[stratos]

$1:

But even you know that Bullying is violence.

But is this considered a form of bullying/sexual harassment?

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

$1:

But even you know that Bullying is violence.

But is this considered a form of bullying/sexual harassment?

I'd bet it's both. Posting the pics of classmates and and putting up a poll of which one you hate the most would be bullying. Add to that which one would you most like to have angry sex with . . . yea. Slow pitch over the plate there.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But even you know that Bullying is violence. And a crime.

Only physical contact can be violence and then it needs to be of a set level of force.

Bullying is not violence without a physical aspect. It can be harassment, but that's not violence.

$1:

And University is where they are supposed to learn that professionalism.

And if that conduct happened at the school, the school might have an obligation to act. But it didn't so it's none of the school's business.

$1:

It is within the context of the Chloroform jokes. One of the jokes on their Facebook site was "Does this mask smell like Nitrous Oxide?" and "Penis, ..to convert. . .virgins into useful members of Society".

So what? If they sexually assault someone or rape someone or otherwise abuse someone while in their care as doctors that would be something. This is nothing, and only professional victims or overly sensitive twits would be so up in arms over this as to demand the students be punished to any degree let alone to the level of delaying their education.

I can't help but notice the school has suspended them without giving them a fair say. I guess the acceptance of the cries of white women once good enough to get a black man murdered is still good enough to get a handful of students removed from class.

$1:

You would send your daughter to that Dentist, but not if he was Muslim? That's pretty screwed up.

A university student making a comment like "Does this mask smell like Nitrous Oxide?" is a joke. A Muslim that thinks non Muslims women are whores that maybe raped where found isn't. I could throw up some numbers and stats, but in the end I wouldn't trust a Muslim near any female.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But even you know that Bullying is violence. And a crime.

Only physical contact can be violence and then it needs to be of a set level of force.

Bullying is not violence without a physical aspect. It can be harassment, but that's not violence.

Violence does not require physical contact. The Oxford Dictionary definition includes the threat of violence. Ghandi defined violence as 'inflicting your will upon another'. Pointing a gun at someone is violence, even if you don't use the gun.

Bullying is defined as "Repeated, persistent and aggressive behaviour intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to another person's body, emotions, self-esteem or reputation. " Cyberbullying has yet another definition.

Bullying is violence.

Xort Xort:

$1:

And University is where they are supposed to learn that professionalism.

And if that conduct happened at the school, the school might have an obligation to act. But it didn't so it's none of the school's business.

It happened between students. Odds are, using computers while on campus. It is very much the schools business.

Xort Xort:

$1:

It is within the context of the Chloroform jokes. One of the jokes on their Facebook site was "Does this mask smell like Nitrous Oxide?" and "Penis, ..to convert. . .virgins into useful members of Society".

So what? If they sexually assault someone or rape someone or otherwise abuse someone while in their care as doctors that would be something. This is nothing, and only professional victims or overly sensitive twits would be so up in arms over this as to demand the students be punished to any degree let alone to the level of delaying their education.

I can't help but notice the school has suspended them without giving them a fair say. I guess the acceptance of the cries of white women once good enough to get a black man murdered is still good enough to get a handful of students removed from class.

I can't help but notice they are getting a hearing to determine whether they should be expelled, where they will get a fair say.

Xort Xort:

$1:

You would send your daughter to that Dentist, but not if he was Muslim? That's pretty screwed up.

A university student making a comment like "Does this mask smell like Nitrous Oxide?" is a joke. A Muslim that thinks non Muslims women are whores that maybe raped where found isn't. I could throw up some numbers and stats, but in the end I wouldn't trust a Muslim near any female.

I'll let my female Muslim dentist know what you think of her. I'm sure she'll be intrigued!

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

[
You don't have to have actual sexual contact for there to still be violence.

No, but you do have to have contact.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

[Violence does not require physical contact.

Yes violence requires physical contact.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

[Violence does not require physical contact.

Yes violence requires physical contact.

$1:

but this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, by beating, knocking down, or forcibly wresting from him on the contrary, whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life, with a view to compel the delivery of property equally falls within its limits

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/violence

Legal definitions are sometimes counter intuitive, they don't follow language definitions.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Violence does not require physical contact. The Oxford Dictionary definition includes the threat of violence. Ghandi defined violence as 'inflicting your will upon another'. Pointing a gun at someone is violence, even if you don't use the gun.

Violence is physical, without physical contact you don't have violence. At least in terms of inter human relations, in relation to conduct to cause harm. You can use violence to describe wider situations like running gun fights as violence even if people are not being hit by bullets. The English language is flexible like that.

$1:

Bullying is defined as "Repeated, persistent and aggressive behaviour intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to another person's body, emotions, self-esteem or reputation. " Cyberbullying has yet another definition.
Bullying is violence.

Not all bullying is violence, violence is a physical act. Further this situation doesn't even meet that definition of bullying as it's not repeated, persistence aggressive or intended to cause fear, or harm of any kind.

To be bullying it would need to be intended to be communicated to a person to cause fear or harm. Clearly not what happened.

For example, if I was to say I want to hate fuck X person that isn't part of this forum, that's not bullying because my intent isn't to cause them fear or harm, and my single action isn't repeated persistent and aggressive.

$1:

It happened between students. Odds are, using computers while on campus. It is very much the schools business.

Now you are just speculating wildly, also a school doesn't lay claim to all electronic devices that are on the campus. A private device doesn't belong to the school and it's use is private.

Not that it matters the space of the communicate was NOT the school campus, unless you think this school owns and operates facebook.

$1:

I can't help but notice they are getting a hearing to determine whether they should be expelled, where they will get a fair say.

They have already been removed from class. Punishment before a hearing. So much for the belief in the rule of law.

$1:

I'll let my female Muslim dentist know what you think of her. I'm sure she'll be intrigued!

Go right ahead, that's not a rude topic to bring up.
"Hey this guy on the internet said he wouldn't trust Muslim men around non Muslim women, what a jerk!"

[Thanos]

It would have been a lot easier and more effective if the university had merely said from the beginning that the public behaviour (and fucking around like idiots on Facebook is public, not private, behaviour) of the students was a violation of the more stringent code of personal conduct expected from anyone enrolled in a medical faculty. They're training to be dentists, not understudies for comedians like Andrew Dice Clay. And they were all old enough to know better too, so grow the fuck up already. They were in training to be professionals so they should have fucking acted like it. This was entirely preventable if they'd used some basic common sense.

[Xort]

Thanos Thanos:

It would have been a lot easier and more effective if the university had merely said from the beginning that the public behaviour (and fucking around like idiots on Facebook is public, not private, behaviour) of the students was a violation of the more stringent code of personal conduct expected from anyone enrolled in a medical faculty. They're training to be dentists, not understudies for comedians like Andrew Dice Clay. And they were all old enough to know better too, so grow the fuck up already. They were in training to be professionals so they should have fucking acted like it. This was entirely preventable if they'd used some basic common sense.

How would the school deal with the professor that was taking offense on the account of others when her demands that the students were to be removed from class wasn't acted on?

This whole thing isn't about the students and their conduct but the threat made by the professor to kick up a shit storm if those students were not removed from the school before classes started again.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

Violence is physical, without physical contact you don't have violence. At least in terms of inter human relations, in relation to conduct to cause harm. You can use violence to describe wider situations like running gun fights as violence even if people are not being hit by bullets. The English language is flexible like that.

Not all bullying is violence, violence is a physical act. Further this situation doesn't even meet that definition of bullying as it's not repeated, persistence aggressive or intended to cause fear, or harm of any kind.

To be bullying it would need to be intended to be communicated to a person to cause fear or harm. Clearly not what happened.

For example, if I was to say I want to hate fuck X person that isn't part of this forum, that's not bullying because my intent isn't to cause them fear or harm, and my single action isn't repeated persistent and aggressive.

As above, Violence does not require physical contact, and both it and Bullying are crimes. Ending the thought:

Xort Xort:

If their was a threat made that would be a crime. If someone was attacked that would be both violence and a crime.

But that didn't happen. So what it comes back to is nothing.

Just because X is not part of this forum does not mean X cannot Google their name and find your threats against them. CKA is Public, you would have threatened violence and that is a crime. An action does not have to be persistent or repeated to be a crime. Killing someone once is still a crime even if you never repeat it.

Xort Xort:

$1:

It happened between students. Odds are, using computers while on campus. It is very much the schools business.

Now you are just speculating wildly, also a school doesn't lay claim to all electronic devices that are on the campus. A private device doesn't belong to the school and it's use is private.

Not that it matters the space of the communicate was NOT the school campus, unless you think this school owns and operates facebook.

The school would own the method of communication, ie: the Internet connection. The threats were made by students on their campus, which would make it their responsibility, and the threats were made against students on their campus, also making it their business.

And Facebook is public, not private.

[Thanos]

A teacher or professor should have the right to request the removal of any student who is behaving in a way detrimental to the harmony of the classroom or in a manner that is in violation of the school or faculty's code of conduct. This is something that should happen more often, not less. I doubt there's too many people who don't have some negative memories from school where the class idiot/bully/psychopath should have been booted out but instead was allowed to remain and cause endless disruption. The university should have acted quicker instead of foot-dragging and the situation wouldn't have gone as far as it did.

These guys wouldn't have been allowed to behave this way at work. So why should they/were they allowed to behave this way at school?

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

As above, Violence does not require physical contact, and both it and Bullying are crimes. Ending the thought:

No, violence is not always a crime, it's highly contextual. Your above isn't the definition for violence in a complete sense but the fine definition for robbery which requires a form of violence that may just be limited to a threat. That definition looks like a work around in a poorly written law that required robbery to include violence, but would mean pointing a gun at someone and making a threat isn't violence so that crime would not be robbery. The expanded definition clearly overlaps with making threats, if violence included making threats we wouldn't need laws covering making threats.

$1:

Just because X is not part of this forum does not mean X cannot Google their name and find your threats against them. CKA is Public, you would have threatened violence and that is a crime. An action does not have to be persistent or repeated to be a crime. Killing someone once is still a crime even if you never repeat it.

Incorrect. Your definition of bullying requires more than one action AND it requires the person bullying to intend it to harm the other person and/or cause fear. In my example, my intent wasn't to harm the person, AND wasn't a pattern of actions, AND it was not intended to hurt or cause fear. 3 out of 3 failure.

We have also established that a hate fuck is a consensual sexual act between a willing partner and someone that dislikes them. It's not a crime and it's not a threat. Hate fuck isn't rape.

A threat would be I want to rape this person, although even then a statement of personal desire isn't always a threat. A more direct statement that would be a threat would be something like "I will rape X when I find them." But even it's questionable if that is a threat against someone, and yet an even more direct statement would better meet the standard of a criminal threat "I will rape you when I find you."

$1:

The school would own the method of communication, ie: the Internet connection.

If the person used a wireless connection from their phone service?
Pure speculation on your part.

The long established rule is that connection providers are not responsible for that connections use. Otherwise your ISP would be a partner for massive IP theft, threats, hate crimes and all kinds of criminal conspiracies.

$1:

The threats were made by students on their campus, which would make it their responsibility, and the threats were made against students on their campus, also making it their business.

No threats were made, you claim of threats is made up. We don't have any information of the physical location of the authors when they made the comments that's just unsupported speculation on your part, unless you have read more information on this subject.

If this was a crime, it would be the job of the state to prosecute the crime, and not the schools. But as no crime happened and no threat was made, the school reacting to the threats made by a professor and has taken action against the students, out of fear of the actions of the professor. Go terrorism.

$1:

And Facebook is public, not private.

It can be either but it doesn't matter if it was public. The authors of the comments didn't direct them at anyone by sending them to the specified person's facebook account, or otherwise alerting them by direct action. Or at least that's what I have read so far.

This is it not a threat, not violence and it fails your definition of bullying.

It's nothing. The only person that might be doing something wrong is the professor and her threats against the school if the school didn't remove the students from class as punishment.

~

Let me go one step further, I have known women that I truly disliked however found them to be sexually attractive, I would hate fuck them. I bet most heterosexual men have at some time came across a women they dislike but still found to be sexually attractive. And a subset of those men may have communicated that idea to someone else in some form. That's not a crime, it's not violence, it's not a threat, and it's not bullying.

Claiming that it is, only kicks sand in the face of people that have been subject to violence, threats and bullying. It's near as bad as feminists abusing the word rape to apply to anything but non consensual sex. My favorite being the fart rape; 'When a man farts he is literally raping all the women around him', if you believe feminists.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

[Violence does not require physical contact.

Yes violence requires physical contact.

$1:

but this violence is not confined to an actual assault of the person, by beating, knocking down, or forcibly wresting from him on the contrary, whatever goes to intimidate or overawe, by the apprehension of personal violence, or by fear of life, with a view to compel the delivery of property equally falls within its limits

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/violence

Legal definitions are sometimes counter intuitive, they don't follow language definitions.

I stand corrected. I could find no defintion of violence in Canadian statutes, however, you can be charged for assualt for threatening someone.

My other concern is that if you equate speech with violence, then you can kiss freedom of speech good-bye. Which I guess shouldn't be a concern, because we kissed freedom of speech good-bye some time ago, especially on university campuses.

I watched about 2 minutes of Sons of Anarchy last night. My wife loves that show. I can't stand it. Anyways, I can't believe those actors are walking around free. You should have heard the things they were saying about women. Just a demonstration that I saw more offensive stuff--far more offensive--in a couple of miinutes of TV watching than these students printed.

Violence is not always a crime. If it were there would be no such thing as hockey.

[Xort]

Thanos Thanos:

A teacher or professor should have the right to request the removal of any student who is behaving in a way detrimental to the harmony of the classroom or in a manner that is in violation of the school or faculty's code of conduct.

No, I don't agree otherwise biased teachers could claim detrimental harmony to a classroom to remove students that didn't believe in the SJW dogma. They could use it to remove students of religions that were in conflict with others. They could use it to remove students that didn't support the idea of charity or any other number of made up trash.

The only time a student should be removed is if in their classroom conduct they are disruptive to the ability of other students to learn. But even then only if they disruptive action was not solicited or part of a classroom discussion. For example asking a pro choice student their views on abortion and kicking them out of class for being in support of it in conflict with other students. But justified if the student kept trying to push their pro choice views on others off topic.

$1:

This is something that should happen more often, not less. I doubt there's too many people who don't have some negative memories from school where the class idiot/bully/psychopath should have been booted out but instead was allowed to remain and cause endless disruption.

Higher education is a place to learn, not a hug box. Students should expect to be challenged and offended and even come into ideological conflict. Harassment is already against the law and I will support removing disruptive students under the conditions I put above.

$1:

The university should have acted quicker instead of foot-dragging and the situation wouldn't have gone as far as it did.

As far as it did? So they wouldn't have removed the students from class? Or people from outside the school wouldn't be passing judgements on their actions?

$1:

These guys wouldn't have been allowed to behave this way at work. So why should they/were they allowed to behave this way at school?

Because a school is a place of learning, and part of learning is to be corrected when a mistake is made.

A US president once joked that he outlawed the USSR and the bombers where on the way, that was recorded and communicated to the world.

If a president can joke about starting a nuclear war, surely we can accept a joke about nitrous oxide.

Also maybe we need to look closer at our society when someone can complain and be offended on the behalf of someone else. I think I'd rather live with off color jokes than leftist thought police.

For the third time: "it's completely unacceptable that you would think you could get away with saying that, let alone thinking it"

Let alone thinking it.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I stand corrected. I could find no defintion of violence in Canadian statutes, however, you can be charged for assualt for threatening someone.

That's because assault is a crime of threats, while battery is a crime of physical contact. They are commonly mixed up or battery is outright ignored.