Rivalarrival

joined 1 year ago
[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

And I suppose you're a neuroscientist, behavioural psychologist, and generally smarter than literally every single person working in juvenile justice.

This is another ad hominem, disguised as an appeal to authority.

No. I was describing your character

Correct. You were describing me, rather than discussing the issue. That is, by definition. An "argumentum ad hominem". It is an "argument against the man" rather than an argument regarding the issue under discussion.

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I readily concede the fact that a 15-year-old's frontal cortex is not completely developed.

I reject the idea that only a fully mature frontal cortex is capable of restraining someone from murdering a teenager. Even a radically undeveloped frontal cortex is more than capable.

This kid went out that day with a deadly weapon, seeking out the person or people who had previously attacked his friend, intending to commit violence against that individual. He found this teenager. Based on this teen's race, he believed this teen was complicit in his friend's attack. He spent 4 minutes arguing with this teenager, then stabbed him.

This wasn't a crime of passion. This was premeditated. He left his home that day intending to use his knife on someone. He knew his actions and intent were criminal and immoral, and he chose to act anyway.

Everything else in your last comment is an ad hominem, and doesn't need a response.

[–] Rivalarrival 3 points 2 weeks ago

The canaries are dying.

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I have near-zero empathy for any competent person who chooses murder. The idea that a 15-year-old murderer should be excused for his actions strips every responsible teenager of their own agency. Your arguments are degrading and insulting to this kid's victim and to every responsible teenager.

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 2 weeks ago

It was funded and promoted by ~~the Koch billionaires.~~ the second estate.

FTFY. Reduced it to a previously solved problem.

[–] Rivalarrival 11 points 2 weeks ago

The guillotine party knows how to deal with the second estate.

[–] Rivalarrival 6 points 2 weeks ago

I thought that too, until Harris ran a centrist campaign, and it turned out that American politics has become so polarized that there is no center.

We're primed for a militant leftist party.

[–] Rivalarrival 10 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

The right isn't the problem. Our problem is a lack of a left. The Tea Party managed to resuscitate the GOP about 4 terms ago. We need a Guillotine Party to drag the Democrats away from corporate American and back to the electorate.

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 2 weeks ago

The Democrats don't win here.

Just like the Tea Party transformed the GOP, we need a Guillotine Party to drag the Democratic party to the electorate.

[–] Rivalarrival 102 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

The Republicans had their little tea party a few years ago. The Democrats need a Guillotine Party to properly represent us.

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Because it would put blame on the adults?

I have no problem throwing the adults in prison with him, if you can reasonably show they are responsible. Go ahead and blame them all you want. But understand that the blame they carry does not in any way excuse him from responsibility for his actions, nor the consequences of those actions. They can be blamed also, not instead.

Murder is too simple an idea to suggest that a 15-year-old can't be held responsible for committing it.

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Consider the alternative, or, rather, that really seems to be what you’re implying: That children are responsible for their own upbringing.

His upbringing isn't relevant to the issue. His deliberate actions are. He is generally responsible for his deliberate actions, regardless of how shitty a hand he was dealt.

We can give him some leniency on issues like contract law: He might not have the cognitive ability to understand an important legal document. He might not understand the value of money. He might not have the capacity for complex abstract thought, and should be protected from those who would exploit that and defraud him.

But Murder isn't an abstract concept. It's pretty simple. He isn't owed any societal protections for deciding to kill someone.

view more: ‹ prev next ›