• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would have thought that for persons not trying to pick a fight over semantics that there is a difference between ostracizing a person for some reason that is beyond his control, such as his race or religion, or even some rumor or innuendo, and for what he has done or demonstrated. This person was an avowed Nazi who behaved badly. Nobody has to be nice to him. If all they did was to ostracize him, he's lucky. To call that bullying is, I think, not only a mistake in this case, but a mistake in trying to make sense of what bullying really is. It serves nobody well.
 
I think some people are equating being left out with bullying. They are not the same; one is passive and one is aggressive. Being lonely and left out is sometimes exactly what you bargain for.
 
ServiceSoon said:
I recognize that a large amount of a countries homicides committed by one individual is something to take into consideration and would skew the numbers. When that information was brought to my attention, I asked if all of those homicides were added in the year 2003. I also asked if anybody had a revised graph of UK homicides with these homicides removed.

I'm not aware how the UK (or every country) compiles homicide figures. The recognition that I'm pointing out disparities in how the data is complied in different countries and accepting criticisms of graph should act as a tiny indication of me attempting to engage in honest debate....
Click to expand...

I found some statistics which extend that chart from '69 to '17. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017

The major trend seems to be a slow, steady increase over the years up to the early 2000s, followed by a decline. It mentions several events which distorted figures for particular years: 2003 includes 172 victims of Harold Shipman, 2001 includes 58 Chinese migrants who suffocated in a lorry and so on.

I think what it shows is that your premise is strictly true: you can't show from the collected statistics that homicide declined overall due to the UK's handgun ban. Gun deaths were too small a proportion of the total for there to be any chance of picking out from the statistical noise the effect you're looking for. After all, the narrow point you're looking to establish is to what extent, after 1997, murderers who would have used a handgun still went through with their killing using a different weapon instead.

It strikes me as a not especially useful sort of test to declare that you can't detect a small effect in noisy data you shouldn't expect to show it. Among the 2017 statistics, covering over 700 homicides, it says "There were 32 homicide victims killed by shooting in the year ending March 2017, that is seven more than the previous year and 11 more than the year ending March 2015. However, shooting offences are still 45% below the level seen a decade ago." (Of course a decade ago is already a decade after the handgun ban.)

If you want to detect the effect you're interested in, you'd probably have to do much more detailed research into the exact circumstances of shooting deaths up to 1997 and if possible how they differ from those after '97, and then look at the trends for other killings in similar circumstances to see if you can pick out any trend in those before and after '97.
 
Types of bullying;

https://www.ncab.org.au/bullying-advice/bullying-for-parents/types-of-bullying/

"encouraging others to socially exclude someone"

https://www.verywellfamily.com/types-of-bullying-parents-should-know-about-4153882

"Relational bullies often ostracize others from a group"

https://bullyingnoway.gov.au/WhatIsBullying/Pages/Types-of-bullying.aspx

"Social bullying which includes consistently excluding another person.."

Interestingly, none of those sites (and the others which say the same thing) mention situations where a persons behaviour is the cause of the exclusion.

The message I get from the anti-bullying sites is that where someone does nothing wrong, but is excluded because a bully takes a dislike them and picks on someone so as to manipulate others as well, that is bullying.

The anti-bullying sites are silent when a kids behaviour is such it is no wonder they are excluded.

I think then, that it is not bullying when a kid does something which is clearly socially unacceptable or anti-social and that brings about his or her own exclusion.
 
cullennz said:
How is it stretching it to repeat what the students said they did?
Click to expand...

Some students likely did ostracize him, but, generally, the reasons for why a behavior happened are treated as important when it comes to evaluating whether or not it's bullying. A whole bunch of other students likely just didn't go out of their way to involve themselves with him in the first place.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Exactly. If not being friends with someone is bullying and most people would argue that bullying is immoral then it is immoral not to be friends with nazis.

Simple logical progression of modern conservative thought.
Click to expand...
It's actually simple logical progression from the extreme SJW liberal point of view. They are the people pushing the narrative that we must be "inclusive" and "tolerant" of everybody no matter how different they are and warning us about "triggering" and "microagressions" against any so-called minority. They are the one's who have elevated teasing and not speaking to the weird kid into bullying and probably a hate crime.

In the multicultural paradise of the future where "diversity is our strength" it will be immoral to not be friends with Nazis, if you take the SJW messages to the logical extreme.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
It's actually simple logical progression from the extreme SJW liberal point of view. They are the people pushing the narrative that we must be "inclusive" and "tolerant" of everybody no matter how different they are and warning us about "triggering" and "microagressions" against any so-called minority. They are the one's who have elevated teasing and not speaking to the weird kid into bullying and probably a hate crime.

In the multicultural paradise of the future where "diversity is our strength" it will be immoral to not be friends with Nazis, if you take the SJW messages to the logical extreme.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in your fantasy world but not in the real world.
 
Meadmaker said:
Or, you are just trying to deflect from the fact that regardless of why, how, or if he was bullied, "He couldn't have killed seventeen people with a knife."
Click to expand...

It's possible to kill seventeen people with a knife. It's possible to kill even more.

Additional interesting information in this story is the number of murders per 100,000 people in various countries. Anybody know what the gun laws in Mexico are like?
 
Nessie said:
Types of bullying;

https://www.ncab.org.au/bullying-advice/bullying-for-parents/types-of-bullying/

"encouraging others to socially exclude someone"

https://www.verywellfamily.com/types-of-bullying-parents-should-know-about-4153882

"Relational bullies often ostracize others from a group"

https://bullyingnoway.gov.au/WhatIsBullying/Pages/Types-of-bullying.aspx

"Social bullying which includes consistently excluding another person.."

Interestingly, none of those sites (and the others which say the same thing) mention situations where a persons behaviour is the cause of the exclusion.

The message I get from the anti-bullying sites is that where someone does nothing wrong, but is excluded because a bully takes a dislike them and picks on someone so as to manipulate others as well, that is bullying.

The anti-bullying sites are silent when a kids behaviour is such it is no wonder they are excluded.

I think then, that it is not bullying when a kid does something which is clearly socially unacceptable or anti-social and that brings about his or her own exclusion.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that these sources don’t make the claim that ostracization itself is bullying, but rather that ostracization can be a used a bullying tactic. In other words, the intent to bully has to be there first.

Emma Gonzalez’s statement taken in full context (before rightwing conspiracy theorist scumbags took a hatchet to them) make it abundantly clear that they were scared of him because of his violent and erratic behavior, and that was the reason they refused to socialize with him.

There was no intent to bully, and therefore it wasn’t bullying.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
It's possible to kill seventeen people with a knife. It's possible to kill even more.

Additional interesting information in this story is the number of murders per 100,000 people in various countries. Anybody know what the gun laws in Mexico are like?
Click to expand...

Slitting the throats of patients in their sleep us not really comparable to shooting up a school.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
It's actually simple logical progression from the extreme SJW liberal point of view. They are the people pushing the narrative that we must be "inclusive" and "tolerant" of everybody no matter how different they are and warning us about "triggering" and "microagressions" against any so-called minority. They are the one's who have elevated teasing and not speaking to the weird kid into bullying and probably a hate crime.

In the multicultural paradise of the future where "diversity is our strength" it will be immoral to not be friends with Nazis, if you take the SJW messages to the logical extreme.
Click to expand...

If you would stop getting your “information” from crank rightwing conspiracy-theory-peddling websites you would have a legitimate chance to be right about something for a change.
 
Wondering. Do those here who think that ignoring and/or avoiding this guy is bullying apply this only to high school kids, or to the world at large?

If it applies to everyone then you can count me in as one of the world's premier bullies. I am not social at all and I tend to avoid and ignore most people whenever I can. Until now I did not realize that all those people felt bullied. And now that I know I do not care.

TLDR version - that opinion is stupid!
 
johnny karate said:
I think you might have linked to the wrong article.

Your claim was that Emma Gonzalez admitted to bullying Nikolas Cruz.

The article you erroneously linked to makes no mention of Emma Gonzalez, let alone any alleged admission she made.

Please try again.
Click to expand...

No, my claim is that Nikolas Cruz was bullied. Emma Gonzalez acknowledging that she and her peers ostracized Cruz is one source. The neighbor quoted in the story on that Nazi website, CNN, is another source.

I never claimed that Emma was the worst or the only student that bullied Nikolas Cruz.
 
Lambchops said:
First of all, this whole "bullying" thing seems to be far from proven. And are you honestly surprised that a self described bigot is somehow not the most popular kid in school? You seriously don't get why the other kids might not necessarily want to be BFF's with a white supremacist?

As for your question, who said bullying is acceptable?

You're grasping at straws here. It's pretty transparent.
Click to expand...
I'm relying on what other people have said about Nikolas Cruz being bullied. I'm relying on what other people have said about Nikolas Cruz being a Nazi. I'm relying on what other people have said about Nikolas Cruz owning a gun and shooting people. I don't know. I wasn't there.

I'm still amused that people will argue that Nikolas Cruz wasn't bullied and then immediately cite aspects of his personality that would make him very likely to have been bullied.
 
quadraginta said:
Cruz wasn't bullied because he wasn't bullied.

Not wanting to be around someone is not bullying. Not by any rational or reasonable understanding of the concept.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But the brave new multicultural world isn't really rational or reasonable. Besides that, people have been quoted as saying that people didn't want to be friends with Cruz and other people have been quoted as saying he was bullied. My belief that he was bullied is informed by the latter more so than the former.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
I'm relying on what other people have said about Nikolas Cruz being bullied. I'm relying on what other people have said about Nikolas Cruz being a Nazi. I'm relying on what other people have said about Nikolas Cruz owning a gun and shooting people. I don't know. I wasn't there.

I'm still amused that people will argue that Nikolas Cruz wasn't bullied and then immediately cite aspects of his personality that would make him very likely to have been bullied.
Click to expand...

A bully has power over their target. These kids were scared of Cruz. Avoiding is not remotely bullying.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
No, my claim is that Nikolas Cruz was bullied. Emma Gonzalez acknowledging that she and her peers ostracized Cruz is one source. The neighbor quoted in the story on that Nazi website, CNN, is another source.

I never claimed that Emma was the worst or the only student that bullied Nikolas Cruz.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are not overly familiar with how internet forums work, but we all have the ability to go back and see the thing you previously posted, so lying about it is pointless.

Here’s the claim in question (I’ve bolded it for you convenience):
CaptainHowdy said:
[highlight]Now that Emma has admitted to bullying Cruz since they were in middle school[/highlight], her credibility as an anti-gun anti-violence advocate is shot. Not only is she not a victim of a school shooting, she is one of the people who actually provoked it!
Click to expand...

Will you be providing evidence of that claim? Or admitting it was a lie and retracting it?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom