Well, that gets into whether or not its appropriate to hold retarded people responsible. There is indeed a threshhold, but it's clearly not met that early.
I was agreeing with you right up to the end where you suggested that those items would make the CHILD responsible. Those were ALL cases of other people bearing some potential responsibility, not the child.
I'd love to understand what you mean. Do you think you are supervising when your children are out doing things on their own, or that you can't supervise them when you are actually watching them? Obviously, at around 12 or so there comes the point where you are simply no longer physically capable of restraining a child, but by then hopefully you've taught them reasonably well. In either case, what you need to do at that point is take responsibility for what they do.
You're off the point. The ability to plan and the ability to plan sensibly are different things. Of course children can plan, they just can plan like an adult.
Flamebait? Thanks mods. I know slashdot is very liberal, and I am myself, but liberal doesn't mean you can't also have a sense of personal responsibility.
And I didn't spot it at first glance, but they have a publications link with the ~1000 publications that have been made citing the neuron software. That's probably a good place to search for a specific topical title.
is a good place to start. Has a lot of info about the high level... at lower levels... it would depend very much on what specific areas you're interested in.
I would like to live in a world where people are responsible for their actions, and everyone carries insurance to cover incidents like this one.
I'd like to understand supervising the child. Because, again, 87 year old ladies do not spring from nowhere. A jogger comes around the corner at high speed, and my child maybe hits them because there isn't time to react. But an 87 year old? Not if I'm supervising.
The kid was almost five. I've seen five year olds do, or attempt to do, some pretty destructive acts of mayhem *on purpose*.
No, you haven't. Not in the sense that you would do something 'on purpose'. They don't have the part of the brain that you would use to make such a decision. That's why we don't hold them accountable for those decisions in criminal courts.
NB: we actually didn't hold kids accountable before we knew they were actually lacking brain parts. We did so because we had already figured out that for whatever reason, kids didn't make the same decisions as adults given the same inputs. In the last 20 or so years, we have now come to understand WHY that is, i.e., the missing brain matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Same conclusion the organ transplant lists came to.
Well, that gets into whether or not its appropriate to hold retarded people responsible. There is indeed a threshhold, but it's clearly not met that early.
I was agreeing with you right up to the end where you suggested that those items would make the CHILD responsible. Those were ALL cases of other people bearing some potential responsibility, not the child.
Yes, the legal system does disagree. Of course, since the science is on my side, it's the legal system that's wrong.
Physical surveys suggest 12 years old at the earliest.
You're not understanding. Try rereading what I wrote. A 5 year old's 'on purpose' is fundamentally not the same as an adult's.
That would be great, assuming she can afford it. We ought to have universal health insurance.
Feel free to go read some actual work being done. I have links to it in other posts.
I'd love to understand what you mean. Do you think you are supervising when your children are out doing things on their own, or that you can't supervise them when you are actually watching them? Obviously, at around 12 or so there comes the point where you are simply no longer physically capable of restraining a child, but by then hopefully you've taught them reasonably well. In either case, what you need to do at that point is take responsibility for what they do.
I don't see any reason for it to be large sums of money. Paying for her actual hospital costs would be plenty by me.
Flamebait? I know no one wants to have personal responsibility on slashdot, but cmon mods.
You're off the point. The ability to plan and the ability to plan sensibly are different things. Of course children can plan, they just can plan like an adult.
Underdeveloped and undervolume. They don't have the brain matter to make the same decision you would. Very simple.
Here are two easy options:
Take them to bike at a location where there isn't anyone to hit.
Be standing between their bike and the old lady when they collide with a person. That way the person collided with is you.
I wasn't claiming this incident was murder, that wasn't the point of my post.
Flamebait? Thanks mods. I know slashdot is very liberal, and I am myself, but liberal doesn't mean you can't also have a sense of personal responsibility.
And I didn't spot it at first glance, but they have a publications link with the ~1000 publications that have been made citing the neuron software. That's probably a good place to search for a specific topical title.
http://neuron.duke.edu/
is a good place to start. Has a lot of info about the high level ... at lower levels ... it would depend very much on what specific areas you're interested in.
I would like to live in a world where people are responsible for their actions, and everyone carries insurance to cover incidents like this one.
I'd like to understand supervising the child. Because, again, 87 year old ladies do not spring from nowhere. A jogger comes around the corner at high speed, and my child maybe hits them because there isn't time to react. But an 87 year old? Not if I'm supervising.
The kid was almost five. I've seen five year olds do, or attempt to do, some pretty destructive acts of mayhem *on purpose*.
No, you haven't. Not in the sense that you would do something 'on purpose'. They don't have the part of the brain that you would use to make such a decision. That's why we don't hold them accountable for those decisions in criminal courts.
NB: we actually didn't hold kids accountable before we knew they were actually lacking brain parts. We did so because we had already figured out that for whatever reason, kids didn't make the same decisions as adults given the same inputs. In the last 20 or so years, we have now come to understand WHY that is, i.e., the missing brain matter.
If all life is equally valuable, then whoever will live the longest (statistically) with a transplant should win.
You understand that half the joke with captain hindsight is that absolutely everything he comments on is obvious in foresight as well, right?
Legally too.
#1 was fully understood, and I didn't claim it was.
#2 You apparently overestimate the physical brain development of 4 year olds.
Which is why you stuck to novice areas and limited speeds until you were in competent control, right?