To win one thousand fights in one thousand battles is not the skill you should be seeking. To resolve the confrontation favorably without fighting is the skill you should be teaching.
Either that, or firearm lessons. Biting and stinkbombs simply won’t work in environments where physical aggression is required, and there is no good reason for partial measures.
To win one thousand fights in one thousand battles is not the skill you should be seeking. To resolve the confrontation favorably without fighting is the skill you should be teaching.
To avoid losing a thousand fights through the mere presence of a deterrent is a valuable and generalisable lesson. Finding ways to resolve confrontation without fighting is desirable but once again I have to point out that it is not always possible. Children do not get to choose whether or which school they are subjected to and so can not rely on the most important aspects of personal boundaries (those that follow from having the ability to choose situations). If they are forced into an environment where pacifism is a suboptimal survival strategy then forcing pacifism on them for ideological reason is adding insult to injury. Or adding more injury and permanent psychological damage to injury as the case may be.
Either that, or firearm lessons. Biting and stinkbombs simply won’t work in environments where physical aggression is required,
Taking firearms to school is frowned upon. At least it is in my country, I can’t speak for anywhere else. I also haven’t ever seen either biting or stinkbombs advocated as an optimal fighting strategy for humans.
and there is no good reason for partial measures.
Yes there are. There is a reason not all wars consist of total nuclear obliteration in the opening day of conflict. There is also a reason why comparatively few physical conflicts between individuals, including individuals confined to schoolyards, are fights to the death.
“environments where physical aggression is socially advantageous” are frowned upon as well. If the people who frown upon violence in the school don’t take effective measures to address moderate violence, then they might take effective measures to address serious violence.
I think we might be talking about different things; I’m not addressing social posturing. I’m addressing things which would be felonies and treated as such if done openly by one adult to another: If someone punches me in the stomach and demands cash or he will do it again, why should age or the amount of money involved be deciding?
Fights are to lesser stakes than annihilation because the outcome is typically less important than existence to both parties. I’m not sure why the minimum required deterrent is better than the maximum possible deterrent.
That said, using weapons that are less likely to attract as much attention from an incompetent school administration while still being sufficient have a cost advantage. I suggest things which are also legitimate educational supplies, like metal or metal-edged rulers, if low-social-cost weapons are desired. As with any weapon, learn to use it effectively before you use it.
“environments where physical aggression is socially advantageous” are frowned upon as well.
That is as it should be. But you do not fix this problem by crippling the victims and still not giving them a way out.
I think we might be talking about different things; I’m not addressing social posturing. I’m addressing things which would be felonies and treated as such if done openly by one adult to another: If someone punches me in the stomach and demands cash or he will do it again, why should age or the amount of money involved be deciding?
Those things certainly should be illegal and treated as such. Authorities who control such environments and who permit such behaviour are collectively evil. But it is also abhorrent to me to cripple the victims with idealistic morality that doesn’t work in the world in which they live.
To win one thousand fights in one thousand battles is not the skill you should be seeking. To resolve the confrontation favorably without fighting is the skill you should be teaching.
Either that, or firearm lessons. Biting and stinkbombs simply won’t work in environments where physical aggression is required, and there is no good reason for partial measures.
To avoid losing a thousand fights through the mere presence of a deterrent is a valuable and generalisable lesson. Finding ways to resolve confrontation without fighting is desirable but once again I have to point out that it is not always possible. Children do not get to choose whether or which school they are subjected to and so can not rely on the most important aspects of personal boundaries (those that follow from having the ability to choose situations). If they are forced into an environment where pacifism is a suboptimal survival strategy then forcing pacifism on them for ideological reason is adding insult to injury. Or adding more injury and permanent psychological damage to injury as the case may be.
Taking firearms to school is frowned upon. At least it is in my country, I can’t speak for anywhere else. I also haven’t ever seen either biting or stinkbombs advocated as an optimal fighting strategy for humans.
Yes there are. There is a reason not all wars consist of total nuclear obliteration in the opening day of conflict. There is also a reason why comparatively few physical conflicts between individuals, including individuals confined to schoolyards, are fights to the death.
“environments where physical aggression is socially advantageous” are frowned upon as well. If the people who frown upon violence in the school don’t take effective measures to address moderate violence, then they might take effective measures to address serious violence.
I think we might be talking about different things; I’m not addressing social posturing. I’m addressing things which would be felonies and treated as such if done openly by one adult to another: If someone punches me in the stomach and demands cash or he will do it again, why should age or the amount of money involved be deciding?
Fights are to lesser stakes than annihilation because the outcome is typically less important than existence to both parties. I’m not sure why the minimum required deterrent is better than the maximum possible deterrent.
That said, using weapons that are less likely to attract as much attention from an incompetent school administration while still being sufficient have a cost advantage. I suggest things which are also legitimate educational supplies, like metal or metal-edged rulers, if low-social-cost weapons are desired. As with any weapon, learn to use it effectively before you use it.
That is as it should be. But you do not fix this problem by crippling the victims and still not giving them a way out.
Those things certainly should be illegal and treated as such. Authorities who control such environments and who permit such behaviour are collectively evil. But it is also abhorrent to me to cripple the victims with idealistic morality that doesn’t work in the world in which they live.
You’re trying to change the world so as to make one person not be bullied. I’m trying to change the world such that fewer people are bullied.
It bothers me a little bit that our responses both make sense in context but are so different.