If I could go back and do it all again there'd be two or three more swung fists. Probably no more than that, either, because that's all it would take.
In fact I think this debate would be really different if defending yourself against being bullied actually required sustained violence, but instead rather we're in a world where I can ask "How many people have killed themselves that could have been saved by them instead swinging their fists once?" and get a number probably at least in the thousands.
This isn't just a philosophy debating match; children are dying over this, and a lot more are getting badly hurt.
Her abuse of me doesn't weigh on me nearly as much as mine of her, because in the latter I had a choice. So there you go.
I disagree. What kills you inside slowly, is all the authority figures telling you what a horrible person you are for defending yourself.
I mean, by all means if you live in a place where the cops will actually do something if someone hurts, just call the cops. But you have to remember that the world doesn't consist entirely of north america.
Self-defense and unprovoked violence are two entirely different things. The law recognizes this and so do most sentient beings.
Sadly, this does not include most school administrators.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to every single administrator. #include <std_disclaimer.h>
Beating up on other people kills you inside, slowly, because it shows you exactly what kind of person you are.
It doesn't matter if you're "standing up" to some other kid. Violence is violence.
I'm not saying violence is never required, but if you're resorting to violence when a smile and a chuckle will do, you're weak -- you don't have enough willpower to control yourself, or brains to think up an alternative.