We tolerate it because its normal, ie how things work out in nature unless we try to intervene, is simply the naturallistic fallacy. While in fact what happens

We tolerate it because its normal, ie how things work out in nature unless we try to intervene, is simply the naturallistic fallacy. While in fact what happens in nature really doesn't imply anything about anything's desirability, which is what is at issue here. Now, no doubt their responsibility is different, because their brains are different. It'd be appaling to jail a kid on charges of assault for a fight in school ofc. However, this def does not mean that getting bullied wouldn't have similarly negative effects on the kid, as it would on the adults (easily worse, given the kid's personality is only forming). Hence, the op was suggesting, rationally, preventing it should be just as high of a priority to the school, as it would be to the judicial apparatus in the case of adult assault. Instead, it is just normal. And that is appaling.