Girls Arrested for 'Cyberbullying'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

MOST victims of bullies have weak, liberal parents [/quote]

Yeah, this, just like everything else, is about political affiliation.

Jesus.[/quote]

For someone that does not believe in Jesus you sure do use his name a lot.
[/quote]

I believe in him, just not in his divinity.

But yes, “Jesus” was always the reflexive exclamation of the adults I grew up around, and is consequently my own. I don’t intend to offend anybody when I write it, and in fact I don’t even think about what it means. But maybe I will try to curb it in future.

62

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

MOST victims of bullies have weak, liberal parents [/quote]

Yeah, this, just like everything else, is about political affiliation.

Jesus.[/quote]

For someone that does not believe in Jesus you sure do use his name a lot.
[/quote]

I believe in him, just not in his divinity.

But yes, “Jesus” was always the reflexive exclamation of the adults I grew up around, and is consequently my own. I don’t intend to offend anybody when I write it, and in fact I don’t even think about what it means. But maybe I will try to curb it in future.[/quote]

Thank you. It was more of a jab then trying to get you to stop doing it. I hear it all the time also, but I personally do not use it.

63

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

MOST victims of bullies have weak, liberal parents [/quote]

Yeah, this, just like everything else, is about political affiliation.

Jesus.[/quote]
Al Gore, John Kerry: Vietnam vets.
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh: Draft dodgers.
Muhammad Ali: Conscientious objector.
One of my “liberal” English professors: Vietnam vet.
My Grandfather, the English professor: WW2 vet.
The Chinese protestor: who stood up to a tank.

Who exactly among the above are the cowards? [/quote]

You are.

Why did you call Muhammad Ali a “conscientious objector” while Rush, Rove, and Cheney are “draft dodgers” ?

Are they not guilty of the same thing, except that one of them is a brotha ? [/quote]

No. The difference is, on the one hand, saying you won’t fight, outright and in public and with given reasons as to why, and on the other hand, trying to get away with not fighting without anybody noticing while ostensibly supporting the war.

Another difference would be that one of them didn’t want anything to do with war when he was young and still felt that same way when he was old, whereas they others didn’t want anything to do with war when they were young and then didn’t seem to mind the whole war thing when they got older and were too fat and decrepit to even be considered for military service.

For the record, none of those mentioned were actually “draft dodgers.” But they did all finds way to get out of combat service, as did many other men.

64

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You can’t not do something because you fear of what may (or may not) happen.

Bullies will not stop, you can threaten to ground them, you can take away their gagdets, none of that will resonate enough to make them stop.

Remove the mystique of having power and dominion over someone, by standing up to them. Give them one verbal warning, after that, it’s on like Donkey Kong. [/quote]

Eh, that hasn’t nothing to do with the point I made in the post you quoted.

And you all keep thinking of bullying in too simplistic a way.

The bullying these kids are facing is effectively character assassination and defaming.

How exactly do you expect beating people up will help this?

65

Kamui, please check that orange email account.

66

I just did… and it seems that i don’t know how to configure an email redirection correctly…
And now I’m confused.
I will answer your messages ASAP.

67

[quote]kamui wrote:
I just did… and it seems that i don’t know how to configure an email redirection correctly…
And now I’m confused.
I will answer your messages ASAP.[/quote]
Fair enough LOL!

68

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

MOST victims of bullies have weak, liberal parents [/quote]

Yeah, this, just like everything else, is about political affiliation.

Jesus.[/quote]
Al Gore, John Kerry: Vietnam vets.
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh: Draft dodgers.
Muhammad Ali: Conscientious objector.
One of my “liberal” English professors: Vietnam vet.
My Grandfather, the English professor: WW2 vet.
The Chinese protestor: who stood up to a tank.

Who exactly among the above are the cowards? [/quote]

You are.

Why did you call Muhammad Ali a “conscientious objector” while Rush, Rove, and Cheney are “draft dodgers” ?

Are they not guilty of the same thing, except that one of them is a brotha ? [/quote]

No. The difference is, on the one hand, saying you won’t fight, outright and in public and with given reasons as to why, and on the other hand, trying to get away with not fighting without anybody noticing while ostensibly supporting the war.

Another difference would be that one of them didn’t want anything to do with war when he was young and still felt that same way when he was old, whereas they others didn’t want anything to do with war when they were young and then didn’t seem to mind the whole war thing when they got older and were too fat and decrepit to even be considered for military service.

For the record, none of those mentioned were actually “draft dodgers.” But they did all finds way to get out of combat service, as did many other men.[/quote]

Just like all the liberals in College. Guys the rules are the rules. My Father-in-law chose not to go to college and he was drafted and went to Vietnam.

You guys are saying Cheney, Limbaugh, etc got the rules changed just for them. This is a LIE. The Draft was a lottery, and the way to get your name lower in the lottery was to do certain things.

Zecarlo LIED and he has been called on his LIE. Get over it.

69

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
But bullying is not–nor should it be–a crime. [/quote]

Wut?

Tormenting a girl until she kills herself is a crime, whether you’re a child or adult.

I think this sends a good precedent. If somebody kills themselves because of your actions you need to accept responsibility.

70

[quote]GivehertheD wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
But bullying is not–nor should it be–a crime. [/quote]

Wut?

Tormenting a girl until she kills herself is a crime, whether you’re a child or adult.

I think this sends a good precedent. If somebody kills themselves because of your actions you need to accept responsibility.[/quote]

“Kills Themselves” how is that my fault? There has to be motive. The motive might have been for her to kill herself, but if the motive was just to tease and make her life a living Hell that does not mean I wanted her to die.

I am not condoning what the Girls did because if it was my daughter I would take them both out myself.

71

[quote]GivehertheD wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
But bullying is not–nor should it be–a crime. [/quote]

Wut?

Tormenting a girl until she kills herself is a crime, whether you’re a child or adult.

I think this sends a good precedent. If somebody kills themselves because of your actions you need to accept responsibility.[/quote]

She killed herself based on her own decision and action. The girl said ‘go drink bleach and die’. I tell people to ‘kiss my ass’ several times a week. If they do actually end up kissing it was I really the one who made that decision for them?

People kill themselves because they lose their job. Should the manager who fired them be responsible? People kill themselves because of breakups. Should the Ex really be responsible for it?

I am not condoning bullying, but come on. Suicide is a personal decision, choice and action.

72

Just in case anybody cares, my opinion is that in some cases where sufficient malicious design were present I would call bullying a prosecutable crime. In others, not. The trouble lies in the fact that identifying such sufficient malicious design is dubious to say the very least and probably impossible in most cases. Therefore I would reluctantly err on the side of leniency. How could we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person even knew that the other’s death was where they were pushing them, to say nothing of it being their premeditated goal? That said I believe that bullying is a reprehensible display of cold hearted depravity that will not escape the attention of a holy God at the judgement seat of Christ if not forgiven by His blood.

73

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

MOST victims of bullies have weak, liberal parents [/quote]

Yeah, this, just like everything else, is about political affiliation.

Jesus.[/quote]
Al Gore, John Kerry: Vietnam vets.
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh: Draft dodgers.
Muhammad Ali: Conscientious objector.
One of my “liberal” English professors: Vietnam vet.
My Grandfather, the English professor: WW2 vet.
The Chinese protestor: who stood up to a tank.

Who exactly among the above are the cowards? [/quote]

You are.

Why did you call Muhammad Ali a “conscientious objector” while Rush, Rove, and Cheney are “draft dodgers” ?

Are they not guilty of the same thing, except that one of them is a brotha ? [/quote]

No. The difference is, on the one hand, saying you won’t fight, outright and in public and with given reasons as to why, and on the other hand, trying to get away with not fighting without anybody noticing while ostensibly supporting the war.

Another difference would be that one of them didn’t want anything to do with war when he was young and still felt that same way when he was old, whereas they others didn’t want anything to do with war when they were young and then didn’t seem to mind the whole war thing when they got older and were too fat and decrepit to even be considered for military service.

For the record, none of those mentioned were actually “draft dodgers.” But they did all finds way to get out of combat service, as did many other men.[/quote]

Just like all the liberals in College. Guys the rules are the rules. My Father-in-law chose not to go to college and he was drafted and went to Vietnam.

You guys are saying Cheney, Limbaugh, etc got the rules changed just for them. This is a LIE. The Draft was a lottery, and the way to get your name lower in the lottery was to do certain things.

Zecarlo LIED and he has been called on his LIE. Get over it.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? “You guys are saying [they] got the rules changed just for them.” I never said anything of the sort. I said exactly, and I mean exactly what happened. I literally wrote that none of the people mentioned had been draft dodgers.

The point is that, no, it’s not the same thing to come out and say you’re not fighting in some war that you think is fucking stupid, and these are the reasons why, and fuck you if you don’t like it; and it’s another thing to use the rules that exist to avoid combat, and then turn around and orchestrate wars later in your life. This is not a legal assessment, it’s a moral one.

74

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

MOST victims of bullies have weak, liberal parents [/quote]

Yeah, this, just like everything else, is about political affiliation.

Jesus.[/quote]
Al Gore, John Kerry: Vietnam vets.
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh: Draft dodgers.
Muhammad Ali: Conscientious objector.
One of my “liberal” English professors: Vietnam vet.
My Grandfather, the English professor: WW2 vet.
The Chinese protestor: who stood up to a tank.

Who exactly among the above are the cowards? [/quote]

You are.

Why did you call Muhammad Ali a “conscientious objector” while Rush, Rove, and Cheney are “draft dodgers” ?

Are they not guilty of the same thing, except that one of them is a brotha ? [/quote]

No. The difference is, on the one hand, saying you won’t fight, outright and in public and with given reasons as to why, and on the other hand, trying to get away with not fighting without anybody noticing while ostensibly supporting the war.

Another difference would be that one of them didn’t want anything to do with war when he was young and still felt that same way when he was old, whereas they others didn’t want anything to do with war when they were young and then didn’t seem to mind the whole war thing when they got older and were too fat and decrepit to even be considered for military service.

For the record, none of those mentioned were actually “draft dodgers.” But they did all finds way to get out of combat service, as did many other men.[/quote]

Just like all the liberals in College. Guys the rules are the rules. My Father-in-law chose not to go to college and he was drafted and went to Vietnam.

You guys are saying Cheney, Limbaugh, etc got the rules changed just for them. This is a LIE. The Draft was a lottery, and the way to get your name lower in the lottery was to do certain things.

Zecarlo LIED and he has been called on his LIE. Get over it.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? “You guys are saying [they] got the rules changed just for them.” I never said anything of the sort. I said exactly, and I mean exactly what happened. I literally wrote that none of the people mentioned had been draft dodgers.

The point is that, no, it’s not the same thing to come out and say you’re not fighting in some war that you think is fucking stupid, and these are the reasons why, and fuck you if you don’t like it; and it’s another thing to use the rules that exist to avoid combat, and then turn around and orchestrate wars later in your life. This is not a legal assessment, it’s a moral one.[/quote]

I am with him on this one.

Chicken hawks disgust me.

Teddy Roosevelts reaction to “rich guys dont fight in wars” was “fuck you, I am going”.

And he went.

75

Yep, chickenhawkdom is among the lowest and shittiest kinds of hypocrisy.

76

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

MOST victims of bullies have weak, liberal parents [/quote]

Yeah, this, just like everything else, is about political affiliation.

Jesus.[/quote]
Al Gore, John Kerry: Vietnam vets.
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh: Draft dodgers.
Muhammad Ali: Conscientious objector.
One of my “liberal” English professors: Vietnam vet.
My Grandfather, the English professor: WW2 vet.
The Chinese protestor: who stood up to a tank.

Who exactly among the above are the cowards? [/quote]

You are.

Why did you call Muhammad Ali a “conscientious objector” while Rush, Rove, and Cheney are “draft dodgers” ?

Are they not guilty of the same thing, except that one of them is a brotha ? [/quote]

No. The difference is, on the one hand, saying you won’t fight, outright and in public and with given reasons as to why, and on the other hand, trying to get away with not fighting without anybody noticing while ostensibly supporting the war.

Another difference would be that one of them didn’t want anything to do with war when he was young and still felt that same way when he was old, whereas they others didn’t want anything to do with war when they were young and then didn’t seem to mind the whole war thing when they got older and were too fat and decrepit to even be considered for military service.

For the record, none of those mentioned were actually “draft dodgers.” But they did all finds way to get out of combat service, as did many other men.[/quote]

Just like all the liberals in College. Guys the rules are the rules. My Father-in-law chose not to go to college and he was drafted and went to Vietnam.

You guys are saying Cheney, Limbaugh, etc got the rules changed just for them. This is a LIE. The Draft was a lottery, and the way to get your name lower in the lottery was to do certain things.

Zecarlo LIED and he has been called on his LIE. Get over it.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? “You guys are saying [they] got the rules changed just for them.” I never said anything of the sort. I said exactly, and I mean exactly what happened. I literally wrote that none of the people mentioned had been draft dodgers.

The point is that, no, it’s not the same thing to come out and say you’re not fighting in some war that you think is fucking stupid, and these are the reasons why, and fuck you if you don’t like it; and it’s another thing to use the rules that exist to avoid combat, and then turn around and orchestrate wars later in your life. This is not a legal assessment, it’s a moral one.[/quote]

I am with him on this one.

Chicken hawks disgust me.

Teddy Roosevelts reaction to “rich guys dont fight in wars” was “fuck you, I am going”.

And he went.[/quote]

I see yalls point. But lets look at this from my perspective.

My Father did not go to Vietnam nor was he even eligible for the draft. My father was an only child, and his father died from a WWII related injury when he was 11 years old. So if what you are saying is true, my father was a chicken shit because he decided not to volunteer to go to Vietnam. My father picked up his friends from the airport when the libtards were spitting on the vets that were coming home.

Sorry guys it is more of a chicken shit to stay at home and spit on and call vets baby killers, than to orchestrate a war because the US including the entire Congress (Republicans and Democrats) voted for said war.

77

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You can’t not do something because you fear of what may (or may not) happen.

Bullies will not stop, you can threaten to ground them, you can take away their gagdets, none of that will resonate enough to make them stop.

Remove the mystique of having power and dominion over someone, by standing up to them. Give them one verbal warning, after that, it’s on like Donkey Kong. [/quote]

Eh, that hasn’t nothing to do with the point I made in the post you quoted.

And you all keep thinking of bullying in too simplistic a way.

The bullying these kids are facing is effectively character assassination and defaming.

How exactly do you expect beating people up will help this?[/quote]

I see bullying as “an attempt at character assassination and defaming”, bullying happens when it it allowed.

Bullying always has been about kids with low self-esteem feeling the need to pick on kids “who bullies feel will tolerate their oppression” to make themselves feel better.

If you cannot change the bully, then you change the prey. Stop being the prey. If you can do that verbally that’s great. If you need to get physical, then so be it.

You make it clear to the bully, that the status quo is unacceptable, and will not continue.

I know this situation sucks, and I am normally not an advocate for violence, but this pussy-footing around the issue and thinking that bullies will wise up on their own is rare at best.

Not to mention that, most kids who are bullies and are not “re-educated” grow up to be adults who are bullies. If you know any adult bully, and were to poke around into their childhood, chances are they were this way as a kid and never corrected.

78

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

MOST victims of bullies have weak, liberal parents [/quote]

Yeah, this, just like everything else, is about political affiliation.

Jesus.[/quote]
Al Gore, John Kerry: Vietnam vets.
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh: Draft dodgers.
Muhammad Ali: Conscientious objector.
One of my “liberal” English professors: Vietnam vet.
My Grandfather, the English professor: WW2 vet.
The Chinese protestor: who stood up to a tank.

Who exactly among the above are the cowards? [/quote]

You are.

Why did you call Muhammad Ali a “conscientious objector” while Rush, Rove, and Cheney are “draft dodgers” ?

Are they not guilty of the same thing, except that one of them is a brotha ? [/quote]

No. The difference is, on the one hand, saying you won’t fight, outright and in public and with given reasons as to why, and on the other hand, trying to get away with not fighting without anybody noticing while ostensibly supporting the war.

Another difference would be that one of them didn’t want anything to do with war when he was young and still felt that same way when he was old, whereas they others didn’t want anything to do with war when they were young and then didn’t seem to mind the whole war thing when they got older and were too fat and decrepit to even be considered for military service.

For the record, none of those mentioned were actually “draft dodgers.” But they did all finds way to get out of combat service, as did many other men.[/quote]

Just like all the liberals in College. Guys the rules are the rules. My Father-in-law chose not to go to college and he was drafted and went to Vietnam.

You guys are saying Cheney, Limbaugh, etc got the rules changed just for them. This is a LIE. The Draft was a lottery, and the way to get your name lower in the lottery was to do certain things.

Zecarlo LIED and he has been called on his LIE. Get over it.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? “You guys are saying [they] got the rules changed just for them.” I never said anything of the sort. I said exactly, and I mean exactly what happened. I literally wrote that none of the people mentioned had been draft dodgers.

The point is that, no, it’s not the same thing to come out and say you’re not fighting in some war that you think is fucking stupid, and these are the reasons why, and fuck you if you don’t like it; and it’s another thing to use the rules that exist to avoid combat, and then turn around and orchestrate wars later in your life. This is not a legal assessment, it’s a moral one.[/quote]

I am with him on this one.

Chicken hawks disgust me.

Teddy Roosevelts reaction to “rich guys dont fight in wars” was “fuck you, I am going”.

And he went.[/quote]

I see yalls point. But lets look at this from my perspective.

My Father did not go to Vietnam nor was he even eligible for the draft. My father was an only child, and his father died from a WWII related injury when he was 11 years old. So if what you are saying is true, my father was a chicken shit because he decided not to volunteer to go to Vietnam. My father picked up his friends from the airport when the libtards were spitting on the vets that were coming home.

Sorry guys it is more of a chicken shit to stay at home and spit on and call vets baby killers, than to orchestrate a war because the US including the entire Congress (Republicans and Democrats) voted for said war.[/quote]

But thats not what Bush or Clinton did, or is it?

Now Gore went.

He did not have too, but he did on the grounds that if he would not go, someone else would.

So did Kerry who was smeared by people who did their very best to avoid service.

I am not saying that they should have gone, or that Vietnam was a war worth fighting, but both have the moral authority to send troops.

You cannot puss out and later in life tell people to risk their lives for even less.

At least you should not be able too.

79

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

My Father did not go to Vietnam nor was he even eligible for the draft. My father was an only child, and his father died from a WWII related injury when he was 11 years old. So if what you are saying is true, my father was a chicken shit because he decided not to volunteer to go to Vietnam. [/quote]

That’s not what we’re saying at all. You are misunderstanding. We’re talking about chicken hawks.

A man who decides he is against war, decides not to go to war, and then sticks with that decision his entire life–this is a man of principle.

A man who could see combat, and instead exploits the many options open to people, especially (but not only) people of means–this is a normal man.

A man who could see combat, and instead exploits the many options open to people, especially (but not only) people of means, and then goes on to design wars and/or smear people who served–fuck this man.

80

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I see bullying as “an attempt at character assassination and defaming”, bullying happens when it it allowed.

Bullying always has been about kids with low self-esteem feeling the need to pick on kids “who bullies feel will tolerate their oppression” to make themselves feel better.[/quote]

Well, not necessarily.

I was made fun of in middle school because I was the new, fat Asian kid and kids just found it amusing to make fun of the new guy.

And many teenagers today spread vicious rumors for revenge against perceived insults. And then those rumors spread everywhere and the victim’s reputation is permanently damaged.

Like I said, I think you and others are stuck thinking that bullying is a single certain thing when it really isn’t.

Bullying is just a catch-all term used for the action. The cause of it and the way it works can vary tremendously, and as such the “bullying” itself may not indicate the severity of what’s actually going on.

That’s sort of why the police don’t interfere unless someone actually dies or otherwise is inflicted with some grievous injury.

The traditional bullying that you all talk about is very much alive. It’s just never a big deal because most parents and teachers know that it’s not a big deal, and as such they don’t make the news. The ones that make it to the news are either way beyond the norm (someone died), or it’s an idiotic parents making a huge deal out of something that really shouldn’t be a huge deal.

How do you stop being the prey when the damage is already done?

Say a horrible rumor about you did spread, and most people believed it and judged you for it. How do you go about fixing that situation?