- Status
My mom spanked me a few times when I was a kid. Did she want to cause some sort of pain? Yes, obviously, it was a punishment. Did I scream and cry? Yes, of course, and I exaggerated a LOT. Is she a monster? well, as much as I would like to say yes sometimes, the truth is, she's not. Do I agree with her methods? No, I don't, but that doesn't make her a monster.
M
makare
At no point did I say that people who physically discipline their kids are monsters. The only method of punishment I have talked about is forcing a kid or anyone to drink loads of water. If your parents made you drink loads of water or you are a parent who forces your kid to drink loads of water then yes I have a serious problem with that regardless of whether they or you knew about water intoxication.
What she did or didn't mention is irrelevant. The jury only had the water situation, she only gave the water situation. It was enough for those 12 fucknuts to see was wrong, it was enough for the fucknuts here. For all we know, the jury deliberated on whether the guy meant to kill him or not, or meant to harm him or not, or whether the guy was too stupid to see the harm he was causing as he pushed it to keep going, or whether the guy didn't give a shit.
Fucknuts: The guy's a piece of shit. I don't stand up from the toilet and consider how far gone were the murderous intentions of what I've left in the bowl, so I don't see why you're all going through all this.
Makare: Our fucknuts are saying maybe the guy didn't know he was going to kill the kid, even if he was trying to hurt him. That's it. I know how it feels having to read this shit all day; it does things to you, and can lead to the jumping-down-throats of those who are... I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish, but they're not saying he's innocent. In any case, it doesn't leave one in the best frame of mind and one can take out those emotions on others. I've done it, you can do it, but it's not the best way to deal with the (understandable) feelings generated. I don't envy you moving into the sex abuse stuff; I just had to read a bunch of that shit a couple days ago and I just wanted to go to sleep and not think about it.
Mathias:
Fucknuts: The guy's a piece of shit. I don't stand up from the toilet and consider how far gone were the murderous intentions of what I've left in the bowl, so I don't see why you're all going through all this.
Makare: Our fucknuts are saying maybe the guy didn't know he was going to kill the kid, even if he was trying to hurt him. That's it. I know how it feels having to read this shit all day; it does things to you, and can lead to the jumping-down-throats of those who are... I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish, but they're not saying he's innocent. In any case, it doesn't leave one in the best frame of mind and one can take out those emotions on others. I've done it, you can do it, but it's not the best way to deal with the (understandable) feelings generated. I don't envy you moving into the sex abuse stuff; I just had to read a bunch of that shit a couple days ago and I just wanted to go to sleep and not think about it.
Mathias:
Fucking exactly.
M
makare
I am not saying that the people in this thread think he is innocent I am saying that he chose to use physical discipline and the child died. That was the risk he took. Whether he knew it could result in death or not doesn't matter.
I don't think anyone is disputing that. They're just noting it.
I think, makare, since you mentioned you were 'torturing yourself trying to imagine how [he]... could watch', they're just offering explanations; though perhaps your statement was rhetorical? I think everyone agrees it doesn't matter whether he knew or not in terms of his deserving punishment, but it would matter in explaining the disconnect that would allow him to watch/inflict such a punishment, from an insight/armchair psychologist point of view, excluding the legal ramifications of his actions (and while excluding a simple "He's a sadist" answer, which may also be valid).
M
makare
I was definitely being rhetorical and I regret it since people seem to think I am very upset about the case and it is affecting how I feel about this conversation.
I still don't see the First Degree Murder Charge. He should have been charged manslaughter, or whatever the most gross form of negligent homicide/child abuse that will fall short of First Degree Murder. It sounds like the DA and the jury went with their emotions and not the law.
In reality if he was cooking up perverse ways to harm his kids as punishment, he should really spend most of the rest of his days in a mental institution. One of the major shortcomings of our legal system is the large number of the untreated insane that are in the general population of our prisons.
In reality if he was cooking up perverse ways to harm his kids as punishment, he should really spend most of the rest of his days in a mental institution. One of the major shortcomings of our legal system is the large number of the untreated insane that are in the general population of our prisons.
M
makare
The torture aspect is what bumped it up to first degree murder. It's in the statute and definitely the law. But like I said I am not sure if it would work but I would have gone for felony murder.
I take back my explanation of the others in regards to sixpack.
Torture to death = accident! Derp! (Cause that's the way things work here.)
And someone can be sadistic without being insane. Not everyone who does sick shit does it because they're crazy. Some of them just don't feel. That's a psychological disorder, but disorders are not the same as disconnection with reality.
Torture to death = accident! Derp! (Cause that's the way things work here.)
And someone can be sadistic without being insane. Not everyone who does sick shit does it because they're crazy. Some of them just don't feel. That's a psychological disorder, but disorders are not the same as disconnection with reality.
I don't think people are coming up with reasons why it was better or worse than what it was on the surface.
I think people are trying to understand what was going on in this guy's head. It's what humans do. They see behavior, they classify it, and hopefully they learn from it.
Yes, he was torturing this kid. Yes, the kid died. Yes, he committed murder, and is now locked away.
But there are likely a dozen different reasons why he might have decided to take this path.
There are probably a dozen plausible reasons why he continued to take this path when he observed the negative effects.
It is reasonable to consider the possibility that he didn't understand that it was torture, and that it could lead to death. Why is it valuable to consider this path of reasoning?
It's because of the very real, and terrifying thought, that perhaps there are things we are doing to our own kids which may be torture and/or could reasonably lead to death that we are unaware of.
It's precisely the theory that stupid people are not aware of their limitations and inability to recognize their own stupidity that makes me want to understand why this person did what he did, and whether he understood the consequences or not, in an attempt to improve my ability to see the oncoming train if I'm too stupid to realize I'm standing on the track.
This case in particular highlights the gray area between knowing what will kill and what won't - even outside the spectrum of egregious child abuse.
So is it reasonable to wonder what was going through the guys head? Sure.
Is it reasonable to ponder the path that perhaps he truly didn't intend to kill the child? Yes.
Is there a possibility that he honestly didn't believe that he was doing anything more than causing mild discomfort? There's a possibility that it started out that way. Without more details we can't tell, though. If he was forcing liquid down the child's throat, then it's plain and simple torture and murder, and the first degree charge is justified. If he simply placed 16 twelve ounce glasses of water (which is 6 liters) in front of the kid, and said, "You can't play your video games until you drink all that," and the kid was motivated to consume it all (one glass per 7.5 minutes over two hours) and subsequently died, then suddenly things become a lot more murky.
It's not an attempt to excuse his behavior, or to undermine anyone else's arguments that he's a bad person. It's merely an exercise in trying to understand human behavior.
Regardless:
1. It's natural (and should be acceptable) to discuss possible mental state and the events leading up to it in an attempt to understand and come to terms with how someone could possibly do such a thing.
2. It should be blindingly obvious that in the absence of full case information, all we can do is discuss it with a variety of assumptions, all bad, but none any better than another.
3. Due to our various assumptions, the thread is ripe for miscommunication and misunderstanding. It's stupid to take posts too seriously when we're all operating on a different set of assumptions about this case.
I think people are trying to understand what was going on in this guy's head. It's what humans do. They see behavior, they classify it, and hopefully they learn from it.
Yes, he was torturing this kid. Yes, the kid died. Yes, he committed murder, and is now locked away.
But there are likely a dozen different reasons why he might have decided to take this path.
There are probably a dozen plausible reasons why he continued to take this path when he observed the negative effects.
It is reasonable to consider the possibility that he didn't understand that it was torture, and that it could lead to death. Why is it valuable to consider this path of reasoning?
It's because of the very real, and terrifying thought, that perhaps there are things we are doing to our own kids which may be torture and/or could reasonably lead to death that we are unaware of.
It's precisely the theory that stupid people are not aware of their limitations and inability to recognize their own stupidity that makes me want to understand why this person did what he did, and whether he understood the consequences or not, in an attempt to improve my ability to see the oncoming train if I'm too stupid to realize I'm standing on the track.
This case in particular highlights the gray area between knowing what will kill and what won't - even outside the spectrum of egregious child abuse.
So is it reasonable to wonder what was going through the guys head? Sure.
Is it reasonable to ponder the path that perhaps he truly didn't intend to kill the child? Yes.
Is there a possibility that he honestly didn't believe that he was doing anything more than causing mild discomfort? There's a possibility that it started out that way. Without more details we can't tell, though. If he was forcing liquid down the child's throat, then it's plain and simple torture and murder, and the first degree charge is justified. If he simply placed 16 twelve ounce glasses of water (which is 6 liters) in front of the kid, and said, "You can't play your video games until you drink all that," and the kid was motivated to consume it all (one glass per 7.5 minutes over two hours) and subsequently died, then suddenly things become a lot more murky.
It's not an attempt to excuse his behavior, or to undermine anyone else's arguments that he's a bad person. It's merely an exercise in trying to understand human behavior.
Regardless:
1. It's natural (and should be acceptable) to discuss possible mental state and the events leading up to it in an attempt to understand and come to terms with how someone could possibly do such a thing.
2. It should be blindingly obvious that in the absence of full case information, all we can do is discuss it with a variety of assumptions, all bad, but none any better than another.
3. Due to our various assumptions, the thread is ripe for miscommunication and misunderstanding. It's stupid to take posts too seriously when we're all operating on a different set of assumptions about this case.
It's one of the most thought-provoking, and not because of its original subject matter. How much punishment is too much? To the point where irreparable harm is done, yes. To death, certainly. There is a fine line between "This will hurt me more than it hurts you," and "This is me transferring my hurt onto you." Keeping that line at a respectful distance is one of the most important duties of a successful parent.
And I've said my piece.
--Patrick
And I've said my piece.
--Patrick
For some values of "irreparable" and "harm". At least the physical abuse is visible in many cases. Psychological abuse is possibly more prevalent, can be far more damaging, and may be perfectly permissible under the law depending on how the abuse is carried out. And the parents may be completely unaware of how damaging their words and actions are to their child's future.
I deliberately made no distinction between physical and mental harm. One might also argue that part of the duty of a parent is to know (or learn) what might be harmful to one's progeny. An utterly impossible task, by anyone's measure, but the most successful parents are the ones who know they'll never be able to prepare for everything, and yet still take it seriously.
--Patrick
--Patrick
P
Philosopher B.
Threads like these make me want to post less.
C
Chibibar
I just want to cover something about Asian punishment (well from my side of the family)
There are many different type of punishment out there and some may cause hard and possible death if not apply correctly.
couple of note: my parents never punish me when in anger. That can cause a lot of problem and more than likely more harm than good. The punishment can be physical or mental. All punishment are meant to "harm" in someway but the person receiving suppose to learn from the lesson.
I'm gonna give two examples in my life.
When I was growing in Bangkok, Thailand, I was living with my grandmother who doesn't approve of her son's marriage to my mother. She despise me but took me in while my father was having a divorce at the time. She physically punish me whenever she could. It is a sheer malice. She spank me with bamboo until I bleed in different places. Is it malice? yes. Is it willful? probably. Child abuse? people in the western world would say yes BUT it is common in Thailand so that is matter of society debate.
My father use to punish me via the belt. Yes, it hurts. Yes, I did deserve it (lying was the crime) did it hurt? hell yes! could I have been injured or death? possible if the metal part of the belt hit me in the head in the right way. Was it child abuse? my father's intent was to punish me and teach me that lying is worst crime you can commit in the family. He loved me and wouldn't kill me or put me in that level of harm (in terms of physical disable or something intentionally) but bad thing could come from it if it wasn't in controlled environment (i.e. if he punish me while in anger)
Now I am NOT saying this particular father is right in anyway, but to me, any sane parents wouldn't want to hurt their children intentionally. Yes, the father is ignorant the water intoxication could happen and probably should have use a different method of punishment, but the hardest thing when looking into a single incident to see if there is malice involved (I mean in general not just in this case) or was trying to teach a lesson and it went horribly wrong.
There are many different type of punishment out there and some may cause hard and possible death if not apply correctly.
couple of note: my parents never punish me when in anger. That can cause a lot of problem and more than likely more harm than good. The punishment can be physical or mental. All punishment are meant to "harm" in someway but the person receiving suppose to learn from the lesson.
I'm gonna give two examples in my life.
When I was growing in Bangkok, Thailand, I was living with my grandmother who doesn't approve of her son's marriage to my mother. She despise me but took me in while my father was having a divorce at the time. She physically punish me whenever she could. It is a sheer malice. She spank me with bamboo until I bleed in different places. Is it malice? yes. Is it willful? probably. Child abuse? people in the western world would say yes BUT it is common in Thailand so that is matter of society debate.
My father use to punish me via the belt. Yes, it hurts. Yes, I did deserve it (lying was the crime) did it hurt? hell yes! could I have been injured or death? possible if the metal part of the belt hit me in the head in the right way. Was it child abuse? my father's intent was to punish me and teach me that lying is worst crime you can commit in the family. He loved me and wouldn't kill me or put me in that level of harm (in terms of physical disable or something intentionally) but bad thing could come from it if it wasn't in controlled environment (i.e. if he punish me while in anger)
Now I am NOT saying this particular father is right in anyway, but to me, any sane parents wouldn't want to hurt their children intentionally. Yes, the father is ignorant the water intoxication could happen and probably should have use a different method of punishment, but the hardest thing when looking into a single incident to see if there is malice involved (I mean in general not just in this case) or was trying to teach a lesson and it went horribly wrong.
Dave
Staff member
Why? We are debating something that has been debated on a lot. Hell, there are books about this sort of thing. We're all just trying to understand.
GasBandit
Staff member
I think this is probably the crux of the disconnect in this thread right here - I know my response was predicated entirely upon makare's (now understood to be rhetorical) statement that she was struggling to understand "how" anyone could do this, and meant only to address that.
Sorry, the original post in this thread wasn't stupid. It's what it devolved into. I'd rather discuss and argue over how to cook steak versus the tolerance limits to torturing children, and rationalizing the intentions of sadists.
Agreed.
Dave
Staff member
I guess I didn't see the conversation as that.
This.
- Status