|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 29, 2009 12:27 PM |
|
|
You can simply cut the power for the room, cut the internet and so on. Moreover, TV and computers can be password-coded, which is what PARENTS should do so they can simply lock the devices of their children.
For responsibility, in your immunization example the child has no say in it, so how could it have any responsibility?
For handguns the issue is the ammunition, obviously. Things should be kept under lock. If you don't do that you act irresponsible.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 12:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can simply cut the power for the room, cut the internet and so on. Moreover, TV and computers can be password-coded, which is what PARENTS should do so they can simply lock the devices of their children.
Absolutely agree. Except in high summer or deep winter..then things get a bit trickier (wouldn't want the child to freeze or such).
Quote:
For responsibility, in your immunization example the child has no say in it, so how could it have any responsibility?
I agree, the child (in my opinion) is blameless..what about the parents?
Quote:
For handguns the issue is the ammunition, obviously. Things should be kept under lock. If you don't do that you act irresponsible.
Most likely (not always of course) if you are irresponsible to put a weapon where a child can get ahold of it, chances are you are irresponsible enough to keep the ammunition in a similar place. Ignoring that however, assuming that the child gets the weapon and the ammunition..then to what degree should the parents be punished/held responsible?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 12:43 PM |
|
|
If immunization is mandatory and the parents are simply refusing, it's their fault, fully.
If it's a voluntary immunization, then it's just bad luck.
For weapons it's the same. However, here an interesting question arises:
Case 1) Carelessness. A six-year old finds the loaded gun of their parents, plays a bit Luke Skywalker and accidentally kills his little brother.
Parent's fault and involuntary manslaughter.
Case 2) A child is taught what a weapon is, how to use it, when to use it, and so on. Age 14 the guy takes the gun and kills his teacher, because he pissed him off once too often.
Now what?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 12:51 PM |
|
|
Interesting question. Intent + Knowledge + Age = ?. A very worthy equation. Though my thoughts on it may be contriversial, I believe the 14 year old should be held singularly responsible, and prosecuted as an adult. Whereas the younger child's parents would have sole responisbility and charged with Facilitating Murder minimum.
To the best of my knowledge (I will have to investigate), currently all Immunizations are 'voluntary' in the US. Unless a quarantine or similar is issued.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 12:55 PM |
|
|
I mean, the child is taught responsible use and so on of weapons.
See it this way: the parents sign their 5-year-old at a Taekwondo school where he's taught selfdefense.
Age 13 he kills a teacher with a heavy kick to the head because he pissed him off really bad.
NOw what?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 12:59 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:04, 29 Apr 2009.
|
Yes, I knew what you meant. Again, I would put the responsibility on the child. Knowing how to do something, and doing it is two different things. I know how to make something go boom..doesn't mean I will do so.
Again remember this is just my opinion. Accidents are one thing, intent is another. Sorry trying to clarify...last edit I promise.
Edit : The intent in your examples is harm, meaning that the child knew that what they were doing could harm another. I believe if somebody is old enough to intend harm, they should be held responsible, even if the harm was greater then they might have expected.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 01:11 PM |
|
|
I think I misread your post before and my clarification wasn't necessary.
You knew, a BUT would follow, didn't you? 
Quote:
I believe if somebody is old enough to intend harm, they should be held responsible, even if the harm was greater then they might have expected.
Of course that means that parents should teach and show children everything as soon and early as possible, because they are simply off any and every hook then:
"What? My little Stevie just killed someone? Well, how could he? We taught him reponsible use with these things his whole life..."
It looks a bit like parents have the responsibility to teach their children that it's a no-no to go and kill what you don't like.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 01:31 PM |
|
|
I am not sure I disagree with you to a point. Yes, parents have a responsibility to teach their children right from wrong. However, I may point out that you mentioned they taught these individuals the responsible thing to do with the weapon/martial arts, and they intended harm. Lets put this in another light however.
20 year old Billybob was never shown a weapon, was homeschooled, and never even seen a gun before. He picks one up and kills somebody. Should he be able to say "But my parents never taught me doing so was bad?"
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 01:54 PM |
|
|
For the first thing the question is, whether a 13-year-old who kills someone (intentionally) has really been taught responsibility and so on - every discussion of this case would raise that question and woulnd investigate the parental education of the young killer, and rightly so.
For your second case, I tend to answer yes. If Billybob didn't know what he was doing it's not important whether he was 13 or 83. If a child is isolated from society by being homeschooled, parents have to answer for basically everything. They decided, they could do better, but they failed. You may say, by homeschooling they took all the responsibility that is usually divided on many shoulders, on their own - ergo, they have to take the blame as well if something goes wrong.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 02:10 PM |
|
|
Yes I realized belatedly I was arguing symantics, which is one thing I try to avoid. Had to wait till I arrived at my house to post as well.
Hmm you do make some valid points, and in the 13-14 year old case I can understand your points. I wonder what others think on the subject, only time will tell. I will not be on much the next couple of days.
As for the older person however, I am sorry I just disagree. It is my opinion that some excuses just do not have merit. That is a whole different discussion however. In the instance of Billybob, I believe he should have to soley face the responsibility of his actions. My main disagreement is allowing such could lead to "My pa taught me it was ok to burn 'X' race, it taint my fault."
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 02:18 PM |
|
|
I think there should be no age barrier. Murder is murder.
Don't forget that MURDER is different from an ACCIDENT. And with kids - or teenagers - it's usually easy to determine whether it was a murder or not.
Three bald 15yo guys kicking a bum in the head until he dies are obviously murderers.
A guy that crashed his bike into a bum and made him accidentally hit the pavement and die is obviously not.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 03:06 PM |
|
|
Except the kids are not in full possession of their reasoning faculties.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 03:16 PM |
|
|
Curious Mvass..at what age do you personally think that is no longer the case? That they have their full reasoning, etc?
____________
Message received.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 04:46 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 16:49, 29 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
I'm sure, pressing a burning cigarette onto the arm will have the same effect.
This is a false argument, beating does cause injuries. A very common mistake to associate all physical acts as not only beating, but in your case torture. Gimme a brake!
Reminds awful lot of the argumentation against socialism to be honest, as everything has to be turned to extremes.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 04:51 PM |
|
|
*Hands Minion a brake*
Overstatement, but still. If you need to make your child feel PAIN to get its attention you are making something wrong.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 06:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I have a quite obvious opinion: People have the right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't break the rights of others
Lexxan dude, that is one of the most easily abused and is OBVIOUS that it doesn't apply at all even in today's world, and moreso I don't think you would like it. And it is also one of the most naive and is mostly a buzzword that CANNOT apply even in Utopia. Seriously, people who are using it, what the hell dudes? Can't you see the long number of flaws in there, from a neutral logical point of view?
Here are a few:
First, what is the punishment for it? Say, someone goes and kills 3 people. What's the punishment? Kill him? Well even if you were going for "an eye for an eye", it's not enough -- he killed 3 but you only kill 1 such bastard. And most certainly killing him is not going to bring the 3 back. So he lost his rights, but he took away 3 people's rights. And even so, all of this is DESTRUCTIVE. That is, it's not going to restore it back. Destruction + destruction doesn't cancel itself out.
What about something less extreme: someone destroying your "property"? What's the punishment? You destroy their own property? What if they don't have one? You make them pay for it? Let's assume they do have the money, this isn't convenient to you at all: they destroyed your property, and even if you have money to make it back, you are still uncomfortable and suffer a bit out of his action (until it is made again etc..). What if also there was irreplaceable stuff? Like personal stuff or let's say, in the digital world, personal data? No amount of money can save that.
How do you measure such punishment?
But let's get scientific, since basing it on "common sense" leads to different answers. That means if someone speaks, and you hear them, he is invading your privacy. It is a form of "breaking the rights of others", since as the question goes, where do you draw the line?
What makes a mechanical force different than sound? Physically they are both vibrations, the former having low frequency (below hearing) and high amplitude (if it's strong). Scientifically, sound could be an offense just as a "push" would be, or any other mechanical force applied on you (shockwave included). Are all of them offenses?
And what's the punishment? You push them back? Or make sound back to them? (i.e any mechanical force)
What about pollution? Everyone should be punished for breaking my rights, by speaking and I hearing that.
By the way, if you want to get more extreme, you can use sensitive devices to measure disturbances in the air -- caused by very weak sound (so even if you don't hear them cause they're too far and the amplitude is too small, their sound can still 'trespass your property or your body' and you can prove it with such device which is sensitive and can 'hear' it), or caused by breathing itself. Or even moving!
So technically, they would be breaking your rights/property/whatever... Right? Simply by breathing and speaking.
And what about resources? Pick any resource. Who owns this 'property'? Let's assume it is a private firm. How do they own it? The government gave it to them? Or they claimed it?
So if I break this 'claimed' property, I break their rights. But claiming itself isn't stealing? Why do they have that ability and I don't? Where's my equal opportunity?
Quote:
If you need to make your child feel PAIN to get its attention you are making something wrong.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 10:38 PM |
|
|
Mytical:
It's arbitrary, of course - but 18 sounds like a good number.
TheDeath:
Hold on. You're confusing two things here: deciding what is "wrong" and how to punish it. That principle is good for defining what is wrong regardless of the method of punishment.
Quote:
Let's assume they do have the money, this isn't convenient to you at all: they destroyed your property, and even if you have money to make it back, you are still uncomfortable and suffer a bit out of his action (until it is made again etc..).
That's why you get more back than they destroyed - the formula should be (amount destroyed)/(chance of bringing the destroyer to justice).
Quote:
But let's get scientific, since basing it on "common sense" leads to different answers. That means if someone speaks, and you hear them, he is invading your privacy. It is a form of "breaking the rights of others", since as the question goes, where do you draw the line?
David Friedman addresses this point at length in Capitalism and Freedom. The conclusion he reaches is that market-based courts would decide, based on participants' willingness to pay. Also, utilitarianism.
Quote:
Why do they have that ability and I don't?
Because they got there first. When they claimed it, they didn't take it from anyone. If you were to claim it, you would take it from them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2009 11:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Except the kids are not in full possession of their reasoning faculties.
Yeah, a 13yo "kid" beating someone to death definitively isn't in "full possession" of his "reasoning faculties". The irony.
Best option here? Imho prison. He's a wasted specimen anyway.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mamgaeater
Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 12:42 AM |
|
|
policy will always be flawed and there will always be fraying options.
I believe that honestly intelligent well informed people will know whats best for themselves and those around them. of course some people don't believe in certain ideals. and they are free to choose that it doesn't mean we will approve however.
That leaves those who need guidance in their lives. crooks, children, addicts and even some 'normal' members of society. we can only hope that they are raised and nurtured. Kids are young and easily influenced. they still haven't learnt what is best for them. sometimes they require the guiding hand of a parent. as for immunization, well its up to each and every parent's decision. they can decide what they believe to be best for their child. it is a difficult decision. give them the choice and everyone will be happier. Same with crooks, they committed a wrong but are we to throw them away like garbage of society? We are no better than themselves if we are like that. people can still learn, people can grow. the innate hope of life the hope that life can get better? Long sentences don't help, nobody learns anything and it does nothing to prevent these crimes. same with heavy drug penalties. nobody learns. we just put them below us and force them to keep making the same tormented decisions. people ought to have their rights to choose for themselves. restrictions create just as many problems as they solve. i don't advocate that people ought to be able to murder. but people should draw lines by themselves. if they are not yet able to others should help. i probably lost topic several times, dissect away.
____________
Protection From Everything.
dota
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 30, 2009 04:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hold on. You're confusing two things here: deciding what is "wrong" and how to punish it. That principle is good for defining what is wrong regardless of the method of punishment.
That wasn't my point actually -- I meant that in every second people are committing a form of 'breach' (as I have explained with the sound which is just one example btw -- now, don't let me get started on "light" pollution...). The idea is that, obviously, some are less severe than the others.
So since this isn't a matter of "that's wrong" anymore (what's the point? 99% of your existence you 'do something that is wrong' according to Lexxan's quote I explained), it's a matter of "how wrong is that?". Some are negligible, while others are major/fatal.
And this leads to the form of PUNISHMENT. That is why it is VITAL here -- it simply doesn't work otherwise, as I have explained in my previous post.
Quote:
That's why you get more back than they destroyed
*sigh* that wasn't my point. I even gave TWO examples.
But here's in layman terms (might sound stupid, so beware):
One is, "I WANT MY TIME BACK" (i.e he wasted time, and rebuilding it may cost more time, even if financially you might be better off than before).
The other is "I WANT MY DATA BACK!" -- irreplaceable, might I add.
Quote:
David Friedman addresses this point at length in Capitalism and Freedom. The conclusion he reaches is that market-based courts would decide, based on participants' willingness to pay. Also, utilitarianism.
What?
Who's willingness to pay? Those who speak to pay me cause they disturb the air (that arrives at me)?
I don't mind it myself-- how much can I charge? 
Then it becomes a question of PUNISHMENT again: i.e how much can I charge for them speaking or disturbing the air? I assume I can't charge them $1 billion... so again it's the question where do you draw the line?
Saying that it isn't major is like telling me "I know what's good for you and what's not. You are lying when you say that the sounds torture you. So the punishment cannot be severe, it should be very weak.".. typical dictatorship eh?  (what if someone is really annoyed by sound and then commits suicide? you are basically telling them what's bad or good for them in this context)
Quote:
Because they got there first. When they claimed it, they didn't take it from anyone. If you were to claim it, you would take it from them.
Mvass when will you learn that "taking from anyone" is a complete abstract concept, and especially outside of society it has no meaning? Cause here, I am talking about the tyranny of oppressive society in this case.
You see, this is rather a case of "Hey, I just had the MEANS to acquire that land before you, so it's mine. Everyone should respect it."
But here comes some dude who blows up his property (let's say not killing him), and then says "Guess what? If it's only about means/force, I just had the MEANS to destroy your property! Don't sweat, you did the same, used your means to get it while others couldn't -- why do you complain when I used my means on it?"
somehow the latter is considered a terrorist -- I consider the authorities in this case tyrants.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
