I suppose you don't believe in date rape or sexual harassment right? I mean if a woman and I have gotten naked and are lying together kissing, then biologically I have been prepared myself for certain acts. I couldn't resist the pheromones that made me find her attractive in the first place. We were 90% of the way there and biologically I just couldn't stop myself from that last 10% right?
I guess no doesn't mean no as long as you can find a biological rational for it.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'll forgive the political incorrectness of this reply, but...
If you and a lady are lying together nekkid, kissing and fondling each other, what did she, or he, or either of you expect? Let's not get too stupid with the reductio ad absurdum. What's next, we're having intercourse, I'm just about about to cum, she shouts no, and because I couldn't withdraw fast enough suddenly I'm a rapist?
Yes, no means no. Being the emasculated modern man fag that I've become, I'd find a way to respect that very late, excrutiatingly late, "no!" However, when we fill our daughters heads with this impression that because no means no, all other preceding demonstrations of judgement are unnecessary, then we do them a giant disservice.
So now we've both given ridiculous examples, but you catch my drift, it may be popular to say "no means no" because no one wants to seem like a neanderthal, but in reality when fore-play gets to the point you've chosen in your example, it is to me very difficult to now believe the case for rape rests in the same class as violent rape or even "date rape."
We should probably just drop this, as assigning the requisite level of precision in distinguishing qualities of rape is nothing anyone with any political sense is prepared to do. We even have categories of murder crafted with more sensitivity... just something to think about.
You'll forgive the political incorrectness of this reply, but...
If you and a lady are lying together nekkid, kissing and fondling each other, what did she, or he, or either of you expect? Let's not get too stupid with the reductio ad absurdum. What's next, we're having intercourse, I'm just about about to cum, she shouts no, and because I couldn't withdraw fast enough suddenly I'm a rapist?
Yes, no means no. Being the emasculated modern man fag that I've become, I'd find a way to respect that very late, excrutiatingly late, "no!" However, when we fill our daughters heads with this impression that because no means no, all other preceding demonstrations of judgement are unnecessary, then we do them a giant disservice.
So now we've both given ridiculous examples, but you catch my drift, it may be popular to say "no means no" because no one wants to seem like a neanderthal, but in reality when fore-play gets to the point you've chosen in your example, it is to me very difficult to now believe the case for rape rests in the same class as violent rape or even "date rape."
We should probably just drop this, as assigning the requisite level of precision in distinguishing qualities of rape is nothing anyone with any political sense is prepared to do. We even have categories of murder crafted with more sensitivity... just something to think about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually to temporarily drag this even more off topic, there was indeed a case recently where a guy was found guilty of rape for not withdrawing quickly enough from intercourse while, yes, in the midst of the actual act. She didn't even say no, she just said she had to go or something like that.
Not to say I agree with that or the proundly odd reasoning that follows this. You know from many of my posts that I wouldn't endorse such an extreme however I know that Bunge would hold in that instance that societal law and a woman's decision making about her own body take precidence. Yet he hypocritically doesn't apply that standard when it comes to adult crimes committed by teenagers. I just found it strange reasoning and had to point it out.
<strong>yeah, i think it's terrible. nothing is worse than taking a small child and then throwing them into a horrible situation like prison.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can think of something worse. When that small child murders some other small child's parent.
That does not mean that i am against trials or punishment of childs. But the management of this trial has to be different. The perception of what is evil and what is good is different, distorted by their capacity to live in a fantasmagoric world, where dream is superposed to reality.
That does not mean he must not be punish, it means that the first goal of his punishment, is to make him understand how wrong he was. He have to feel the guilty.
However when start child, teenage, adults is not cristal clear, and subject to individual changes. Even adults are not mature, and will never be, be it's not a reason to sue them on trial for childs, because at the contrary of childs these kind of people canno't evolve.
It's irrational to treat a minor as an adult if he commits some hideous crime, as well to treat an eighteen-year old (which in most civilised countries is the legal age for voting and for dying for one's country) like a kid when it comes to having a drink.
That being said, I have no leniency whatsoever for underage criminals, but that doesn't make them eligible for the status of adults, with the rights and duties that come with it.
That's my stance.
Don't like it? T'is your problem.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
If we're going to say no more often to putting young offenders into jail or through adult trial we have a whole other issue.
The reason why we don't like the idea is that there is this faulty idea that humans DO reach a state of mental maturity when in fact that potential is set during conception.
Some people do not reach a state of awareness that leads to doing "right and wrong" because of mental problems, others are simply VICTIMS of a cruel childhood/adulthood, or the Society they live in.
Cruel environment = cruel person? In many cases, yes.
Before throwing anyone into jail I think no matter how old they need a real assessment!!
The guy who killed his fellow citizen...
Where was he coming from? What happened to him? How did her get to this stage?
I mean how did we get where we were. Trace it all back, and we'll find that their are things we cannot control including our environment.
Now before you go "Don't listen to the softy canadian" I'd like to point out that jailtime costs taxpayers bigtime and that I think psychological treatment would work well for most cases.
And for "cold-blooded" muderers, put the drugs to them. We have the technology.
Yet he hypocritically doesn't apply that standard when it comes to adult crimes committed by teenagers. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hypocritical? No, I just believe that biologically a growing brain is not an adult brain. All of the examples you give are adults. I would liken a teenage brain to a retarded brain. Not that teenagers are retarded, but their brains aren't fully functioning.
So, if a retarded male with an I.Q. of 63 (I'm just making that number up, I don't what a legitimate cutoff would be) rapes someone, I don't think they should get life in prison. Their brain isn't fully functioning. If that's somehow hypocritical I'd love to know how.
Funny you bring that up. I have known MANY of my Christian friends who swore that they would wait to have sex until they got married. They dated around, started kissing, and as things got hotter and heavier, they actually went through with it. They just couldn't stop.
Now, to get the thread back on topic. Let me clarify my view on trying children as adults. Okay, I'll concede that many children who commit violent crimes are aware of the seriousness of what they're doing. Many don't, however. Also, I don't in any way, discount the anguish that the victims and their families feel after a murder, rape, or violent crime. Yes, justice must be served.
But criminals are people, too. When you take a child who has grown up in a violent household, who was sexually abused, and struggled every day up to now and you give them life in prison for committing murder, what are you doing to him? You are saying to him, "Sorry your childhood sucked. Now you killed someone and you have to spend your life behind bars. Good luck in turning your life around."
Cruel. That's not justice. Justice would be to say to the kid, "You screwed up. You can't keep doing this, or you WILL go to jail for the rest of your life. You have an opportunity to be removed from society and learn lessons that you need to turn your life around. Don't screw this up, because this is the only life you have. It'd be a shame for you to waste it when you haven't even really started living it."
What I always find amazing is the number of people who think that people will act improper because they grew up in an improper household.
It's very obvious to me that people who say that never grew up in that type of household. Point blank it is still a decision of the person and it is their choice.
I grew up in a household that had plenty of violence and plenty of drugs/drinking. It didn't make me want to do any of that more. It made me want to do all of it less. I considered it the world's biggest course on aversion theory. I didn't have the sexual abuse (but if I go to the right psychologist, I'm sure they'll be happy to implant the memory for me) but I did have everything else.
My parent's struggles with drinking and drugs made it so I never even wanted to experiment with drugs. (and I never have) Their extreme drinking, (I didn't realize until I was an adult that most kids don't have the number to every bar in town memorized) made it so I won't keep anything in my house. (I will still have a drink socially, literally a drink)
The point is that if my cousin/dad/whatever died in a gang, I wouldn't be itching to join a gang. If I watched family members become harmed by drug abuse, I wouldn't want to become a drug user.
You use it to justify these kids and claim their actions as ignorant. If anything it is the opposite. I could more easily understand someone who grew up in a sheltered household with no violence, no drinking, no guns, censored movies, and things like that getting mad and somehow not knowing the result of their actions.
Even then I believe anyone who is above say 11 years old easily and fully understands that death is not a temporary state. I would move the age lower but there is always that claimed low wattage bulb that holds the curve back.
<strong>I would move the age lower but there is always that claimed low wattage bulb that holds the curve back. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately there is no 'litmus test' to really know, but there are some 15 year olds that I think would fully understand, while there are some 19 year olds that wouldn't.
If we move the age back, I couldn't see it being any less than 17. Justice is supposed to err on the side of caution. Let 10 men go free if you know 9 are guilty and one is not guilty. In the same sense, with age, I believe that at 15, even 16, there are too many kids among.
So, it's better to improve the juve system and let some people that might deserve to be tried as adults go through a good system that can help them rather than let a number of kids go into an adult system.
Hypocritical? No, I just believe that biologically a growing brain is not an adult brain. All of the examples you give are adults. I would liken a teenage brain to a retarded brain. Not that teenagers are retarded, but their brains aren't fully functioning.
So, if a retarded male with an I.Q. of 63 (I'm just making that number up, I don't what a legitimate cutoff would be) rapes someone, I don't think they should get life in prison. Their brain isn't fully functioning. If that's somehow hypocritical I'd love to know how.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you would like to find and quote some developmental models instead of just making assertions?
IQ can be measured at that age. I assure you the intellect of a person and their capabilities are pretty much known from fairly early on.
You can give IQ tests to children (just not to black children and no I am not being a turd it is true, schools cannot give black children IQ tests) and find out their IQ from about third grade on. IQ doesn't really change dramatically over time. It is not an outgrowth of development.
If anything most brain models hold the opposite of what you claim. They say our brains are more responsive, intelligent and capable when we are young versus when we are even teenagers. (Again the push for univesal preschool because of this) You can't learn to speak a language unaccented once you pass say, 13 because you are no longer capable of learning all the nuances of sound within a language past that age (Again this is a generalization) while at 4-5 you easily could do this. So if anything someone is going to start off more capable and flexible in their learning and end up the rigid adults arguing on this forum.
What I find amazing about your assertion is that we aren't asking for higher level critical thinking. This is a most basic understanding, death and rape equal bad and don't do it. It wouldn't require anything but a child understanding of about 7 years old or so.
However again if the have the understanding the commit the act, they have the understanding to get tried for it. If they have an IQ so low, they probably get distracted on their way to the killing. Leave Lenny out of this and chase your mice and strawmen elsewhere. Deal with the general populace or start another thread.
If anything most brain models hold the opposite of what you claim. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The teenage brain is in a chemical flux. If a person shoots up PCP, they're responsible for their actions. If a person's brain is handicapped, they shouldn't be held to the same level of responsibility as someone on PCP.
If you don't believe that the teenage brain is in a chemical flux, then you don't believe it. If you believe that someone with a mixed up brain is as responsible as someone with a normal brain, then I assume you don't mind retarted people getting imprisoned for life.
What I always find amazing is the number of people who think that people will act improper because they grew up in an improper household.
*snip*
I grew up in a household that had plenty of violence and plenty of drugs/drinking. It didn't make me want to do any of that more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What, do you think that parents who are violent toward their children WANT to do that? How many times do women go back to abusive husbands because he said that he honestly would NEVER hit her again?
It's a proven fact that children who were abused as a child are FAR more likely to be abusive to their children. Women who were abused will, oddly enough, seek out violent men as husbands. These people don't want these lives. That's the ONLY THING THEY KNOW.
Here's a related scenario: Tell me, why do you have the dialect that you do? Because you grew up that way. Could you speak with a...British dialect? I mean, calling an elevator a lift, or always call soccer "football." Yeah. According to you, all you have to do is choose to do it. In reality, I would think it would be fairly difficult to remember ALL THE TIME that you had to speak differently, since you never grew up that way.
It's the same with children. How do you know what a loving family is REALLY like if you've never experienced it? How do you know what self-esteem is if you were always torn down with insults. We are products of lessons engrained in us from birth. You can take the tiger out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the tiger.
What, do you think that parents who are violent toward their children WANT to do that? How many times do women go back to abusive husbands because he said that he honestly would NEVER hit her again?
It's a proven fact that children who were abused as a child are FAR more likely to be abusive to their children. Women who were abused will, oddly enough, seek out violent men as husbands. These people don't want these lives. That's the ONLY THING THEY KNOW.
Here's a related scenario: Tell me, why do you have the dialect that you do? Because you grew up that way. Could you speak with a...British dialect? I mean, calling an elevator a lift, or always call soccer "football." Yeah. According to you, all you have to do is choose to do it. In reality, I would think it would be fairly difficult to remember ALL THE TIME that you had to speak differently, since you never grew up that way.
It's the same with children. How do you know what a loving family is REALLY like if you've never experienced it? How do you know what self-esteem is if you were always torn down with insults. We are products of lessons engrained in us from birth. You can take the tiger out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the tiger.
So then the reason you support rehabilitation is???.....
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
As for your question about women going back to abusive men, I would say that yes, in a way they do because very often they will choose the same sort of man again and again. They consider that anger and the making up part of the passion of what constitutes love. (Twisted reasoning isn't it?) They will consider nonabusive suitors to often be cold and unemotional because they don't act in the manner the abusive ones did.
So yes, even if they want to leave the abusive one they often pick another abusive one because their definition of love is out of whack.
Now to take your dialect reasoning a bit further. The real question is this... if your parents have a different dialect than the neighborhood, which are you going to grow up speaking?
See when you speak of people and what they know.. that really isn't true. We see solutions to problems other than the ones our family uses all the time. Half the time people complain of the rat race and keeping up with the neighbors because everything has gotten so comparative.
Most people instead of using it as an excuse to elevate themselves, simply seek out the easiest course. Children of smokers know it is a nasty, filthy, stinky habit. They probably know this even more than the children of non-smokers, yet some of them will still choose to do it because they want to go with the crowd, it allows them to rebel, etc.
I assure you my own family is a loving one even though the one with my own parents was a psychotic mess. You make traits like giving love and being willing to be non-violent sound like they are the most unnatural thing even when just the opposite is true. Being hateful, violent, abusive and other things requires action. It is not something that happens in a passive state. It requires a choice.
The teenage brain is in a chemical flux. If a person shoots up PCP, they're responsible for their actions. If a person's brain is handicapped, they shouldn't be held to the same level of responsibility as someone on PCP.
If you don't believe that the teenage brain is in a chemical flux, then you don't believe it. If you believe that someone with a mixed up brain is as responsible as someone with a normal brain, then I assume you don't mind retarted people getting imprisoned for life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You make the most stupifying claim perhaps I have ever read. The very act of being a teenager now means that their thinking and actions associated with them are now in an altered or handicapped state.
You make the most stupifying claim perhaps I have ever read. The very act of being a teenager now means that their thinking and actions associated with them are now in an altered or handicapped state.
You make the most stupifying claim perhaps I have ever read. The very act of being a teenager now means that their thinking and actions associated with them are now in an altered or handicapped state. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
I suppose you don't believe in date rape or sexual harassment right? I mean if a woman and I have gotten naked and are lying together kissing, then biologically I have been prepared myself for certain acts. I couldn't resist the pheromones that made me find her attractive in the first place. We were 90% of the way there and biologically I just couldn't stop myself from that last 10% right?
I guess no doesn't mean no as long as you can find a biological rational for it.
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'll forgive the political incorrectness of this reply, but...
If you and a lady are lying together nekkid, kissing and fondling each other, what did she, or he, or either of you expect? Let's not get too stupid with the reductio ad absurdum. What's next, we're having intercourse, I'm just about about to cum, she shouts no, and because I couldn't withdraw fast enough suddenly I'm a rapist?
Yes, no means no. Being the emasculated modern man fag that I've become, I'd find a way to respect that very late, excrutiatingly late, "no!" However, when we fill our daughters heads with this impression that because no means no, all other preceding demonstrations of judgement are unnecessary, then we do them a giant disservice.
So now we've both given ridiculous examples, but you catch my drift, it may be popular to say "no means no" because no one wants to seem like a neanderthal, but in reality when fore-play gets to the point you've chosen in your example, it is to me very difficult to now believe the case for rape rests in the same class as violent rape or even "date rape."
We should probably just drop this, as assigning the requisite level of precision in distinguishing qualities of rape is nothing anyone with any political sense is prepared to do. We even have categories of murder crafted with more sensitivity... just something to think about.
<strong>
You'll forgive the political incorrectness of this reply, but...
If you and a lady are lying together nekkid, kissing and fondling each other, what did she, or he, or either of you expect? Let's not get too stupid with the reductio ad absurdum. What's next, we're having intercourse, I'm just about about to cum, she shouts no, and because I couldn't withdraw fast enough suddenly I'm a rapist?
Yes, no means no. Being the emasculated modern man fag that I've become, I'd find a way to respect that very late, excrutiatingly late, "no!" However, when we fill our daughters heads with this impression that because no means no, all other preceding demonstrations of judgement are unnecessary, then we do them a giant disservice.
So now we've both given ridiculous examples, but you catch my drift, it may be popular to say "no means no" because no one wants to seem like a neanderthal, but in reality when fore-play gets to the point you've chosen in your example, it is to me very difficult to now believe the case for rape rests in the same class as violent rape or even "date rape."
We should probably just drop this, as assigning the requisite level of precision in distinguishing qualities of rape is nothing anyone with any political sense is prepared to do. We even have categories of murder crafted with more sensitivity... just something to think about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually to temporarily drag this even more off topic, there was indeed a case recently where a guy was found guilty of rape for not withdrawing quickly enough from intercourse while, yes, in the midst of the actual act. She didn't even say no, she just said she had to go or something like that.
Not to say I agree with that or the proundly odd reasoning that follows this. You know from many of my posts that I wouldn't endorse such an extreme however I know that Bunge would hold in that instance that societal law and a woman's decision making about her own body take precidence. Yet he hypocritically doesn't apply that standard when it comes to adult crimes committed by teenagers. I just found it strange reasoning and had to point it out.
Nick
<strong>yeah, i think it's terrible. nothing is worse than taking a small child and then throwing them into a horrible situation like prison.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can think of something worse. When that small child murders some other small child's parent.
That does not mean that i am against trials or punishment of childs. But the management of this trial has to be different. The perception of what is evil and what is good is different, distorted by their capacity to live in a fantasmagoric world, where dream is superposed to reality.
That does not mean he must not be punish, it means that the first goal of his punishment, is to make him understand how wrong he was. He have to feel the guilty.
However when start child, teenage, adults is not cristal clear, and subject to individual changes. Even adults are not mature, and will never be, be it's not a reason to sue them on trial for childs, because at the contrary of childs these kind of people canno't evolve.
It's irrational to treat a minor as an adult if he commits some hideous crime, as well to treat an eighteen-year old (which in most civilised countries is the legal age for voting and for dying for one's country) like a kid when it comes to having a drink.
That being said, I have no leniency whatsoever for underage criminals, but that doesn't make them eligible for the status of adults, with the rights and duties that come with it.
That's my stance.
Don't like it? T'is your problem.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
The reason why we don't like the idea is that there is this faulty idea that humans DO reach a state of mental maturity when in fact that potential is set during conception.
Some people do not reach a state of awareness that leads to doing "right and wrong" because of mental problems, others are simply VICTIMS of a cruel childhood/adulthood, or the Society they live in.
Cruel environment = cruel person? In many cases, yes.
Before throwing anyone into jail I think no matter how old they need a real assessment!!
The guy who killed his fellow citizen...
Where was he coming from? What happened to him? How did her get to this stage?
I mean how did we get where we were. Trace it all back, and we'll find that their are things we cannot control including our environment.
Now before you go "Don't listen to the softy canadian" I'd like to point out that jailtime costs taxpayers bigtime and that I think psychological treatment would work well for most cases.
And for "cold-blooded" muderers, put the drugs to them. We have the technology.
<strong>
Yet he hypocritically doesn't apply that standard when it comes to adult crimes committed by teenagers. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hypocritical? No, I just believe that biologically a growing brain is not an adult brain. All of the examples you give are adults. I would liken a teenage brain to a retarded brain. Not that teenagers are retarded, but their brains aren't fully functioning.
So, if a retarded male with an I.Q. of 63 (I'm just making that number up, I don't what a legitimate cutoff would be) rapes someone, I don't think they should get life in prison. Their brain isn't fully functioning. If that's somehow hypocritical I'd love to know how.
<strong>
Funny you bring that up. I have known MANY of my Christian friends who swore that they would wait to have sex until they got married. They dated around, started kissing, and as things got hotter and heavier, they actually went through with it. They just couldn't stop.
Now, to get the thread back on topic. Let me clarify my view on trying children as adults. Okay, I'll concede that many children who commit violent crimes are aware of the seriousness of what they're doing. Many don't, however. Also, I don't in any way, discount the anguish that the victims and their families feel after a murder, rape, or violent crime. Yes, justice must be served.
But criminals are people, too. When you take a child who has grown up in a violent household, who was sexually abused, and struggled every day up to now and you give them life in prison for committing murder, what are you doing to him? You are saying to him, "Sorry your childhood sucked. Now you killed someone and you have to spend your life behind bars. Good luck in turning your life around."
Cruel.
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: CosmoNut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What I always find amazing is the number of people who think that people will act improper because they grew up in an improper household.
It's very obvious to me that people who say that never grew up in that type of household. Point blank it is still a decision of the person and it is their choice.
I grew up in a household that had plenty of violence and plenty of drugs/drinking. It didn't make me want to do any of that more. It made me want to do all of it less. I considered it the world's biggest course on aversion theory. I didn't have the sexual abuse (but if I go to the right psychologist, I'm sure they'll be happy to implant the memory for me) but I did have everything else.
My parent's struggles with drinking and drugs made it so I never even wanted to experiment with drugs. (and I never have) Their extreme drinking, (I didn't realize until I was an adult that most kids don't have the number to every bar in town memorized) made it so I won't keep anything in my house. (I will still have a drink socially, literally a drink)
The point is that if my cousin/dad/whatever died in a gang, I wouldn't be itching to join a gang. If I watched family members become harmed by drug abuse, I wouldn't want to become a drug user.
You use it to justify these kids and claim their actions as ignorant. If anything it is the opposite. I could more easily understand someone who grew up in a sheltered household with no violence, no drinking, no guns, censored movies, and things like that getting mad and somehow not knowing the result of their actions.
Even then I believe anyone who is above say 11 years old easily and fully understands that death is not a temporary state. I would move the age lower but there is always that claimed low wattage bulb that holds the curve back.
Nick
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
<strong>I would move the age lower but there is always that claimed low wattage bulb that holds the curve back. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately there is no 'litmus test' to really know, but there are some 15 year olds that I think would fully understand, while there are some 19 year olds that wouldn't.
If we move the age back, I couldn't see it being any less than 17. Justice is supposed to err on the side of caution. Let 10 men go free if you know 9 are guilty and one is not guilty. In the same sense, with age, I believe that at 15, even 16, there are too many kids among.
So, it's better to improve the juve system and let some people that might deserve to be tried as adults go through a good system that can help them rather than let a number of kids go into an adult system.
<strong>
Hypocritical? No, I just believe that biologically a growing brain is not an adult brain. All of the examples you give are adults. I would liken a teenage brain to a retarded brain. Not that teenagers are retarded, but their brains aren't fully functioning.
So, if a retarded male with an I.Q. of 63 (I'm just making that number up, I don't what a legitimate cutoff would be) rapes someone, I don't think they should get life in prison. Their brain isn't fully functioning. If that's somehow hypocritical I'd love to know how.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you would like to find and quote some developmental models instead of just making assertions?
IQ can be measured at that age. I assure you the intellect of a person and their capabilities are pretty much known from fairly early on.
You can give IQ tests to children (just not to black children and no I am not being a turd it is true, schools cannot give black children IQ tests) and find out their IQ from about third grade on. IQ doesn't really change dramatically over time. It is not an outgrowth of development.
If anything most brain models hold the opposite of what you claim. They say our brains are more responsive, intelligent and capable when we are young versus when we are even teenagers. (Again the push for univesal preschool because of this) You can't learn to speak a language unaccented once you pass say, 13 because you are no longer capable of learning all the nuances of sound within a language past that age (Again this is a generalization) while at 4-5 you easily could do this. So if anything someone is going to start off more capable and flexible in their learning and end up the rigid adults arguing on this forum.
What I find amazing about your assertion is that we aren't asking for higher level critical thinking. This is a most basic understanding, death and rape equal bad and don't do it. It wouldn't require anything but a child understanding of about 7 years old or so.
However again if the have the understanding the commit the act, they have the understanding to get tried for it. If they have an IQ so low, they probably get distracted on their way to the killing. Leave Lenny out of this and chase your mice and strawmen elsewhere. Deal with the general populace or start another thread.
Nick
<strong>
If anything most brain models hold the opposite of what you claim. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The teenage brain is in a chemical flux. If a person shoots up PCP, they're responsible for their actions. If a person's brain is handicapped, they shouldn't be held to the same level of responsibility as someone on PCP.
If you don't believe that the teenage brain is in a chemical flux, then you don't believe it. If you believe that someone with a mixed up brain is as responsible as someone with a normal brain, then I assume you don't mind retarted people getting imprisoned for life.
<strong>
What I always find amazing is the number of people who think that people will act improper because they grew up in an improper household.
*snip*
I grew up in a household that had plenty of violence and plenty of drugs/drinking. It didn't make me want to do any of that more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What, do you think that parents who are violent toward their children WANT to do that? How many times do women go back to abusive husbands because he said that he honestly would NEVER hit her again?
It's a proven fact that children who were abused as a child are FAR more likely to be abusive to their children. Women who were abused will, oddly enough, seek out violent men as husbands. These people don't want these lives. That's the ONLY THING THEY KNOW.
Here's a related scenario: Tell me, why do you have the dialect that you do? Because you grew up that way. Could you speak with a...British dialect? I mean, calling an elevator a lift, or always call soccer "football." Yeah. According to you, all you have to do is choose to do it. In reality, I would think it would be fairly difficult to remember ALL THE TIME that you had to speak differently, since you never grew up that way.
It's the same with children. How do you know what a loving family is REALLY like if you've never experienced it? How do you know what self-esteem is if you were always torn down with insults. We are products of lessons engrained in us from birth. You can take the tiger out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the tiger.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: CosmoNut ]</p>
<strong>
What, do you think that parents who are violent toward their children WANT to do that? How many times do women go back to abusive husbands because he said that he honestly would NEVER hit her again?
It's a proven fact that children who were abused as a child are FAR more likely to be abusive to their children. Women who were abused will, oddly enough, seek out violent men as husbands. These people don't want these lives. That's the ONLY THING THEY KNOW.
Here's a related scenario: Tell me, why do you have the dialect that you do? Because you grew up that way. Could you speak with a...British dialect? I mean, calling an elevator a lift, or always call soccer "football." Yeah. According to you, all you have to do is choose to do it. In reality, I would think it would be fairly difficult to remember ALL THE TIME that you had to speak differently, since you never grew up that way.
It's the same with children. How do you know what a loving family is REALLY like if you've never experienced it? How do you know what self-esteem is if you were always torn down with insults. We are products of lessons engrained in us from birth. You can take the tiger out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the tiger.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: CosmoNut ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
So then the reason you support rehabilitation is???.....
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
As for your question about women going back to abusive men, I would say that yes, in a way they do because very often they will choose the same sort of man again and again. They consider that anger and the making up part of the passion of what constitutes love. (Twisted reasoning isn't it?) They will consider nonabusive suitors to often be cold and unemotional because they don't act in the manner the abusive ones did.
So yes, even if they want to leave the abusive one they often pick another abusive one because their definition of love is out of whack.
Now to take your dialect reasoning a bit further. The real question is this... if your parents have a different dialect than the neighborhood, which are you going to grow up speaking?
See when you speak of people and what they know.. that really isn't true. We see solutions to problems other than the ones our family uses all the time. Half the time people complain of the rat race and keeping up with the neighbors because everything has gotten so comparative.
Most people instead of using it as an excuse to elevate themselves, simply seek out the easiest course. Children of smokers know it is a nasty, filthy, stinky habit. They probably know this even more than the children of non-smokers, yet some of them will still choose to do it because they want to go with the crowd, it allows them to rebel, etc.
I assure you my own family is a loving one even though the one with my own parents was a psychotic mess. You make traits like giving love and being willing to be non-violent sound like they are the most unnatural thing even when just the opposite is true. Being hateful, violent, abusive and other things requires action. It is not something that happens in a passive state. It requires a choice.
Nick
<strong>
The teenage brain is in a chemical flux. If a person shoots up PCP, they're responsible for their actions. If a person's brain is handicapped, they shouldn't be held to the same level of responsibility as someone on PCP.
If you don't believe that the teenage brain is in a chemical flux, then you don't believe it. If you believe that someone with a mixed up brain is as responsible as someone with a normal brain, then I assume you don't mind retarted people getting imprisoned for life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You make the most stupifying claim perhaps I have ever read. The very act of being a teenager now means that their thinking and actions associated with them are now in an altered or handicapped state.
Amazing....
Nick
<strong>
You make the most stupifying claim perhaps I have ever read. The very act of being a teenager now means that their thinking and actions associated with them are now in an altered or handicapped state.
Amazing....
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe bunge is a teenager
<strong>
You make the most stupifying claim perhaps I have ever read. The very act of being a teenager now means that their thinking and actions associated with them are now in an altered or handicapped state. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not my fault. Sorry.
<strong>
Maybe bunge is a teenager </strong><hr></blockquote>
DOH!