From: davem@mcs213i.cs.umr.edu (Dave Mentis)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,alt.postmodern
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:50:37 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <eLqosB5w165w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>DM:
>> Well, I'll add an anomaly for you to analyze...
>> 
>> [ My story about my father defending his younger brother who
>>   was picked on by an older bully, and getting it stopped
>>   after making it clear he didn't want the bully hitting
>>   my uncle and having to fight the bully to enforce that
>>   point when the bully attacked my father. ]
>
>
>Of course the bully myth is not self-consistent if you extract all
>possible theorems form its primitive axioms.  For example that
>story, as a narrative, only makes sense from your father's point
>of view.

It seems that it must have made sense from everyone's point of view.
Bully attacks my uncle.
My father makes it clear to bully that he (my father) is there 
BECAUSE bully physically attacked my uncle -- no other reason.
Not because it's Tuesday. Not because the sky is blue. Not ...
He makes it clear that he wants the physical attacks stopped.
And implies that if they hadn't occured or if they'll at least
not occur any more that he (my father) will take no action.
Otherwise, he WILL take action, of a sufficient nature to
insure it won't be worthwhile for it to happen again.

My uncle must have understood this also, or why would he have
approached my father and asked for his help ?
(And, conversely, he never approached my father to ask for
help beating someone up who, say, told him his momma dressed
him funny, etc... JUST when he was being physically beaten
with out 1st having attacked the bully.

And the bully must have understood, too. Or are you saying he just
"happened" to never attack my uncle again ?


>>  [RC:]
>>
>> I used to get beat up
>> every day by a girl when I was 9.  If I had thought I had a chance
>> I think I would have taken her on.
>> 
>
>I could write a story where some city kid moves into a
>friendly rural community (maybe just _before_ it _becomes_ a
>suburb, which was the case with me) and the girl, who is having
>some problems at home, takes a dislike to him and beats him up
>every day. I could write it from her point of view and make the
>city boy a jerk you don't care about and who plays only a minor
>role in the narrative as she deals with her real problem, whatever
>it is.

You could. But I suspect that I'd argue semantics with you (or you'd
have to flat-out lie about the girl. You seem to imply you can 
define her as "friendly" in this story in such a way that I'll agree.
Ok. Then you imply that she'll walk up and hit the city kid up side
of the head, before (he?) ever hits her. 

I could agree that wrt all other aspects of her life she is "friendly"
But I won't accept her as being "friendly" enough to get my approval
of hitting him if he hasn't hit her 1st. My sympathy, perhaps.
My referral of her to your professional care so as to help
her find ways of dealing with whatever makes her want to hit people
who have not hit her. But not my approval. Not even if she's my daughter/
wife/mother etc...

It's a simple premise (fighting back, and enlisting help to do
so if necessary).

I won't hit you FIRST.
You won't hit me FIRST.

Take the above 2 together, and you reach a nice conclusion.
We'll never do physical violence to each other.

(I'll certainly admit that this is hardly a SUFFICIENT condition 
to insure a meaningful social relationship.
But it does seem to be a NECESSARY condition, enough so to
require that members of society adhere to it.)

And we generally do, especially in those parts of society
that are considered more civilized. And all of society seemed
willing to allow the person who was transgressed re: the above
to take steps to insure it wouldn't be repeated -- they even
explicitly helped (at least it used to be that way)

Then somebody took a closer look at "Johnny" (the transgressor)
and said that there might be more murky reasons why he throws that
1st punch. And that's fine by me -- not much in this world is
black and white. And if you want to suggest that dealing with
Johnny in terms of his motivations might help, that's fine.

So long as your understanding of Johnny's motivations, and/or
your sympathy for him doesn't include ENDORSING his behavior.
If you can find some way for him to live in this world without
his beating on people, great! And if your way is less tramatic
than somebody beating on him in return, great! We both get our
(mutual) wish.

But if you can't, I still suggest that whatever amount of force,
from whatever source, should be used to stop Johnny. Because, IMHO,
failure to do so leaves us with a far worse situation for us and
Johnny.

Look at it this way -- if Johnny cannot understand (or accept) the
perfectly clear principle that neither of us should strike first,
how am I after being struck first by Johnny to decide what is
appropriate ?

If you can give me a detailed answer to the above that's workable,
I'm as amenable to implementing it as the next person. If not,
I applaud whatever efforts you wish to undertake to help Johnny,
as long as your final statement to him is that, upon emerging
from your office to deal with the world, he should (morally)
expect to have the concept of retaliation enforced. 

IMHO, The fact that pragmatically it may not be is simply a sad
commentary on the current state of affairs in large parts of this
country.

  -- davem@cs.umr.edu
-- 
 There is only one success -- to be able to spend your life  
 in your own way.                                           
                                                           
                              -- Christopher Morley       
Xref: sparky misc.kids:26097 alt.postmodern:2506