I as a school board member, I fight against the control of defenseless kids by "policy"
ONE such being a "bullying policy"
I, and my peers (I'm 69) were bullied as kids (a couple of us were the bullies) and we all survived and became stronger men because we were forced to reach within and FIND something that kept us from running to the coloring books and bunny rabbits.
We had to go to school the next day to discover if we still had a girl friend or not, or if the kids would all be laughing or congratulating.
THOSE nights before going back to school ... WAS school.
>>ONE such being a “bullying policy”
“Bullying” policy is an excellent example of Post-Modernist thought totally corrupting the benefits of using the dialectic to find the “better” and eventually the “best” truth.
Post-Modern dialectic
Thesis: bullying is bad
Anti-thesis: bullying is good
Synthesis: Pass a strict, zero-tolerance no bullying policy.
There is no room for a new Thesis/Anti-thesis>>Synthesis with this line of thought. No “best” truth can be found.
Practical dialectic
Thesis: bullying is bad
Anti-thesis: bullying is good
Synthesis: When you consider all forms of juvenile aggression, some things are unacceptable and should be punished as bullying, but other things are just a part of socialization and do not cause any lasting harm, but can teach valuable life lessons for all involved. So a bullying policy that considers all the facts is warranted.
This Synthesis is a new Thesis and can be addressed by a new Anti-Thesis to find a “better” truth.