toldailytopic: Internet bullying - where do you draw the line?

[aSeattleConserv]

Why not enforce the laws we have?

It appears that we are:


1 in every 100 Americans in jail

Friday, February 29, 2008

Pennsylvania had the largest prison population growth in the Northeast last year, part of a national trend of proliferating prison populations in which more than one in 100 American adults now is incarcerated, according to a study released yesterday by the Pew Center's Public Safety Performance Project.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08060/861421-85.stm#ixzz113xRsS5B

Job security for you Ktoyou?

 

[MrDeets]

My condolences to your loss of a friend through such tragic circumstances.

Thanks... actually, though, I believe that his death was what sparked a chain of events that brought me back to Christ! So, although I think it sucks one of my best friends is dead(happened 5 years ago) and I miss him still, I can't be upset about it anymore. Romans 8:28. And thats a fact.

In short, the purpose of the family, the Church, the civil magistrate, hence societal values, should be to glorify God.

In the words of the Beasty Boys... or maybe The Beach Boys... or was it The Soggy Bottom Boys, "Wooooouldn't it be nice if we were older, then we wouldn't have to wait so loooong. And wouldn't it be nice to live together in the kind of world where we belong."

 

[Traditio]

Nothing should be done. If you don't want to get bullied on the internet, then don't get on the internet.

 

[Ktoyou]

It appears that we are:


1 in every 100 Americans in jail

Friday, February 29, 2008

Pennsylvania had the largest prison population growth in the Northeast last year, part of a national trend of proliferating prison populations in which more than one in 100 American adults now is incarcerated, according to a study released yesterday by the Pew Center's Public Safety Performance Project.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08060/861421-85.stm#ixzz113xRsS5B

Job security for you Ktoyou?

Ha ha, why would I need job security? I know, you do not read well. Putting someone is prison is not the same as making prison time effective.

 

[Ktoyou]

LOL, this thread is too funny!

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Ha ha, why would I need job security? I know, you do not read well. Putting someone is prison is not the same as making prison time effective.

You don't figure things out too well. With 1 in 100 American's in prison, we don't need more laws, we have more than enough; we need more morality.

 

[Ktoyou]

You don't figure things out too well. With 1 in 100 American's in prison, we don't need more laws, we have more than enough; we need more morality.

You need to have your head examined.

Also, let me add, did you read where I said hard work prison is more a hotel to some hard criminals. One cannot force someone else to change their thoughts, you need to change behaviour first!

 

[Nick M]

However, what scares me is that we (as a society) might start getting looser and looser with our definition as to what internet bullying actually is.

Bullying in its basic form is actually threats. Recording somebody whether with the husband, wife, or fagdom lover isn't bullying, but it is an invasion of privacy, which God condemns. Those that read the Bible know what he said about "nakedness". Of course, some of those things went beyond looking.

[aside]
This is one reason why I think a moral code based on God's word is more effective that a moral code based on human values. Under human values, it is possible for internet bullying to be justified at some point. Under God's morals, my behavior is always the same whether I am typing on a key board or having this discussion face to face with you. My behavior as a Christian should always be the same.
[/aside]

Unless it is a homo that you want to defend. Since when did you change your stance?

 

[Nick M]

It is possible to rebuke somebody without resorting to the need to insult them and call them names.

That is the law of the land. Who are we to question it? That is why pedophiles that aren't executed have to register where they go. They need to be labeled as perverts so parents know he is in the neighborhood to protect their child. Why we don't invoke justice in these cases is the real head scratcher.

But labeling them correctly is name calling.

 

[Son of Jack]

Nothing should be done. If you don't want to get bullied on the internet, then don't get on the internet.

Said some unnamed bully to the kid philosopher on the playground...:allsmile:

 

[Lighthouse]

He really should stop! Because Lighthouse turns into Whinehouse when he thinks he's getting picked on too much and then Knight has to take action. :allsmile:

Prove it.:smokie:

That is the law of the land. Who are we to question it? That is why pedophiles that aren't executed have to register where they go. They need to be labeled as perverts so parents know he is in the neighborhood to protect their child. Why we don't invoke justice in these cases is the real head scratcher.

But labeling them correctly is name calling.

Problem is the law doesn't label them correctly.

 

[Frank Ernest]

This is an interesting issue. Where do you draw the line on this? If a person commits suicide how can you prove it was because of what somebody said to them on the internet?

Yet another example of some vague concept used to further the "shift the blame" attitude so prevalent nowadays. Say hello to more "political correctness."

Don't get me wrong.... we all know that people say some really mean and harsh things online but it seems to me there could be no logical limit to what could be considered internet bullying.

Precisely correct! The tactic and accusation would be used to silence one's critics rather than correct some emerging evil.

 

[Traditio]

Said some unnamed bully to the kid philosopher on the playground...:allsmile:

The very nature of the internet is that it's a purely voluntary species of interaction. :idunno:

 

[Traditio]

You need to have your head examined.

Also, let me add, did you read where I said hard work prison is more a hotel to some hard criminals. One cannot force someone else to change their thoughts, you need to change behaviour first!

Aristotle agrees. Christ doesn't. "It is not what goeth into a man that defileth him..."

 

[TomO]

The very nature of the internet is that it's a purely voluntary species of interaction. :idunno:

So's the job market.

 

[bybee]

However

However

The very nature of the internet is that it's a purely voluntary species of interaction. :idunno:

Apparently not! Often the exposure of one's private moments is not voluntary. Rather some perverted sadists get their jollies by posting other person's private behavior on the internet without permission. They obtain this information through stealth and spying on others, often, on person's who consider them to be friends.
I consider this disgusting behavior to be, at the least, a form of aggravated assault.

 

[Son of Jack]

The very nature of the internet is that it's a purely voluntary species of interaction. :idunno:

It was a joke, Trad. However, just because someone is on the internet does not necessitate that they should be the object of derision. I understand your point; people should be realize that when they get on the internet this sort of thing is a possibility. That said, I also realize that there are certain places in town that aren't the safest, but shouldn't I expect some protection from the law enforcement of the town?

 

[Granite]

Apparently not! Often the exposure of one's private moments is not voluntary. Rather some perverted sadists get their jollies by posting other person's private behavior on the internet without permission. They obtain this information through stealth and spying on others, often, on person's who consider them to be friends.
I consider this disgusting behavior to be, at the least, a form of aggravated assault.

Bingo! Exposing someone's secrets or what they said in confidence (or what was taped/recorded unawares) is a betrayal of trust that needs to be penalized.

 

[El DLo]

I honestly think it should be dealt with on a case by case basis. It's similar to a hate crime in that someone needs to investigate the case before they can determine the intent of the criminal. This is no different. Even as it stands, a claim wouldn't be filed until the person being bullied has either been pushed to far, or, unfortunately, tragedy has stricken. I think when these are brought up is when the implications should be assessed. I mean, it's the age of the internet. Unless the internet bully is a master cryptographer, chances are there will be more than enough information stored on the person's computer, with their ISP or on the servers of the communication method involved to arrive with more than enough evidence to make a decision in regards to the case.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Unless it is a homo that you want to defend. Since when did you change your stance?

I have not changed my stance.