CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Mercy For An 8 Year Old Murderer?
A judge in Arizona has cleared the way for a boy who murdered his own father and another man when he was just 8 year old to be placed in a foster home and attend public school. The boy is now 15.
Question: Should children who are murderers (think of "The Bad Seed") be shown mercy due to their young age when the crime was committed and not be sent to adult prison?
Sending a boy of that age to an adult prison will give him an adult prisoner education! He will NEVER be anything but a criminal. I thought Jesus taught forgiveness. I thought America was a place where people got a second chance, (if they deserved it). Anyway, if you are going to lock HIM up for life, then we've GOT to keep every adult who knew better in prison for life. He didn't even know any better!
Only if the person in question was actually sorry. In addition, this is the American judicial system, not Jesus. There is a big difference. If someone commits a crime, they should receive the appropriate punishment.
I thought America was a place where people got a second chance, (if they deserved it)
He definitely does not deserve a second chance. He killed two people. Should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev get a second chance? He never did anything illegal before he put a bomb on the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
He didn't even know any better!
So you're saying that a kid who had been alive for 8 years in this destructive world we live in didn't know that it wasn't okay to take someone's life? He doesn't know the effects of death? Did you know not to kill someone when you were 8? If you didn't know that, you must have had a pretty messed up childhood.
The Tsarnaevs were college educated and old enough to have learned right from wrong. No, they don't deserve a second chance. If an 8 year old plays with a chemistry set, trying to learn, and sets his house on fire, it becomes a lesson in right and wrong. After suitable punishment, he deserves a second chance. If he later shows signs of pyromania, time to do something serious to protect others.
Looking at your avatar, I would say that you likely do not think that Dubya's lying about WMD and resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans, Brits and Iraqis should be ignored by that American Judicial System? That he maybe deserves a second chance? A chance to live HIS life unencumbered? Guess you and he must have had a pretty messed up childhood.
Yes. I would easily believe the "kid" had a messed up childhood, and I guess the parents have paid dearly for their mistakes. They, themselves, may not have realized THEY were making them.
I will opine that since age of consent laws are in place to protect minors because they are viewed as a protected class without having achieved the maturity to make an adult decision, likewise, I feel that a minor should be protected from being tried as an adult regardless of the crime committed.
i'll take this as a backup to the idea that children are evil and that morals are educated. if so, then i think it comes down to whether he is rejecting, misinterpreting or is ignorant of our general moral code.
identify that in the 15 year old and you may have an answer, but it may not be that easy.
Psychology indicates that children are born with some innate moral dispositions which are influenced by social conditioning as they develop. The field also suggests that moral cognition is not fully developed until later in life, so particularly in this case we should suspect that the act was committed by someone who lacked full moral cognitive ability. To assume a moral flaw in the 15 year old on the basis of acts committed while they were arguably a different person in respect to their moral reasoning ability seems questionable.
Furthermore, I would question whether moral cognitive ability is even relevant for consideration. Amorality or differentiated morality does not necessarily lead to violence against others. While the moral cognition of the person in question may factor, I doubt that it is valid as the primary determining factor. I would also argue that in the question of lifelong incarceration for a child whose crimes were committed prior to an age of developed moral cognition, the onus is open the system to prove they pose a threat rather than the other way around.
It's a hard question. And i think this kids at that age know what's right and wrong and they should be punished buy not sent to an adult prison because the set of mind is different. I mean we should be able to have a prison for children where they are punished like adults but still treated like kids. Where they can keep learning and when they finally come out they better persons
Eight year old children do not have fully developed moral cognition. And, arguably, we should have more supportive institutions for our adult population as well that focus more upon rehabilitation than retribution; why limit that treatment to children?
Yes, It is written that the frontal lobe of a males brain is not even fully developed until 24 years of age. That being said he should be held in captivity until at least age 21 because of the magnitude of his crime even though he was young. That in itself is both punishment...and merciful. Sincerely, Q
First off I believe every state sets it's own murder laws and my comments below are not meant to interfere with that.
Philosophically I believe every crime is exactly that - a crime - and whether you get a harsher or lighter sentence is up to judge and/or jury depending on the perpetrator and the circumstances. Personally, I would consider youth of the offender a factor for a lesser sentence. So yes, some mercy. But there are other cases I've read or heard where I'd say whatever was done was so heinous I'd throw the book at a kid.
I'll add, however, I'd consider this the kids last chance. I'm a whisker away from being in the other column.
Psychopaths, know how to blend in. Unpredictable , they are. It's near impossible to tell what will set them off. Give them a chance, they say. Take chance at life from others, they will.
There is nothing in public record to suggest that he has antisocial personality disorder. It is just as plausible that his actions were precipitated by a psychotic episode, which would not necessarily be a recurring condition and which is generally manageable with medication and therapy. The brain also develops considerably throughout childhood and early adolescence, and with particular respect to moral cognition. It also seems like they are giving his case special attention and are not releasing him without condition, oversight, and continued psychological care.
There is nothing in public record to suggest that he has antisocial personality disorder.
I don't see how this is relevant. Not all psychopaths have APD.
It is just as plausible that his actions were precipitated by a psychotic episode, which would not necessarily be a recurring condition and which is generally manageable with medication and therapy.
It isn't just as plausible. Psychotic episodes are triggered by immediate issues. The kid was in the house, with the gun, waiting for his Father to get home from work. It wasn't an episode, it was a premeditated murder.
The brain also develops considerably throughout childhood and early adolescence, and with particular respect to moral cognition. It also seems like they are giving his case special attention and are not releasing him without condition, oversight, and continued psychological care.
This is always the case and yet they just end up murdering again in their later years.
Psychopathy is an outdated term, now used most commonly as a dismissive pejorative by people who are not up to date with psychology. I substituted APD as the closest comparable condition that actually exists in diagnostic manuals with listed criteria. In either case, there is nothing in public record to prove your assumption.
The onset of psychotic episodes may be either rapid or gradual, and while a particular event may trigger onset that does not mean that the episode occurs immediately after. Psychotic episodes may also last for short or lengthy periods of time, even up to as long as a month, and still be classified as psychotic episodes. That the murder was premeditated in no way precludes that the mind state of the child was not the result of a temporary psychotic episode that caused them to act in a way they otherwise would not have.
Please feel free to provide any substantiation at all for your claim that "they just end up murdering again in their later years". Not only do I doubt your ability to demonstrate the veracity of your claim, I doubt that you can prove that this is not due to other variables such as inadequate monitoring and support subsequent to their release.
Psychopathy used to be included in diagnostic manuals but no longer is. The psychological profession has effectively moved beyond the term, for various reasons. It has lived on, however, in popular usage despite no longer having medical relevance.
But, if the kid isn't a psychopath can he reenter society? If he murdered his father because he was being beaten then it was a survival thing and he wouldn't be a psychopath.
The article says the child mentions "spankings". Not beatings. Any life endangering beatings would have been obvious on the child's body and definitely would have been brought to light.
He did answer the question, though. Implicit in his answer was, "If the child murdered those men for simply spanking him, that response would be indicative of a potential psychopath."
His warrant for this implication is that in the reports they found no indications of a life-threatening altercation. So there is no reason to discuss a 'would-if' as it is quite obvious that he has some sort of vital problem with expressing his anger (imagine if he gets into a fight with someone who is not related to him?).
That doesn't answer the question though. I asked about non psychopaths. People frequently discuss one aspect of an issue without looking at other aspects that they would treat the same way.
warrant for this implication is that in the reports they found no indications of a life-threatening altercation. So there is no reason to discuss a 'would-if' as it is quite obvious that he has some sort of vital problem with expressing his anger (imagine if he gets into a fight with someone who is not related to him?).
As people who haven't actually talked to this kid we can't diagnose him as a psychopath. Giving a diagnosis eliminates the General discussion we could debate about.
As people who haven't actually talked to this kid we can't diagnose him as a psychopath. Giving a diagnosis eliminates the General discussion we could debate about.
Can we not reasonably deduce that, based on the fact that there was no evidence of a life-threatening physical altercation, him murdering his own father and another man (at the age of eight) is not the result of a psychological condition?
I will concede that we cannot accurately diagnose him with a specific condition. But to suggest that he lacks a psychological condition entirely, given the context, would not be reasonable.
not reasonably deduce that, based on the fact that there was no evidence of a life-threatening physical altercation, him murdering his own father and another man (at the age of eight) is not the result of a psychological condition?
Yes we can deduce that for people who have not had life-threatening physical altercations. When are we going to talk about the children that do have life-threatening physical altercations that I actually asked about?
What exactly constitutes a life-threatening physical altercation?
concede that we cannot accurately diagnose him with a specific condition. But to suggest that he lacks a psychological condition entirely, given the context, would not be reasonable.
We have no context. The news always leaves out information. I only suggested the possibility that he lacks a psychological condition since I don't really know a thing about him.
Oh, you weren't pretending, you really can't read. I am always amazed when I use the exact same wording that the person used to continue the discussion and that person then doesn't realize they even said those words. Bravo.
Ever think that, even though you're using the same words, that you may be misapplying the usage of them, because it seemingly relates to the situation?
I know how this bullshit works now. You're are going to claim that things seem related, then I am going to act like you said things seem related, then you are going to lie about reading over your arguments again, then you will make a statement that seems to show some understanding of the situation, but absolutely no clarification of how the earlier statement should not be considered. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
This would be much easier and less stressful for you, if you would just answer the question I asked. Lol.
Copying and pasting my paragraph and then telling me "That was what you said it was.", doesn't indicate what the "it" was.
The only thing that I could extrapolate from that statement, was that the "it* was the paragraph you copy and pasted. It is clearly evident that the paragraph was what I said, so I made the assumption that you weren't just pointing out that I typed and submitted that paragraph...I guess I was wrong?
would be much easier and less stressful for you, if you would just answer the question I asked. Lol.
No, thanks. How do you like hearing that? Does that make me sound like an asshole?
Copying and pasting my paragraph and then telling me "That was what you said it was.", doesn't indicate what the "it" was.
Excellent. I said you would claim things sound related, then not know how.
sted. It is clearly evident that the paragraph was what I said, so I made the assumption that you weren't just pointing out that I typed and submitted that paragraph...I guess I was
The black paragraph is to point out what you wrote that I am responding to. My statement refers to whichever quoted paragraph it is under.
No, thanks. How do you like hearing that? Does that make me sound like an asshole?
It triggers no emotional reaction . That second question indicates that I hurt your feelings, by declining to discuss your irrelevant subject. Poor baby, as they say.
I said you would claim things sound related, then not know how.
Then not know how, what?
You don't make as much sense as you think you do.
The black paragraph is to point out what you wrote that I am responding to. My statement refers to whichever quoted paragraph it is under
Yes... this was my understanding of it as well. So you were just being weird by pointing out that I was the one who typed the paragraph, the paragraph that was mine which you copy and bolded. And the profanity was because I wouldn't discuss your irrelevant topic with you. I think we're on the same page.
1. That clearly isn't true, seeing as debating only covers a small portion of brain function.
1a. Judging by your constant insults in the recent discussion and reluctance to answer a simple question so that a misunderstanding could be corrected, it is you who is incapable of debating.
2.Draw: produce (a picture or diagram) by making lines and marks, especially with a pen or pencil, on paper.
es·pe·cial·ly
iˈspeSHəlē/Submit
adverb
adverb: especially
used to single out one person, thing, or situation over all others.
1. Maybe you will demonstrate a brain function for us.
1a. My reluctance to answer your question came after multiple attempts to have you answer a question and you lying about reading over your arguments. Instead of lying about reading over your arguments you should have just said you didn't know how I could make the connection. I asked you to debate with me and you said no thanks.
2. others.
Which means there are some actions that still fit you complete fucking moron.
1a. I did answer your question. I thought Harvard made it pretty clear.
There's abaolutley no evidence that indicates that I was lying.
It was implied that I didn't know how you made the connection, when I stated that" I'm genuinely confused". Didn't you accuse me of being incapable of inferring based off context? Haha.
2. over all others means to exclude the rest you complete fucking moron.
Exhibiting emotionally based retorts, such as that, only indicates to me, that you are emotional inclined and therefore less likely to argue without fallacious reasoning. Which makes for easy wins.
Plus, Harvard made it very clear that he didn't understand my question at all.
There is no evidence you were telling the truth either.
I accused you of not being able to infer based on context later on after you proved that you were really confused.
2. Oh, really? Then, why isn't the definition "produce (a picture or diagram) by making lines and marks, with a pen or pencil, on paper"? Your use of the word especially actually makes the word especially disappear.
If my fallacious reasoning makes it so easy to win, why do you lose so badly? You claim I make contradictions and fallacies, but can't actually tell me which thing I wrote was contradictory or fallacious.
1a. You wanted to discuss something else...that is pretty clear.
Right, there is no evidence for either side, but there's no purpose in assuming that someone is lying about such a trivial thing and it just impedes discussion and makes you appear paranoid.
It doesn't matter when you accused me.
2. I don't know, I didn't make up the definition, it makes no difference, though.
But I'm not losing. And have pointed out your fallacies, I just havnt stated "that's a fallacy!" , because it'd be redundant.
You wanted to discuss something else...that is pretty clear.
I wanted to discuss mercy for an 8 year old murderer. Also known as the exact debate question.
Right, there is no evidence for either side, but there's no purpose in assuming that someone is lying about such a trivial thing and it just impedes discussion and makes you appear paranoid.
You use this word paranoid, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
I don't know, I didn't make up the definition, it makes no difference, though.
The very intellectually dishonest answer that you are only capable of making. Sad. I like your strategy. Be wrong, stay wrong.
But I'm not losing.
You are arguing with a fucking dictionary.
And have pointed out your fallacies
No you have not. You have not mentioned a single fallacy I have made.
I just havnt stated "that's a fallacy!" , because it'd be redundant.
No, you haven't done that because it requires knowledge and intelligence.
I wanted to discuss mercy for an 8 year old murderer. Also known as the exact debate question.
A different hypothetical 8 year old murderer under different circumstances.
The argument I had made was for the presented 8 year old murderer, meaning any utterance to my argument of an 8 year old murderer other than the one I was making an argument about, would be irrelevant. Debate question: "Mercy for an 8 year old murder? Me: Not this one.
You use this word paranoid, but I don't think it means what you think it means
unreasonably or obsessively anxious, suspicious, or mistrustful.
The very intellectually dishonest answer that you are only capable of making. Sad. I like your strategy. Be wrong, stay wrong
You ceased your argumentation. I take that to mean that you've conceded.
You are arguing with a fucking dictionary.
Partially. Looks as if you are mad that your interpretations of words don't match up to the intended meaning. Poor Baby.
No you have not. You have not mentioned a single fallacy I have made.
One does not need to name the fallacies to show you that your arguments are fallacies.
No, you haven't done that because it requires knowledge and intelligence
I'm using words, using them to form sentences and using them to communicate, which exhibits evidence of me having both knowledge and intelligence. So by your "logic" I have stated your fallacies. ^.^
A different hypothetical 8 year old murderer under different circumstances.
Technically, I wanted to discuss all 8 year old murderers.
The argument I had made was for the presented 8 year old murderer, meaning any utterance to my argument of an 8 year old murderer other than the one I was making an argument about, would be irrelevant. Debate question: "Mercy for an 8 year old murder? Me: Not this one.
Except you haven't proved this 8 year old is a psychopath.
unreasonably or obsessively anxious, suspicious, or mistrustful.
Not unreasonable. But, I see why you think it fits.
You ceased your argumentation. I take that to mean that you've conceded.
You wouldn't allow me to start. Does that mean you concede?
Partially. Looks as if you are mad that your interpretations of words don't match up to the intended meaning. Poor Baby.
My interpretations are right on. I am mad that I proved it to you and you can't admit you are wrong at all. You did stop with your argumentation, though. Does that mean you concede my point that you use the dictionary wrong?
One does not need to name the fallacies to show you that your arguments are fallacies.
One does need to actually point out what stuff is wrong to point out the fallacies though. You have done that 0 times.
I'm using words, using them to form sentences and using them to communicate, which exhibits evidence of me having both knowledge and intelligence.
Ooh, not really. You have used words wrong.
So by your "logic" I have stated your fallacies. ^.^
You logically proved that you are doing something that you aren't doing. That is quite impressive. It is further impressive since you logically attacked the statement that says you are not intellectually capable. If you indeed succeeded with your logic all you would have demonstrated is that you are capable of stating my fallacies. The fact that you didn't realize that actually helps prove my case. Thank you.
Except you haven't proved this 8 year old is a psychopath.
What's your point? I never said I did.
You wouldn't allow me to start. Does that mean you concede?
So I have control over you? Cartman, Explode into smithereens! xDMy interpretations are right on. I am mad that I proved it to you and you can't admit you are wrong at all. You did stop with your argumentation, though. Does that mean you concede my point that you use the dictionary wrong?
How did you prove it to me? You asked a question, I answered it, then you continued on to ad hominems. ^.^ There was no proof.
One does need to actually point out what stuff is wrong to point out the fallacies though. You have done that 0 times.
I've done it many times.
Ooh, not really. You have used words wrong
It's all still knowledge and the process couldn't be done without intelligence.
You logically proved that you are doing something that you aren't doing.
That is quite impressive.
What I proved, is that your statement contradicts with reality, which makes your argument invalid.
It is further impressive since you logically attacked the statement that says you are not intellectually capable.
Thank you.
If you indeed succeeded with your logic all you would have demonstrated is that you are capable of stating my fallacies. The fact that you didn't realize that actually helps prove my case. Thank you
It wouldn't prove your case even if you could prove that it's a fact.
Actually, you did. My question asked about non psychopaths and you said the question was irrelevant.
So I have control over you? Cartman, Explode into smithereens! xD
You claimed I stopped arguing for my side, which was false. You refused to engage with my argument. That doesn't mean that I stopped arguing. Sorry that you need another simple concept explained to you.
How did you prove it to me?
You said you had no explanation for why the dictionary didn't write the definition the way you claimed it should.
You asked a question, I answered it, then you continued on to ad hominems. ^.^ There was no proof.
I asked a question, and you couldn't answer it. Ooh, you named a fallacy. The problem is, I addressed your argument. Any insult after that does not make it an ad hominem because the insult was not used in place of an actual argument.
I've done it many times.
You have made many baseless claims, sure. You haven't actually mentioned which part of what I wrote actually fits your claim.
It's all still knowledge and the process couldn't be done without intelligence.
Incorrect knowledge can be done very easily without intelligence.
What I proved, is that your statement contradicts with reality
Yes, I mentioned that and you thanked me for it. But proving one statement I said doesn't fit reality doesn't make every statement I said not fit reality.
which makes your argument invalid.
Except, as I showed your proof was based on faulty premises and your conclusion was illogical.
It wouldn't prove your case even if you could prove that it's a fact.
I said it would help prove my case. You not having the intelligence to grasp logical concepts helps show you don't have the intelligence for recognizing fallacies.
Actually, you did. My question asked about non psychopaths and you said the question was irrelevant.
This doesn't mean that I've claimed to proven it.
You claimed I stopped arguing for my side, which was false. You refused to engage with my argument. That doesn't mean that I stopped arguing. Sorry that you need another simple concept explained to you.
Claiming that I am being intellectual dishonest, is not an argument to the discussion of the utility of words/definition.
You said you had no explanation for why the dictionary didn't write the definition the way you claimed it should.
I didn't claim that it should be that way, you're the one who reworded the definition.
I asked a question, and you couldn't answer it.
I did answer it and the question didnt matter.
The problem is, I addressed your argument. Any insult after that does not make it an ad hominem because the insult was not used in place of an actual argument.
Calling me intecually dishonest, is not addressing the argument.
You have made many baseless claims, sure. You haven't actually mentioned which part of what I wrote actually fits your claim.
When did I do this, and what did I say, exactly?
Incorrect knowledge can be done very easily without intelligence.
I think you don't understand what intelligence is.
But proving one statement I said doesn't fit reality doesn't make every statement I said not fit reality
I never claimed otherwise.
Except, as I showed your proof was based on faulty premises and your conclusion was illogical.
You showed me nothing of the sort, you just made a baseless assertion then assumed it to be true.
I said it would help prove my case. You not having the intelligence to grasp logical concepts helps show you don't have the intelligence for recognizing fallacies
Your argument wasn't that I lacked the intelligence to recognize logical fallacies, your argument was simply " you lack intelligence."
So, you just act like you proved it without even attempting to prove it. Aren't you great.
Claiming that I am being intellectual dishonest, is not an argument to the discussion of the utility of words/definition.
The great thing is that you are intellectually dishonest and unable to use words properly. I don't have to distinguish the 2. :)
I didn't claim that it should be that way, you're the one who reworded the definition.
No, you reworded the definition, I took it one step further. Here are some other sentences that don't make sense with your definition of especially:
I like reptiles, especially turtles. According to you, I only like turtles.
I like musical instruments, especially guitar. According to you, I only like guitar.
I dislike the idiots on CreateDebate, especially you. According to you, you are the only idiot on CreateDebate.
I did answer it and the question didnt matter.
It doesn't matter if you don't actually believe especially means what you said. In that case, I agree. You were wrong about the use of the word especially.
Calling me intecually dishonest, is not addressing the argument.
Why did I call you intellectually dishonest? I gave a reason. That was my argument.
When did I do this, and what did I say, exactly?
You have said that I use fallacies. You also made a claim that I wrote something contradictory.
I think you don't understand what intelligence is.
You think someone who doesn't understand a concept has the same intelligence as someone who does understand the concept? I think you don't understand intelligence.
I never claimed otherwise.
Yes, you did. That was the whole point. You claimed that I was wrong about you being capable of intelligent thought and claimed that was proof that I was wrong about you doing the thing that required the intelligence.
You showed me nothing of the sort, you just made a baseless assertion then assumed it to be true.
Well, unfortunately the whole point of my argument was demonstrating that you are incapable of understanding said argument, so this is the exact response I would get from you. There isn't much more I can do for you.
Your argument wasn't that I lacked the intelligence to recognize logical fallacies, your argument was simply " you lack intelligence."
You are right, I never provided any evidence that you lacked the specific intelligence required for spotting fallacies. But, it was you that made the argument that you putting words together to form sentences was the kind of intelligence that was required. This is not a flaw with my reasoning, but is a flaw with yours. You made the argument that you had any type of intelligence and that should count for something.
So, you just act like you proved it without even attempting to prove it. Aren't you great
That isn't what happened either.
The great thing is that you are intellectually dishonest and unable to use words properly. I don't have to distinguish the 2.
So I am intellectual. You were implying that I wasn't, so you have contradicted yourself again.
No, you reworded the definition, I took it one step further. Here are some other sentences that don't make sense with your definition of especially:
I like reptiles, especially turtles. According to you, I only like turtles.
I like musical instruments, especially guitar. According to you, I only like guitar.
I dislike the idiots on CreateDebate, especially you. According to you, you are the only idiot on CreateDebate.
This is different because you are expressing an opinion about a group of things.
It doesn't matter if you don't actually believe especially means what you said. In that case, I agree. You were wrong about the use of the word especially.
I never said that I didn't believe what I said it means. The only thing I said was," I don't have the answer for why it was inscribed into the dictionary that way." and that "it doesn't matter either way", because it means the same thing.
It doesn't matter if you don't actually believe especially means what you said. In that case, I agree. You were wrong about the use of the word especially.
You are creating false premises. And ths nature of my accurate or inaccurate usage of the word "espcially", is still in dipsute.
Why did I call you intellectually dishonest? I gave a reason. That was my argument
So you agree that you didn't address the argument that you responded to with your accusation of me being intellectually dishonest.
You have said that I use fallacies. You also made a claim that I wrote something contradictory.
You only repeated the same thing that I was asking for substantiation of. That's begging the question.
You think someone who doesn't understand a concept has the same intelligence as someone who does understand the concept? I think you don't understand intelligence.
You claimed that I'm wrong and then tell me that it doesn't take any intelligence to be wrong. And yet, it's low intelligence that causes people to be incorrect about their observations. Quite ironic.
Yes, you did. That was the whole point. You claimed that I was wrong about you being capable of intelligent thought and claimed that was proof that I was wrong about you doing the thing that required the intelligence.
That isn't what you claimed.
Well, unfortunately the whole point of my argument was demonstrating that you are incapable of understanding said argument, so this is the exact response I would get from you. There isn't much more I can do for you
The only thing your argument attempted to demonstrate, is that the what I wrote, doesn't logically follow. It in no way, demonstrates that I actually lacked understanding of the situation.
This is not a flaw with my reasoning, but is a flaw with yours.
No. The flaw was your statement's lack of precision.
You made your bed, now lie in it. That's what happens when you claim something is true that isn't.
So I am intellectual. You were implying that I wasn't, so you have contradicted yourself again.
You do love your false technicalities. The difference between an idiot and someone who is being intellectually dishonest is that the idiot is never intellectually honest. You have to show intellect to have it.
This is different because you are expressing an opinion about a group of things.
It is different because it points out how stupid your interetation was. How does your defintion just disappear for groups of things?
I never said that I didn't believe what I said it means. The only thing I said was," I don't have the answer for why it was inscribed into the dictionary that way." and that "it doesn't matter either way", because it means the same thing.
It only means the same thing if you misinterpret the word. There aren't other examples in the dictionary where they added a word that didn't enhance the definition.
You are creating false premises. And ths nature of my accurate or inaccurate usage of the word "espcially", is still in dipsute.
No, a false premise is saying sentences with extra words mean the same thing.
So you agree that you didn't address the argument that you responded to with your accusation of me being intellectually dishonest.
No. You were intellectually dishonest because of the problem with your argument. There was a problem with your argument, which I pointed out. Because of that I concluded you were intellectually dishonest.
You only repeated the same thing that I was asking for substantiation of. That's begging the question.
I said you made baseless claims, and you asked which ones. Those were specific examples. Do you want me to quote you? That wasn't begging the question, that was answering the question.
You claimed that I'm wrong and then tell me that it doesn't take any intelligence to be wrong. And yet, it's low intelligence that causes people to be incorrect about their observations. Quite ironic.
You don't understand irony or intelligence. You repeated the same exact concept as opposites. Just because you think it is opposite doesn't make it so. First sentence: low intelligence = wrong. Second sentence: low intelligence = wrong.
That isn't what you claimed.
This response was about me specifically discussing your claims. I don't know what claim you are claiming I didn't make.
The only thing your argument attempted to demonstrate, is that the what I wrote, doesn't logically follow. It in no way, demonstrates that I actually lacked understanding of the situation.
All of your responses demonstrate that for me. ;)
No. The flaw was your statement's lack of precision.
That's a little too metaphorical. The kid that we were debating about didn't have any visible injuries. I was wondering how often you looked injury free to see if the kids in question could have been beaten prior to killing his dad, and just didn't show signs of injury at the time. If you always appeared to have injuries then the kids in question is suspicious.
There should be special institutions in place for child murderers. It doesn't seem fair to throw them into a regular prison, and yet it is unsafe for them to be put back out into the world.
How do you know it is unsafe for all of them to re-enter society? Mitigating circumstances aside, moral cognition develops considerably over the course of childhood and early adolescence. While there will almost certainly be children for whom anti-social, psychotic pathology persists there is little to suggest that this would be categorically the case. And to my knowledge, there is also very limited research on the responsiveness of anti-social personality to early intervention; what we know about adult pathology simply may not hold constant for children.
A murder committed is still a murder committed, regardless of the murderer's age . It is I moral and inhumane for a murder to take place . Even though the murderer is only eight years old , a life is still lost in this murder case , just like other murder case and thus , equal punishment should be metered out to the murderer and no mercy should be given just based on the age of the murderer