Effects of Bullying Last Into Adulthood, Study Finds

[caseymoz]

61. If I cited an authority . . .

. . . would you feel as free to doubt me? What if my "authority" didn't use qualifiers either? Would you then take it as fact, or would you write the author and demand they insert them? Is the point really that I have to sync up my definition to some Joe Schmo who puts it on Wikipedia (your source)?

I'm declaring a position. In a declaration, it's silly and poor writing to insert qualifiers.

For example, Thomas Jefferson didn't say, "All men are created approximately equal, and they're endowed, or maybe given, by whoever the spiritual authority is-- if He or She (or it) exists-- with prerogatives, that might be called rights, but you can use whatever word you think better describes them." or "The King has been a little pissy here recently. Some have even suggested that he's a little tyrannical, now and then."

If I had any doubt over what definition I was going with, or which one I recommended, believe me, I would have inserted doubt.

Otherwise, it's up to you figure out just how much doubt there is. Since a word is something our minds construct as a representation of something in the world, and since we have individual minds defining it, the definition is intrinsically a matter of opinion. With your education, you've figured that out. Therefore, if I'm certain of what my opinion is, and you already know I'm expressing an opinion, qualifiers aren't necessary. I'm not going to reassure you on this point by inserting them. Can't you put that together? The whole thing has big qualifier on it already, no matter which authority I cite.

Now, if it were something were something like the half life of Cesium 134, and presuming we aren't scientists, so precision isn't critical, I would say it's about two years. But if I were asked what is Cesium, and I were a nuclear scientist, I would be careful to get the definition right, and to put no qualifiers on it. Too many minds have agreed for a long time on what it is, and the cost of dissenting from the accepted definition is too high.

"In any event, no need to apologize. My very low normal bp (100/60, bottom of normal range; thank you for asking) remained very low. In fact, you gave me a chuckle."

If you wouldn't have had the corticosteroids flowing, you wouldn't have had the motivation to give a 750 word answer. Therefore, I suggest you take your blood pressure before you give a smug answer. You would have found that it ticked up when you read my response, as indicated by your being testy to start. It wouldn't have gone up to the borderline range, I think, but it would have risen. It has cost, but you don't worry about that when you have a lot in the bank.

In fact, I do have high blood pressure. The main reason it was on my mind for an example was, I had just doubled my medication because of the level it was at. That was meant as an illustration, and not a joke-- at all. Thank you for asking.

If you're offended by somebody knowing what his opinions are and therefore expressing them without doubt, if you can't imagine modifiers in writing that's-- without a doubt-- declaring an opinion, then definitely I'm not going to make you happy.

(Someone is wrong because they define bullying differently than you -- that suggests a statement of fact, not a disagreement of opinion. More definition of what is/isn't bullying, without a qualifier.)

Suggests? Like, somebody reading this who disagrees with me can't tell already? In this context, when I say they're wrong, it means I'm not going by their definition, nor recommend other people do so, because I find the opposing definition defective, and harmful, and I don't tell people to do things I wouldn't do myself. Again, why should I express doubt when I don't feel it? How honest is that?

Provisionally, I stand corrected about your education. However, if your education is that good, then your whole complaint has no excuse as far as I'm concerned. You know better. You know exactly what I'm doing, and you're just picking a fight over something you already understand. You're just demanding humbleness where none is required. Forget it.

If somebody isn't sure if what I'm writing is an opinion, then a bunch of qualifiers just muddy up the prose so they also can't understand me or grow bored with my point. If they do understand already, why do they need qualifiers every second sentence? Etiquette? I never heard of those manners.

Second, I do *not* believe there is any one definition of bullying. That is the essence of both my replies to your posts.

Except if cyber-bullying is going to become a crime among adults, and people are going to be prosecuted and lose their freedom over it, we better come to an agreement on a definition. When five years of somebody's life is at stake, "community standards" doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

Similarly, if we're going to throw people off this site for it, then it's only ethical to know what the word means.

Consensus hasn't been reached yet, though. My definition is meant to compete. So I give it the best argument I can. Do you care to dispute it on its basis? If you want to discuss it on its merits, let's do it. If you want to discuss the consequences of people going with my definition, I'm ready.

However, if you want to quibble any more about inserting qualifiers, or whether my opinion matches anybody else, authority or not, that subject is closed. I won't read any of your posts along those lines. If I see another one, I'll just put you on Ignore.