Religious Zealotry

[JudgeRightly]

See above.

Well, the Bible doesn't expressly state that two year olds

Now you're moving the goalposts again. We were discussing "children as young as five," not two year olds.

can't be culpable of murder but why should it?

You made the following assertion that it was clear that the Bible said "five year old kids can't be capable of [murder].":

The Bible is clear on the score where it comes to murder. It's pretty clear that five year old kids can't be culpable of it.

Are you unable to provide the book, chapter, and verse where the Bible says, clearly, that "five year old kids can't be capable of murder"?

If you are unable to do so, then you shouldn't make the claim that the Bible says, "five year old kids can't be culpable of it (murder)."

If you can, then please provide the book, chapter, and verse from scripture that supports your assertion.

Use some common sense.

How about, instead of telling us to make your argument for you, you actually make the argument yourself.

Again, you made the claim that the Bible was clear that "five year olds can't be culpable of murder." Please support that claim with evidence, from scripture, that says that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Now you're moving the goalposts again. We were discussing "children as young as five," not two year olds.



You made the following assertion that it was clear that the Bible said "five year old kids can't be capable of [murder].":



Are you unable to provide the book, chapter, and verse where the Bible says, clearly, that "five year old kids can't be capable of murder"?

If you are unable to do so, then you shouldn't make the claim that the Bible says, "five year old kids can't be culpable of it (murder)."

If you can, then please provide the book, chapter, and verse from scripture that supports your assertion.



How about, instead of telling us to make your argument for you, you actually make the argument yourself.

Again, you made the claim that the Bible was clear that "five year olds can't be culpable of murder." Please support that claim with evidence, from scripture, that says that.

Of course the Bible doesn't stipulate that five year old children aren't capable of murder just the same way it doesn't point out several other obvious things as why should it need to? Furthermore and in light of that I didn't post that the Bible expressly stated that five year old children are incapable of murder if you scroll back. If you have common sense then you know why they aren't and why the law takes age into account in regards to accountability and culpability where it comes to crime. I wasn't 'moving the goalposts' at all JR. Reducing the age to two only served to underscore the glaringly obvious point. The Bible does encourage people to think, right?

 

[annabenedetti]

Of course the Bible doesn't stipulate that five year old children aren't capable of murder just the same way it doesn't point out several other obvious things as why should it need to? Furthermore and in light of that I didn't post that the Bible expressly stated that five year old children are incapable of murder if you scroll back. If you have common sense then you know why they aren't and why the law takes age into account in regards to accountability and culpability where it comes to crime. I wasn't 'moving the goalposts' at all JR. Reducing the age to two only served to underscore the glaringly obvious point. The Bible does encourage people to think, right?

IIRC, bar mitzvahs are at age 13. Also, at the census, they didn't give offerings until age 20. This tells us a little about what the OT might have considered an age of reason.

New Testament: Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[ok doser]

IIRC, bar mitzvahs are at age 13. Also, at the census, they didn't give offerings until age 20. This tells us a little about what the OT might have considered an age of reason.

New Testament: Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

Do you think Jesus meant little children like Robert Thompson and Jon Venables?

Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course the Bible doesn't stipulate that five year old children aren't capable of murder

Then why did you make the claim that it does, and does so in a clear manner?

just the same way it doesn't point out several other obvious things as why should it need to?

You shouldn't make claims to what the Bible says if the Bible doesn't say what you're claiming. That's called lying.

Furthermore and in light of that I didn't post that the Bible expressly stated that five year old children are incapable of murder if you scroll back.

You made the following claim:

The Bible is clear on the score where it comes to murder. It's pretty clear that five year old kids can't be culpable of it.

Now either support that claim, or retract it.

If you have common sense

Appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy, Arty.

then you know why they aren't and why the law takes age into account in regards to accountability and culpability where it comes to crime.

The Bible makes no such distinction regarding age.

I wasn't 'moving the goalposts' at all JR. Reducing the age to two only served to underscore the glaringly obvious point.

Thanks for basically admitting to moving the goalposts.

As Doser pointed out, there are 10-year olds capable of murder.

Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Bible does encourage people to think, right?

It also encourages people to present evidence for their claims.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then why did you make the claim that it does, and does so in a clear manner?



You shouldn't make claims to what the Bible says if the Bible doesn't say what you're claiming. That's called lying.



You made the following claim:



Now either support that claim, or retract it.



Appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy, Arty.



The Bible makes no such distinction regarding age.



Thanks for basically admitting to moving the goalposts.

As Doser pointed out, there are 10-year olds capable of murder.





It also encourages people to present evidence for their claims.

I didn't although I can see your confusion and in fairness I should have worded it better. The Bible is certainly clear where it comes to murder. It's pretty clear that five year old children aren't capable of it. The latter wasn't in reference to the Bible but a statement in itself but again, should have clarified it more clearly.

Common sense dictates that young children lack the reasoning of adults. There's no fallacy about that JR. This is why we have laws that take this into account, much the same as mentally impaired adults aren't deemed responsible for their actions as an adult fully compos mentis. It's logical, moral and just to do so.

Unless you consider that the Bible needs to spoon feed on any and every given thing then there's no need for it to stipulate an age as the obvious shouldn't even need to be said. Five year old children are in the early stages of development. No goal post moving going on at all and no admission of such either. It underscored a glaringly obvious point.

I'm well aware of the James Bulger case and remember it at the time. It in no way justifies the notion that five year old children can be tried and convicted as adults as you should well know.

It does indeed.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I didn't although I can see your confusion and in fairness I should have worded it better. The Bible is certainly clear where it comes to murder. It's pretty clear that five year old children aren't capable of it. The latter wasn't in reference to the Bible but a statement in itself but again, should have clarified it more clearly.

Does the Bible give any indication of a lower age limit on when a/the law is applicable to someone?

Common sense dictates that young children lack the reasoning of adults.

Again, appeal to common sense is a fallacy. So is an alleged certainty.

Appeal to Common Sense

Asserting that your conclusion or facts are just “common sense” when, in fact, they are not.We must argue as to why we believe something is common sense if there is any doubt that the belief is not common, rather than just asserting that it is.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Alleged Certainty

Asserting a conclusion without evidence or premises, through a statement that makes the conclusion appear certain when, in fact, it is not.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

I have seen a few examples of children who are, very clearly, more cognizant and aware of their surroundings than many adults, let alone being more capable in their reasoning.

There's no fallacy about that JR.

False.

compos mentis

English please. This is the second time I've asked you.

Unless you consider that the Bible needs to spoon feed on any and every given thing then there's no need for it to stipulate an age as the obvious shouldn't even need to be said.

As RD put it:

Five year old children are in the early stages of development.

Compared to a 30 year old, sure.

Compared to a 10 year old? Not really.

No goal post moving going on at all and no admission of such either.

You're in denial.

It underscored a glaringly obvious point.

It did nothing of the sort.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Does the Bible give any indication of a lower age limit on when a/the law is applicable to someone?



Again, appeal to common sense is a fallacy. So is an alleged certainty.

Appeal to Common Sense

Asserting that your conclusion or facts are just “common sense” when, in fact, they are not.We must argue as to why we believe something is common sense if there is any doubt that the belief is not common, rather than just asserting that it is.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Alleged Certainty

Asserting a conclusion without evidence or premises, through a statement that makes the conclusion appear certain when, in fact, it is not.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

I have seen a few examples of children who are, very clearly, more cognizant and aware of their surroundings than many adults, let alone being more capable in their reasoning.



False.



English please. This is the second time I've asked you.



As RD put it:



Compared to a 30 year old, sure.

Compared to a 10 year old? Not really.



You're in denial.



It did nothing of the sort.

The Bible doesn't stipulate an exact age as far as I'm aware but again, why should it? It's obvious that young children aren't bound by it or held accountable to it as they're not old enough to understand it. In the UK you have to be 18 to be held accountable as an adult and most schools of thought have it to be around 20 or thereabouts in regards to the Bible. There might be a certain amount of discrepancy but late teens at least. By that stage, development has mostly come to fruition in regards to understanding even though there's still room for lots more.

Common sense should lead you to fact. A five year old is in the early stages of development, physically and mentally and their reasoning centers haven't come close to full fruition.

What kids have you seen exactly, how old and in what way are their reasoning abilities better than many adults? Appeal to anecdote fallacy? In turn I have a couple of friends who work in care. One of them has a client with severe mental impairment with the mind of a young child. In physical appearance he looks like what he is, a man in his fifties. Mentally, he's only concerned with toy trucks and the like that his carer supplies him with.

I explained the phrase 'compos mentis' in my latter to you on the score and linked you to the English translation. So scroll back, it's a commonly used term frankly.

If you're going to play some sort of comparison game then ten year olds are still minors and are rightfully treat as such under law. They're still nowhere near fully developed as an adult and nope, no denial going on here at all. You're the one who posited that age doesn't matter in regards to justice whereas it obviously does so bringing two year olds and babies into the equation does underscore a glaringly obvious point.

 

[marke]

The Bible doesn't stipulate an exact age as far as I'm aware but again, why should it? It's obvious that young children aren't bound by it or held accountable to it as they're not old enough to understand it. In the UK you have to be 18 to be held accountable as an adult and most schools of thought have it to be around 20 or thereabouts in regards to the Bible. There might be a certain amount of discrepancy but late teens at least. By that stage, development has mostly come to fruition in regards to understanding even though there's still room for lots more.

Common sense should lead you to fact. A five year old is in the early stages of development, physically and mentally and their reasoning centers haven't come close to full fruition.

What kids have you seen exactly, how old and in what way are their reasoning abilities better than many adults? Appeal to anecdote fallacy? In turn I have a couple of friends who work in care. One of them has a client with severe mental impairment with the mind of a young child. In physical appearance he looks like what he is, a man in his fifties. Mentally, he's only concerned with toy trucks and the like that his carer supplies him with.

I explained the phrase 'compos mentis' in my latter to you on the score and linked you to the English translation. So scroll back, it's a commonly used term frankly.

If you're going to play some sort of comparison game then ten year olds are still minors and are rightfully treat as such under law. They're still nowhere near fully developed as an adult and nope, no denial going on here at all. You're the one who posited that age doesn't matter in regards to justice whereas it obviously does so bringing two year olds and babies into the equation does underscore a glaringly obvious point.

Young children need to be taught respect for their parents, for adults, and for those in leadership and authority. Kids who remain undisciplined are in danger of rebelling against God to the doom of their own souls.

2 Kings 2:22-24
King James Version

22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.​

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hmm, do you agree with JR that children as young as five should be tried, convicted and executed for somehow committing capital crimes? Cos if that's "light" then wow, am I glad not to be part of it. Sick beyond words frankly. What say you? Or are you just gonna shuffle away from it as you have previous?

If a five year old commits a capital crime, the only just punishment is the death penalty.



The laws that satisfy your corrupted conscience do not qualify as "sensible."



No, a five year old is not an infant.

A five year old is a pre-schooler.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



False.



False.



False.



I have given you the verses that are applicable. That you reject them does not mean that there are none.



Don't change the topic.

If a child commits a capital crime, he should be put to death.

What should the punishment be for these violent criminals?

3 children dubbed the 'Little Rascals' accused of robbing Houston bank

The juveniles, ages 11, 12 and 16, were caught on camera robbing a Wells Fargo bank March 14, the FBI said.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Clete]

I'm not certain that a five year old child would be capable of committing a capital crime. Capital crimes are all intentional acts (i.e. accidents are not crimes).

Most capital crimes are completely impossible for a five year old to commit. Such a child could not commit adultery for obvious reasons, nor would he be physically capable of kidnapping anyone. Children that age have no sex drive of any kind and so there goes another whole list of crimes that I won't gross people out by listing here. In fact, the only capital crime that I can think of that would even be possible at all for a five year old to commit is murder and then only if they have a weapon like a firearm, but is a five year old child capable of understanding what he's actually doing with that firearm? I suppose that it would be a determination for the judge to make but I greatly doubt that any child that age could understand what he was actually doing in such a case.

So, should such a child be tried? Yes, there should be a trial, the victim deserves that much for sure, but I very much doubt that such a trial would end in a conviction of the child. If anyone was convicted of anything, it likely wouldn't be the child but the child's parents, who were so negligent as to allow a five year old access to their firearms.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not certain that a five year old child would be capable of committing a capital crime. Capital crimes are all intentional acts (i.e. accidents are not crimes).

Most capital crimes are completely impossible for a five year old to commit. Such a child could not commit adultery for obvious reasons, nor would he be physically capable of kidnapping anyone. Children that age have no sex drive of any kind and so there goes another whole list of crimes that I won't gross people out by listing here. In fact, the only capital crime that I can think of that would even be possible at all for a five year old to commit is murder and then only if they have a weapon like a firearm, but is a five year old child capable of understanding what he's actually doing with that firearm? I suppose that it would be a determination for the judge to make but I greatly doubt that any child that age could understand what he was actually doing in such a case.

So, should such a child be tried? Yes, there should be a trial, the victim deserves that much for sure, but I very much doubt that such a trial would end in a conviction of the child. If anyone was convicted of anything, it likely wouldn't be the child but the child's parents, who were so negligent as to allow a five year old access to their firearms.

Guilt is certainly infinitely dilutable.

 

[ok doser]

What should the punishment be for these violent criminals?

3 children dubbed the 'Little Rascals' accused of robbing Houston bank

The juveniles, ages 11, 12 and 16, were caught on camera robbing a Wells Fargo bank March 14, the FBI said.

www.nbcnews.com

The same as the punishment should have been for these violent criminals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

 

[Clete]

Guilt is certainly infinitely dilutable.

So, not half an hour after I hit "Post reply" on my last post, I heard this story on the radio....

"According to the Harris County Sheriff's Office, a 7- and 12-year-old are accused of stabbing a 59-year-old woman, sending her to the hospital in critical condition."​

Woman hospitalized after allegedly being stabbed by 2 children in NW Harris County, HCSO says

"Never did any of us think it would be kids from the neighborhood coming and attacking her," a neighbor told ABC13. Neighbors tell ABC13 the woman who was stabbed had a complicated relationship with those who live near her.

abc13.com

It turns out that is seems that the 7 year old did not do any of the stabbing and I'm still not convinced that he really has the ability to understand what attempted murder actually means. I couldn't believe my ears when the story came across the radio though! This happened less than twenty miles from where I live! What kind of Hell hole country do we live in?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, not half an hour after I hit "Post reply" on my last post, I heard this story on the radio....

"According to the Harris County Sheriff's Office, a 7- and 12-year-old are accused of stabbing a 59-year-old woman, sending her to the hospital in critical condition."​

Woman hospitalized after allegedly being stabbed by 2 children in NW Harris County, HCSO says

"Never did any of us think it would be kids from the neighborhood coming and attacking her," a neighbor told ABC13. Neighbors tell ABC13 the woman who was stabbed had a complicated relationship with those who live near her.

abc13.com

It turns out that is seems that the 7 year old did not do any of the stabbing and I'm still not convinced that he really has the ability to understand what attempted murder actually means. I couldn't believe my ears when the story came across the radio though! This happened less than twenty miles from where I live! What kind of Hell hole country do we live in?

The America you grew up in is long gone, a mere corpse of what it was, desecrated by those who hate God.

Here's another one where children murdered an innocent man:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774236790687428791

 

[ok doser]

The America you grew up in is long gone, a mere corpse of what it was, desecrated by those who hate God.

Here's another one where children murdered an innocent man:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774236790687428791

Feral children acting like animals.

 

[Clete]

The America you grew up in is long gone, a mere corpse of what it was, desecrated by those who hate God.

If it wasn't dead already, I was surely in hospice while I was growing up!

Here's another one where children murdered an innocent man:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774236790687428791

So, on the subject of the death penalty for kids....

I'd say that if they are old enough to know what they're doing then they aught to be executed for the crimes they commit. So far, I see no evidence that suggests that very young children are capable of understanding what murder is. That isn't proof that they can't but I'm just saying that I don't see it. Teenagers are a different story but would still need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. There is also the issue of the age of accountability to consider which may disqualify any child under the age of twenty for execution.

The execution of small children would be a more or less moot point anyway because the fact of the matter is that if murderers, along with all those who commit other capital crimes, got executed upon conviction, then there wouldn't be any kids murdering people in the first place. There wouldn't be any kids committing much of any crime whatsoever, never mind capital crimes. We'd live in a society where people wouldn't worry about what their kids were out doing during the day and people would think that you're a paranoid weirdo for having locks on the front door of your house.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If it wasn't dead already, I was surely in hospice while I was growing up!


So, on the subject of the death penalty for kids....

I'd say that if they are old enough to know what they're doing then they aught to be executed for the crimes they commit. So far, I see no evidence that suggests that very young children are capable of understanding what murder is. That isn't proof that they can't but I'm just saying that I don't see it. Teenagers are a different story but would still need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. There is also the issue of the age of accountability to consider which may disqualify any child under the age of twenty for execution.

The execution of small children would be a more or less moot point anyway because the fact of the matter is that if murderers, along with all those who commit other capital crimes, got executed upon conviction, then there wouldn't be any kids murdering people in the first place. There wouldn't be any kids committing much of any crime whatsoever, never mind capital crimes. We'd live in a society where people wouldn't worry about what their kids were out doing during the day and people would think that you're a paranoid weirdo for having locks on the front door of your house.

Arthur couldn't seem to comprehend this. It's why my statement in my earlier post was a conditional, "if."