I know he is ridiculous, but children are pre-rational at some point. If I drink a fifth of rum, I wouldn’t be able to “pass” an IQ test, because I would be blacked out. His actual problem is that he can’t qualify the time distinction between an adult maintaining fundamental negative rights and a pre-rational child or invalid having none. No matter how many times I repeat this he still makes the same assertions.
He thinks a 3 year old can commit murder. And you think I am ridiculous?
A child can kill another child or even an adult. Given no previous reason to justify this killing, we might call the person’s actions “murder” because of the malice of forethought.
Suppose that a young child clearly caused the death of another person and, arguendo, we’d say that “the child cannot reason”, the act was not intentional, etc. such that he is not to be held responsible or be punished for his action. Who then is responsible? Nobody? The parent(s)? Someone else?
We are discussing children. The question is, can a 3 year old be convicted for “murder”? The answer is clearly no. But apparently, one must be an “expert” in the field of child psychology to make that assertion (according to filc I believe), so don’t take my word for it.
lawl
Wow, really?
4? 5? 6? 7? 8?..
When is the answer clearly yes? More importantly, why then is the answer clearly yes?
This isn’t important to what I asked you at all. Read it again. Given that “an X-year-old child clearly cannot be convicted of murder”, who then is responsible? Who can legitimately be punished for the childs act? Nobody? The parent(s)? Someone else?
Well, based on state law, some think 12, some 14, some 16, and some 18. Based on a child expert’s opinion (which I am not) I don’t know. I guess you would have to ask one. I would also presume it would be a case by case basis, based on the evidence.
How is that relevant to whether or not a child can be convicted of murder? What does this question have to do with the topic at hand, specifically, children’s rights?
Here’s a thought. You’re basically asserting that if a child is incapable of non-consent to rape/murder etc… then it is also incapable of committing rape/murder etc. I think most would agree with this, but what happens, if a private court were to rule that a child has negative rights, but is also incapable of committing crimes (perhaps filing suit against their guardians)? I know you don’t like hypotheticals for an argument, but given that this is essentially our position and presumably many others who also believe this and would pay courts to uphold these customs, would this not become codified common law among the courts?
I don’t know if this factors into your rationale, but have you ever considered the possibility that the current legal standard of trying children below a certain age as “minors” is due to emotionally-derived reasons, as oppose to having a true philosophical foundation. In other words, the emotionally-derived belief that children should not be sent to prison for life because they are children. The official distinction made by claiming that children cannot tell right from wrong may be used as a method by which to justify what is really an arbitrary belief.
My cousin almost hit another child on the head with a rock when we were around the age of five. At the time, I guarantee that he knew what he was doing was wrong, he just didn’t care. He could reason, he was just unaware of the negative consequences of his actions at the time. So, had he killed that child, in a trial he could be accused of murder, but the fact that he didn’t really understand the legal repercussions could be brought into account.
False. Lack of consent is not the same thing as refusal. “Lack” in no way implies “withholding”. This is extremely basic, elementary public school grammar. “Lack” means “missing” or “absent”. One does not have to say, “No,” for consent not to be there. One does not have to do anything. It’s a true dichotomy; either there’s consent or there’s lack of consent. There are no other choices. Did the child consent? If not, for whatever reason, including the inability to consent, then there is a lack of consent. Consent or lack of consent.
I’ve seen you make this assertion many many times, yet I haven’t seen you back it up with anything but a textbook logical fallacy. Are you prepared to defend your assertion?
No. That would be a positive right.
The same difference between me finding you gushing blood and walking by without helping you out, and me stabbing you.
Let’s be clear, here. You are arguing that children do not have negative rights. I am arguing that they do. Do you really understand the difference between negative and positive rights? I’d usually not ask something like that, but when someone who is obviously as intelligent as you show you are in other threads on other topics so seriously misstates his opponent’s position, I have to wonder.
Yes. Which is why I suggest that I think in a free world, children would have rights at a much younger age than they do today.
You do realize you just refuted your statement in the first sentence with your statement in the second right?
It is completely illogical to rule that children have negative rights, yet cannot commit crimes, so I see no reason why this would become codified law.
You have yet to provide an age.
No it doesn’t. Just because a child isn’t aware that the act of murder can result in a prison sentence doesn’t mean that that child doesn’t know that murder is bad.
What exactly was false in my statement?
I never said it was.
Or the inability to consent, and as such an inability for there to be lack of consent. It’s simple reading comprehension. Just like rocks are unable to consent or withhold consent, so are babies unable to consent or withhold consent. Why? As I stated, neither of them can reason.
It’s assumed to be true until proven otherwise. We have been over this plenty. It is called the burden of proof fallacy and the negative proof fallacy.
No, it is more like finding me gushing blood and doing nothing or finding me gushing blood and slitting my throat. Either way, I am dead.
No you are not. If you were, you would be arguing that locking a child in his room at night or forcing your child into your car should be illegal.
Yes. I really don’t know why you are asking this question.
Why do you think there is an age that is the same for all?
I am talking about the likelihood that he did not understand how harmful his actions could have been. Regardless, I think it has to be looked at on a case by case basis.
No he didn’t. Unless you are conflating reason with cognition. Children do harmful things all the time, it is the lack of cognition, or experience of consequence, that they miss. But even adults lack cognition, a 40 year old who has never played stocks and makes a bad bid payed the consequences. Does that mean his decision to bid was without reason or without cognition?
The only difference is in an adult has a longer list of observed consequences understood than the child, and a longer time preference. The child may not realize hitting his friend with a rock would cause a concussion. Praxeologically speaking people weigh their objectives subjectively, they may be missing a crucial part of the puzzle that those with more wisdom deem obvious. That does not mean they are not reasoning, they are reasoning just fine, they simply are reasoning while missing some of that wisdom. The man who places a bad bet at the lottery did not reason, all action is purposeful.
Your whole premise is an attempt at refuting Human Action.
Adults make bad decisions all the time, does that mean they are unreasonable? If we all knew the consequences of our actions in advance would there be action? Or robotic procedural behavior.
I don’t. But, you have yet to show an age at which your argument is correct.
This is not an argument. We are talking about whether a child knows between wrong and right. Grown adults sometimes do not understand how harmful their actions could have been, this is why the current legal system in the U.S. recognizes involuntary manslaughter.
I’m not really sure what the point of all this is. Is it really a worthwhile pursuit to attempt to morally justify parents raping and killing their kids?