[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's anecdotal, but I distinctly remember gay kids when I went to HS, but no one went out of their way to abuse them. Do you believe this is something that's getting worse? I'm starting to think it is.

I don't recall any gay kids at school either (not to say that there weren't any - I just don't recall anyone being "out").

I don't know if it's getting worse, but I've noticed one thing...

Back in the day, was a gay bloke used to hang with us. Nobody gave the slightest bit of a crap that he was gay - just another one of the lads.

These days, he's taken his "gay identity" to new extremes, become very gnarly and started banging on about religion all the time. So everybody's started avoiding him.

Attitudes have changed. More conflict these days, I think... Give someone an inch, they take a mile.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's anecdotal, but I distinctly remember gay kids when I went to HS, but no one went out of their way to abuse them.

If there were out gay kids in our high school, they took crap. Heck, if a guy wore anything aside from wranglers and a heavy metal tshirt he took crap for being gay. Several guys that I now know are gay were faking it reasonably well in high school (football team, dates to the prom etc). They waited until college to come out.

Aside from the gays, the geeks and the shy were also targets. The unprotected, the vulnerable. Bullies are assholes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Bullies will bully the pimpled and gay alike. The difference is that sectors of our society *encourage* bullying of the gay kid.

I'm still struggling to understand why some evidently see no distinction between this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Get real dude.

I'm tired of being bullied by you so, here goes...

Being bullied about being pimply is juvenile school yard stuff, I think many kid would understand that adults do not commonly hate people with pimples. Many would realize that the bully is just trying to find some way to be mean and exploit a weakness in that particular individual without genuinely hating all pimply people. Contrast this to homosexuality, there are people that genuinely hate all gays and would cast off their gayness as some sort of permanent abomination (whereas pimples often go away for kids as they grow older), something to be ashamed about deep to the person's core. Being gay is a part of your personal ID, being pimply not so much - it is a temporary problem with cures.

You're being deliberately thick. For the third time and more for the benefit of anyone else at this point; bullying is bullying. Hate crimes are something else entirely and already legislated at the Federal level, most states/cities, and local school districts. Bullying is bullying. Kids shoved into lockers, shoved down, punched, money or material taken. If bullying is no different than assault, "anti-bullying laws" are redundant and unnecessary. The truth is there is a difference which means, many are isolated and harassed for any difference or vulnerability. Yes, including acne and personal appearance which, if not among the most fundamental aspects of a child's self-image, I don't know what is. You'll find a way to marginalize it of course, but that's not because you've put any real thought into what you're saying. And no, you'll not be getting my lunch money today.

Really, the entire comparison is frankly ****ing retarded, I can't believe this is coming from you. I thought you were a little sharper....

It wasn't a comparison. That's all you. Otherwise, I'm full of surprises which likely makes me more fun to talk to.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's anecdotal, but I distinctly remember gay kids when I went to HS, but no one went out of their way to abuse them. Do you believe this is something that's getting worse? I'm starting to think it is.

When I was in high school, I had a lisp. A bunch of guys thought I was gay and went out of their way to make my life hell. They never hit me, but they went out of their way to make certain that nobody talked to me; it probably would have be easier to get beat up than to be socially ostracized. However, after they saw me dating an attractive girl from another school, they never bothered me again.

I had friends outside of my school and I've never cared much about other people's negative opinions of me, so it never really bothered me, but not everyone is that lucky.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

When I was in high school, I had a lisp. A bunch of guys thought I was gay and went out of their way to make my life hell. They never hit me, but they went out of their way to make certain that nobody talked to me; it probably would have be easier to get beat up than to be socially ostracized. However, after they saw me dating an attractive girl from another school, they never bothered me again.

I had friends outside of my school and I've never cared much about other people's negative opinions of me, so it never really bothered me, but not everyone is that lucky.

So... no lisp?

I was "chunky" and had to wear the "chunky" kid jeans. ToughSkins and Huskies if I recall. The bad news was I was the youngest of 4 boys which meant I also wore a lot of their hand-me-downs. The good news was my brothers were not f'd with and this limited the number of times I was f'd with.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... no lisp?

Turned out, dating a cute girl trumped lisp in the gayness analysis.

My point is only to say that, while some people saw no gays when they were in high school and others saw no bullying of gays when they were in high school, it certain did exist in other places.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You asked "what the difference?" Clearly there is one as evidenced by the reaction to each. You may think the difference is immaterial, but most don't. The difference is that in the taxation example, I'm also, at least notionally, by contributing my resources performing the enforcement of a mutually agreed-upon responsibility for mutual benefit, whereas in the schoolyard bully example, it's one guy [or a group of guys] terrorizing a crowd with no mutually expected benefit.

So if students at school get together and decide to democratically vote on whether or not they should take lunch money from the weaker kids, and the bullies outnumber the weaker kids, and hence win the vote; then paying up to the bullies is a mutually agreed upon responsibility for mutual benefit, right?

Doofy speaks for many of us. We aren't all getting this "mutually expected benefit".
The main service I need from government is roads; and they're doing a poor job at that. One time I decided to build my own roads on my property... And the government stole them; eminent domain. The only real difference between the mafia's taxation and bullying is that the mafia is far more serious, and damaging.

I hadn't really thought of it until doofy brought it up... but I'm being bullied and terrorized to this day... by the largest crime syndicate in the world.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

So if students at school get together and decide to democratically vote on whether or not they should take lunch money from the weaker kids, and the bullies outnumber the weaker kids, and hence win the vote; then paying up to the bullies is a mutually agreed upon responsibility for mutual benefit, right?

Doofy speaks for many of us. We aren't all getting this "mutually expected benefit".
The main service I need from government is roads; and they're doing a poor job at that. One time I decided to build my own roads on my property... And the government stole them; eminent domain. The only real difference between the mafia's taxation and bullying is that the mafia is far more serious, and damaging.

I hadn't really thought of it until doofy brought it up... but I'm being bullied and terrorized to this day... by the largest crime syndicate in the world.

What?

Sounds like a rant against democracy. So democracy only benefits bullies?

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The main service I need from government is roads; and they're doing a poor job at that.

Why should you be the baseline for what government services are needed?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

So if students at school get together and decide to democratically vote on whether or not they should take lunch money from the weaker kids, and the bullies outnumber the weaker kids, and hence win the vote; then paying up to the bullies is a mutually agreed upon responsibility for mutual benefit, right?

Except that progressive taxation is just the opposite. The weaker kids outnumber the bullies and vote to take a piece of the bullies' lunch money (still leaving the bullies a much larger meal than everyone else has, not that there's anything wrong with that). And then, obviously, the bullies just whine about it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Except that progressive taxation is just the opposite. The weaker kids outnumber the bullies and vote to take a piece of the bullies' lunch money (still leaving the bullies a much larger meal than everyone else has, not that there's anything wrong with that). And then, obviously, the bullies just whine about it.

*cough*
ALL taxation.
*cough*

And in your example, the "weaker" kids are the bullies.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why should you be the baseline for what government services are needed?

Why should the pimply kid be the baseline for what anti-bullying laws are needed?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Why should the pimply kid be the baseline for what anti-bullying laws are needed?

Why are you asking the person who started a thread taking issue with anti-bullying laws?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

why are you asking the person who started a thread taking issue with anti-bullying laws?

HOW SHOULD I KNOW?
Allcaps

[subego]

Well, I'll be here for when you figure it out.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why should you be the baseline for what government services are needed?

I didn't say I should be; but how should we establish a baseline? As it stands now what 51% or more of the people vote for is the baseline. That has the potential to alienate a lot of people, and it has already. I was merely pointing out that many of us already feel the government has gotten so far off track that it literally does nothing for us anymore. It serves to redistribute wealth in a fashion that buys it the most votes; whether that be giving money to big poor or big corporation. My example with the bullies is to point out that bullies can in fact establish a baseline in their favor as they've done by electing bigger, badder government thugs to extort our money.

CreepDogg
Except that progressive taxation is just the opposite. The weaker kids outnumber the bullies and vote to take a piece of the bullies' lunch money (still leaving the bullies a much larger meal than everyone else has, not that there's anything wrong with that). And then, obviously, the bullies just whine about it.

What I see is all the gangster wannabe kids who bullied people back when they were in school rather than study, are now unable to find good jobs, if any job, and are using their power to vote to establish a government that takes from the productive class and to redistributes to the unproductive class. The same bullies that took my lunch money are now taking my taxes for food stamps and welfare etc.. Politicians know the best way to get elected is to appeal to the majority who just want them to promise a bunch of free stuff paid for by somebody else.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I didn't say I should be; but how should we establish a baseline? As it stands now what 51% or more of the people vote for is the baseline. That has the potential to alienate a lot of people, and it has already. I was merely pointing out that many of us already feel the government has gotten so far off track that it literally does nothing for us anymore. It serves to redistribute wealth in a fashion that buys it the most votes; whether that be giving money to big poor or big corporation. My example with the bullies is to point out that bullies can in fact establish a baseline in their favor as they've done by electing bigger, badder government thugs to extort our money.

So, when government redistributes money through, say, welfare, you receive no benefit from this?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Because there's no moral difference.
If you think there's a moral difference, your morals and thought processes are twisted - it's as simple as that.

I mean, "mutually agreed upon responsibility"? I think you'll find there's a great many people out there for whom "pay up or you're going to get loved up by Bubba" isn't exactly "mutual agreement".

If you don't understand even the ideal of democratic society, you are hopeless. And again, I don't understand why the moral difference -- or not -- between schoolyard bullying and taxation is necessarily something people should consider when evaluating the worthiness of anti-bullying legislation, other than the fact that it gives you another opportunity to complain about taxes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If you don't understand even the ideal of democratic society, you are hopeless.

Oh yeah, I understand. Mob rule. Or else.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And again, I don't understand

Yup.

[SpaceMonkey]

Well that sure showed me! What a joke.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Well that sure showed me! What a joke.

You're not the first person to live in Washington DC who doesn't understand the concept of freedom and not controlling people through the use of force (i.e. bullying).

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're not the first person to live in Washington DC who doesn't understand the concept of freedom and not controlling people through the use of force (i.e. bullying).

What I don't understand is if you hate bullying AND hate taxes, what that has to do with an opinion about anti-bullying legislation. Presumably one can hate bullying, hate taxes, recognize that taxes aren't going anywhere anytime soon, but still have an opinion on whether within that environment anti-bullying legislation is worth anyone's time or resources.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What I don't understand is if you hate bullying AND hate taxes, what that has to do with an opinion about anti-bullying legislation.

You're not the first person who lives in Washington DC to have a mental disconnect between two identical concepts either.

I'm pointing out that any anti-bullying legislation is a hypocritical crock of shite unless taxes are simultaneously made voluntary (because "give us your lunch money or we'll beat the crap out of you" is morally identical to "give us some of your money or we'll put you somewhere where Bubba will beat the crap out of you"). How can you not see that?

[andi*pandi]

Normally the schoolyard bully doesn't then take your lunch money and then pave your street, stop a fire, or build a school with it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Normally the schoolyard bully doesn't then take your lunch money and then pave your street, stop a fire, or build a school with it.

But they do use it to go buy a knuckleduster to beat up the foreign kid with.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You're not the first person who lives in Washington DC to have a mental disconnect between two identical concepts either.

I'm pointing out that any anti-bullying legislation is a hypocritical crock of shite unless taxes are simultaneously made voluntary (because "give us your lunch money or we'll beat the crap out of you" is morally identical to "give us some of your money or we'll put you somewhere where Bubba will beat the crap out of you"). How can you not see that?

How is government enforcement of behavior while asking people to pay taxes hypocritical?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

How is government enforcement of behavior while asking people to pay taxes hypocritical?

I'm sorry but if this isn't already obvious to you from what I've written in the last few posts then there's absolutely no point my trying to further explain it. Have a good day!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm sorry but if this isn't already obvious to you from what I've written in the last few posts then there's absolutely no point my trying to further explain it. Have a good day!

I think you need to read my question more carefully. I'll rephrase: whose hypocrisy are you talking about? Not the government's, surely, since in your view what we are talking about is just an extension of bullying by other means. And for those of us individuals still in the real world and under the thumb of one government or another, it's surely not hypocritical to evaluate the positive or negative functional impact of this bullying-in-the-form-of-anti-bullying legislation, since the morals never really enter into the equation for us: we're not independent actors here, we're just the taxpayers forced from birth into government servitude (or, if you like, we're being bullied and getting off on it, so it stands to reason we'd morally not have an objection to seeing the government bully others as long as it makes our lives easier). So please, explain for me why pointing out this kind of hypothetical hypocrisy is worth consideration?

I understand it would be hypocritical for you to support anti-bullying laws.

[Doofy]

Who is it who bullies you into giving them money (tax) every year? The government.

Who is it who makes anti-bullying laws? Your pet cat?

So, who is it who's being hypocritical if it makes anti-bullying laws?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, who is it who's being hypocritical if it makes anti-bullying laws?

You mean the same government who refuses to control the border issue, by fiat? The one who shut down the oil industry in the Gulf, by fiat? The one who took guns across the border and lost track of 1,400 of them, by fiat?

That one?

[Wiskedjak]

Doofy *is* absolutely right: some of our governments *are* a form of bully. The elected government exists to serve our interests and act as a focal point of decision-making at municipal, state/provincial and national levels. Unfortunately, we've let them abuse for so long the power we've trusted them with, and now they've convinced most People that we are supposed to serve them. And, they've used the tools we need them for to bully us into submission: military, legal systems, police, taxation.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by finboy 

You mean the same government who refuses to control the border issue, by fiat? The one who shut down the oil industry in the Gulf, by fiat? The one who took guns across the border and lost track of 1,400 of them, by fiat?

That one?

And, also, the government that insists at gunpoint that they have the right to irradiate you if you want to pay to ride in commercial aircraft.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, also, the government that insists at gunpoint that they have the right to irradiate you if you want to pay to ride in commercial aircraft.

You can just ask for the pat down. Those can be fun if you make noises.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

*cough*
ALL taxation.
*cough*

And in your example, the "weaker" kids are the bullies.

Meh. Quit your whining. You're perfectly free to find yer own sovereign island and live there tax free. Feel free to contract for all your own services and utilities, and enforce your own contracts. Have fun!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You can just ask for the pat down.

True, but they also bully you there. They treat you with greater suspicion for choosing the pat-down.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

What I see is all the gangster wannabe kids who bullied people back when they were in school rather than study, are now unable to find good jobs, if any job, and are using their power to vote to establish a government that takes from the productive class and to redistributes to the unproductive class. The same bullies that took my lunch money are now taking my taxes for food stamps and welfare etc.. Politicians know the best way to get elected is to appeal to the majority who just want them to promise a bunch of free stuff paid for by somebody else.

Yeah, that's what you would see. You do realize that what you see is just the flip side of the 'eff the rich' coin, right?

[Cold Warrior]

The thread is about anti-bullying laws. I get the debate about taxes, but it's better left to another thread. Thanks.

[subego]

There's a no-tax anti bullying thread. I'm fine with letting this one drift into its own territory.

[Cold Warrior]

It's better for general consistency and organization if members stick to the posting/topic rules.

[subego]

I agree, but since this thread was trashed a page and a half ago, and I also started a new thread, I'd say the horse is long out of the barn on this one.

[Cold Warrior]

A page and a half in PWL can be a matter of an 8 hour work shift or sometimes less. If a derail can't be recovered from, posts can be moved out. It's case by case and the OP's opinion matters (at least to me).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

It's better for general consistency and organization if members stick to the posting/topic rules.

But for me, it's all part of the same topic. I wouldn't have bought it up otherwise.
What you see as a "derail" is simply a wider-knowledge of the government system putting 2 and 2 together and pointing out the obvious incoherence and hypocrisy in the concept of "anti-bullying laws".

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Except that progressive taxation is just the opposite. The weaker kids outnumber the bullies and vote to take a piece of the bullies' lunch money (still leaving the bullies a much larger meal than everyone else has, not that there's anything wrong with that). And then, obviously, the bullies just whine about it.

Wow. This is classic.

Your analogy merely applied a label to someone, used that label (along with stereotyped assumptions) as reasoning to gang up on and fleece them without guilt- in fact, while feeling morally entitled- and then call them a whiner if they complain about it.

No doubt you'll not realize it, but this kind of roundabout illustrated the whole subtext of this thread, how the tax-entitlement mentality some have is actually its own form of bullying, with its own set of justifications for why it's morally correct, and its targets just 'whiners' for not taking their just desserts in stride.

Fascinating stuff really.

Highlight of the thread: besson3c not getting something basic and trying to bully ebuddy into accepting that his argument was actually something other than it was, before calling it ****ing retarded. The only thing missing was a slammed locker and someone's books all over the floor.

Aside: I don't know why really, but I 'hear' all Doofy posts as read by Get Carter era Michael Caine.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Wow. This is classic.

Your analogy merely applied a label to someone, used that label (along with stereotyped assumptions) as reasoning to gang up on and fleece them without guilt- in fact, while feeling morally entitled- and then call them a whiner if they complain about it.

Nope. Not really. At all. I simply applied the labels created by another to a different point of view.

No doubt you'll not realize it, but this kind of roundabout illustrated the whole subtext of this thread, how the tax-entitlement mentality some have is actually its own form of bullying, with its own set of justifications for why it's morally correct, and its targets just 'whiners' for not taking their just desserts in stride.

Fascinating stuff really.

No doubt you'll not realize it, but that false equivalency was refuted by several posters in this thread.

There's a word for complaining about being bullied when you're not really being bullied - it's called whining.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You can just ask for the pat down. Those can be fun if you make noises.

Good.luck.with.that.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Nope. Not really. At all. I simply applied the labels created by another to a different point of view.

It seemed to me you were defining 'progressive taxation' and then set up a bully-scenario, complete with taking someone's lunch money because the labels 'weak' and 'bully' being reversed allowed it.

Regardless if it's really your personal view or not, your exact definition IS the view of many among the taxation entitlement crowd.

Just look at current events. The whole idea of people claiming to be "The 99%" is not much more than an attempt at a bully tactic. "We outnumber you, therefore we're going to gang up on you and take from you because our [belief of ourselves as] majority and our [perceived] weakness vs. our labeling of you as 1% and 'bully' or 'powerful', entitles us."

The whole 99-cent 'movement' is pretty much what you said in a nutshell.

I seem to recall in another thread, that a poster seemed to think he was entitled to make someone else's taxes as high as 90%, simply out of a sense of entitlement brought on by this mentality. This is basically saying "I should be allowed to make others into complete economic slaves because the group-labels I've assigned them and myself entitle me."

Another example: I've constantly heard those with a tax-entitlement mentality make the veiled threat that without welfare, income redistribution, and all the other social-pork they champion, the people that receive the benefits will become criminals and riot in the streets demanding things and generally making life even harder for the taxpayer. Therefore the 'benefit' to them is 'keeping the peace' by allowing themselves to be continually extorted.

Again, nothing but a pure bully-tactic, it's just that the threat is never direct, it's always cast off on someone else. (Usually imagined mobs of other people.)

We've pretty much seen the end-game of this mentality playing out in the UK and other places in Europe, with emo-twits going out and destroying things, burning cars and property, and in a few cases actually killing people. (Their targets are always random, and likely never the so-called 'bullies' that supposedly have all the money, but that's another matter.)

No doubt you'll not realize it, but that false equivalency was refuted by several posters in this thread.

In your imagination it was, but in reality it was pretty accurate.

There's a word for complaining about being bullied when you're not really being bullied - it's called whining.

Very true. Those always claiming they're 'weak' and being put-upon by 'bullies' just because others have more money than them= whiners.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Regardless if it's really your personal view or not, your exact definition IS the view of many among the taxation entitlement crowd.

Here's my personal view. I'm not in the 1%, but am probably in the 10% or so. I don't know, maybe 15%. I pay taxes. Quite a bit, actually. It's part of the social contract I agree to to enjoy this standard of living. I think people complaining about having to do that are whiners.

Are there things I don't like about where some of my tax money goes? Of course. But looking at in on the whole, it's a social contract I'll agree to continue. If not, I'll either work to change it, or move somewhere where there are better contract terms. What I won't do is whine about it.

In your imagination it was, but in reality it was pretty accurate.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Very true. Those always claiming they're 'weak' and being put-upon by 'bullies' just because others have more money than them= whiners.

I agree. And - those always complaining about how a small portion of their tax money goes to poor, lazy people who don't deserve it = whiners. It cuts both ways.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Here's my personal view. I'm not in the 1%, but am probably in the 10% or so. I don't know, maybe 15%.

If you're earning $48k a year or better, you're in the 1%.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I pay taxes. Quite a bit, actually. It's part of the social contract I agree to

You agreed to the social contract? You put wet signature on it? What about those people who don't agree to it? You're going to force them to agree to it anyways, are you not? That's called "bullying".

What's your solution for them? They move to somewhere with a better contract?
So why don't the gay/pimply kids move to a school where there's a better "bullying contract"? Whiners!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You agreed to the social contract? You put wet signature on it? What about those people who don't agree to it? You're going to force them to agree to it anyways, are you not? That's called "bullying".

No, that's called "law-making." Your political philosophy is hilariously naive.