Children..

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Post Reply
Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus » Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:38 pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Seven of Nine wrote:In the UK, there is no law on when a child can be left home alone. I coul;d leave my 17 month old toddler at home, and although I could be charged with neglect, there isn't a specific law that I've broken.

It is unclear to me how it is possible to be charged for something even if you've broken no law. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Ever hear of the salem witch trials? Are you saying those people actually practiced the things they say witches do? Such as injuring others for pleasure.
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus » Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:44 pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:Here's some statistics.
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~pjc/courses/s ... ture_8.pdf

That is for Canada, where there is a specific driving force at work: the Young Offenders Act, which I strongly disagree with and which guarantees perpetual anonymity for youth criminals who are convicted of crimes, not to mention strict limits on sentencing. It cannot be used to generalize about all young people.

What does the young offenders act have to do with the fact that the kids are commiting crimes?

That is for the specific period from 1987 to 1996. Fluctuations in trends always look larger and more significant when you zero in on a short timeframe like that. I'm talking about the larger 30 to 40 year timeframe.
I read the article you posted in the beginning of this forum. Looked to me like everything increased accept serious felonies.
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

trudred
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:01 pm

Post by trudred » Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:18 am

Young Offenders Act, which I strongly disagree with and which guarantees perpetual anonymity for youth criminals who are convicted of crimes, not to mention strict limits on sentencing. It cannot be used to generalize about all young people.


So let me get this straight. The forum began with someone’s opinion on the state of young people today. When presented with opinions, you demanded facts. When presented with facts, “statistical evidence” to be exact, you dismiss it with your opinion on the facts. Pick one. The general consensus is ,in their opinions, coupled with the support of available facts, the behavior of our youths today are worse than before. A specific country’s report does not suffice, and neither does someone’s personal observations of where they have been. You would even go so far as to dismiss studies because in your opinion, they did not cover a long enough time frame. So how about you tell us what you are looking for and that may make it easier.
I think adults have a lot less respect for kids these days.


But alas, this sentence explains it all. You have confirmed yourself as one of our “new” youths that cry obligatory respect, freedom and rights from everyone, instead of taking the time to learn how to earn it. And herein, lies the source.

And in addition to humans little problem of distorting their recollection of the past to suit themselves, they also have a tendency to belittle personal flaws and misplace blame in order to help themselves. Maybe this explains why you are unwilling to see your fellow youths as they are.
Last edited by trudred on Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:39 am

Rabidus_Lupus wrote: What does the young offenders act have to do with the fact that the kids are commiting crimes?

If you pass a law guaranteeing anonymity for youth criminals, do you not realize that youth crime would increase? And why do you choose to ignore the American statistics, since I presume you live in America, and America is 10x the size of Canada and so dwarfs our contribution to the statistics?
I read the article you posted in the beginning of this forum. Looked to me like everything increased accept serious felonies.

And serious felonies are the most important thing, aren't they? Wouldn't you prefer a lower murder rate even if it comes at a cost of higher misdemeanors?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:45 am

trudred wrote: So let me get this straight. The forum began with someone’s opinion on the state of young people today. When presented with opinions, you demanded facts. When presented with facts, “statistical evidence” to be exact, you dismiss it with your opinion on the facts. Pick one. The general consensus is ,in their opinions, coupled with the support of available facts, the behavior of our youths today are worse than before. A specific country’s report does not suffice, and neither does someone’s personal observations of where they have been. You would even go so far as to dismiss studies because in your opinion, they did not cover a long enough time frame. So how about you tell us what you are looking for and that may make it easier.

Obviously, you either deliberately or "accidentally" ignored the second post in this thread where I posted a link to FBI crime stats for American youth: a 10x larger demographic than Canadian youth and one without the rather freakish element of an insane law that was passed guaranteeing them anonymity for their crimes. I presented hard data, and you as well as others have chosen to ignore its ramifications in favour of data involving far smaller control groups with much more obvious mitigating factors.
I think adults have a lot less respect for kids these days.

But alas, this sentence explains it all. You have confirmed yourself as one of our “new” youths that cry obligatory respect, freedom and rights from everyone, instead of taking the time to learn how to earn it. And herein, lies the source.

:lol: Not only did you completely ignore the fact that I posted statistics before anyone else, based on a larger control group than anyone else with fewer mitigating factors than anyone else, but you also leap to absurd conclusions without a shred of evidence. I am 35 years old. I have a wife and two kids. You need to rely more on logic and less on groundless assumptions.
And in addition to humans little problem of distorting their recollection of the past to suit themselves, they also have a tendency to belittle personal flaws and misplace blame in order to help themselves. Maybe this explains why you are unwilling to see your fellow youths as they are.

:lol: This is known as the "attack the messenger" technique, and it is particularly amusing when the attack is based on such grossly erroneous assumptions.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

trudred
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:01 pm

Post by trudred » Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:56 am

Darth Wong wrote:
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:What does the young offenders act have to do with the fact that the kids are commiting crimes?

If you pass a law guaranteeing anonymity for youth criminals, do you not realize that youth crime would increase? And why do you choose to ignore the American statistics, since I presume you live in America, and America is 10x the size of Canada and so dwarfs our contribution to the statistics?

So, basically you want someone branded for the rest of their life based on something they did as a child, even after they've paid the penalty. So, should you have a mark on your record if you stole a cookie from the cookie jar when you were a child?
I read the article you posted in the beginning of this forum. Looked to me like everything increased accept serious felonies.

And serious felonies are the most important thing, aren't they? Wouldn't you prefer a lower murder rate even if it comes at a cost of higher misdemeanors?
So, because kids aren't committing as much murder, everythings right in the world. That's quite the thought process you've got there.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:00 am

trudred wrote: So, basically you want someone branded for the rest of their life based on something they did as a child, even after they've paid the penalty. So, should you have a mark on your record if you stole a cookie from the cookie jar when you were a child?

Since that would not result in criminal charges even for an adult, I don't see why it would for a child. But when a 14 year old kid shoots a classmate, I don't see why he should be able to escape responsibility for his actions.
And serious felonies are the most important thing, aren't they? Wouldn't you prefer a lower murder rate even if it comes at a cost of higher misdemeanors?

So, because kids aren't committing as much murder, everythings right in the world. That's quite the thought process you've got there.

And it's far more logical than yours, which somehow concludes that kids who engage in murder rather than vandalism are better-behaved.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

trudred
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:01 pm

Post by trudred » Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:23 am

Since that would not result in criminal charges even for an adult, I don't see why it would for a child. But when a 14 year old kid shoots a classmate, I don't see why he should be able to escape responsibility for his actions.
If you actually knew what the Young Offenders act was, you'd know they still get punished.
And serious felonies are the most important thing, aren't they? Wouldn't you prefer a lower murder rate even if it comes at a cost of higher misdemeanors?

So, because kids aren't committing as much murder, everythings right in the world. That's quite the thought process you've got there.
And it's far more logical than yours, which somehow concludes that kids who engage in murder rather than vandalism are better-behaved.

You really think that statement proved your point? Looks to me like you have no clue what you're saying. Keep reaching though, it's quite funny.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:07 am

trudred wrote:
Since that would not result in criminal charges even for an adult, I don't see why it would for a child. But when a 14 year old kid shoots a classmate, I don't see why he should be able to escape responsibility for his actions.

If you actually knew what the Young Offenders act was, you'd know they still get punished.

Slap on the wrist with guaranteed anonymity for the rest of their lives. The point remains. When someone kills another human being and gets two years in juvenile detention followed by lifetime anonymity, ie- no criminal record, that is escaping responsibility.
And it's far more logical than yours, which somehow concludes that kids who engage in murder rather than vandalism are better-behaved.

You really think that statement proved your point? Looks to me like you have no clue what you're saying. Keep reaching though, it's quite funny.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply admitting that you had no answer to my point. And accusing someone of "reaching" after spending two paragraphs expounding on your assumption that I'm a youth ... now that is funny.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus » Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:44 am

Darth Wong wrote:
trudred wrote:
Since that would not result in criminal charges even for an adult, I don't see why it would for a child. But when a 14 year old kid shoots a classmate, I don't see why he should be able to escape responsibility for his actions.

If you actually knew what the Young Offenders act was, you'd know they still get punished.

Slap on the wrist with guaranteed anonymity for the rest of their lives. The point remains. When someone kills another human being and gets two years in juvenile detention followed by lifetime anonymity, ie- no criminal record, that is escaping responsibility.
You realise the max penalty, before they replaced the Youth Offenders Act, was 5 years right? What else might you be wrong about? Perhaps you should look into it further. Perhaps you should have researched a little more.

And your comments about my time frame being to small to generalize, you realise your link only showed one state right? Yet you can generalize with that?
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:05 am

Rabidus_Lupus wrote: You realise the max penalty, before they replaced the Youth Offenders Act, was 5 years right?

And that disproves something I've said ... how?
What else might you be wrong about? Perhaps you should look into it further. Perhaps you should have researched a little more.

First you would have to show how my statement was wrong. Removing criminal records for youth offenders is a huge step; it means they do not suffer any permanent penalties for their actions, no matter how heinous.
And your comments about my time frame being to small to generalize, you realise your link only showed one state right? Yet you can generalize with that?

Are you now going to argue that one American state is less similar to the other American states than an entirely different country? :roll:

It's reasonable to surmise that with uniform federal laws, California's patterns are probably representative of America. It is not reasonable to surmise that Canada, after passing a brain-dead law guaranteeing freedom from any criminal record for teenaged murderers, would be more representative of America. But please, go on pretending that you can save your beaten subjective claims.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:14 am

Darth Wong wrote: Slap on the wrist with guaranteed anonymity for the rest of their lives. The point remains. When someone kills another human being and gets two years in juvenile detention followed by lifetime anonymity, ie- no criminal record, that is escaping responsibility.

You say two years? It disproves that.
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:19 am

And your comments about my time frame being to small to generalize, you realise your link only showed one state right? Yet you can generalize with that?

Are you now going to argue that one American state is less similar to the other American states than an entirely different country? :roll:

It's reasonable to surmise that with uniform federal laws, California's patterns are probably representative of America. It is not reasonable to surmise that Canada, after passing a brain-dead law guaranteeing freedom from any criminal record for teenaged murderers, would be more representative of America. But please, go on pretending that you can save your beaten subjective claims.

What part of that quote has to do with Canada again? And with no proof from you, you want me to assume what you say is true?
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:34 am

Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Slap on the wrist with guaranteed anonymity for the rest of their lives. The point remains. When someone kills another human being and gets two years in juvenile detention followed by lifetime anonymity, ie- no criminal record, that is escaping responsibility.

You say two years? It disproves that.

Since when does "max penalty" disprove the fact that youth killers have gotten two year sentences, and do always evade any criminal record? Do you even realize that the source you cited was a study on the effects of the Young Offenders Act in Canada? The very first paragraph in that study says "Trends over the last 25 years, and particularly since the introduction of the Young Offenders Act"!

You're so busy trying to force the facts to fit your case that you'll twist yourself in circles trying to pretend that they do.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:38 am

Rabidus_Lupus wrote: What part of that quote has to do with Canada again?

The part where you pretend my stats are less indicative of America than yours.
And with no proof from you, you want me to assume what you say is true?

Tell me, what proof would you require in order to admit that you do not have sufficient evidence to generalize that youth today are particularly immoral compared to the "good ol' days"?

Do you even realize that the burden of proof actually lies upon he who makes an accusation of wrongdoing or immorality, not he who denies it?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”