> so they're saying the form of bullying in this article needs to be addressed with prevention measures. they aren't saying your form of bullying doesn't exist.

> so they're saying the form of bullying in this article needs to be addressed with prevention measures. they aren't saying your form of bullying doesn't exist. Well, now you're just strawmanning. This article is claiming that "most" (not all) bullying is among peers. You're taking down a hypothetical strawman argument where "most" has been replaced by "all". Why did you feel the need to invent this strawman? Literally no-one in this thread has misinterpreted the article to mean that "all" (not "most") bullying is among peers. > whether one happens more or less isn't really the point. Yes it is, it's literally the whole point of this article. This article would never have been written if its point was "some undetermined amount of bullying occurs among peers". This article was written specifically to claim that most bullying is of this kind. > Its about identifying an underserved need and addressing it. Sure, I agree this is also in the article. And I'm arguing they're wrong. They're saying that most bullying is of kind A, whereas existing programs are largely treating bullying of kind B. I'm saying that the opposite is true: that most bullying is of kind B, whereas existing programs are largely treating bullying of kind A.