|
|
|
|
#1
11-03-2011
|
||||
|
||||
Bill that would allow bullying.
It really says in the anti-bullying law, that it's okay to bully, if the bullying victim is/does something that`s against the bully`s moral/religious convictions. ( which if you think of it, nearly everything's against someones moral/religion conviction.) and America being the "melting pot" makes it kinda stupid to have this law. 
|
|
#2
11-03-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually what the act says is exactly what it was intended to say when read by anyone who can actually read pieces of legislation. Sadly most 'religious activists' can barely comprehend Harry Potter and somehow find moral damnation, even in that pile of jabba-do-do. Do not get me wrong, I find Potter to be a crime against literature, but seriously, I doubt there is enough depth to that book or its characters to even corrupt a chav. Now the Dark Materials; there is a book worth reading, if want eternal damnation...but I digress, my point for all it is worth, is that religious activists on the whole, are stupid, petulant and self-serving...not to say this without exception or that they are only group to hold these universally human traits, but they are the group in question, so such a wider point, is not worth noting, beyond the point of noting it.
So here are 3 points to clear this up for you: 1=The law no longer gives two stuffs if it breaks moral codes of religion, but well lets face it, religion has generally been found wanting in the moral departments for some time. So that point is redundant...case closed as they say in the cheesy movies. 2=So what does this act say; what it actually says is that you cannot cripple 'debate' around religion with this act, but lets face it, religious groups on the whole have never been very good at the whole academic debate thing, sure again there are exceptions, but on the whole, they suck at it...ranging from students refusing to participate in national debates because low and behold, such a debate may include the word god in it at some point, to therologicans basically being stumped on a theoretical point, that their only response is, "you are simply not holy enough to understand"...wow, I'm beat. -Religious groups also like to abuse law to stop anyone making any criticism against them, while happily criticising everything else in existence. So law has to be clear on this point...it is making a difference between...someone saying "your religious, thus your stupid." and someone saying the same thing, but in more articulate manner and with actual evidence to back their points up. Maybe you do not feel there is a difference, but there is because the major difference between legal morality (such as what it is) and religion morality (same if) is that "only the sith deal in absolutes!" -The law is balancing two many earthbound and thus real problems to be afforded such simplistic luxury. So this law is basically trying to show difference between religious debate and religious hatin (that how the youngish types, now say it) whether will work or not, is yet to be seen, but fear not, such a counter weight works as much in religion against world arguments as does other way. -Of course I am talking to someone who has taken a massive piece of law decided to take one small part of it as a stand alone with no reference to other equally read parts which work together in their entity, so really, my whole argument is pointless because law is simply not meant to be read and understood by such people...that is a failing of law, not you. 3=Now do not get me wrong, I do not think this act is some golden goose, which spirals into the mystical realm of irreproachable, I am sure it, like all law will have many a contentious moment before its unavoidable amendments and I personally have never much been a fan of law which attains to stop mental attacks because, despite their obvious good intentions, they are simply so illusive in application that often, when actually used, neither side is really in any position to justify their claim of it as there is no way to prove whom holds the generally none-existent high ground and it is quantifying that which does not exist. Plus those that need it, can not apply it because of the practical reality of their situation and so the resources used here could be applied more effectively else where. -So as I said, this not some holy act, but for religious groups to moan on such selfish grounds against it, attains to show they have no place in this debate until they learn to appreciate what law is and how it works.
|
|
#3
11-03-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
First of all, I'd like to say that I don't fully understand the law that is being discussed. I watched the video, but it didn't give me much of a sense of what the law would actually do. As I am too lazy to do any real research, here is my ignorant ass opinion.
Trying to legislate bullying is stupid. It has never worked in the past and is unlikely to work in the future. There are always going to be bullies because there will always be bad parents. When dad comes home at 3 in the morning and beats the shit out of the kids, that's what they learn. There is no reasoning with them, no appealing to any sense of human decency, and there is certainly no appealing to their deep concern for the legislative process. They bully because they have been bullied and have no one to teach them how to behave differently. Is a law going to give them a better home life? Is a law going to sit down and explain to them why bullying is wrong? Its just another legislative circle jerk where everyone tries to solve a problem they don't understand. I know not all bullies have been abused, but I'm willing to bet most of them have bad parents. If they aren't being abused, then its most likely a situation where they are spoiled and used to their parents bending to their every whim. Eric Cartman is a good example. Bullying is going to happen. The best thing we can do is teach kids how to deal with bullies. Because they aren't going to go away. Even adults have to deal with bullies. Kids need to realize that some people are just dicks and they need to grow a thicker skin to deal with that reality.
|
|
#4
11-04-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Well uhh. Typically bills that have to do with bullying are just ways of preparing for a re-election campaign.
|
|
#5
11-09-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#6
11-14-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's mostly massive overreaction to this bill. But, as written there is an issue.
First some background. In general, it's difficult to come up with a good legislative solution in this area that in effect provides protection against actual bullying without impeding upon protected first amendment speech. The problem is that it's highly contextual as to whether any given statement is meant to bully. An example would be one kid asking another "are those new shoes?", which is an innocent enough statement on it's own. However, it can be intended to bully/tease if the kid is poor and cannot afford new shoes, or to evoke some embarrassing memory. There is a question of intent and result that can only be determined by people familiar with the context. Legislation cannot determine context, so to be effective it needs to allow teachers, school officials, parents, etc leeway in determining what speech in what instance is bullying. It seems clear that one kid repeatedly saying things intended to be hurtful to another kid, that are taken has hurtful by that kid, is bullying. However, it's not so clear when one kid is saying things that are not meant to be hurtful, but are taken has being hurtful by another (it's especially not clear if the speech wasn't even directed at the hurt kid). It's not inherently bullying if one kid is hurt because another kid doesn't want to be friends with them, or doesn't want to go to a dance with them, or even doesn't really like them. Everyone is perfectly entitled to have personal likes, dislikes, and beliefs/morals, whatever they may be, and the simple expression of these ideas/opinions is protected by the first amendment. One kid can simply say to another "No, I don't want to be friends with you," and though the other may find it hurtful, it's not bullying. However, it may become bullying if the first kid goes beyond simple expression, if they keep bringing it up for no reason. If the second kid is no longer trying to be friends with the first, and the first kid continually says "I don't like you," or "you're not my friend," in the course of normal school work, then that's not appropriate. Now, in terms of the Michigan bill, here is the full subsection in question: "(8) This section does not abridge the rights under the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States or under article I of the state constitution of 1963 of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian. This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian." The point is that people have a first amendment right to express ideas and opinions freely, which this bill, nor any other cannot unreasonably restrict. Thus, they attempt to spell that out and make it clear, otherwise as a law it has more of an opening to be challenged on constitutional grounds. Under the first amendment, a kid has a right to believe that homosexuality is immoral, or that homosexuality is moral, or that god doesn't exist, or that god does exist, and they have a right to simple expression of this. It's not bullying if a kid simply states that they believe "homosexuality is wrong," for the same reasons it's not bullying if a kid simply states that they believe "there's nothing wrong with homosexuality," or "there is no god," even if the simple statement of that is hurtful to another. That's what they're trying to protect with this subsection of the bill. HOWEVER, there is a problem with the bill, in that as written it's not an exemption just for constitutionally accepted speech, but any speech backed up by belief or moral conviction. As I said before, if a kid simply states that they don't believe it god, or that "There is no god," it's protected speech and not bullying. But, if that kid goes beyond simple expression, and targets another kid for harassment, it's not constitutionally protected. If the first kid continually says to the religious kid "you're stupid for believing in god," "you're not going to heaven when you die, there's nothing," even though the reasoning behind the speech is based in the kid's beliefs, what they're doing with it is harassment/bullying. So, what they should do is re-write the exemption to limit it to constitutionally protected speech, and if there is question as to the meaning, it should be further defined by the courts. I would like to also point out that kids actually bullying another kid for ANY reason is wrong. It's not something limited to sexuality, race, handicap, deformity, weirdness, quirk, religion; It's wrong regardless of the reason and all bullying should be treated as equally wrong.
|
|
#7
11-14-2011
|
||||
|
||||
|
They really need to fix this bill.
|
 |
|
|
