Would you instruct your kids to respond with violence

When being bullied?

Discussions for education, teaching & parenting.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Would you instruct your kids to respond with violence to bullying?

Yes
11
58%
No
7
37%
No Eye Deer
1
5%
 
Total votes : 19

Re: Would you instruct your kids to respond with violence

#121  Postby Blip » May 12, 2017 5:25 am


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
Weaver, in your post here, you address another member as a troll.

As you know, this contravenes the Forum Users’ Agreement, specifically section 1.2c, which concerns personal attack.

Any comments on this modnote or moderation should not be made in the thread as they will be considered off topic; they may be removed without further warning.
Evolving wrote:Blip, intrepid pilot of light aircraft and wrangler with alligators.
User avatar
Blip
Moderator
 
Posts: 19859
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Would you instruct your kids to respond with violence

#122  Postby Galactor » May 19, 2017 6:28 pm

Weaver wrote:
The Iran nuclear agreement was the culmination of decades of sanctions and both direct and indirect talks. We used no military force to drive them to the table.


This is just laughable. No military? What was the Iraq-Iran war then? A tea party? Who was supporting Saddam during this war? Do you not know about how the US undermined Iran in the fifties at the behest of the British?

I mean seriously, how would you "listen" to a mobster who has been involved for the past sixty years in waging covert and proxy war against you?

And then they start talking to you after decades of having had sanctions imposed on you? This is a joke.

The USA, when it wants to, bosses the UN to do its bidding. And when the UN comes down against the US, the US just ignores it.


Weaver wrote:
NAFTA was a direct counter to your claim that we always, everywhere, have displays of military force involved in our geopolitical influence operations. It simply isn't so.


NAFTA is an interesting case about how the US negotiates. It might well have been unnecessary or even impossible to use military action to do a deal with Mexico and Canada. It's hardly something to crow about and it most certainly isn't a refutation of the levels to which the US will go to get their bidding done. And it certainly wasn't for the benefit of American workers whose unions were just brushed aside when it came to their involvement in ratifying the deal. But lets look at how the US does "talks" to its close partners.

In 2016 one of the US's best friends - the UK - decided to hold a vote to leave the European Union, an important commercial and strategic entry point for the US. The campaign for this was fought - politically - from a commercial/economic perspective. The remain side pointed out how Europe was commercially advantageous, the leave side tried to make claims contrary to this. The issue of with whom the UK would be able to strike a deal, after departure, was a contentious issue. What did the US do? Did they say "hey, we've been friends for decades, we'll always help the UK. Whatever you decide, good luck, and we look forward, if needed, to trade with you in the future"? Not a bit. The response, from Obama, was a warning. He said more or less, "if you leave Europe, you can expect no help from us". It wasn't even veiled, this threat. It was a naked warning that if the UK left Europe, they could expect punishment.

Is that the kind of "talking" to which you refer?

Weaver wrote:I don't argue that the US does not use its military, including subtle and direct shows of force, to influence our discussions with others - that's part of what a military is all about (read von Clausewitz). But we do not always, necessarily, use our military in that way.


I just think your mind might be clouded when I read things like this.

No, no-one uses military force when other forms of "persuasion" will work.
User avatar
Galactor
 
Name: Graeme
Posts: 587
Age: 52
Male

Country: Netherlands
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Would you instruct your kids to respond with violence

#123  Postby The_Metatron » Oct 02, 2017 5:25 pm

Keep It Real wrote:And train them to be more effective fighters if those circumstances might arise - as a preventative measure?

Balls, nose, knees.
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19460
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Would you instruct your kids to respond with violence

#124  Postby Beatsong » Oct 02, 2017 11:40 pm

Years ago eldest son was bullied for a while in primary school. Nothing too major. We advocated telling the teachers etc. and got a bit involved with the school. Eventually it petered out.

I remember my wife at the time relating a conversation she'd had with another kid's mum, who was a lot more working class and less right-on than us, in which she'd said "I tell my kid that if anyone hit's him, he's to hit them straight back". We both thought this was terrible and felt a bit sorry for her.

But reflecting on it later, I thought that's what we do/advocate/condone in adult life. Most of us abhor any instigation of violence, yet if someone instigates it against you all bets are off. You do what you have to do - and have the right to do what you have to do - to defend yourself. Surely we should raise our kids with a realistic idea of how they're going to have to live as adults?

I think also because I work in schools, and they're all big on anti-bullying policies etc, you can get sucked into thinking of the protective system as infallible. You just tell the teachers what is going on and all will be sorted out for you. A lot of the time that does work, and it should of course be the first recourse. But it can't work 100% of the time, just as in adult life the police and courts aren't 100% successful even in catching violent criminals after the act, much less preventing violence in the first place. We don't tell a woman confronted by an attacker in a dark alley not to fight because it will all be OK when she tells the police in the morning. It may be unwise in some circumstances to fight, but it's never morally wrong. If she has a knife and is confident she can slice his balls off, then good on her. Surely the same goes for a kid in a similar position of self defence?
NEVER WRONG. ESPECIALLY WHEN I AM.
User avatar
Beatsong
 
Posts: 6751

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Would you instruct your kids to respond with violence

#125  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 03, 2017 12:03 am

But we dont accept/act like that as adults. At least not without consequences.
We dont get to take the law in our own hands. And self-defense is not the same thing as hitting back.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27243
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Would you instruct your kids to respond with violence

#126  Postby OlivierK » Oct 03, 2017 2:33 am

It's a fine line. We always told our kids that being hit didn't give them a free pass to use violence in return, but that we'd back them up if they did use violence to stop the violence they were being subjected to, after trying non-violent methods, and after giving due warning that continued violence would have physical consequences.

In the limited times my kids have ever been physically bullied, they've never actually hit back (even in the one instance where I would have been fine with it), but I think they've got a good sense of what we'd back them up on, and what we'd see as gratuitous counterviolence.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7461
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Would you instruct your kids to respond with violence

#127  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 03, 2017 7:51 am

OlivierK wrote:It's a fine line. We always told our kids that being hit didn't give them a free pass to use violence in return, but that we'd back them up if they did use violence to stop the violence they were being subjected to, after trying non-violent methods, and after giving due warning that continued violence would have physical consequences.

In the limited times my kids have ever been physically bullied, they've never actually hit back (even in the one instance where I would have been fine with it), but I think they've got a good sense of what we'd back them up on, and what we'd see as gratuitous counterviolence.

:this:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27243
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Would you instruct your kids to respond with violence

#128  Postby talkietoaster » Nov 07, 2017 2:02 pm

I am currently talk to my son whos 8 years old about Bullies. At the moment I tell him to report anything straight to the teacher, I want that to be his first step always. However, I know from experience it does not always stop there when a school does not have a good anti bullying policy. So I will be teaching him the next steps on how to deal with it if a bully hits him etc...
''Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.'' - Smart Person at some time.
User avatar
talkietoaster
 
Posts: 1610

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Parenting & Education

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest