WTF Article claims Positive Effects of Bullying Autistics

Post Reply New Topic

Bully me, and I lock myself in my room and won't come out, except to go to the bathroom. I'll have a stash of junk food in my room and will pig out on that, since junk food is my coping mechanism.

Actually, so are you. Or rather, all A are C (see my paragraph immediately below this sentence) which is actually even more far-reaching than "all A are B" even should "all A are B" have some logical support.

i.e. All limiting is forcing (erroneous from the get-go but let's follow this through). All forcing is bullying. Ergo all limiting is bullying.

In formal logical terms, you're stating all A are C. Or to break it down, all A are B and all B are C, ergo all A are C.

Agreed. And I don't believe such a claim was made - it at least wasn't on my own behalf.

In choosing which words to speak we are imposing a form of limitation by leaving out all other words we could use.

And as such, can be ignored.

No, not an assumption of the implication of force.

At least, not of physical force.

You're assuming what you think I'm assuming.

Someone telling me not to do something could be seen as an act of force - not physical force, but still an act of force.


Ergo the burden lies with Kraftie to define what he means by the abstract and non-specific term 'stamping out'.

Can you give an example of bullying that doesn't include limiting?

I agree not all limiting is bullying - but that doesn't mean all bullying isn't limiting.

You're committing a basic fallacy there.


It isn't illogical. It's very logical.

Your denial of my want to hurt you could be seen as restrictive of my ability to express myself. In this sense, your denial of my want to hurt you is hurting me. Your intent to hurt me - whether indirect or not - I could claim - is a form of bullying.

Of course.

Some A are B
Some B are C

Doesn't mean some A are C


Now you're hitting the nail on the head - without a legal definition, the issue of bullying will never be resolved.

Ad hominem?

Have you read Alex's rules?

Mods...

No it's not. Perhaps 'they', whoever 'they' are, would like us to believe so, but no. No one will ever make me feel powerless again, and if they try to they will get what they deserve

Sonicallysensitive, you're beginning to contradict yourself. It was hard enough attempting to have a "debate" per your parameters considering the base "debate" hinged on a false premise (the forcing/limiting/bullying model); now that you're self-contradicting, it has become impossible. Unfortunately you're erring quite a bit as far as formal debate goes (or even casual debate or heck, casual, reasonable conversation). And adding deliberate distraction via contradictory comments meant to take a person off the original track and onto a new one isn't helping matters.

I doubt you're doing all this out of any sense of malice, but rather, you simply aren't very learned as far as debate goes. Therefore I'm going to have to bow out - there's nothing logical to hang onto and answer from here, making this not only a non-debate but not even a reasonable discussion. (IMO.) I will leave you to your own thoughts and conclusions, you have a right to them no matter how you came about them and whether they're logical or not.

Nice sidestep

Oh brother!

Read carefully....can't you take a joke?

Where's the personal attack?

We're here to screw the bullies, not to screw ourselves through logic.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 17 Oct 2015, 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No link?

If you read it again and take the time, you may begin to understand each part of what I said above.

Other than that, I really can't help you and I can't play your game with you...I am sorry. Sometimes debate is fun but it has to have some logic and consistency to it. Otherwise it's just a lot of word tricks and attempts at "winning". Some people probably like to play that game and someone may be along shortly who will be a willing partner for you in this, so I'm not saying it's inherently wrong or anything, just that I am not interested. I am very sorry.

I think S.S. seeks to toy with us, then laugh himself to sleep.

And we are indulging him--hook, line and sinker.

I think so too, Kraftie. It may have been a game of some sort. I can't always tell people's motives but it feels game-ish to me and maybe was for fun? I don't know.

People have fun in all different ways - some of which may seem pretty odd at times!

What the F#$%? Does no one ever wait to sober up before hitting the SEND button on the articles they type?

Trying to put a positive spin on the pain inflicted by unevolved, bestial gorilla-people that find diversity too threatening or offensive to tolerate is not defensible.

I guess if they really want to make our lives a living hell our only recourse is to stop doing the historical 90+% of the research and development involved in improving their lives through technology. Once all their fossil fuels are depleted and nature is working against instead of for them they will realize why we were here

"It" means the laws of whatever land we're talking about. In my case, let's say U.S. laws since I'm more familiar with those. You were the one claiming that preventing you from bullying exerted a force over your right to bully. Since you are claiming the right to bully, you would be the one having to prove the existence of that right. I am presuming you meant the legal right. If you meant the moral right, that's something so subjective that you can take virtually any position and claim the moral high ground. That's why we'll have to go with legal right, since it's less complicated. Technically, there is no law against bullying, since my point is that bullying is a moral judgement. There are laws against specific acts, like assault and battery, extortion, and so on. Please don't ask me to quote them. I can't be bothered.


Please explain. You feel laws that prevent you from doing what you want are bullying? That must be very frustrating.


The point is that we can't do what we want. I don't see that as bullying. I see it as the contract that society forms to prevent anarchy.


So far as I know. But I am not an expert in the law. However, schools may make their own code of conduct that is more expansive.


By the majority of society. Admittedly, these judgements are all arbitrary and subjective, but it's the best we have to work with. I expect you don't want someone hitting you over the head and stealing your stuff either. We draw an arbitrary line somewhere and decide that something should be stopped.

Presumably the strong can hurt the weak by doing something against them such as taking valuables such as money, injuring them physically, or harming their reputation.


Strong and weak are admittedly subjective terms. Even the idea that the strong should not hurt the weak is an arbitrary idea, since "strong" may not mean a physical attribute, merely an ability to dominate the will of another. Not all societies have held this notion. That's why we prosecute actions that violate laws instead, with specific parameters.



I don't know. You're the one claiming to be bullied if you can't bully others, so you must have some idea of how your being prevented from bullying others is hurting you.


You'll have to tell me what constitutes "jumping on the bandwagon." I'm upholding the same stance that I ever was, not for the sake of debate, but because I believe it. If my views happen to coincide with others, it's not because I am impelled to follow a crowd.

I think this is one of the links to the SS review Lintar (summary points)

https://www.illinois.gov/ready/plan/Doc ... ervice.pdf

And this is the full report: - see page 19 for the very high percentage of killers who had been bullied:

https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/ ... report.pdf

Therein lies the problem, you're assuming hierarchy works on logic. Hierarchy works on power, and power alone-- logic has no place unless it benefits the hierarchy. When one is under the control of a hierarchy there is no such thing as syllogism-- no "assumed premises that are true", there is only what the hierarchy dictates is "true". It's a social construct, and as such freely moves outside the bounds of science, math, and even logic.