In other news

There are lots of options between executing a 6 year old that kills someone and letting that 6 year old play with your child

I only asked because you were arguing that your hypothetical six-year old could distinguish between right and wrong in a way that a rabid dog or a person with a valid insanity defense (at least in the U.S.) could not.

chillrob,

Here is a question for you. If you gave all six-year old children a box of matches and taught the children how to use the matches to start fires. Then you told the children where to find the matches but explained that they should not start fires, how many do you think would end up starting a fire? And of the children who started fires, what percentage do you think would have a lifelong propensity to commit arson?

I understand that we don't give all children guns and teach them how to use them, but my point is that a significant percentage will do very reckless things without appreciation for the consequences if they have access to dangerous things that seem fun.

Another reminder - chillrob thinks all people would be better off dead. His thoughts on this subject are not surprising.

Fair point. But even that viewpoint is easier to defend intellectually than his argument about six-year olds.

Other than himself apparently?

The misanthrope paradox.

Who said that? The argument is {Child murders} ∈ {Children}.

I don't see one.... other than you conflating = with ∈.

Like he’s an antinatalist? Or he thinks life is not worth living?

If it’s the latter, I’m not sure how anyone could make the assessment that another person’s life is not worth living. That consideration is mostly based on in principle inaccessible internal factors.

Antinatalist. Correct, I can't determine for anyone else if their lives are worth living.

It doesn't need to be, I understand that perfectly. I've even stated that I agree, which is why I would take the more humane option over life in prison (or mental institution, same thing).

A dog doesn't understand murder the way adult humans do either.

Huh? I knew nothing about the ethnicity of the boy until you said something about it. But you're obviously being disingenuous anyway. I'm sure you realize that stuff doesn't matter to me.

If it was a 20yo of any ethnicity I would advocate for life in a prison with conditions harsh enough that the murdererer would wish he were dead.

Yes, I know. That was a quote from what Donald Trump said at two campaign rallies.

And my post you didn't understand was an example of what you just called the "complex question fallacy".
It assumes something has happened which actually has not, so no answer can truly be correct.

I asked that because she had just asked me a question in which something false (and damning) had been assumed.

Again, execution of those who do not have standard adult human levels of intelligence would not be for punishment or deterrence. It would be to protect society without the cruelty of lifetime incarceration.

Rehabilitation could be a laudable goal for some crimes, but IMO definitely not for murder; it could never be certain enough that it had been accomplished.

None of us have ever met one like this one, and if we did we would’ve also met one his relatives who are supposed to chaperone him at all times, at least on school grounds.

To be clear though, he hasn’t murdered anyone we know of yet. The shooting appears to have been quite intentional. Whether he was trying to in fact kill-KILL her or if he understands what that actually means remains unclear to me anyway.

Also, I am not in favor of euthanizing him yet.

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

surely there's enough nuance in the world to understand the difference between a child who pushed a classmate down the stairs not fully grasping the very dire consequences vs bringing a gun to school, threatening to shoot people with it and then pointing it at a classmate or teacher and saying i don't like you and then shooting it

The article is behind a paywall but it seems as if bill pulte fired the ethics group at fannie mae that was investigating him illegally obtaining mortgage records of prominent democrats.

Make corruption great again.

I don’t think we would agree on that, but even if we did.

Did you know that one of the requirements to commit murder in most jurisdictions is to have the requisite mental state to be said to have committed murder?

So we’re not really talking about murder in the same sense here. We’re talking about something that looks like murder but really isn’t, and it’s not treated as if it is in most places.

Well I don't know what they might call something which is a deliberate killing done by someone who doesn't have the "requisite mental state", but those are the people who should be humanely put down.

I’m confused; aren’t mortgages public record in the office of deeds in whatever county you’re in? I can just look up how much is owed on a house and by whom if I have the address.

But you acknowledge that when you say that they are “committing murder” it’s not in same sense that we would say someone with enough rational faculties commits murder. So it’s a bit of an equivocation to call it murder.

Then once we’ve established it’s an equivocation and we look at what it is we’re doing when we “put them down” we’re essentially punishing them for a crime that they aren’t even responsible for.

So it would be like you being put on an ultra powerful suggestibility drug against your will and then being brainwashed into killing someone innocent while you have no ability to have rational agency. Should you be put down because you committed a crime while in that state? And if you say no, what’s the symmetry breaker between that and a kid?

After all if you’re going to argue the mere fact of having killed before makes you more likely to kill again, I’m not seeing how you knowing that you killed someone wouldn’t leave you susceptible to that same self-doubt a kid that “murders” someone would have. They might completely grow up to have no compulsion to kill, but always have that lingering in the back of their head. I can acknowledge that. But that doesn’t mean they are irredeemable by any means. They acted without the requisite agency to be held culpable.

Really disingenuous argument from you here. I've already said a few times that it has nothing to do with punishment.

And your theoretical is silly and would be irrelevant even were it possible.
If this child had been forced, pressured, or cajoled to shoot someone by an adult, that would be a different situation. AFAIK no such thing happened in this case.

The mortgage application is not public record.