When morons breed...

[DanishDynamite]

You really are dense, aren't you?

Uhhh....I have to go with a "no" here.

Let's use a grown-up as comparison (can't quickly find any pics of skeletal kids).

Tell me how healthy this man looks: http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/starvation.jpg

If you say, "Oh, he's just going down in weight, it's perfectly natural!", then I will know you need help. That, or Danish common sense is non-existant.

Try to get serious. Thanks.

 

[Architect]

Do you have any evidence that the parents were illiterate?

Likewise have you taken into account whether it would be reasonable for first time parents to at the very least seek advice regarding the care of newborn infants?

 

[WildCat]

Are such cases equivalent?

No. 99+% of the time, drunk drivers won't kill anyone. But feeding a newborn only apple juice and soy milk will kill it 100% of the time.

The only thing in common is lack of malice.

 

[Lonewulf]

Uhhh....I have to go with a "no" here.

Of course you would. Morons never admit they're morons. This makes you no different than Dustin or anybody in the Conspiracy Theory threads, or any Creationist.

Try to get serious. Thanks.

I am serious. I'm 100% serious. Nice to see you can't actually respond with anything intelligable, though -- but then, you think that starvation to near-death is just a natural phase of "gaining and losing weight", so I can see what kind of brain you have nestled in that hollow space you call your skull.

If I saw a person that was as thin as the picture I posted, I would think that that person needs help fast, or he would die.

The same with a baby. The parents did not give a starving child the help that it needed. And if you think that this is just a "natural" phase of gaining or losing weight, then I have to say I hope you get castrated before you have kids.

And if you have kids, I'll discover religion so I can pray for their well-being at your hands.

 

[DanishDynamite]

No. 99+% of the time, drunk drivers won't kill anyone. But feeding a newborn only apple juice and soy milk will kill it 100% of the time.

The only thing in common is lack of malice.

There you go.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Do you have any evidence that the parents were illiterate?

That was my understanding from the OP.

Likewise have you taken into account whether it would be reasonable for first time parents to at the very least seek advice regarding the care of newborn infants?

Yes. And no, it wouldn't be required.

 

[Architect]

That was my understanding from the OP.

I see. Can you point me to that bit in the OP, please?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Of course you would. Morons never admit they're morons. This makes you no different than Dustin or anybody in the Conspiracy Theory threads, or any Creationist.

Is it illegal to be, in your elitists view, a moron?

I am serious. I'm 100% serious. Nice to see you can't actually respond with anything intelligable, though -- but then, you think that starvation to near-death is just a natural phase of "gaining and losing weight", so I can see what kind of brain you have nestled in that hollow space you call your skull.

If I saw a person that was as thin as the picture I posted, I would think that that person needs help fast, or he would die.

The same with a baby. The parents did not give a starving child the help that it needed. And if you think that this is just a "natural" phase of gaining or losing weight, then I have to say I hope you get castrated before you have kids.

And if you have kids, I'll discover religion so I can pray for their well-being at your hands.

My dear Know-it-all, is it a crime to not be observant enough? Regarding anything at all?

 

[Architect]

Is it illegal to be, in your elitists view, a moron?

My dear Know-it-all, is it a crime to not be observant enough? Regarding anything at all?

This isn't about whether someone is educationally disadvantaged or not observant. This is about recklessness, which you have already indicated that you agree does make people culpable.

 

[Lonewulf]

Is it illegal to be, in your elitists view, a moron?

It is a crime to commit manslaughter, yes.

"Elitist"... coming from the same person that insulted someone else on this thread for being a lawyer? And you're not elitist? Hah.

My dear Know-it-all...

Coming from you, that's rich.

...is it a crime to not be observant enough? Regarding anything at all?

Manslaughter is a crime, yes.

Look it up before embarrasing yourself further.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I see. Can you point me to that bit in the OP, please?

Nope. Sorry about that. Somehow this idea that they were illiterate entered my mind.

No matter.

 

[DanishDynamite]

This isn't about whether someone is educationally disadvantaged or not observant. This is about recklessness, which you have already indicated that you agree does make people culpable.

This is about the freedom of people to rear their children without the intrusion of the Man.

 

[DanishDynamite]

It is a crime to commit manslaughter, yes.

"Elitist"... coming from the same person that insulted someone else on this thread for being a lawyer? And you're not elitist? Hah.

In what sense is insulting lawyers elitist?

Yaddah, yaddah.

Thanks for your inane remarks.

 

[DanishDynamite]

This isn't about whether someone is educationally disadvantaged or not observant. This is about recklessness, which you have already indicated that you agree does make people culpable.

Indeed I have. But I left out defining my terms, as I was dealing with a lawyer.

 

[Architect]

So lets just summarise this:

You accept that recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences) does make an individual culpable.

However:

You believe it is not reckless to fail to ensure your child is properly fed, to the extent that the parents believed that Soya Milk is a suitable alternative to breastfeeding or formula millk when there is a specific warning on the product? And you have no evidence to offer us that the parents were unable to understand the warning.

You do not believe that it was reckless to fail to take a small child to the doctor in the face or rapid weight loss, ill-health, and specific advice from friends/colleagues/family. And if we accept that the parents had concerns about hospital cross-infection, you do not consider it reckless that they apparently made no attempts to secure medical assistance by alternative means?

Now let me tell you how this is assessed in the real word. The benchmark is the conduct is that which would be expected of a normal person. The man, or woman, in the street. If we were to put this to 100 people, I am willing to bet that around 99 will concur that the parents were culpably responsible.

The only substantive question here is that of the charge. Assuming that there was no malice, although the American Court clearly did not believe this to be the case. In a number of countries, manslaughter would be more proper, and we would expect as a minimum supplementary charges of child neglect and/or abuse.

However at the end of the day, this child died. It died because its parents failed to look after it within the standards which society recongises as acceptable or reasonable. And that is, indeed, a crime.

 

[andyandy]

This is about the freedom of people to rear their children without the intrusion of the Man.

are you seriously espousing a libertarian argument with regards to parental responsibility? People should not have freedom to raise their children without state intrusion - sexual abuse, physical abuse, mental abuse, parental incapacity are all areas in which the state has an absolute duty to "intrude."

 

[Lonewulf]

In what sense is insulting lawyers elitist?

Well, you certainly insult anyone with a different view than you do. That's elitist.

But you wouldn't comprehend that.

But yes, you're better than all lawyers. And they're all one mass, without individual opinions or IQs. I'm glad to see how you "think" on this issue...

Fool.

Thanks for your inane remarks.

Oh, I shouldn't have to give any, you have plenty to spare!

An entire thread of meaningless responses from our favorite Dane.

I'm just glad you aren't able to vote in American politics. We have enough people messing up our country.

 

[Architect]

Indeed I have. But I left out defining my terms, as I was dealing with a lawyer.

It is comforting to see that your analytical skills are so consistent.

 

[DanishDynamite]

So lets just summarise this:

You accept that recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences) does make an individual culpable.

However:

You believe it is not reckless to fail to ensure your child is properly fed, to the extent that the parents believed that Soya Milk is a suitable alternative to breastfeeding or formula millk when there is a specific warning on the product? And you have no evidence to offer us that the parents were unable to understand the warning.

None is needed.

You do not believe that it was reckless to fail to take a small child to the doctor in the face or rapid weight loss, ill-health, and specific advice from friends/colleagues/family. And if we accept that the parents had concerns about hospital cross-infection, you do not consider it reckless that they apparently made no attempts to secure medical assistance by alternative means?

Correct. It was not reckless to not bring their child to a hospital. Obviously.

Now let me tell you how this is assessed in the real word. The benchmark is the conduct is that which would be expected of a normal person. The man, or woman, in the street. If we were to put this to 100 people, I am willing to bet that around 99 will concur that the parents were culpably responsible.

I'll take that bet. As long as the public gets the whole story....you lose, my friend.

The only substantive question here is that of the charge. Assuming that there was no malice, although the American Court clearly did not believe this to be the case. In a number of countries, manslaughter would be more proper, and we would expect as a minimum supplementary charges of child neglect and/or abuse.

No idea what you just said there, my dear lawyer.

However at the end of the day, this child died. It died because its parents failed to look after it within the standards which society recongises as acceptable or reasonable. And that is, indeed, a crime.

Of course not. They failed to understand that feeding the child "vegan" milk wasn't enough to sustain the health of the child.

They were ignorant in how to care for their child.

This ignorance does not deserve a life sentence in jail, at least not in a civilized society.

 

[DanishDynamite]

are you seriously espousing a libertarian argument with regards to parental responsibility? People should not have freedom to raise their children without state intrusion - sexual abuse, physical abuse, mental abuse, parental incapacity are all areas in which the state has an absolute duty to "intrude."

Yes, people should have the freedom to raise their own children as they see fit.

I don't find that an especially "liberal" view. It is practized in most countries, as far as I know.