Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123
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.
|
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.