

The high school at which I teach has a zero tolerance policy toward bullying, regardless of the "reason." We have annual anti-bullying assemblies, and our student government does a great job of being proactive. Sadly, back in the 80s an immigrant student was bullied on a daily basis (apparently a lot of kids knew it was happening but did nothing about it). He tried to ignore it, but one day he couldn't take it anymore and took a swing at one of the bullies. One of them ran out to his truck, came back with a fixed blade hunting knife, and gutted him like a fish. (This happened before I was a teacher.) A few years later, the school built a lovely concrete and tile planter in his memory, which serves as a grim reminder of what can happen when bullying is not reported.


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> Would it honestly surprise you, Dr. Mike?


yes it would. And I also know that some people take very broad views of what constitutes bullying, shop I would like to read for myself and find out what the law actually says, and what Christian groups are actually saying.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

In my school we had a system where everyone involved got in trouble--even the person who was bullied, regardless if they fought back or not. The result was basically lawlessness; there was no incentive for victims to come forward.

Anyway, I'm kinda suspicious of the new anti-bullying movement, because it seems focused on restrictions of speech, which I'm uneasy about. Zero tolerance authoritarian bull isn't going to bring kids who hate each other together any more or make them feel any less imprisoned in a hostile environment, if that's an issue they have. It's more about adults feeling less liable for "bad words" being strewn about in classes.

And that's political correctness in a nutshell: if we conceal the _symptoms_, then the _disease_ will surely go away. Brilliant.


----------



## Polednice

I'll try to find the article when I get back home - I'm sure you could find it yourself in a couple of minutes by searching the guardian for anti-anti-bullying.


----------



## Moira

I am curious about how people go about proofing their children against being bullied. Several people have mentioned that there was no bullying at their schools, which is something which I can understand. Not because there were no bullies, or no people who were bullied, but rather that these 'episodes' were sporadic rather than systemic. 

I suspect this may have something to do with the way certain school managements and/or parent groups responded to the situations. For example I remember a girl in my class demanding my lunch or she would hit me. I gave it to her. That afternoon I told my mother who simply packed two lunches the next day. When my lunch was demanded I gave her the spare one. She never demanded lunch from me again. I still have no idea how that worked. For all I know I could have landed up having to provide her with lunch for the whole of my high school career. But maybe the extra packed lunch told her that I had discussed the matter with my mother. Or maybe ... the possibilities are myriad. Interestingly the girl who demanded my lunch left the school shortly thereafter, mid year. No idea why. I was a bit of a space cadet at school, oblivious of anything that did not directly affect me.


----------



## sospiro

Polednice said:


> I'll try to find the article when I get back home - I'm sure you could find it yourself in a couple of minutes by searching the guardian for anti-anti-bullying.



The Guardian


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> yes it would. And I also know that some people take very broad views of what constitutes bullying, shop I would like to read for myself and find out what the law actually says, and what Christian groups are actually saying.


I'm shocked that you honestly wouldn't believe that there are rather extremist, cruel, and stupid people no matter the faith or value. It isn't like people aren't doing things equal to this on a daily basis. You have a pretty optimistic view point of the world and people in general, I suppose.


----------



## sospiro

Moira said:


> I am curious about how people go about proofing their children against being bullied. Several people have mentioned that there was no bullying at their schools, which is something which I can understand. Not because there were no bullies, or no people who were bullied, but rather that these 'episodes' were sporadic rather than systemic.
> 
> I suspect this may have something to do with the way certain school managements and/or parent groups responded to the situations. For example I remember a girl in my class demanding my lunch or she would hit me. I gave it to her. That afternoon I told my mother who simply packed two lunches the next day. When my lunch was demanded I gave her the spare one. She never demanded lunch from me again. I still have no idea how that worked. For all I know I could have landed up having to provide her with lunch for the whole of my high school career. But maybe the extra packed lunch told her that I had discussed the matter with my mother. Or maybe ... the possibilities are myriad. Interestingly the girl who demanded my lunch left the school shortly thereafter, mid year. No idea why. I was a bit of a space cadet at school, oblivious of anything that did not directly affect me.


I think the increase in bullying is all to do with the worsening of behaviour in schools (my area of work). There is no effective sanction against bad behaviour.


----------



## Moira

I'm appalled at the reports we hear about the misbehaviour of school children, especially in light of the fact that the top achieving schools in South Africa still have excellent discipline, most often enforced by fellow school pupils who will simply not tolerate disruptions to their own academic progress. This while the opposite end of the spectrum have metal detectors at the school entrance to try and ensure that firearms and knives are not brought to school. Schools now have policies that teachers are not to intervene in 'situations' and they have the authority to summon security guards and/or the police to handle children. 

I suppose bullying is not these teachers' primary concern.


----------



## Cnote11

If only American children cared about education... most are not overtly concerned with the education itself, but rather the process. We also have this growing false dichotomy going on with religion as well, where teenagers feel like they have to choose between religion and science. I've met and seen many kids speak about how science isn't important to them because they are Christians. All this mainstream politics and extreme polarization in the media and the community is starting to have a large negative effect on the youth.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Cnote11 said:


> I'm shocked that you honestly wouldn't believe that there are rather extremist, cruel, and stupid people no matter the faith or value. It isn't like people aren't doing things equal to this on a daily basis. You have a pretty optimistic view point of the world and people in general, I suppose.


It's always a good idea to read the sources yourself and form your own opinion. Isn't having your own opinion one of the chief liberal values?


----------



## Cnote11

SiegendesLicht said:


> It's always a good idea to read the sources yourself and form your own opinion. Isn't having your own opinion one of the chief liberal values?


Again, you misunderstand. This isn't about me telling him he should just believe it without seeing it. I just think it is pretty delusional to believe there aren't groups out there that are rather off their rockers. This story, whether it is true or not, is believable because true things like this do happen. This is why it is easy for people to get pulled into false stories which is a good reason to ask for the source. But the point is, if one doesn't find this believable in anyway, they seem to be blinded away from the fact that many groups are constantly in the media pushing hateful things.


----------



## Moira

Cnote11 said:


> I've met and seen many kids speak about how science isn't important to them because they are Christians.


As a Christian it really annoys me that so many fundamentalist Christians check their brains in at the door instead of using them. What use is faith unless it is tested in the real world? But what do I know? I'm a liberal Christian.


----------



## Cnote11

Moira said:


> As a Christian it really annoys me that so many fundamentalist Christians check their brains in at the door instead of using them. What use is faith unless it is tested in the real world? But what do I know? I'm a liberal Christian.


Some Christians would argue quite strongly against your point of "What use is faith unless it is tested in the real world?". I just find it absurd the viewpoint many of them have on science, because they view it as a singular communal entity similar to a religion itself, when it is not in any way shape or form. I don't think something like electromagnetic fields challenges their religion, and it is sad to see them turn away from that in large part due to theories such as "The Big Bang" or evolution, which to me doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive.. When they find a singular theory they feel is an affront to religion they equate it with the entirety of science and rebel against it. They are only children though, so perhaps they will come to realise in time if they escape the pressure of family and media (unlikely), but to think that they are wasting away valuable learning experiences.


----------



## Moira

Cnote11 said:


> They are only children though, so perhaps they will come to realise in time if they escape the pressure of family and media (unlikely), but to think that they are wasting away valuable learning experiences.


The problem is that unless children are taught the value of questioning everything with an open mind and drawing conclusions which are again tested for validity they are unlikely to suddenly develop the skill later. Also fundamentalism in almost any religion (and here Judaism seems to be the exception) seldom allows for "I don't know" as a valid answer. There are pat answers for every problem. That doesn't do much for rational thinking either.


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> Some Christians would argue quite strongly against your point of "What use is faith unless it is tested in the real world?". I just find it absurd the viewpoint many of them have on science, because they view it as a singular communal entity similar to a religion itself, when it is not in any way shape or form. I don't think something like electromagnetic fields challenges their religion, and it is sad to see them turn away from that in large part due to theories such as "The Big Bang" or evolution, which to me doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive.. When they find a singular theory they feel is an affront to religion they equate it with the entirety of science and rebel against it. *They are only children though, so perhaps they will come to realise in time if they escape the pressure of family and media (unlikely)*, but to think that they are wasting away valuable learning experiences.


That's what happened to me. So it's not too unlikely.


----------



## Cnote11

Yes well, we all know you're a bit of an oddity, violadude


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> Yes well, we all know you're a bit of an oddity, violadude


I am, indeed.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

DrMike said:


> Could you post a link to the article, by any chance? I would like to read for myself what the article says, and if Christians were really behaving as toy described.


I would also appreciate a link to the article.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I think the link is this one:

*http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ehind-anti-anti-bullying-backlash?INTCMP=SRCH*

Quite a lot of the subject matter has already been discussed in this thread by now, though.


----------



## Guest

Well I think it would be worthwhile to read the legislation that they refer to. The article does not seem very balanced, and seeks only to portray the motives of those who are fighting the anti-bullying legislation in the most nefarious light. I know, though, that there was a lot of debate regarding the Arizona legislation that was legitimate - the the language in it was too broad, and was going to severely limit free speech even on things like social media. I think the cases of the boys being bullied and nothing being done were horrible - that teachers and administrators would ignore repeated complaints from a student seems ridiculous. But I don't think these things justify a massive curbing of free speech. Where that speech directly impacts another, then something should be done, but I am afraid that these potential laws go beyond merely punishing bullying, but seek to punish for any speech that legislators deem to not be allowed, depending on what group has the most influence with them.

Again, this article offers no balanced opinion, and so I think it is not unreasonable to say that we should look at the legislation first before condemning the groups that this article says we should.


----------



## Cnote11

I posted a link to the legislation for Michigan in this thread if you're interested.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Again, this article offers no balanced opinion, and so I think it is not unreasonable to say that we should look at the legislation first before condemning the groups that this article says we should.


I don't see what was unbalanced about the opinion, but the opinion is not what matters anyway; what matters - and what is interesting - are the events and facts embedded in the article that ought not be ignored whether or not we agree with the writer's other sentiments.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Reserving my opinion on whether anti-bullying legislation is necessary--it ought not to be in any country where all people are treated equally under the law--when you google "Cathi Herrod," your top hit will be a site that seems to be doing its best to deliberately mislead you into thinking that it is an official website of the government of Arizona:

*http://www.azpolicy.org/
*
This is, in my opinion, quite a sinister masquerade.


----------



## violadude

Maybe I shouldn't bring this up but speaking of "Christians" and bullying, I just watched a documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church. As far as non-physical bullying goes these guys are the biggest ******* ******* bullies I've ever seen.


----------



## mmsbls

This is a bit off topic. I Googled the Westboro Baptist Church, but it took me awhile to believe I was actually on their website. I've never quite seen anything like it, but it does have a useful counter of the number of people God is currently casting into Hell. They apparently have a related site about God hating the world, and you can get reasons for why God hates each country.


----------



## Cnote11

violadude said:


> Maybe I shouldn't bring this up but speaking of "Christians" and bullying, I just watched a documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church. As far as non-physical bullying goes these guys are the biggest ******* ******* bullies I've ever seen.


Louis Theroux? Please tell me it was Louis Theroux.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

violadude said:


> Maybe I shouldn't bring this up but speaking of "Christians" and bullying, I just watched a documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church. As far as non-physical bullying goes these guys are the biggest ******* ******* bullies I've ever seen.


There's been some debate here as to whether they should be allowed into this country. I say, bring 'em on and let 'em say whatever they like. We have free speech, a free press, and we are perfectly free to laugh at them.


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> Louis Theroux? Please tell me it was Louis Theroux.


Who's Louis Theroux?

EDIT: OH I just looked him up. YES in fact it was Louis Theroux. He's really funny. He was doing a good job of keeping things professional even though you could tell in the back of his mind he was thinking "dear God what the **** is wrong with these people."


----------



## Cnote11

I adore Louis and his documentaries. There is a part two of that documentary, where he revisits them later. It is called "America's Most Hated Family in Crisis". You should watch it.


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> Who's Louis Theroux?
> 
> EDIT: OH I just looked him up. YES in fact it was Louis Theroux. He's really funny. He was doing a good job of keeping things professional even though you could tell in the back of his mind he was thinking "dear God what the **** is wrong with these people."


He probably recognizes that several areas of their minds (not brains) have shrunk to the figurative size of a dried pea.


----------



## samurai

SiegendesLicht said:


> It's always a good idea to read the sources yourself and form your own opinion. Isn't having your own opinion one of the chief liberal values?



How do you presume to know that the person you are addressing in your post is a "liberal" anyway? What he's talking about are--or at least should be--universal values which should be observed by all of us, no matter our political stripe. And FYI, liberal is not a dirty word, at least where I come from {Full Disclosure: I happen to be one of "them" myself  }. What *"sources*" do you use.


----------



## violadude

Cnote11 said:


> I adore Louis and his documentaries. There is a part two of that documentary, where he revisits them later. It is called "America's Most Hated Family in Crisis". You should watch it.


Watching it now. I'm watching the part where they're talking about the guys' daughter getting kicked out of the family. These people are so sick.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> This is a bit off topic. I Googled the Westboro Baptist Church, but it took me awhile to believe I was actually on their website. I've never quite seen anything like it, but it does have a useful counter of the number of people God is currently casting into Hell. They apparently have a related site about God hating the world, and you can get reasons for why God hates each country.


I don't think they are representative of much of anything. I don't think they are half as interested in salvation as they are in publicity. As I understand it, most of the congregation is related to the minister. I don't think you will find anybody supporting those kids. Their main focus seems to be going and staging protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers, claiming God struck down the soldiers as a punishment for fighting for a country that is too tolerant of homosexuals.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> I don't think they are representative of much of anything. I don't think they are half as interested in salvation as they are in publicity. As I understand it, most of the congregation is related to the minister. I don't think you will find anybody supporting those kids. Their main focus seems to be going and staging protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers, claiming God struck down the soldiers as a punishment for fighting for a country that is too tolerant of homosexuals.


I have little doubt that you are right. They are certainly not representative of any religious people I know, and I view them as a rather extreme group. I'm always a bit interested in trying to understand how people come to such extreme views. Often it's hard to understand such a group without having enough common ground, and in this case it's hard for me to see how they came to so strongly emphasize a small portion of the Bible.


----------



## Cnote11

They emphasize a small portion of the Bible the same way nearly every other Christian does. Majority of Christians pick and choose out of the Bible. It isn't anything new.


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> They emphasize a small portion of the Bible the same way nearly every other Christian does. Majority of Christians pick and choose out of the Bible. It isn't anything new.


It is painfully obvious, then, that you know little of the majority of Christians. 
I believe the Catholics are, worldwide, the largest Christian denomination. Tell me, what do they pick and choose?
In the US, some of the other dominant Christian denominations are Mormons, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans. What do they pick and choose?


----------



## Guest

Cnote11 said:


> They emphasize a small portion of the Bible the same way nearly every other Christian does. Majority of Christians pick and choose out of the Bible. It isn't anything new.


It is also disingenuous to compare them with any other Christian group. They are not even affiliated with any other Baptist organizations. And as of 2011, their total membership was 40. That isn't even a rounding error, when you compare them to the total Christian population in the United States, let alone the world. One would only try to draw comparisons between this group and Christians in general if one had no interest in intellectual honesty and sought for any scrap of information with which to discredit Christianity.

In the mid 1990s, there were 224 million Christians in the United States. 40 ends up being 0.00002% of the total Christian population in the United States. Worldwide, there are approximately 2.2 billion Christians. 40 ends up being 0.000002%. That is a frequency of 1 in 200,000,000.


----------



## Polednice

The general trend is that religious people interpret scripture in line with their natural way of thinking - liberal Christians put emphasis on loving thy neighbour, conservative Christians put emphasis on man and woman family values, and those who are naturally inclined to power seeking and hate read scripture as the Westboro Baptists. This is hardly surprising as the Bible is a very inconsistent work, and there are no authoritative guidelines external to the Bible telling people which inconsistencies they should discard and which to follow - like astrology, people read what they want to read. This is why there are very few religious people who maintain a moral line that they instinctively think may be wrong, but nevertheless accept it as God's word. Instead, God's word conveniently lines up with people's preconceived values. The major problem is when the more vile varieties of Christians have children.


----------



## Guest

I don't think you'll get much argument that the Westboro Batptist Church (only, really, by the most liberal reading of the term Church) is a vile group. But given a membership of 40, it would take a long time to achieve through reproduction any kind of size that would have an impact without requiring disproportionate media coverage of their actions. But are you thinking of other Christians as part of these "vile" varieties?


----------



## violadude

Well if someone were Christian I would think they would put the foremost importance on what Jesus said, since he's the founder and all. And Jesus mostly taught a love and peace message.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Well if someone were Christian I would think they would put the foremost importance on what Jesus said, since he's the founder and all. And Jesus mostly taught a love and peace message.


You can try to justify it logically, but you're just giving voice to your liberal inclination. If you were brought up to turn out bigoted, you'd be reasoning that the entire Bible is sacred and that the Old Testament God is a vengeful one to be feared. Anyone can put any spin on it that they like, and no one can prove beyond doubt how the Bible "should" be read.



DrMike said:


> I don't think you'll get much argument that the Westboro Batptist Church (only, really, by the most liberal reading of the term Church) is a vile group. But given a membership of 40, it would take a long time to achieve through reproduction any kind of size that would have an impact without requiring disproportionate media coverage of their actions. But are you thinking of other Christians as part of these "vile" varieties?


Naturally. I wouldn't single out the entirety of any larger sects though - there are vile Anglicans and kind Catholics, but those with a natural bent towards hatred can use scripture to legitimise their venom. Without it, naturally hateful people wpould have far less credibility.


----------



## Cnote11

DrMike said:


> It is also disingenuous to compare them with any other Christian group. They are not even affiliated with any other Baptist organizations. And as of 2011, their total membership was 40. That isn't even a rounding error, when you compare them to the total Christian population in the United States, let alone the world. One would only try to draw comparisons between this group and Christians in general if one had no interest in intellectual honesty and sought for any scrap of information with which to discredit Christianity.
> 
> In the mid 1990s, there were 224 million Christians in the United States. 40 ends up being 0.00002% of the total Christian population in the United States. Worldwide, there are approximately 2.2 billion Christians. 40 ends up being 0.000002%. That is a frequency of 1 in 200,000,000.


The fact remains that the behavior of most religious people mirrors the behavior of most non-religious people. It isn't a knock to Christians or Christianity in anyway Dr. Mike. What Polednice posted is very true.


----------



## moody

Cnote11 said:


> My state of Michigan recently passed a law that makes it legal for Christians to bully homosexuals and within the bill states they are exempt due to their "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction" (direct quote). The funny this is that it probably doesn't cover anything outside of Christianity.


How disgusting and wicked!


----------



## moody

Cnote11 said:


> I don't like to bring my work home Hilly  I don't feel like I would be able to give you a satisfactory answer at the moment due to me focusing on the television, but I'd be happy at one point to discuss it with you.


Sounds like you are running away--got too difficult for you has it?


----------



## Cnote11

Too busy with actually working, school, and planning my European travels. Besides, I'm not happy to discuss anything with Hilly anymore.


----------



## Ukko

Cnote11 said:


> Too busy with actually working, school, and planning my European travels. Besides, I'm not happy to discuss anything with Hilly anymore.


And I am fairly disgusted with _Cnot_, so I am happy with his reluctance. See how well things work out sometimes?


----------



## Couchie

Hilltroll72 said:


> And I am fairly disgusted with _Cnot_, so I am happy with his reluctance. See how well things work out sometimes?


Statistically, you have 6 years of life left, best not to spend on such matters.


----------



## Ukko

Couchie said:


> Statistically, you have 6 years of life left, best not to spend on such matters.


You're right. _The Wisdom of the Aged_ must not be wasted on the likes of _Cnot_.


----------



## Cnote11

HillTroll is bullying me in the anti-bullying thread. This is not a surprise. I can't believe you take yourself seriously when you say those things, Hilly.


----------



## Frederik Magle

Ok, this thread has gotten completely derailed (or, on the other hand, maybe just living up to its title). Closing it for now.


----------

