Correctly placing responsibility for bullying

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
8 years 5 months ago #204115 by

SeventhSL wrote: In humans fat, handicapped, week, dumb, ugly and homosexual people are mostly the targets and that isn't a suprise given evolutions goals. Evolution simply tries to bully them into compliance. Is evolution wrong? Is bulling wrong?


Wow, not only does that come across as incredibly rude and a bit ignorant, but it also makes an unfounded assumption that evolution actually has goals. Evolution can't be proven to have goals, at best it can be proven to have results. Also through evolution we have been gifted with both intellect and compassion to be able to refrain from being cruel to others. So who is fit? You claim nature is survival of the fittest, however anthropology and sociology show that time and again the majority of people value human connections and bonds over "fitness" to survive. Otherwise one could take the concept to it's ludicrous extreme and say that Adolph Hitler was simply an agent of evolution, as he bulllied those he saw as unfit.

Something to consider, tread carefully.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
8 years 5 months ago #204139 by

CryojenX wrote:

SeventhSL wrote: In humans fat, handicapped, week, dumb, ugly and homosexual people are mostly the targets and that isn't a suprise given evolutions goals. Evolution simply tries to bully them into compliance. Is evolution wrong? Is bulling wrong?


Wow, not only does that come across as incredibly rude and a bit ignorant, but it also makes an unfounded assumption that evolution actually has goals. Evolution can't be proven to have goals, at best it can be proven to have results. Also through evolution we have been gifted with both intellect and compassion to be able to refrain from being cruel to others. So who is fit? You claim nature is survival of the fittest, however anthropology and sociology show that time and again the majority of people value human connections and bonds over "fitness" to survive. Otherwise one could take the concept to it's ludicrous extreme and say that Adolph Hitler was simply an agent of evolution, as he bulllied those he saw as unfit.

Something to consider, tread carefully.


Sad to hear you find this offensive. Rest assured that I intended it as a simple question and something to help challenge thought processes on the question. I am use to listening to, and trying to understand very different opinions to my own so I have thick skin. The down side is that this makes me less able to see the sensitivity of others. No offence is meant.

The use of goals is wrong I agree. Let me rephrase. Assuming that life is a result of the process of evolution, then the fact that bulling is so incredibly common among life forms attests to the fact that it is a successful method of natural selection. If it is so successful is it then wrong or something we wish to rid ourself of?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
8 years 5 months ago - 8 years 5 months ago #204142 by Kit

SeventhSL wrote:

CryojenX wrote:

SeventhSL wrote: In humans fat, handicapped, week, dumb, ugly and homosexual people are mostly the targets and that isn't a suprise given evolutions goals. Evolution simply tries to bully them into compliance. Is evolution wrong? Is bulling wrong?


Wow, not only does that come across as incredibly rude and a bit ignorant, but it also makes an unfounded assumption that evolution actually has goals. Evolution can't be proven to have goals, at best it can be proven to have results. Also through evolution we have been gifted with both intellect and compassion to be able to refrain from being cruel to others. So who is fit? You claim nature is survival of the fittest, however anthropology and sociology show that time and again the majority of people value human connections and bonds over "fitness" to survive. Otherwise one could take the concept to it's ludicrous extreme and say that Adolph Hitler was simply an agent of evolution, as he bulllied those he saw as unfit.

Something to consider, tread carefully.


Sad to hear you find this offensive. Rest assured that I intended it as a simple question and something to help challenge thought processes on the question. I am use to listening to, and trying to understand very different opinions to my own so I have thick skin. The down side is that this makes me less able to see the sensitivity of others. No offence is meant.

The use of goals is wrong I agree. Let me rephrase. Assuming that life is a result of the process of evolution, then the fact that bulling is so incredibly common among life forms attests to the fact that it is a successful method of natural selection. If it is so successful is it then wrong or something we wish to rid ourself of?


By that train of thought, we shouldn't worry about making glasses for people who can't see well, vaccines, wheel chairs, prosthetic, social security, medical care, transplants, oh the list could go on. Lets not bother with GPS systems either. Folks who go hiking and get lost, well, maybe they weren't fit. Don't worry about looking for them.

Yes we are a part of nature. But even scientists look at individual species as individuals. Sometimes comparing them to their closest relatives to fill in gaps of understanding or the whole to see where they fit in the big picture. . Humanity needs to look at it's own specialties and include things like compassion, and our kind of intellect.
Last edit: 8 years 5 months ago by Kit.
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • ren
  • Offline
  • Member
  • Member
    Registered
  • Not anywhere near the back of the bus
More
8 years 5 months ago #204143 by ren

SeventhSL wrote:

CryojenX wrote:

SeventhSL wrote: In humans fat, handicapped, week, dumb, ugly and homosexual people are mostly the targets and that isn't a suprise given evolutions goals. Evolution simply tries to bully them into compliance. Is evolution wrong? Is bulling wrong?


Wow, not only does that come across as incredibly rude and a bit ignorant, but it also makes an unfounded assumption that evolution actually has goals. Evolution can't be proven to have goals, at best it can be proven to have results. Also through evolution we have been gifted with both intellect and compassion to be able to refrain from being cruel to others. So who is fit? You claim nature is survival of the fittest, however anthropology and sociology show that time and again the majority of people value human connections and bonds over "fitness" to survive. Otherwise one could take the concept to it's ludicrous extreme and say that Adolph Hitler was simply an agent of evolution, as he bulllied those he saw as unfit.

Something to consider, tread carefully.


Sad to hear you find this offensive. Rest assured that I intended it as a simple question and something to help challenge thought processes on the question. I am use to listening to, and trying to understand very different opinions to my own so I have thick skin. The down side is that this makes me less able to see the sensitivity of others. No offence is meant.

The use of goals is wrong I agree. Let me rephrase. Assuming that life is a result of the process of evolution, then the fact that bulling is so incredibly common among life forms attests to the fact that it is a successful method of natural selection. If it is so successful is it then wrong or something we wish to rid ourself of?


Evolution isn't the survival of the fittest, it is the survival of the most adaptive. Cows and sheep , because they are not bullies, have become the most successful animals on earth after us. The bullies and the bullied have formed a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship to the detriment of other "fitter" species.

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
8 years 5 months ago - 8 years 5 months ago #204145 by
Yes I agree that the idea that "only the candidates deemed most suitable have the right to life" can be taken to dangerous and destructive levels. With people like hitiler history has certainly proven that. Gee I wouldn't be alive today without the compassion of others. I assume we can agree that this extreme is not positive.

Is the opposite true as well? Is completely removing processes like bulling equally as dangerous? If we wrap our children in to much cotton wool are we hampering our development as a species? If yes then where is the happy medium inbetween and as per my second question in my first post when is the best time to learn how to deal with bulling?

Growing up on a cattel station I can assure you that cattel most defiantly bully each other. Being herd animals they have pecking orders that they fight and bulky each other over. Breeding rights, food the list is endless. The strongest Bulls bread and the strongest cows survive the drought at the expense of others in the herd.
Last edit: 8 years 5 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
8 years 5 months ago #204148 by

SeventhSL wrote: Yes I agree that the idea that "only the candidates deemed most suitable have the right to life" can be taken to dangerous and destructive levels. With people like hitiler history has certainly proven that. Gee I wouldn't be alive today without the compassion of others. I assume we can agree that this extreme is not positive.

Is the opposite true as well? Is completely removing processes like bulling equally as dangerous? If we wrap our children in to much cotton wool are we hampering our development as a species? If yes then where is the happy medium inbetween and as per my second question in my first post when is the best time to learn how to deal with bulling?

Growing up on a cattel station I can assure you that cattel most defiantly bully each other. Being herd animals they have pecking orders that they fight and bulky each other over. Breeding rights, food the list is endless. The strongest Bulls bread and the strongest cows survive the drought at the expense of others in the herd.



I would agree with you on one good point. Animals benefit from being around other animals because it helps them mellow out their ego a bit. For example, if you have only one dog and that dog acts mean and thinks he runs the house, it sometimes helps to have him play with bigger dogs so that the alpha dog status is established. It may even humble the dog a bit. Cats have interesting politics too when it comes to establishing who is in charge in the house. But I think animals do this because of their instinctive herd/pack/flock/tribe structures. Each animal plays a different role in the pack and it does not make one animal more valuable than another, just better suited for their particular role.

But in humans, can we really say that bullies are the more HIGHLY adapted people of our society? A bully has many insecurities. People who do not bully are actually the ones more in control of their own lives and survival. I have a bit of social anxiety disorder and that has often made me the target of bullying. But the bullies didn't make me a better person. It was the people who took time to talk through things with me and help me understand myself a little better who really had an impact.

So to answer your question of "Is completely removing processes like bulling equally as dangerous?". I would say no. There is a difference between tough love and bullying. Should a kid be allowed to fall once in awhile in order to learn not to make the same mistakes twice? Of course. But that is the parent's job to supervise that learning process. For those who have seen the "Rocky" movies, I think we all need a "Mick" in our corner to tell us to shape up and live up to our full potential. But I think that person should be a friend you trust, a parent, a sibling, a teacher, or a coach. Not a bully.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
8 years 5 months ago - 8 years 5 months ago #204169 by OB1Shinobi
BULLYING i guess is to target one who is clearly socially vulnerable, not necessarily one who is "unfit" in the evolutionary sense of the word - fitness is a matter of context

a good grade in algebra indicates as valid a form of fitness as a good grade in track and field - its all context

its understood in our society that to deliberately prey upon the vulnerable is an anti social behavior which has negative consequences for all involved, even the bully, eventually

most bullying is actually a result of the bully having under developed social skills and emotional maturity - which is also (potentially) a failure on the part of the adults - why does this child feel the need to be a bully and why has he or she not learned that it is not ok? why dont they know how to interact positively with their peers?

childhood is super awkward and difficult even for the most fortunate of children who are bright and friendly and attractive and feel good about life, generally

for the rest of us it is intermittent hell, with excitement, confusion, adventure and bliss, anxiety and hostility, occasional reprieve, and a host of other powerful emotions all pretty much free-for-alling in our heads and in our lives

there is no reason to add (or, as an involved adult; to complicitly allow) any great amount of additional stress that isnt inherent in the development process

definitely not haphazardly - stress, and coping with stress, and adapting and resolving stressful situations are all formative mandates; we alll HAVE TO learn how to handle stress and confrontation - none of us are a fully developed personality without learning to handle such things

but the best way to learn any skill is to be gradually prepared for learning it, preferably within an intelligent curriculum:
you dont teach someone to skydive by just randomly throwing them out of an airplane

where exactly is the line between competition and bullying to be drawn? people, and most especially young people or people still in the process of coming to terms with their own identities, are going to compete for status in groups, and sometimes this takes on a decidedly adversarial dimension; this is part of growing up and it wont - and perhaps shouldnt be eradicated altogether - but this is not exactly the same as bullying

and even if it were, its the lessons and the growth that comes from effectively handling the confrontational situation that we want our kids to have, not necessarily the shame and the fear that often come with these situations, at least not more than is necessary

and since we now cook our food before we eat it, i dont believe that the "it happens in nature"position is suitable in any discussion of modern behavior except as a side note or supportive point, certainly not as a primary argument

People are complicated.
Last edit: 8 years 5 months ago by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
8 years 5 months ago #204196 by

SeventhSL wrote: The use of goals is wrong I agree. Let me rephrase. Assuming that life is a result of the process of evolution, then the fact that bulling is so incredibly common among life forms attests to the fact that it is a successful method of natural selection. If it is so successful is it then wrong or something we wish to rid ourself of?


I think this question has two problems. The first is the assumption you make, that life is a result of the process of evolution. I don't find that to be true. Life does not strike me a "result," if we need to use that term, of anything. Life is. But regardless of whether or not I can take your assumption as baseline, I'll address the second part of your question.

"Should we rid ourselves of natural selection?" is basically what you are asking (correct me here if I am wrong). You make that analogy that bullying equals (or almost equals) natural selection, and therefore, if we don't want to get rid of natural selection we also must not want to get rid of bullying. I have two different responses to this sentiment. First, I do not think that bullying, in any modern case of the act, is analogous to natural selection. People who are bullied are not taken out of the gene pool. Some may die as a result of bulling (perhaps from suicide, perhaps from other factor), some may not find a suitable partner or create offspring with as a result of bullying, some may choose never to have kids as a result of bullying... but, by and large, bullied people are not "naturally selected." I think that this analogy you make is a false analogy.

Second, we have stopped natural selection for humans. The "survival of the fittest" is not happening any more, as you can see with people who clearly are not the "fittest" by any standard (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, whatever) succeeding in life and successfully passing along their genes. For most of the Western world at least, the people who die and who are unable to reproduce are limited not as a result of natural selection, but as a result of other factors. So, even if we could argue that bullying is somehow analogous to natural selection (which we can't), it wouldn't matter if we eliminated bullying or encouraged kids to pick on anyone who is perceived as "weaker": natural selection does not, will not, actively prune the human gene pool.

And I guess I have a third point as well. If we are going to do some sort of eugenics* where we try to implement natural selection in society, do we really want a bunch of elementary, middle, and high schoolers deciding what characteristics to select for? It would create a lopsided society, with a very strange set of prominent characteristics...

*note: I am not a scientist or even a student of science, so it's possible I mis-used the term eugenics or even natural selection in this post. I still stand by my main points though: bullying is not natural selection and natural selection is not an active factor in modern human populations.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
8 years 5 months ago - 8 years 5 months ago #204198 by Adder
Yea we are not animals any more then we are a collection of living cells. Of course we are both, but the reality is our brain and bodies as humans seem to enable us a higher degree of function in this environment then other animals, so their behaviours are about their survival based on their degree of function. Each species has its own behavioral traits based on that degree of function (being a combo of brain capability and body capability). For humans we can choose to ignore in part our subconscious imperatives (instincts) because our conscious agency can be really well developed.

So I think it should stop by early stages of puberty ie time to grow up kiddies. Though many adults are still bratty kids and never grow up so bullying can continue on and exists right up on into the workplace and become entrenched as a person nature to the extent they don't even think they are doing anything wrong. So yea, I'd vote to jump on it early.

Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 8 years 5 months ago by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Brenna
  • Offline
  • User
  • User
    Registered
  • I hear your voice on the wind, and I hear you call out my name
More
8 years 5 months ago - 8 years 5 months ago #204217 by Brenna
I have no answers, just another perspective.

Recently I reconnected with the group of girls I was close friends with in school. I was surprised when they described the experience of being at the school we attended as a "brutal hell hole". The four of us were inseparable and I recall many of the instances that they mentioned, but oddly, I had never and still don't feel that we were bullied.

Yet at the school I attended after that one, I felt so severely bullied that I developed serious depression and an eating disorder. No one else in my group of friends there ever felt affected by the same behaviour that so negatively impacted me.

So how much of my experience was me simply not allowing the behaviour to bother me, and how much was me taking the behaviour personally and as an attack?

Bullying is not ok. But unfortunately, I think its a part of human nature. A baser part sure. but still there. Bullying has been around as long as history can record, but like many things, we are so much more aware of it because of the way in which we are able to share information.

I think we should also be teaching children resilience, objectivity and emotional intelligence in order to help arm them against bullying. And in that same vein, teaching kids those same skills which might help prevent them from relying on power plays to feel significant.


just a thought.



Walking, stumbling on these shadowfeet

Part of the seduction of most religions is the idea that if you just say the right things and believe really hard, your salvation will be at hand.

With Jediism. No one is coming to save you. You have to get off your ass and do it yourself - Me
Last edit: 8 years 5 months ago by Brenna.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jestor, ,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi