When being bullied?
Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron
Sendraks wrote:Your feeling provoked is an entirely a problem of your own creating. Your emotions are your problem, not mine.
I'm making a simple request re: your behaviour in this thread. You can either take this feedback on board as an adult would or carry on as you are doing.
Scot Dutchy wrote:Sendraks wrote:Your feeling provoked is an entirely a problem of your own creating. Your emotions are your problem, not mine.
I'm making a simple request re: your behaviour in this thread. You can either take this feedback on board as an adult would or carry on as you are doing.
You are really missing Penny. She will be touched to hear it.
Weaver wrote:theropod wrote:I would like to see one more option. If after school officials have been notified and nothing is done, or if the bully makes it sexual, turn the kid loose.
RS
This.
And the fighting I teach my kids during grade and high school is defensive - mostly break contact drills, escapes from grabs, quick stun strikes used to gain distance, etc.
More offensive actions - breaks, dislocations, control holds, etc. - only comes when they're adults, if they want to learn that stuff.
Scot Dutchy wrote:How do you?
Weaver wrote:
Really? Like the kinetic strikes we carried out against Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program?
Oh, wait - we didn't use any kinetic strikes there - we TALKED to them, and got them to sign a treaty.
Or maybe you refer to "hit first" as if that's common. Like in Kosovo, or Bosnia, or Afghanistan, or the Gulf War - all cases where I am just SURE you can show that the US engaged in the first use of violence, and for no reason whatsoever.
Galactor wrote:Weaver wrote:
Really? Like the kinetic strikes we carried out against Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program?
Oh, wait - we didn't use any kinetic strikes there - we TALKED to them, and got them to sign a treaty.
Or maybe you refer to "hit first" as if that's common. Like in Kosovo, or Bosnia, or Afghanistan, or the Gulf War - all cases where I am just SURE you can show that the US engaged in the first use of violence, and for no reason whatsoever.
I have the image of The Soprano's "talking" to a five-and-dime owner about whether they want "insurance" or not.
For sure, the US will "talk" to those who threaten their hegemony or economic dominance. If they "listen" then all's well.
Weaver wrote:Galactor wrote:
I have the image of The Soprano's "talking" to a five-and-dime owner about whether they want "insurance" or not.
For sure, the US will "talk" to those who threaten their hegemony or economic dominance. If they "listen" then all's well.
Which is precisely why you saw us engage in so many massive displays of military force during the talks which led to NAFTA, amirite???
Galactor wrote:Weaver wrote:Galactor wrote:
I have the image of The Soprano's "talking" to a five-and-dime owner about whether they want "insurance" or not.
For sure, the US will "talk" to those who threaten their hegemony or economic dominance. If they "listen" then all's well.
Which is precisely why you saw us engage in so many massive displays of military force during the talks which led to NAFTA, amirite???
I don't follow the point you are making.
The US is perpetually engaged in massive "displays" of force. It has continually had a larger military machine than the rest of the world combined.
Everyone knows what happens when you step out of line.
Weaver wrote:...because, although we have the world's largest military (in terms of projectable power and actual strike and combat ability) the world is a big place, and we simply cannot be everywhere at once - or even threaten to be.
Weaver wrote:
Yes, we have the world's largest military, and we use military force, and threats of force, to accomplish our national goals.
But that doesn't mean we ALWAYS use military force, or the threats of force, in pursuit of our national goals - as evidenced by things like NAFTA, which was negotiated entirely without any suggestion of the use of force if we didn't get what we wanted. And there are many, many other examples as well - because, although we have the world's largest military (in terms of projectable power and actual strike and combat ability) the world is a big place, and we simply cannot be everywhere at once - or even threaten to be.
Weaver wrote:
Really? Like the kinetic strikes we carried out against Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program?
Oh, wait - we didn't use any kinetic strikes there - we TALKED to them, and got them to sign a treaty.
Scot Dutchy wrote:It could try and use it for peace but just does not bother.
Galactor wrote:Weaver wrote:
Yes, we have the world's largest military, and we use military force, and threats of force, to accomplish our national goals.
But that doesn't mean we ALWAYS use military force, or the threats of force, in pursuit of our national goals - as evidenced by things like NAFTA, which was negotiated entirely without any suggestion of the use of force if we didn't get what we wanted. And there are many, many other examples as well - because, although we have the world's largest military (in terms of projectable power and actual strike and combat ability) the world is a big place, and we simply cannot be everywhere at once - or even threaten to be.Weaver wrote:
Really? Like the kinetic strikes we carried out against Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program?
Oh, wait - we didn't use any kinetic strikes there - we TALKED to them, and got them to sign a treaty.
Let's get the goalposts put back whence they came.
I am quite sure that a non-military strike was not necessary with the NAFTA agreement. And of course not everything requires immediate posturing.
But the proposition that the US sat around the bargaining table with Iran and had a friendly chat and TALKED to them and got them to see sense (what silly little Arabs they must have been) is a deeply dissatisfying one.
I still cannot grasp the analogy of the NAFTA agreement with the US talking to the Iranian regime. These were utterly different trajectories.
Of course, the US doesn't ALWAYS use direct force. At it's disposal, however, is the long history of its willingness to do so, understood by all, should threats arise to its economic hegemony which also means, unfortunately for those in its immediate vicinity, success in socialist-economic endeavours where it might transpire that such social political systems, have widespread benefits for large sections of the society. It would have been a disaster to the ruling classes if the average citizen would have seen how nice a social political system actually could be.
If only Cuba were to have been so suppliant in its commercial position, the US would never have had to punish it and blacken its name for so long. If they were as willing and ready as the Mexicans and Canadians, there never would have been a missile crisis. So for me, the analogy goes no-where.
A bit off topic all of this.
Mike_L wrote:Weaver wrote:...because, although we have the world's largest military (in terms of projectable power and actual strike and combat ability) the world is a big place, and we simply cannot be everywhere at once - or even threaten to be.
Perhaps not there yet, but certainly aiming for it!
Return to Parenting & Education
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest