[data_link] Why not blame the parents?

[data_link]

Oy vey. You still insist that it is the parent, and not the child, that shares PRIMARY responsibility. Listen to yourself: "Of course the child shares responsibility." NO. Thew child has the full responsibility to obey the fucking law. The parent is only responsible as a ODR (one-degree-removed) influence, and frankly, saying that THEY are responsible for their children's illegal actions is merely another attempt to avoid blaming the fucking children because his society simply cannot accept that a person under the age of 18 can knowingly, willingly, and in NORMAL circumstances make a conscious decision to disobey the law. And again, even in your first post you assume that the parent is a goddamn psychologist and therefore capable of predicting that their child will perform illegal acts in the future. No, strike that, most psychologists can't do that either.

Is there a fucking problem with the sue-em culture? Hell yes. But do we solve that by instead of blaming the party at fault, instead blaming a party that may very well have been completely unaware that a problem even EXISTED, and is therefore also innocent? FUCK NO. Let me tell you something: aside from those with an actual criminal record, it is VERY rare to have evidence that a crime is going to happen before it actually happens. And by then it's too fucking late. By the logic that such things are actually predictable if you talk to a person enough, you then place the blame on the school, the friends, the teachers, anyone who had a relationship with the child in question, because they have just as much influence as the parent does. Do you see the problem with assinging blame to ODR persons now, or do I have to beat it into your head?

[Jadeite]

Data_Link wrote

persons who desire evidence of this are welcome to surf over to GP4Teens and note that we are having an EFFECT there: a feat which would be completely impossible if the combined power of parents and churches

Wow, I just went there. I feel like my heads going to explode from all the "Jesus loves you" and "God is King" messages....im not atheist, im a pretty liberal christian, and that site just disgusted me. Ugh, they all need a baseball bat of common sense applied liberally to their skulls.

[data_link]

Data_Link wrote

persons who desire evidence of this are welcome to surf over to GP4Teens and note that we are having an EFFECT there: a feat which would be completely impossible if the combined power of parents and churches

Wow, I just went there. I feel like my heads going to explode from all the "Jesus loves you" and "God is King" messages....im not atheist, im a pretty liberal christian, and that site just disgusted me. Ugh, they all need a baseball bat of common sense applied liberally to their skulls.

I concur. It shocked the hell out of me when I read that ILOVELUCY was losing her faith: given their walls of ignorance, I didn't expect to have any effect at all.

[Rob Wilson]

Oy vey. You still insist that it is the parent, and not the child, that shares PRIMARY responsibility. Listen to yourself: "Of course the child shares responsibility." NO. Thew child has the full responsibility to obey the fucking law. The parent is only responsible as a ODR (one-degree-removed) influence, and frankly, saying that THEY are responsible for their children's illegal actions is merely another attempt to avoid blaming the fucking children because his society simply cannot accept that a person under the age of 18 can knowingly, willingly, and in NORMAL circumstances make a conscious decision to disobey the law.

So you can't point out where I said the child had no responsibility (the point you leveled in your original post) and now want to shift the goal posts? Fine lets go then.

Tell me where i said Primary responsibility (hey you even stress your own projected conjectures, go you). In fact while your up there on your high horse and seemingly see more than all others tell me how being one degree removed absolves you from any form of responsibilty whatsoever? Oh and while you defending you own strawmen why don't you explin in detail exactly when I said that the child in norml circumstances couldn't break the law. Is the world full of entirely blameless children? Why no I do beleive that society even has special penal and court facilities just for juvenile crimes. this must obviously come as a shock to me, as in your highly educated and informed opinion I cannot countenance such a thing to be. Isn't it a good thing i have you here to say what i think, espescially after i clearly explained myself. Gosh, please put more words in my mouth and voice more of my deeply held opinions for me. Oh please say you will. Otherwise whatever else would I have to laugh at?

No once more, point out where I said that the child had no responsibility for their actions in the first 2 posts which you originally claimed I had done. if you can't, then apologise for your mistake and move on.

And again, even in your first post you assume that the parent is a goddamn psychologist and therefore capable of predicting that their child will perform illegal acts in the future. No, strike that, most psychologists can't do that either.

I did all that, wow. here's me thinking tht th parent ight notice (by spending time with their child) any abnormal behavior and if it worried thm thn they could try to do something about it or if they felt they coudn't at least speak to someone that might (hey what do you know,thats the 3rd time I've said it clearly, do you think you might understand it now, or perhaps we should ask someone to read it slowly to you). Did I claim more than that? Come on provide proof that I did, if you don't in the next post then we know it was a strawman on your part and you simply can't bring yourself to drop it.

Is there a fucking problem with the sue-em culture? Hell yes. But do we solve that by instead of blaming the party at fault, instead blaming a party that may very well have been completely unaware that a problem even EXISTED, and is therefore also innocent? FUCK NO.

I was blaming only the parents? I wasn't, as explained at length satirising the Sue-em culture? Oh, and just so we can be clear on this, are you then absolving parents of all blame in your above paragraph? Go on, be a man, give us your opinions instead of inventing mine.

Let me tell you something: aside from those with an actual criminal record, it is VERY rare to have evidence that a crime is going to happen before it actually happens. And by then it's too fucking late. By the logic that such things are actually predictable if you talk to a person enough, you then place the blame on the school, the friends, the teachers, anyone who had a relationship with the child in question, because they have just as much influence as the parent does. Do you see the problem with assinging blame to ODR persons now, or do I have to beat it into your head?

Gosh if only I was assigning the entire blme on thm and not blaming th chld at all, thn you ould hav a small chance of proving your strawmn right. If only there was some way i could hav cleared up what i was actually saying, if only in my previous post which you are responding to, I had said in a crystal clear manner my intents and thoughts, if only i had done something that wouldn't have made you post your attack on a position I had said I didn't hold. If only you hadn't insisted on making yourself look like an idiot. Hell, if only you could have understood what was said, and not gone off on your own little rant about things i never said.

Of course there is still the chance to stop yourself looking an idiot (maybe it's late where you are and in your tired state you misread what i said). Why then you could simply post an Oops or something in reply and then we could in our posts following that, have a discussion. Wouldn't that make more sense.

But just this one last time, In my first post I was pointing out the fact that parents look for any scapegoats outside themselves (be it TV, Music, Friends,Cults) and the media's love of fueling that. And in th Second i was Lampooning the Sue-em culture with Stereotypes/caricatures thrown in from experience to add effect. At no point is the child absolved of blame (Blame is not 100% or nothing).

The balls in your court, lets see what you do with it.

[Darth Wong]

Let me tell you something: aside from those with an actual criminal record, it is VERY rare to have evidence that a crime is going to happen before it actually happens.

Do you speak from parenting experience, or from the perspective of a social worker who sees 50 different kids for a few minutes at a time apiece, and whose opinions are based largely on dossiers?

If a parent does not know his kid is getting into bad shit, he is a negligent parent. No, check that: he is a blithering idiot. It is the responsibility of every parent to be aware of his child's development, and if they can't handle this, they shouldn't become parents.

[data_link]

Rob Wilson:

Given that you never explicitly stated what your position on the child's responsibility was, and given that you and everybody else is focusing on the parent without even looking at SS's suggestion that maybe you should place the blame on the child, it certainly sounded like you were refusing to consider the idea that the child might be the person at fault. But, hey, that's just me interpreting posts by their context instead of requiring POV's to be explicitly stated like some goddamn lawyer or something, ya know?

I did all that, wow. here's me thinking tht th parent might notice (by spending time with their child) any abnormal behavior and if it worried thm thn they could try to do something about it or if they felt they coudn't at least speak to someone that might.

Oh, sorry, but you assume that the child would actually willingly give them information about their own life. Sorry, doesn't happen, especially not during the teenage years.

I was blaming only the parents? I wasn't, as explained at length satirising the Sue-em culture? Oh, and just so we can be clear on this, are you then absolving parents of all blame in your above paragraph? Go on, be a man, give us your opinions instead of inventing mine.

Parents whose kids fuck up are NOT nessecarily liable for bad parenting (at least, in comparison to the performance of other parents, although one could quite easily and correctly state that there is no such thing as a good parent). Further, part of the problem with our culture is that it tends to absolve children of their responsibility (why do you think that juvenile courts give out lighter sentences than adult courts? Why do you think that sepearte courts even EXIST if not for an obvious attempt by society to protect children from the consequences of their own actions,) and then transfer it to just about everyone except the child. As for my opinion: children are 100% responsible for their actions, parents are 0%. Now, a parent may be responsible for failing to provide an environment in which their kid became stupid/depressed/amoral enough to commit such an act, however, I will only hold them responsible for it if it occurs as a direct result of their actions: i.e., I will hold a fundie parent responsible for creating a fundie child, but I will not hold a parent whose child commits suicide because they are depressed responsible for their child's depression. This is because in most of these situations, the child is already on not very good terms with the parent, and interfering may cause the child to cut them off completely, and while a parent could legally force their child to spend time with them, forced outings usually only result in the child ignoring the parent completely. So, frankly, it's not their fault if they can't get through. As for your suggestion that parents refer their child to a professional: unless they can establish the criteria for involuntary committal, they are not competent to force their child into "voluntary" psychiatric treatment, so that's not even an ethical option.

Do you speak from parenting experience, or from the perspective of a social worker who sees 50 different kids for a few minutes at a time apiece, and whose opinions are based largely on dossiers?

Neither. I speak from recent (read: current) experience in being a minor, and knowing how incredibly easy it is to create a false persona for my parents.

If a parent does not know his kid is getting into bad shit, he is a negligent parent. No, check that: he is a blithering idiot. It is the responsibility of every parent to be aware of his child's development, and if they can't handle this, they shouldn't become parents.

Congratulations, Wong, you have just created a criterion for being a parent that disqualifies every single person on Earth. Tell me, since you think that a parent is negligent when they don't realize that their children are getting into "bad shit," do you also think that the police are incompetent when they fail to prevent crime, or that the CIA is negligent when terroist attacks happen in our borders? Sometimes a parent can do their job perfectly and still turn out a total loser. What's worse is that because society refuses to accept this (to me) self-evident truth (made more self-evident by the fact that unlike nearly every other enforcement job in existence, there are no officially published regulations on how parents should do their job), parents unreasonably blame themselves when things don't turn out the way they planned. Tell me Wong, are you prepared for the possibility that your kids might turn out to be idiots, in spite of your finest efforts?

[Darth Wong]

Do you speak from parenting experience, or from the perspective of a social worker who sees 50 different kids for a few minutes at a time apiece, and whose opinions are based largely on dossiers?

Neither. I speak from recent (read: current) experience in being a minor, and knowing how incredibly easy it is to create a false persona for my parents.

Ah, you speak from the perspective of the teenager who thinks he's more clever than he is, and who mistakes his parents' poor observational skills for some kind of genius deception on his part.

If a parent does not know his kid is getting into bad shit, he is a negligent parent. No, check that: he is a blithering idiot. It is the responsibility of every parent to be aware of his child's development, and if they can't handle this, they shouldn't become parents.

Congratulations, Wong, you have just created a criterion for being a parent that disqualifies every single person on Earth.

Bullshit. If you can't deal with responsibility and have some idea what kind of person your kid is, you have no business being a parent.

Tell me, since you think that a parent is negligent when they don't realize that their children are getting into "bad shit," do you also think that the police are incompetent when they fail to prevent crime, or that the CIA is negligent when terroist attacks happen in our borders?

The police and CIA do not have the lifelong experience with the individual subject that the parent has. You can tell a kid is going to get into trouble long before it actually starts happening.

Sometimes a parent can do their job perfectly and still turn out a total loser.

Possibly, depending on what kind of crowd the kid runs with and how effective the parent was in instilling values (how do we determine that parents of bad kids did a good job? Asking them?). However, that's no excuse for being completely unaware that any problems are cropping up.

What's worse is that because society refuses to accept this (to me) self-evident truth (made more self-evident by the fact that unlike nearly every other enforcement job in existence, there are no officially published regulations on how parents should do their job), parents unreasonably blame themselves when things don't turn out the way they planned. Tell me Wong, are you prepared for the possibility that your kids might turn out to be idiots, in spite of your finest efforts?

Of course, dumb-ass. THAT IS THE FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I say again: if you can't handle it, go back to the shallow end of the pool of life, where you belong.

You seem to think that a parent can bring a person into this world, raise that person, and then wave off any and all responsibility for the way that person turns out. What the fuck are you smoking? Do you understand the concept of personal responsibility?

[data_link]

Ah, you speak from the perspective of the teenager who thinks he's more clever than he is, and who mistakes his parents' poor observational skills for some kind of genius deception on his part.

Don't be stupid, my POINT was that one doesn't have to be clever in order to avoid transmitting any useful information.

Bullshit. If you can't deal with responsibility and have some idea what kind of person your kid is, you have no business being a parent.

Some idea of what kind of person your kid is? That's a far cry from "being able to predict ahead of time when your child is going to do something stupid, dangerous or illegal." I reiterate: unless your child has a known past history of such behaviors, it is rarely possible to predict them.

The police and CIA do not have the lifelong experience with the individual subject that the parent has. You can tell a kid is going to get into trouble long before it actually starts happening.

Tell me that again when you have had kids that actually get "into trouble." Lifelong experience does not translate to knowing actions that a person endeavors to keep secret.

Possibly, depending on what kind of crowd the kid runs with and how effective the parent was in instilling values (how do we determine that parents of bad kids did a good job? Asking them?). However, that's no excuse for being completely unaware that any problems are cropping up.

Oh good, so you pretend to agree with me while not even reading what I wrote. I say again, "it is possible for a parent to do their job perfectly and the kid still turn out to be a total loser." That it is difficult to objectively evaluate a parent's actual performance is irrelevant to the issue.

Of course, dumb-ass. THAT IS THE FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I say again: if you can't handle it, go back to the shallow end of the pool of life, where you belong.

So in other words, you are completely unprepared for the possibility that you might not be able to prevent this. Just as I suspected.

You seem to think that a parent can bring a person into this world, raise that person, and then wave off any and all responsibility for the way that person turns out. What the fuck are you smoking? Do you understand the concept of personal responsibility?

Yes. This is why I hold the kid responsible for his actions instead of the parent. You seem to think that you can kill 50 people and then blame your parents for the way you were raised. What the fuck are you smoking?

[Darth Wong]

Don't be stupid, my POINT was that one doesn't have to be clever in order to avoid transmitting any useful information.

Don't YOU be stupid, my point was that the parent has known you for your entire life, and you don't suddenly pull a switch and go 90 degrees left without any signs that were probably apparent for years beforehand.

Some idea of what kind of person your kid is? That's a far cry from "being able to predict ahead of time when your child is going to do something stupid, dangerous or illegal."

No, it isn't. You don't need precise prediction to know your kid is getting into bad shit, running with a bad crowd, etc. The mere fact that he's hiding things from you should be warning enough, unless you are negligent.

I reiterate: unless your child has a known past history of such behaviors, it is rarely possible to predict them.

Of course not, if you have not watched them throughout a lifetime.

Tell me that again when you have had kids that actually get "into trouble." Lifelong experience does not translate to knowing actions that a person endeavors to keep secret.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about knowing precisely what actions the kid will take, or when, or where. We are only talking about knowing that a kid is headed in the wrong direction, ie- what kind of person he's turning into.

Oh good, so you pretend to agree with me while not even reading what I wrote. I say again, "it is possible for a parent to do their job perfectly and the kid still turn out to be a total loser." That it is difficult to objectively evaluate a parent's actual performance is irrelevant to the issue.

No it isn't, because it is a rhetorical question which is impossible to answer, particularly since "perfect" parenting is a nonsensical concept.

Of course, dumb-ass. THAT IS THE FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I say again: if you can't handle it, go back to the shallow end of the pool of life, where you belong.

So in other words, you are completely unprepared for the possibility that you might not be able to prevent this. Just as I suspected.

No, you fucking idiot. I recognize that if my kid grows up to be a bad person, it's probably due in significant part to something I did, or something I should have done. Did you sell your brain to gypsies? Where the fuck did you interpret "I am unprepared for the possibility" from "I must accept the responsibility?", you blithering idiot?

You seem to think that a parent can bring a person into this world, raise that person, and then wave off any and all responsibility for the way that person turns out. What the fuck are you smoking? Do you understand the concept of personal responsibility?

Yes. This is why I hold the kid responsible for his actions instead of the parent. You seem to think that you can kill 50 people and then blame your parents for the way you were raised. What the fuck are you smoking?

No, ass-wipe. The kid bears direct responsibility for his crimes, the parent bears responsibility for raising an asshole. You are obviously attempting to conjoin responsibility for individual actions and poor character together into a single concept for the purpose of constructing your impressive army of strawman distortions.

Sorry, but if you intend to have kids but refuse any responsibility for the way they turn out, you should be sterilized now.

[Darth Wong]

To put this bluntly, a parent should know if his kid is an asshole. You seem to think that this also means he must telepathically be able to predict each and every action in the kid's life, which is ridiculous (but a very convenient strawman on your part).

However, parental responsibility was NEVER upheld to be for individual actions, just for the way the kid turned out. Your insistence upon ludicrous strawman distortions (such as your infuriating attempt to claim that I said it's OK to kill 50 people and then blame your parents, when I said no such thing) is only making YOU look like an asshole.

[Darth Wong]

BTW, data_link, if you would stop jerking yourself off and think about this for a second, you would realize that you have committed a massive logical fallacy by assuming that holding the parents morally responsible for the way their child turned out somehow removes all responsibility from the child himself, even for his own actions.

This is a false dilemma fallacy. When a person does something terrible, there is lots of responsibility to go around. All we have been saying is that the parents deserve some of that responsibility. You are attempting to refute that by distorting it into "the parents deserve 100% of the responsibility for anything the kid does", thus effectively presuming that either the parent or child can be responsible, but not both, ie- false dilemma.

Of course, you are not obligated to stop using your false dilemma fallacy. You could simply continue promoting your logic fallacies with smart-ass remarks and strawman distortions ...

[data_link]

Don't YOU be stupid, my point was that the parent has known you for your entire life, and you don't suddenly pull a switch and go 90 degrees left without any signs that were probably apparent for years beforehand.

And given that the child has also known the parent for the same amount of time, he will have had that much time to learn to hide his true feelings from his parents and feed them what they want to hear.

No, it isn't. You don't need precise prediction to know your kid is getting into bad shit, running with a bad crowd, etc. The mere fact that he's hiding things from you should be warning enough, unless you are negligent.

Wong, if he's hiding something from you, you aren't going to know about it.

Of course not, if you have not watched them throughout a lifetime.

Even if you have.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about knowing precisely what actions the kid will take, or when, or where. We are only talking about knowing that a kid is headed in the wrong direction, ie- what kind of person he's turning into.

And even the best people people get into crime too.

No it isn't, because it is a rhetorical question which is impossible to answer, particularly since "perfect" parenting is a nonsensical concept.

No shit, and this is why even the best parent will not nessecarily produce a good child. And even the worst parent (and no, that is not the nonexistent parent) will not nessecarily produce a bad child. The x-factor is great enough that a bad child cannot nessecarily be connected to a bad parent.

No, you fucking idiot. I recognize that if my kid grows up to be a bad person, it's probably due in significant part to something I did, or something I should have done. Did you sell your brain to gypsies? Where the fuck did you interpret "I am unprepared for the possibility" from "I must accept the responsibility?", you blithering idiot?

Pot calling the kettle black. Now quit making strawmen and actually read my posts. For your benefit, I'll type slower. N-o-t e-v-e-r-y b-a-d c-h-i-l-d i-s a r-e-s-u-l-t o-f a b-a-d p-a-r-e-n-t.

No, ass-wipe. The kid bears direct responsibility for his crimes, the parent bears responsibility for raising an asshole. You are obviously attempting to conjoin responsibility for individual actions and poor character together into a single concept for the purpose of constructing your impressive army of strawman distortions.

Considering that my third post on this subject explicitly seperated the two, it would seem that you are the one with all the straw. Now, try to understand what I am saying: the fact that bad parenting is one cause of bad character does not mean it is the ONLY cause. Having the sniffles does NOT always mean that you have a cold, and a child with bad character does NOT, in the absence of other evidence, prove bad parenting.

Sorry, but if you intend to have kids but refuse any responsibility for the way they turn out, you should be sterilized now.

Mr. Wong, please do your kids a favor and put them up for adoption, as you are obviously unfit to parent them. Then castrate yourself to ensure that no other such accidents occurr in the future.

[data_link]

Mr. Wong, I do wish that you would stop attributing to me a strawman that YOU created. As for the rest of your posts, I do not see fit to dignify them with a response.

[Rob Wilson]

Rob Wilson:

Given that you never explicitly stated what your position on the child's responsibility was, and given that you and everybody else is focusing on the parent without even looking at SS's suggestion that maybe you should place the blame on the child, it certainly sounded like you were refusing to consider the idea that the child might be the person at fault. But, hey, that's just me interpreting posts by their context instead of requiring POV's to be explicitly stated like some goddamn lawyer or something, ya know?

So as I stated you made a strawman and tilted at it with no thought or real judgement. BTW thanks for admiting that you had no evidence and that you jumped to your own conclusions rather than trying to understand the post. Isn't it aazing that nobody else made that same mistake? And you made it again despite replying to an explicit explaination. Way to go on establishing your inability to accurately represent the veiwpoints of anyone else (BTW those that can read and understand know you have already conceded your entire argument in your first Paragraph, as you can no longer use any of your arguments that you know how these kids feel and that was the only authority and evidence you'd had). The rest of this is now purely for my entertainment (after all I gave you two chances to sort this out amicably and the time (60 mins) in which to implement either).

I did all that, wow. here's me thinking tht th parent might notice (by spending time with their child) any abnormal behavior and if it worried thm thn they could try to do something about it or if they felt they coudn't at least speak to someone that might.

Oh, sorry, but you assume that the child would actually willingly give them information about their own life. Sorry, doesn't happen, especially not during the teenage years.

The parents have no way of ever acertaining it for themselves through observation? There is no way a parent could ever see through the brilliant disguises of Double0Teen? Damn it you've got me kid, you and you'r foolproof rebuttals loaded with evidence and not at all simple statements with no shred of corroboration. You know, it would probably help these parents if somehow and in someway they could ever have experienced being a teenager before. If they could know how it felt, if they could have tried all the different ways to hide stuff and try to keep secrets. Unfortunately, of course, parnts are spawned from clone tubes fully formed at 20 years of age and have no idea what being teenager is like. They don't spend years watching their children grow and catching all the tells the child unconsciously accumulates over the years. They of course never let the children get away with some secrets and lies becuse in the long run they weren't that important (porn mags for example) which would have reinforced the chlds belief that he can fool them at anytime. If only they had had all this and more much more that growing up and raising children over the span of years could have instilled in them.

So far you've demonstrated you cannot understand accurately th Veiwpoints of others instead colouring them through you own thoughts to the exclusion of all else. Your too pighead to admit your wrong, and ably diplayed your ignorance of the world outside your own private bubble. lets see wht else you can do to damage your own points.

I was blaming only the parents? I wasn't, as explained at length satirising the Sue-em culture? Oh, and just so we can be clear on this, are you then absolving parents of all blame in your above paragraph? Go on, be a man, give us your opinions instead of inventing mine.

Parents whose kids fuck up are NOT nessecarily liable for bad parenting (at least, in comparison to the performance of other parents, although one could quite easily and correctly state that there is no such thing as a good parent). Further, part of the problem with our culture is that it tends to absolve children of their responsibility (why do you think that juvenile courts give out lighter sentences than adult courts?

So in your world view getting a lighter type of sentence actually absolves the sentenced person from their responsibilities? Wow! I was expecting you to drop a clanger in this section but fucking hell you really ent for it here didn't you. We can add lack of understanding of action and consequence to your list and as an extra torpedo you go out of you way to show that you hav no understanding of how responsibility is apportioned. Fuck sake, you really do want to humiliate yourself don't you? This is the worst case of Masochism ever! Your actually going out of your way to destroy you own debate credibility. The only thing mising from this is if you reinforce your inability to understand the underlying points at hand.

Why do you think that sepearte courts even EXIST if not for an obvious attempt by society to protect children from the consequences of their own actions,) and then transfer it to just about everyone except the child.

Most obliging of you, so in a juvenile court the defendant never suffers any consequences for thier actions and never has responsibilities reinforced by sentencing? Are you even readig what you type? You now have zero credibilty in ANY of the points raised in this debate as you've made each mistake repeatedly and publicly. I don't even have to make a case any more, your doing it all for me. Go the all-knowing teenager, with this level of intelligence you must really have every adult fooled.

As for my opinion: children are 100% responsible for their actions, parents are 0%.

remember the above quote, it's when i stopped entertaining the notion you had a ounce of working neurons in your skull. Doubtless everyone else reading this reached the same conclusion.

Now, a parent may be responsible for failing to provide an environment in which their kid became stupid/depressed/amoral enough to commit such an act,

So you will only hold them partly responsible if they FAIL to provide an envirnment to make their kids stupid/depressed/amoral.... Holy shit can I please sign up for your set of values please? FUCKTARD. So you are absolving of guilt completely anyone that fucks up their childs lives! This is fucking comedy gold, I was pshing the buttons but I never once dreamed you'd be this easy to manipulate. Your mot supposed to contradict sense this much for another 2-3 posts. Damn but you are the easiest debate puppet ever. I have to experiment further with this, I wonder what else i can get you to commit an opinion to (I'm open to suggestions here readers, anything at all I'll get mr know-it-all here to stand right behind it with conviction).

however, I will only hold them responsible for it if it occurs as a direct result of their actions: i.e., I will hold a fundie parent responsible for creating a fundie child, but I will not hold a parent whose child commits suicide because they are depressed responsible for their child's depression.

You know something, I've been a humanist since I was 14 (even if i didn't know what it was called at the time), but your performance here is making me believe in a God. Your a gift. How do you know the Parents didn't contribute to the childs state? Please explain in detail how your going to dig youself out of this hole (maybe you won't even realise the hole your in?) tell you what, snip it and ignore it so I can reinstate it in my reply and really go to town on you. Go on you know you want to. We all know you have zero control of this debate now, so why fight it.

This is because in most of these situations, the child is already on not very good terms with the parent, and interfering may cause the child to cut them off completely, and while a parent could legally force their child to spend time with them, forced outings usually only result in the child ignoring the parent completely. So, frankly, it's not their fault if they can't get through.

So their only course is to sit bck and let their child kill themself. Of course, how could i be so blind as to not realise this. Thank you for your amazing common sense here. Infact, you know what, Samaritans and Sucidewatch should both just make tape and play it over their phone line "Go on take some responsibility in your life and just kill yourself. Its Data_link recommended therapy for the pain of your life."

Please share more of your wisdom withus all knowing one, tell us how failure to act on a known situation absolves you from responsibility for the situations consequences. You've already said that if they know they should simply let th kid continue down the spiral. How does that absolve them of responsisbilty exactly?

As for your suggestion that parents refer their child to a professional: unless they can establish the criteria for involuntary committal, they are not competent to force their child into "voluntary" psychiatric treatment, so that's not even an ethical option.

Oh even better, you do realise it's possible for people to visit a psychaitrist and not be committed don't you? Infact to be committed you need to be examined by a psychiatrist but acording to you that can't happen because the parents (the childs legal guardians) cannot make an appointment for the child... hang on, yes they can. If push comes to shove they take him to the family doctor and the doctor refers them to the hospital and the hospital orders a psych exam and that's that.

I see that Mikes destroying you in his section so I'll just stick to my fun here. BTW what happened to your One Degree of Removal arguement I don't see it anywhere?

No wonder your location is "Surrounded by idiots", you're in a crowd of 1.

[Rob Wilson]

Mr. Wong, I do wish that you would stop attributing to me a strawman that YOU created. As for the rest of your posts, I do not see fit to dignify them with a response.

Damn I was hoping Mike would keep you playing, but seeing as he's shown you that you can't even get your mindset straight, I wonder what you're response to mine will be. I bet it's a carbon copy. Can't answer the points can't present evidence and already beaten before you start. No wonder you don't have the stones to play any more.

[data_link]

Mr wilson, I do wish that you would cease making strawmen of my position as well. Mike is already proving himself to be an idiot and an asshole here, you don't need to do it to yourself as well.

The parents have no way of ever acertaining it for themselves through observation? There is no way a parent could ever see through the brilliant disguises of Double0Teen? Damn it you've got me kid, you and you'r foolproof rebuttals loaded with evidence and not at all simple statements with no shred of corroboration. You know, it would probably help these parents if somehow and in someway they could ever have experienced being a teenager before. If they could know how it felt, if they could have tried all the different ways to hide stuff and try to keep secrets. Unfortunately, of course, parnts are spawned from clone tubes fully formed at 20 years of age and have no idea what being teenager is like. They don't spend years watching their children grow and catching all the tells the child unconsciously accumulates over the years. They of course never let the children get away with some secrets and lies becuse in the long run they weren't that important (porn mags for example) which would have reinforced the chlds belief that he can fool them at anytime. If only they had had all this and more much more that growing up and raising children over the span of years could have instilled in them.

You know, it astounds me that people can fail to realize the basic concept that parents cannot track their teens 24/7, nor can they monitor all of their conversations, nor can they track all of their movements. Sorry, but it doesn't take 00teen to fool a parent, just keeping a facade of normality and NOT being stupid enough to leave evidence in your room.

So in your world view getting a lighter type of sentence actually absolves the sentenced person from their responsibilities? Wow! I was expecting you to drop a clanger in this section but fucking hell you really ent for it here didn't you. We can add lack of understanding of action and consequence to your list and as an extra torpedo you go out of you way to show that you hav no understanding of how responsibility is apportioned. Fuck sake, you really do want to humiliate yourself don't you? This is the worst case of Masochism ever! Your actually going out of your way to destroy you own debate credibility. The only thing mising from this is if you reinforce your inability to understand the underlying points at hand.

This just goes to show that you cannot understand that a proper and just punishment for any crime is THE SAME FUCKING PUNISHMENT THEY WOULD RECIEVE IF OUR GODDAMNED JUSTICE SYSTEM HAD THE BALLS TO TRY THEM IN AN ADULT COURT! By recieving a lighter sentence, they are being relieved of the full responsibility of their actions, getting a damn slap on the wrist when they should be in the electric chair (an exaggeration for effect, in case you are too stupid to realize it, which you are). Your ignorance is so great, that I can see why you hide behind your shield of ad hominems and sarcasm. It's because you are too stupid to debate your point rationally.

Most obliging of you, so in a juvenile court the defendant never suffers any consequences for thier actions and never has responsibilities reinforced by sentencing? Are you even readig what you type? You now have zero credibilty in ANY of the points raised in this debate as you've made each mistake repeatedly and publicly. I don't even have to make a case any more, your doing it all for me. Go the all-knowing teenager, with this level of intelligence you must really have every adult fooled.

You know, if you actually had a point, you wouldn't need to make strawmen.

remember the above quote, it's when i stopped entertaining the notion you had a ounce of working neurons in your skull. Doubtless everyone else reading this reached the same conclusion

Oh, please, go on with your Ad Hominem. It makes you look so intelligent. Oh, and since you didnt even attempt to argue the point, concession accepted.

So you will only hold them partly responsible if they FAIL to provide an envirnment to make their kids stupid/depressed/amoral.... Holy shit can I please sign up for your set of values please? FUCKTARD. So you are absolving of guilt completely anyone that fucks up their childs lives! This is fucking comedy gold, I was pshing the buttons but I never once dreamed you'd be this easy to manipulate. Your mot supposed to contradict sense this much for another 2-3 posts. Damn but you are the easiest debate puppet ever. I have to experiment further with this, I wonder what else i can get you to commit an opinion to (I'm open to suggestions here readers, anything at all I'll get mr know-it-all here to stand right behind it with conviction).

Wonderful. Creating strawmen out of an obvious typo. Tell me, were you BORN this stupid, or was this a recent development?

You know something, I've been a humanist since I was 14 (even if i didn't know what it was called at the time), but your performance here is making me believe in a God. Your a gift. How do you know the Parents didn't contribute to the childs state? Please explain in detail how your going to dig youself out of this hole (maybe you won't even realise the hole your in?) tell you what, snip it and ignore it so I can reinstate it in my reply and really go to town on you. Go on you know you want to. We all know you have zero control of this debate now, so why fight it.

And we all know that refusing to argue the point is a sign that you have no argument. Especially when you also refuse to read the post in which this issue was addressed.

So their only course is to sit bck and let their child kill themself. Of course, how could i be so blind as to not realise this. Thank you for your amazing common sense here. Infact, you know what, Samaritans and Sucidewatch should both just make tape and play it over their phone line "Go on take some responsibility in your life and just kill yourself. Its Data_link recommended therapy for the pain of your life."

Please share more of your wisdom withus all knowing one, tell us how failure to act on a known situation absolves you from responsibility for the situations consequences. You've already said that if they know they should simply let th kid continue down the spiral. How does that absolve them of responsisbilty exactly?

Idiot. Do you even understand the concept of futility? No, obviously not.

Oh even better, you do realise it's possible for people to visit a psychaitrist and not be committed don't you? Infact to be committed you need to be examined by a psychiatrist but acording to you that can't happen because the parents (the childs legal guardians) cannot make an appointment for the child... hang on, yes they can. If push comes to shove they take him to the family doctor and the doctor refers them to the hospital and the hospital orders a psych exam and that's that.

And you don't understand that it won't accomplish much if the child refuses treatment.

I see that Mikes destroying you in his section so I'll just stick to my fun here. BTW what happened to your One Degree of Removal arguement I don't see it anywhere?

I don't need it to win, and since you obviously have a nice strawman lined up and ready to go, I see no reason to deploy it. After all, I do NOT enjoy bashing my head on a wall of ignorance, especially when that wall is spewing flames.

[Rob Wilson]

Mr. Wong, I do wish that you would stop attributing to me a strawman that YOU created. As for the rest of your posts, I do not see fit to dignify them with a response.

You see the tragic thing here, is tht you think you actually have some say in this. You don't! Lets clear that up now, in thi thread, you-belong-to-me. If you refuse to post or go off in a huff, I'll put in a reply that will show you up (I've already won the points of the debate, now I'm going to simply use you for fun). In the rest of the web board, as far as I'm concerned this thread doesn't exist, how i treat you here is not how I'll treat you there. But (and there's always a but) there is a way out for you where you actually retain your dignity - rather than falsely believing you do.

I even PMed you on how to do it. That's all you had to do. A clen slate nd discussion. Once more this is you big chance to get out of this and actually learn something. Humiliation or education, your choice.

[data_link]

Mr. Wilson, the sad thing is that you think that your ability to flame me translates to a logical argument. You know, you could try rationally debating for once, or better yet just concede, since you obviously don't have a point.

[data_link]

I also appreciate your not bothering to deny that you are attacking me with blatant strawmen. Your sense of honesty may just save you from looking like a complete idiot. I doubt it though.

[Rob Wilson]

I also appreciate your not bothering to deny that you are attacking me with blatant strawmen. Your sense of honesty may just save you from looking like a complete idiot. I doubt it though.

now where did I say that, read your inbox before replying though, thi could be your golden opportunity. Will it really be that easy for you? Lets see shall we.

[Rob Wilson]

Mr. Wilson, the sad thing is that you think that your ability to flame me translates to a logical argument. You know, you could try rationally debating for once, or better yet just concede, since you obviously don't have a point.

Take a lok at the Flames, they all have point contained within them, some are merely continuations of other points, but you need to read the whole thing without the veneer of arrogance. You are making so many classic mistakes in just this one post i'm amazed you hven't been flamed to a crisp before now. Tell me, have you ever heard of the Timsult? Because your post is a two-stage version (though amateurish). We'll see what happens in an hour shall we.

[data_link]

I've given you every chance. If you think by snipping your own quotes and changing my name has any relevance then by all means post away. I had hoped for discussion rather than having to keep on playing with you. But you keep making your choice. That failure to realise when you beaten is going to hurt you in a serious debate. The only reason i continue to post is that I'm bored and by keping it in a single thread the damage to you is limited drastically, as it's staus quo in the rest of the Board.

I'm intrigued by you continuation of the straw analogy on a private discussion though. Do you really beleive I'm using strawmen? Be honest here. I'll tell you now, I've not used a single one. Infact i chllenge you to find correct evidence of even one. Seriously, go on th board while I drink my tea and surf. I won't post my reply to you in the thread for another hour. I'll give you that long to post a Strawman by me to you in this thread, with the evidence. Take your time get it right, and I'll show you where you've gone wrong.

Don't for a minute think this is personal, I want you to learn something from this (hopefully two things) but we'll see. BTW, can you tell me why you were beaten the second you hit send on your first post. Remember this is private, I'm not out to score points or anything. The Forum is we're debating in i dedicated to thought and learning. So think bout something i said in my third post that was a throughaway remark but actully tells you why you had lost. That bit you can do in here, the strawman thing can go in the current thread if you want or here. See you in 60 minutes.

You want strawmen? I'll show you strawmen. Your whole string of posts is based on one gaint strawman.

Post 1: thread begins to discuss the strawman perpetuated by the media that various things are responsible for children becoming mass murderers. The alternative theory is that it is parents responsible for the same.
Post 10: Sea Skimmer points out that sometimes it is the fault of the children when they become mass murderers. He is promptly ignored.
Post 16: Strawman created: kids are compared to dogs, implying that they are incapable of responsibility for their own actions.
Post 20: Strawman perpetuated: Robert Wilson expounds on this comparison, suggesting that kids should not be treated as human beings.
Post 22: Robert Wilson ridicules all parents who cannot control their kids as being totally incompetent, creating a new strawman that parets ought to be able to control all actions of their kids, and that one would have to be a complete moron not to.
Post 23: I attack both strawmen, emphasizing the point about kids, not parents, being the ones responsible for their ACTIONS.
Post 24: RW denies making both strawmen, and insults me. Further, he continues the strawmen in this post, even while saying "that's not what I'm saying."
Post 25: I point out RW's dishonesty and expound on my arguments
Post 28: RW accuses ME of creating the same strawmen I'm trying to dispel, which is itself a strawman. He also refuses to debate rationally, instead preferring to ridicule me.
Post 29: DW joins the fray.
Post 30: I try (without success) to explain the source of the confusion (naievely assuming that this may be a mistake on my part).I also attack, using the shortest replies possible (because I do NOT enjoy smashing my head against this kind of abuse), RW's post. I also attempt to explain my position, and engage DW.
Post 31: DW's relpy.
Post 32: My reply to DW.
Post 33-35: DW makes it apparent that he believes your third strawman, and continues to debate based on that faulty assumption.
Post 36: My reply to DW's first post, the other two were merely insulting remarks based on the third strawman.
Post 37: I inform DW that he is perpetuating a strawman.
Post 38: RW abandons all logic and reason and begins flaming in earnest.
Post 39: RW taunts me.
Post 40: I attempt to ignore the flames, and reply rationally to RW's post, in hopes that he may be interested in rational debate.
Post 41: RW announces that he thinks that he has already won, signifying his formal refusal to debate logically.
Post 42: I tell RW to put up or shut up.
Post 43: I tell RW that I appreciate him not bothering to deny my correct accusations.
Post 44: RW denies my accusations.
Post 45: RW tries to pretend he was debating rationally.

That is three strawmen:
1. That kids are like dogs: incapable of being responsible for their own actions, and not worthy of respect as human beings.
2. That parents are in full control of their kids actions
3. That I am responsible for the other two strawmen.

Now, it's possible that this was based on a misunderstanding, however, it seems more like you were looking for an excuse to flame me. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: if you will abandon this idiotic endeavor now, I won't report your trolling to the ATJ.

[Rob Wilson]

Mr wilson, I do wish that you would cease making strawmen of my position as well. Mike is already proving himself to be an idiot and an asshole here, you don't need to do it to yourself as well.

But of course he is, after all how can he know any better than you.

And the hilarious retitling of the quotes, well what can i say, it' so fun I'll play along. but because I'm an adult and don't need to make truely infant level stupidity, I'll restrict the renaming to me, and leave your name all minty fresh and factory sealed.

BTW this is the first time you accuse me of Strawman attack - yet you cite no evidence. The first but sadly not the last. You see I pointed out where and how you strawmaned my arguments and then clarified my position. That's how it's done in adult debate. Simply yelling Strawman is not enough, you need to prove it - show how it's a strawman of your stated arguement. So that's 1

The parents have no way of ever acertaining it for themselves through observation? There is no way a parent could ever see through the brilliant disguises of Double0Teen? Damn it you've got me kid, you and you'r foolproof rebuttals loaded with evidence and not at all simple statements with no shred of corroboration. You know, it would probably help these parents if somehow and in someway they could ever have experienced being a teenager before. If they could know how it felt, if they could have tried all the different ways to hide stuff and try to keep secrets. Unfortunately, of course, parnts are spawned from clone tubes fully formed at 20 years of age and have no idea what being teenager is like. They don't spend years watching their children grow and catching all the tells the child unconsciously accumulates over the years. They of course never let the children get away with some secrets and lies becuse in the long run they weren't that important (porn mags for example) which would have reinforced the chlds belief that he can fool them at anytime. If only they had had all this and more much more that growing up and raising children over the span of years could have instilled in them.

You know, it astounds me that people can fail to realize the basic concept that parents cannot track their teens 24/7, nor can they monitor all of their conversations, nor can they track all of their movements. Sorry, but it doesn't take 00teen to fool a parent, just keeping a facade of normality and NOT being stupid enough to leave evidence in your room.

So you understood nothing that was said above? Well it certainly appear so, as you fail to addres anything it says. Rather you repaet your originl position as if th points raised don't matter, so sparky, what we're going to do is point out a debate basic. When points are raised as a rebuttal, you have to deal with them. you cannot ignore them or you forfeit that part of the debate. I would say Concession accepted, but I'm not finished with you yet. Lets see if you can really raise the bar in suicidal stupidity.

Another point in debate basics, when replying you quote all relevant parts. If I reply to you, you notice that th part you were dealing with was also left in. This is called context by us adults. Give it a try some time, you know you want to, afterall, aren't you a big grown boy now?

So in your world view getting a lighter type of sentence actually absolves the sentenced person from their responsibilities? Wow! I was expecting you to drop a clanger in this section but fucking hell you really went for it here didn't you. We can add lack of understanding of action and consequence to your list and as an extra torpedo you go out of you way to show that you hav no understanding of how responsibility is apportioned. Fuck sake, you really do want to humiliate yourself don't you? This is the worst case of Masochism ever! Your actually going out of your way to destroy you own debate credibility. The only thing mising from this is if you reinforce your inability to understand the underlying points at hand.

This just goes to show that you cannot understand that a proper and just punishment for any crime is THE SAME FUCKING PUNISHMENT THEY WOULD RECIEVE IF OUR GODDAMNED JUSTICE SYSTEM HAD THE BALLS TO TRY THEM IN AN ADULT COURT! By recieving a lighter sentence, they are being relieved of the full responsibility of their actions, getting a damn slap on the wrist when they should be in the electric chair (an exaggeration for effect, in case you are too stupid to realize it, which you are). Your ignorance is so great, that I can see why you hide behind your shield of ad hominems and sarcasm. It's because you are too stupid to debate your point rationally.

So they are relieved of some of their responsibility eh. My but that's completely different to your original point that it absolves them of responsibility. Hey why don't we demonstrate the importance of context here? Lets replace the relevant part of your statement i was replying to
Further, part of the problem with our culture is that it tends to absolve children of their responsibility (why do you think that juvenile courts give out lighter sentences than adult courts?

Now by cutting that you seem to think it's alright to completely change your arguement, now you claim rather than absolving them of responsibility you only meant 'not Full responsibility'. Go on, go find a dictionary and then tell us all what Absolve means, then feel free to torture logic and sense to make it fit in with you new stance. We could do with some more laughs, after all you destroyed all you own points in a singl paragrph last time, so this should be interesting.

By the way, did you see what i did there. i went out of my way to demonstrate that I always answer a point raised, I just garnish it with flames. it's more fun that way. Also it tells me quickly the stupidity/maturity level of my opponent. If they answer the point nd ignore th flme i take them seriously, if however they are too stupid to see the points or are to stupid to answer the points and hid behind the paper thin "he's flming me defence". You are hitting the expected mark like a marksman.

I'll tell you what I'll highlight all the points I made in my origina post from this point on and then you can see them and answer thm clearly in a new reply to it (after you've replied to this on). Maybe th second time round you'll get something right. Do you think you can do that?

Also you accuse me of ad hominems, but as i answer your points, then make fun of what the points reveal I'm infact attacking the Argument not the man. The exact opposite of ad hominem.

You also accuse me of Sarcasm. I'm wounded (that was sarcasm - as was that) What I'm doing is holding you up to ridicule. please get the technical term correct next time.

Most obliging of you, so in a juvenile court the defendant never suffers any consequences for thier actions and never has responsibilities reinforced by sentencing? Are you even readig what you type? You now have zero credibilty in ANY of the points raised in this debate as you've made each mistake repeatedly and publicly. I don't even have to make a case any more, your doing it all for me. Go the all-knowing teenager, with this level of intelligence you must really have every adult fooled.

You know, if you actually had a point, you wouldn't need to make strawmen.

But there's the point right there, and it took up nearly the whole quote? Damn but you're really not helping yourself here. So now you can safely answer the point (don't forget to quote the Context from your previous reply) oh and 2

remember the above quote, it's when i stopped entertaining the notion you had a ounce of working neurons in your skull. Doubtless everyone else reading this reached the same conclusion

Oh, please, go on with your Ad Hominem. It makes you look so intelligent. Oh, and since you didnt even attempt to argue the point, concession accepted.

The point is in fact this entire debate, or had you forgotten all the way back to yesterday? What was the Quote I wanted you to remember?
As for my opinion: children are 100% responsible for their actions, parents are 0%

Do you know why that is the only solitary ridicule - because the rest of the debate is the point. If you can't grasp that, then you are truly in trouble, and that' so why it's not an Ad hominem

So you will only hold them partly responsible if they FAIL to provide an envirnment to make their kids stupid/depressed/amoral.... Holy shit can I please sign up for your set of values please? FUCKTARD. So you are absolving of guilt completely anyone that fucks up their childs lives! This is fucking comedy gold, I was pushing the buttons but I never once dreamed you'd be this easy to manipulate. Your mot supposed to contradict sense this much for another 2-3 posts. Damn but you are the easiest debate puppet ever. I have to experiment further with this, I wonder what else i can get you to commit an opinion to (I'm open to suggestions here readers, anything at all I'll get mr know-it-all here to stand right behind it with conviction).

Wonderful. Creating strawmen out of an obvious typo. Tell me, were you BORN this stupid, or was this a recent development?

You were this close to an actual strawman there. This close, but unfortunately the rest of your arguments that followed backed up that veiwpoint 100%. Was the rest of the Paragraph a typo too? Go on, claim you had a siezure and your hands randomly hit keys. It'll give you a chance to play the pity card (the only idiot card you haven't used so far).

oh and that's 3

You know something, I've been a humanist since I was 14 (even if i didn't know what it was called at the time), but your performance here is making me believe in a God. Your a gift. How do you know the Parents didn't contribute to the childs state? Please explain in detail how your going to dig youself out of this hole (maybe you won't even realise the hole your in?) tell you what, snip it and ignore it so I can reinstate it in my reply and really go to town on you. Go on you know you want to. We all know you have zero control of this debate now, so why fight it.

And we all know that refusing to argue the point is a sign that you have no argument. Especially when you also refuse to read the post in which this issue was addressed.

But I do argue the point, look down here, in the next quote box, oh and i raised a valid point which you failed to answer, but then we all know what refusing to argue the point means that you have no arguement. Gosh, that was clever of you, to use an description of your dodge, as your dodge. 10/10 for creativity, but -1000 for intelligence. As you simply set yourself up for the rebound. Oh dear.

So their only course is to sit bck and let their child kill themself. Of course, how could i be so blind as to not realise this. Thank you for your amazing common sense here. Infact, you know what, Samaritans and Sucidewatch should both just make tape and play it over their phone line "Go on take some responsibility in your life and just kill yourself. Its Data_link recommended therapy for the pain of your life."

Please share more of your wisdom withus all knowing one, tell us how failure to act on a known situation absolves you from responsibility for the situations consequences. You've already said that if they know they should simply let th kid continue down the spiral. How does that absolve them of responsisbilty exactly?

Idiot. Do you even understand the concept of futility? No, obviously not.

Of course i do, I'm debating you, who lost this debate with his first post and then went so far as to torpedo his own arguments in a methodical fashion, yet refuses to admit it. So now you will tell us all why it is futile, and as you hav not counterd any of my rebutals to your previous post you need to find new points. Off you go.

Oh even better, you do realise it's possible for people to visit a psychaitrist and not be committed don't you? Infact to be committed you need to be examined by a psychiatrist but acording to you that can't happen because the parents (the childs legal guardians) cannot make an appointment for the child... hang on, yes they can. If push comes to shove they take him to the family doctor and the doctor refers them to the hospital and the hospital orders a psych exam and that's that.

And you don't understand that it won't accomplish much if the child refuses treatment.

And yet the parents by getting them to the psychiatrists had gotten them in touch with the relevant authorities. Which is what I sadi was ll they have to do. And if the child is clearly suicidal they can be committed and have no choice but to follow treatment. So you see a smooth win there on that point. BTW that was the only point you answered properly. and look now ridicule. Now why couldn't you have dome the rest like that in this reply?

I see that Mikes destroying you in his section so I'll just stick to my fun here. BTW what happened to your One Degree of Removal arguement I don't see it anywhere?

I don't need it to win, and since you obviously have a nice strawman lined up and ready to go, I see no reason to deploy it. After all, I do NOT enjoy bashing my head on a wall of ignorance, especially when that wall is spewing flames.

So you finish with a wimp out and a last accusation of a Strawman, but this time, one that you admit I haven't even committed. 4. On top of that you, in one sentence, you throw away the central lynchpin of your original defence and reason for posting in the first place as by reusing to defend it you have no faith in your ODR and thus the last part of you defence goes south. You're getting good at killing your own debates. Keep this up and you too can be called Darkstar.

[Rob Wilson]

You want strawmen? I'll show you strawmen. Your whole string of posts is based on one gaint strawman.

You still don't get it do you. you have to provide the proof that it was a strawman. How is it a Strawman? What part of it is false and mis-representative of the truth. What proof do you have that your alternative is the truth; in the case of a strawman of your own arguement you show your original arguement and where it was distorted. In the case of your first one listed you you actually create strawman yourself.

"Why not do a report on just plain shitty parenting ? We all know they're out there. We all know they're probably responsible for the most fuckups."

Parenting is actually presented as AN alterntive. Not the only one, not the all or nothing, one or the other false dillema you claim here.

Post 1: thread begins to discuss the strawman perpetuated by the media that various things are responsible for children becoming mass murderers. The alternative theory is that it is parents responsible for the same.

By failing here you show that your own reasoning at the start of you post here was flawed and so invalidate the whole lot. And by misreprenting the actual arguement and context you create your own strawman.

On top of that I asked you to "Infact i chllenge you to find correct evidence of even one. Seriously, go on th board while I drink my tea and surf. I won't post my reply to you in the thread for another hour. I'll give you that long to post a Strawman by me to you in this thread, with the evidence. Take your time get it right, and I'll show you where you've gone wrong."

and you completely forget the whole evidence stipulation. Do you even know what a strawman is? For instance this :

Post 10: Sea Skimmer points out that sometimes it is the fault of the children when they become mass murderers. He is promptly ignored.

Is not a strawman nor supported evidence of same. It's you jerrymandering for your own gratification.

Post 16: Strawman created: kids are compared to dogs, implying that they are incapable of responsibility for their own actions.

Is not a strawman, it's an analogy. please learn basic english.
"Kids are like dogs." is an analogy.
However your posting it as such IS a strawman as it's misrepresentation of the actual arguement. Do you realise how incredibly stupid it makes you look to start a list of alledged strawman attacks with a Strawman statement then follow it up with a list tht is your own personal Strawman attacks on each point.

[Post 20: Strawman perpetuated: Robert Wilson expounds on this comparison, suggesting that kids should not be treated as human beings.

Yet another strawman from you, this is a continuation of the misrepresentation of the previous analogy.


Now go back and do it again. Get it right an know what the fuck your talking about this time.

Now, it's possible that this was based on a misunderstanding, however, it seems more like you were looking for an excuse to flame me. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: if you will abandon this idiotic endeavor now, I won't report your trolling to the ATJ.

You won't report me? Tell me Data_link, what would you call posting a Private message on a public forum? A Private Message sent in a system called Private Message.Despite repeated references to the fact it was a private discussion. How about your own trolling? Any look through this thread would have you fucked in five seconds for Logical fallacies, Strawmen, misuse of Concession accepted and refusal to answer points raised.

Your just making yourself look even more stupid and pathetic than ever with that lame threat. You want to call my bluff here boy? Come on then. Do it. Lets see what happens. BTW Wee MAd Ando and mst of those who were here from th first in this forum kno how I treat trolls, it's remarkbly similar to how i treated you, except I was keeping it civil and restricting it to only this thread. you want the gloves to come off? Ask any of the MODs to look at this thread and if they find a problem with how I posted I'll answer to it, but you have to do the same. Got the balls boy?

I suggest you don't reply until Boxing Day, get to that christmas tree, get with you friends and family. Enjoy you Christmas and THINK.

[data_link]

Okay, fucktard.

First of all, I see that you didn't bother to read my last post before replying, even though I point out EXACTLY where you have made your strawmen, how you developed then, and your not-so-brilliant tactic of then trying to make it look like I'm the one who made them.

So you understood nothing that was said above? Well it certainly appear so, as you fail to addres anything it says. Rather you repaet your originl position as if th points raised don't matter, so sparky, what we're going to do is point out a debate basic. When points are raised as a rebuttal, you have to deal with them. you cannot ignore them or you forfeit that part of the debate. I would say Concession accepted, but I'm not finished with you yet. Lets see if you can really raise the bar in suicidal stupidity.

I'm sorry, but you have to present a POINT before I can give you a rebuttal: all I heard was an appeal to ridicule.

Another point in debate basics, when replying you quote all relevant parts. If I reply to you, you notice that th part you were dealing with was also left in. This is called context by us adults. Give it a try some time, you know you want to, afterall, aren't you a big grown boy now

Appeal to ridicule is not a context, it is a logical fallacy. Why don't you try debating now?

So they are relieved of some of their responsibility eh. My but that's completely different to your original point that it absolves them of responsibility. Hey why don't we demonstrate the importance of context here? Lets replace the relevant part of your statement i was replying to
Further, part of the problem with our culture is that it tends to absolve children of their responsibility (why do you think that juvenile courts give out lighter sentences than adult courts?

Yes. They are relieved of their obligation to serve an amount of time proportional to the magnitude of the crime. Which was my point from the beginning. What reason would our justice system have to limit time served except the notion that kids are not fully responsible for their actions?

Now by cutting that you seem to think it's alright to completely change your arguement, now you claim rather than absolving them of responsibility you only meant 'not Full responsibility'. Go on, go find a dictionary and then tell us all what Absolve means, then feel free to torture logic and sense to make it fit in with you new stance. We could do with some more laughs, after all you destroyed all you own points in a singl paragrph last time, so this should be interesting.

absolve (tr. v.)
1. To pronounce clear of guilt or blame. (a.k.a. what you do by comparing children to PETS)
2. To relieve of a requirement or obligation. (specifically, a substantial amount of jail time)

Now, you were saying?

By the way, did you see what i did there. i went out of my way to demonstrate that I always answer a point raised, I just garnish it with flames. it's more fun that way. Also it tells me quickly the stupidity/maturity level of my opponent. If they answer the point nd ignore th flme i take them seriously, if however they are too stupid to see the points or are to stupid to answer the points and hid behind the paper thin "he's flming me defence". You are hitting the expected mark like a marksman.

Sorry, but when your post consists of one logical fallacy after another, couched in a level of flames higher than what PatKelly recieved, any hope you have of being taken seriously vanishes into thin air. Now, if you had actually included some CONTENT in your posts, I would have been happy to respond.

I'll tell you what I'll highlight all the points I made in my origina post from this point on and then you can see them and answer thm clearly in a new reply to it (after you've replied to this on). Maybe th second time round you'll get something right. Do you think you can do that?

What points? Oh, you mean your strawmen and style over substance fallacies?

Also you accuse me of ad hominems, but as i answer your points, then make fun of what the points reveal I'm infact attacking the Argument not the man. The exact opposite of ad hominem.

You also accuse me of Sarcasm. I'm wounded (that was sarcasm - as was that) What I'm doing is holding you up to ridicule. please get the technical term correct next time.

<sarcasm>But I don't have any arguments, so how can you possibly be attacking them?</sarcasm>

Now, I believe that you were trying to debate me DW style, by serving up your arguments with a healthy dose of flames, but unfortuantely, you forgot to include the arguments.

Most obliging of you, so in a juvenile court the defendant never suffers any consequences for thier actions and never has responsibilities reinforced by sentencing? Are you even readig what you type? You now have zero credibilty in ANY of the points raised in this debate as you've made each mistake repeatedly and publicly. I don't even have to make a case any more, your doing it all for me.

Asked and answered. It was the first POINT I adressed in this post.

The point is in fact this entire debate, or had you forgotten all the way back to yesterday? What was the Quote I wanted you to remember?
As for my opinion: children are 100% responsible for their actions, parents are 0%

Do you know why that is the only solitary ridicule - because the rest of the debate is the point. If you can't grasp that, then you are truly in trouble, and that' so why it's not an Ad hominem

Except that, without first proving the argument wrong, you try to use it to discredit me. Sorry, but this is a bona fide Ad Hom.

So you will only hold them partly responsible if they FAIL to provide an envirnment to make their kids stupid/depressed/amoral.... Holy shit can I please sign up for your set of values please? FUCKTARD. So you are absolving of guilt completely anyone that fucks up their childs lives! This is fucking comedy gold, I was pushing the buttons but I never once dreamed you'd be this easy to manipulate. Your mot supposed to contradict sense this much for another 2-3 posts. Damn but you are the easiest debate puppet ever. I have to experiment further with this, I wonder what else i can get you to commit an opinion to (I'm open to suggestions here readers, anything at all I'll get mr know-it-all here to stand right behind it with conviction)

You were this close to an actual strawman there. This close, but unfortunately the rest of your arguments that followed backed up that veiwpoint 100%. Was the rest of the Paragraph a typo too? Go on, claim you had a siezure and your hands randomly hit keys. It'll give you a chance to play the pity card (the only idiot card you haven't used so far).

Yes, I forgot about that one. That's FOUR strawmen now.

You know something, I've been a humanist since I was 14 (even if i didn't know what it was called at the time), but your performance here is making me believe in a God. Your a gift. How do you know the Parents didn't contribute to the childs state? Please explain in detail how your going to dig youself out of this hole (maybe you won't even realise the hole your in?) tell you what, snip it and ignore it so I can reinstate it in my reply and really go to town on you. Go on you know you want to. We all know you have zero control of this debate now, so why fight it.

Pot calling the kettle black. Now quit making strawmen and actually read my posts. For your benefit, I'll type slower. N-o-t e-v-e-r-y b-a-d c-h-i-l-d i-s a r-e-s-u-l-t o-f a b-a-d p-a-r-e-n-t.

Do you get it? My point is, and has been all along, that a bad child does not on its own prove bad parenting. You need additional evidence. Nowhere do I say that parents have NO influence on their kids. That's strawman number five.

So their only course is to sit bck and let their child kill themself. Of course, how could i be so blind as to not realise this. Thank you for your amazing common sense here. Infact, you know what, Samaritans and Sucidewatch should both just make tape and play it over their phone line "Go on take some responsibility in your life and just kill yourself. Its Data_link recommended therapy for the pain of your life."

Please share more of your wisdom withus all knowing one, tell us how failure to act on a known situation absolves you from responsibility for the situations consequences. You've already said that if they know they should simply let th kid continue down the spiral. How does that absolve them of responsisbilty exactly?

First of all, they are NOT responsible for their child's ACTIONS. As for their child's development, if they are either A. Unaware of the existence of a problem, and NOT displaying exceptional ignorance, or B. Attempting to take action to solve the problem, and failing anyway, then they are not responsible for him being screwed up. My point was that parents might be competent, try, and fail to solve a problem before it results in something really bad happening. I never said they shouldn't try. That's strawman number six.

Oh even better, you do realise it's possible for people to visit a psychaitrist and not be committed don't you? Infact to be committed you need to be examined by a psychiatrist but acording to you that can't happen because the parents (the childs legal guardians) cannot make an appointment for the child... hang on, yes they can. If push comes to shove they take him to the family doctor and the doctor refers them to the hospital and the hospital orders a psych exam and that's that.

And you don't understand that it won't accomplish much if the child refuses treatment.

And yet the parents by getting them to the psychiatrists had gotten them in touch with the relevant authorities. Which is what I sadi was ll they have to do. And if the child is clearly suicidal they can be committed and have no choice but to follow treatment. So you see a smooth win there on that point. BTW that was the only point you answered properly. and look now ridicule. Now why couldn't you have dome the rest like that in this reply?

That may be because that was the only argument that had any substance to it. Anyway, I concede that may work. It may not, however, which means my point that sometimes parents can do everything in their power that is reasonable to do, and still fail to prevent something bad from happening, stands.

So you finish with a wimp out and a last accusation of a Strawman, but this time, one that you admit I haven't even committed. 4. On top of that you, in one sentence, you throw away the central lynchpin of your original defence and reason for posting in the first place as by reusing to defend it you have no faith in your ODR and thus the last part of you defence goes south. You're getting good at killing your own debates. Keep this up and you too can be called Darkstar

Considering that your argument was based on three main strawmen, and I was able to identify three more in this post, it is not unreasonable to assume that you had a strawman of that as well. Especially since it was designed to attack your second strawman, which is more ambiguous than the first.

Note that if you don't understand what I mean when I say your first three strawmen, please read my previous post.