I've been the girl in the chair, too. Except I'm a guy. My mother solved the problem by shipping me off to an Episcopalian boarding school.

The person recording is in on it based on the view before anything happens... And the other kids just sit there.

And people wonder how school shooters are made...

Not one person does, or says, anything. Breaks my heart. But I cannot say with certainty it would have been any different in my own high school 35 years ago.

The attacker probably felt she had to sucker-punch her. In a fair fight my money's on the girl in the chair, has 20-30 pounds on the other one.

New rule for Zombieland - No school desks.

Those desks are not designed for self-defense or easy evacuation. Bullying girl attacks from behind on the closed side and continues her attack from behind and to the right, where bullied girl can do little to defend herself.

Yes, there are adult bullies. But as an adult, you get to make life choices that let you avoid them. Changing jobs. Cutting people out of your life. In high school, you have to show up every day and see these people every day. You have no control.

I hope this young lady gets to feel the joy of moving somewhere else and starting over from scratch. That’s how I made most of my best friends currently in my life. And when the email arrives inviting me to my high school reunion every 5 years, I have a good laugh and hit “decline” on the Evite.

So sorry, Patrick. It was terrible.

I've been there too. And as the person in the chair (though not as brutal a situation as this) I got detention while the attacker wasn't punished.

I will agree that the person taking the video clearly knew what was going to happen. They were filming well before this started and knew exactly where to film.

But just from this video I can't call the attacker a bully. Note, the teacher did nothing. No one moved to break up the fight and stop things. Essentially schools don't provide physical security. And with 'zero tolerance' both the attacker and the attacked get the exact same punishment unless management is protecting one of them. And usually the one being protected is the bully. As Bkmale notes, she may have needed to sucker-punch her to win. And this may be the only way she can convince the other girl to leave her alone. And yes that is a whole lot of maybes. As I said, just from this video I don't know which party is in the wrong.

When schools don't provide physical security and do punish victims for being targeted this is what happens.

But just from this video I can't call the attacker a bully.

As Bkmale notes, she may have needed to sucker-punch her to win.

~ Ben at April 18, 2019 8:27 AM

From the initial evidence, I'd go with bully, but I'd reserve judgement until more evidence is in.

It's not just the sucker punch. It's the approach from behind and the use of the obstructed side the desk to inhibit an effective defense along with the pulling the victim against the desk to prevent her from getting any traction to mount a defense. The attack was carried out in a way that made sure the defender was always at a disadvantage.

Some observations:

• The hunched shoulders and initial passivity of the victim here suggests a bullied girl.
  
• The sneakiness and tactics of the attacker suggests a bully.
• The girl in pink is not accustomed to fighting; she put her arms up to ward off the blows, but does nothing else.
• The girl in black mounts the attack with well-executed tactics and does not hesitate - she's accustomed to attacking.

I've thought a lot about what to do in this kind of situation. I have such a strong instinct to protect children that I have decided that I would intervene if I thought my life would not be in danger if I did. Question: has anyone else thought about the ways to intervene that don't necessarily involve physically attacking the other person? I have. Ideally, you can do something---anything---that throws off the attacker's singular focus. What if the teacher had a bucket of water, for instance? The girl would be really thrown off her game by that, especially being a girl. What if the teacher simply got between them and stood there/covered the victim? Not put his hands on the attacker. What if teacher went over and started singing something crazy? Throw a blanket on the attacker? There's got to be something that can be done, if for no other reason than the victim knows that she's not completely alone.

Ben Says:

"just from this video I don't know which party is in the wrong."

One of the parties is just sitting there and is physically assaulted with a weapon and you aren't sure who is in the wrong in this situation?

You would be useless on a jury.

It is a criminal act to pick up an object and smash someone in the face who isn't an immediate threat.

This really isn't that difficult to understand.

Could there by other situations where the girl in pink is in the wrong... maybe... but no matter how you slice it, it is wrong to assault someone with an object/weapon in a premeditated manner.

How on earth can you not know this is wrong?

I agree Conan. I saw the same things. But I've also seen those signs be wrong. The victim may be confused that anyone would fight back and doesn't know how to react. But yes most likely the attacker is the bully. Quite frankly the fact that the assault was filmed also points in that direction. Victims rarely premeditate these things. Instead they often snap. But once again that is often, most likely, and other statistical words. It is not every time. Which is why I pointed out the victim may be the bully.

RigelDog, the best solution is to prevent the attack from even starting. If people know there will be consequences then they usually don't attack people. If the students are busy they don't have time to fight. By the time a situation has resulted in violence your good options start disappearing fast. You are left with picking from a list of increasingly poor choices. In this case, is there even a teacher in the room? I hear a voice saying something but I don't know if that is even an adult.

In some ways this is similar to the abortion debate. By the time you are looking to end a child's life the problem actually happened much earlier. All the good solutions have passed. Yes you are killing someone. But that may be the best option you still have left.

What can I say Arty, I went to public schools. They made it quite clear both girls are equally in the wrong and will be punished the same. That is the standard policy at the vast majority of public schools in the US. Though the unofficial policy typically is the pink girl should be punished and black shirt let off. After all if we get rid of all the victims then we won't have a bully problem any more.

On a more serious point moral violence does exist. That you cannot understand that is expected. But your lack of understanding doesn't change reality.

Ben,

I went to public school as well and somehow I managed to come out of that experience with a coherent understanding of right and wrong.

This isn't about public education, but a severely warped sense of morality that suggests to you that somehow the girl in pink deserved what happened to her.

You are open to this possibility despite having absolutely zero evidence to suggest that she has ever done anything.

You can talk about "moral violence" all you like, but this doesn't fit the bill.

Moral violence includes things like coming to the defense of someone who is in danger... not ambushing someone with a premediated assault in the middle of a classroom.

Ben Says:

"I've been there too. And as the person in the chair (though not as brutal a situation as this) I got detention while the attacker wasn't punished."

It seems to me that by your own distorted sense of morality, maybe you were in fact the bully and deserved the punishment while your attacker was simply exercising "moral violence".

Ben: It's clear to me that a male teacher was in the room. You can hear an adult male saying several times that some other student(s) should go get help. He also threatens the videographer with suspension if they don't put the phone away. Regardless of whether there's a way to anticipate/prevent this attack, the fact is that this is an immediate situation where NO THING was done to even try to distract the girl or to get close to the victim and tell her that what is happening to her is disgusting and wrong. Having sometimes been bullied when I was young, I can tell you that knowing that adults even cared would have been better than nothing. You feel so incredibly alone and shamed if there's no one even trying to stick up for you.

I suspect the main difference between 50 years ago and today is that teachers and principals are now being threatened by lawsuits from the bullies' parents - so of course they're scared to do anything. Even when the violence happens right in front of them.

In 1974, Judy Blume wrote "Blubber," which was based on a true story (the "trial" scene). While it's easy enough to sympathize with real-life parents, teachers and critics who don't want kids reading the book, in or out of school (it would be far too easy for kids to use it as a how-to manual, since no one gets punished for what happens at the school and no one feels any remorse), it's crucial for ADULTS to read it, IMO, even today.

The message is clear: If you are a parent who resembles the parents of Jill (the 10-year-old narrator and a sullen, callous "bystander" to the bullying), you are Not Doing Your Job. Same goes for any teacher who resembles Jill's teachers, since even the better teachers don't really care what happens to Linda (the victim) outside of their own classes. (One could argue that the teachers in "Blubber" are mostly adult versions of Jill, since even THEY have a certain contempt for Linda!)

Also, almost ALL of Linda's tormentors are Jills, really - the only moral difference between Jill and straight-A ringleader Wendy is that Wendy is a leader and Jill is a follower who, once Wendy passes out lists of ways to torment Linda, only tells the reader "school isn't as boring as it used to be."

(Also, you can tell from more than one scene that Jill's parents clearly want to believe that it's not really THEIR job to make sure their kids are doing the right thing when they're not looking, or even teach them anything about empathy or humility; the only time they "care" about their kids' bad behavior is when some adult threatens to call the police. This happens - but not with regard to Linda. Callousness and contempt for others is NOT just a phase and cannot be treated as such.)

I've been there too RigelDog. I've been picked on for months with the teachers knowing exactly what was going on and doing nothing to stop it. In that case he was a fellow teacher's kid. And they were all more comfortable ignoring the situation. Sacrificing one of their students was a smaller price for them to pay than having an uncomfortable conversation with a coworker. And when I pushed back and tried to defend myself I was the one punished. But that is also why I say I don't know who is really at fault in this situation. We only have one side of the story. We only have one version of events. I've seen little snippets like this used to pervert justice, to flip who was the bully and who was the victim. So as I say I just don't know.

Either way the school is at fault. The teacher didn't control their classroom. They failed to prevent this from happening in the first place. And once it did happen they didn't stop it.

Arty,

As you clearly demonstrate you aren't able to have an honest discussion on moral and immoral violence. So lets look at a simpler hypothetical. What if it's fake? What if the whole thing is a staged hoax? Pink and black shirt are friends, they wanted to come up with a viral video, and this is what they made. The teacher does nothing because he knows the girls and knows it's all fake.

You love to assume things Arty. You even told all of us how Baisley-Ford is credible and her unsubstantiated claims should be used to ruin other people's careers. That you fall for hoax after hoax is a matter of record. Are you falling for another one?

As a guy, I can say I hope that the victim is able to fight back. I sure with I had; I did very little of that. I'm still not completely over it.

"As a guy, I can say I hope that the victim is able to fight back. I sure with I had; I did very little of that. "

Same here. When I was 8-9 years old, we lived in a neighborhood where there was a neighborhood bully. He was constantly doing things like grabbing some other boy and shoving their face down into a pile of dog shit. One day, during a neighborhood touch football game, I'd had enough. I don't know what came over me, but I just lit into him. I had almost no experience in fighting, but I guess adrenaline makes up for a lot; the boys who witnessed it later judged it a draw.

I remember expecting to be severely punished, probably whipped. Instead, I got a mild lecture from my father about fighting not being the answer to all problems, followed by him saying that he was proud of me for standing up for myself. Then my mom made me a bowl of soup and fussed over me for the rest of the afternoon.

The next time the guy showed up for the neighborhood gang, he wasn't a bully any more. We wound up being friends, and then I discovered that his home life was chaos. (My parents later told me that his parents were notorious around the neighborhood for their loud screaming arguments, and that no one would invite them to parties because they always created a scene.) He started coming over to our house to watch TV, I guess because it was a safe zone compared to his house. But a year later, his parents divorced and they moved away. I still wonder what happened to him after that.

...but no matter how you slice it, it is wrong to assault someone with an object/weapon in a premeditated manner. ~ Artemis at April 18, 2019 9:32 AM

Is it your position that such an attack is always wrong? Are there no circumstances in which a first strike could be justified?

Just askin'.

I've seen situations like that Cousin Dave. One guy I know was an absolute asshole as a kid. One parent was a teacher and they were getting divorced. So while they didn't have the screaming matches like your guy he instead had two parents trying to buy his love with toys and couldn't be punished at school. He kept acting out trying to find some boundaries. Eventually he grew up enough and ditched both his parents and turned out all right last I heard.

Another one from the same class had a single doting mother. He was quite the charismatic kid but with no boundaries he turned into a monster. He now owns a used car dealership and has a mild cocaine habit. Bullies don't always turn for the better.

"I suspect the main difference between 50 years ago and today is that teachers and principals are now being threatened by lawsuits from the bullies' parents"

I can mostly agree with that Lenona. Schools can't enforce discipline anymore. They aren't allowed to. So when you have a problem student where the parents won't enforce discipline there aren't many options available for teachers. Unfortunately most teachers are part of the culture that ended discipline in schools. So expecting improvement from them is unlikely.

I appreciate your words to the bullied out there.

I’m dismayed by the people suggesting this attack could have been justified. Most of the bullies that I have encountered scream that it was self-defense. It may have been about social media or something that happened years ago. Sometimes you have to go through the channels or give up the insult from 3rd grade.

At our school, sometimes against our better judgment, we put our bodies between between the fighters. One of our teachers was hospitalized for just this thing two weeks ago when she was thrown into a wall. We are trained to evacuate the room and block blows rather than grab so that we don’t injure or get injured.

With mutual combat, both parties are punished. If one doesn’t do anything or is obviously just defending themselves, they are not punished. Unfortunately when both people are swinging, we usually can’t tell “who started it.”

I usually tell myself that I won’t get involved but then I can’t stand to see someone hurt.

Our biggest obstacle has been the fear of audits and lawsuits for over disciplining certain groups of students. The lack of consequences breeds problems and hurts the learning environment, particularly it seems to me, for exactly the groups of students of students that these lawsuits are meant to help.

"How on earth can you not know this is wrong?"

Schools these days are more and more like prisons.

It's possible that the seated girl (A) has been bullying the other one (B) for weeks, and B decided the only way to stop this was to blindside the bully like a crazy person and scare the hell out of her. Yes, she attacks without hesitation but that can come from practice or from desperation, i.e. knowing one has nothing to lose

Maybe.

Either way, the video lacks sufficient context to make a determination.

Ben Says:

"As you clearly demonstrate you aren't able to have an honest discussion on moral and immoral violence. So lets look at a simpler hypothetical. What if it's fake? What if the whole thing is a staged hoax? Pink and black shirt are friends, they wanted to come up with a viral video, and this is what they made. The teacher does nothing because he knows the girls and knows it's all fake."

Good grief Ben... and what if the girl in Pink is really possessed by a demon and the girl in black is performing an exorcism to save her soul by smashing her in the face with a bible.

I am quite capable of holding honest discussions... the difference between you and I is that I try to live in the land of the probable... not the land of "what if's".

Yours is the morality of a child. You lack sophistication and reason.

This is why in adult society we have things like the reasonable person standard for assessing scenarios.

We don't just presume that all data presented to us is some form of unusual outlier without evidence to suggest that is the case.

You are trying to make this situation out to be an unusual case without warrant or justification... and then presume to call that mode of conversation "honest".

Let's look at an even simpler hypothetical... what if you don't actually believe a word you are saying and are just being extremely difficult because you are a huge pain in the ass. That is a distinct possibility too.

"You love to assume things Arty. You even told all of us how Baisley-Ford is credible and her unsubstantiated claims should be used to ruin other people's careers."

Honest conversation my ass... that isn't what I said at all.

What I said was that a job interview doesn't have the same standards of evidence as a criminal proceeding.

That's it... you and others wanted to act like the results of a job interview should have a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is patently ridiculous.

No ones career was going to be "ruined" and if congress decided not to confirm him for the supreme court it would not have been a huge travesty of justice. No one is entitled to a seat on the highest court in the land.

But you keep going with your "honest" discussion as you lie over and over about demonstrable facts.

Conan Says:

"Is it your position that such an attack is always wrong? Are there no circumstances in which a first strike could be justified?
Just askin'."

If I had meant "always" I would have said "always".

I don't live in a land of absolutes... I do live in a land of the typical though.

What I don't do is look at every scenario presented to me and presume that it has a strong likelihood to be operating at the edges of the norm.

I can theory craft with the best of them Conan... I have a good imagination... but I also have a good sense of the distribution of normal events.

If you want to venture into the realm of the ridicuous we can go there... maybe the person filming kidnapped the sibling of the girl in black and told her that if she didn't assault the girl in pink her little brother would be thrown into a wood chipper.

In such a scenario we could let the girl in black off the hook because she would have been acting under duress.

However that made up scenario stretches the limits of what reasonably occurred in this situation.

We cannot be so open minded that we let our brains fall out of our skull. We need to consider the evidence in light of what seems most plausible... not based on what we could possibly imagine.

Jen,

I assume you are referring to me. All I've said it people should be skeptical. But for the sake of argument lets assume everything is as the video presents it. Lets assume this was a violent unprovoked assault. And lets look at the facts around that.

1. Black shirt assaulted a fellow student in the middle of class. There are ample student witnesses.
2. There is a teacher witness.
3. In addition she prepared a recording of this crime clearly demonstrating it was a premeditated attack.

What does all of that tell us? Clearly black shirt has no fear of consequences. She committed a crime not only publicly and flagrantly but also recorded her crime. Why doesn't she fear any consequences? I can only think of two answers.

1. She is mentally ill.
If so she needs to be locked up for the safety of both herself and others. She is so mentally ill and violent she cannot be permitted in public.

2. There are no consequences for her actions.
The most likely answer is nothing is going to happen to her. She has committed similar acts before and got away with them. She has the support of the staff at that school and will not be punished no matter what she does.

If number two is true then that school should be shut down. Every teacher and administrator at that school should be barred from education for life. They aren't innocent bystanders. They are party to her crimes. There is no difference between them and those who hid the crimes of pedophile priests in the Catholic church.

Personally I think that is most likely what is going on here. The teacher did send someone for help. But his next impulse was to stop the student recording things. He doesn't want a record of what happened. He is already trying to cover up her crime. In doing so he becomes part of her current and future crimes.

Quite frankly this is a pretty extreme situation. So extreme that is brings into question if it is a hoax or if there is something very significant missing. But if none of that is true I can't see how the teachers and administrator wouldn't be morally culpable for this crime. There isn't much room for middle ground.

We're assuming that the teacher was even in the room. They may have stepped out, trusting the students to work quietly on their own for a few moments.

Is it your position that such an attack is always wrong? Are there no circumstances in which a first strike could be justified?

Just askin'.

Legally, there is no justification for striking first other than a credible threat of immediate violence. Since that was absent here, this is no justification for the girl to attack as she did.

Ben:

2. There is a teacher witness.

You do not know that.

Ben:

3. In addition she prepared a recording of this crime clearly demonstrating it was a premeditated attack.

You don't know that, either. It may be that she revealed her intentions before she made the attack to a friend who decided to record the attack. The perpetrator might not know or care that she's being recorded, but we don't know that she planned to be recorded.

And for those who are suggesting that the seated girl might have been bullying the attacker, 1) That is still not a justification for her actions, and 2) if that were truly the situation, then the seated girl will simply bide her time and attack again when the opportunity presents itself. And will make the attack even more brutal.

I finally listened to this with the sound on and was struck by the teacher's hostility toward the student videotaping the incident - a hostility reserved for that student and, seemingly, not for the one actually disrupting the class.

If you want to venture into the realm of the ridicuous [sic] we can go there... maybe the person filming kidnapped the sibling of the girl in black and told her that if she didn't assault the girl in pink her little brother would be thrown into a wood chipper. ~ Artemis at April 18, 2019 8:25 PM

Whoa, Artie. I was just asking for a clarification of what seemed to be a pretty black-and-white position put forth by you. I wasn't looking for B-movie plot devices or a lecture on ethical gray areas.

Besides, isn't having your annoying little brother thrown into a wood chipper pretty much the dream of most teenaged girls? /sarcasm

Legally, there is no justification for striking first other than a credible threat of immediate violence. Since that was absent here, this is no justification for the girl to attack as she did. ~ Patrick at April 19, 2019 12:55 AM

True. However, moral, legal, and necessary-for-survival are not always in sync.

In this case, I agree with you. My original thoughts on the video, stated earlier in this thread, were that the attitudes evidenced, along with the tactical execution and suddenness of the attack, would strongly suggest the girl in black was the bully and the girl in pink was the bullied.

Artie's position - stated emphatically and absolutely, as is Artie's usual delivery - left little room for gray areas and I was asking for a clarification of the thinking behind it.

Conan Says:

"Whoa, Artie. I was just asking for a clarification of what seemed to be a pretty black-and-white position put forth by you."

My positions are almost never "black-and-white"... that is something you choose to attach.

My statement was as follows:

"Could there by other situations where the girl in pink is in the wrong... maybe... but no matter how you slice it, it is wrong to assault someone with an object/weapon in a premeditated manner."

You chose to slice this statement out and try to use it as an example of black-and-white thinking while completely ignoring the "maybe" piece that suggests other gray areas might exist.

Furthermore you completely ignored other useful context from my writing where I said the following:

"It is a criminal act to pick up an object and smash someone in the face who isn't an immediate threat."

In other words... you chose to turn my statement into a "black-and-white" one when it was abundantly clear that possible exceptions and exclusions would include things like self-defense.

"Artie's position - stated emphatically and absolutely, as is Artie's usual delivery - left little room for gray areas and I was asking for a clarification of the thinking behind it."

Wrong Conan... you are carrying lots of baggage when it comes to interpreting what I write... it is time for you to set the baggage down and be honest.

Conan Says:

"However, moral, legal, and necessary-for-survival are not always in sync."

Please do all of us a favor and outline a reasonable fact pattern that would make that girls premeditated assault on a classmate who is just sitting there "necessary-for-survival".

You are the one insisting that I was engaging in "black-and-white" thinking when analyzing and commenting on the presented scenario... so let's hear your reasonable "gray-area" analysis that doesn't invoke ridiculous movie-like plots.

"Please do all of us a favor and outline a reasonable fact pattern that would make that girls premeditated assault on a classmate who is just sitting there 'necessary-for-survival'."

Knowing nothing else about the context, I have to say it's plausible. I've been in some environments like that -- where either you're on top or on bottom (unless you are clever enough to game the culture), and if you don't want to wind up on bottom, you have to assert dominance preemptively. That's pretty much how gangs work. The lack of response from anyone else in the room suggests to me that it might be that kind of environment.

That said, Occam's Razor says that the most obvious explanation is most likely the correct one.

"2. There is a teacher witness.
You do not know that."

Who is the guy threatening to suspend the student filming things Patrick? Random hobo?

As for your complaint that I am assuming things, yes I was. I made that quite clear at the top. This was the version where you assume everything is exactly as portrayed and there were no extenuating circumstances. Further up I also ran the scenario where the whole thing is staged. It's a hoax. Both assumptions are plausible. If it is staged and the teacher knows that his hostility to the filming student is justified. Shut down the recording and you also shut down the fight ending the classroom disruption. But if you assume the fight is real then the teacher is trying to prevent evidence from being collected and cover up a crime. He is moral complicit in the brutal assault.

Folks - if this video wasn't characterized as bullying, would you still interpret the attack as bullying?

The description comes from a guy on twitter who provides no other information, and doesn't seem to know the backstory. He's just re-posting something he saw.

But this doesn't look like a bullying incident. It could be gang related. This would explain why it's filmed, why the other kids are scared to intervene or say anything, why the adult doesn't even reprimand the attacker, and why the victim doesn't attempt to fight back.

The way the attack is staged and executed suggests a gang background as well - gang members learn to use surprise 'beat down' tactics like what you see to disorient the victim, drag them to the ground and then keep them down with kicks and punches. It comes out of prison culture.

My positions are almost never "black-and-white"... that is something you choose to attach. ~ Artemis at April 19, 2019 8:35 AM

Wrong Conan... you are carrying lots of baggage when it comes to interpreting what I write... it is time for you to set the baggage down and be honest. ~ Artemis at April 19, 2019 8:35 AM

Artie, I really was just asking for a clarification of your thoughts behind your statement "...but no matter how you slice it, it is wrong to...." Sounds pretty inflexible, even when preceded by a qualifying statement.

Such an absolute position can be defended. Not by you, apparently, but it can be defended. After all, some things are pretty black-and-white; some stories don't have two sides.

Do us all a favor; sit down and take a long, honest look at the way in which you write your opinions, Artie. Written persuasive argument, it would appear, is not your strong suit.

Raddie has repeatedly pointed out a low meaningful-content-to-syllable ratio on your part.

Your written opinions come across as the products of rigid thinking. This has been pointed by others, as well as by me. You claim to have an open mind, but your writing does not reflect it.

You were the one who insisted that airplane passengers were absolutely wrong to physically restrain an unruly passenger who attempted to open the airplane door at 30,000 feet and refused to return to his seat - no gray area allowed in that one.

Your position, that the restrained passenger's health and safety might have been endangered by the restraints, could have been defended; but, again, not by you. You made no allowance for the lack of a trained air marshall or medical professional on board and the need to immediately restrain the passenger from harming others or endangering the entire plane. That the other passengers watched over the restrained passenger for the rest of the flight carried no weight with you at all.

Please do all of us a favor and outline a reasonable fact pattern that would make that girls premeditated assault on a classmate who is just sitting there "necessary-for-survival". ~ Artemis at April 19, 2019 8:40 AM

No.

> It is a criminal act to pick
> up an object and smash someone
> in the face who isn't an
> immediate threat.

How would you feel about a drunkard who starts "smashing someone in the face who isn't an immediate threat" at 36,000 feet in an airliner?

Conan already covered that.

Okay then.

Artie —and this goes for BenBun, too— You can always have a fight here, if you want one. It's the Computer Internet.

But if you make us go to the trouble, you ought to at least provide a convincing simulacrum of principled and novel perspective. Otherwise we feel like we're just picking on kids who stay out too late on a schoolnite.

Or who were raised in institutional settings.

The way the attack is staged and executed suggests a gang background as well - gang members learn to use surprise 'beat down' tactics like what you see to disorient the victim, drag them to the ground and then keep them down with kicks and punches. It comes out of prison culture. ~ melmo at April 19, 2019 10:33 AM

Good point.

Conan Says:

"Artie, I really was just asking for a clarification of your thoughts behind your statement "...but no matter how you slice it, it is wrong to...." Sounds pretty inflexible, even when preceded by a qualifying statement."

If you slice out segments of a post without including portions that add context you can twist anything to sound however you like.

That is why folks like Patrick have said that you are the most dishonest poster on this site.

The rest of my post clearly expresses the existence of gray areas. The sentence just before the one you clipped says the following:

"It is a criminal act to pick up an object and smash someone in the face who isn't an immediate threat."

So sure... if you completely ignore the clearly stated exceptions I provided... then it certainly seems "inflexible".

Conan Says:

"You were the one who insisted that airplane passengers were absolutely wrong to physically restrain an unruly passenger who attempted to open the airplane door at 30,000 feet and refused to return to his seat - no gray area allowed in that one."

I did no such thing, you are lying again.

Conan,

Last point for now since you clearly aren't a good faith conversationalist.

However when you say the following:

"Raddie has repeatedly pointed out a low meaningful-content-to-syllable ratio on your part."

You demonstrate that you are not only dishonest, but also an idiot that is apparently convinced by stupid arguments.

Do you really think Rad's whole "content-to-syllable ratio" argument is a persuasive one?... you really believe that is an intelligent metric to measure contribution?

Let's put it to the test shall we?

Tarzan style greeting - "Me Conan"
An actual greeting by an educated individual - "Hello, my name is Conan"

Now tell me Conan... which greeting are you likly to use?

The content is the same in terms of the information conveyed. However the first greeting does it in 3 syllables and the second does it in 7.

By Rad's metric the Tarzan greeting is more than twice as good as a means of communication.

Similarly, we should always describe ourselves as glad instead of happy (happy is after all twice as inefficient at conveying the same content).

This is a metric designed by an idiot to convince other idiots it has utility.

The argument is fallacious to its core, and yet somehow you are persuaded by it.

The problem for you Conan has always been that logic doesn't penetrate, you are convinced by nonsense... that is why you were busy trying to defend homeopathy the other day.

Do you really think Rad's whole "content-to-syllable ratio" argument is a persuasive one?... you really believe that is an intelligent metric to measure contribution? ~ Artemis at April 20, 2019 11:14 AM

No need for me to respond. You made Raddie's case for me.

...that is why you were busy trying to defend homeopathy the other day. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2019 11:14 AM

Who's lying now, Artie? I never defended homeopathy. If you check back, you'll find I called it nonsense. Notice how you made the accusation without providing a link - so no one can check the accuracy of your assertion?

So, I'll check it for you.

In a discussion of scientific medicine, I stated that modern medicine is rethinking and re-examining traditional medicines and other remedies - such as bleeding with leeches. I also provided a link to back that up. Other commenters read the link and added to the discussion. You didn't.

I further stated that homeopathy was founded in Germany before the era of Germ Theory and modern scientific medicine; and many of that era's medical practices were painful and often debilitating, thus the appeal of homeopathy to patients then.

I then went on say that homeopathy's underlying principle, that "like cures like," is being used in allergy therapy, where a patient is repeatedly exposed to small doses of an allergen in order to build up an immunity. I dismissed "water memory" as nonsense.

None of that constitutes a "defense" of homeopathy, Artie, none. In that same thread, I came down firmly and repeatedly on the side of "homeopathic medicine" as nonsense.

In intentionally misrepresenting what I said, you've revealed yourself to be a dishonest weasel, Artie.

You're also nowhere near the intellectual you think you are. You may have an advanced degree, but you're a very pedestrian thinker. You cannot understand degrees in an argument. You decide what you want the other person to have said, not listen to what the other person actually said.

Conan,

Look, I am tired of wasting my time with your nonsense.

In this very conversation you went out of your way to characterize my very reasonable statement including exceptions for self-defence as "black and white" thinking.

Then you also went out of your way to completely lie about a discussion from six years ago when you said the following:

"You were the one who insisted that airplane passengers were absolutely wrong to physically restrain an unruly passenger who attempted to open the airplane door at 30,000 feet and refused to return to his seat - no gray area allowed in that one."

When the actual statement you are refering to was as follows:

"It is great that the passengers managed to subdue a violent drunk individual on the plane; however based upon the photo I’m not convinced that random passengers are adequate replacements for trained air marshals."

The only dishonest weasel here is you Conan.

You literally transformed a statement where it was said that the subduing of a violent drunk was great into a statement that "insisted that airplane passengers were absolutely wrong".

You have no allegance to the truth, you lie constantly, and you make things up out of whole cloth in service to a narrative you want to sell.

I also didn't mischaracterize your defense of homeopathy... I can prove that as well.

You function in a world of revisionist history... but the nice thing about the internet is I can link and quote the actual statements.

Conan Says:

"You decide what you want the other person to have said, not listen to what the other person actually said."

You are projecting Conan.

Go ahead and convince any reasonable person that the following statements are equivalent.

"It is great that the passengers managed to subdue a violent drunk individual on the plane..."

and

"You were the one who insisted that airplane passengers were absolutely wrong to physically restrain an unruly passenger"

You are the only one guilty of what you have accused me of... and you have been doing this for years.

Conan Says:

"Notice how you made the accusation without providing a link - so no one can check the accuracy of your assertion?"

I was just following suit with how you operate Conan... you failed to provide a link to your comment about me "insisting airplane passengers were absolutely wrong".

If you had provided a link it would have been immediately obvious you were an out and out liar.

You are also a hypocrite as you apparently don't believe you need citations for your assertions, but you expect then from others.

I also note you didn't provide a link in your defense (because you very well know that such a link would prove that I was correct).

Do you really want me to provide links, because I am more than happy to do so, you aren't going to enjoy the results.

For anyone interested here is the link:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2019/03/college-isnt-fo.html

And the relevant quotes:

My statement:
"Homeopathic remedies have absolutely no medical benefits beyond possible placebo effects whatsoever."

Conans direct response:
"Not entirely true. Some traditional and homeopathic remedies have been found to be somewhat effective in certain cases - leading scientists (credentialed ones, I'm sure) to reevaluate them."

That is a defense of homeopathy that is completely and utterly baseless. It has no scientific merit whatsoever.

So yes, you were defending nonsense without any scientific evidentiary support.

Artie, in all my time on this forum, you're the only poster I've ever seen called by our hostess, normally exceedingly tolerant of dissent and even criticism, an asshole and accused of arguing dirty.

That is a defense of homeopathy that is completely and utterly baseless. It has no scientific merit whatsoever. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2019 2:46 PM

"Not entirely true" and "somewhat effective" do not constitute a defense of homeopathy. Mostly because your statement about "absolutely no medical benefits" (there's that word "absolute" with you again") was, in fact, not entirely true.

That response was where I supplied an article on modern bleeding with leeches showing that a pre-Germ-Theory traditional medical practice has been re-examined by scientists and medical professionals and has proven somewhat effective in certain and select instances - specifically in preventing post-op problems when reattaching severed limbs.

I went on in that same thread to say:

Does this mean homeopathy is more than "complete and utter bunk?" No, not at all. It is not a scientifically-proven philosophy of medicine. That something homeopathic might work in a given situation does not validate the entire practice.

Whatever you think I meant by what I said, I still hold that we should look to scientifically-proven remedies, even if they originated as tribal, traditional, or - egad! - homeopathic remedies.

==================================================

Now, moving on to your next cherry-picked load of half-truths:

When the actual statement you are refering [sic] to was as follows: "It is great that the passengers managed to subdue a violent drunk individual on the plane; however based upon the photo I’m not convinced that random passengers are adequate replacements for trained air marshals." ~ Artemis at April 20, 2019 2:17 PM

You then went on in that same thread to castigate the passengers for how they restrained the unruly passenger and for duct-taping his mouth when he began spitting on them; dismissing the fact that they were monitoring him as irrelevant in your zeal to prove your superior morality.

Just because someone starts to act in an unruly fashion doesn’t give other citizens the right to do anything they damn well please. They must still act within the bounds of reason and those bounds do not include gagging a heavily intoxicated person on a plane after they have successfully been subdued. ~ Orion at January 6, 2013 8:34 PM

AND

Once the threat has been neutralized no more force is needed. ... Similarly, you don't have to gag someone with tape once they've been tied up. ~ Orion at January 6, 2013 10:16 PM

But you might have to gag them when they begin spitting on you.

Oh, and in your moralizing concern about being completely honest, you'll want to note that you were calling yourself Orion back then.

Conan,

You are very busy trying to make excuses and tossing out new accusations (again without links).

You seem to have great difficulty with the truth and facts.

""Not entirely true" and "somewhat effective" do not constitute a defense of homeopathy. Mostly because your statement about "absolutely no medical benefits" (there's that word "absolute" with you again") was, in fact, not entirely true."

None of what you are saying here is factually accurate.

Homeopathy has zero medical efficacy.

There is nothing "somewhat effective" about it. The effectiveness is zero outside of possible placebo effects which I originally stated.

What I said was in fact entirely true and you sought to "correct" me anyway based on your own bullshit notions. Nothing you said was or is supported by science or medicine.

My statement, which I will repeat again is 100% accurate:

"Homeopathic remedies have absolutely no medical benefits beyond possible placebo effects whatsoever."

When you say this statement isn't "entirely true" you are full of shit. I don't know how much more directly I can put it.

That is a defence of homeopathy because you are trying to provide even remote credibility to a practice that is completely devoid of evidentary support.

You can dance around the truth all you like, but everything you are saying here is wrong.

"Just because someone starts to act in an unruly fashion doesn’t give other citizens the right to do anything they damn well please. They must still act within the bounds of reason and those bounds do not include gagging a heavily intoxicated person on a plane after they have successfully been subdued."

And how does this quote support your contention that "You were the one who insisted that airplane passengers were absolutely wrong to physically restrain an unruly passenger"???

That quote is stating that passengers are correct to restrain the unruly passenger, but in so doing they have a responsibility to act reasonably.

That isn't black and white thinking Conan.

You have clearly lost your mind.

Conan,

One more thing because you are clearly on a fools mission here.

When you say this:

"your zeal to prove your superior morality."

You seem to have completely lost the plot that some folks involved in the conversation were saying things like this:

"I quite frankly don't give a damn if he would have died."

In other words, some people didn't think that this mans life was worth anything at all. It doesn't take a whole lot to be morally superior to that stance.

So just to be clear... you have major issues with the person arguing that when restraining folks on a plane we should take care not to use more force than is necessary... but no issues at all with the folks whose position was that they didn't care if he lived or died.

Conan,

Please do me a favor and support the following statement:

"That something homeopathic might work in a given situation does not validate the entire practice."

There is NOTHING homeopathic that works as medicine... by definition it cannot work.

The entire practice violates all known laws of physics and chemistry as it revolves around the central idea that molecules like water have a "memory".

Your understanding of all of this is so poor you don't even seem to realize how crazy you sound.

Conan,

In fact I will save you some time. Here is a relevant metastudy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/

"Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo. It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice."

Do you need someone to read this to you?... There is no homeopathic remedy that has clinical effects different than placebo.

That is exactly what I stated and you still can't let go of your defense that it "might" work in some cases.

The science is in... you are wrong.

Artemis/Orion, I don't know how to say this so you'll understand and not accuse me of defending superstition. I was not defending practices "devoid of evidentiary support," but ones that have been scientifically proven to have some effectiveness, whatever the origin of those practices.

Admitting that modern science does not have all the answers and is re-examining previously discarded theories of medicine and finding some aspects of them useful is not defending the whole of the discarded theories.

I would no more recommend someone visit a homeopath than they visit a witch doctor. I feel the same way about chiropractic and have to bite my tongue when coworkers or clients talk about what their chiropractor recommends.

However, if your AMA-accredited medical doctor tells you that scientific research and experience has shown that bleeding a newly re-attached limb with leeches can help in the healing process, you'd probably be wise to grit your teeth and let him proceed - especially since the non-leech alternative, abrading your skin to let the newly re-attached limb bleed, is even more disgusting and very painful.

In another witch-doctoresque move, Doctors are using maggot larvae to remove necrotic tissue when treating wounds in some cases now - a practice derived from ancient and tribal traditions and backed up by modern research and experience.

Now, if your doctor, whether AMA-accredited or mini-mall-educated, dons a tribal mask and a grass skirt and starts dancing to the rhythm of drums beaten by his nurse to cure your cancer, you may want to get a second opinion.

On the second topic of your diatribe, Artemis/Orion, if a passenger on your next flight downs his entire duty-free liquor supply and tries to open the plane door mid-flight at 36,000 feet, please stay out of the way of any passengers who move to subdue and restrain the "unruly" drunk - even if they gag him when he spits on them. And try not to lecture them on the proper way to restrain an "unruly" drunk; you're likely to annoy them and find yourself restrained alongside him.

You, of all people, Artemis or Orion or whatever nom-de-forum you choose next, need to stop lecturing people on honesty. Your little stealth name flip does not mark you as a paragon of honesty.

Amy was right, you're an asshole and you argue dirty.

Conan,

When I state that homeopathy has no medical efficacy... and you respond by saying that my assertion is "not entirely true" and that is "somewhat effective"... and that it "might work in a given situation" despite the fact that all of the published scientific findings support exactly what I said... then yes, you are in fact defending homeopathy.

That I then say that you were defending it isn't dishonest either. You chose to ignore the scientific and medical findings stating that there are no homeopathic remedies that were demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo if favor of your unsupported idea that maybe something might work.

"Admitting that modern science does not have all the answers and is re-examining previously discarded theories of medicine and finding some aspects of them useful is not defending the whole of the discarded theories."

That wasn't the conversation Conan. Of course science doesn't have all the answers... otherwise we would stop doing research. But you are grasping at straws. Science does know some things with so much accuracy that it can reliably be regarded as fact. Science has already demonstrated that homeopathy is complete and utter bunk... your notion that it needs to be re-examined is stupid. It is as stupid as re-examining the flat earth model... we already know it is wrong. Our confidence here is extremely high and justified by enormous amounts of data.

That you are ignorant here is fine... but you speak with way too much confidence in an area where you are demonstrably wrong and clearly know next to nothing. This is a time when you should be learning, not trying to have an internet pissing contest because you have some chip on your shoulder.

"if a passenger on your next flight downs his entire duty-free liquor supply and tries to open the plane door mid-flight at 36,000 feet, please stay out of the way of any passengers who move to subdue and restrain the "unruly" drunk - even if they gag him when he spits on them. And try not to lecture them on the proper way to restrain an "unruly" drunk; you're likely to annoy them and find yourself restrained alongside him."

Amazing Conan. When you brought all this up you complained that my position was as follows:

"Your position, that the restrained passenger's health and safety might have been endangered by the restraints, could have been defended; but, again, not by you. You made no allowance for the lack of a trained air marshall or medical professional on board and the need to immediately restrain the passenger from harming others or endangering the entire plane. That the other passengers watched over the restrained passenger for the rest of the flight carried no weight with you at all."

However, when it actually turns out that my position was that restraining the passenger was fine, but it needed to be done responsibly, you have now resorted to the notion that you don't care for their health and safety either.

Patrick was right... you are the most dishonest poster on this forum. You haven't honestly portrayed any discussion, you have lied repeatedly, and when it has turned out you were wrong instead of admitting your mistake you instead changed your arguments.

I am honest Conan... extremely so actually, you are just deranged.

I am honest Conan... extremely so actually, you are just deranged. ~ Artemis at April 20, 2019 7:44 PM

If you were “extremely” honest, you’d still call yourself Orion, instead of hiding behind a stealth name change.

“The more he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

My mistake was in trying to engage you as a rational adult in asking for a clarification of your statement. Instead of simply answering, you responded with a nasty and vitriolic attack. That’s your default setting and I should have expected it; that I later rose to your baiting is on me.

I’ll just have to remind myself whenever tempted to engage you as an adult, “Artemis/Orion is a petulant child.”

Happy Easter, Artemis/Orion. Hope it’s a good one for you.

Conan,

Only an insane person makes demands of other folks on the internet in terms of what they should call themselves.

There are all sorts of reasons why someone might select to change a handle on the internet, and no one needs your permission or approval.

You need help.

Conan Says,

"Instead of simply answering, you responded with a nasty and vitriolic attack. That’s your default setting and I should have expected it; that I later rose to your baiting is on me."

This is also a lie.

I did answer your post... and you responded with this back handed insult:

"Artie's position - stated emphatically and absolutely, as is Artie's usual delivery - left little room for gray areas and I was asking for a clarification of the thinking behind it."

There was nothing emphatic or absolute about my statement. That was a product of your own imagination.

Your problem has always been that you are a thin skinned individual who can dish it out but cannot take it.

Any normal person reading my original statement would conclude there was ample room for gray areas. Only a nut job sees a clearly stated exception for self-defense and then claims the person left no room for gray areas.