Note: If you bother reading all of my (or simply a number) of my replies to people you may noticed for those I am currently mainly in agreement with that I snipped their post and simply stated so with only about one question or rebuttal.

This is not meant to imply though that those I did go into more detail with are wrong though, it simply means there is a current difference of stance/opinion between us. So I bothered to go into more details with responses and questions in order to get a better understanding of your side and arguments. 

I've come into debates on this site heavily believing in one standpoint before and have had someone give good enough arguments and points that after some reflection I changed my position. But that was only when I was able to counter their point with those of my own, in order to better understand their side and see if they have appropriate counters or any counters I may bring up.

If the person had simply gone "No, you clearly disagree with me. I will not debate this" or "I'm right, you're wrong. Stop trying to debate it or go on about it" than I have never changed my position because they never responded with the points and clarification I needed to better understand and evaluate their position.

So that's what I'm doing when I go into so much detail in replying to your points and questioning them. I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything like that, I'm trying to better understand it so I learn the most that I can from those positions and grow from them.

[quote=Brovo]You do not stop a tyrant by waggling your finger and telling them to stop. You stop a tyrant by hitting them so fucking hard they never do it again. All of human history shows this, but I suppose a prominent example is Hitler. He conquered, and was allowed to conquer, unopposed, through the entirety of , and he didn't stop. Had the western world not decidedly stand up and fight him at a certain point, he would have just kept on going until he went insane or literally steamrolled the world under tank treads.[/quote]

Most cases of bullying and abuse are not like Hitler in the sense that they will keep beating up everyone until they're in charge. They pick very specific targets that they have an easy time dominating over and then rub their ego with the dominance over said individuals may it be a classmate, their own defenseless child etc. In most cases they pick target's who cannot defend themselves to the point of scaring off the aggressor as detailed, if a third person comes in and defends the victim (and succeeds) it's only a temporary fear factor.

It either only lasts as long or during the time the third part is involved, if say the victims new friend is absent the bully uses the opportunity. If it was an abusive parent who was stopped by a stranger in public, said stranger is unlikely to be around again. And assuming said third party was constantly present, it only lasts as long as the fear comes in place. One said bully/abuser get's friends, decides to use a weapon or whatever method you can image that can have them get over the fear inflicted on them.

[quote=Brovo]Simply put: Bullies are malevolent predators. They prey on the weak. If you don't fight back, they will continue to prey on you as an easy target. That is the hunter mentality. After all, if you're going to pick on someone, who are you going to pick on? The guy who doesn't fight back, or the guy who will bite and kick and punch and spit on you with everything he's got every time you try?[/quote]

Having been bullied growing up in elementary school, fighting back does nothing but give the bully the reaction they wanted.
They know they can get to you and push your buttons, it just makes them laugh and encourages more bullying in the future. Even if said bully walks away with more bruises than you do they consider it worth it just cause they got you to react. And if they're half smart they'll come back with friends the next time to prevent being on the losing side of the fight next time. While the person who never reacts may be bullied verbally (which can have a ton or zero effect depending on the persons self-confidence and amount of thick skin) they're days of being bullied physically are very numbered because theirs simply not rise or enjoyment gained from fighting them. 

[quote=Goldmarble]Simply put: I am a product of this pacifistic movement that started in the 70s. All of my childhood, it was drilled into me that I should not fight back against bullies, I should "ignore them". I should "turn the other cheek". "Be the better man," "Tell a teacher".

Problem is, none of that actually stops the bully, it encourages them. The bully is not looking for a challenge. It's why they pick on people weaker than themselves. Yes, to stop their predatory aspects outright, their actions need attention other than violence. They need counseling, or other therapy to get to the underlying cause of why they are being a bully.[/quote]

My response to this is basically the same as I my last response to Brovo above.

[quote=Goldmarble]But teaching kids that they should not stand up for themselves, that the only solution to the problem is to either;
A: Ignore it, or
B: tell an "authority" figure to do something about it...

...Just does not make sense to me. Having these ideals drilled into my head made me feel powerless, it made me feel . What happens when you ignore the bully? They just bully you more, because you are easy prey. The primary tool you are told will work against the bully, is useless. So you turn to the other tool, you tell a teacher. What happens? The bully gets in trouble, their parents might reprimand them....and then they come back and take it out on the person who is the cause of their new problem.[/quote]

A: That is oddly enough (except in one friends case) what I saw actually did work for people. They would ignore it and then people would deviate to those who would either break down and a give a reaction, or those who would fight back cause they found the fight an entertaining enough reaction.

-However, I should note most cases of bullying I have experience in is elementary school (Grades 1-8). Where bullying was mainly done for the reactions they got from people. It was High School where ignoring the bullies didn't work for a friend of mine (and bullying I faced myself turned from physical fights to people simply saying stupid/illogical/incomprehensible shit in the form of an insult. The attempts they tried on me were rather sad/pathetic) but in High School culture largely changed with people where it was no longer about getting a reaction but rather establishing social dominance and superiority over people. People entered a school culture we cliches and popularity was the be all and end all for people, and one of the things that made people popular was being an asshole to others. Even if there was zero reaction the meer act of pretending to be tougher/better than others made you more popular/liked.

B: This in my experience has a big flaw involved in that authority figures are just largely useless in this case. They have no backbone to punish the bully even, they're just as (if not more likely) to punish the victim (Exceptions being: Special Needs/Learning Resources Teacher and/or already knows the victim well from a class they teach) because without either that personal relationship with the student or overwhelming experience of bullying and it's effects by dealing with those victim of it the most, they authority is even capable of giving in to high school popularity and seem bail out with reasoning like "We can't take your word for it, despite the overwhelming physical proof and testimony we are getting". 

(Note: That is all in reference of High School, in elementary school teachers had no issues calling it out for how it was).

Now, this aside though. Let's assume this bias/fear among authority was non-existent and across the board they called out and punished the bullies for their wrong-doings. A lot of it could be due to our approach to stopping the bullies once brought to the teachers attention (Because I agree, authority is largely useless with bullying. But I don't think that means we need to default to violence). How often for example have we seen things like therapy for the bully, to try to find the root/cause of the problem? Trying to eliminate at it's source? And how often do you say, just give them a talking to and leave, or actually tell them to stay home and play Xbox for a few days? 

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]If they are repeat offenders, the said child must be given to the custody of a compassionate person, and the "Father" or whomever abused the child should be punished severely. Not necessarily permanently, but in a way which is very hurtful to drive home the point that they are being punished and WILL NOT abuse children again, or ELSE![/quote]

Two points/questions to pose here.

1. I get you used the term "Father" in air quotes here because you recognize it's not truly the case, so I'll spare the whole "Not all abusive parents/people are men" speech. But I just wanted to note to try to avoid using the term "Father" to refer to child abusers even if in air quotes because it still helps contributes to the assumption/mindset of some people (Typically those who simply echo what they hear/not able to think about it on their own) that it's the men always responsible for these sort of things.

2. If we are to suggest punishments to the parent that will prevent child abuse, we should trying to suggest specific approaches/responses. Those we can prove (or at least have stronger reasoning/theory for than our current approach) can work in that regard even if only some of the time (but more than our current amount of success). So what is it do you think we would need to do to prevent parents from doing such things?

[quote=mdk]Sometimes though, our proactive, preventative, systematic methods don't stop bad things from happening. At that point we're reacting to violence, and well.... shit's gone to hell at that point anyway. You're in a different scenario after the shit has already hit the fan. Negotiations stop when they start killing hostages, you know? There comes a point beyond which unmitigated violence is the only rational response. All our systems of education and prevention and peaceful interaction are designed to keep that line from being crossed; they can't protect you from what's on the other side of the line.[/quote]

Fair reasoning, we are mainly debating avoiding crossing the line.

However, once that line is crossed is it not also important to try to make it so crossing the line can have the most minimal amount of damage possible?
Or if we can't do that, at least learn how to react once over the line so if you're out their again it's not even worse for you the second time?

[quote=Jorick]As barbaric as it may sound[/quote]

Like I said in my last post, don't ever worry about sounding too barbaric. :P

[quote=Jorick]-snip-[quote]So basically if I'm reading this right then the suggestion here is to return violence with more violence and in some cases (repeated offences, or child abuse) they be thrown in Jail? Is this not only temporary though? And the same things can happen once they're out?

Prison has constantly be criticized for being modeled on prisoners returning rather than being helped, so they can have a successful life after leaving. 

[quote=Jorick]All of those should be coupled with some of those non-violent methods, by the way. All that counseling and explaining why it was wrong and how they should feel bad and so forth should come during and/or after the administration of violence. Alone that stuff does little to nothing, but coupled with a fresh reminder of the direct penalties of further transgressions it might actually work. Violence to answer violence is not pretty and it's not a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better than the non-violent routes.[/quote]
I assume this might be what is meant to answer my earlier response/question. 

But I assume then this is taking place for those already arrested in that case. Regardless though my following point remains the same. If I am also reading this right then the argument is we want violence combined with therapy to solve these issues? And that this is at least better than the sole use of violence and/or the sole avoidance of violence.

To determine this though I'll take the default of the approach with the most evidence behind it, therapy. Is there anything the use of violence would aid in the therapy? I can see this having different results depending on who is responsible, is it a Parent? The victim in self defense? The therapist themselves? Is it a separate employee hired for this purpose? Also would the effect change once the bully/abuser realises that the violence they faced themselves was a planned part of the therapy and other approaches? Because let's face it, if such a model was adopted as the main way to help people, eventually people would be well aware that the violence against them is also intentional and planned by those providing the help.

Lastly assuming this say a case of someone who abuses/bullies because they were abused themselves by their parent's they already know what it's like. So it's not going to give them say a new perspective that they didn't already grow up with. Now I realize you highlighted this solution as not pretty or perfect, but even then I think it's best we try to find as many flaws as possible so as to why to address or fix them (or if we can't, at least be aware of them).

[quote=ShonHarris]-snip-[/quote]Wow, I feel [b][u]really[b][/u] bad not giving this a longer/more detailed response considering how much time and effort seemed to come into this and how well thought out and explained the points are. But I simply can't find anything to pull out and disagree with or debate with. I'm almost 100% agreement with what you've said here. :)
I would ask about self defense though, if say you're being beat up like crazy is it appropriate to fight back enough to remove yourself from the situation? Or is there is still a better way to protect yourself?

[quote=Neobullseye]-snip-[/quote]There's almost nothing here I feel the need to debate or question either.
 However I would vary on one thing, I think therapy should be given to all people when a problem is identified. In fact I find therapy for the children even more necessary/essential than for the adults. 

That when people's minds are still growing, being wired and most influential to change, other people, experiences and their environment. You want to get to them and address their issues young so they have a more healthy development as they get older.

[quote=Kidd]-snip-[/quote]It's odd these all seem to of came in a row like this, but once again I mainly agree and have very little to counter.

But there is still that little bit. :P In this case it's compassion with violence, I understand and mainly agree with the principle. I know it's possible, this is more a question as to how you would personally approach it more than anything, but how would you try to use compassion after violence? So that the person feels/understands that it's legitimate compassion after having been beat up rather than feeling that it's not say a "Good cop, Bad cop" routine?