Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[freeformschooler]

Actually, you can just do that. It may not be realistic or fair or fun, but you are physically capable of deleting your account, starting a new one, and adding all the people from your old account to it, privately. You are physically incapable of deleting your irl account and starting a new one.

Is this one of those "it's ok because you can just <insert unreasonable alternative here>" arguments? I hate those

No, because it doesn't make what the offender is doing "okay", nor does it make cyberbullying any more "okay" than in real life. Both are harassment in some form, and both are awful. Reporting it to the authorities was not any more wrong than if someone was harassing you in real life.

I am merely trying to show that the difference between cyberbullying and real-life bullying - and why one is in more situations less reasonable than the other as a reason to commit suicide - is that with cyberbullying, you can defend yourself much, MUCH more easily.

[Strife26]

Doesn't matter, either morally, or in the eyes of the law.

By that reasoning, it's more legal to break into my house when I'm awake than when I'm asleep, afterall, I can respond better if I'm awake when you come inside.

[Leafsnail]

Well I sincerely believe that it is more civil to fight online than in court. By involving the authorities in a petty argument they sunk below even his level.

It wasn't a petty argument, it was one-sided harrassment.

It would only have been a petty argument if they followed your advice.

[freeformschooler]

Doesn't matter, either morally, or in the eyes of the law.

By that reasoning, it's more legal to break into my house when I'm awake than when I'm asleep, afterall, I can respond better if I'm awake when you come inside.

When did I say that it mattered morally or legally? Legality and the offender's morals were not a part of the argument I was presenting. Read my post again. My entire argument is about the difference in suicide as a response to real-life bullying and online.

[Bauglir]

Actually, I thought the penalties typically were less if you do it in broad daylight (to discourage people doing it at night; fucked if I know how well that works out). This is, of course, entirely irrelevant.

[Bohandas]

Doesn't matter, either morally, or in the eyes of the law.

By that reasoning, it's more legal to break into my house when I'm awake than when I'm asleep, afterall, I can respond better if I'm awake when you come inside.

Its more like saying that its more ok to defraud somebody than to rob them at gunpoint.

[a1s]

You are also physically capable of not reading the offender's messages, for instance, if they're not people you know in real life. You are not capable of doing that with someone breathing down your neck.

Sure you can- just don't listen to them breathing/calling you names, close your eyes and completely tune out the pain of them beating you. If old farts like Yogis can do it, surely a young teenage girl can too? 

But you don't have to use your real name online. And if it gets to be too much, you can just delete your account or whatever. There is still a difference here.

You can't 'just delete your account', that's where people communicate with you. It's not impossible to delete one account, set up another, and message all the people you want to talk to, trying not to forget anyone (this will upset them, and as a teenage girl this is important to you). But the amount of energy that you (a depressed person) needs to put into it is orders of magnitude less then what the bully will need to do in order to find your new screenname.

Actually, you can just do that. It may not be realistic or fair or fun, but you are physically capable of deleting your account, starting a new one, and adding all the people from your old account to it, privately.

It's not impossible, it's inefficient. What is known to 2 people, as they say, is known to the goat. The very next day your tormentor will be back and you'll have to start over.

You are physically incapable of deleting your irl account and starting a new one.

That's debatable.

[Bohandas]

Well I sincerely believe that it is more civil to fight online than in court. By involving the authorities in a petty argument they sunk below even his level.

It wasn't a petty argument, it was one-sided harrassment.

It would only have been a petty argument if they followed your advice.

Into what should have been merely a petty argument.

[Leafsnail]

Not everyone shares your passion for having petty arguments about dead family members.

[Jopax]

It should have not been a petty argument, being harrased because you lost someone close to you is anything but petty and in my opinion should be punished whenever possible.

[freeformschooler]

You are also physically capable of not reading the offender's messages, for instance, if they're not people you know in real life. You are not capable of doing that with someone breathing down your neck.

Sure you can- just don't listen to them breathing/calling you names, close your eyes and completely tune out the pain of them beating you. If old farts like Yogis can do it, surely a young teenage girl can too? 

Yes, but if we're using this situation, for example, they can not physically beat you online. They can only call you names and attempt to defame you, and you can ignore those just as well as you can in real life. And, in real life, you cannot walk away if they grab your hand and force you to stay. Another thing that wouldn't happen online.

It's not impossible, it's inefficient. What is known to 2 people, as they say, is known to the goat. The very next day your tormentor will be back and you'll have to start over.

Maybe, but that doesn't make it less of a defense that's less viable in real life.

That's debatable.

Ok you got me there

[freeformschooler]

But oh whatever. I won't continue to argue this with you guys. I don't believe I'm wrong, but if I cannot convince anyone that online bullying is less reasonable than real life bullying as a set-off for suicide SOLELY because you have more personal defense online, I am done here. Having arguments like this one on the internet is stupid, circular, makes me feel 13 years old and I have better things to do with my lifeli

[Strife26]

The problem is that you're argument puts an undue responsibility on the victim. I shouldn't *have* to take unreasonable steps to avoid people online, and the bar for unreasonable must be set pretty low, as cyber-bullying is a purely malicious act.

[kaijyuu]

At the risk of sounding like a philosophy 101 student, I think the disconnect here is freeform is arguing from a utilitarian standpoint (the situation is less serious because of better methods to avoid it) while everyone else is arguing deontologically (the act itself is equally heinous despite methods to avoid it). So basically you're arguing about two different things; freeform isn't arguing that the bullying is any less malicious, while everyone else isn't arguing that methods to avoid the bullying aren't easier online.

[freeformschooler]

The problem is that you're argument puts an undue responsibility on the victim. I shouldn't *have* to take unreasonable steps to avoid people online, and the bar for unreasonable must be set pretty low, as cyber-bullying is a purely malicious act.

That's what makes this so difficult for me to understand, though. I guess I never presented this clearly. You shouldn't have to take those unreasonable steps, and I never argued that you had to do that! I just argued that you could, and could not in real life. How am I putting undue responsibility on the victim if the only responsibility I implied was not to commit suicide?

I am a lying liar of the lying cult of liars and will continue this until I fully understand the other side's viewpoint.

At the risk of sounding like a philosophy 101 student, I think the disconnect here is freeform is arguing from a utilitarian standpoint (the situation is less serious because of better methods to avoid it) while everyone else is arguing deontologically (the act itself is equally heinous despite methods to avoid it). So basically you're arguing about two different things; freeform isn't arguing that the bullying is any less malicious, while everyone else isn't arguing that methods to avoid the bullying aren't easier online.

Actually that is 100% completely right, and I think that's what's causing the misunderstandings here. -snip- no wait, that's also right. Dang son, you're good.

Let me put it this way: The offense is not less serious. However, due to the boundary between offender and victim, the situation itself is. And because the situation is less serious, committing suicide over it seems less reasonable.