After years of being bullied myself as a kid... I'm cheering inside!

The nights I lay awake at night wishing i had the guts to stand up for myself and fight back. This guy's my hero.

Nicely done

*length=41

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 41 secs - length declared by WaterDweller.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

That'll learn 'im.

I love this

My heart grew two sizes as I watched !

I mean really, that kid with hobbled leg is going to go home, his parents are going to " wtf "

then this little gem of a video is going to come out and wam bam thank you mam, that kid will get a pat on the back for defending himself.

Anything else, is unconstitutional etc etc.

I went to a school where bullying was just a fact of life. The normal advice you got was to stand up to bullies. It doesn't work. This video is a real one off. If this had happened at my school the big kid who stepped up at 0:27 would have kicked the shit out of the fat kid.

This video is fine, but it really isn't the norm, by a long way. I've got scars and teeth knocked out to prove it.

I wonder how this all panned out for him.

It saddens me to read all of you saying how happy this makes you, hurray for him etc. etc.

There's nothing good in this.

Yes, the bully is a little shit, yes he deserves serious fricken punishment. Yes those around also deserve punishment for condoning what was going on and for spurring him on.

But thinking that it's an awesome outcome for the bullied to fight back in a way that could have killed the little shit? No, the kid is lucky that he didn't do any serious damage to the other (do we know he didn't, was that kid hobbling about due to a hurt leg or concussion?).

What if he had killed him by dropping him on his neck?

Where is the good in this? This is shit, this whole situation shouldn't f*cking exist and yet you cheer... sad

It looked like he was walking on a fractured ankle.

>> ^robbersdog49:

If this had happened at my school the big kid who stepped up at 0:27 would have kicked the shit out of the fat kid.

That bigger bully did actually follow Casey and my guess is that was exactly his intention. Still, even if big bully had kicked Casey's ass later, you can bet several other bullies are going to think twice before they give Casey any shit. Little bully may well have a severe fracture in his shin and possibly some damage to his teeth and/or nose.

http://www.sportsgrid.com/media/video-of-bully-victim-body-slamming-his-antagonizer-goes-viral-media-firestorm-clouds-form/

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by saber2x.

Rather he acted out on that little shit now, than taking out an entire classroom later. Good on you, Casey.

@spoco2

What if what if what if, shush up with the what ifs. If didnt happen, what happened happened, and your damn right I am happy for that kid and any other who stands up for themselves.

What if what if what if this kid just lay back and that festered and grew that some day he puts a bullet up his nostril because he never gained any self confidence or mentality that you need to survive.


Responses like yours are null because they are full of hippy bullshit with the mentality things are perfect in the world and street justice is not called for.

WELL FUCK THAT.

Both of those kids learned a very valuable lesson that day.

Not pretty, but it made my heart race watching it. I have many memories of 'lord of the flies' moments in school, of kids picking on fat kids. I'm not going to say the little kid got what he deserved - I agree with spoco - but he may think twice before picking on a fat kid again.

*downunder.

Adding video to channels (Downunder) - requested by kymbos.

Wow, this has gone viral and off the charts, as usual with these things. From what I've read on Facebook, both kids got suspended and the little kid for 22 days, the large kid for 4. A number of Facebook pages have been set up, and apparently 4chan has become involved. Oh dear.

>> ^spoco2:

It saddens me to read all of you saying how happy this makes you, hurray for him etc. etc.
There's nothing good in this.
Yes, the bully is a little shit, yes he deserves serious fricken punishment. Yes those around also deserve punishment for condoning what was going on and for spurring him on.
But thinking that it's an awesome outcome for the bullied to fight back in a way that could have killed the little shit? No, the kid is lucky that he didn't do any serious damage to the other (do we know he didn't, was that kid hobbling about due to a hurt leg or concussion?).
What if he had killed him by dropping him on his neck?
Where is the good in this? This is shit, this whole situation shouldn't f cking exist and yet you cheer... sad


He had good control of the bully's head, and it was no where near "dropping him on his neck". A well controlled throw is MUCH safer than if he'd attempted to punch the bully, which risks knocking the little shit out and giving him an actual concussions. Also, in the adrenaline fueled rage of a fight, it's good to see that the bully's victim had the self control to walk away.

Of course, it is very sad that the situation escalated to physical confrontation. But given that the bully was already throwing punches at the victim's face, I think he handled the situation EXTREMELY well.

My Mother was a "violence never solves anything". It's a nice idea, but not very practical.
It would be nice if bullies didn't exist - but they do.
It would be nice if teachers stopped bulling but they don't. Teachers systematically turn their back on bullying until it's too large to ignore.

My childhood bullies went on to be asshole entitled teens and asshole entitled adults. Some of them graduated to prison.

Even If that bully has a broken leg, it may change the course of his life for the better.

If schools invested more in stopping bullying they could spend less on metal detectors and suicide prevention.

>> ^robbersdog49:

I went to a school where bullying was just a fact of life. The normal advice you got was to stand up to bullies. It doesn't work. This video is a real one off. If this had happened at my school the big kid who stepped up at 0:27 would have kicked the shit out of the fat kid.


Exactly so. Forget everything you know (or think you know) about why kids bully. We used to think that it was insecure kids seeking to tear down kids that are even MORE insecure, and that the bullying was a consequence of problems at home, etc.

The problem was that all the federal dollars that went towards studying the problem looked at juvenile delinquents, who, as you might imagine, have messed up home lives and self-esteem issues. Even though all the populations studied were far from random, the view that bullies have antisocial tendencies predominated.

Then Columbine happened. Despite what you might think of Kleibold and Harris, they were in fact bullied, and not by kids from broken homes. The people who tormented them were from upper middle class homes with two parents and no problems. Suddenly the federal dollars manifested to study ALL children, and they discovered something astonishing (tho not to someone who'd ever been bullied):

Bullies bully because it works. And we teach them this at a very early age. How? Imagine one of those "paygrounds," with the ball pit and the curvy slides. A team studies literally thousands of interactions between children and their peers via closed circuit cameras. They watched as children who did not know one another navigated the various social networks that would form and dissolve in front of their eyes. From time to time, a kid would get socially aggressive, and the other child would seek succor from an adult. Now the adult probably has the belief that "they have to work it out for themselves," and so must make a choice between intervening and not. Otherwise, children learn to 'tattle', to recruit a heavy (in the form of an adult) to get his or her way, right.

So, out of, say, ten of these instances, how many times has the aggrieved child made an earnest effort to negotiate on a peer level, and actually needs an adult for intervention? 1 time? Half the time? Try 9 times out of ten. And almost always, the adult rebuffs the child. So this teaches the socially aggressive child that he or she can do whatever he or she pleases, and no one will come to the aid of their victim. Welcome to the Serengeti, children. It's as if we never left.

So what's to be done? As a teacher, I've thought about it a lot. First, I ALWAYS intervene. This means that 10% of the time, I fall for sheer crap-weasel-ness, but that only works once. If another intervention is needed, I keep an eye on the petitioner, and if he or she's becoming an instigator, it's time for a little time out, usually with no explanation (until after class is over). The next is to muck with the social dynamic. I control the environment in the room, not the students. They can interact with each other as much as they want, but I control all the mundane things that add up to so much in the long run.

What this kid was demonstrating in this video was the Ender Wiggins's School of Social Dynamism, which is that if you show yourself capable of great rage that can be tightly controlled, people will give you a wide berth. Is it right? I don't know how long the bullying had occurred, nor what measures had been instituted to resolve the problem. If it's the average American school, 1) too long, and 2) not enough.

Oh, and don't forget the role of the other crap-weasels in this video--the instigators with the cameraphone. Like the now infamous Epic Old Man video, the 'videographer' talked a lot of smack, and failed to help in any way. They too need to be punished for aiding to an atmosphere where such an outcome was likely. Luckily, someone was stupid enough to make a recording of exactly what they were saying.

Kids going to school is for mediocre people. Find another path... home school, online classes, junior college, internships, etc.

He shouldn't have stopped. He should've smashed the next a$$hole in the mouth the moment he got in his face, then gone back to beating the little sh!t who just learned a very valuable lesson about the rule of mass.

Mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

>> ^kymbos:

Wow, this has gone viral and off the charts, as usual with these things. From what I've read on Facebook, both kids got suspended and the little kid for 22 days, the large kid for 4. A number of Facebook pages have been set up, and apparently 4chan has become involved. Oh dear.


When I read that, I was afraid 4chan was harassing the kid as they did with Jessi Slaughter. But it seems they're content to spread tales of his glory.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/The_Casey

Yeah, but they did put the little kid's contact details including home phone number on the site - that's the stuff that I hate.

its nice to think that just walking away is the best solution. Thats great for everybody else but the person walking. You just got to stand up for yourself like this sometimes. Even if it is ugly and not the way you otherwise would have liked to have done it.

>> ^spoco2:

It saddens me to read all of you saying how happy this makes you, hurray for him etc. etc.
There's nothing good in this.
Yes, the bully is a little shit, yes he deserves serious fricken punishment. Yes those around also deserve punishment for condoning what was going on and for spurring him on.
But thinking that it's an awesome outcome for the bullied to fight back in a way that could have killed the little shit? No, the kid is lucky that he didn't do any serious damage to the other (do we know he didn't, was that kid hobbling about due to a hurt leg or concussion?).
What if he had killed him by dropping him on his neck?
Where is the good in this? This is shit, this whole situation shouldn't f cking exist and yet you cheer... sad


The world you want to live in simply does not exist.

>> ^chilaxe:

Kids going to school is for mediocre people. Find another path... home school, online classes, junior college, internships, etc.


Yeah, great, then you put off being able to handle social interactions later and later, until you're an adult who has no conflict resolution skills.

Hurray

Those of you deriding me for being naive and airy fairy and wishing things that can never be are kinda missing the point.

Comments like "I love this. My heart grew two sizes as I watched !" are sick.

It's one thing to think 'Well, the bully got what was coming to him', but to actually think that this was an awesome outcome and the way things should be is horrible.

How about the kids getting to a point where they don't think that the bully fighting the kid in the first place is just awesome and funny and just something to be videod. How about where those kids don't suddenly be all concerned for the shithead bully when he is hurt after showing no care for the bullied kid?

It's all fucked up, the parents of all of these kids except the one who was bullied and fought back should be utterly horrified of what their kids have done. But you know what they probably end up siding with their little shit kids and thinking it was somehow the fault of the kid who was bullied.

Yes that kid deserved it, yes it may stop him doing it again. But that doesn't make this 'GOOD', not by a long shot.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^chilaxe:
Kids going to school is for mediocre people. Find another path... home school, online classes, junior college, internships, etc.

Yeah, great, then you put off being able to handle social interactions later and later, until you're an adult who has no conflict resolution skills.
Hurray

Yeah, you're right that's a potential downside to keep an eye on, but much of the social interaction we learn in the real world is more valuable anyway.

Kids in highshool are just learning how to be immature highschoolers, not how to be a positive presence in the world and have good relationships (something many people never learn).

Err that's not bullying, the smaller guy punched him repeatedly, including in the face, that's physical assault and the larger guy has a right to defend himself surely.

In elementary school, I was bullied by a kid like this. Most of the time it was verbal abuse, but one day he jumped on my back and put me in a choke hold. I slammed him against the brick wall until he fell to the ground. He never bothered me again. Sometimes bullies will continue their bullying until you stand up for yourself. Although I will not cheer for what happened, the bully can't complain when their subject reaches their limit and strikes back.

Yeah, that would be great, too. How does that diminish Casey's actions? He kept his cool, he attempted to diffuse the situation, he tried to avoid fighting by taking a few hits, and when it became obvious that the assault wouldn't stop, he moved quickly, eliminated the threat in seconds without overdoing it, and calmly walked away. There was simply no better way to handle the situation, and the fact that those little shits were acting like little shits doesn't make Casey's actions any less impressive.

>> ^spoco2:

to actually think that this was an awesome outcome and the way things should be is horrible. How about the kids getting to a point where they don't think that the bully fighting the kid in the first place is just awesome and funny and just something to be videod. How about where those kids don't suddenly be all concerned for the shithead bully when he is hurt after showing no care for the bullied kid?

>> ^robbersdog49:

I went to a school where bullying was just a fact of life.


This is true in all schools, I believe.

>> ^spoco2:

It saddens me to read all of you saying how happy this makes you, hurray for him etc. etc.
There's nothing good in this.


You've obviously never been picked on or been in a fight in school. The good in this video is not the situation (that was brought about by the smaller, asshole kid), it's not watching the smaller kid get body slammed (yes, he absolutely deserved it), and it's not the fact that the big kid walked away while the little kid stumbled around like a drunken sailor.

The good in this video is that someone stood up for themselves and came out on top. Sure, it wasn't the best way to prove himself but, the situation was brought to him. He faced it and, imo, dealt with it the way any normal human being with a backbone would. It's not the fight that makes people happy, it's the fact that someone who was clearly an underdog came out on top. With a vengeance. I don't think any of those little shits saw that coming.

Whoever posted this to facebook probably got Casey in bigger trouble in the long run than taking out that bullying kid did.

>> ^quantumushroom:

He shouldn't have stopped. He should've smashed the next a$$hole in the mouth the moment he got in his face, then gone back to beating the little sh!t who just learned a very valuable lesson about the rule of mass.
Mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.


I know who the guilty are, but who are the innocent? I've never met these people.

Bravo. It's nice to see someone stand up for himself rather than sitting there taking it. Bullies won't stop until they are made to stop.

>> ^spoco2:

It saddens me to read all of you saying how happy this makes you, hurray for him etc. etc.
There's nothing good in this.
Yes, the bully is a little shit, yes he deserves serious fricken punishment. Yes those around also deserve punishment for condoning what was going on and for spurring him on.
But thinking that it's an awesome outcome for the bullied to fight back in a way that could have killed the little shit? No, the kid is lucky that he didn't do any serious damage to the other (do we know he didn't, was that kid hobbling about due to a hurt leg or concussion?).
What if he had killed him by dropping him on his neck?
Where is the good in this? This is shit, this whole situation shouldn't f cking exist and yet you cheer... sad


Ladies and gentlmen, the words of a man who has never been bullied.

(in before spoco2's embellishment about being horrifically bullied to save face

"Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^spoco2:
It saddens me to read all of you saying how happy this makes you, hurray for him etc. etc.
There's nothing good in this.
Yes, the bully is a little shit, yes he deserves serious fricken punishment. Yes those around also deserve punishment for condoning what was going on and for spurring him on.
But thinking that it's an awesome outcome for the bullied to fight back in a way that could have killed the little shit? No, the kid is lucky that he didn't do any serious damage to the other (do we know he didn't, was that kid hobbling about due to a hurt leg or concussion?).
What if he had killed him by dropping him on his neck?
Where is the good in this? This is shit, this whole situation shouldn't f cking exist and yet you cheer... sad

Ladies and gentlmen, the words of a man who has never been bullied.
(in before spoco2's embellishment about being horrifically bullied to save face


I wouldn't assume that. Knowing Spoco2's comment history I anticipated that response and he's at least partially right. I think the Dark channel assignment sums that up well for me.

However like many people I was bullied until I went a bit mental one day and clobbered a friend who had gone way too far. After that I was on my own until eventually the rest of our little group, satisfyingly for me, dissolved. And to be honest I had no regrets. I'd be quite happy even now if I'd done him some serious damage instead of just seeing that shocked look on his face. I'm pretty calm and collected but sometimes anger is a useful emotion that encourages self-preservation and not just on the physical level.

To deal with this go to the source - check out wtf is wrong with the parents because I never felt the need to bully nor did my friends.

I'm with Ghark here. What he did was self defence not "snapping". He seems calm and deliberate and his response was proportionate to the nature of the situation. He was outnumbered and had been struck with violent intent.

Police are looking into this and the tubby ranga has nothing to worry about IMO.

Your simian countenance suggests a heritage unusually rich in species diversity.

HAAA! "The Ender Wiggin School of Social Dynamism!"

Elementary school.

Kid followed me in from "recess", punching me in the back.

He kept punching me, harder and harder, all the way into my classroom.

( Suddenly, as I type this, for the first time since then, 35+ years ago, I think, "Where the fuck were any teachers?" Meh, that's the late 70's I guess, probably smoking in the teacher's lounge )

I sat down at my desk, he sits in the one behind me, hitting me.

I stand up, he follows me into the "cloakroom", which is basically an alcove between the inset front and rear doors to the class. Two large chalkboard/shelving units with cubbyholes in the back block us from the rest of the class. He is still hitting me.

I turn around, pick him up off the floor (he's much smaller than me, just like Casey's tormentor) and slam him into the cubbyholes, sliding it a few inches forward. It felt SO GOOD that I did it again. The shelving unit moves about 6 inches this time.

I walk around to the front, push the shelving unit back into place, replace the books and chalk that have fallen off, and go back to my desk and start reading.

The kid never bothered me again, nor did his friends, nor did anyone else at that school. I never got "tattled" on, back then, kids just didn't do that.

Moral of story: Only bully kids that can't knock the living shit out of you.

Unfortunately, Casey and I suffered the kind of bulling that is fairly rare. Our outcomes DID fall under the "stand up for yourself and all will be pie and nakid pictures". The bullying I worry about with my neice and nephews, and the kids of my closest friends come from the other direction, where the bullies are Casey's size, and the bullied are the other kids.

FUNFACT: Someone here mentioned the larger kid going after Casey. I like the girl that got in THAT kids face, making him back down. Good on her!

Schools that have bullying problems need to teach more Edmund Burke.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -disputed, but apt

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." -Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents (1770)

I find it sad that people see redeeming qualities in this clip.

He kept his cool, he attempted to diffuse the situation, he tried to avoid fighting by taking a few hits, and when it became obvious that the assault wouldn't stop, he moved quickly, eliminated the threat in seconds without overdoing it, and calmly walked away. There was simply no better way to handle the situation...

This.

Casey was being assaulted. Little Jerk was not alone. He has a bigger friend as backup, and there were other kids (who may or may not have been Little Jerk's friends/sympathizers) both egging Little Jerk on as well as filming the event. Casey was in a position where he could have been attacked by others. He handled the situation very calmly. Little Jerk had plenty of chances to back off, but wouldn't. Casey sees his opening and puts Little Jerk down in 2 seconds. Casey gets back up, and stands tall as Big Jerk comes forward - but DOESN'T escalate the matter. Some other kid (FINALLY) steps up and intervenes - diffusing the situation. AND CASEY WALKS AWAY LIKE A BOSS.

I find nothing to criticize here. We all prefer non-violence, and it is unfortunate that Little Jerk was clocked so hard. But when you are a skinny guy you have NO BUSINESS picking a fight with someone who has over 25% on you in body mass. I can't fault Casey for his choice to put Little Jerk down fast & hard when Big Jerk is waiting in the wings.

Bullying. It sucks. It happens a lot though, and not just to kids. Bullies need to learn that if they pull this crap they will be slapped down. Problem is in today's society, we don't allow that sort of discipline. But it would be a happier world of the Little Jerk's of planet Earth were regularly and routinely given a solid Casey to the pavement.

Spoco2 isn't talking about how the kid shouldn't have defended himself, he's talking about how such a horrible situation should never have happened. His apparent resolution is to punish all individuals that contributed to the situation.

But, let's say that you're a kid in school who realizes that the social atmosphere is completely horrible. What do you do? Do you stand on a soapbox and make a momentus Martin-Luther-King-like speech to get everyone to stop treating each other like shit, and to care about each other instead? Outside the box looking in, perhaps you can do something. The teacher who made a long comment on here has obviously figured out very clever ways of doing it by manually adjusting the social environment...at least in their own classroom. But, if you're one of the people stuck inside the problem trying to deal with it, the situation is exponentially more difficult.

In short, it's going to take much more than 'punishing all those involved' to correct the atmosphere; every kid in the school would need to be punished. For any school fight, you still see people forming a circle around the two people watching and commenting. Such is the default nature of things for humans. Back in elementary/middle school, I was pretty low on the totem pole, but I also am guilty of treating other people like shit (those lower than myself), and relishing violence whenever I saw it. If you're going to override the default, it's going to take major torrents of social reprogramming.

He's going to need to learn the rules of the octogon before his next fight. You can't spike someone on their head in MMA.

Why is everyone suddenly referring to this kid as Casey? I don't even know most of your first names you sentimental schmucks.

it depends where you live.
where i grew up if you didnt stand up for yourself they would eat you alive and make your school experience a living hell.
why?
because some kids (who then grow up with the same mentality) crave to dominate who/what they perceive as "weaker" in order to counter their own sense of unworthiness and helplessness.

i was a pretty easy going kid and really had no desire to do violence (still dont) but in 8th grade one kid started working me over..small things at first..and i did my best to avoid any confrontation.
within 3 months i had a list of kids picking on me.
i started missing school due to "stomach aches..mystery fevers etc etc".i was petrified to go to school because of these kids.
understand i was not a small kid,i was already 6" by then and strong as an ox.i just had no desire for confrontation or violence but i have an incredibly volatile temper.
the pressure finally built up to a point i could no longer control my temper and with in ONE week i unleashed all that pent up rage/hurt and fear.
i still remember their names.
i still remember what i did to them.
one kid i beat SO bad and in such a violent rage actually RIPPED his bottom lip off.
they literally had to take skin grafts from his asshole to reconstruct his lips.
my friends would call this kid "asslips" for the rest of the year and i would join in...but i shouldnt have.
because now when i think about it all i feel is shame.
but...no one ever messed with again...ever.
and i learned to never back down.
to step right in to whoever had the misconception they could dominate me through the threat of violence.
i learned that if i merely HINTED that i would bring a hell upon whomever messed with me was enough to make them look for another victim.
this also gave me an appreciation for those who are not violent and wish to avoid conflict so all through high school it was i who intervened for the small dude who just wanted to get to class.
the kid who was a bit odd or different.
because i understood how soul-crushing it can be for a little kid.
to this day i do not tolerate bullying.

so while spoco is correct on moral grounds.those of us who have experienced first hand bullying rejoice knowing that this kid will never be messed with again during his time in this school.
and that is not a bad thing.
both kids learned something.
one learned to stand up for himself.
the other learned that what may at first seem an easy mark to make yourself feel big and important may just be the mark who is going to humiliate you in front of your friends.
it's a win-win.

one kid i beat SO bad and in such a violent rage actually RIPPED his bottom lip off.
they literally had to take skin grafts from his asshole to reconstruct his lips.

Maybe it's the edible THC, but this filled my basement with horrified, joyous laughter.

BTW, Downunder tag...was this Australia? Giving bullies the gift of Mad Max.

My friends and I had fun in high school.

We didn't have many "Bullies" per sey, but there were a few groups of them here or there, and one friend in particular was an easy enough target because of how he looked. (He dressed in purple misfits plaid shorts, with a leather jacket, combat boots, and had a giant mohawk, etc.) and the way we diffused those situations were funny.

We were walking back to school one day from lunch, and these idiots decided they were going to throw a half eaten banana at us from their car. However, not one of them even seemed to be relatively aware of physics, so they decided to A) Speed up so it would hit with more force, then B) throw it at us AS they were passing us.
The banana missed us by 2 houses and when they confronted us at school we made fun of them so hard infront of a group of people that they just took off.

Another time (When he was alone) he was just walking the halls when their idiot ringleader was doing a science project (with a meter stick) and hitting people who passed by. He was walking up behind my friend and was winding up his swing when my friend just turned, pointed at his face (finger two inches from his nose) and just said "NO!" gave him a stupid look, and just walked away with the ringleader just standing there stupified.

My favourite (although, mean) situation though, was at an elementary school. To get to the plaza with the McD's, KFC, Tim Hortons etc. for lunch, you had to pass through an elementary school, and on the way back they were out for recess or something. So the two of us were just walking through shooting the shit with each other and minding our own business when the bell went and the kids started lining up to get back in.

One little idiot we passed by started saying "HA HA, LOOK AT THE ROOSTER! HEY EVERYBODY, LOOK AT THE STUPID ROOSTER" (because of the mohawk) I finally sanpped, dropped my backpack and started to charge towards the kid. He instantly looked absolutely terrified and raised his hand (wriggling fashion, to note that he REALLY wants attention) I came up to him, face to face, and just started giving him shit about "What gives you the right to make fun of people? He dresses the way he wants to, you dress the way you want to, keep it to yourself" etc. The teacher finally came out and said "What's going on here?" so I even told her "This kid here was making fun of my friend, I was having a discussion with him."

She actually thanked me and said "We're going to be having a discussion on this in class."

I've never wanted to get into a physical confrontation, my method of choice was to belittle the bullies. Granted, a lot of places this'll get you decked, but it worked for me as a way of non-violent confrontation.

In a perfect world, there'd be no bullies, and I'm one that advocates not using force, but there are unfortunate situations that do call for it. I feel for the big kid here, because he was put in a no-win scenario. He lets the little kid get away with it, or he gets in trouble for defending himself. I guess not everyone can be as lucky as I was.

Everyone should feel bad for feeling good about someone feeling bad, wah fucking wah. He deserved the punishment he got. In the school yard, violence solves everything - and fast.

I like to see this as a parable of the atheist vs. religion. When it comes to it, reason is much more powerful than the faith based jab and prods. If only we could give a righteous bodyslam like this.

This is nothing but good, I hope Casey gets to read these comments and I hope that little shit got a nice taste of how things are going to go for him.

This reminds me of the time i used to get bullied, eventually it always ended up with me demonstrating to them that the reason they where able to bully me is because i let them, i only had to do it to 3 people before they all realized i could pwn them all (Blue belt in judo and being bigger and stronger than everybody helps), and each time the ones i did it to immediately stopped bullying me forever.
It's not like i hurt them or anything, much, though one of them did end up playing for Manchester united, so i guess he has some brain damage, o well, you cant win em all.

I guess the moral of the story is, if you getting bullied first ignore them (bullies hate being ignored for some reason, and really they do act in some way like trolls), then make sure you can fight everybody and still win (and by fight i mean in whatever way they are bullying you, could be intellectual or popularism too), then you stand up to them (never initiate, only defend), and remember kids, they only bully you because they are in some respect jealous of you.

>> ^Shepppard:

...Another time (When he was alone) he was just walking the halls when their idiot ringleader was doing a science project (with a meter stick) and hitting people who passed by. He was walking up behind my friend and was winding up his swing when my friend just turned, pointed at his face (finger two inches from his nose) and just said "NO!" gave him a stupid look, and just walked away with the ringleader just standing there stupified...


I loved your story. That's pretty much how I dealt with it all in high school, when I figured out that I could be a nonconformist and do well for myself. I agree; that's the best way to deal with young bullies. The catch is, though: people who are self-confident enough to do something like that tend to not get bullied, for the reasons you talked about in your story. Not everyone knows how to be that cool =P.

The virtual hall monitor is here everybody.

>> ^spoco2:

It saddens me to read all of you saying how happy this makes you, hurray for him etc. etc.
There's nothing good in this.
Yes, the bully is a little shit, yes he deserves serious fricken punishment. Yes those around also deserve punishment for condoning what was going on and for spurring him on.
But thinking that it's an awesome outcome for the bullied to fight back in a way that could have killed the little shit? No, the kid is lucky that he didn't do any serious damage to the other (do we know he didn't, was that kid hobbling about due to a hurt leg or concussion?).
What if he had killed him by dropping him on his neck?
Where is the good in this? This is shit, this whole situation shouldn't f cking exist and yet you cheer... sad

Myth: Repeatedly resolving conflicts with fighting, crying and tattling improves your conflict resolution skills as an adult.

Myth: Children who spend all day in a room with 30 other children of the same age, and play in a yard with 300 other kids experience normal social interactions that prepare them for adult life.>> ^spoco2:


Yeah, great, then you put off being able to handle social interactions later and later, until you're an adult who has no conflict resolution skills.
Hurray

Yeah... that's a concussion...

@timtoner Ender seems very relevant, especially since I'm reading Ender's Shadow right now.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Why is everyone suddenly referring to this kid as Casey? I don't even know most of your first names you sentimental schmucks.


Should we stick to calling him "the fat kid"?

Keep the upvotes coming, he got what he deserved...

>> ^spoco2:

Where is the good in this?

The good in this is that Little Bully, and probably several of his peers, learned more in the hours following the events in this video than they probably have all year in school. What's more, what they learned, despite what you seem to think in a later statement, is absolutely crucial in their adult lives.

You say Casey needs to learn how to handle "social interactions". I say he just gave a valuable lesson in social interaction to a bunch of kids who badly needed the lesson.

Strictly from a self-defense standpoint, when you're about to be jumped by a group of people, you don't waste time taking the first one down carefully. You take him out of the fight before anyone else has a chance to react and swing the odds in your favor.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Why is everyone suddenly referring to this kid as Casey? I don't even know most of your first names you sentimental schmucks.


If it helps, I'm Vercingetorix.

Yeah, I was teased and bullied as a kid.

But violence is not the answer to violence. It's just a perpetual cycle. You know what that bully really learned from this?

1) Pick on people weaker than you.
2) Carry a weapon just in case someone happens to be bigger than you.
3) Safety in numbers--jump your target in a group next time.

You all really think suddenly that kid isn't going to be a bully anymore just because he lost a fight? Maybe he won't bully that particular kid anymore, but the reasons he became a bully in the first place haven't gone away. He needs professional psychological help, not violence--all the violence is going to do is make him feel even more inferior and cause him to take it out on someone else, someone who won't be able to fight back (maybe a future girlfriend).

Yeah, you have a right to defend yourself. If this was out in the woods somewhere where this kid Casey would have no chance of anybody coming to the rescue, then he would have had no choice but to meet the violence head-on in order to try to save himself and run away. But these kids are at school. There are adults everywhere who can intervene. And that kid was not in any way shape or form a life-threatening danger. You can see his punches are so weak they barely have any effect.

Casey could have gotten out of there. But he didn't... he chose to get violent, probably because he felt humiliated. And sadly, in our society we teach people that being humiliated or disrespected is an offense punishable by violence. This is how people get shot outside of clubs and bars because someone was "looking at their girlfriend" or said something that rubbed them the wrong way. This is the kind of society you guys really want to promote? You really want to cheer this kind of behavior on?

"He deserved it."

No, he did not deserve a potentially life-threatening injury. Casey got very, very lucky. That bully could have been maimed for life (dropping someone onto the concrete on their head is known to do that). School made the 100% right call in suspending Casey--that was clearly not the appropriate response to the level of aggression he was faced with and Casey's response is exactly the reason most schools have a zero-tolerance policy for violence: people don't react with equal force in these situations, they react emotionally and wind up doing way more damage than they ever intended. But there's no going back once the damage has been done.

I don't understand the school's decision not to suspend both of them, though. You clearly see who the antagonist is in this video. That kid needs to be punished and also needs help overcoming whatever is driving him to bully other kids in the first place.

The personal details posted on 4chan turned out to be wrong - an elderly person of the same name who is wheelchair-bound.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/The_Casey

First, I just really want to thank you for sharing something this personal with us. I agree doing nothing and just letting the bullying happen is bad. But I disagree that violence is the only or best solution to the problem. I'm not trying to dismiss what you went through, but you kind of made my point from my post above--this reacting in violence just perpetuates the cycle of violence. According to your own account, those guys that bullied you stopped bullying you and moved on to others who couldn't fight back. And you actually became the (verbal) bully yourself after that kid came back from surgery.

Am I saying you shouldn't have defended yourself? No. I don't know the particulars of your situation. All I'm saying is that when we send the message to kids that "standing up to bullies" means kicking the shit out of them we're not solving the problem at all--we're in fact perpetuating it and setting up tragedies, like that kid whose lip you tore off in your rage.

Just to make it clear, I'm not saying anything you did is wrong. As someone who experienced bullying I totally relate to everything you said--including calling that kid asslips after he got back to school (probably would have done the same thing when I was a kid). I'm just pointing out this video shows basically nothing has changed since you were a kid--kids get bullied, snap, and do things that they might later really regret. The bullies meanwhile move on to weaker targets. They cycle continues. It just seems to me that as a society we need to come up with a better solution than meeting violence with violence.

>> ^enoch:

it depends where you live.
where i grew up if you didnt stand up for yourself they would eat you alive and make your school experience a living hell.
why?
because some kids (who then grow up with the same mentality) crave to dominate who/what they perceive as "weaker" in order to counter their own sense of unworthiness and helplessness.
i was a pretty easy going kid and really had no desire to do violence (still dont) but in 8th grade one kid started working me over..small things at first..and i did my best to avoid any confrontation.
within 3 months i had a list of kids picking on me.
i started missing school due to "stomach aches..mystery fevers etc etc".i was petrified to go to school because of these kids.
understand i was not a small kid,i was already 6" by then and strong as an ox.i just had no desire for confrontation or violence but i have an incredibly volatile temper.
the pressure finally built up to a point i could no longer control my temper and with in ONE week i unleashed all that pent up rage/hurt and fear.
i still remember their names.
i still remember what i did to them.
one kid i beat SO bad and in such a violent rage actually RIPPED his bottom lip off.
they literally had to take skin grafts from his asshole to reconstruct his lips.
my friends would call this kid "asslips" for the rest of the year and i would join in...but i shouldnt have.
because now when i think about it all i feel is shame.
but...no one ever messed with again...ever.
and i learned to never back down.
to step right in to whoever had the misconception they could dominate me through the threat of violence.
i learned that if i merely HINTED that i would bring a hell upon whomever messed with me was enough to make them look for another victim.
this also gave me an appreciation for those who are not violent and wish to avoid conflict so all through high school it was i who intervened for the small dude who just wanted to get to class.
the kid who was a bit odd or different.
because i understood how soul-crushing it can be for a little kid.
to this day i do not tolerate bullying.
so while spoco is correct on moral grounds.those of us who have experienced first hand bullying rejoice knowing that this kid will never be messed with again during his time in this school.
and that is not a bad thing.
both kids learned something.
one learned to stand up for himself.
the other learned that what may at first seem an easy mark to make yourself feel big and important may just be the mark who is going to humiliate you in front of your friends.
it's a win-win.

Not much good here. One side or the other needs to learn how to walk away...but you can only walk away so many times. Fail for bullying someone four times larger.

Anyone saying the fat kid getting picked on shouldn't have done that is a fucking pussy.
the end

>> ^spoco2:

It saddens me to read all of you saying how happy this makes you, hurray for him etc. etc.
There's nothing good in this.
Yes, the bully is a little shit, yes he deserves serious fricken punishment. Yes those around also deserve punishment for condoning what was going on and for spurring him on.
But thinking that it's an awesome outcome for the bullied to fight back in a way that could have killed the little shit? No, the kid is lucky that he didn't do any serious damage to the other (do we know he didn't, was that kid hobbling about due to a hurt leg or concussion?).
What if he had killed him by dropping him on his neck?
Where is the good in this? This is shit, this whole situation shouldn't f cking exist and yet you cheer... sad


You'll have to speak up, I can't hear you from down here <3

My kids will know that they are to return fire on anyone who touches them - bigger, smaller, boy, girl - it doesn't matter. They will never be bullies, but they will never hesitate to finish what some other kid starts.

Good for you Casey - some folks tried to mess with me in school ("seal-fucker" was a common insult), but I was a bigger boy and that ended pretty quick. I ended up befriending some of the fat kids, the really nerdy kids, and the minorities in my classes, and after that they were never bullied either.

Casey is going to make some friends who will not only appreciate the friendship, but also the 'protection'. Good work, kid.

Gundam, you must have been watching a different video than everyone else. There were no adults around. The little shit had plenty of time to confront Casey, punch him in the face twice, and then dance around while jabbing at his body. No adult ever came to Casey's aid. He couldn't escape, either. If Casey had run away, the little shit most likely could have easily caught up with him and hit him from behind or tackled him. His first punch was actually pretty damn hard and made Casey's head snap back. A punch like that can do some serious damage, like chipped teeth, a broken nose, lacerations, or even something serious like a jab to the eye or throat. Casey's life may not have been in danger, but he was in very real danger of being sent to the hospital.

Comparing Casey to a douchebag at a bar is ludicrous. All Casey said was that he wasn't talking about the bully. Nothing he said egged the bully on in any way. He didn't act out of humiliation. He withstood two punches to the face and only put up his hands to block punches. He didn't act at all until it because obvious that the assault wouldn't stop. It was obvious that he had no interest in fighting. I think Casey responded with exactly the right amount of force, which is the force required to stop a fight. How would this have been better if they had just traded punches? Are two broken noses somehow better than a broken ankle?

And on that note, this is exactly why zero tolerance policies are horseshit. Casey wasn't breaking any rules until his only choice was to either defend himself or be beaten. What was he supposed to do? He chose the best course of action that he could.

Is a good thing civilization helps little punks like this kid who got his ass beat. He should consider himself lucky, because if that young man who was defending himself was my son and if i seen this video, I would probably go and kick both his father ass and his mother ass. And when I was finished with them, i would give that little shit a swift kick in the pants. Problem solved. But then again. I like problems. I like to see little shits creating problems. Problems I have answers for.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Count me with Spoco et al on this one. It's natural for us to cheer for a Kenny Rogers Coward of the County type outcome - but really you don't want this situation to happen in the first place. You also need to think of what has led to this situation. Here's what I know for a fact:

Spoco et al keeps posting that this kind of situation shouldn't happen, that both sides are bad in this fight, and that we need to address the social and societal issues that lead to this event. However, that's where it stops; the social and societal issues are never addressed, but merely stated in paraphrase that, 'the social atmosphere is bad, shame on you for contributing to the problem.' I see no offering for a social or societal resolution that would prevent a situation like this.

If you think the solution to this problem is to have all of the onlookers come out and try to break things up, then why don't you go dress up in a scuba suit and call yourself kickass. I don't think the world works that way.

Really, I challenge and beg any poster for a solution that would actually work. If you're going to call shame on the people who have condoned the actions witnessed in this video, back up your claim to a better world by offering some preventative resolution, and then we'll actually have something to discuss.

>> ^dag:

Count me with Spoco et al on this one. It's natural for us to cheer for a Kenny Rogers Coward of the County type outcome - but really you don't want this situation to happen in the first place. You also need to think of what has led to this situation. Here's what I know for a fact:

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm starting with the man in the mirror - I'm asking him to change his ways - and no message could have been any clearer - if You wanna make the world a better place, don't glorify a picked on kid who body slams another dweeby kid.

>> ^draak13:

Spoco et al keeps posting that this kind of situation shouldn't happen, that both sides are bad in this fight, and that we need to address the social and societal issues that lead to this event. However, that's where it stops; the social and societal issues are never addressed, but merely stated in paraphrase that, 'the social atmosphere is bad, shame on you for contributing to the problem.' I see no offering for a social or societal resolution that would prevent a situation like this.
If you think the solution to this problem is to have all of the onlookers come out and try to break things up, then why don't you go dress up in a scuba suit and call yourself kickass. I don't think the world works that way.
Really, I challenge and beg any poster for a solution that would actually work. If you're going to call shame on the people who have condoned the actions witnessed in this video, back up your claim to a better world by offering some preventative resolution, and then we'll actually have something to discuss.
>> ^dag:
Count me with Spoco et al on this one. It's natural for us to cheer for a Kenny Rogers Coward of the County type outcome - but really you don't want this situation to happen in the first place. You also need to think of what has led to this situation. Here's what I know for a fact:

Can't say this video made me happy, but I had no problem with Casey's reaction. We can talk about "effecting positive social change" all we want, but in the meantime the Casey's of the world are being repeatedly punched in the face and that social change ain't coming fast enough to stop the pain. I am a hippy dippy liberal, but I've told my kids (who are very peaceful sorts) that if anyone physically assaults them, they are free to respond with all necessary force -- I don't care if the school says both parties are equally to blame, I will stand behind them. Luckily none of them have encountered bullying anything near this level (hooray for hippy dippy liberal schools!) and I hope they never will. I hope all the bullies leave Casey alone as well.

I don't think anyone here is "glorifying" Casey. What we're saying is, in this specific situation, from all we can see in the video, it looks like he had no choice - and that he actually did the best thing to defuse an escalating situation. Obviously, body-slamming the other kid seems like an overreaction - but when your fight or flight response switches to fight, you just react and do what needs to be done.

Obviously, in the best of worlds, this whole situation would never have escalated to that point. An adult would have intervened previously...another kid would have stepped up and stopped it before it got to that point...but that didn't happen.

He did all he could to not fight, trying (hoping, probably) to walk out with just that first hit...but when it became obvious that it wouldn't stop, and that he was at risk, he reacted and handled the situation in a way that would make sure that this wouldn't happen anymore.

While we generally don't condone the use of force, we gotta realize that in some cases, it becomes justified.

>> ^dag:

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm starting with the man in the mirror - I'm asking him to change his ways - and no message could have been any clearer - if You wanna make the world a better place, don't glorify a picked on kid who body slams another dweeby kid

Seems like there are two types of comments here -- ones that look at the moment on the video, and those that step back and put the video into a larger context and pontificate on the larger context.

And then there are arguments about who is right, when it isn't the same topic.

Bullying has always been a problem. No one has ever addressed it. How could we address it?

I read about a program in a UK school that tackled gay bullying, and it was pretty successful. The solution? Mandatory education on the contributions of gays to society. For example, they taught the kids about Alan Turing, the mathematical genius who was crucial to the Allied forces breaking the Nazi Enigma coding machine. Who was subsequently harassed and whose life was destroyed because he was gay.

That great post by the teacher shows change can happen if someone takes steps to make changes.

Humans have human responses. Casey did what Casey did.

What do we do now?

larger societal issues

OK - let's tackle them instead of dancing around them. The human race is collectively a bunch of selfish jerkwads who by and large conduct themselves deplorably. Many of them are overtly bad and steal, swear, commit violence, or any number of vile deeds. Others are jerks who lie, manipulate, abandon personal responsibility, and seek to undermine others for their own benefit. Still more are hypersensitive and hold grudges over petty things for years, gossip, or see personal affronts where none exist. Still others are poor saps who have had bad things happen to them and use it as an excuse to Be bad themselves. I could go on and on.

Since before human history, humans have been this way. Pretending that there is some sort of "solution" that will make the tendency of humans to be jackhats just go away is preposterously naive. The best you can do is try to MANAGE this tendency. Therefore the question becomes this... "What is the most statistically effective method that will reduce the human tendency to be a bunch of jerks?"

The answer is obvious - and probably antithetical to a lot of the people here in the Sift. But it is undeniable. MORALITY. Personal morality. And what is the best venue for acquiring a personal morality and philosophical ethic?

Church.

Yes. I said it. Everyone talks about wanting to 'make a better world by making better people', but there are only a few organizations that make that their sole objective. And yet these same organizations (that are the best hope we have for establishing a 'moral people') are routinely villified, attacked, denigrated, mocked, and regarded with disdain and hostility by the very people moaning that we need 'better people'.

I'm not saying churches/religions are perfect. People are still jerks, and will misappropriate ANY organization to justify their own jerkiness. Religions have suffered from that problem for a long time. It seems to me quite a baffling degree of blindness that we have people carping about the need for a "better world" and yet at the same time the same people attack, trash, and denigrate both the organizations and people that are specifically dedicated to that function.

I fully expect this opinion to be attacked in and of itself, ignoring the fact that I have freely admitted religion isn't perfect. I'm just saying that religion - Christianity most specifically - is entirely DESIGNED to instill in people the moral base some of you are pining for. Turn the other cheek. Love thy neighbor. Do good to them that despitefully use you. Honor father & mother. Do not steal, lie, or fool around - yadda yadda yadda. Should not this kind of sentiment be promoted, rather than attacked? Or - if not 'promoted' - shouldn't it at least be tolerated and respected rather than attacked?

while i totally agree with the sentiments of spoco,gundam and dag.
they put forth a reasonable and civil solution to the situation and maybe this kids school has the resources to do something about it but (in my opinion) their solution ignores the social/economic factors that contribute immensely to situations like this video represents.

we say "violence is not the answer".
ok..i agree with that but what if violence is the only language that the other person may understand?
we are talking about 12-14 yrs olds after all.
so while a young and scared 12 yr old may diffuse a situation AT THAT MOMENT by including a teacher/principal into the equation.it is only at that moment and that particular situation but what happens AFTER?
are the teachers going to follow him around town also?
are they going to give him the equivalent of a bat signal if the bullies find him alone and unprotected?
of course not and the bullies know that also.
they are also not going to forget the fact that they were ratted on and so will double their efforts to terrorize.
so while i may agree with spoco,gundam and dag in theory i do not see it bringing any relief to a terrorized young boy.
nothing is learned and the stakes rise exponentially.

bareboards mentioned a class which employed empathy.
i agree.for what better way to get the bully to empathize than to stand up for yourself and put HIM in the position of being the receiver instead of the giver?
yes yes..i watched the video and while i felt good about the young man overcoming his fear and standing up for himself, i also cringed when i saw the other boy get slammed neck first...
yeah..that could have gone in a whole different direction and we all might be talking about the tragic bully getting his neck broke instead of cheering the kid who stood up.

this video is not about glorifying violence but rather about a young man over-coming his fear.
FEAR=the most toxic and volatile of emotions.it is the mindkiller.
and this young man overcame his....good on him.

i mentioned earlier that some of the bullies i dealt with moved on to other victims.
this is true but only lasted a year or two and by high school most had stopped their bullish ways.mostly because other kids started to stand up to them too and the ones who didnt had people like me stepping in for them.
the best lessons we learn as children are the hard ones.
getting slammed in the face is a great lesson in not messing with people for the sole purpose of entertainment or showing off to your friends.
i still view this video as a win-win but the biggest WIN is that kid overcoming his fear and no principal or school counselor could have given to him what he did for himself on that day.
he faced his fear...and won.

HULKAMANIA!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

larger societal issues
OK - let's tackle them instead of dancing around them. The human race is collectively a bunch of selfish jerkwads who by and large conduct themselves deplorably. Many of them are overtly bad and steal, swear, commit violence, or any number of vile deeds. Others are jerks who lie, manipulate, abandon personal responsibility, and seek to undermine others for their own benefit. Still more are hypersensitive and hold grudges over petty things for years, gossip, or see personal affronts where none exist. Still others are poor saps who have had bad things happen to them and use it as an excuse to Be bad themselves. I could go on and on.
Since before human history, humans have been this way. Pretending that there is some sort of "solution" that will make the tendency of humans to be jackhats just go away is preposterously naive. The best you can do is try to MANAGE this tendency. Therefore the question becomes this... "What is the most statistically effective method that will reduce the human tendency to be a bunch of jerks?"
The answer is obvious - and probably antithetical to a lot of the people here in the Sift. But it is undeniable. MORALITY. Personal morality. And what is the best venue for acquiring a personal morality and philosophical ethic?
Church.
Yes. I said it. Everyone talks about wanting to 'make a better world by making better people', but there are only a few organizations that make that their sole objective. And yet these same organizations (that are the best hope we have for establishing a 'moral people') are routinely villified, attacked, denigrated, mocked, and regarded with disdain and hostility by the very people moaning that we need 'better people'.
I'm not saying churches/religions are perfect. People are still jerks, and will misappropriate ANY organization to justify their own jerkiness. Religions have suffered from that problem for a long time. It seems to me quite a baffling degree of blindness that we have people carping about the need for a "better world" and yet at the same time the same people attack, trash, and denigrate both the organizations and people that are specifically dedicated to that function.
I fully expect this opinion to be attacked in and of itself, ignoring the fact that I have freely admitted religion isn't perfect. I'm just saying that religion - Christianity most specifically - is entirely DESIGNED to instill in people the moral base some of you are pining for. Turn the other cheek. Love thy neighbor. Do good to them that despitefully use you. Honor father & mother. Do not steal, lie, or fool around - yadda yadda yadda. Should not this kind of sentiment be promoted, rather than attacked? Or - if not 'promoted' - shouldn't it at least be tolerated and respected rather than attacked?


it is the hypocrisy of the "church" that drives people away from that institution.
do as we say not as we do.
you pointed this out so lets try a different exercise.
lets change "church" to "community".
and instead of relying on religious dogma and doctrine lets instead rely on "personal responsibility".

i know many amazing christians who live by their religious faith.they teach by example and judge noone and then you have the people you mentioned hiding behind cherry picked scripture in order to admonish and judge those they disagree with and is a huuuuge reason why many ignore some of the great teachings.
hypocrisy is not a redeemable quality to admire and it harms the very pertinent message some are trying to convey.

i believe it all starts with parenting.
the way i see my job as a father is to instill in my boys integrity,character.
to have the courage to stand by their convictions and the humility to accept when they are wrong.
to realize the world does not revolve around them.
that choices have consequences and if they choose wrongly to accept those consequences without whining.

the question you seek to tackle is a societal one and will take far more than a comment thread to address but if you are refering to "church" as a community which could be a positive force in not only a growing childs development but also as a benefit for families in general.then i would tend to agree with you.
but many walked away from the religion due to the hypocrisy and in doing so lost that very vital part of raising a family.

thats my take on your comment...though it may appear off topic i agree with you that it is a vital component.

That's a great idea! A similar thing happened in my elementary school for a mentally retarded kid. Their parents made a short documentary about what everyday life is like for him, how he perceives the world, and his helper dog and everything. All the kids in school watched it, and the teachers talked about it with the kids with a sincere attitude. People seemed to react in a considerate fashion instead of with hostility, and the kid made it through school just fine.

>> ^bareboards2:

Seems like there are two types of comments here -- ones that look at the moment on the video, and those that step back and put the video into a larger context and pontificate on the larger context.
And then there are arguments about who is right, when it isn't the same topic.
Bullying has always been a problem. No one has ever addressed it. How could we address it?
I read about a program in a UK school that tackled gay bullying, and it was pretty successful. The solution? Mandatory education on the contributions of gays to society. For example, they taught the kids about Alan Turing, the mathematical genius who was crucial to the Allied forces breaking the Nazi Enigma coding machine. Who was subsequently harassed and whose life was destroyed because he was gay.
That great post by the teacher shows change can happen if someone takes steps to make changes.
Humans have human responses. Casey did what Casey did.
What do we do now?

I also really agree with this one; instilling a moral compass into your child should be paramount in preventing them from being jerks. I think parenting has a much stronger influence on behavioral shaping compared to preaching, for the reasons you outlined. If everyone parented like you, perhaps there'd be less crappy people in the world.

So how do you get more parents to do their job better?

>> ^enoch:


it is the hypocrisy of the "church" that drives people away from that institution.
do as we say not as we do.
you pointed this out so lets try a different exercise.
lets change "church" to "community".
and instead of relying on religious dogma and doctrine lets instead rely on "personal responsibility".
i know many amazing christians who live by their religious faith.they teach by example and judge noone and then you have the people you mentioned hiding behind cherry picked scripture in order to admonish and judge those they disagree with and is a huuuuge reason why many ignore some of the great teachings.
hypocrisy is not a redeemable quality to admire and it harms the very pertinent message some are trying to convey.
i believe it all starts with parenting.
the way i see my job as a father is to instill in my boys integrity,character.
to have the courage to stand by their convictions and the humility to accept when they are wrong.
to realize the world does not revolve around them.
that choices have consequences and if they choose wrongly to accept those consequences without whining.
the question you seek to tackle is a societal one and will take far more than a comment thread to address but if you are refering to "church" as a community which could be a positive force in not only a growing childs development but also as a benefit for families in general.then i would tend to agree with you.
but many walked away from the religion due to the hypocrisy and in doing so lost that very vital part of raising a family.
thats my take on your comment...though it may appear off topic i agree with you that it is a vital component.

I'm with you, Spoco, people are being absurd in how they look at this. I was bullied as a kid, and while I was cheering for Casey and think that the little guy got what he deserved, that moment of a forceful throw, headfirst into concrete, was horrifying to watch, just as watching the bully punch Casey while his friend filmed it was infuriating. To those saying "stop talking about the what-ifs" and the guy saying some ridiculous shit about a "controlled throw" (because middle schoolers know proper techniques involved in throwing somebody, fucking YEAH RIGHT, lol), it disgusts me that you can't both see that the little dude got what he deserved but also feel horrified at having to see a potentially life-threatening action happen. If all you feel is elation from this video, you're a shit person. Period.

Edit: I'm not against Casey fighting back, just to be clear. You have to stand up for yourself. That doesn't make this video any more pleasant, though.

It is the hypocrisy of the "church" that drives people away from that institution. Do as we say not as we do. … Hypocrisy is not a redeemable quality to admire and it harms the very pertinent message some are trying to convey.

You are absolutely correct, and that is the major stumbling block of religious belief in general. It is one thing to preach (as others denigratingly say) and quite another to live the principles. This issue is raised quite often in the New Testament. People who are hearers only, rather than doers, are just in need of correction as anyone else. Christ’s central message was that people needed to internalize and live the principles of religion, rather than having a rote set of rules to beat each other up with.

lets change "church" to "community" and instead of relying on religious dogma and doctrine lets instead rely on "personal responsibility".

But don't separate them. Church is an integral part of ‘community’ (or should be). Your message here is pretty much, “whatever source works”. I don’t disagree with that. I’m not saying church should be the only source of morality, but it is certainly a very important one. The problem is that in Western society, there is an active effort from many sources to completely uncouple religious faith from the public discourse. How can we establish a moral people when we have a sector of “the community” which seeks to muffle one of the best sources of moral guidance that exists?

I would put it forward that this tendency to belittle, ignore, or segregate religious faith from the public “community” is one of the main reasons WHY we have so many bullies and other ‘bad people’ in the community to begin with. Popular entertainment almost exclusively portrays people of faith in a negative light. Government seeks to shut out faith completely from public sight. You can’t talk about it in schools. Internet forums are crawling with those hostile to religious faith. It is a poisonous atmosphere that undermines one of the most important sources in the community for moral guidance.

i believe it all starts with parenting.

I agree. In fact, if a religion does not actively seek to support and advance a strong family unit then it is not a very good religion.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/kudos-to-the-kid-but-that-could-have-been-tragic/20110316-1bx55.html

Winston, you're seriously going to try to turn this into a religious argument? I'll just say that I am a moral agnostic atheist who did not need any sort of deity to tell me what was right and wrong and leave it at that. For now.

For the "violence is not the answer" crowd, I say that violence is an answer, but rarely the right one. You guys keep going on and on about what we should do to keep kids from bullying each other. I agree that bullying needs to be stopped, but that has nothing to do with Casey's situation. Casey did not have the option of starting an anti-bullying campaign as he was being punched in the face. If you have a better solution for Casey then please let us know.

>> ^kymbos:

http://www.
brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/kudos-to-the-kid-but-that-could-have-been-tragic/20110316-1bx55.html


Great article.

Good fucking on him. Fuck this lamentation re: 'it's a horrible world that leads to this', any situation where you don't teach the bully to turn around and walk away leaves them knowing that they can do it again...

And irt 'waah waah, he might have come from bad circumstances', the 'abused becomes the abuser' defense doesn't typically work anywhere else, it's not a legitimate defense here. You step in to a fight with someone, you're gambling that you're better than they are. In the heat of the moment, anything can happen and as the video shows, does. This little fucker thought he was tough because he had gotten away with it before. Now he's a worldwide disgrace and a laughing stock. Mebbe it'll teach him something and make him a better person for it. I doubt it but no other lesson was going to do that.

I am just wondering what video some of you guys are watching as you say he is slammed head first? He isn't. Look at the video around 23-24 seconds in. He slams him on his side and if you look closely his head is on or above Casey's foot and never hits the ground as far as I can tell...

I can't remember where the quote is from, but "nothing is a pure as the cruelty of children."

Kudos Casey, kick that little shit's ass.

Winston, you're seriously going to try to turn this into a religious argument? I'll just say that I am a moral agnostic atheist who did not need any sort of deity to tell me what was right and wrong and leave it at that.

I'm not trying to turn it into a religious argument. I'm addressing the point that some have made about "how we make better people" to prevent the bullying from ever happening in the first place - eliminating the need for Caseys to feed Little Jerks the pavement. That question was raised several times, and I merely mentioned that in order to develop a moral people that would not WANT to bully...
(A) You need to instill the population with a moral belief system
(B) Churches are one of only a few organizations which have the development of a moral belief system in the population as their primary function
(C) Supporting religion in this effort of morality development is inherently a good thing for society

I also mentioned that there is a disturbing trend in Western civilization to do the exact OPPOSITE. I.E. to fight against, attack, marginalize, and otherwise ignore religion. I said this was counterproductive to the objective of creating a moral people. The only people who would consider this an attempt to "turn this into a religious argument" are those who believe that undermining religion's efforts to instill morality is BENEFICIAL to society. I know such people exist, but I disagree with that kind of opinion.

You may not yourself feel you have any need for religion, but you cannot deny that an organization whose express purpose is to teach people to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is probably a good thing to encourage, rather than destroy, if the objective is to create a moral population. Is it not so?

If you don't want a fractured ankle or any other injury, don't start fights. No one is required to tolerate someone who's aggressively violent, period. It doesn't matter if the punk kid came from a good home or a broken one. If you start fights with random people you'll one day meet your match, or worse.

Do you seriously not understand how what you're saying could cause an argument? I'm going to assume that you're not being a troll and politely list just a few of the issues I have with what you're saying.

1. You're speaking for all churches, which doesn't make sense. Different churches are... different.
2. You're implying that all the morals that a church teaches are the right ones. Many people strongly disagree.
3. You're saying that the best way to teach morals is to make people believe in God. Many people strongly disagree.
4. You're saying that fighting against churches in various forms is counterproductive to producing moral people. Many people strongly disagree.
5. You're misrepresenting the true purpose of most churches that I've heard of, and misrepresenting Christianity in general.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I'm not trying to turn it into a religious argument. I'm addressing the point that some have made about "how we make better people" to prevent the bullying from ever happening in the first place - eliminating the need for Caseys to feed Little Jerks the pavement. That question was raised several times, and I merely mentioned that in order to develop a moral people that would not WANT to bully...
(A) You need to instill the population with a moral belief system
(B) Churches are one of only a few organizations which have the development of a moral belief system in the population as their primary function
(C) Supporting religion in this effort of morality development is inherently a good thing for society
I also mentioned that there is a disturbing trend in Western civilization to do the exact OPPOSITE. I.E. to fight against, attack, marginalize, and otherwise ignore religion. I said this was counterproductive to the objective of creating a moral people. The only people who would consider this an attempt to "turn this into a religious argument" are those who believe that undermining religion's efforts to instill morality is BENEFICIAL to society. I know such people exist, but I disagree with that kind of opinion.
You may not yourself feel you have any need for religion, but you cannot deny that an organization whose express purpose is to teach people to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is probably a good thing to encourage, rather than destroy, if the objective is to create a moral population. Is it not so?

1. You're speaking for all churches, which doesn't make sense. Different churches are... different.

Churches are different. This is true. But most religions do not go about teaching negative behavior. I've never been in a church (Baptist, Lutherain, Catholic, 7th Day, Mormon, Jewish, whatever) where I heard the message, "Its OK to steal, lie, cheat, sleep around, or be intolerant to others." Quite the opposite. Most churches teach what would be called 'positive morality'. The relative degree of success each church achieves then becomes represented in the population.

2. You're implying that all the morals that a church teaches are the right ones. Many people strongly disagree.

You are using absolutes here. I did not say "all the morals". I said that churches teach morality codes that encourages the "build a better world by building better people" outcome that some were saying was a preferable dynamic to a soceity where we cheer the slamming of bullies into the sidewalk.

3. You're saying that the best way to teach morals is to make people believe in God. Many people strongly disagree.

No - I did not say that. I said that churches/religion were places where moral behavior is taught, and that should be encouraged rather than denigrated.

4. You're saying that fighting against churches in various forms is counterproductive to
producing moral people. Many people strongly disagree.

This I DID say. Undermining organizations that instruct their members to be better people - merely because you may not agree with all their tenents - is counterproductive to producing a moral people. Many people strongly disagree? Then those people are morons.

Let's move it away from religion for a second. For the sake of argument, let's say that we're talking about a completely non-religious group which has as its sole purpose the desire to teach people the societal benefits that come from adhering to a Utilitarian philosophy. This group goes around, building charities, helping the poor, caring for the sick, and otherwise providing a bunch of service and societal benefits. In short - they are doing good and helping people.

But then a group of Wittgenstienians come along who strongly disagrees with the Utilitarian philosophy. They begin to loudly shout that these Utilitarians should be eliminated, ignored, and marginalized because what they believe is 'wrong' or 'old-fashioned'. They acheive a certain degree of success, and the Utilitarian group starts getting fewer people showing up, and therefore has less ability to continue doing its good deeds.

Now - how exactly has society been advanced by this scenario? It hasn't. These hypothetical Wittgenstienians are not doing good themselves. They exist only as a parasitical contradiction to the Utilitarians. They are not replacing the good deeds, actions, and benefits that were being done by the group they disagreed with. They are doing nothing except reducing the number of people who were doing good things. How is that "building better people?"

Now - that is an exaggeration of course. In real life, not all of Group "A" are necessarily doing good things, and not all of Group "B" are not contributors to the good. But by and large the example serves the purpose of illustrating that religions do contribute to the societal good, and that there is little or no societal benefit that results from hassling them merely because you don't agree with them.

5. You're misrepresenting the true purpose of most churches that I've heard of, and misrepresenting Christianity in general.

I... have no clue what you mean with this statement. At what point did I ever make statements about "the true purpose of religion"? All I said was that one of the main functions of religion is to teach morality to people. Well - that's true. When you sit down in a church & listen to a sermon or go to Sunday School, 99 times out of 100 the message is one of personal morality. I've been in all kinds of different denominations, and this is a characteristic that they all pretty much share.

The next time some wussy tells you that "Violence is never the answer", show them this video.

Sometimes, a kid needs to get his ass kicked to learn a valuable lesson.

Casey was acting in self-defense, and would have gotten off in any reasonable court of law. Why should we hold our kids to different standards (that they can *never* fight, even in self-defense) that we don't hold to adults?

OK Winstonfield, I'll tell you why you're a (religious) idiot. You seem to be asking for it after all.

1. All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers. It probably goes further back than that, but we only have records up to the Greeks. Religions at that time did not concern themselves with ethical matters, at least not in any systematized way (it was a collection of old wives' tale about what happened to the boy who cried wolf, etc.). Judaism was one of the first, if not the first, religion to do this. This is why it was laughed at. Everyone in the ancient world knew that religion had nothing to do with raising good people: the City did. Nowadays we would say: the school, or the government or whatever. Only when religion takes over the schools or the government (like Judaism did in Judea or Christianity in medieval Europe) does it serve that purpose. And all monotheistic religions, by their nature, seek to become the only power, so it makes sense that they would encompass all things about life. Which makes their message too spread out and (philosophically) weak. This is why a religion like Christianity, that was proliferated by Roman slaves, could itself become the basis for Black slavery centuries later.

2. Churches do not want to build better people for a better world. They want to indoctrinate people so that the Church becomes the World. They want uniformity of thought. They are totalitarian in their very nature. Especially monotheist Churches. But then again, polytheisms usually do not have Churches.

3. Churches do not teach moral behavior. They preach moral behavior. Anyone can preach. Few can teach. The ancient Greek and Roman nobility would pay fortunes to get a good teacher for their children, and the City was seen as having a duty to educate all children to become proper citizens. And here you say we must put our faith in the words of preachers, who recite two thousand year old parables about a supposed King of the Jews that lived in a Roman controlled desert? What the fuck is wrong with you?

4. You should learn about Evolutionary Stable Strategies. For a strategy to be evolutionary stable, it is not required that it do anyone any good, only that it be good at reproducing itself. Religions are such strategies. They are parasitic. They hijack the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.

5. He means what I said at 4. Since it's important, I'll repeat it here: religions are hijacking the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.


To be on topic, as an aikidoka I believe this is a perfect example of the good usage of violence (or force). Once you cannot peacefully avoid conflict anymore and the opponent still presses for combat, you give him the fight of his life. It may very well mean that you failed to avoid conflict, but that is why we learn to fight: so that when we do fight, we can prevail without killing or maiming (this kid probably does not know aikido so give him a break). But even so, in very rare and specific circumstances, you will have to kill to preserve your life or that of someone close. But if you tried to avoid conflict as the precepts of aikido dictate, it is safe to say that you are still a better person than he was*. After all, sometimes a good razing is the only thing that will keep a forest alive. Individual trees do not matter in the long run.

*Some aikidoka would be reluctant to say this. They are either Japanese people and thus have a hard time admitting to unpopular/controversial opinions or they are deluding themselves and being weak. How can there be good if no one is better than anyone else, if no one is worth more than anyone else? Of course, it's easy to say "worth less" = "worthless", but that is only being cynical and misses the point. As for me, as an atheist I do not believe in Good or Evil and so goodness is more like IQ: normal people in a given society get a median of 100 points of goodness or virtue or whatever you want to call it. Even psychopaths need to be good sometimes in order to live in society (some may say they fake it, but faked or not their actions are sometimes good). Inter-cultural comparisons, while not impossible, are difficulty to do and ultimately arbitrary.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

1. You're speaking for all churches, which doesn't make sense. Different churches are... different.
Churches are different. This is true. But most religions do not go about teaching negative behavior. I've never been in a church (Baptist, Lutherain, Catholic, 7th Day, Mormon, Jewish, whatever) where I heard the message, "Its OK to steal, lie, cheat, sleep around, or be intolerant to others." Quite the opposite. Most churches teach what would be called 'positive morality'. The relative degree of success each church achieves then becomes represented in the population.
2. You're implying that all the morals that a church teaches are the right ones. Many people strongly disagree.
You are using absolutes here. I did not say "all the morals". I said that churches teach morality codes that encourages the "build a better world by building better people" outcome that some were saying was a preferable dynamic to a soceity where we cheer the slamming of bullies into the sidewalk.
3. You're saying that the best way to teach morals is to make people believe in God. Many people strongly disagree.
No - I did not say that. I said that churches/religion were places where moral behavior is taught, and that should be encouraged rather than denigrated.
4. You're saying that fighting against churches in various forms is counterproductive to
producing moral people. Many people strongly disagree.
This I DID say. Undermining organizations that instruct their members to be better people - merely because you may not agree with all their tenents - is counterproductive to producing a moral people. Many people strongly disagree? Then those people are morons.
Let's move it away from religion for a second. For the sake of argument, let's say that we're talking about a completely non-religious group which has as its sole purpose the desire to teach people the societal benefits that come from adhering to a Utilitarian philosophy. This group goes around, building charities, helping the poor, caring for the sick, and otherwise providing a bunch of service and societal benefits. In short - they are doing good and helping people.
But then a group of Wittgenstienians come along who strongly disagrees with the Utilitarian philosophy. They begin to loudly shout that these Utilitarians should be eliminated, ignored, and marginalized because what they believe is 'wrong' or 'old-fashioned'. They acheive a certain degree of success, and the Utilitarian group starts getting fewer people showing up, and therefore has less ability to continue doing its good deeds.
Now - how exactly has society been advanced by this scenario? It hasn't. These hypothetical Wittgenstienians are not doing good themselves. They exist only as a parasitical contradiction to the Utilitarians. They are not replacing the good deeds, actions, and benefits that were being done by the group they disagreed with. They are doing nothing except reducing the number of people who were doing good things. How is that "building better people?"
Now - that is an exaggeration of course. In real life, not all of Group "A" are necessarily doing good things, and not all of Group "B" are not contributors to the good. But by and large the example serves the purpose of illustrating that religions do contribute to the societal good, and that there is little or no societal benefit that results from hassling them merely because you don't agree with them.
5. You're misrepresenting the true purpose of most churches that I've heard of, and misrepresenting Christianity in general.
I... have no clue what you mean with this statement. At what point did I ever make statements about "the true purpose of religion"? All I said was that one of the main functions of religion is to teach morality to people. Well - that's true. When you sit down in a church & listen to a sermon or go to Sunday School, 99 times out of 100 the message is one of personal morality. I've been in all kinds of different denominations, and this is a characteristic that they all pretty much share.

@ Bidouleroux
i know you meant that comment for WP but you may wish to reconsider your premise because your fly is WIDE open.
what winston spoke of was people,communities of them who go to church.
you speak of the institution.
winston spoke of how morality can be re-enforced in group settings (church).
you speak of the clergy and preachers.

see where i am going with this?
winston laid out a very well thought out argument to back up his premise and you not only call him an idiot but then add an argument (i think thats what you were attempting) that really had nothing to do with his points.

winston and i are usually on opposite sides of the fence and i truly enjoy engaging with him but on this one..i agree with him.
and winston is far from an idiot.

You don't seem to know anything about churches, which is probably why you're religious. A church is a community, yes, but is also much more. Before anything else, it is a place of worship (church comes from "house of the lord"). Whether you're talking about a church like the building/community or a Church the organization, it is the same: an institution. Two sides of the same coin. A church is nothing without its Church. Otherwise you would call it a community and not a church.

But saying that communities reinforce morality is like saying that butter is made of fat. It's an obvious, trivial fact. The point I was trying to make and which you seem to have totally missed is this: communities other than churches have made good people long before religion got involved. Religions only murk things up by attaching useless intellectual garbage to good old ethical wisdom. It is how they reproduce and why they should all be destroyed, so that secular communities can take back ownership of what they hijacked.

Nothing good comes out of anything that is purely religious. The good they do comes from hijacked behavior and beliefs that existed before. By attaching these good behaviors/beliefs and claiming universal truth, they make people believe that everything they say is the ultimate truth. It's not. Any good that religions do can be done by something else. The rest is pure garbage.

And if you think Winstonfield's exposition or arguments are good, then you're even more of an idiot than him. But seeing how you write, that should be obvious to anyone.

>> ^enoch:

@ Bidouleroux
i know you meant that comment for WP but you may wish to reconsider your premise because your fly is WIDE open.
what winston spoke of was people,communities of them who go to church.
you speak of the institution.
winston spoke of how morality can be re-enforced in group settings (church).
you speak of the clergy and preachers.
see where i am going with this?
winston laid out a very well thought out argument to back up his premise and you not only call him an idiot but then add an argument (i think thats what you were attempting) that really had nothing to do with his points.
winston and i are usually on opposite sides of the fence and i truly enjoy engaging with him but on this one..i agree with him.
and winston is far from an idiot.

Churches are different. This is true. But most religions do not go about teaching negative behavior.

Point missed. You cannot speak for all churches no matter how much you would like to.


You are using absolutes here (when implying that all the morals that a church teaches are the right ones).

No sir, it's the churches that use absolutes. This is what I talked about in 5: You are misrepresenting the point of churches. Their point is not to make people moral, it is to teach their religion.

I did not say "all the morals".

How exactly does a church teach a moral system where they admit that some of the morals that they teach are wrong?


3. You're saying that the best way to teach morals is to make people believe in God. Many people strongly disagree.
No - I did not say that. I said that churches/religion were places where moral behavior is taught, and that should be encouraged rather than denigrated.

"The answer is obvious - and probably antithetical to a lot of the people here in the Sift. But it is undeniable. MORALITY. Personal morality. And what is the best venue for acquiring a personal morality and philosophical ethic?

Church."

Undermining organizations that instruct their members to be better people - merely because you may not agree with all their tenents - is counterproductive to producing a moral people.

You are blatantly misrepresenting the purpose of a church and acting like the unquestioning following of a supposed supernatural entity isn't the entire point of the organization. In order for the church to work at all, its teachings must be regarded as axiomatic, which means that no moral advancement would ever be achieved. And, to be blunt, it's a bunch of horseshit. Morals are worthless if we don't know the reasons they exist.

Many people strongly disagree? Then those people are morons.

Make a better argument and prove your point, then.


Let's move it away from religion for a second.

The entire fucking conversation is about religion. Without religion, we're not talking about supposed supernatural entities handing down axiomatic rules that we must follow. If you want to talk about an organization that examines, questions and teaches morals with the intent of advancing humanity by education and the use of reason, then you're not talking about church and we're not having this conversation.

But then a group of Wittgenstienians come along who strongly disagrees with the Utilitarian philosophy.

This is a straw man that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. A church without religion that only did good deeds wouldn't be a church, it would be only a charity. I don't have a problem with charity. I have a problem with religion.

religions do contribute to the societal good, and that there is little or no societal benefit that results from hassling them merely because you don't agree with them.

Religion isn't needed for people to do good. And in what way am I hassling you or your religion? You brought it up and suggested that everyone should be religious. Don't act surprised and play innocent when people disagree with you.

At what point did I ever make statements about "the true purpose of religion"?

I'm having a hard time believing that you don't understand what religion is.

>> ^Bidouleroux:

You don't seem to know anything about churches, which is probably why you're religious. A church is a community, yes, but is also much more. Before anything else, it is a place of worship (church comes from "house of the lord"). Whether you're talking about a church like the building/community or a Church the organization, it is the same: an institution. Two sides of the same coin. A church is nothing without its Church. Otherwise you would call it a community and not a church.
But saying that communities reinforce morality is like saying that butter is made of fat. It's an obvious, trivial fact. The point I was trying to make and which you seem to have totally missed is this: communities other than churches have made good people long before religion got involved. Religions only murk things up by attaching useless intellectual garbage to good old ethical wisdom. It is how they reproduce and why they should all be destroyed, so that secular communities can take back ownership of what they hijacked.
Nothing good comes out of anything that is purely religious. The good they do comes from hijacked behavior and beliefs that existed before. By attaching these good behaviors/beliefs and claiming universal truth, they make people believe that everything they say is the ultimate truth. It's not. Any good that religions do can be done by something else. The rest is pure garbage.
And if you think Winstonfield's exposition or arguments are good, then you're even more of an idiot than him. But seeing how you write, that should be obvious to anyone.
>> ^enoch:
@ Bidouleroux
i know you meant that comment for WP but you may wish to reconsider your premise because your fly is WIDE open.
what winston spoke of was people,communities of them who go to church.
you speak of the institution.
winston spoke of how morality can be re-enforced in group settings (church).
you speak of the clergy and preachers.
see where i am going with this?
winston laid out a very well thought out argument to back up his premise and you not only call him an idiot but then add an argument (i think thats what you were attempting) that really had nothing to do with his points.
winston and i are usually on opposite sides of the fence and i truly enjoy engaging with him but on this one..i agree with him.
and winston is far from an idiot.



ok man.was just pointing some stuff out.
but by your response it has become you clear you do not know what you are talking about and i have lost interest in continuing this any further.
"You don't seem to know anything about churches, which is probably why you're religious."
really?
ok.../shrugs

It's too bad that this all became about religion; we had a lot of worthwhile discussion about social reform and behavioral shaping until it became a religion slugfest.

All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers

Jewish ethical philosophy was existant before the Mycenaean age, let alone the Classical or Hellenistic. Christ was Jewish, and there is no record of him receiving secret ethical training from Greek philosophers. This statement is absurd prima facie.

But – as I said before – I never claimed that religions (the organizations) were perfect or ideal. I merely stated that they provide ethical training to people in an organized fashion, and that is beneficial to the concept of “making better people”. I even predicted your hostility (or at least its potential) because I know there are those who are hostile towards “churches” for a variety of reasons.

communities other than churches have made good people long before religion got involved

No one is saying that religion is the sole originator of societal good. I merely stated it is AN important source of societal good and should be fostered rather than treated with hostility. Or if “fostered” is impossible for some to whom religion is not acceptable, then it should at least be treated with deference rather than anger.

Of course there are lots of places people can do good things. However, it must be said that churches have one of the most organized and systematic approaches. For example - let’s say you volunteer at a soup kitchen. Cool – you’re ‘doing good’. But in what way does a soup kitchen train you to understand WHY you’re doing something? You are pouring soup. A monkey could do that. Just as important is the moral philosophy behind why you’re doing it. You do not get that sort of training from soup kitchens, book clubs, softball league, art house, chat groups, or even most actual charities. I participate in a lot of state & municipal groups, and not once have I ever received “moral training”. But every Sunday in church I get some.

Again – I’m not trying to tell you such things are not possible. Of course they are. However, church is just one of those places where “morality” is taught as a matter of necessity rather than as an incidental suggestion or inference. Isn’t that something we should be supporting rather than attacking?

You cannot speak for all churches no matter how much you would like to.

If you go around the country and eat at a bunch of diners, you are then able to report certain facts about them without claiming that you are “speaking for all diners”. And thus it is here. You’re complaining about something that doesn’t matter here.

Their point is not to make people moral, it is to teach their religion.

I’ve been in a lot of them, and I’d say your characterization is inaccurate. I would say that their first objective is teach a morality system, and that their second objective is to obtain converts to THEIR specific organization.

The first thing that happens when I sit down in any particular denomination is I get a belly-full of moral instruction. They talk about faith, good works, Christ, love, sacrifice, turning the other cheek, being a good Samaritan, and that sort of thing. If you keep showing up at their building, then they will start inquiring about whether or not you are a ‘member’ of their denomination. It is at THIS point that people like yourself & Enoch start parting ways with them.

And it is true that a lot of religions place more importance on being a ‘member’ than on learning the morality. Which is really too bad. I don’t disagree that this kind of “join us” pressure is distasteful. Ideally, religions would do nothing more than teach their morality beliefs and “invite” those who wish to join them at their own pleasure. Quite a lot of them do this. But there are those who are much more insistent, and it is a bad thing. Totally on your page in that regard. But I disagree when you say that their only purpose is to push a specific denomination. I’ve seen dozens of churches that have sermons, help people, teach gospel – and ask nothing in return.

You are blatantly misrepresenting the purpose of a church and acting like the unquestioning following of a supposed supernatural entity isn't the entire point of the organization.

I disagree with your opinion that the purpose of a church is to foster unquestioning belief because I’ve seen otherwise. Many good religions encourage seeking and questioning – so your premise here is false.

This is a straw man that has nothing to do with what I'm saying

No, it’s a great example that has everything to do with what you’re saying. You just don’t like how effective it is, which is why you entirely ignored the substance of the argument.

Religion isn't needed for people to do good.

Of course not. I never said so. But religion does lead people to do good things. Even if you don’t agree with “religion”, isn’t that beneficial? Why stop it?

And in what way am I hassling you or your religion?

I didn’t say you were. If you’re feeling guilty on this point, then it is entirely from your own conscience that this is originating.

You brought it up and suggested that everyone should be religious

No. I never said that. Again, you’re using absolutes to imply meaning that does not exist. All I said is that churches teach morality, and that morality instruction is what a lot of people above said was necessary to “make better people”. I went on to suggest that such a thing should be encouraged, rather than treated with hostility. And I also predicted that some people would react hostilely to the suggestion. As usual, I was 100% correct. It is a burden to me sometimes to be so prescient, but such is my lot.

>> ^draak13:

It's too bad that this all became about religion; we had a lot of worthwhile discussion about social reform and behavioral shaping until it became a religion slugfest.


Well, religious idiots think such reforms must come with some kind of religious doctrine attached. Wintstonfield et al would deny it so as to appear virtuous and selfless, but ultimately indoctrination is the goal of religions themselves even if it may not be the goal of every individual member. And as every dealer knows, giving the first dose free is the best way to create addicts.

This is the original "religion is good and should be encouraged" argument by Winston:

(A) You need to instill the population with a moral belief system
(B) Churches are one of only a few organizations which have the development of a moral belief system in the population as their primary function
(C) Supporting religion in this effort of morality development is inherently a good thing for society

People make stupid comments all the time. Whether or not it was intended, this thread was essentially trolled off-topic with enormous rants about religion vs. atheism. Instead of going on forever about it, why not pay as much attention to it as it deserves? Immediately after the religious posting, Enoch magnificently addressed and concluded that religion doesn't consistently shape behavior nearly as much as good parenting in just 1 post. Of course the religious faction is going to reply back; their religion is a strong component of their identity. Just don't mind it and continue the thread forward.

If it's possible to salvage this thread at all, we were actually talking about how behavioral shaping comes most strongly in 2 forms revealed so far:

1) Mass showing of materials which help instill understanding of people who are very different from normal in some way, with sincere discussion (such as dealing with bullying the gay or mentally retarded individuals)
2) Parenting, to ensure that children hold strong values about understanding each other and treating each other well.

Are there any other interesting ideas to add to the list? Also, point 2 is huge; how do you get more parents to parent better?

>> ^Bidouleroux:

>> ^draak13:
It's too bad that this all became about religion; we had a lot of worthwhile discussion about social reform and behavioral shaping until it became a religion slugfest.

Well, religious idiots think such reforms must come with some kind of religious doctrine attached. Wintstonfield et al would deny it so as to appear virtuous and selfless, but ultimately indoctrination is the goal of religions themselves even if it may not be the goal of every individual member. And as every dealer knows, giving the first dose free is the best way to create addicts.
This is the original "religion is good and should be encouraged" argument by Winston:

(A) You need to instill the population with a moral belief system
(B) Churches are one of only a few organizations which have the development of a moral belief system in the population as their primary function
(C) Supporting religion in this effort of morality development is inherently a good thing for society

>> ^draak13:

People make stupid comments all the time. Whether or not it was intended, this thread was essentially trolled off-topic with enormous rants about religion vs. atheism. Instead of going on forever about it, why not pay as much attention to it as it deserves? Immediately after the religious posting, Enoch magnificently addressed and concluded that religion doesn't consistently shape behavior nearly as much as good parenting in just 1 post. Of course the religious faction is going to reply back; their religion is a strong component of their identity. Just don't mind it and continue the thread forward.
If it's possible to salvage this thread at all, we were actually talking about how behavioral shaping comes most strongly in 2 forms revealed so far:
1) Mass showing of materials which help instill understanding of people who are very different from normal in some way, with sincere discussion (such as dealing with bullying the gay or mentally retarded individuals)
2) Parenting, to ensure that children hold strong values about understanding each other and treating each other well.
Are there any other interesting ideas to add to the list? Also, point 2 is huge; how do you get more parents to parent better?


I think 2) is in fact overrated. Most of a child's development nowadays comes from social interactions at school and in their neighborhood. Judith Harris expounded on this in her book, The Nurture Assumption. Parents have the most impact on their child's early development, before they can socialize on their own. In that small period of time, you can develop a child's intellectual potential, but the moral character, if not already determined or strongly limited by genetics, will be molded by future social interactions. Of course, parents are included in these social interactions, but their influence will be much diluted, especially compared to the school authority figures, the real authority in a school kid's life (they can make life miserable for them both at school and at home, by telling the parents).

So, as the saying goes in Africa, it takes a village to raise a child. Again, something known in the time of the ancient Greeks. Even Plato admitted this, although he tried to bring religion in, hence why he wasn't taken seriously. In this perspective, 1) should be an integral part of society's behavior at large, not just in videos. Although of course videos can have a pregnant effect on a child's mind and act as a surrogate to real life examples. The problem arises when those children are let go after school: they see that real life is not like the videos. They can then try to change the real world, become apathetic or worse, become cynical. And this is what is wrong with preaching: the hypocrisy of the "do as I say not as I do".

To prevent this, you have to teach intellectual self-defense at the same time as the reasons why behavior as shown in the videos is more desirable than behavior seen in real life. This would be hard for even philosophers to do, not to mention underpaid elementary school teachers. In our philosophy department here, there is a minor in "philosophy of children". It has nothing to do with describing the essence of children, but more with how to talk about philosophy with children: how to approach concepts in general and how to touch difficult subject matters. Still, the goal is not for the philosopher to teach children about moral/ethics, but to teach how to think about such things.

So, as a parent be a good role model and teach your child how to fish (think) instead of just giving him fish (preaching). For example, instead of trying to always be the best you can be around your child, be yourself. And when you fail to uphold a principle or whatever, instead of giving excuses be frank and explain why people sometimes fail even if they start with the best of intentions. The important thing is not that you be the best today, but that you be better tomorrow.

Also, never think you can shield your child from anything. Better it be you that show him the ugly things than he finds out by himself or through friends/society. That way you can explain and answer his questions. So: sex, drugs, violence and death education at a very young age repeated at various times to ingrain the facts (not the moral preaching). No need to be hands-on of course! Don't want you all to go rape and kill your children or something.

This is as much as you can do, I think, to "protect" or "arm" your children against society's more nefarious influences without resorting to indoctrination or physical confinement (although these last two options sound more like blinding and amputating than protecting really). If all children were educated like this, we may not get a perfect society (the genes!), but at least it should be a better society and certainly a more honest and open one.

In the video, a small, ratty child was squaring up to a much larger chubster (but to call him a chubster is very deceiving, as he is a being of muscle) while his fellow vermin stood to the left with the camera. The ratty child, known as Ritchard, threw a punch, connecting with the chubster, Casey Heynes. Casey Heynes moved with the punch, but didn't back away or show any sign of pain. This was to be the Rat's first warning, which he failed to heed.

The Rat then began bouncing on his heels, taunting Casey Heynes by feigning punches to his stomach. Casey is seen moving his arm at speeds not yet achieved by mortal men. This was to be the Rat's second warning.
And then, following another feigned punch from Richard, Casey Heynes acted. But it is not right to call him Casey anymore, because he is much, much more. He is the Beast. Channeling the power of the Immortal Ones, the Beast threw himself at the Rat and subdued him. He then proceeded to hoist the Rat up in to the air, pausing briefly to savor the smell of fear, before slamming the Rat down with enough force to destroy the other half of Japan.

Contemplating a kick to the head, the Beast, wise and merciful in victory, decided against it, knowing the Rat was already humiliated and broken. One of the Rat's cronies came up with the intention of getting revenge, but when the Beast looked him square in the eyes he became paralyzed with fear. The Beast, satisfied with his work, turned and strode off to his lair.

Casey Heynes current whereabouts are unknown, but it is very likely he slumbers in an underwater cave in the Bermuda Triangle. Because he's the hero St. Mary's North deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

From the 4Chan site>> ^gwiz665:

In the video, a small, ratty child was squaring up to a much larger chubster (but to call him a chubster is very deceiving, as he is a being of muscle) while his fellow vermin stood to the left with the camera. The ratty child, known as Ritchard, threw a punch, connecting with the chubster, Casey Heynes. Casey Heynes moved with the punch, but didn't back away or show any sign of pain. This was to be the Rat's first warning, which he failed to heed.
The Rat then began bouncing on his heels, taunting Casey Heynes by feigning punches to his stomach. Casey is seen moving his arm at speeds not yet achieved by mortal men. This was to be the Rat's second warning.
And then, following another feigned punch from Richard, Casey Heynes acted. But it is not right to call him Casey anymore, because he is much, much more. He is the Beast. Channeling the power of the Immortal Ones, the Beast threw himself at the Rat and subdued him. He then proceeded to hoist the Rat up in to the air, pausing briefly to savor the smell of fear, before slamming the Rat down with enough force to destroy the other half of Japan.
Contemplating a kick to the head, the Beast, wise and merciful in victory, decided against it, knowing the Rat was already humiliated and broken. One of the Rat's cronies came up with the intention of getting revenge, but when the Beast looked him square in the eyes he became paralyzed with fear. The Beast, satisfied with his work, turned and strode off to his lair.
Casey Heynes current whereabouts are unknown, but it is very likely he slumbers in an underwater cave in the Bermuda Triangle. Because he's the hero St. Mary's North deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

It's from encyclopedia dramatica. I just though i was hilarious.
>> ^longde:

From the 4Chan site>> ^gwiz665:
In the video, a small, ratty child was squaring up to a much larger chubster (but to call him a chubster is very deceiving, as he is a being of muscle) while his fellow vermin stood to the left with the camera. The ratty child, known as Ritchard, threw a punch, connecting with the chubster, Casey Heynes. Casey Heynes moved with the punch, but didn't back away or show any sign of pain. This was to be the Rat's first warning, which he failed to heed.
The Rat then began bouncing on his heels, taunting Casey Heynes by feigning punches to his stomach. Casey is seen moving his arm at speeds not yet achieved by mortal men. This was to be the Rat's second warning.
And then, following another feigned punch from Richard, Casey Heynes acted. But it is not right to call him Casey anymore, because he is much, much more. He is the Beast. Channeling the power of the Immortal Ones, the Beast threw himself at the Rat and subdued him. He then proceeded to hoist the Rat up in to the air, pausing briefly to savor the smell of fear, before slamming the Rat down with enough force to destroy the other half of Japan.
Contemplating a kick to the head, the Beast, wise and merciful in victory, decided against it, knowing the Rat was already humiliated and broken. One of the Rat's cronies came up with the intention of getting revenge, but when the Beast looked him square in the eyes he became paralyzed with fear. The Beast, satisfied with his work, turned and strode off to his lair.
Casey Heynes current whereabouts are unknown, but it is very likely he slumbers in an underwater cave in the Bermuda Triangle. Because he's the hero St. Mary's North deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

As usual, I was 100% correct.

Yet in the very post you were quoting, I proved you wrong with your own quote. You are still misrepresenting what a church's main goal is. Yes, they teach various things, but not a bit of what they teach is useful as a basis for morality unless you believe in god. Without a supernatural being that handed those morals down to us, we're left questioning every moral that we're presented with, which is the same position we were in before we went to church.

Various other things that you said are wrong, too, but your fake innocence is tiresome. You know damn well why people like me are against religion, and if you don't then you're just not paying attention. You're certainly welcome to your opinion regarding its effectiveness, but don't pretend like there aren't perfectly valid reasons to not want churches to exist.

FUCK YEA !! ! ! !

I still love that kid smacking down that asshole.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, March 14th, 2011 4:02pm PDT - promote requested by BoneRemake.

Dup of previous post.

>> ^BoneRemake:

FUCK YEA !! ! ! !
I still love that kid smacking down that asshole.
promote


could not agree more.

Justice! never gets old.