Should People Who Have Mental Illness/Retardation Be Tried As An Adult?

[Town Heretic]

Yep.

Try again, without creating a straw man argument next time.

Still not doing that.

I see that you are actually capable of understanding.

Then try addressing what I actually wrote about your argument instead of throwing a name at it that you don't actually connect to any part of what I wrote. And it's not about understanding, it's about attempting a different argument than the one you offered. If you meant to do that you missed badly.

You can argue against that rewording of my argument without fighting a straw-man of your own creation.

You wrote it. I explained why a couple of us gave you the lain: look. If you meant it the way I subsequently rewrote it then you should have written it that way. As you wrote it, the thing suffered from the flaw noted. And given the way you spoke to animals as though capacity mattered the plain reading, odd as it was, was consistent.

 

[ok doser]

If someone is incapable of understanding their actions then they aren't a murderer by definition.

thompson and venables understood their actions - they deliberately planned to kidnap, torture and kill a small child

and then they went ahead and did it

See "Of Mice & Men" by way of example. Lennie's character isn't a murderer as he doesn't mean to kill.

thompson and venables meant to kill

Executing him as one wouldn't serve "justice" in any form.

why wouldn't executing thompson and venables serve justice?

 

[genuineoriginal]

try addressing what I actually wrote about your argument instead of throwing a name at it that you don't actually connect to any part of what I wrote. And it's not about understanding, it's about attempting a different argument than the one you offered.

Yes, you were attempting a different argument than the one I offered.
I called you out on that straw man argument you attempted.
Your continual protests that you did not substantially twist my original argument into a different argument is not working for you, so you should just give up on trying to claim your straw man argument was not a straw man argument.

You wrote it. I explained why a couple of us gave you the lain: look.

You misunderstood what I said, deliberately or accidentally, it does not matter why.

If you meant it the way I subsequently rewrote it then you should have written it that way.

This seems to be a pattern of behavior with you.
In other threads you have complained that Jesus did not do things the way you thought He should have done them.
Now you are complaining that I did not do something the way you think I should have done it.

As you wrote it, the thing suffered from the flaw noted.

That people with a leftist mindset will misunderstand it?
People with a leftist mindset misunderstand a lot of things.
I don't speak leftist.
I can't be held responsible for any misunderstandings that are caused by having a leftist mindset.

And given the way you spoke to animals as though capacity mattered the plain reading, odd as it was, was consistent.

What was consistent was my argument that we put down dangerous animals because they are dangerous DESPITE their lack of capacity and that we should put dangerous humans to death because they are dangerous DESPITE their lack of capacity.

By the way, have you ever heard of a metaphor?

Why it’s so offensive when we call people animals Comparing humans to animals is vexed but irresistible. We are animals, but animals who like to believe we are not merely animals. Although only some animal metaphors are highly offensive, most appear to be somewhat negative in their connotations. Our research suggests the most common of these negative attributes are depravity, disagreeableness and stupidity. In essence, when we call someone an “animal” in the general sense, we are ascribing these flaws to them. Humans are moral, civil and smart; animals are not.

​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Only someone completely devoid of humanity could stick a knife into a child

Would you call someone completely devoid of humanity, "an animal"?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Would you call someone completely devoid of humanity, "an animal"?

What, someone who could plunge a knife into a child and kill them? No, a monster.

 

[genuineoriginal]

What, someone who could plunge a knife into a child and kill them? No, a monster.

Would you agree with this statement?

If a person is a child-killer and is unable to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, he/she is "completely devoid of humanity" and is a monster and should be put to death.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Would you agree with this statement?

If a person is a child-killer and is unable to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, he/she is "completely devoid of humanity" and is a monster and should be put to death.

Nope, not at all.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Nope, not at all.

Hypocrite.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hypocrite.

Nope, but thanks for playing. I regard an adult who could wilfully stab a child to death as a monster whether it's in regards to "justice" or anything else. Frankly, I've never been able to take you seriously since you declared that people can train themselves to fall in love with combine harvesters and the like...

 

[Stripe]

Hypocrite.

He's not a hypocrite, he just thinks murder is OK until he sees a way to pretend that justice might be construed as bad.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Arthur Brain]

He's not a hypocrite, he just thinks murder is OK until he sees a way to pretend that justice might be construed as bad.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You should stick to rugby.

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, you were attempting a different argument than the one I offered.
I called you out on that straw man argument you attempted.
Your continual protests that you did not substantially twist my original argument into a different argument is not working for you, so you should just give up on trying to claim your straw man argument was not a straw man argument.


You misunderstood what I said, deliberately or accidentally, it does not matter why.


This seems to be a pattern of behavior with you.
In other threads you have complained that Jesus did not do things the way you thought He should have done them.
Now you are complaining that I did not do something the way you think I should have done it.


That people with a leftist mindset will misunderstand it?
People with a leftist mindset misunderstand a lot of things.
I don't speak leftist.
I can't be held responsible for any misunderstandings that are caused by having a leftist mindset.


What was consistent was my argument that we put down dangerous animals because they are dangerous DESPITE their lack of capacity and that we should put dangerous humans to death because they are dangerous DESPITE their lack of capacity.

By the way, have you ever heard of a metaphor?

Why it’s so offensive when we call people animals Comparing humans to animals is vexed but irresistible. We are animals, but animals who like to believe we are not merely animals. Although only some animal metaphors are highly offensive, most appear to be somewhat negative in their connotations. Our research suggests the most common of these negative attributes are depravity, disagreeableness and stupidity. In essence, when we call someone an “animal” in the general sense, we are ascribing these flaws to them. Humans are moral, civil and smart; animals are not.

​

TH isn't a "leftist".

:freak:

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, you were attempting a different argument than the one I offered.

I was attacking your premise, which was deeply flawed as you wrote it.

People with a leftist mindset misunderstand a lot of things. I don't speak leftist. I can't be held responsible for any misunderstandings that are caused by having a leftist mindset.

In point of fact, this isn't a me/you misunderstanding you're attempting to turn into a larger, equally mistaken comment on my political orientation.

Or:

Wrong question. Since you think If a person is unable to recognize the nature and consequences of its actions, it is not a human, but is an animal...l

In other words, it was the plain reading of what you wrote and no one is confusing drbrumley with a liberal. I'm not a liberal either, by the way.

Here it is again:

If an animal is a man-killer, it is put to death, despite it being unable to commit murder due to having no ability to recognize the nature and consequences of its actions. If a person is unable to recognize the nature and consequences of its actions, it is not a human, but is an animal, and is to be put to death if it is a man-killer.

 

[Stripe]

In other words, it was the plain reading of what you wrote and no one is confusing drbrumley with a liberal. I'm not a liberal either, by the way.

Yeah, I would reword that.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Yeah, I would reword that.

Which?

Seriously, next time just post any punctuation mark you like and let's see if JR reps it.

 

[Stripe]

Which?

Which do you think?

Seriously, next time just post any punctuation mark you like and let's see if JR reps it.

:yawn:

 

[genuineoriginal]

He's not a hypocrite, he just thinks murder is OK until he sees a way to pretend that justice might be construed as bad.

He is against the death penalty and is against abortion.

I am guessing that the main reason he objected to my statement was that it ended with "and should be put to death."

 

[genuineoriginal]

it was the plain reading of what you wrote and no one is confusing drbrumley with a liberal:

I suppose that the word "if" in the statement was too small for such great minds like you and drbrumley to pay any attention to, since it provided the main criteria for the rest of the statement.
:idunno:

If an animal is a man-killer, it is put to death, despite it being unable to commit murder due to having no ability to recognize the nature and consequences of its actions.
If a person is unable to recognize the nature and consequences of its actions, it is not a human, but is an animal, and is to be put to death if it is a man-killer.

:think:
:idea:

If a person is a man-killer, he/she should be put to death, whether he/she is able to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, LIKE a human, or is not able to recognize the nature and consequences of his/her actions, LIKE an animal.

There, I moved the main criteria to the left of the sentence to help out those people hindered by having a LEFTist mindset (unable to comprehend what is on the right).

I also changed the metaphor to a simile, since metaphors seem to be too advanced a concept for this thread.

 

[Stripe]

I suppose that the word "if" in the statement was too small.

I think your wording needs work. When you say "if it is," that implies the condition is possible, but it is not possible that a person is an animal.

"If it were" might be slightly better, but I think a complete redo would be best.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

I suppose that the word "if" in the statement was too small for such great minds like you and drbrumley to pay any attention to, since it provided the main criteria for the rest of the statement.

No idea why you think that's the problem. The problem was in your construction. That's why two people with very different philosophical approaches rejected and raised eyebrow over it.

If a person is unable to recognize the nature and consequences of its actions, it is not a human, but is an animal, and is to be put to death if it is a man-killer.

You're still not seeing or correcting the problem, which is the notion that not recognizing the consequence and nature of an action has anything to do with being human, that it then makes a person merely an animal capable of being put to death if that person kills another person.

I don't have any idea how to be clearer about your mistake than that as you wrote it. You wrote something needless and poorly constructed. Then you tried to make it about my reading and about your idea of my political orientation. I note someone who isn't me and doesn't share my actual political philosophy (which isn't actually leftist) had the same response to it.

There, I moved the main criteria to the left of the sentence to help out those people hindered by having a LEFTist mindset (unable to comprehend what is on the right).

Silly for the reasons offered prior and the note above.

I also changed the metaphor to a simile, since metaphors seem to be too advanced a concept for this thread.

The problem isn't that you're writing over anyone's head. The problem is that you did a poor job of advancing an argument that as you've reformed it might as well be nothing more than, "I believe that if you kill someone with no more regard for their rights than an animal would have you should be treated the same way as an animal would be."