Good job taking the quote out of context and thereby misinterpreting it and its meaning. I never said anything about gumdrops or goodwishes fixing the issue. Its not a philosophical difference, its a literate one apparently.

I'm not sure what the rules are in the US, but over here you can't just take a kid out of school and keep them at home. Sure you could home school, but what if you already have a full time job? Maybe you should quit to support your child, but then, how will the bills get paid?

It's just not that simple.

Resorting to violence is a last resort, and most parents would encourage their children to try all other avenues, but sometimes they just don't work.

Sure systems could/might be implimented maybe in the future, but what if it's happening now?

It's just like all the other social issues. There's no quick fix, so we have to 'make do' with the best solution until something better comes along.

eta: My recent posts are not so much about this particular thread, but trying to explain what some of you feel is the 'cheering on' of the victim. Trying to help you understand why some of us feel less than sympathetic to the bully and why we recognise that the victim felt he had no other choice. That's real life. That's the way it is, and wishing it were something different is pointless.

Misinterpret? Let me back up then and see if I understand you correctly.

MTP's position: All conflict and violence should be avoided. Taken to its logical conclusion then a victim of bullying bears the responsibility(let's not forget the expense) to follow a progression of walking away, involving a bunch of authorities, then changing schools if the situation doesn't change. Do I have that right?

Lookout's position: Conflict and violence are best avoided but not to be pulled off the table as an option as they are unfortunately sometimes necessary and effective.

Just remember that if I'm a bad guy I don't really give a shit how you feel or what happens to you tomorrow. If I know (because you have made it clear) that no matter what I do you will not stand up to me, then I am free to take from you or do to you anything I want because you're an easy mark.

Here's what I taught my kids. Try to walk away or ignore. If they lay a hand on you, then it is katie bar the door. I dont care if you pick up a stick, bite, kick or whatever. Just fight back using any means possible. You don't have to win, but you better leave a mark on them. I've learned that way they won't mess with you again. Hey it worked for me & has seemed to work pretty darn well for my kids.

No, you don't understand my position. Violence is not always effective, and it is dangerous. The child should not have the responsibility of "taking matters into their own hands." It is fully the parent's responsibility to protect their underage child, and yes sometimes that does mean a significant expense if all other alternatives fail. Leaving your child in a position you know they may well have to turn to violence in order to protect themselves? Unacceptable.
Not being willing to become violent, does not mean I will not and do not have the means to stand up for myself.

Finally, a statement I can agree with. Violence usually is not effective. But for those rare times when it is, it may be the only effective tool left and then it should be employed. It is potentially dangerous. Yep, and so is continuing to allow yourself to be a victim.

This kind of parenting creates bullies.

You're obviously not christian.

How did you get that from what she wrote? She wrote that there are systems that have been ceated by society to resolve conflict in a civilized way. Use them. If the systems are slow, it is still incumbent upon the parent to protect a child's wellbeing.

Is that right, Moretp?

Did the kid in the video try anything but violence before this incident?

Use a sharper stick, maybe I'll respond.

Typically evasive.

What would all you "go victim" people think if the little one had gotten up and he and his crew had beaten the big kid until he was unconscious? Still and epic win, because he stood up to his attackers?

Have you answered Pete Zicato's question yet?

Let me know when you do and I'll take that as a signal you actually want a discussion.

Boys have been fighting since the beginning of time. If there wasn't such a 'zero tolerance' at school then maybe the kid getting hit in the face would have felt free to shove him away.

Many times the person getting bullied has to suck it up because he has been taught not to retaliate. Many times that base instinct to protect oneself raises it's head and the bully gets hurt.( too ) Most of the time it isn't caught on film. If there had not been a video of this, or any witnesses, guaranteed that big kid would be charged with assault, given community service and for the instigator?, nothing.

I understand the reasons for zero tolerance but I cannot fathom their ( the kids ) reality, when at home they are taught to stand up for themselves, yet school teaches you a contradictory rule. The rule is not stand up for themselves. There is a rule but no tool other than what the parents teach them at home that doesn't apply to the school yard.

I highly doubt that little kid would have punched him outside of school. The fighting field would have been a little more fair. There would not have been the 'schools rule' that kept that big kids fists down long enough to take it in the face once or twice.

For the parents that teach their kids to ignore or walk away, how do they do that when they are getting punched in the face? or verbally taunted? Ignoring isn't a great tool. They don't ignore it. They take it home and it seethes until they cannot take it anymore and someone gets body slammed into the concrete.

OR they start all kinds of self-destructive habits...
Cutting, drinking, drugs...

Ignoring a problem hoping it will go away rarely works. In fact, it usually gets worse..


Good points sky.

Except for teeth. If you have a problem with your teeth and you ignore it, then eventually your teeth and your problem will go away.
Disclaimer: I am not a professional dentist.