Boy 4, shoots babysitter
Discussion
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090107/twl-boy-of-fou...
Don't you just love America?
The real crime is that the boy won't be charged! 'Scuse me? He knew what the gun was for. He said he was going to do it (premeditated). He knew where it was kept. He kew how to load it. He knew how to aim it. He knew how to pull the trigger.
Age has nothing to do with taking responsibility for your own actions. Knowing the situation is. Is it any wonder this country likes to shoot first and ask where you're hiding your natural resources later?
'Diminished responsibility' is a daft excuse. He might as well have said god told him to do it!
Don't you just love America?
The real crime is that the boy won't be charged! 'Scuse me? He knew what the gun was for. He said he was going to do it (premeditated). He knew where it was kept. He kew how to load it. He knew how to aim it. He knew how to pull the trigger.
Age has nothing to do with taking responsibility for your own actions. Knowing the situation is. Is it any wonder this country likes to shoot first and ask where you're hiding your natural resources later?
'Diminished responsibility' is a daft excuse. He might as well have said god told him to do it!
just because you know how to do it and what immediate effect it might have, doesn't mean that you have any comprehension of the overall effect, how it fits with the law and society and whether it is right or wrong... these are all things that you would expect to learn perhaps a little later in life than aged 4... at aged 4 you are told that stealing sweets is wrong, but you still do it.
ked with the blunt end of a rag mans trumpet.Not the kids fault.
At 4 a child will know of actions but will not understand consequence.
Try shouting at some kids, if you do that again you will lose xxx. 10 minutes later they will forget and do it again.
The person at fault is who showed a 4 year old what a gun is, how to load it, and fire it.
At 4 a child will know of actions but will not understand consequence.
Try shouting at some kids, if you do that again you will lose xxx. 10 minutes later they will forget and do it again.
The person at fault is who showed a 4 year old what a gun is, how to load it, and fire it.
THE CHILD WAS ONLY FOUR YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!mattikake said:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090107/twl-boy-of-fou...
Don't you just love America?
The real crime is that the boy won't be charged! 'Scuse me? He knew what the gun was for. He said he was going to do it (premeditated). He knew where it was kept. He kew how to load it. He knew how to aim it. He knew how to pull the trigger.
Age has nothing to do with taking responsibility for your own actions. Knowing the situation is. Is it any wonder this country likes to shoot first and ask where you're hiding your natural resources later?
'Diminished responsibility' is a daft excuse. He might as well have said god told him to do it!
Don't you just love America?
The real crime is that the boy won't be charged! 'Scuse me? He knew what the gun was for. He said he was going to do it (premeditated). He knew where it was kept. He kew how to load it. He knew how to aim it. He knew how to pull the trigger.
Age has nothing to do with taking responsibility for your own actions. Knowing the situation is. Is it any wonder this country likes to shoot first and ask where you're hiding your natural resources later?
'Diminished responsibility' is a daft excuse. He might as well have said god told him to do it!
(Unless you weren't joking, in whcih case, have a
)Devil's advocatal rants get responses, no? 
...and continuing so, I knew it was morally wrong to steal at the age of 5, even wihtout being told so. I nicked a notepad thing (worth about 20p) when I was 5 and balled my eye's out when I got caught.
You have an internal sense of morality which is genetic, and does not need to be nurtured. Though of course, part responsibility is by the parents. You can be sure this kids needs some serious councelling if he's not going to shoot someone else for treading on his toes later in life...
...and continuing so, I knew it was morally wrong to steal at the age of 5, even wihtout being told so. I nicked a notepad thing (worth about 20p) when I was 5 and balled my eye's out when I got caught.
You have an internal sense of morality which is genetic, and does not need to be nurtured. Though of course, part responsibility is by the parents. You can be sure this kids needs some serious councelling if he's not going to shoot someone else for treading on his toes later in life...
Edited by mattikake on Wednesday 7th January 14:55
mattikake said:
Devil's advocatal rants get responses, no?
...and continuing so, I knew it was morally wrong to steal at the age of 5, even wihtout being told so. I nicked a notepad thing (worth about 20p) when I was 5 and balled my eye's out when I got caught.
You have an internal sense of morality which is genetic, and does not need to be nurtured. Though of course, part responsibility is by the parents. You can be sure this kids needs some serious councelling if he's not going to shoot someone else for treading on his toes later in life...
+ 1 but i think i nicked some sweets instead....and continuing so, I knew it was morally wrong to steal at the age of 5, even wihtout being told so. I nicked a notepad thing (worth about 20p) when I was 5 and balled my eye's out when I got caught.
You have an internal sense of morality which is genetic, and does not need to be nurtured. Though of course, part responsibility is by the parents. You can be sure this kids needs some serious councelling if he's not going to shoot someone else for treading on his toes later in life...
Edited by mattikake on Wednesday 7th January 14:55
That was my thieving career started & finished!
mattikake said:
You have an internal sense of morality which is genetic, and does not need to be nurtured...
No you don't though; morality is entirely subjective and in a small child is developed according to what parents or 'big people' say they ought to or ought not to do - it is very much something that is external to themselves. - Piaget and Kohlberg established this beyond any doubt some time ago.maddog993 said:
mattikake said:
You have an internal sense of morality which is genetic, and does not need to be nurtured...
No you don't though; morality is entirely subjective and in a small child is developed according to what parents or 'big people' say they ought to or ought not to do - it is very much something that is external to themselves. - Piaget and Kohlberg established this beyond any doubt some time ago.For e.g. the only true fair human comparative test is with Feral children, of which there have been very few of course, but even those that have not even learned human language, still have a sense of basic morality - that it is not right to kill for no reason, compassion, social willingness etc. It's observed in all social primates, lower mamalia, even inter-species compassion between lower mamalia is well observed. Your capacity for morality clearly has to be genetic, not learned, and is directly comparable to increasing levels of consciousness and arguably the complexity of the Neo-Cortex in it's increasing ability to imagine anothers situation - genetic features.
And it certianly has sweet FA to do with the supposed sense of exclusive morality religion gives you, as an extreme counter.
I'd be quite prepared to argue against the specifics of Kohlberg's claims until blue in the face (though it is of a higher human level than what I speak of), though maybe not today! Suffice to say, I hear you, but disagree.
mattikake said:
maddog993 said:
mattikake said:
You have an internal sense of morality which is genetic, and does not need to be nurtured...
No you don't though; morality is entirely subjective and in a small child is developed according to what parents or 'big people' say they ought to or ought not to do - it is very much something that is external to themselves. - Piaget and Kohlberg established this beyond any doubt some time ago.For e.g. the only true fair human comparative test is with Feral children, of which there have been very few of course, but even those that have not even learned human language, still have a sense of basic morality - that it is not right to kill for no reason, compassion, social willingness etc. It's observed in all social primates, lower mamalia, even inter-species compassion between lower mamalia is well observed. Your capacity for morality clearly has to be genetic, not learned, and is directly comparable to increasing levels of consciousness and arguably the complexity of the Neo-Cortex in it's increasing ability to imagine anothers situation - genetic features.
And it certianly has sweet FA to do with the supposed sense of exclusive morality religion gives you, as an extreme counter.
I'd be quite prepared to argue against the specifics of Kohlberg's claims until blue in the face (though it is of a higher human level than what I speak of), though maybe not today! Suffice to say, I hear you, but disagree.
I agree with regard to the vacuity of religion's 'exclusive morality' argument - however while on this subject, one might just as equally argue that there is as much an innate religious belief system as there is an innate morality on the basis that one may witness religion in every society just as one may witness morality in every society. While it may appear as such, they are merely byproducts - the inevitable consequences of other human capacities
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff