Are debates in these places making us all bullies?

[Greatest I am]

^Yeah... You have some interesting ideas about freedom of speech. ;D
But you can't say you support freedom of speech if, like you said, you think Donald Trump should be in jail for lying and politicians shouldn't be able to disagree with climate change, and religious people shouldn't be able to spread their beliefs etc..

By any reasonable metric, if that's what you believe, you don't support freedom of speech. So you can't really use that argument.

Bullying is not the free exchange of ideas, and I don't think students should be allowed to bully each other. There's expressing ideas, and then there's being an asshole. I don't think it's very ambiguous.
Kids and teenagers killing themselves over bullying is PREVENTABLE. There's no legitimate reason to allow to be such a problem, IMO.

You prompted a thought in my mind.

We are evolving creatures that must both cooperate when required and compete when required.

Cooperation does not create a victim or loser but competition does.

If some will not be able to tolerate bullying, a form of competition, should we particularly care or should we just look at it as evolution getting rid of the less fit?

Do not read that as my endorsement for suicide as I am just looking at the evolutionary process and see suicide as helping our species to weed out the weakest so that the fittest will rise to the top.

Natural eugenics is a harsh process for the less fit and that is what suicide might be a part of.

Regards
DL

[EquALLity]

^Yeah... You have some interesting ideas about freedom of speech. ;D
But you can't say you support freedom of speech if, like you said, you think Donald Trump should be in jail for lying and politicians shouldn't be able to disagree with climate change, and religious people shouldn't be able to spread their beliefs etc..

By any reasonable metric, if that's what you believe, you don't support freedom of speech. So you can't really use that argument.

Bullying is not the free exchange of ideas, and I don't think students should be allowed to bully each other. There's expressing ideas, and then there's being an asshole. I don't think it's very ambiguous.
Kids and teenagers killing themselves over bullying is PREVENTABLE. There's no legitimate reason to allow to be such a problem, IMO.

You prompted a thought in my mind.

We are evolving creatures that must both cooperate when required and compete when required.

Cooperation does not create a victim or loser but competition does.

If some will not be able to tolerate bullying, a form of competition, should we particularly care or should we just look at it as evolution getting rid of the less fit?

Do not read that as my endorsement for suicide as I am just looking at the evolutionary process and see suicide as helping our species to weed out the weakest so that the fittest will rise to the top.

Natural eugenics is a harsh process for the less fit and that is what suicide might be a part of.

Regards
DL

Um... O_O

Evolution is not a moral system. It's just something that happens. The weather happens too, it's just a natural process - it's not inherently good or bad.
By this type of twisted logic in which natural processes become good things, I guess it's a good thing if you get struck by lightning.
Except that makes no sense.

[Greatest I am]

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same kind of bullying here, but if we're just talking about acts and speech that make life unpleasant for other people in social environments, I don't think you have to limit freedom of speech to get rid of bullying at all. Particularly in the case of kids getting bullied I think it can have very bad effects, whether it be worse school results, depression and/or suicide or social isolation and a lack of confidence. Some of these effects could last for a long time.

My high school had a pretty good approach to bullying, where they would assemble a sort of task force composed of the 'bullies' (the word bully never actually gets used), friends of the bullied kid and a teacher. The kids would be asked to reflect on their behavior, try to notice behavior that could be making the other kid feel bad and alert each other if they do. The bullies aren't sanctioned in any way, other than that they may experience a healthy feeling of guilt.

This is not the be all and end all solution to bullying, but I think 'soft' approaches like these can really help somebody experiencing bullying without limiting freedom of speech in any way. In the case of bullying among kids I doubt the need for freedom of speech, but that's besides the point. Adults too can come together and talk about how they're going to deal with an unpleasant social situation. It happens all the time.

I think we must be careful, as people opposed to SJW's, not to swing around to the other extreme and allow completely unnecessary suffering to occur. As with everything, it's not an either-or situation. We do not need to choose between a PC police running around kindergartens and no interventions on bullying at all.

Well put.

I agree that it is a fine line between correction and trying to bully someone into a position without an argument being put with the correction.

There is this of the few bits of wisdom in scriptures that I think worthy.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

When I see something or someone needing correction, I give it as gently as possible and only let my bully out when the other is just too belligerent to move and will not give an argument to support his view.

Things like, God said it, tend to make me fly off the handle, verbally at people who actually think they know how a God would think.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

^Yeah... You have some interesting ideas about freedom of speech. ;D
But you can't say you support freedom of speech if, like you said, you think Donald Trump should be in jail for lying and politicians shouldn't be able to disagree with climate change, and religious people shouldn't be able to spread their beliefs etc..

By any reasonable metric, if that's what you believe, you don't support freedom of speech. So you can't really use that argument.

Bullying is not the free exchange of ideas, and I don't think students should be allowed to bully each other. There's expressing ideas, and then there's being an asshole. I don't think it's very ambiguous.
Kids and teenagers killing themselves over bullying is PREVENTABLE. There's no legitimate reason to allow to be such a problem, IMO.

You prompted a thought in my mind.

We are evolving creatures that must both cooperate when required and compete when required.

Cooperation does not create a victim or loser but competition does.

If some will not be able to tolerate bullying, a form of competition, should we particularly care or should we just look at it as evolution getting rid of the less fit?

Do not read that as my endorsement for suicide as I am just looking at the evolutionary process and see suicide as helping our species to weed out the weakest so that the fittest will rise to the top.

Natural eugenics is a harsh process for the less fit and that is what suicide might be a part of.

Regards
DL

Um... O_O

Evolution is not a moral system. It's just something that happens. The weather happens too, it's just a natural process - it's not inherently good or bad.
By this type of twisted logic in which natural processes become good things, I guess it's a good thing if you get struck by lightning.
Except that makes no sense.

I did not say that evolution was a moral system, although it does encompass our moral nature in the sense that it tell us that cooperation is good and competition evil as cooperation is the best path to survival. That is why humand default to cooperation when we can.

So you do not like the evolutionary system that allowed for you to live.

Ok.

I think nature and evolution work quite well as life is quite good to have around and having the survival of the fittest for every environment is likely the best way for nature to express itself.

Regards
DL

[EquALLity]

You prompted a thought in my mind.

We are evolving creatures that must both cooperate when required and compete when required.

Cooperation does not create a victim or loser but competition does.

If some will not be able to tolerate bullying, a form of competition, should we particularly care or should we just look at it as evolution getting rid of the less fit?

Do not read that as my endorsement for suicide as I am just looking at the evolutionary process and see suicide as helping our species to weed out the weakest so that the fittest will rise to the top.

Natural eugenics is a harsh process for the less fit and that is what suicide might be a part of.

Regards
DL

Um... O_O

Evolution is not a moral system. It's just something that happens. The weather happens too, it's just a natural process - it's not inherently good or bad.
By this type of twisted logic in which natural processes become good things, I guess it's a good thing if you get struck by lightning.
Except that makes no sense.

I did not say that evolution was a moral system, although it does encompass our moral nature in the sense that it tell us that cooperation is good and competition evil as cooperation is the best path to survival. That is why humand default to cooperation when we can.

So you do not like the evolutionary system that allowed for you to live.

Ok.

I think nature and evolution work quite well as life is quite good to have around and having the survival of the fittest for every environment is likely the best way for nature to express itself.

Regards
DL

Actually, in evolution, cooperation helps species survival, but evolution isn't about the survival of the species. It's about the survival of the genes of the individual. Genes are the driving force of evolution.
Have you read The Selfish Gene?

"So you do not like the evolutionary system that allowed for you to live"... I don't like or dislike evolution. It's not something you have an opinion in favor of or against, it just happens. Like the weather just happens.
It's like if there's a thunderstorm and someone gets struck by lightning, and I wish that didn't happen, and you say, "Oh, so you don't like the weather that allowed for you to live?"
Do you get how ridiculous that is?

Survival of the fittest is the best way for nature to express itself? What does that even mean?

Just because something happens due to evolution doesn't mean it's a good thing, just like something happening due to weather isn't necessarily good.

[Greatest I am]

[

quote="Greatest I am"]

Um... O_O

Evolution is not a moral system. It's just something that happens. The weather happens too, it's just a natural process - it's not inherently good or bad.
By this type of twisted logic in which natural processes become good things, I guess it's a good thing if you get struck by lightning.
Except that makes no sense.

I did not say that evolution was a moral system, although it does encompass our moral nature in the sense that it tell us that cooperation is good and competition evil as cooperation is the best path to survival. That is why humand default to cooperation when we can.

So you do not like the evolutionary system that allowed for you to live.

Ok.

I think nature and evolution work quite well as life is quite good to have around and having the survival of the fittest for every environment is likely the best way for nature to express itself.

Regards
DL

Actually, in evolution, cooperation helps species survival, but evolution isn't about the survival of the species. It's about the survival of the genes of the individual. Genes are the driving force of evolution.
Have you read The Selfish Gene?

I am familiar with our selfish gene, yes. That is what sets our default position to cooperation when young and makes us compete when older so that we might pass on our genes.

I have major issue with your separating our genes from our species as to do so would be to not recognize the semantics you have put.

"So you do not like the evolutionary system that allowed for you to live"... I don't like or dislike evolution. It's not something you have an opinion in favor of or against, it just happens. Like the weather just happens.
It's like if there's a thunderstorm and someone gets struck by lightning, and I wish that didn't happen, and you say, "Oh, so you don't like the weather that allowed for you to live?"
Do you get how ridiculous that is?

So you would not be able to say that you dislike standing in a hurricane as compared with liking laying on a nice warm beach. Ok.

Survival of the fittest is the best way for nature to express itself? What does that even mean?

It means that it is demonstrable that nature creates for the best possible end, inadvertently of course, and the best end for any living organism is to be the fittest for whatever environment is at hand.

Just because something happens due to evolution doesn't mean it's a good thing, just like something happening due to weather isn't necessarily good.

[/quote]

Hmm.

I see an organism evolving to take advantage of a natural system as quite good as life seems to want to be in as many places as possible. Again, inadvertently.

Think of an environment that produces an orchid with a 6 in. throat leading to the bottom. Thinking of that, after Darwin noted that some finches fed on shorter ones, I think, is why Darwin predicted a finch with a 6 in. proboscis years before such a finch was discovered. He would have seen the long throated as a natural nich that finches were likely to evolve to feed on.

Regards
DL

[brimstoneSalad]

So you would not be able to say that you dislike standing in a hurricane as compared with liking laying on a nice warm beach. Ok.

I think she means that evolution, like the weather, does good and bad things. We have to look at the consequences in terms of the suffering etc. it causes.

With evolution, you trade likely short term suffering for speculative long term gains. It's not always a win. Sometimes a species "suffers" and can't change fast enough and dies off. It's also important to remember that individuals actually suffer, in terms of harming their interests, fear, pain, etc. and species themselves can not. The panda species doesn't care if it dies out. Only individual pandas care about their own lives. The forces of evolution (natural selection, and letting the weak/unfit suffer and die) often harms the individual to benefit the species, yet the species isn't a sentient being to revel in that benefit. What's wrong with extinction, really?

[Greatest I am]

So you would not be able to say that you dislike standing in a hurricane as compared with liking laying on a nice warm beach. Ok.

I think she means that evolution, like the weather, does good and bad things. We have to look at the consequences in terms of the suffering etc. it causes.

With evolution, you trade likely short term suffering for speculative long term gains. It's not always a win. Sometimes a species "suffers" and can't change fast enough and dies off. It's also important to remember that individuals actually suffer, in terms of harming their interests, fear, pain, etc. and species themselves can not. The panda species doesn't care if it dies out. Only individual pandas care about their own lives. The forces of evolution (natural selection, and letting the weak/unfit suffer and die) often harms the individual to benefit the species, yet the species isn't a sentient being to revel in that benefit. What's wrong with extinction, really?

To nature, nothing as it will just produce another life form for whatever environment is at hand.

To us, I think most want our species to continue instead of dying out.

Evolution and cooperation and competition are what makes the world and species evolve and to say we should try to rid ourselves of evolutionary forces is to wish our own extinction.

If the members of a species cares about life as you say, then to say that the species does not is foolish.

Regards
DL

[brimstoneSalad]

To us, I think most want our species to continue instead of dying out.

Evolution and cooperation and competition are what makes the world and species evolve and to say we should try to rid ourselves of evolutionary forces is to wish our own extinction.

We aren't going to go extinct because some people need glasses or lasik, or even if the whole species some day does.

Technology can now change our environments to support the weak and make killing them off unnecessary.

[Greatest I am]

To us, I think most want our species to continue instead of dying out.

Evolution and cooperation and competition are what makes the world and species evolve and to say we should try to rid ourselves of evolutionary forces is to wish our own extinction.

We aren't going to go extinct because some people need glasses or lasik, or even if the whole species some day does.

Technology can now change our environments to support the weak and make killing them off unnecessary.

To a point, I agree.

That does not mean that natural eugenics is not at work.

Social welfare programs do allow for the least fit to live, but if you know of the stats for unwed mothers and what difficulties their children go through, then it is easy to see natural eugenic still at work.

Only something like 40% of us will reproduce and most of the 60% are in the lower echelons of society and are tax takers as compared to tax payers. Poverty has been shown to effect everything from health to intelligence and those negative are natural eugenics at work.

Regards
DL