NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2008/07/07/2008-07-07_kid_critical_after_setting_brooklyn_fire.html
Kid critical after setting Brooklyn fire to 'kill grandma' as revenge
BY EDGAR SANDOVAL, ALISON GENDAR AND ETHAN ROUEN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
Tuesday, July 8th 2008, 12:41 AM

A 5-year-old was critically injured in a Brooklyn fire he set Monday as revenge for being punished by his grandmother, police and fire sources said.

Jay (Tito) Morales suffered third-degree burns to 70% of his body after he used a lighter to ignite the curtains in Nancy Herrera's Bushwick home, fire sources said. Herrera, 63, suffered minor injuries.

"It's all about revenge," a source said. "What's scary is he thought of this and he is only 5."

The boy twice prank-called 911 recently and told cops his grandmother was dead or in trouble, sources said. To punish the boy, Herrera forbade him from going to the park Monday with two friends.

As the friends left the house, Jay whispered to a 9-year-old, "I'm going burn this house down and kill grandma," a source said. Smoke detectors alerted Herrera to the blaze, but the heat prevented her from reaching the boy, who was in a front bedroom.

"I went into the front door and saw the lady hysterical," said Dan Vargas, 34, who dragged Herrera to safety. "She kept yelling, 'My grandson is inside.' There was too much smoke, so I just grabbed her by her clothes and pulled her out of the house."

Firefighters arrived moments later and rescued the child, taking him to the burn unit at New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell.

He clung to life last night, as his inconsolable mother and family stood by. "He's a beautiful kid," said his uncle Rudy Morales, 47. "The baby played with matches. ... He tried to play with matches before."

"They tried doing CPR, but he did not wake up," Vargas said. "His legs and feet were all burned."

A friend of the family said little Jay frequently told his grandmother he would set fire to the three-story building if he didn't get his way.

"He would say, 'Take me to the park or I'm going to burn the house down,'" said Ramona Santos, 47, who spent Sunday at the beach with the family.

"I always thought he was joking. I guess he did it this time." Fire marshals are investigating.
erouen@nydailynews.comA few reactions went through my head while, and after, I was reading this.

The brat got what he deserved.
This is one very disturbed child.
Keep in mind that there might be something else going on that wasn't reported in the article.
I remember being angry at my parents, sometimes, when they punished me when I was young, but I never wanted them dead.
If he lives through this, hopefully he'll have learned a valuable lesson about the consequences of his actions. If he doesn't, this isn't going to end well.

I should qualify this by saying that these were my initial reactions. Those who argue that such a mindset is being unduly harsh do raise some valid points.

[edit #2] An update article may be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13824675&postcount=132
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2008/07/08/2008-07-08_granny_defends_5yearold_firestarter.html [/edit #2]

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Wow... just... wow. Seriously, that is one messed up kid. :eek:

Something went wrong, either with the kid when he was born, or with his raising, because normal kids just don't do things like that.

I hope he'll recover. He's far too young to truly understand the consequences of what he was doing and did not in any way, shape, or form deserve those burns.

That he stayed inside and had to be rescued implies to me that he didn't realise the consequences of his actions...or that he is stupid as well as dangerous.

If he would have just died, it would have helped to cleanse humanity's gene pool, if just only a bit.

If he would have just died, it would have helped to cleanse humanity's gene pool, if just only a bit.
Eugenics is not an acceptable practice.

Eugenics is not an acceptable practice.

Natural selection is and this little brat is right on the edge of a Darwin Award.

Natural selection is and this little brat is right on the edge of a Darwin Award.

Especially self-selection.

Naaah. You have to be an adult to qualify for a Darwin. He could get an honorable Mention, though.

The brat got what he deserved.

If he would have just died, it would have helped to cleanse humanity's gene pool, if just only a bit.

...this little brat is right on the edge of a Darwin Award.
He is five years old, for fuck's sake!

He obviously has little sense of right or wrong, and almost no sense of the consequences of his actions. Are we holding young children to an adult's level of culpability now?

Should we help "cleanse humanity's gene pool" of every young child who hasn't got a fully functioning capacity of morality and consequences? I've met a few babies in my time, and they know shit about morality.

Let's just throw them into a fire the next chance we have.

Natural selection is and this little brat is right on the edge of a Darwin Award.

Especially self-selection.

Five years old, people. FIVE YEARS OLD. For many species, that's rather mature. For humans, that's barely out of diapers, and certainly not to an adult's level of understanding of anything.

You really want to call this identical to an adult pulling an idiotic stunt? Seriously?

yeah, hes 5.

5 year olds dont believe that dead is dead. they dont have much of a grasp of the consequences of burning down grammy's house. he didnt even have the sense to get out.

5 year olds do all sorts of stupid things. they dont have to be psychopaths or even be badly raised for something like this to happen.

yeah, hes 5.

5 year olds dont believe that dead is dead. they dont have much of a grasp of the consequences of burning down grammy's house. he didnt even have the sense to get out.

5 year olds do all sorts of stupid things. they dont have to be psychopaths or even be badly raised for something like this to happen.

Well, I'm not so sure that a typical five year old would be that angry and vengeful though.

But then typicality doesn't depend upon the raising...or whatever. You know what I mean.

He is five years old, for fuck's sake!

He obviously has little sense of right or wrong, and almost no sense of the consequences of his actions. Are we holding young children to an adult's level of culpability now?

Should we help "cleanse humanity's gene pool" of every young child who hasn't got a fully functioning capacity of morality and consequences? I've met a few babies in my time, and they know shit about morality.

Let's just throw them into a fire the next chance we have.

5 year olds know it's not nice to kill people.

5 year olds know it's not nice to kill people.
Some five-year-olds clearly don't.

Hell, I've met some poor kids around the age of 8-10 who still don't have a fully realised sense of consequences of their actions.

5 year olds know it's not nice to kill people.

5 year old dont know what killing means. he had no idea that burning grammy house down might kill her.

and even if he did, 5 year olds dont know that death is permanent.

5 year olds know it's not nice to kill people.

Do they? Do they know that they don't just respawn and continue the game?

5-year-olds don't actually understand death. Have you ever tried explaining the death of a pet to someone that young? They often don't get a sense that it means they're not coming back. That's why so many parents describe it as sleeping.

Well, I'm not so sure that a typical five year old would be that angry and vengeful though.

But then typicality doesn't depend upon the raising...or whatever. You know what I mean.

no. the typical 5 year old doesnt carry his anger that long. he might hit grammy and yell that he hates her and MEAN it but one minute later its over and he loves his grammy again. to keep the anger and carry out a plan to burn down the house is not typical 5 year old behavior.

but then my husband burned down the neighbor's chicken coup (on purpose) when he was 5. he didnt grow up to be a psychopath or serial killer.

Do they? Do they know that they don't just respawn and continue the game?

5-year-olds don't actually understand death. Have you ever tried explaining the death of a pet to someone that young? They often don't get a sense that it means they're not coming back. That's why so many parents describe it as sleeping.
Yeah, when I was that old, I didn't understand the death of my hamster. Every morning I would get up and go to Hamsters cage, and not find him there. Then I would ask my grandmother where he went, and she would always say; "TO a better place Vincent". It took me a long time to figure out he WASN'T coming back from that better place.:(

He is five years old, for fuck's sake!
5 years old != retarded.

He obviously has little sense of right or wrong, and almost no sense of the consequences of his actions. Are we holding young children to an adult's level of culpability now?
Are we expecting 5 year olds to know not to play with matches and to know that you don't burn things down? Yes, yes we are. If he doesn't know that by now, something went wrong somewhere.

This is what happens when everyone tries too hard to get rid of natural selection. You get kids as screwed up as this kid.

Also, has anyone ever thought that this kid might be a bit mature for his age? Maybe he learned something he shouldn't have learned yet? I mean, this kid obviously planned this. He threatened arson and came through. I doubt this was just a freak coincidence and that he just happened to play with matches at the time.

5 year old dont know what killing means. he had no idea that burning grammy house down might kill her.

and even if he did, 5 year olds dont know that death is permanent.

He knew burning down the house was a bad thing. He did it to get back at his grandmother for not letting him go out to play.

5 years old != retarded.


Are we expecting 5 year olds to know not to play with matches and to know that you don't burn things down? Yes, yes we are. If he doesn't know that by now, something went wrong somewhere.

yeah pretty much all 5 year olds know not to play with matches

and pretty much all 5 year olds WILL play with matches if they get the chance.

5 years old != retarded.
True, but 5 years old also != an adult with a fully developed understanding of right, wrong and consequences of ones action, at least not in all cases.

Are we expecting 5 year olds to know not to play with matches and to know that you don't burn things down?
Not in all cases, unfortunately. Not everyone develops at the same pace.

If he doesn't know that by now he is either a sociopath by nature or nurture.
What simplistic nonsense.

He knew burning down the house was a bad thing. He did it to get back at his grandmother for not letting him go out to play.

yup.

and?

They'll probably be sending him to a psych ward after this.

yeah pretty much all 5 year olds know not to play with matches

and pretty much all 5 year olds WILL play with matches if they get the chance.
Which is why my mother kept the matches and the lighter out of my reach...

yup.

and?
And.
Whether or not he meant to kill his grandmother is irrelevant. He knows right from wrong in the sense that "setting shit on fire" is "wrong."

Not in all cases, unfortunately. Not everyone develops at the same pace.
Considering he knew burning the house down would make his grandmother mad, at least, he obviously knew it was a bad thing, thus it looks like he was to that level of development.

Whether or not he meant to kill his grandmother is irrelevant. He knows right from wrong in the sense that "setting shit on fire" is "wrong."
That's not a fully developed understanding of right and wrong; merely being told 'X is wrong, Y is right', and taking that information in, doesn't make one a competent arbiter between right actions and wrong actions.

Hell, children don't develop a fully realised sense of self until, arguably, around ages 10-12. We don't charge children with crimes, or label them as 'psychopaths', because they aren't culpable; they haven't the capacity to contemplate fully what they have done.

Considering he knew burning the house down would make his grandmother mad
Exactly; he recognised it make her angry. He didn't recognise it would potentially kill her, or endanger himself. There#s some major room for development there.

And.
Whether or not he meant to kill his grandmother is irrelevant. He knows right from wrong in the sense that "setting shit on fire" is "wrong."

of course he knew it was wrong. so is getting a cookie out of the jar without asking.

5 year olds often do things they know are wrong. its a long road of child raising before you can trust a child not do to things he knows he shouldnt do.

Oh this scared me so much. I watched the News story. Wow, the things little kids do out of anger.

The mom denies it though, which I find to be interesting, is she protecting him?

yeah, hes 5.

5 year olds dont believe that dead is dead. they dont have much of a grasp of the consequences of burning down grammy's house. he didnt even have the sense to get out.

5 year olds do all sorts of stupid things. they dont have to be psychopaths or even be badly raised for something like this to happen.

Yep, they only need to be left unsupervised for about 30 seconds.

True story.

Kids have a lack of life experience, they don't understand vague concepts like death, especially since grown ups try to avoid the conversation.

Kids are impulsive and emotional.

of course he knew it was wrong. so is getting a cookie out of the jar without asking.

5 year olds often do things they know are wrong. its a long road of child raising before you can trust a child not do to things he knows he shouldnt do.
That's why I say some one did something wrong if he doesn't know not to burn things down. Less "not going out to the park" and more "belt across the backside."

That's why I say some one did something wrong if he doesn't know not to burn things down.
He may well know; but he doesn't understand.

Many kids know that knives are sharp, and shouldn't be played with, but I wouldn't give a kitchen knife to a five year old once I told them this, because they may well not have a sufficient understanding of the consequences of sharp knives put into bodies, etc.

Same with pets; when my younger sibling took the goldfish out of the bowl, he knew it was a 'bad thing' because parents had told him not to touch the fish, but he couldn't understand the consequences of his actions; dead fish, him being sad because of no fish.

He may well know; but he doesn't understand.
He understands that he won't get to go play with his friends. Which is why he tried to burn the place down. He needs a more memorable avenue to understanding.

Something went wrong, either with the kid when he was born, or with his raising, because normal kids just don't do things like that.

I hope he'll recover. He's far too young to truly understand the consequences of what he was doing and did not in any way, shape, or form deserve those burns.

...um...

I can remember playing with matches as a kid.
Not trying to burn down my house, of course, but I could have seriously gotten myself hurt had I not been lucky/smart about it (inside kitchen sink ftw).

But yeah, supposedly his saying this....
I wonder if it's tv-as-babysitter or because he sees/hears violence and threats all the time? Bushwick is NOT an altogether "nice" neighborhood.

That's why I say some one did something wrong if he doesn't know not to burn things down. Less "not going out to the park" and more "belt across the backside."

if only it were that easy.

if only it were that easy.
Children actually being parented and actually being punished is easy. The only time outs when I was a kid was time my parents took out to whip me.

5 years old != retarded.


Are we expecting 5 year olds to know not to play with matches and to know that you don't burn things down? Yes, yes we are. If he doesn't know that by now, something went wrong somewhere.

http://www.mamashealth.com/child/fiveyears.asp
http://www.nncc.org/Child.Dev/ages.stages.5y.html
http://childparenting.about.com/od/childdevelopment/a/fiveyearoldhome.htm
http://childparenting.about.com/od/childdevelopment/a/fiveyearoldhome_2.htm
http://www.allthedaze.com/sdevelopment.html
http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/child_development:_5-6_years_cyh.html/context/510
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages

Seems like many experts disagree with you on their ability to ALWAYS separate fantasy from reality, and their ability to predict consequences.

Children actually being parented and actually being punished is easy. The only time outs when I was a kid was time my parents took out to whip me.
Whipping?

Euch.

And.
Whether or not he meant to kill his grandmother is irrelevant. He knows right from wrong in the sense that "setting shit on fire" is "wrong."

And... let me guess... in your whole life, you never did something you knew was wrong?

Never EVER?

Ever sped? double parked? lied?

That's why I say some one did something wrong if he doesn't know not to burn things down. Less "not going out to the park" and more "belt across the backside."

Which would theoretically teach him that hitting people, especially with an object, when you're angry is the proper reponse.

Children actually being parented and actually being punished is easy. The only time outs when I was a kid was time my parents took out to whip me.

And? Look how you turned out.

Children, especially 5 year olds, lack the life experience, wisdom, intelligence, and wherewithal to separate fantasy from reality, emotions from logic, and wants from needs. They are often impulsive and DO NOT THINK before acting.

Proof? Every time I did something idiotic as a kid I was asked "why did you do that?" the answer being "I don't know." and it was always true.

Every kid I have ever known who does something stupid says the same thing. They do not put deep grown up thought into their actions 90% of the time, because they are kids.

I'm not saying there isn't something off about this kid, there might be, but it would likely be something akin to mental illness which isn't something you can "belt" out of him.

Children actually being parented and actually being punished is easy. The only time outs when I was a kid was time my parents took out to whip me.

uhhuh

you cant beat good judgement into a 5 year old. all you can do is try to keep danger away from him and supervise him until he is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions --and the maturity to care about them--and the ability to constrain his impulses.

Oh yeah, he got what was coming to him, no doubt.

Which would theoretically teach him that hitting people, especially with an object, when you're angry is the proper reponse.
Better than "burning things down" is a good response to being angry technically.

Also, I do like how everyone glossed over "actual parenting."

Better than "burning things down" is a good response to being angry technically.
...what?

Better than "burning things down" is a good response to being angry technically.

Also, I do like how everyone glossed over "actual parenting."

1) You don't know that he was not "actually parented". You're assuming facts not in evidence.
2) Parents who do actual parenting are not supermen and women who can prevent all misdeeds their children come up with.
3) Sadly, I think being critically injured as a result of burning things down will be an object lesson.
4) Sadly, I think too many people equate beatings with actual parenting.

1) You don't know that he was not "actually parented". You're assuming facts not in evidence.
2) Parents who do actual parenting are not supermen and women who can prevent all misdeeds their children come up with.
3) Sadly, I think being critically injured as a result of burning things down will be an object lesson.
4) Sadly, I think too many people equate beatings with actual parenting.
Unfortunately. :(

So, I decided to take my own signature advice and "Think about it for a moment." Having done so, I realize that I should qualify my original post by saying that they were my initial reactions to the article. Perhaps I'm being unduly harsh in how I regard the child described in the article. Maybe it's too harsh to say that he deserved the 3rd-degree burns he got on 70% of his body. Many who replied are right to point out that he is only 5 years old, after all.

Still, an attempt to committ homicide by arson at an age where the kid probably doesn't even know the words "homicide" and "arson" is rather disturbing. I've decided to stand by my statement that if the child doesn't learn from this, then this will not turn out well in the long run.

5 year old dont know what killing means. he had no idea that burning grammy house down might kill her.

and even if he did, 5 year olds dont know that death is permanent.The child is quoted as saying that he was going to burn down the house for the specific purpose of killing his grandmother.

I will, however, buy the argument that he may not truly understand the nature and consequences of death or of causing someone else's death.

no. the typical 5 year old doesnt carry his anger that long. he might hit grammy and yell that he hates her and MEAN it but one minute later its over and he loves his grammy again. to keep the anger and carry out a plan to burn down the house is not typical 5 year old behavior.

but then my husband burned down the neighbor's chicken coup (on purpose) when he was 5. he didnt grow up to be a psychopath or serial killer.You do have a point, there, so I agree that there is still hope for this child.

This is what happens when everyone tries too hard to get rid of natural selection. You get kids as screwed up as this kid.Natural selection is a fine mechanism for explaining the origin of species, evolution, and the conduct of wild organisms in natural environments. Civilization is not natural, nor would I want it to be; I'm reminded of the phrase "nasty, brutish, and short" to describe life in a state of nature.

Also, has anyone ever thought that this kid might be a bit mature for his age? Maybe he learned something he shouldn't have learned yet? I mean, this kid obviously planned this. He threatened arson and came through. I doubt this was just a freak coincidence and that he just happened to play with matches at the time.Agreed. I am curious about this, as well. Katganistan raises a good point that the kid does not live in a nice neighborhood. I also have to wonder what other influences the child may have been exposed to.

Oh this scared me so much. I watched the News story. Wow, the things little kids do out of anger.

The mom denies it though, which I find to be interesting, is she protecting him?Is this from another source? Is a link to the source possible?

That's why I say some one did something wrong if he doesn't know not to burn things down. Less "not going out to the park" and more "belt across the backside."While corporal punishment might sound like a good idea for a case like this (assuming, of course, that he didn't wind up with 70% 3rd-degree burns), wouldn't corporal punishment introduce it's own problems? For example, teaching that violence is an acceptable primary method of accomplishing an objective?

4) Sadly, I think too many people equate beatings with actual parenting.Agreed. My parents did not use violence as a parenting technique, and if I ever become a father, I have no intention of using violence, myself (unless, God forbid, I ever need to protect innocent people from my own child, but I'm hoping and praying that that's an extreme I never have to confront).

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

1) You don't know that he was not "actually parented". You're assuming facts not in evidence.
Apparently at some point he observed, apparently without further input, that someone burnt someone else's house down when the someone else did something that made the first someone mad. Now here we are.

While corporal punishment might sound like a good idea for a case like this (assuming, of course, that he didn't wind up with 70% 3rd-degree burns), wouldn't corporal punishment introduce it's own problems? For example, teaching that violence is an acceptable primary method of accomplishing an objective?
We all realize that corporal punishment was the main form of child punishment for years, right? Before all this "protect the children from life" crap. Teach them that they will be punished for doing something wrong and let them break their leg if they fall off a jungle gym. I'll bet my car this kid doesn't set any more fires if he makes it out of this alive.

very sad,tragic story.

I dont think a 5 yr old deserves to learn this hard a lesson.

I dont think he can possibly understand what he did and all possible reprecessions.

I was in intensive care for a few days years ago and there was a kid about 8 there,burned all over his boy from an accident.

Watching his care and agony took my mind off of my own injuries.

I have very real sympathy and compassion for burn victims.

I might have been hit a total of 4 or 5 times as a child.

I dont think it was positive or negative as far as parenting goes.

Having my parents dissapointed with what I did or didnt do was far more effective on my behavior.

I would rather have been hit than have them angry with me.

Apparently at some point he observed, apparently without further input, that someone burnt someone else's house down when the someone else did something that made the first someone mad. Now here we are.
That's some leap to that conclusion there. Hope you didn't hurt anything.


We all realize that corporal punishment was the main form of child punishment for years, right? Before all this "protect the children from life" crap. Teach them that they will be punished for doing something wrong and let them break their leg if they fall off a jungle gym. I'll bet my car this kid doesn't set any more fires if he makes it out of this alive.

We all realize that in the 1950s smoking was advertised as a healthful habit, right?

That up till the 1860s in the US, you could own, beat, breed, kill and use as slaves Africans because they weren't really *people*, right?

That until 1929 in Coca Cola, there was actual cocaine as a pick me up, right?

That cliterodectomy was performed in the US to prevent girls from playing with themselves...

That the Bible advocates killing your child if he disobeys you...

See.... not everything they did in the "good old days" was good.

That's some leap to that conclusion there. Hope you didn't hurt anything.
Your argument is he just made up burning down some one's house as a method of retaliation on his own?


See.... not everything they did in the "good old days" was good.
And conversely, not everything was bad.

Your argument is he just made up burning down some one's house as a method of retaliation on his own?
And again, that's some conclusion you've leapt to. Really, go back and read what I've written and point out where I said that.

And conversely, not everything was bad.

:rolleyes: I'm not the one who said that it was good just because it was traditional. Please try to keep up here.

If I had told my mother that I was going to burn down the house at that age, she would have given me the matches and told me to start in my room.

I hope he lives. Nobody learns anything when they're dead. This kid had a defining life lesson.

Apparently at some point he observed, apparently without further input, that someone burnt someone else's house down when the someone else did something that made the first someone mad. Now here we are.


We all realize that corporal punishment was the main form of child punishment for years, right? Before all this "protect the children from life" crap. Teach them that they will be punished for doing something wrong and let them break their leg if they fall off a jungle gym. I'll bet my car this kid doesn't set any more fires if he makes it out of this alive.

I'll take that bet. Put up or shut up. I'll have my lawyer draw a contract that if we discover that the child sets another fire, you'll owe a car of equivelent value to your current vehicle.

You in? Or are you just full of it.

As to the rest of it, you do realize you're all over the place on this. First the kid is a sociopath at 5 (I'll bet my car you don't actually understand what would qualify him as a sociopath), then it's a parenting problem. So which is it? Is he a sociopath or would he respond to responsible parenting? Or is option C - you just got caught spouting off when you're clueless? I'm going with C.

very sad,tragic story.

I dont think a 5 yr old deserves to learn this hard a lesson.

I dont think he can possibly understand what he did and all possible reprecessions.

I was in intensive care for a few days years ago and there was a kid about 8 there,burned all over his boy from an accident.

Watching his care and agony took my mind off of my own injuries.

I have very real sympathy and compassion for burn victims.

I agree. What is sociopathic is finding joy in a 5-year-old suffering in that way. I wouldn't wish that level of suffering on anyone let alone a confused 5-year-old.

Both of my nephews have said and repeated that they wanted their brother to die. I imagine for a long time in their development what stayed their hand is that they didn't want to disappoint their parents or me.

Child development has very commonly discussed stage where consequences are the only thing that stops of us from doing wrong. Unfortunately, when you are too young, it's hard to realize what the actual consequences are, which explains why this child remained where he would be so badly burned.

To pretend this child could understand that this was wrong and thus shouldn't have done it unless he's a sociopath is to pretend that children don't need parenting after five, since they'll just do what's right. Really, we should just supply them with a list at three and let them get to it.

The problem with kids today is that they're "informed" that it's not their fault. Kid is abusive to another? It's not his fault he has some fancy condition. Just give him his meds and he'll be fine until he gets so f'd up, he shoots somebody.

The good thing about fire is that it teaches you valuable lessons without the eed for mind-altering meds. You play with fire? You'll get burnt. You try to burn down your grandmother's house in an attempt to kill her? You're going to get burnt.

I find that too many parents try to be their kids' "friends". That's like an employer kissing his employees' asses. A kid needs two parents. One for working and earning the money and the other to stay home and keep the kid from getting too screwed up. I suspect that the kid may have been lacking some parents, whether they be too unattentive, away from home and the kid too much, or just plain never there. The human child's brain is programmed to learn what the parent(s) teach it. It's a survival instinct that kept our vulnerable young from getting eaten.

A kid needs parents who want to be actual parents. Do you really think that the kid is not going to understand that fire=holy crap, that burns, but that a few slaps to the ass=beating and torturing people to death is happy fun time? I got my ass beat from time to time. Not the daily torture rack treatment that many of you think corporal punishment means, but a slap here and a vacuum cord there. And, although I'm not a 19 year old CEO who cures cancer and has multiple doctorates, I'm not the homocidal maniac many of you think spanking turns kids into.

The kid is screwed up. And unless parents start becoming parents and kids stop trying to burn down houses in anger, we're desperately going to need natural selection to take out the dead-from-the-neck-down people and the more homocidal.

The problem with kids today is that they're "informed" that it's not their fault. Kid is abusive to another? It's not his fault he has some fancy condition. Just give him his meds and he'll be fine until he gets so f'd up, he shoots somebody.

The good thing about fire is that it teaches you valuable lessons without the eed for mind-altering meds. You play with fire? You'll get burnt. You try to burn down your grandmother's house in an attempt to kill her? You're going to get burnt.

I find that too many parents try to be their kids' "friends". That's like an employer kissing his employees' asses. A kid needs two parents. One for working and earning the money and the other to stay home and keep the kid from getting too screwed up. I suspect that the kid may have been lacking some parents, whether they be too unattentive, away from home and the kid too much, or just plain never there. The human child's brain is programmed to learn what the parent(s) teach it. It's a survival instinct that kept our vulnerable young from getting eaten.

A kid needs parents who want to be actual parents. Do you really think that the kid is not going to understand that fire=holy crap, that burns, but that a few slaps to the ass=beating and torturing people to death is happy fun time? I got my ass beat from time to time. Not the daily torture rack treatment that many of you think corporal punishment means, but a slap here and a vacuum cord there. And, although I'm not a 19 year old CEO who cures cancer and has multiple doctorates, I'm not the homocidal maniac many of you think spanking turns kids into.

The kid is screwed up. And unless parents start becoming parents and kids stop trying to burn down houses in anger, we're desperately going to need natural selection to take out the dead-from-the-neck-down people and the more homocidal.

yeah i guess he's learned his lesson now that he'sgot 3rd degree burns on 70% of his body and will bear the burn scars for the rest of his life.

That's some leap to that conclusion there. Hope you didn't hurt anything.




We all realize that in the 1950s smoking was advertised as a healthful habit, right?

That up till the 1860s in the US, you could own, beat, breed, kill and use as slaves Africans because they weren't really *people*, right?

That until 1904 in Coca Cola, there was active cocaine as a pick me up, right?

That cliterodectomy was performed in the US to prevent girls from playing with themselves...

That the OLD TESTAMENT advocates killing your child if he disobeys you...

See.... not everything they did in the "good old days" was good.
Fixed.:D

Coca-cola still usees spent leaves y'know.

The problem with kids today is that they're "informed" that it's not their fault. Kid is abusive to another? It's not his fault he has some fancy condition. Just give him his meds and he'll be fine until he gets so f'd up, he shoots somebody.

The good thing about fire is that it teaches you valuable lessons without the eed for mind-altering meds. You play with fire? You'll get burnt. You try to burn down your grandmother's house in an attempt to kill her? You're going to get burnt.

I find that too many parents try to be their kids' "friends". That's like an employer kissing his employees' asses. A kid needs two parents. One for working and earning the money and the other to stay home and keep the kid from getting too screwed up. I suspect that the kid may have been lacking some parents, whether they be too unattentive, away from home and the kid too much, or just plain never there. The human child's brain is programmed to learn what the parent(s) teach it. It's a survival instinct that kept our vulnerable young from getting eaten.

A kid needs parents who want to be actual parents. Do you really think that the kid is not going to understand that fire=holy crap, that burns, but that a few slaps to the ass=beating and torturing people to death is happy fun time? I got my ass beat from time to time. Not the daily torture rack treatment that many of you think corporal punishment means, but a slap here and a vacuum cord there. And, although I'm not a 19 year old CEO who cures cancer and has multiple doctorates, I'm not the homocidal maniac many of you think spanking turns kids into.

The kid is screwed up. And unless parents start becoming parents and kids stop trying to burn down houses in anger, we're desperately going to need natural selection to take out the dead-from-the-neck-down people and the more homocidal.

I agree that kids do learn from their parents. However, teaching a kid that violence is not a mature, disciplined response to anger or disappointment by using violence to express your anger and disappointment, doesn't seem like a lesson at all.

I ain't touching this with 60 foot pole... :eek:

I´m baffled after reading this article. Just baffled. Euthanize that kid!!! I know this is just awful of me to say, he´s only a child but he´s seriously disturbed and who knows what he could do next if he were to recover. Gods!!

The problem with kids today is that they're "informed" that it's not their fault. Kid is abusive to another? It's not his fault he has some fancy condition. Just give him his meds and he'll be fine until he gets so f'd up, he shoots somebody.

The good thing about fire is that it teaches you valuable lessons without the eed for mind-altering meds. You play with fire? You'll get burnt. You try to burn down your grandmother's house in an attempt to kill her? You're going to get burnt.

I find that too many parents try to be their kids' "friends". That's like an employer kissing his employees' asses. A kid needs two parents. One for working and earning the money and the other to stay home and keep the kid from getting too screwed up. I suspect that the kid may have been lacking some parents, whether they be too unattentive, away from home and the kid too much, or just plain never there. The human child's brain is programmed to learn what the parent(s) teach it. It's a survival instinct that kept our vulnerable young from getting eaten.

A kid needs parents who want to be actual parents. Do you really think that the kid is not going to understand that fire=holy crap, that burns, but that a few slaps to the ass=beating and torturing people to death is happy fun time? I got my ass beat from time to time. Not the daily torture rack treatment that many of you think corporal punishment means, but a slap here and a vacuum cord there. And, although I'm not a 19 year old CEO who cures cancer and has multiple doctorates, I'm not the homocidal maniac many of you think spanking turns kids into.

The kid is screwed up. And unless parents start becoming parents and kids stop trying to burn down houses in anger, we're desperately going to need natural selection to take out the dead-from-the-neck-down people and the more homocidal.

Nice rant. Not relevant, but a good rant nonetheless. I mean any rant that can be entirely deviod of support, contain multiple strawmen and even a little bit of eugenics to substitute for making an actual reasoned point. Classic rant. I give it a 9.5.

See, even before all of the stuff you're ranting against, children occasionally burned down a house or a barn, killed a friend, neighbor or family member. There is no evidence this has increased in frequency and somehow I think you'll fail to present any.

Some five-year-olds clearly don't.

Hell, I've met some poor kids around the age of 8-10 who still don't have a fully realised sense of consequences of their actions.

Irregardless, how many 5-year-olds do you see running around lighting their grandparents on fire? Not that many. Not many at all. The simple fact alone that so very, very few children ever do things like this points to the fact that children do have more sense of right and wrong than we give them credit.

I´m baffled after reading this article. Just baffled. Euthanize that kid!!! I know this is just awful of me to say, he´s only a child but he´s seriously disturbed and who knows what he could do next if he were to recover. Gods!!

Then I've known an awful lot of disturbed kids in my life.

There are TONS of things you do not know about this incident. If a child being willing to kill his grandmother over not going out is evidence of being disturbed, then how good is the evidence we have of various adults want the child to be murdered without any real desire to actually explore what happened.

I find the adults much more scary, but, hey, that's just crazy liberal views that suggest children are *gasp* children and adults are *gasp* adults.

Irregardless, how many 5-year-olds do you see running around lighting their grandparents on fire? Not that many. Not many at all.
Including the child in question here; he lit the curtains in a room of his grandmother's house.

Read the article, please.

Irregardless, how many 5-year-olds do you see running around lighting their grandparents on fire? Not that many. Not many at all. The simple fact alone that so very, very few children ever do things like this points to the fact that children do have more sense of right and wrong than we give them credit.

Or they get lucky a lot.

Here are some things I either did as a child or saw people do:

Did a piledriver in a fight with the express purpose of killing the other child
Hit with a brick
lighting gunpowder from fireworks while my sister was in the middle of it
Starting fires
Squeezing bullets with a vice in order to get the heads off to get at the gunpowder
Playing catch with darts
Trying to trick a friend into jumping from a place that was too high to survive (knowingly)
Throwing a bat into the front spokes of a bicycle going full speed
Smashing a kid in the head with a big rock
Smashing a kid in the head with a big chunk of ice
Throwing a kid off of a building
Throwing fireworks at a kid
Throwing matches at a kid
Throwing matches on the ground inside the house
Seeing if it was actually possible to choke someone unconscious
Seeing if a whip would break skin
Seeing if kittens like jalapeno peppers
Seeing if a BB would break skin

That's all I can think of right now. All of this I witnessed, some of this I took part in or thought up. All of it, I didn't fully understand the consequences of. And my parents did spank me. They also were generally pretty good about discipline, but were absent a lot since we were poor and feeding us was high on the priority list.

Then I've known an awful lot of disturbed kids in my life.

There are TONS of things you do not know about this incident. If a child being willing to kill his grandmother over not going out is evidence of being disturbed, then how good is the evidence we have of various adults want the child to be murdered without any real desire to actually explore what happened.

I find the adults much more scary, but, hey, that's just crazy liberal views that suggest children are *gasp* children and adults are *gasp* adults.

Hehe, just the kind of gorgeous argument I expected from you, Jocabia. Full of sarcasm.:rolleyes:

This kid obviously did think through what he was doing, to a point. He wanted to burn the house and kill his grandmother because she didn´t let him go to the park. That he wasn´t aware that the fire was going to get him too, well, that´s shown in the article.

What´s really scary, same as with adults, is the malice this child was capable of to get his way. That, if anything, do shows how disturbed this little one is. If he´s like that now that he´s nothing but a child, can you imagine what he´ll grow up to be? I don´t even want to think about it. Best if he dies on a hospital bed from the injuries he sustained in the fire.

If he´s just an innocent child who acted upon an impulse from whatever conduct/raising he´s being nourished with in his family, then best if he dies now before becoming a more warped individual in adulthood.

Hehe, just the kind of gorgeous argument I expected from you, Jocabia. Full of sarcasm.:rolleyes:

This kid obviously did think through what he was doing, to a point. He wanted to burn the house and kill his grandmother because she didn´t let him go to the park. That he wasn´t aware that the fire was going to get him too, well, that´s shown in the article.

Which isn't the same as understanding the full weight of what he was doing. If children could make life and death decisions, they wouldn't need parents.


What´s really scary, same as with adults, is the malice this child was capable of to get his way. That, if anything, do shows how disturbed this little one is. If he´s like that now that he´s nothing but a child, can you imagine what he´ll grow up to be? I don´t even want to think about it. Best if he dies on a hospital bed from the injuries he sustained in the fire.

If he´s just an innocent child who acted upon an impulse from whatever conduct/raising he´s being nourished with in his family, then best if he dies now before becoming a more warped individual in adulthood.

I've seen similar malice is many children and that's not sarcasm. Children are very emotional. It's only as we age that we learn to put things in perspective. From a child's perspective, not getting to go to the park is often literally the worst thing that he can remember happening to him.

That any adult would want to kill a child rather than teach them is far more disturbing than any 5-year-old could ever be. I can't speak for the child, but you are certainly old enough to know what death is and it's psychotic to wish it upon children because teaching them might be too hard.

Only my last line was sarcastic. The rest was pointing out that in an incident you know almost nothing about, you'd kill a child rather than teach them to respect life. I know everything about what you're suggesting and there is no information that redeems that pile of shite you're posing as rational.

.

If he´s just an innocent child who acted upon an impulse from whatever conduct/raising he´s being nourished with in his family, then best if he dies now before becoming a more warped individual in adulthood.

hes 5 years old. 5 year olds are full of emotion. this kid is no different than a typical 5 year old except that he can make and keep a plan. there is no reason to think that he will not grow up to be a normal adult.

the only thing that seperates this kid from millions of other 5 year olds is that his caretakers didnt realize that he had access to matches (or whatever he set the fire with).

And again, that's some conclusion you've leapt to. Really, go back and read what I've written and point out where I said that.
The fact is he burned down his grandmother's house in retaliation. Fact. Since everything I say is a "jumped to conclusion," what is your opinion?

I'm not the one who said that it was good just because it was traditional. Please try to keep up here.
No, you are the one who made an argument that everything was bad using some logical fallacy.

Including the child in question here; he lit the curtains in a room of his grandmother's house.

Read the article, please.

I did read the article, what I did is called hyperbole: exaggeration to make a point. He didn't literally light his grandmother on fire, he lit off her curtains with intent to kill her. Slightly different methodology, identical intent.

I agree that kids do learn from their parents. However, teaching a kid that violence is not a mature, disciplined response to anger or disappointment by using violence to express your anger and disappointment, doesn't seem like a lesson at all.

The lesson is that if you do something wrong, you get punished. You don't have to beat a kid black and blue, but a memorable punishment has turned generations of kids into violent murderers like you people keep implying.

I can't believe the posts saying such things as "the brat got what he deserved." Think about it for a moment. Any 5 year old who does that is probably deeply disturbed. I doubt he can be held entirely accountable for his actions, especially given his age.

Given that a visit to the electric chair would probably be more humane, what you are saying is arguably worse than simply arguing that a 5 year old, a God damn 5 year old should be executed for attempted murder. Yes, this story is shocking, tragic, and frankly horrifying, but get a hold of yourselves. We don't execute 5 year olds. It takes a lot to shock me these days, but you guys just did. I cannot describe the rage I am feeling right now.:upyours:

The fact is he burned down his grandmother's house in retaliation. Fact. Since everything I say is a "jumped to conclusion," what is your opinion?


No, you are the one who made an argument that everything was bad using some logical fallacy.

No, she didn't. What she did was demonstrate that tradition doesn't mean things were good, which is the argument you made. She pointed out the flaw in it since unless all traditional things are good, then you can't say "it's traditional therefore it's good".

Let me show you how logic works.

Given: All traditions demonstrate something that is good.
Conclusion: Spanking is tradition and, thus, good.

Or...

Given: Some traditions are good and some are bad.
Conclusion Spanking is tradition and can, thus, be good OR bad.

She showed that the given is the second thing, not the first.

As such, your argument fails.

The lesson is that if you do something wrong, you get punished. You don't have to beat a kid black and blue, but a memorable punishment has turned generations of kids into violent murderers like you people keep implying.

No one has implied that. Ever. I challeng you to find a single person who believes that everyone who gets spanked becomes a violent murderer.

Go ahead. You have millions of posts on NSG. Who is making this argument you're arguing against? Or is the problem here that you can't argue against the arguments being made so you have to generate some of your own that are weak enough for you to attack?

Which isn't the same as understanding the full weight of what he was doing. If children could make life and death decisions, they wouldn't need parents.




I've seen similar malice is many children and that's not sarcasm. Children are very emotional. It's only as we age that we learn to put things in perspective. From a child's perspective, not getting to go to the park is often literally the worst thing that he can remember happening to him.

That any adult would want to kill a child rather than teach them is far more disturbing than any 5-year-old could ever be. I can't speak for the child, but you are certainly old enough to know what death is and it's psychotic to wish it upon children because teaching them might be too hard.

Only my last line was sarcastic. The rest was pointing out that in an incident you know almost nothing about, you'd kill a child rather than teach them to respect life. I know everything about what you're suggesting and there is no information that redeems that pile of shite you're posing as rational.

Rational? Now you´re jumping into shitty conclusions here. I´m not posing my argument for letting the child die as rational. I know just how fucked up what I´m posing is. And still, I would let that kid die because, whatever might´ve prompted him to act as he did, denotes a seriously fucked up mind. Not only for the child, but the upbringing too. There´s no justification for this type of conduct. The kid got matches, planned what he wanted to do, set fire to the curtains in the grandmother´s house and clearly stated his intent on killing her for not letting him go to the park or not letting him get his way. Read the article.

I was a 5 year old too, as I´m sure you were, and never did I think to kill my mom because she didn´t let me do something. Throw a tantrum, yes. Which child hasn´t? Think about burning down the house with her inside because I didn´t get the toy I wanted or whatever silly notion I had, nope. So the child here is more than seriously disturbed. And yes, I would let him die, no illusions there.

Am I being cruel? Definitely. Does it matters much? No. What´s more, this cements my idea, once again, not to having kids. Do I offend you with my line of thinking, please. We´re all grown ups here, are we not. You disagree with my line of thinking. That´s how it is Still, that child should die.

To the parents of NSG, my deepest apologies, but that´s how I think.

Rational? Now you´re jumping into shitty conclusions here. I´m not posing my argument for letting the child die as rational. I know just how fucked up what I´m posing is. And still, I would let that kid die because, whatever might´ve prompted him to act as he did, denotes a seriously fucked up mind. Not only for the child, but the upbringing too. There´s no justification for this type of conduct. The kid got matches, planned what he wanted to do, set fire to the curtains in the grandmother´s house and clearly stated his intent on killing her for not letting him go to the park or not letting him get his way. Read the article.

I was a 5 year old too, as I´m sure you were, and never did I think to kill my mom because she didn´t let me do something. Throw a tantrum, yes. Which child hasn´t? Think about burning down the house with her inside because I didn´t get the toy I wanted or whatever silly notion I had, nope. So the child here is more than seriously disturbed. And yes, I would let him die, no illusions there.

Am I being cruel? Definitely. Does it matters much? No. What´s more, this cements my idea, once again, not to having kids. Do I offend you with my line of thinking, please. We´re all grown ups here, are we not. You disagree with my line of thinking. That´s how it is Still, that child should die.

To the parents of NSG, my deepest apologies, but that´s how I think.

well you think wrong.

he is 5 years old. he has no concept of the consequences of burning down grammy's house

well he does now that he is in critical condition from his burns..

If your son or daughter tried to kill someone, or said they did, would you go out and put a bullet in their head? What if it was someone else's kid? Vigilanty murders are bad enough when they are not directed towards children.

Your attitude is one of the most callous, sick, brutal views I've ever read on the web. I've never been a supporter of censorship, but if hate speech is grounds for banning, then shouldn't you be banned? After all, your speech is inciting me to feel hatred towards you.

I'll take a child who doesn't understand death wish death on innocents to an adult doing the same any day.

One wonders, should adults who wish death on innocent children also be euthanized?

well you think wrong.

he is 5 years old. he has no concept of the consequences of burning down grammy's house

well he does now that he is in critical condition from his burns..

I know it´s wrong of me to think this way, I´m not denying it.;) But it´s the way I think about this case, ugly as it is. I´m not justifying it. I´m stating it. You don´t like it, and that´s fine.

If your son or daughter tried to kill someone, or said they did, would you go out and put a bullet in their head? What if it was someone else's kid? Vigilanty murders are bad enough when they are not directed towards children.

Your attitude is one of the most callous, sick, brutal views I've ever read on the web. I've never been a supporter of censorship, but if hate speech is grounds for banning, then shouldn't you be banned? After all, your speech is inciting me to feel hatred towards you.

You´re more than welcome to take this up with the mods. And you´re entitled to your opinion. And to put it more clearly, you´re a faceless person on the internet. What is that to me?

And if you read my posts, in no way am I being offensive. But once again, take this up with the mods. I can always fetch one of them to analyze this.:rolleyes:

Fixed.:D

Coca-cola still usees spent leaves y'know.

Source? I've got mine and it disagrees with you.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp

Yes or no, the Old Testament is part of the Bible? therefore: correction not needed.

I know it´s wrong of me to think this way, I´m not denying it.;) But it´s the way I think about this case, ugly as it is. I´m not justifying it. I´m stating it. You don´t like it, and that´s fine.

maybe you should think it through again.

he is a 5 year old boy who set the curtains on fire in a fit of typical 5 year old bratty spite.

he is going to pay for that for the rest of his life.

think of any 5 year old you know and whether or not you would want that child to suffer the way this one will.

Actually I have no desire to see you banned. I support free speech, however repulsive. Its just hard for me to express my utter disgust with your point of view.

You seem to realize how drastic your possision is. Now that you realize it, the next step is to go get profesional help. Or you (by your own logic) you could be Euthanized, which would be perfectly acceptable I'm sure given how warped and disturbed you are:rolleyes:.





(Dang, posted this as my other nation instead).

Actually I have no desire to see you banned. I support free speech, however repulsive. Its just hard for me to express my utter disgust with your point of view.

You seem to realize how drastic your possision is. Now that you realize it, the next step is to go get profesional help. Or you (by your own logic) you could be Euthanized, which would be perfectly acceptable I'm sure given how warped and disturbed you are:rolleyes:.

Right, right.:rolleyes:

maybe you should think it through again.

he is a 5 year old boy who set the curtains on fire in a fit of typical 5 year old bratty spite.

he is going to pay for that for the rest of his life.

think of any 5 year old you know and whether or not you would want that child to suffer the way this one will.

And is. This child is suffering intensely. It's horrible. And when his body finally heals to a point where he's stable (it will ALWAYS hurt), he'll just be getting old enough to realize what he did and that pain begins. It's disturbing that so many find comfort in the suffering of a child.

I know it´s wrong of me to think this way, I´m not denying it.;) But it´s the way I think about this case, ugly as it is. I´m not justifying it. I´m stating it. You don´t like it, and that´s fine.


If you know its wrong, then why did you say that it would be better if the kid died? Confessing to holding the views of a psychotic vigilanty is one thing. Arguing that its for the best is another altogether.


At this point, there seems little more point in arguing with you than in arguing with the likes of Ted Bundy or Jack the Ripper. You know your feelings are wrong, but your clearly not going to change your possission. On this issue, at least, you seem to be beyond the reach of empathy, morality, or logic.

I can only hope that if ever faced with such a situation you would fail to live up to your words. If indeed you are a person who is capable of killing a child, a sincerly hope you do not have kids, and that you get the psychological help you so clearly require.

maybe you should think it through again.

he is a 5 year old boy who set the curtains on fire in a fit of typical 5 year old bratty spite.

he is going to pay for that for the rest of his life.

think of any 5 year old you know and whether or not you would want that child to suffer the way this one will.

Oh, but I have thought about it in many ways. Because of how drastic this way of thinking of mine is, I won´t have kids. Simple.

As for wishing suffering on another person, well, that´s why this child should die. He has suffered immensely with his body burnt. Not only that, his actions, although the ¨typical 5 year old bratty spite¨ of a child, has caused a lot of pain to his family. And mind you, I´m sure whatever happened through that child´s mind, the family is to blame too. Perhaps the more innocent of all the people involved is the child, I don´t take that away from him, but this case just chills me to the bone.

What´s more, this cements my idea, once again, not to having kids.

Well, I'm glad of that, because honestly, if you feel that dying in excruciating pain is a just and reasonable punishment for a kindergarten-aged child, you really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.

I mean, christ, when I was this kid's age, I ran away from my parents while they were shopping and hid underneath a stranger's porch. My parents ended up having to call the police to find me. People who know me as an adult will testify that I am a nice, rational, entirely non-sociopathic person with an IQ very much above average, but as a five-year-old I was not capable of understanding that I couldn't survive by myself, or that my parents would react not by thinking, "Gee, we shouldn't have yelled at Poli for something she didn't do! She sure showed us!" but rather, "OH MY GOD OUR CHILD IS GOING TO GET KILLED WANDERING THE STREETS ALONE OH MY GOD." And, you know, the cop that found me didn't scream at me or tell me I was terrible, because he was a sane human being and understood that I was a small child, and therefore gave me a lollipop and explained in a reasonable fashion that running away was very bad and could get me hurt and I shouldn't do it again. The idea that a five-year-old should be judged not only as harshly as an adult but apparently even more harshly is just...beyond disturbing.

If you know its wrong, then why did you say that it would be better if the kid died? Confessing to holding the views of a psychotic vigilanty is one thing. Arguing that its for the best is another altogether.


At this point, there seems little more point in arguing with you than in arguing with the likes of Ted Bundy or Jack the Ripper. You know your feelings are wrong, but your clearly not going to change your possission. On this issue, at least, you seem to be beyond the reach of empathy, morality, or logic.

I can only hope that if ever faced with such a situation you would fail to live up to your words. If indeed you are a person who is capable of killing a child, a sincerly hope you do not have kids, and that you get the psychological help you so clearly require.

If I´m beyond reasoning with, as you so adamantly put it, why do you keep responding to my posts? Read them so you can get or gleam your own answers. I´m not searching for your empathy, your skewed views of morality (and mine are no better) or your logic. I´m merely stating my views on this subject, as the OP asked. Nothing more.

Oh, but I have thought about it in many ways. Because of how drastic this way of thinking of mine is, I won´t have kids. Simple.

As for wishing suffering on another person, well, that´s why this child should die. He has suffered immensely with his body burnt. Not only that, his actions, although the ¨typical 5 year old bratty spite¨ of a child, has caused a lot of pain to his family. And mind you, I´m sure whatever happened through that child´s mind, the family is to blame too. Perhaps the more innocent of all the people involved is the child, I don´t take that away from him, but this case just chills me to the bone.

Good, now maybe I won't feel obligated to refer child protection services to your posts on this forum.

But don't try to pretend that your feelings are out of interest in being merciful to the child. And if you do consider this child's actions "typical 5 year old bratty spite", you sure hid it in your earlier posts. And if you do think that this is typical, or that the family is to blame, and you still think that this child should die, then you are even more dispicable than I thought.

If you know its wrong, then why did you say that it would be better if the kid died? Confessing to holding the views of a psychotic vigilanty is one thing. Arguing that its for the best is another altogether.


At this point, there seems little more point in arguing with you than in arguing with the likes of Ted Bundy or Jack the Ripper. You know your feelings are wrong, but your clearly not going to change your possission. On this issue, at least, you seem to be beyond the reach of empathy, morality, or logic.

I can only hope that if ever faced with such a situation you would fail to live up to your words. If indeed you are a person who is capable of killing a child, a sincerly hope you do not have kids, and that you get the psychological help you so clearly require.

Um, you realize that your behavior is pretty reprehensible. It's okay to be outraged by someone suggesting that a child is innocent but should die for doing something bad, but you've gone quite a bit beyond outraged to outrageous.

Well, I'm glad of that, because honestly, if you feel that dying in excruciating pain is a just and reasonable punishment for a kindergarten-aged child, you really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.

I mean, christ, when I was this kid's age, I ran away from my parents while they were shopping and hid underneath a stranger's porch. My parents ended up having to call the police to find me. People who know me as an adult will testify that I am a nice, rational, entirely non-sociopathic person with an IQ very much above average, but as a five-year-old I was not capable of understanding that I couldn't survive by myself, or that my parents would react not by thinking, "Gee, we shouldn't have yelled at Poli for something she didn't do! She sure showed us!" but rather, "OH MY GOD OUR CHILD IS GOING TO GET KILLED WANDERING THE STREETS ALONE OH MY GOD." And, you know, the cop that found me didn't scream at me or tell me I was terrible, because he was a sane human being and understood that I was a small child, and therefore gave me a lollipop and explained in a reasonable fashion that running away was very bad and could get me hurt and I shouldn't do it again. The idea that a five-year-old should be judged not only as harshly as an adult but apparently even more harshly is just...beyond disturbing.


a friend of mine dug a tiger trap with some friends when she was a kid. she must have been 8-10 years old.

they dug a hole, lined it with sharpened sticks, covered it with branches then put candy on top to lure a neighbor kid into the trap.

luckily it didnt work.

as an adult she was horrified that she would ever have done such a thing. neither she nor her friends grew up to be psychopaths. they are all responsible adults today. but one small thing changed and they would have all been murderers.

kids just dont think the same way adults do.

Good, now maybe I won't feel obligated to refer child protection services to your posts on this forum.

But don't try to pretend that your feelings are out of interest in being merciful to the child. And if you do consider this child's actions "typical 5 year old bratty spite", you sure hid it in your earlier posts. And if you do think that this is typical, or that the family is to blame, and you still think that this child should die, then you are even more dispicable than I thought.

Mercy. No. There´s no mercy in my line of thought. I´m chillingly aloof to it all. Mercy... Jesus showed us mercy and what did we do with him? Mercy is the farthest thing from my mind in this case.

But I think you´re seriously misreading me. As for despicable, I do take objection, because I know I´m not, but you don´t know me personally to understand that. As I told you, you´re nothing but a faceless stranger, one who translates into pixels to me. Nothing more, nothing less.

That my opinions on this are skewed and cruel, I´m well aware of. That I think the child is getting what he deserved, sadly, yes, I think that. That I know I´m fucked up for saying this, yes, I know. Worst things have been said. Does this, knowing this about me, changes your own thoughts on the subject? No. And I´m not looking to sway anyone here of their position. I´m ok with you all branding me despicable or crazy or fucked up. You thinking that way, doesn´t, in any way, change the fact that I think this child is seriously disturbed, that the family is seriously disturbed and that the child should be let to die.

So if a kid has a lousy family, that's grounds for killing them? I guess we better start issuing social services with guns and licenses to kill.:rolleyes::headbang:

At least you recognize how wrong your possission is. Maybe if you were unfortunately put in such a situation, you would make the right choice. I hope so, for your sake.

this case just chills me to the bone.

I think on this point, we can all agree. There are no good outcomes at this point. This kid is going to suffer for life and it's a crying shame.

So if a kid has a lousy family, that's grounds for killing them? I guess we better start issuing social services with guns and licenses to kill.:rolleyes::headbang:

At least you recognize how wrong your possission is. Maybe if you were unfortunately put in such a situation, you would make the right choice. I hope so, for your sake.

I want you to cite me saying that because the kid has a lousy family he should be killed or his family should be killed? Do you speak or understand English, at all? Sorry, I had to ask because, once again, you seem to be misreading me. So, your silly sarcasm was unfounded and needless.

Now, for the last time, this is the way I think, reprehensible as you may find it, disturbing as it is, perhaps full of shite as some may think. But it is there. Lastly, answer me this: does my way of thinking, in any way, makes you rethink your position on this subject? Whatever your answer is, that´s how this stands. Good day to you.

a friend of mine dug a tiger trap with some friends when she was a kid. she must have been 8-10 years old.

they dug a hole, lined it with sharpened sticks, covered it with branches then put candy on top to lure a neighbor kid into the trap.

luckily it didnt work.

as an adult she was horrified that she would ever have done such a thing. neither she nor her friends grew up to be psychopaths. they are all responsible adults today. but one small thing changed and they would have all been murderers.

kids just dont think the same way adults do.

This is also chilling. That's the really scary things about children. Some of them are very smart, some of them learn things they are not aged enough to incorporate into anything that would qualify as rational, and they don't have a significantly developed sense of consequences. It's a really scary combination. I think about my childhood and that I survived is a friggin' miracle.

a friend of mine dug a tiger trap with some friends when she was a kid. she must have been 8-10 years old.

they dug a hole, lined it with sharpened sticks, covered it with branches then put candy on top to lure a neighbor kid into the trap.

luckily it didn't work.

as an adult she was horrified that she would ever have done such a thing. neither she nor her friends grew up to be psychopaths. they are all responsible adults today. but one small thing changed and they would have all been murderers.

kids just don't think the same way adults do.

Many people do not realize that kids don't have their brains developed enough to truly understand the results of their actions. This is why we don't sentence children to death or long prison terms in the US except the rate case here and there that warrant prosecution as an adult. I think once one becomes a parent they realize the differences of a kid and rational adult thought.

Some in this post lack this experience and it is showing in some ugly opinions.

I think on this point, we can all agree. There are no good outcomes at this point. This kid is going to suffer for life and it's a crying shame.

Indeed, we agree there.

Um, you realize that your behavior is pretty reprehensible. It's okay to be outraged by someone suggesting that a child is innocent but should die for doing something bad, but you've gone quite a bit beyond outraged to outrageous.

I realize that my posts got a bit melodramatic and insulting in content, and perhaps I should have found a better way to vent my anger. Nonetheless, I fail to see what was so outrageous about that particular post. Psychopathic vigilanty describes his views quite well, and to say that reasoning with him is pointless is hardly a false statement. And I do sure as hell hope no one who thinks like that ever has kids. Don't you?

If I unintentionally violated the rules of this forum, I apologise, and will delete any offending passage if requested to by a moderator. Beyond that, however, I see no reason why I should hold back from expressing my opinion. The views I was arguing against are certainly deserving of no respect.

In any case, I'm probably done with this thread. At this point the argument's just going in circles, because there's really nothing left to say.

This is also chilling. That's the really scary things about children. Some of them are very smart, some of them learn things they are not aged enough to incorporate into anything that would qualify as rational, and they don't have a significantly developed sense of consequences. It's a really scary combination. I think about my childhood and that I survived is a friggin' miracle.


Amen, I can't count how many times something I did as a kid could have turned really bad.

I guess I never had that destructive streak. I don't remember ever playing with matches, and I always knew that playing with daddy's guns was a no-no, so I never played with daddy's guns. The first thing I remember learning was, "don't touch the furnace. It's hot." Sure enough, it was. I think that was enough to tell me that maybe mom and dad knew what they were talking about.

Many people do not realize that kids don't have their brains developed enough to truly understand the results of their actions.

Actually as a general rule, children under the age of 10 can not be charged with a crime, for just that reason.

that the family is seriously disturbed and that the child should be let to die.

Cited. I'll concede you may have meant something else, but it came out sounding like you thought his having a lousy family was a further reason to kill him. I had meant to be done with this thread, but I will defend my self against accusations of dishonesty on my part.

This entire thread has just left me with such a bad taste. I think everyone here should volunteer at a burn ward. I doubt anyone could treat that level of suffering with such disregard after doing so.

This is a devestatingly sad story where so many things were done wrong. As a result one lost her life and another lost any hope for a normal life. There a lot of things I think about this case but that any of this was deserved is not among them.

Actually as a general rule, children under the age of 10 can not be charged with a crime, for just that reason.

True however they can end up in state custody in juvenile facilities. I personally look at it as a sort of prison term. Many would disagree however.

This entire thread has just left me with such a bad taste. I think everyone here should volunteer at a burn ward. I doubt anyone could treat that level of suffering with such disregard after doing so.

This is a devestatingly sad story where so many things were done wrong. As a result one lost her life and another lost any hope for a normal life. There a lot of things I think about this case but that any of this was deserved is not among them.

For that very reason, for the bad taste and the bickering, I´m retiring for the night. What´s more, for those of you who are parents, my sincerest apologies if I offended. As you can see, I don´t have kids, nor plan to. Not mommy material. But I expressed my views, pretty or not. There they stand. Good night.

Cited. I'll concede you may have meant something else, but it came out sounding like you thought his having a lousy family was a further reason to kill him. I had meant to be done with this thread, but I will defend my self against accusations of dishonesty on my part.

"I want you to cite me saying that because the kid has a lousy family he should be killed or his family should be killed?"

What you cited -
"that the family is seriously disturbed and that the child should be let to die."

First, you'll note she said "let to die", that's not killed, so you fail on the most important part. Second, you'll notice "that" appears twice in that citation. That's how people word two seperate points. If you're going to make the kinds of statements you've made in this thread, you're gonna probably want to up the reading comprehension.

What she actually said was "I think this child is seriously disturbed, that the family is seriously disturbed and that the child should be let to die." She said that she thinks three things, that a child is seriously disturbed, that the family is also disturbed, and that the child should be let die. There is no "thus" or "because" and because of the placement of the and, there is no reason to see any of them as dependent on another. Class dismissed.

This entire thread has just left me with such a bad taste. I think everyone here should volunteer at a burn ward. I doubt anyone could treat that level of suffering with such disregard after doing so.

This is a devestatingly sad story where so many things were done wrong. As a result one lost her life and another lost any hope for a normal life. There a lot of things I think about this case but that any of this was deserved is not among them.

I agree seeing someone burned to a crisp would knock some sense into some of these people. It is worse then death in my opinion.

The fact is he burned down his grandmother's house in retaliation. Fact. Since everything I say is a "jumped to conclusion," what is your opinion?


No, you are the one who made an argument that everything was bad using some logical fallacy.

I've provided sources which say, as other people who actually have children or are educators and know something about childhood development, that a child of five years does not understand consequences and may not always know the difference between reality and fantasy here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13822372&postcount=40


You've provided opinions (that he is a sociopath, that he has not had adequate parenting) for which you have supplied no sources.

You have stated that whipping a child is good parenting practice.

Here are my sources:http://www.findcounseling.com/journal/child-abuse/corporal-punishment.html
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/FACULTY/Holden/pdfs/Holden-PB-02.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30punish.html?hp
"groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists and the American Medical and Bar Associations have come out against corporal punishment."
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HqQcTilT8-cJ:portal.unesco.org/education/fr/files/38997/11129465343outline_geneva_side_event_draft2.rtf/outline%252Bgeneva%252Bside%252Bevent_draft2.rtf+corporal+punishment+in+child+rearing.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=51&gl=us

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:j7lYsHP3JaQJ:www.lawrights.asn.au/docs/leach2001.pdf+corporal+punishment+in+child+rearing.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=77&gl=us


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13822679&postcount=51
I pointed out that you don't know he wasn't parented. There was nothing in the article to substantiate that. Rather than deal with providing a source that supported that opinion, you said he observed someone burning down a house. I then said that was leaping to conclusions.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13822934&postcount=55
You said my argument was he just made up burning down someone's house.

Since I didn't make that remark or anything remotely resembling that, yes, you jumped to a conclusion. Or are lying. Pick one. I was being polite in my assumption but since you seem to be consistantly putting words into my mouth...

YOU, not I, made the argument that corporal punishment was the main form of child punishment for years.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13822885&postcount=54

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13822977&postcount=56
I pointed out that just because it happened for years did not make it good. See? That's the part where I said, "See... not everything they did in the 'good old days' was good."

That is not the same as saying "everything traditional is bad." Anyone who thinks the two statements are the same is having serious problems with reading comprehension.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13823313&postcount=75
Rather than deal with that, you deflect by saying "since everything I say is jumped to conclusion", what is my opinion. What the hell does my opinion have to do with it? I've already shown where in your own words you have made connections that ARE NOT THERE. Then you tell me I said everything was bad using logical fallacy? WHERE? Again, "Not everything that was traditional is good," is not the same as saying "everything traditional is bad." Anyone who thinks the two statements are the same is having serious problems with reading comprehension or enjoying making stuff up as they go along.

Now, go ahead and make a cohesive argument that actually has support and doesn't say that the person you disagree with actually said something was black when everyone with eyes and an eighth grade education and reading level can clearly see they said it was white.

Source? I've got mine and it disagrees with you.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp

Yes or no, the Old Testament is part of the Bible? therefore: correction not needed.
Ack, point taken.

Here be my sources, arrr.

I (http://www.mindfully.org/Food/2004/Kdrink-Coca-Drink19apr04.htm)
Coke dropped cocaine from its recipe around 1900, but the secret formula still calls for a cocaine-free coca extract produced at a Stepan Co. factory in Maywood, N.J.

Stepan buys about 100 metric tons of dried Peruvian coca leaves each year, said Marco Castillo, spokesman for Peru's state-owned National Coca Co.
Loves (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6D7123BF932A35754C0A96E948260)
LEAD: For years people have speculated about the secret formula of Coca-Cola, and the ingredients its contains. The formula has been locked in a bank vault, and only a few executives can see it.

For years people have speculated about the secret formula of Coca-Cola, and the ingredients its contains. The formula has been locked in a bank vault, and only a few executives can see it.

Coca-Cola, the world's best-selling soft drink, once contained cocaine, and it is still flavored with a non-narcotic extract from the coca, the plant from which cocaine is derived.
Me (http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/9_3%20The%20Legal%20Importation%20of%20Coca%20Leaf.htm)
The Stepan Company (a $400 million American Stock Exchange company) of Maywood, New Jersey imports 175,000 KG of coca leaves into the United States each year. The leaves come from some of the same farms that supply the Columbian drug cartels. Its finished products end up into nearly everyone in the United States.

One finished product of course is cocaine, which exit the buildings in armored trucks. Tincture of cocaine is one application: in an ointment, it numbs nerve endings in a hurry and it causes vasoconstriction (closure of peripheral blood vessels). The same medical action that controls bleeding in the emergency room is the one that rots away the bridge of a coke abuser's nose.

The other major product is the coca in Coca-Cola©. The Coke formula is one of the most closely guarded corporate secrets in America. The company concedes to using a 'decocainized flavor essence in the coca leaves'-one of the few Coke ingredients the company will publicly acknowledge. When asked why the company uses such a troublesome product as coca leaves, its representative said that 'each ingredient adds to the flavor profile.'
Some (http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/coca_cola.htm)
Until 1905, the soft drink, marketed as a tonic, contained extracts of cocaine as well as the caffeine-rich kola nut.
Cocaine!:D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-cola#Coca_-_Cocaine)
Pemberton called for five ounces of coca leaf per gallon of syrup, a significant dose, whereas, in 1891, Candler claimed his formula (altered extensively from Pemberton's original) contained only a tenth of this amount. Coca Cola did once contain an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass, but in 1903 it was removed.[22] Coca Cola still contains coca flavouring.

After 1904, Coca Cola started using, instead of fresh leaves, "spent" leaves - the leftovers of the cocaine-extraction process with cocaine trace levels left over at a molecular level.[23][24] To this day, Coca Cola uses as an ingredient a cocaine free coca leaf extract prepared at a Stepan Company plant in Maywood, New Jersey.

"I want you to cite me saying that because the kid has a lousy family he should be killed or his family should be killed?"

What you cited -
"that the family is seriously disturbed and that the child should be let to die."

First, you'll note she said "let to die", that's not killed, so you fail on the most important part. Second, you'll notice "that" appears twice in that citation. That's how people word two seperate points. If you're going to make the kinds of statements you've made in this thread, you're gonna probably want to up the reading comprehension.

If you wish to debate weather allowing someone to die is morally comparable to actively killing them(I could go either way on this one), I will be willing to open a new thread to debate that topic. As for reading comprehension, I score A's on English tests, so either your wrong, Im not trying, or the public schools may be more messed up than I thought:). And I conceded she could have meant something else. But in that context, that was the way it came across to me.

Ack, point taken.

Here be my sources, arrr.

I (http://www.mindfully.org/Food/2004/Kdrink-Coca-Drink19apr04.htm)

Loves (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6D7123BF932A35754C0A96E948260)

Me (http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/9_3%20The%20Legal%20Importation%20of%20Coca%20Leaf.htm)

Some (http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/coca_cola.htm)

Cocaine!:D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-cola#Coca_-_Cocaine)

Danke. :)

I work daily in close contact with 7-year-olds (Sometimes closer than I REALLY want), and, yes, they, my students, school aged kids, have one hell of a time working with cause and effect. Heck, that have a hard time working out that other people are separate from them and do not automatically completely understand what they, the child, is feeling and thinking. Empathy is not something that a child has really developed. Did something go wrong here? Yes, probably. Something did, perhaps the child lacked closer adult supervision (Note I said supervision, not beatings), possibly the child was never taught that throwing a temper tantrum is not how to get things. Perhaps there is some sort of mental issue involved, but the above is pure speculation as the facts in the article does not bear out any of them.

Does that mean the child was fully cognate of what he was doing, what would happen, and what could happen and therefore 'deserves' his punishment? No, no he does not. If he is just a normal child, he has not developed to that point yet. That development will take YEARS to get to. Even teens have problems getting from point A to point Z while understanding B though Y. If he DOES have some mental issues, then he really is not culpable, any more so than an adult who is insane or retarded is. To demand that a child be held to adult standards shows a strong lack of knowledge of child development, and possibly a few other things as well.

When I teach my littles, I don't expect them to act as an adult, I also don't expect them to reason as an adult, because I know damn well that they cannot do either of them and asking it of them would be akin to demanding that a gorilla show knowledge and understanding of Shakespeare.

This is a devestatingly sad story where so many things were done wrong. As a result one lost her life and another lost any hope for a normal life. There a lot of things I think about this case but that any of this was deserved is not among them.

Wait....who died?

The OP said that the grandmother suffered minor burns and the child suffered burns over 70% of his body. Did I miss something in between?

...um...

I can remember playing with matches as a kid.
Not trying to burn down my house, of course, but I could have seriously gotten myself hurt had I not been lucky/smart about it (inside kitchen sink ftw).

But yeah, supposedly his saying this....
I wonder if it's tv-as-babysitter or because he sees/hears violence and threats all the time? Bushwick is NOT an altogether "nice" neighborhood.

My reason for saying something went wrong all revolves around the fact that the kid seemed rather overly vengeful. By wrong, I should point out, I mean something as simple as a slight overencouragement of violence, ect ect, since as you say, Bushwick is not a nice neighborhood.

You know, thinking about this, my guess is the kid saw death as making someone leave others alone, and the kid was annoyed with his grandma so he figured he'd get her to leave him alone. The idea that he could actually understand what death really is...nuh-uh. He had to have thought it as something akin to sending someone away, or at least getting back at them for being annoying.

If you wish to debate weather allowing someone to die is morally comparable to actively killing them(I could go either way on this one), I will be willing to open a new thread to debate that topic. As for reading comprehension, I score A's on English tests, so either your wrong, Im not trying, or the public schools may be more messed up than I thought:). And I conceded she could have meant something else. But in that context, that was the way it came across to me.

Um, whether it's morally comparable, it's not the same. For example, allowing someone to die from cancer is legal. Euthanizing them is not. They are actually different. You wanting to argue they should be treated the same doesn't make them the same.

As far as getting A's, that's not a measure of your reading comprehension. The way it was written, it was clearly a list. You misread it. That's poor reading comprehension. I just work with the facts, friend.

You know, thinking about this, my guess is the kid saw death as making someone leave others alone, and the kid was annoyed with his grandma so he figured he'd get her to leave him alone. The idea that he could actually understand what death really is...nuh-uh. He had to have thought it as something akin to sending someone away, or at least getting back at them for being annoying.

I just said this on the phone. My nephew said that once and that's exactly what he was talking about.

I've never been a supporter of censorship, but if hate speech is grounds for banning, then shouldn't you be banned? After all, your speech is inciting me to feel hatred towards you.

That's not hate speech.

Hate speech is: "We should shoot all them niggers in the head because you know they are all criminals and degenerates. That goes for the nancy boys, kikes, spics, lesbos....." I hope you get the idea. This is, indeed, not allowed on this forum.

Hate speech is not: I disagree with you, so I want you thrown off the site. (Were it so, it would be pretty lonely here.) I don't agree with Nanatsu's position (big surprise, we rarely are on the same page) but she's not breaking the rules.
Glad to clear that up for you.

I realize that my posts got a bit melodramatic and insulting in content, and perhaps I should have found a better way to vent my anger. Nonetheless, I fail to see what was so outrageous about that particular post. Psychopathic vigilanty describes his views quite well, and to say that reasoning with him is pointless is hardly a false statement. And I do sure as hell hope no one who thinks like that ever has kids. Don't you?

If I unintentionally violated the rules of this forum, I apologise, and will delete any offending passage if requested to by a moderator. Beyond that, however, I see no reason why I should hold back from expressing my opinion. The views I was arguing against are certainly deserving of no respect.

In any case, I'm probably done with this thread. At this point the argument's just going in circles, because there's really nothing left to say.

Attack the argument, not the poster. You're flaming. Knock it off.

There is something wrong with this kid.
Not cus he burned down the house, but because he is obviously holding a grudge.

Called the cops twice to get his grandma in trouble?
Threatens to burn down a house?

I dunno bout you, but when I was five, if my parents said/did something that bothered me, I was angry for an hour, max. Then it was all hunky dory.

I really hope the kid survives :( He had no idea about the consequences of his actions.

That's not hate speech.

Hate speech is: "We should shoot all them niggers in the head because you know they are all criminals and degenerates. That goes for the nancy boys, kikes, spics, lesbos....." I hope you get the idea. This is, indeed, not allowed on this forum.

Hate speech is not: I disagree with you, so I want you thrown off the site. (Were it so, it would be pretty lonely here.) I don't agree with Nanatsu's position (big surprise, we rarely are on the same page) but she's not breaking the rules.
Glad to clear that up for you.



Attack the argument, not the poster. You're flaming. Knock it off.

I know its not really hate speech. That post was meant to be rather toung in cheek, but I guess it came off sounding different than I intended. I'm not very good at humor. As I said in a later post, I didn't really think she should be banned. Sorry for the missunderstanding.

If you're a moderator, I won't argue with you as to what constitutes flaming on this site, since you're clearly more entitled to say. But I've understood flaming to be a rather subjective thing, and it wasn't really my intention to flame, as far as I can remember. Make my outrage and disgust clear, yes. Flame, I dont think so.

I'm sorry but I do have to take exception to your claim that I was attacking the poster rather than the argument. I repeatedly attacked the argument, and any criticism of the poster was based off of the flaws in her argument, not the other way around. If I inadvertantly violated any rules of this forum I apologize, as I've already stated. Maybe I responded too strongly to a moral outrage.

Regardless, I'd just as soon be done with this whole sordid thread, and will not post in it further unless compelled to do so by specific complaints about the nature of my posts, in which case I will either apologise, or defend myself in a respectful and honest manner.

Katganistan is a moderator, Skyland.

Still, a little flaming is to be expected here, given the subject matter. To be perfectly honest, I'm rather sickened by many of the suggestions of euthanization or how the kid deserved getting burned. I know a lot of us like to turn our noses at the whole "Think of the children!" brand of rhetoric--myself included, most of the time--but that doesn't mean we need to go all the way in the opposite direction.

Katganistan is a moderator, Skyland.

Still, a little flaming is to be expected here, given the subject matter. To be perfectly honest, I'm rather sickened by many of the suggestions of euthanization or how the kid deserved getting burned. I know a lot of us like to turn our noses at the whole "Think of the children!" brand of rhetoric--myself included, most of the time--but that doesn't mean we need to go all the way in the opposite direction.

This.

I know its not really hate speech. That post was meant to be rather toung in cheek, but I guess it came off sounding different than I intended. I'm not very good at humor. As I said in a later post, I didn't really think she should be banned. Sorry for the missunderstanding.

If you're a moderator, I won't argue with you as to what constitutes flaming on this site, since you're clearly more entitled to say. But I've understood flaming to be a rather subjective thing, and it wasn't really my intention to flame, as far as I can remember. Make my outrage and disgust clear, yes. Flame, I dont think so.

I'm sorry but I do have to take exception to your claim that I was attacking the poster rather than the argument. I repeatedly attacked the argument, and any criticism of the poster was based off of the flaws in her argument, not the other way around. If I inadvertantly violated any rules of this forum I apologize, as I've already stated. Maybe I responded too strongly to a moral outrage.

Regardless, I'd just as soon be done with this whole sordid thread, and will not post in it further unless compelled to do so by specific complaints about the nature of my posts, in which case I will either apologise, or defend myself in a respectful and honest manner.

Just so you know... flaming is personal attacks. Comments like:

"Now that you realize it, the next step is to go get profesional help. Or you (by your own logic) you could be Euthanized, which would be perfectly acceptable I'm sure given how warped and disturbed you are.

...get the psychological help you so clearly require.

you are even more dispicable [sic] than I thought.

are getting you in trouble.

I think your attitude is despicable -- ok.
I think your argument is deplorable -- ok.
I think you are a pyschopathic vigilante -- not ok.

Check under my name -- you'll see the title.

This isn't an OFFICIAL warning -- this is just "cool it, you're getting out of bounds". No flaying of hides or timeouts required.

I concur with Katganistan's judgment.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Forum Moderator

...

A follow-up article.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2008/07/08/2008-07-08_granny_defends_5yearold_firestarter.html
Granny defends 5-year-old firestarter
BY BARRY PADDOCK, EDGAR SANDOVAL AND TAMER EL-GHOBASHY
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Updated Wednesday, July 9th 2008, 1:48 AM

A Brooklyn woman injured when her 5-year-old grandson torched her apartment out of spite said Tuesday she doesn't believe he meant to hurt her.

"He was not trying to burn the house or kill me," said Nancy Herrera, 63, laboring to speak after suffering minor smoke inhalation.

"He loves me very much, and I love him, too," she said of little Jay Morales, who showed signs of improvement Tuesday. He was burned over 70% of his body while, police say, he used a lighter to ignite the curtains in his grandmother's Bushwick home Monday.

Experts said Jay's deliberate and nearly deadly act is a sign the boy is seriously disturbed and could lead to worse violence if not immediately addressed.

Jay's mother, Somia Morales, 29, said the boy was no longer in danger of dying, but was still unconscious at New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell.

Morales said she did not think Jay lit the fire intentionally, saying he "loves his grandmother."

She described her son as a typical 5-year-old who was "a little misbehaved - a little on the rough side," she said. "He's a good kid."

Cops and behavior experts don't agree. Investigators believe Jay ignited the blaze at the Knickerbocker Ave. apartment because he was angry at being punished by his grandmother after he made two prank 911 calls in which he claimed Herrera was dead or hurt.

When he was forbidden from going to the park, he told a friend he was "going to burn the house down and kill grandma," a police source said.

"I can't think of a more ominous sign of disturbance and potential for future dangerousness than a 5-year-old behaving like this," said Louis Schlesinger, a professor of forensic psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "There has to be some really intensive intervention and supervision."

Schlesinger called the incident a "red flag that should not be rationalized away." The thought process that sparks a 5-year-old to commit such an act can range from "brain damage which weakens his controls or a whole host of family dynamics that contributed to this," he said.

Anyone younger than 7 years old cannot be charged with a crime in New York. The case will likely go to Family Court, where a judge will determine what kind of supervision and therapy Jay needs, law enforcement sources said.

A spokeswoman for the city Administration for Children's Services refused to say if the agency had previous contact with the boy's family.

Jay's family said the boy lives with his mother in the Bronx but spends weekends and summers at his grandmother's house.
Herrera said she left Jay unattended briefly while she prepared for a shower. That's when she smelled smoke and tried to find him, but a neighbor pulled her out of the burning apartment.

Firefighters found Jay unconscious in a front bedroom.

"I can't wait...to go see him," Herrera said. "I'm very worried."

esandoval@nydailynews.com

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

"He was not trying to burn the house or kill me," said Nancy Herrera, 63, laboring to speak after suffering minor smoke inhalation.

"He loves me very much, and I love him, too," she said of little Jay Morales, who showed signs of improvement Tuesday. He was burned over 70% of his body while, police say, he used a lighter to ignite the curtains in his grandmother's Bushwick home Monday.
Grandparents are notorious suckers who refuse to believe their grandchildren can do anything bad ever.

I concur with Katganistan's judgment.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Forum Moderator

...

A follow-up article.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2008/07/08/2008-07-08_granny_defends_5yearold_firestarter.html


--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

thanks for the update.

i totally expected a story about how he had been setting fires for years but nooooo this one disaster shows that he is seriously disturbed.

the authorities seem to be living in a dream world where "anger management" is the kid's big problem and that a bit of therapy will fix it.

HE IS STILL UNCONSCIOUS FROM BEING IN A DEVASTATING FIRE, YOU IDIOTS.

a "more ominous sign" that the child is disturbed and needs massive help is being burned over 70% of his body. he has a whole new set of problems today than he did on the day he set the curtains on fire.

t
i totally expected a story about how he had been setting fires for years but nooooo this one disaster shows that he is seriously disturbed.
"i totally expected a story about how he had been torturing pets for years but nooooo this one incident [of beating a cat to death] shows that he is seriously disturbed."

Same thing. He said he was going to set the house on fire to kill his grandma and regularly talked about it according to her. If you don't believe the child is disturbed, more than just the child has issues. Plotting to "burn down the house to kill grandma" is not a standard response to not getting to go out to play.

"i totally expected a story about how he had been torturing pets for years but nooooo this one incident [of beating a cat to death] shows that he is seriously disturbed."

Same thing. He said he was going to set the house on fire to kill his grandma and regularly talked about it according to her. If you don't believe the child is disturbed, more than just the child has issues. Plotting to "burn down the house to kill grandma" is not a standard response to not getting to go out to play.

no its not. but, as has been pointed out before, its too big a leap for a 5 year old to go from burning the curtains to knowing exactly what happens afterwards--as evidence, he did not even leave the room after the fire got going.

but anyway.

my point is that NOW being a budding fire bug is the least of his problems.

no its not. but, as has been pointed out before, its too big a leap for a 5 year old to go from burning the curtains to knowing exactly what happens afterwards--as evidence, he did not even leave the room after the fire got going.

Not knowing what would happen to him doesn't discount the original intent.

Not knowing what would happen to him doesn't discount the original intent.

Um, yes, it does. This CHILD wasn't able to really understand what he was saying. It's like the difference between jumping off a building with a cape and jumping off a building with a glider. Both are intending to fly but only one really understands what that means.

Not knowing what would happen to him doesn't discount the original intent.

ya but that intent -- to get back at the adult who has told them NO-- is very common in 5 year olds.

we dont know if the parents are in denial about their son--for all we know he may have been playing with fire for the past year--or if its his first instance of this kind of over-the-top behavior. we cant even say for sure that he set the curtains on fire for the reasons stated--its pretty far after the fact for a 5 year old and no one was there at the time to see if he was being malicious or just taking the opportunity to see what would happen if he got the lighter going.

what we DO know is that he is a devastingly burned child who will be in pain for months and bear horrible scars for the rest of his life. this will overwhelm any other problems he may have had the day before he set the fire.

Not knowing what would happen to him doesn't discount the original intent.

That doesn't even make sense. 5 year olds in general are not great at cause/effect relationships and understanding permanence.

Kids threaten scary scary things all the time, they have no clue what they are saying. Worse yet, kids do scary scary things all the time and have no real understanding of the long term consequences of their actions.

A few months ago I was woken up at 3am by the smell of smoke and the alarm going off. I was still a bit tired and wonky from an ER visit where I was given tramadol. I heard the sound of the alarm but it didn't register, I thought perhaps it was already morning and it was my husband's alarm. While I was sorting through that, I heard my nearly 5 year old say "you have to tell mom about the fire" and my 6 year old say "no, we'll get in trouble"......that woke me up.

They had planned in the middle of the night to bake a cake. They being children thought it best to use the microwave. Even though I had told them NEVER to put anything shiny in the microwave and NEVER to use it without my help, they did it anyway. I walked in to find a silver pan of cake goo on fire in my microwave....it took me a minute to separate the sleeping grog from reality and figure out what I was supposed to do.......but then I did and I put the fire out.

So, what's the point? My children, who are literally genius level IQ's did not understand that they could set the house on fire and get hurt even though I told them that many times and even more scary they weren't going to wake me up and tell me about the fire. They seriously weren't going to mention it.

They are children, they have no concept.

That doesn't even make sense. 5 year olds in general are not great at cause/effect relationships and understanding permanence.

Kids threaten scary scary things all the time, they have no clue what they are saying. Worse yet, kids do scary scary things all the time and have no real understanding of the long term consequences of their actions.

A few months ago I was woken up at 3am by the smell of smoke and the alarm going off. I was still a bit tired and wonky from an ER visit where I was given tramadol. I heard the sound of the alarm but it didn't register, I thought perhaps it was already morning and it was my husband's alarm. While I was sorting through that, I heard my nearly 5 year old say "you have to tell mom about the fire" and my 6 year old say "no, we'll get in trouble"......that woke me up.

They had planned in the middle of the night to bake a cake. They being children thought it best to use the microwave. Even though I had told them NEVER to put anything shiny in the microwave and NEVER to use it without my help, they did it anyway. I walked in to find a silver pan of cake goo on fire in my microwave....it took me a minute to separate the sleeping grog from reality and figure out what I was supposed to do.......but then I did and I put the fire out.

So, what's the point? My children, who are literally genius level IQ's did not understand that they could set the house on fire and get hurt even though I told them that many times and even more scary they weren't going to wake me up and tell me about the fire. They seriously weren't going to mention it.

They are children, they have no concept.


"you have to tell mom about the fire"

now THATS a scary thing to hear in the middle of the night.

people have the unreasonable expectation that because they have very smart kids that they will have the judgement of adults. NOOOOOO they are still kids and their brains still work like kids brains. and smart kids are worse than average kids because they can think up more things to try.

thats a very scary story. im glad it worked out OK.

Um, yes, it does. This CHILD wasn't able to really understand what he was saying.
You don't have to understand "killing you means I'm going to jail" to stab some one to death.

It's like the difference between jumping off a building with a cape and jumping off a building with a glider. Both are intending to fly but only one really understands what that means.
And? I don't think you understand your argument doesn't contradict mine. The intent is still there. It doesn't magically go away.

That doesn't even make sense. 5 year olds in general are not great at cause/effect relationships and understanding permanence.

Kids threaten scary scary things all the time, they have no clue what they are saying. Worse yet, kids do scary scary things all the time and have no real understanding of the long term consequences of their actions.

A few months ago I was woken up at 3am by the smell of smoke and the alarm going off. I was still a bit tired and wonky from an ER visit where I was given tramadol. I heard the sound of the alarm but it didn't register, I thought perhaps it was already morning and it was my husband's alarm. While I was sorting through that, I heard my nearly 5 year old say "you have to tell mom about the fire" and my 6 year old say "no, we'll get in trouble"......that woke me up.

They had planned in the middle of the night to bake a cake. They being children thought it best to use the microwave. Even though I had told them NEVER to put anything shiny in the microwave and NEVER to use it without my help, they did it anyway. I walked in to find a silver pan of cake goo on fire in my microwave....it took me a minute to separate the sleeping grog from reality and figure out what I was supposed to do.......but then I did and I put the fire out.

So, what's the point? My children, who are literally genius level IQ's did not understand that they could set the house on fire and get hurt even though I told them that many times and even more scary they weren't going to wake me up and tell me about the fire. They seriously weren't going to mention it.

They are children, they have no concept.

The difference between your anecdote and the news story is your kids intended to bake a cake, the kid in the news story intended to burn down the house to kill his grandmother.

"you have to tell mom about the fire"

now THATS a scary thing to hear in the middle of the night.

people have the unreasonable expectation that because they have very smart kids that they will have the judgement of adults. NOOOOOO they are still kids and their brains still work like kids brains. and smart kids are worse than average kids because they can think up more things to try.

thats a very scary story. im glad it worked out OK.

Yeah, it seemed like forever me laying there being "is this real? did I hear that? what is that beeping sound?" and then when I thought even if it's a dream I should get up.......getting into the kitchen and seeing a fire, and thinking "is this real? is this a dream? what do I do now? Should I open it? Unplug it? call the fire dept?" and it was all about 2 minutes, but it seemed like years........toradol is not a good thing.

I literally put the fire out and went back to sleep and woke up unsure if it had actually happened. Until I went into the kitchen to make some microwave cereal and my husband was like "sweetie don't you remember it caught fire this morning? you put it out with the extinguisher"

Then I remembered everything. :eek: I'm lucky my "mom functionality" works while I'm on narcotics. Seriously.

The difference between your anecdote and the news story is your kids intended to bake a cake, the kid in the news story intended to burn down the house to kill his grandmother.

They didn't understand that a fire would consume the whole house and kill us all. They had intended to go back to bed and ignore it. The fact that he was so badly burned means he, on some level, had no understanding of what fire does.

You don't have to understand "killing you means I'm going to jail" to stab some one to death.


And? I don't think you understand your argument doesn't contradict mine. The intent is still there. It doesn't magically go away.

you certainly dont.

but you DO have to understand that stabbing someone means you might kill them, that YOU might kill them, that you might kill THEM, and that killing them means that they will be dead, that dead is forever.

you have to have control over your impulses--even 5 year olds sometimes go into uncontrollable tantrums.

with setting a fire the chain is more difficult than that.

You don't have to understand "killing you means I'm going to jail" to stab some one to death.


And? I don't think you understand your argument doesn't contradict mine. The intent is still there. It doesn't magically go away.

Intent implies a level of understanding that just isn't there. He not only doesn't understnad that "killing you means I'm going to jail", but he doesn't understand "killing you means you're dead... forever."

As has been pointed out to you, you fail to incorporate that children don't understand death into your argument. Since you've been informed, and it's supported by all evidence, and you continue to fail to make an informed argument, this becomes the point and laugh part of the evening.

The child wasn't capable of understanding. You are. I hold you far more culpable for failing to address the actual facts.

The difference between your anecdote and the news story is your kids intended to bake a cake, the kid in the news story intended to burn down the house to kill his grandmother.

See that... way over there? That's the point. You missed it by a mile.

The point is that children simply don't have the level of understanding you're ascribing to them. You might as well be accusing a dog of murder. Honestly, the level of understanding is only slightly different. (The more intelligent dogs are usually said to have intellect resembling a 3-year-old.)

A 5-year-old doesn't have the understanding required for intent. This is precisely why they don't even try 5-year-olds for crimes. They can't commit crimes. It's not possible.