What's wrong with being gay?

[Daedalus X]

This thread is a continuation of an off topic conversation from here.

First, I think that we all agree that it's important to promote understanding, respect, and equality for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated with dignity and allowed to express their identity without fear of discrimination or harm.


Question for debate is LGTBQIA2S+ a harmless social contagion, or are there serious unintended consequences awaiting the individuals and societies that are going down this road?

[Clownboat]

Plus I am not in a more powerful, favorable position and I hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful->(you).
The condition for being a bully event is not met.

What you point out above is simply what makes your online bullying ineffective on me. What if I was insecure about my intelligence or about my memory? Then it might be effective and this is why we must continue to punish crimes and not people being simply unkind.

To be clear, I do not seek for you to be punished for the unkind things you have said or suggested here. Now imagine a scenario where I didn't like you as a person. Perhaps I get others to agree with me, that your ridicule amounted to bullying and you now are facing potential jail time. That is in no way similar to committing the crimes of assault and theft. Someone that commits assault knows what awaits them if caught. Someone being a mean online cannot know what level of ridicule another might feel and will therefore not know if they are guilty of bullying when they do it (see PurpleKnight's argument).

Imagine a scenario where Clownboat gets picked on daily for his lack of intelligence and you were the straw that broke the camels back that causes me to take my own life. What crime would you argue that you should be charged with, what kind of punishment should be dished out and were you aware of your guilt beforehand?

[Clownboat]

Sir I was talking about me.

No you weren't.
alexxcJRO from post #219: "Nonsense. Nobody is equating physical assault with bulling."

I wish you would be more honest.

Q: WTF? ))

WTF Indeed!

I'm referring to exact things you called bullying. The things were assault and theft and you provided specific examples.
alexxcJRO Copy/paste: "Bulling in my school involved physical assault, putting people with heads in toilets, hanging them on hallways hangers, stealing things."

I was not calling bulling physical assault and theft. Stop with the straw-man.

Post #104 Copy/paste: "The small kids, nerdy kids were beaten, put with heads in toilets, had their food stollen, hanged in the hallways racks."

Mirror event: "If I a prisoner was being beat by you(CIA agent) physically in the process of torturing you among other things like psychological torture(exposure to loud music), physical torture(exposure to cold) and so on would you be guilty of torture or physically assault ?

Beating of someone is physical assault. Exposure to loud music is physical assault. Exposure to cold would be physical assault. These crimes are crimes no matter if you call the person committing them a torturer or a bully.

Will you be so kind as to answer my question? If I were to shove your head into a toilet, would I be guilty of bullying, or assault?

My answer: You would be guilty of both assaulting me and torturing me per meaning of the concepts. Both are punishable by law. QED.

You're answering a question that no one has asked you while you ignore specific questions that were asked of you. Now hypothetically, would it be online bullying if I called you a coward for this? Would a crime have been committed? What if you are really sensitive to being a coward, how would I know this and how could I know how such a statement will affect you before I might state it? I know what affect my fist will have against your nose and I know what crime that would be before any action has taken place. I can't know if calling you a coward might be the final straw that causes you to take your own life though. This doesn't seem to concern you, but it very much concerns myself and PurpleKnight.

Correct. So the fact that we have laws against assault does not stop us from having laws against torture which may include assault.

You think I'm making this argument? No wonder you think I'm a moron.
What I actually think is that assault is a crime that should be punished and if someone shoves your head in a toilet, they should be punished for the said crime of assault. Also punishing the very same act as bullying would be redundant. How many times do you want people be punished for a single crime and why?

So your whole argument goes down the drain.

Please show that you understand my argument and why it has gone down the drain so I can amend my thinking.

Sir assault which happens as part of bulling in schools is not punished.

Then might I suggest you argue to start punishing such crimes, not calling these crimes another word?

There were few attempts to make laws and are still talks of doing something but as of now there is nothing final.

Gee, I wonder why they struggle!
Assault and theft should be punishable crimes. On this you have my full support.

[boatsnguitars]

Bullying is an ongoing and deliberate misuse of power in relationships through repeated verbal, physical and/or social behaviour that intends to cause physical, social and/or psychological harm.

https://www.ncab.org.au/bullying-advice ... cal%20harm.

It does appear that one could be found guilty of bullying, but not assault, even if there was assault.
However, I don't know how case's play out in the real world.

https://anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/to ... t-bullying

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... eated-such

https://thelawman.net/blog/when-can-bul ... h-assault/

[alexxcJRO]

What you point out above is simply what makes your online bullying ineffective on me. What if I was insecure about my intelligence or about my memory? Then it might be effective and this is why we must continue to punish crimes and not people being simply unkind.

Sir you acussed me of bulling that was not hypothetical. Now you are backtracking making hypotheticals. How laughably.

Let's play your useless hypothetical game:

If I was in more favorable position as a person: being very smart and I was hurting or frightening other person which is in a less favorable position: a person with some retard, low level intelligence on repeated times over weeks, months, years.
I ridicule the person, make fun of and laugh at the person because of his/her/they lack of intelligence.

Then I should be punished, yes for bulling. It is a deeply evil and malevolent thing to do: to pick the most weak, less defensible and inflict suffering on top of there own problems which I don't have and should be grateful for.

To be clear, I do not seek for you to be punished for the unkind things you have said or suggested here. Now imagine a scenario where I didn't like you as a person. Perhaps I get others to agree with me, that your ridicule amounted to bullying and you now are facing potential jail time. That is in no way similar to committing the crimes of assault and theft.

Already debunked this before:
Post #202 : "All I hear is hard sometimes to prove it. He-said-she-said situations where we have only the perpetrator and the victim. Or sometimes people will gang and lie about an offence that did not happen.
This problems happen will other offences: sexual harassment, stealing, murder and so on.
Where we do no have footage evidence, physical evidence, eyewitness testimony and its hard to prosecute; where we have only he-said-she-said; where people gang together and lie about some offence and some innocent gets convicted wrongly.
But that does not stop us to not have laws against said offences. QED."

Someone that commits assault knows what awaits them if caught. Someone being a mean online cannot know what level of ridicule another might feel and will therefore not know if they are guilty of bullying when they do it (see PurpleKnight's argument).

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Also there is no practical way to teach all the laws to everyone.
I already adressed this before:
"Deep down we know bulling(the behaviour of a person who hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do), murdering, stealing, raping it is wrong while doing it and after.
The law is there just to keep the peace and order in society because most humans are destructive, selfish, irresponsible, evil, malevolent, very prone to overindulgence. Most humans can't help themselves but behave in an evil, malevolent, selfish manner.
I don't think anyone can play dumb and say I did not knew rape, murder, stealing, physical assault, domestic violence was wrong and therefore probably there is most likely a law against it."

I don't care if people ignore their intrinsic morality and do evil, malevolent things.

Everyone should be responsible for his/her actions. Playing dumb is disingenuous and pathetic.

Observation:
We have an objective mechanism leading to a morality that is independent of religious propaganda or societal influence.
Evolution -> Mirror neurons -> Affective Empathy.
As a result of this mirroring process =affective empathy we humans(except psychopaths who have a innate problem involving the affective empathy) have developed intrinsically a sense of morality) mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself.
It is a fact that when you see children, women being raped, tortured or killed; when you see the face of someone experiencing intense fear/pain/suffering your mirror neurons fire and the affective empathy process is triggered. You empathize with these people for you put yourself in their shoes aka the mirroring process and because you would not want to be raped, tortured, killed(your existence to be stopped, because of the survival instinct) you instinctively find these actions abhorrent.
Our intrinsic "Morality" is tied to Affective Empathy.

Imagine a scenario where Clownboat gets picked on daily for his lack of intelligence and you were the straw that broke the camels back that causes me to take my own life. What crime would you argue that you should be charged with, what kind of punishment should be dished out and were you aware of your guilt beforehand?

Sir if someone else bullied you and my remarks made you suicide that does not make laws for bulling unnecessary.
Its like saying someone else was sexually harassed or raped you and my sexual advances broke the camels back that causes you to take your own life because of previous events.
Its not my fault someone else was evil and behaved in a malevolent way.
Bulling and sexual offences still need to be punished.
You objection has been debunked. Nice try.

[alexxcJRO]

No you weren't.
alexxcJRO from post #219: "Nonsense. Nobody is equating physical assault with bulling."

I wish you would be more honest.

Stop it please with the straw-mans. When I said "Nobody" I meant me.

Post #104 Copy/paste: "The small kids, nerdy kids were beaten, put with heads in toilets, had their food stollen, hanged in the hallways racks."

Non sequitur.
That does not means I equated bulling with physical assault and theft.
Saying bulling may include physical assault, psychological assault, stealing, ridicule is not equating bulling with physical assault. Just like saying torture of prisoners/people may may include physical assault, psychological assault, ridicule, coercion.

Beating of someone is physical assault. Exposure to loud music is physical assault. Exposure to cold would be physical assault. These crimes are crimes no matter if you call the person committing them a torturer or a bully.

I have drawn you pictures like for small kids and still there is a problem.

Q: How is that possible?!!!!(rethorical question)

Torturing of a prisoner/people involved multiple actions/concepts: physical assault, psychological assault-ridicule(sleep deprivation; solitary confinement; fear and humiliation; severe sexual and cultural humiliations).
Yet we have laws for both the smaller concept: physical assault and the bigger one: torture of prisoners/people which includes the smaller one.
Therefore there is no issue to have laws for bulling as we do for torture. QED.

Will you be so kind as to answer my question? If I were to shove your head into a toilet, would I be guilty of bullying, or assault?
You're answering a question that no one has asked you while you ignore specific questions that were asked of you. Now hypothetically, would it be online bullying if I called you a coward for this? Would a crime have been committed? What if you are really sensitive to being a coward, how would I know this and how could I know how such a statement will affect you before I might state it? I know what affect my fist will have against your nose and I know what crime that would be before any action has taken place. I can't know if calling you a coward might be the final straw that causes you to take your own life though. This doesn't seem to concern you, but it very much concerns myself and PurpleKnight.

You have nothing sir.
If it was a single event it would be physical assault. It does not match the definition of bulling.

At this point is simply disingenuous to continue on this reasoning where multiple times I supply a definition: bulling-the behaviour of a person who hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do.
I multiple times said the concept of bulling means repeated actions.

And you come with the above.
Q: How is that possible?

You think I'm making this argument? No wonder you think I'm a moron.
What I actually think is that assault is a crime that should be punished and if someone shoves your head in a toilet, they should be punished for the said crime of assault. Also punishing the very same act as bullying would be redundant. How many times do you want people be punished for a single crime and why?

But nobody(me) is equating bulling with physical assault.
Therefore your food for your argument is non-existent.
Imagined food cannot be eaten. It only exist in the mind.

Then might I suggest you argue to start punishing such crimes, not calling these crimes another word?

Nobody is calling these crimes another words. That your delusion. Not my problem.

Gee, I wonder why they struggle!
Assault and theft should be punishable crimes. On this you have my full support.

Things did not happened overnight with rasism and other times. Things take times.
The fact that there is talks and it exist in some other countries only provides food for my argument.
Change takes time.
https://www.euronews.com/2022/02/24/fra ... l-bullying

[Clownboat]

Sir you acussed me of bulling that was not hypothetical.

Correct. You have been an ineffective bully in this thread.

Now you are backtracking making hypotheticals. How laughably.

Nope, you have been and remain and ineffective bully. I have been very clear about this for many pages.

If I was in more favorable position as a person: being very smart and I was hurting or frightening other person which is in a less favorable position: a person with some retard, low level intelligence on repeated times over weeks, months, years.
I ridicule the person, make fun of and laugh at the person because of his/her/they lack of intelligence.

Then I should be punished, yes for bulling.

This is where you lose me. Point to a crime and then you have my support. Can you do that? When you can't and instead allude to bullying being the crime, then please address on a riducule scale of 1-100 as to when a crime has been committed. When a person feels a ridicule level of 30 maybe, but how can we know how much ridicule another is feeling?

It is a deeply evil and malevolent thing to do: to pick the most weak, less defensible and inflict suffering on top of there own problems which I don't have and should be grateful for.

It's still likely evil and malevolent, even if the other person is not weak or defenseless. The other person not being weak or defenseless is just what makes the bullying ineffective as we see here.

Already debunked this before:
Post #202 : "All I hear is hard sometimes to prove it. He-said-she-said situations where we have only the perpetrator and the victim. Or sometimes people will gang and lie about an offence that did not happen.
This problems happen will other offences: sexual harassment, stealing, murder and so on.
Where we do no have footage evidence, physical evidence, eyewitness testimony and its hard to prosecute; where we have only he-said-she-said; where people gang together and lie about some offence and some innocent gets convicted wrongly.
But that does not stop us to not have laws against said offences. QED."[/i]

PurpleKnight: "You can't use rape laws as evidence that laws against bullying would be good laws. Many people think rape laws go too far, for the same reason: No one can know when they'll be charged with rape."
I can only assume you are not reading replies...

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I never said it was. What I did say was: "Someone being mean online cannot know what level of ridicule another might feel and will therefore not know if they are guilty of bullying when they do it".
You failed to address this and instead address a strawman about ignorance.

"Deep down we know bulling(the behaviour of a person who hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do), murdering, stealing, raping it is wrong while doing it and after.

You are incorrect as what level of ridicule a person might feel will be unknown. Please see the actual point that was made. "Someone being mean online cannot know what level of ridicule another might feel and will therefore not know if they are guilty of bullying when they do it".
To evidence my point. What level of ridicule did you make me feel here in this thread on a scale of 1 - 100?
I'm going to prophecy that this will be another question of mine that you will refuse to answer. Your inability to answer this question is what makes punishment for bullying not a good idea. Your inability to provide an accurate number makes my point.

The law is there just to keep the peace and order in society because most humans are destructive, selfish, irresponsible, evil, malevolent, very prone to overindulgence. Most humans can't help themselves but behave in an evil, malevolent, selfish manner.

There is literally nothing here for me to address.

I don't think anyone can play dumb and say I did not knew rape, murder, stealing, physical assault, domestic violence was wrong and therefore probably there is most likely a law against it.

Again, what level of ridicule did you make me feel here in this thread on a scale of 1 - 100?

I don't care if people ignore their intrinsic morality and do evil, malevolent things.

You seem lost. What does this have to do with what we are debating? Notice how there is nothing for me to reply to? Not one single question.

Everyone should be responsible for his/her actions. Playing dumb is disingenuous and pathetic.

You seem lost. What does this have to do with what we are debating? Notice how there is nothing for me to reply to? Not one single question.

<snipped alexxcJRO's observations about morality>
You seem lost. What does morality have to do with what we are debating? There was nothing for me to reply to? Not one single question.

Imagine a scenario where Clownboat gets picked on daily for his lack of intelligence and you were the straw that broke the camels back that causes me to take my own life. What crime would you argue that you should be charged with, what kind of punishment should be dished out and were you aware of your guilt beforehand?

Sir if someone else bullied you and my remarks made you suicide that does not make laws for bulling unnecessary.

I never said it did. I did ask you two direct questions that you once again failed to acknowledge or address though (I left them for you above in bold this time). Please make note of question marks and what they are used for, especially since you are voluntarily on a debate forum.

Its like saying someone else was sexually harassed or raped you and my sexual advances broke the camels back that causes you to take your own life because of previous events.
Its not my fault someone else was evil and behaved in a malevolent way.
Bulling and sexual offences still need to be punished.
You objection has been debunked. Nice try.

More statements and no questions. You do know you are on a debate site don't you? I ask because you avoid discussing the questions I pose to you and instead throttle me with statements that don't require a reply. How can I learn from you if you are unable to offer up any challenges?

The amount of bullying a person might be feeling is unknowable and therefore bullying should not be crime in itself.
Contrast with:
- Jee, I wonder if this person is feeling assaulted when I shove their head in the toilet.
- Jee, I wonder if this person is feeling robed from when I stole their property.

[Clownboat]

Stop it please with the straw-mans. When I said "Nobody" I meant me.

Just leaving this one here for all to read again!

Post #104 Copy/paste: "The small kids, nerdy kids were beaten, put with heads in toilets, had their food stollen, hanged in the hallways racks."

Non sequitur.
That does not means I equated bulling with physical assault and theft.

So, you now claim you were not talking about bullying when you mentioned small nerdy kids being beaten (assault), heads put in toilets (assault) and property stolen (theft). Kindly explain to us all as to what you were actually referring to.
Clearly you have equated these crimes with bullying for all of us to see.

Saying bulling may include physical assault, psychological assault, stealing, ridicule is not equating bulling with physical assault. Just like saying torture of prisoners/people may may include physical assault, psychological assault, ridicule, coercion.

Ok, now please address the small nerdy kids you mentioned that were beaten, stolen from and had their heads shoved into toilets.

I have drawn you pictures like for small kids and still there is a problem.

I believe you are the common denominator here. When you ask me a question, I answer it. You play games and draw pictures.

Torturing of a prisoner/people involved multiple actions/concepts: physical assault, psychological assault-ridicule(sleep deprivation; solitary confinement; fear and humiliation; severe sexual and cultural humiliations).
Yet we have laws for both the smaller concept: physical assault and the bigger one: torture of prisoners/people which includes the smaller one.
Therefore there is no issue to have laws for bulling as we do for torture. QED.

Now that is a non sequitur.
How can we measure the amount of bullying a person is feeling or might feel?
"Well Clownboat, to answer your question, we would do it this way" is not a response I will be getting unfortunately.

Will you be so kind as to answer my question? If I were to shove your head into a toilet, would I be guilty of bullying, or assault?
You're answering a question that no one has asked you while you ignore specific questions that were asked of you. Now hypothetically, would it be online bullying if I called you a coward for this? Would a crime have been committed? What if you are really sensitive to being a coward, how would I know this and how could I know how such a statement will affect you before I might state it? I know what affect my fist will have against your nose and I know what crime that would be before any action has taken place. I can't know if calling you a coward might be the final straw that causes you to take your own life though. This doesn't seem to concern you, but it very much concerns myself and PurpleKnight.

You have nothing sir.

This is untrue. What I had was asked of you above. You can address it or you can pretend I had nothing when clearly I did. See the question marks? I bolded them for you this time.

If it was a single event it would be physical assault. It does not match the definition of bulling.

Got it, so once it is more than a single event, that is WHEN YOU EQUATE BULLYING WITH ASSAULT? At what point does stealing equate to bullying? How many events would that require in order for this theft to be bullying?

At this point is simply disingenuous to continue on this reasoning where multiple times I supply a definition: bulling-the behaviour of a person who hurts or frightens someone smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do.

I acknowledge this definition and seek to debate within in it. Which is what I'm doing when I ask you what level of ridicule I felt from you in this thread and at what point does ridicule become the crime of bullying.

I multiple times said the concept of bulling means repeated actions.

Like the ridicule in this thread? How much ridicule did I feel? Enough to make the charge that you should go to jail for being a bully?

But nobody(me) is equating bulling with physical assault.

So those nerdy small kids that had their property stolen and their head shoved into toilets were not bullied? You continue to provide examples as to why we cannot punish for bullying. We can't even agree that shoving a small nerdy kids head in the toilet is to bully.

<Snipped irrelevant comment about imagine food>

Nobody is calling these crimes another words. That your delusion. Not my problem.

Well Jee, I thought the examples you provided were of small nerdy kids, who are being beaten, stolen from and having their heads shoved in toilets. I pointed out that crimes are being committed when this takes place. Apparently you agree and therefore there is no need to punish for bullying.

Things did not happened overnight with rasism and other times. Things take times.

Yup.

The fact that there is talks and it exist in some other countries only provides food for my argument.

So because talks exist in some other countries, you think that provides food for your argument? It is time for you restate your argument.

[alexxcJRO]

Correct. You have been an ineffective bully in this thread.
Nope, you have been and remain and ineffective bully. I have been very clear about this for many pages.
Again, what level of ridicule did you make me feel here in this thread on a scale of 1 - 100?

Assertions.
Ridicule does not equal bulling. One is smaller concept which is included in the bigger concept.
If two mates ridicule each other is not bulling. We have to have disproportion, a person which is in a more favorable position and one in a more less favorable position. We have to have the person which is in a less favorable position person being in a state of "Hurting or frightening". We do not have that.

This is where you lose me. Point to a crime and then you have my support. Can you do that? When you can't and instead allude to bullying being the crime, then please address on a riducule scale of 1-100 as to when a crime has been committed. When a person feels a ridicule level of 30 maybe, but how can we know how much ridicule another is feeling?

It's like I am arguing with walls.
Q: How the above was not clear?
The wrongdoing is: Hurting or frightening other person which is in a less favorable position, on repeated occasions which can last weeks, months, years. Which can lead to serious psychological problems, even suicide.

It's still likely evil and malevolent, even if the other person is not weak or defenseless. The other person not being weak or defenseless is just what makes the bullying ineffective as we see here.

Its irrelevant. We have a definition. I have supplied a definition sir.
Bulling by definition says the victim is in a less favorable position and "Hurting or frightening".

PurpleKnight: "You can't use rape laws as evidence that laws against bullying would be good laws. Many people think rape laws go too far, for the same reason: No one can know when they'll be charged with rape."
I can only assume you are not reading replies...

Existence of imperfect laws is still a lesser evil then non-existence.
I already said this dear sir.
Preaching non-action because we can't create perfect laws or super good laws from the start is not practical and less evil.

I never said it was. What I did say was: "Someone being mean online cannot know what level of ridicule another might feel and will therefore not know if they are guilty of bullying when they do it".
You failed to address this and instead address a strawman about ignorance.
You are incorrect as what level of ridicule a person might feel will be unknown. Please see the actual point that was made. "Someone being mean online cannot know what level of ridicule another might feel and will therefore not know if they are guilty of bullying when they do it".
To evidence my point. What level of ridicule did you make me feel here in this thread on a scale of 1 - 100?
I'm going to prophecy that this will be another question of mine that you will refuse to answer. Your inability to answer this question is what makes punishment for bullying not a good idea. Your inability to provide an accurate number makes my point.

So someone bullies someone smaller for weeks, months, years. Ridicules the person in a less favorable position: laughs because the person is a retard or small or poor. But he does not know deep down it is wrong.
Q: Who can believe such nonsense?
Surely not a rational person.

There is literally nothing here for me to address.

Assertion.
Saying so does not make it so. Being unable to see something does not mean there is nothing there. You are simply unable.

You seem lost. What does this have to do with what we are debating? Notice how there is nothing for me to reply to? Not one single question.
You seem lost. What does this have to do with what we are debating? Notice how there is nothing for me to reply to? Not one single question.
<snipped alexxcJRO's observations about morality>
You seem lost. What does morality have to do with what we are debating? There was nothing for me to reply to? Not one single question.

1.
So many personal remarks in you latest post.
So much for proving a bulling act. So funny.

2.
Nonsense.
We have a intrinsic morality derived from Affective Empathy. People cannot play dumb.

Imagine a scenario where Clownboat gets picked on daily for his lack of intelligence and you were the straw that broke the camels back that causes me to take my own life. What crime would you argue that you should be charged with, what kind of punishment should be dished out and were you aware of your guilt beforehand?
I never said it did. I did ask you two direct questions that you once again failed to acknowledge or address though (I left them for you above in bold this time). Please make note of question marks and what they are used for, especially since you are voluntarily on a debate forum

Q: Guilt of what? Imagined things because one cannot understand simple definition of concepts which were offered?
There no bulling here sir from me in this scenario.
So no food for your argument.

More statements and no questions. You do know you are on a debate site don't you? I ask because you avoid discussing the questions I pose to you and instead throttle me with statements that don't require a reply. How can I learn from you if you are unable to offer up any challenges?

The amount of bullying a person might be feeling is unknowable and therefore bullying should not be crime in itself.
Contrast with:
- Jee, I wonder if this person is feeling assaulted when I shove their head in the toilet.
- Jee, I wonder if this person is feeling robed from when I stole their property.

1.
Its irrelevant what a person might feel. A Karen might feel all kinds of things.
Its about what can proved based on evidence and legal definitions.
One Karen might yell: "Rape! Rape!" "Sexual Harassment! Sexual Harassment!" all day.
If it did not happen it did not happen.
2.
Sir bulling may include being shoved with their head in the toilet and stealing of food.

[alexxcJRO]

Just leaving this one here for all to read again!

They will see the desperate straw-man even after being offered an explanation.

So, you now claim you were not talking about bullying when you mentioned small nerdy kids being beaten (assault), heads put in toilets (assault) and property stolen (theft). Kindly explain to us all as to what you were actually referring to.
Clearly you have equated these crimes with bullying for all of us to see.
Ok, now please address the small nerdy kids you mentioned that were beaten, stolen from and had their heads shoved into toilets.
So those nerdy small kids that had their property stolen and their head shoved into toilets were not bullied? You continue to provide examples as to why we cannot punish for bullying. We can't even agree that shoving a small nerdy kids head in the toilet is to bully.

<Snipped irrelevant comment about imagine food>
Well Jee, I thought the examples you provided were of small nerdy kids, who are being beaten, stolen from and having their heads shoved in toilets. I pointed out that crimes are being committed when this takes place. Apparently you agree and therefore there is no need to punish for bullying.

This is becoming sad and pathetic.

Again: A bigger concept may include several smaller concepts.
In our case bulling as a bigger concept includes several smaller concepts: physical assault, stealing, psychological assault, ridicule.
In the process of a person A who hurts or frightens someone B smaller or less powerful, often forcing that person to do something they do not want to do(repeatedly); we can have physical assault coupled with stealing and ridicule or physical assault coupled with ridicule or ridicule coupled with stealing or ridicule with psychological assault and so on.

Analogy:
Torture of people/prisoners as a bigger concept includes several smaller concepts: physical assault, psychological assault, ridicule.
In the process of a person A who intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person B in the custody or under the control of the accused; we can have physical assault coupled with ridicule or physical assault coupled with psychological assault or ridicule with psychological assault and so on.

I believe you are the common denominator here. When you ask me a question, I answer it. You play games and draw pictures.

I did it because the exchange become ridiculous.
I taught you would understand my logic things being drawn.

Now that is a non sequitur.
How can we measure the amount of bullying a person is feeling or might feel?
"Well Clownboat, to answer your question, we would do it this way" is not a response I will be getting unfortunately.

Mirror: How can we measure the amount of torture(psychological-ridicule) a person is feeling or might feel?

This is untrue. What I had was asked of you above. You can address it or you can pretend I had nothing when clearly I did. See the question marks? I bolded them for you this time.
You're answering a question that no one has asked you while you ignore specific questions that were asked of you. Now hypothetically, would it be online bullying if I called you a coward for this? Would a crime have been committed? What if you are really sensitive to being a coward, how would I know this and how could I know how such a statement will affect you before I might state it? I know what affect my fist will have against your nose and I know what crime that would be before any action has taken place. I can't know if calling you a coward might be the final straw that causes you to take your own life though. This doesn't seem to concern you, but it very much concerns myself and PurpleKnight.

If it happened only once is not bulling per definition.
If it matches the definition supplied and the acts were happening repeatedly yes you should be punished.

Got it, so once it is more than a single event, that is WHEN YOU EQUATE BULLYING WITH ASSAULT? At what point does stealing equate to bullying? How many events would that require in order for this theft to be bullying?

Nobody(me) is equating BULLYING with ASSAULT.
If I was shoving someone with head once in toiled in a bar is not bulling.
If it matches the definition supplied and the acts were happening repeatedly we have bulling.

I acknowledge this definition and seek to debate within in it. Which is what I'm doing when I ask you what level of ridicule I felt from you in this thread and at what point does ridicule become the crime of bullying.
Like the ridicule in this thread? How much ridicule did I feel? Enough to make the charge that you should go to jail for being a bully?

If it is proven I was in a more favorable position and you were in a less favorable position.
Bulling usually is one sided. One or more persons ridicule and laugh of someone else which is in a less favorable position(having some deficiency: smaller, retard, poor, ugly).
If from the discussion we can conclude the victim is hurting and frightened. Words and statement being used.

We both have made personal remarks about each other. You started it.
There is no evidence of someone being hurting and frightened. You are not in a less favorable position(smaller, retard, poor, ugly).

[Clownboat]

Ridicule does not equal bulling.

Post 220: "Bulling includes physical violence, psychological violence, ridicule, stealing."
From this post itself, just below: "So someone bullies someone smaller for weeks, months, years. Ridicules the person...."

If two mates ridicule each other is not bulling.

Then bullying does not include ridicule like you had claimed before.
You make my point again, it is not clear as to when bullying will be taking place. Therefore, we must continue to punish people for agreed to crimes, not for how much bullying someone feels.

The wrongdoing is: Hurting

You mean the act of assault. If we made hurting a crime, where would our young ladies get their ears pierced? I can not agree with your claim as stated.

or frightening

Frightening someone is not a crime either and like bullying, the person doing the frightening might not even know they scared a person. Imagine making it a crime to walk into a room and frightening someone (even by accident?)! Therefore I can not agree with your claim as stated.

other person which is in a less favorable position, on repeated occasions which can last weeks, months, years. Which can lead to serious psychological problems, even suicide.

I urge you to be kind to others to avoid such things.

Bulling by definition says the victim is in a less favorable position and "Hurting or frightening".

Hurting is assault and you can't place fear in another person. The fear that may or may not be felt is internal and the person that did the frightening would have no way to know if the other person will internally have fear. Therefore I feel it would be wrong to punish person A because person B has fear. To clarify, a person can assault another, a person cannot place fear in another. How much fear will be felt will be unknown until too late, like how much bullying a person might be feeling.

Existence of imperfect laws is still a lesser evil then non-existence.

This statement would require a thread of its own. I'm against falsely punishing people myself, your mileage may vary and perhaps that is why you are ok with punishing for the murky act of bullying.

Preaching non-action because we can't create perfect laws or super good laws from the start is not practical and less evil.

Strawman. No one is preaching non-action. I have preached just the opposite here, yet you have seemed to forget already.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

So someone bullies someone smaller for weeks, months, years. Ridicules the person in a less favorable position: laughs because the person is a retard or small or poor. But he does not know deep down it is wrong.
Q: Who can believe such nonsense?
Surely not a rational person.

I find it cowardly for you to continue to quote my words, yet refuse to answer them. I can't make you debate me, so continue with your off point replies to my direct questions. I ask my questions for a reason (to advance the debate) why do you refuse to debate me?

Saying so does not make it so. Being unable to see something does not mean there is nothing there.

Strawman.

You are simply unable.

Ridicule.

So many personal remarks in you latest post.

Do you feel ridiculed? Should we call the authorities if you were to have your way? I ask, because I cannot know the amount of ridicule/bullying you might be feeling, which is my (and PurpleKnights) point you continue to fail to acknowledge and address.

So much for proving a bulling act. So funny.

So you did feel ridiculed? I'm still unclear. If so, I apologize, but my words were still accurate. Should I be placed in a cell or fined if you had your way? It's all very unclear.

Its irrelevant what a person might feel.

Therefore we cannot punish for when a person feels bullied as such feelings are irrelevant. You even agree! Case closed!

Sir bulling may include being shoved with their head in the toilet and stealing of food.

Woops, you just again equated assault and theft with bullying. If assault and theft have taken place, you have my full support that we should continue to punish for such actions. We cannot punish for when a person feels bullied. The person that may be accused of bullying may not even be aware that they are being a bully. You ignore this and instead allude to actual crimes that WE ALREADY PUNISH FOR.

I'm sitting here seeing that you already have what you seem to want. What is it that you want? Is it something you are able to articulate for us?