I've heard of sins of the father but this is ridiculous
Darrien
TOKYO, July 11 (AFP) - Japan's minister in charge of policy toward
juveniles said Friday that the parents of a 12-year-old who admitted killing a
four-year-old boy should be beheaded, according to media reports.
Minister Yoshitada Konoike said at a press conference that the parents of
the boy, who earlier this week admitted to killing the pre-schooler, should be
dragged around town and beheaded, Jiji Press and Kyodo News agencies reported.
"We should decapitate the parents for punishment after dragging them around
the town," Konoike was quoted as saying.
"There are many fathers and mothers who were educated in post-war school,
which has failed to instill the idea that the just are rewarded and the unjust
punished," he said.
"Parents of children involved in crimes should be exposed to the public so
that they can realise that it is very serious if their children have done such
a terrible thing."
Konoike, vice chairman of a committee on promoting positive upbringing for
youths, is in charge of drafting a report due this summer on how the
government can help teachers, parents and police officers raise the nation's
young.
He is also minister in charge of special deregulation zones and disaster
prevention.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said it was "inappropriate" for
one of his ministers to have made such remarks.
"I have not heard directly, but the remarks were inappropriate," Koizumi
told an upper house budget committee.
Konoike refused to retract or apologize for his comments but said he was
speaking metaphorically as a fan of samurai dramas, which frequently include
scenes of lethal retribution meted out by an avenging swordsman.
The naked body of four-year-old Shun Tanemoto, who went missing after a
shopping trip with his family, was found at the bottom of a multi-storey
carpark a week ago in Nagasaki City, some 950 kilometres (590 miles) southwest
of Tokyo.
According to police, the 12-year-old suspect, whose name has been withheld,
has admitted to the brutal murder, in which he is believed to have pushed the
younger boy off the roof of the carpark.
Konoike's remarks were the latest in a series of controversial statements
by prominent Japanese politicians in recent weeks.
Last week Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda insisted he did not condone
rape after being reported as telling a group of reporters: "There are women
who look like they are saying, 'do it to me'."
In late June another senior ruling party lawmaker Seiichi Ota sparked
outrage by observing that "those who gang rape (a woman) are fine as they are
in good spirits," when he commented on the arrest of five university students
for allegedly gang raping a woman.
Former Japanese prime minister Yoshiro Mori also drew fire last week by
suggesting childless women should be denied welfare payments in old age.
John W.
>
> TOKYO, July 11 (AFP) - Japan's minister in charge of policy toward
> juveniles said Friday that the parents of a 12-year-old who admitted killing a
> four-year-old boy should be beheaded, according to media reports.
While I disagree with the severity, I do agree that parents should be
held more accontable than they are. For example, in the US there have
been several notable cases of teens caught stockpiling weapons for use
against their friends, and, of course, many cases of teens actually
using such weapons. I feel that if you're a parent and you have no
idea that your child has a cache of weapons in his/her room, then
you're an idiot and should be held accountable.
John W.
Darrien
>> TOKYO, July 11 (AFP) - Japan's minister in charge of policy toward
>> juveniles said Friday that the parents of a 12-year-old who admitted killing
a
>> four-year-old boy should be beheaded, according to media reports.
>
> While I disagree with the severity, I do agree that parents should be
> held more accontable than they are. For example, in the US there have
> been several notable cases of teens caught stockpiling weapons for use
> against their friends, and, of course, many cases of teens actually
> using such weapons. I feel that if you're a parent and you have no
> idea that your child has a cache of weapons in his/her room, then
> you're an idiot and should be held accountable.
>
You underestimate the ability of teenagers to hide things from their parents.
How many teenagers do you think have "dirty" magazines under their mattress?
It isn't anymore difficult to hide some handguns or ammo. Some of these cases
were in areas where it was legal to own rifles, and the parents *knew* about
this
but didn't stop them.
Why? Because the guns were used for hunting and it was perfectly normal for
a teenager to have a rifle in his closet.
I don't believe that you can hold one person resposible for the actions of
another
except in extreme circumstances. This, not being one of them.
another fool
> "Darrien" <Darrien...@NA.COM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<lISPa.56091$ZC....@news.easynews.com>...
> >
> > TOKYO, July 11 (AFP) - Japan's minister in charge of policy toward
> > juveniles said Friday that the parents of a 12-year-old who admitted killing a
> > four-year-old boy should be beheaded, according to media reports.
You know, that's the smartest thing I've heard out of a politicians
mouth in a long long time... Maybe ever...
Eric Takabayashi
> I don't believe that you can hold one person resposible for the actions of
> another
> except in extreme circumstances. This, not being one of them.
Do you believe this 12 year old boy got this way by himself, or that
it was his peers that got him into sexual assault, kidnap and murder
of young boys? His parents either brought him up wrong, or did not
bring him up right.
This family will probably have to relocate and hide from the rest of
society, like some others I have heard of, even if they have to lose
their jobs or businesses, and this crime will be famous for the rest
of their lives. That could be enough.
John W.
> >> TOKYO, July 11 (AFP) - Japan's minister in charge of policy toward
> >> juveniles said Friday that the parents of a 12-year-old who admitted killing
> a
> >> four-year-old boy should be beheaded, according to media reports.
> >
> > While I disagree with the severity, I do agree that parents should be
> > held more accontable than they are. For example, in the US there have
> > been several notable cases of teens caught stockpiling weapons for use
> > against their friends, and, of course, many cases of teens actually
> > using such weapons. I feel that if you're a parent and you have no
> > idea that your child has a cache of weapons in his/her room, then
> > you're an idiot and should be held accountable.
> >
>
> You underestimate the ability of teenagers to hide things from their parents.
>
> How many teenagers do you think have "dirty" magazines under their mattress?
>
> It isn't anymore difficult to hide some handguns or ammo.
You a gun person? It isn't easy to *get* a gun, regardless of what
some might say. Guns cost money, usually a lot, and most of the
weapons used in the standard high school violence cases are not tiny
25 cal. pistols. So there is very little correlation between sticking
a Hustler between the mattresses and hiding a gun. Besides, if the kid
doesn't view his/her room as some sort of sovereign territory (a
concept I neither agree with nor understand) then they know that at
any time their mom/dad can enter their room and see what's going on.
Of course, I grew up in a tiny house where there was considerable
sharing of the living space, and it was very hard to have such
secrets.
> Some of these cases
> were in areas where it was legal to own rifles, and the parents *knew* about
> this
> but didn't stop them.
>
> Why? Because the guns were used for hunting and it was perfectly normal for
> a teenager to have a rifle in his closet.
>
Are you perchance from a hunting family? I am. I never had a rifle or
other weapon in my closet. I wasn't allowed. If a parent allows a
child to keep a weapon in their room, then for certain that parent
should be held accountable for that child's actions with that weapon
(and though many might agree, I consider teenagers children in many
respects).
> I don't believe that you can hold one person resposible for the actions of
> another
> except in extreme circumstances. This, not being one of them.
Parents are responsible for their kid's actions regardless of prior
knowledge. That's part of being a parent. At some point society forgot
this and that's about the time we started having some serious issues
involving teens.
John W.
Darrien
>>>> TOKYO, July 11 (AFP) - Japan's minister in charge of policy toward
>>>> juveniles said Friday that the parents of a 12-year-old who admitted
killing
>>>> a four-year-old boy should be beheaded, according to media reports.
>>>
>>> While I disagree with the severity, I do agree that parents should be
>>> held more accontable than they are. For example, in the US there have
>>> been several notable cases of teens caught stockpiling weapons for use
>>> against their friends, and, of course, many cases of teens actually
>>> using such weapons. I feel that if you're a parent and you have no
>>> idea that your child has a cache of weapons in his/her room, then
>>> you're an idiot and should be held accountable.
>>>
>>
>> You underestimate the ability of teenagers to hide things from their parents.
>>
>> How many teenagers do you think have "dirty" magazines under their mattress?
>>
> I didn't.
>
I didn't ask if you did.
> I hid mine in an old car in the back field, buried.
>
You hid your magazines in a CAR and BURIED it?
That's seems like overkill.
>> It isn't anymore difficult to hide some handguns or ammo.
>
> You a gun person? It isn't easy to *get* a gun, regardless of what
> some might say. Guns cost money, usually a lot, and most of the
> weapons used in the standard high school violence cases are not tiny
> 25 cal. pistols. So there is very little correlation between sticking
> a Hustler between the mattresses and hiding a gun.
>
Isn't there? If you could, I assume successfuly, hide some Playboys
from your parents, couldn't you extend that to weapons?
> Besides, if the kid doesn't view his/her room as some sort of sovereign
> territory (a concept I neither agree with nor understand) then they
> know that at any time their mom/dad can enter their room and see
> what's going on. Of course, I grew up in a tiny house where there was
> considerable sharing of the living space, and it was very hard to have such
> secrets.
>
Which is why you had to hide them in a car and bury it.
>> Some of these cases
>> were in areas where it was legal to own rifles, and the parents *knew* about
>> this but didn't stop them.
>>
>> Why? Because the guns were used for hunting and it was perfectly normal for
>> a teenager to have a rifle in his closet.
>>
> Are you perchance from a hunting family?
No.
> I am. I never had a rifle or
> other weapon in my closet. I wasn't allowed. If a parent allows a
> child to keep a weapon in their room, then for certain that parent
> should be held accountable for that child's actions with that weapon
No they shouldn't. Anyone over the age of about 6 can tell the difference
between "right" and "wrong". Therefore, unless I see a psychological
evaluation of this boy, I am going to assume that he knew what he did was
"wrong".
> (and though many might agree, I consider teenagers children in many
> respects).
>
So do I.
>> I don't believe that you can hold one person resposible for the actions of
>> another except in extreme circumstances. This, not being one of them.
>
> Parents are responsible for their kid's actions regardless of prior
> knowledge. That's part of being a parent. At some point society forgot
> this and that's about the time we started having some serious issues
> involving teens.
>
So what if a 3 month old lies face down over the mouth of a 2 month old,
should his parents be drawn and quartered?
Darrien
>> another
>> except in extreme circumstances. This, not being one of them.
>
> Do you believe this 12 year old boy got this way by himself, or that
> it was his peers that got him into sexual assault, kidnap and murder
> of young boys? His parents either brought him up wrong, or did not
> bring him up right.
>
Or he was born fucked in the head. Sometimes shit happens.
> This family will probably have to relocate and hide from the rest of
> society, like some others I have heard of, even if they have to lose
> their jobs or businesses, and this crime will be famous for the rest
> of their lives. That could be enough.
It's more than enough.
Ernest Schaal
at eta...@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 7/14/03 5:24 AM:
Obviously, Eric has never been a parent of a pre-teen and has forgotten his
own teenage years.
Scott Reynolds
> Do you believe this 12 year old boy got this way by himself, or that
> it was his peers that got him into sexual assault, kidnap and murder
> of young boys? His parents either brought him up wrong, or did not
> bring him up right.
Wow! This is the first time I've seen you come down so strongly on the
"nurture" side of the nature-nurture debate, Eric. If this is really how
you feel I can't understand why you don't advocate channeling more
government resources to helping at-risk kids and assisting parents with
raising their children, rather than simply making punishments harsher.
It also would seem to conflict with your oft-stated position that abuse,
etc., as a child should not be considered a mitigating factor when
determining the punishment to be meted out for a crime committed as an
adult.
> This family will probably have to relocate and hide from the rest of
> society, like some others I have heard of, even if they have to lose
> their jobs or businesses, and this crime will be famous for the rest
> of their lives. That could be enough.
Enough what?
--
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds s...@gol.com
Rindler Sigurd
> it was his peers that got him into sexual assault, kidnap and murder
> of young boys? His parents either brought him up wrong, or did not
> bring him up right.
Maybe there were no obvious signs until recently...
I saw s feature on TV (some US TV channel) about profiling of mass murderers
and serial killers. Thei brains were scanned and it was determined that
their brain functions were not working as in healthy people. There were many
mote dark areas which block interaction with other areas of the brain.
Violence can be triggered on impuls, and the culprits regret afterward what
they did.
It doesn't directly apply to the boy who apparently planned the whole thing.
Anyway, there must be something wrong in his head methinks...
Sigi
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
John W.
> >>>> TOKYO, July 11 (AFP) - Japan's minister in charge of policy toward
> >>>> juveniles said Friday that the parents of a 12-year-old who admitted
> killing
> >>>> a four-year-old boy should be beheaded, according to media reports.
> >>>
> >>> While I disagree with the severity, I do agree that parents should be
> >>> held more accontable than they are. For example, in the US there have
> >>> been several notable cases of teens caught stockpiling weapons for use
> >>> against their friends, and, of course, many cases of teens actually
> >>> using such weapons. I feel that if you're a parent and you have no
> >>> idea that your child has a cache of weapons in his/her room, then
> >>> you're an idiot and should be held accountable.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You underestimate the ability of teenagers to hide things from their parents.
> >>
> >> How many teenagers do you think have "dirty" magazines under their mattress?
> >>
> > I didn't.
> >
>
> I didn't ask if you did.
>
> > I hid mine in an old car in the back field, buried.
> >
>
> You hid your magazines in a CAR and BURIED it?
> That's seems like overkill.
>
the field; I've always wondered if he came across those magazines.
> >> It isn't anymore difficult to hide some handguns or ammo.
> >
> > You a gun person? It isn't easy to *get* a gun, regardless of what
> > some might say. Guns cost money, usually a lot, and most of the
> > weapons used in the standard high school violence cases are not tiny
> > 25 cal. pistols. So there is very little correlation between sticking
> > a Hustler between the mattresses and hiding a gun.
> >
>
> Isn't there? If you could, I assume successfuly, hide some Playboys
> from your parents, couldn't you extend that to weapons?
>
I could have had I wanted to. But there are a couple of reasons why I
wouldn't have. One, I respected and loved my parents a whole lot, and
there was/is no way that I'm going to intentionally do anything that
might dissappoint them or bring them hardship. Two, I grew up with a
great respect for guns and what they can do; that's one of the
benefits of actually having to kill food for the table rather than for
sport (even though it might actually get eaten).
> > Besides, if the kid doesn't view his/her room as some sort of sovereign
> > territory (a concept I neither agree with nor understand) then they
> > know that at any time their mom/dad can enter their room and see
> > what's going on. Of course, I grew up in a tiny house where there was
> > considerable sharing of the living space, and it was very hard to have such
> > secrets.
> >
>
> Which is why you had to hide them in a car and bury it.
>
Exactly. Now you're getting into my confounding logic.
> >> Some of these cases
> >> were in areas where it was legal to own rifles, and the parents *knew* about
> >> this but didn't stop them.
> >>
> >> Why? Because the guns were used for hunting and it was perfectly normal for
> >> a teenager to have a rifle in his closet.
> >>
> > Are you perchance from a hunting family?
>
> No.
>
> > I am. I never had a rifle or
> > other weapon in my closet. I wasn't allowed. If a parent allows a
> > child to keep a weapon in their room, then for certain that parent
> > should be held accountable for that child's actions with that weapon
>
> No they shouldn't. Anyone over the age of about 6 can tell the difference
> between "right" and "wrong". Therefore, unless I see a psychological
> evaluation of this boy, I am going to assume that he knew what he did was
> "wrong".
>
Who do you think is responsible for teaching right and wrong? And I
certainly doubt that my son at age 6 will be able to tell the
difference between right and wrong; he'll have a general knowledge,
but the process of teaching morals and values doesn't stop in
preschool, and I'll be watching him like a hawk to ensure he
understands.
> > (and though many might agree, I consider teenagers children in many
> > respects).
> >
>
> So do I.
>
> >> I don't believe that you can hold one person resposible for the actions of
> >> another except in extreme circumstances. This, not being one of them.
> >
> > Parents are responsible for their kid's actions regardless of prior
> > knowledge. That's part of being a parent. At some point society forgot
> > this and that's about the time we started having some serious issues
> > involving teens.
> >
>
> So what if a 3 month old lies face down over the mouth of a 2 month old,
> should his parents be drawn and quartered?
Nope. Because a 3 month old would most likely not be able to move over
the mouth of a 2 month old, and without a doubt that child is
incapable of the type of thought process that goes into planning
another human's demise.
John W.
Eric Takabayashi
> On 7/14/2003 5:24 AM, Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> > Do you believe this 12 year old boy got this way by himself, or that
> > it was his peers that got him into sexual assault, kidnap and murder
> > of young boys? His parents either brought him up wrong, or did not
> > bring him up right.
>
> Wow! This is the first time I've seen you come down so strongly on the
> "nurture" side of the nature-nurture debate, Eric.
Then you haven't been reading for years. And I don't believe that
people are "born" so screwed up in the head that they don't know such
a thing is not right.
> If this is really how
> you feel I can't understand why you don't advocate channeling more
> government resources to helping at-risk kids
I do and did.
> and assisting parents with raising their children,
I do and did.
> rather than simply making punishments harsher.
Harsh punishment is for when people make the choices to screw up when
all else fails. People would get so much help that there would be no
excuse for failure. You'd know this if you read more closely instead
of only picking out the punishment parts as "EricWorld". That still
does not mean there is any excuse right now for what happened in this
case, or what the boy is accused of doing at least three times
previously this year.
> It also would seem to conflict with your oft-stated position that abuse,
> etc., as a child should not be considered a mitigating factor when
> determining the punishment to be meted out for a crime committed as an
> adult.
>
> > This family will probably have to relocate and hide from the rest of
> > society, like some others I have heard of, even if they have to lose
> > their jobs or businesses, and this crime will be famous for the rest
> > of their lives. That could be enough.
>
> Enough what?
Punishment for the parents.
Eric Takabayashi
> Obviously, Eric has never been a parent of a pre-teen
Thus far, pre-teens are all I have. And they aren't alleged repeat sex
offenders, kidnappers or murderers, premeditated or otherwise.
> and has forgotten his own teenage years.
I didn't do those things then, either. My mother was too strict, and I
went to church from kindergarten. Trouble I got into was after leaving
home for university and I stopped going to church.
Darrien
> > >> You underestimate the ability of teenagers to hide things from their
parents.
> > >>
> > >> How many teenagers do you think have "dirty" magazines under their
mattress?
> > >>
> > > I didn't.
> > >
> > >> It isn't anymore difficult to hide some handguns or ammo.
> > >
> > > You a gun person? It isn't easy to *get* a gun, regardless of what
> > > some might say. Guns cost money, usually a lot, and most of the
> > > weapons used in the standard high school violence cases are not tiny
> > > 25 cal. pistols. So there is very little correlation between sticking
> > > a Hustler between the mattresses and hiding a gun.
> > >
> >
> > Isn't there? If you could, I assume successfuly, hide some Playboys
> > from your parents, couldn't you extend that to weapons?
>
> I could have had I wanted to.
>
You contradict yourself.
> But there are a couple of reasons why I
> wouldn't have. One, I respected and loved my parents a whole lot, and
> there was/is no way that I'm going to intentionally do anything that
> might dissappoint them or bring them hardship.
So why hide the Big 'Uns?
> Two, I grew up with a
> great respect for guns and what they can do; that's one of the
> benefits of actually having to kill food for the table rather than for
> sport (even though it might actually get eaten).
>
My (ex)father used to be a Cop. I was raised to respect the power a gun
can put in the hands of a human too. But a gun is only a tool, powerful or not.
> > > Besides, if the kid doesn't view his/her room as some sort of sovereign
> > > territory (a concept I neither agree with nor understand) then they
> > > know that at any time their mom/dad can enter their room and see
> > > what's going on. Of course, I grew up in a tiny house where there was
> > > considerable sharing of the living space, and it was very hard to have
such
> > > secrets.
> > >
> >
> > Which is why you had to hide them in a car and bury it.
> >
>
> Exactly. Now you're getting into my confounding logic.
>
Your logic proves only that you think your parents are idiots.
> [...]
> > > I never had a rifle or
> > > other weapon in my closet. I wasn't allowed. If a parent allows a
> > > child to keep a weapon in their room, then for certain that parent
> > > should be held accountable for that child's actions with that weapon
> >
> > No they shouldn't. Anyone over the age of about 6 can tell the difference
> > between "right" and "wrong". Therefore, unless I see a psychological
> > evaluation of this boy, I am going to assume that he knew what he did was
> > "wrong".
> >
> Who do you think is responsible for teaching right and wrong? And I
> certainly doubt that my son at age 6 will be able to tell the
> difference between right and wrong; he'll have a general knowledge,
>
The most general of which, is that you shouldn't kill people.
> but the process of teaching morals and values doesn't stop in
> preschool, and I'll be watching him like a hawk to ensure he
> understands.
>
I hope you don't plan on ransacking his room looking for contraband.
> [...]
> > > Parents are responsible for their kid's actions regardless of prior
> > > knowledge. That's part of being a parent. At some point society forgot
> > > this and that's about the time we started having some serious issues
> > > involving teens.
> > >
> >
> > So what if a 3 month old lies face down over the mouth of a 2 month old,
> > should his parents be drawn and quartered?
>
> Nope.
>
Another contradiction.
> [...]
Darrien
> > > it was his peers that got him into sexual assault, kidnap and murder
> > > of young boys? His parents either brought him up wrong, or did not
> > > bring him up right.
> >
> > Wow! This is the first time I've seen you come down so strongly on the
> > "nurture" side of the nature-nurture debate, Eric.
>
> Then you haven't been reading for years. And I don't believe that
> people are "born" so screwed up in the head that they don't know such
> a thing is not right.
>
Unbelievable. I can't believe you'd discredit so many psychological
professionals
by saying that you can't be born not knowing right from wrong.
> [...]
Eric Takabayashi
I didn't say that. We are talking about the Nagasaki situation of
multiple sexual assault or kidnapping, plus murder this year, perhaps
by a single 12 year old boy. The kidnapping part, anyway, allegedly
premeditated. He also tortured the boy with scissors before killing
him, if I recall.
You or professionals actually think people are born that way? To carry
out premeditated crimes such as kidnapping, or sexual assault and
murder? Multiple times? At age 12? In public in an urban area? Wearing
your school uniform? People are born kidnappers, sex offenders or
murderers? So why aren't you one? Just lucky? Or are you just smarter
than this boy, not to get caught? How are your children? Will they be
kidnapping sex offender murderers, too?
Look above. I said, either that boy's parents raised him wrong, did
not raise him right, or that boy made a bunch of stupid choices. Even
a 12 year old should make the proper choice not to sexually assault,
kidnap or kill fellow boys.
Eric Takabayashi
> > Do you believe this 12 year old boy got this way by himself, or that
> > it was his peers that got him into sexual assault, kidnap and murder
> > of young boys? His parents either brought him up wrong, or did not
> > bring him up right.
>
>
> Maybe there were no obvious signs until recently...
Even if he was "born" that way? Even if this is the same person
responsible for other assaults on young boys in Nagasaki?
> I saw s feature on TV (some US TV channel) about profiling of mass murderers
> and serial killers. Thei brains were scanned and it was determined that
> their brain functions were not working as in healthy people. There were many
> mote dark areas which block interaction with other areas of the brain.
> Violence can be triggered on impuls, and the culprits regret afterward what
> they did.
Do you support mass screening of the public in search of those at
risk?
> It doesn't directly apply to the boy who apparently planned the whole thing.
> Anyway, there must be something wrong in his head methinks...
I have heard the boy expressed regret after questioning by the police.
If he is the one responsible for the other assault cases, or the one
who threw the dog off the roof as an "experiment" prior to the
kidnapping/assault/murder, I do not believe it.
Scott Reynolds
> Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com> wrote in message news:<bet3e1$7bc$1...@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp>...
>>Wow! This is the first time I've seen you come down so strongly on the
>>"nurture" side of the nature-nurture debate, Eric.
>
> Then you haven't been reading for years. And I don't believe that
> people are "born" so screwed up in the head that they don't know such
> a thing is not right.
But you now seem to believe that whether a person grows up to be a
lawbreaker or a law-abiding person depends on how they were brought up.
In that case, how can people be blamed for committing crimes? It's their
parents' fault, right?
> Harsh punishment is for when people make the choices to screw up when
> all else fails. People would get so much help that there would be no
> excuse for failure. You'd know this if you read more closely instead
> of only picking out the punishment parts as "EricWorld". That still
> does not mean there is any excuse right now for what happened in this
> case, or what the boy is accused of doing at least three times
> previously this year.
Why is there no excuse if, according to what you said earlier, he is not
the one responsible for his crimes?
Scott Reynolds
> Look above. I said, either that boy's parents raised him wrong, did
> not raise him right, or that boy made a bunch of stupid choices. Even
> a 12 year old should make the proper choice not to sexually assault,
> kidnap or kill fellow boys.
Even if his parents "raised him wrong"?
Eric Takabayashi
> On 7/15/2003 6:43 PM, Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> > Look above. I said, either that boy's parents raised him wrong, did
> > not raise him right, or that boy made a bunch of stupid choices. Even
> > a 12 year old should make the proper choice not to sexually assault,
> > kidnap or kill fellow boys.
>
> Even if his parents "raised him wrong"?
The issue with Darrien is whether or not people are born so %@#$ed up
that they do such things.
No, they are not BORN to be multiple kidnapper sex offender murderers
who torture victims and allegedly practice on dogs.
Eric Takabayashi
> On 7/15/2003 4:27 AM, Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>
> > Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com> wrote in message news:<bet3e1$7bc$1...@newsflood.tokyo.att.ne.jp>...
>
> >>Wow! This is the first time I've seen you come down so strongly on the
> >>"nurture" side of the nature-nurture debate, Eric.
> >
> > Then you haven't been reading for years. And I don't believe that
> > people are "born" so screwed up in the head that they don't know such
> > a thing is not right.
>
> But you now seem to believe
Now? No, it's the same as always.
> that whether a person grows up to be a
> lawbreaker or a law-abiding person depends on how they were brought up.
> In that case, how can people be blamed for committing crimes? It's their
> parents' fault, right?
It's possible the parents are at fault, as I've always said. But it's
still the person's choice. They are not born to be multiple kidnapper
sex offender murderers. And we don't drag and behead criminals'
parents.
> > Harsh punishment is for when people make the choices to screw up when
> > all else fails. People would get so much help that there would be no
> > excuse for failure. You'd know this if you read more closely instead
> > of only picking out the punishment parts as "EricWorld". That still
> > does not mean there is any excuse right now for what happened in this
> > case, or what the boy is accused of doing at least three times
> > previously this year.
>
> Why is there no excuse if, according to what you said earlier, he is not
> the one responsible for his crimes?
I didn't say the boy was not responsible, nor was he born that way.
Scott Reynolds
> No, they are not BORN to be multiple kidnapper sex offender murderers
> who torture victims and allegedly practice on dogs.
Okay. If you say so.
And they don't turn out bad unless their parents screw up.
But that does not mean they are not responsible if they turn out bad
(even though it's their parents' fault).
I think I've got it straight now.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>Ernest Schaal <esc...@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, Eric has never been a parent of a pre-teen
>
>Thus far, pre-teens are all I have. And they aren't alleged repeat sex
>offenders, kidnappers or murderers, premeditated or otherwise.
They're also not old enough to cross the street by themselves. Is the
youngest one walking yet?
>
>> and has forgotten his own teenage years.
>
>I didn't do those things then, either. My mother was too strict, and I
>went to church from kindergarten. Trouble I got into was after leaving
>home for university and I stopped going to church.
So....you're not a murderer because your mother wouldn't let you be
one? And all the people who do end up as murderers became murderers
because that's what their parents caused them to be?
--
Michael Cash
"There was a time, Mr. Cash, when I believed you must be the most useless
thing in the world. But that was before I read a Microsoft help file."
Prof. Ernest T. Bass
Mount Pilot College
Scott Reynolds
> So....you're not a murderer because your mother wouldn't let you be
> one? And all the people who do end up as murderers became murderers
> because that's what their parents caused them to be?
But they're still fully to blame, of course.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>On 7/16/2003 9:04 PM, Michael Cash wrote:
>
>> So....you're not a murderer because your mother wouldn't let you be
>> one? And all the people who do end up as murderers became murderers
>> because that's what their parents caused them to be?
>
>But they're still fully to blame, of course.
Know where it all starts? Letting them cross the street, that's where.
Scott Reynolds
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:12:33 +0900, Scott Reynolds <s...@gol.com>
> belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
>
>>On 7/16/2003 9:04 PM, Michael Cash wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So....you're not a murderer because your mother wouldn't let you be
>>>one? And all the people who do end up as murderers became murderers
>>>because that's what their parents caused them to be?
>>
>>But they're still fully to blame, of course.
>
> Know where it all starts? Letting them cross the street, that's where.
Damn straight! Next thing you know they'll be crossing against the light.
Ed
"John W." <worth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:73fde4f0.0307...@posting.google.com...
> It was a sweet collection. Actually, a few years ago my dad cleaned up
> the field; I've always wondered if he came across those magazines.
I remember finding a collection of magazines in the basement of a house my
family and I moved into when I was about 13. They were themed magazines that
ran from fat fetish magazines to juggs magazines, etc. etc. etc.
I wish somebody had told me then why certain magazines found in basements
have their pages stuck together.
Michael Cash
belched the alphabet and kept on going with:
>
Humidity.
The attic is a much better place.