barsoap

It’s a pretty simple concept. He is the one who performed the act. He is responsible.

So if someone calls up an assassin to murder another person, the one who ordered the kill gets off scott-free?

Unless you can show the adults deliberately taught him to murder, I’d say no.

Adults have a duty to raise kids well, just as they have a duty to file their taxes. If they cannot do so on their own, they have the right to be helped along by the rest of society. And, really, even if not there's that other (more famous) African saying: It takes a village to raise a kid.

Consider the alternative, or, rather, that really seems to be what you're implying: That children are responsible for their own upbringing. Next up: Babies are expected to grow their own food. Your potted petunia is responsible for its own watering.

You argued that 4-year-olds don’t need supervision.

If they have shown signs of being violent to their peers, yes of course they need supervision. And so does our 15yold. But that doesn't mean that we pre-emptively supervise every kid that way they'd never learn independence, and thus never truly become adults, they'd just spinelessly bow to the next random person who passes as an authority figure.

Life, liberty, rights, and privileges can - and should - be deprived upon conviction of a crime.

Life can and should be deprived? That's barbaric. Every civilised country has abolished the death penalty. Heck even parts of the US managed to abolish it.

I summarily reject your suggestion that a 15-year-old is so lacking in their capacity for executive control that they can be excused of murder.

So you reject reality. Which explains a lot.

By all means, be warm to the kid. Until he starts setting people on fire.

And what if noone was warm to him, who is at fault when the village burns? I'd say the adults are. Punishing the kid is just them trying to cover up their own failures. A convenient scapegoat for their own failure to foster wholesome interactions.

Your position is therefore undemocratic.

If your position was to kill all people of a particular skin color then my position would be the same. Democracy cannot work if fundamental rights are not protected from onslaught by people who, ultimately, would abolish democracy itself. Because that's where your path leads: Towards a failure to regard other people as people.

comprehend the rightness and wrongness of murder

You still fail to acknowledge that that's not what it's about. It's about executive control. If an adult has an intrusive thought they have a very good grasp on blocking it, youth doesn't. If everything works well then they're simply exploration happy, like stupid bands, invent new makeup styles and re-invent the shopping cart race. If society messed them up at a fundamental level then things like murder can bubble up, and might not be stopped by the weak frontal cortex. That does not mean that they'll regret it, though: They're already perfectly capable of rationalising, and will do so to maintain a consistent self-image of themselves.

Did you understand anything of what I just wrote. Please rephrase it in your own words ("So you're saying that...") so I know we won't continue to talk past each other, there.

More generally speaking, there's an African saying: If a kid does not feel the warmth of the village they will find the warmth they deserve by setting it ablaze.

You’re just not shooting at the enemy, but you’re still shot at by artillery or missiles.

If you're in artillery range that's a combat role. Definitions may differ but you're "serving at arms".

...and, no, when Ukraine is sending in a Leopard or such for repair they're not doing it on the frontlines. The service centre is in Poland, the frontline is too much of a fickle place to have big cranes, stacks of turrets and chassis to mix and match, etc. That's a different thing from a shop a bit back from the frontline that can do "extended field repairs", say, replace a track, or switch other parts that are designed to be easily replaced. Those places are at least semi-mobile and part of the tank battalion.

Die Linke. Also im allgemeinen, nicht die Partei im speziellen. Fing mit der Finanzierung des 1. Weltkrieges an und hat sind dann immer fortgesetzt, nur mal als Stichwort Hartz IV und Niedriglohnsektor, will sagen das hat jetzt schon über 100 Jahre Tradition. Der Mark-Uwe hat das mal ausgearbeitet.

(Und bevor hier jemand mit "Doch die Partei im speziellen" ankommt, von wegen Liebknecht und Luxemburg, die hätten beide die SED gehasst, die Partei Die Linke hat keinen Alleinanspruch auf die beiden).

Ich mein im Moment sind wir im Prinzip noch in einer Situation wo es innerhalb der FDP einen Putsch geben kann: Lieber jemanden schicken der zumindest sozialliberal angehaucht ist als erst aus der Regierung und dann aus dem Bundestag fliegen. Mal sehen ob die Justusse erkennen dass sie in genau dieser Lage stecken.

Und was die SPD angeht -- ja, sie ist immer noch Verräterpartei. Will sagen solche Aktionen beweisen dass sie, trotz allen Zweifels, immer noch eine linke Partei ist was ja Voraussetzung für diese Einordnung ist.

because you could be drafted to maintenance near the front lines,

And field hospitals can't be near front lines? If with "near the front" you mean "you're running around with a sidearm" then that's a combat role, combat mechanic isn't a non-combat role, the actual maintenance is just as far back as hospitals are.

So your statement that it is harsher on women is not correct.

You cannot interpret "harsher" freely, without taking account what I called harsher, after the colon: Women who don't have the stomach to go into the medical field don't have an out, legally speaking. While the law says "Not all men are fighters", it is saying "all women are nurses". You see the difference in essentialism there, don't you?

Ad hominem.

I'm not attacking your person, I'm attacking whatever backwater government you're living under for having such inane laws.

He has been found to have the mental capacity necessary to comprehend the difference between the “rightness” and “wrongness” of jamming a knife into another human.

He has been found to have the capacity necessary to stand trial in juvenile court. Those standards are different than for adults because, and I'll say this again: Juveniles are not fully developed. They don't have the same mental capacity.

Some people should just never see the light of day again. This kid is one of them.

If, at the ripe age of 90, he's still messed up then I'd agree with you. But there's quite a couple of decades until then.

As said: You're out for blood, plain and simple. You know nothing of understanding, of forgiveness, or you would be more lenient, you know nothing about justice or you would take into account that he's a kid, and you certainly know nothing about developmental psychology.

You should be kept as far away from the justice system as possible. I don't consider you unredeemable, but by the way you dig in your heels and refuse to listen to arguments it's going to be a while before that restriction can be lifted.

Failure to continuously supervise a 4-year-old you are responsible for is a chargeable offense.

I'm sorry you're living under fascism.

He was found to not have sufficiently diminished capacity to excuse or mitigate his actions.

Which does not mean that he is responsible for being the way that he is. Criminal insanity is a rare thing and, as a verdict, not actually that preferable. Doubly so criminal insanity as a juvenile, who are, yes, judged by different standards because their brains aren't there, yet.

I suggest you learn something about developmental psychology.

Organisation is actually pretty good at the battalion level, there's plenty of EU Battlegroups integrating neighbouring armies on a deep level -- or at least making them acquainted with each other. Gotta know the MRE exchange rates. And that's not counting stuff that you mentioned, like the Dutch land army being rolled into German C&C or the German/French brigade.

What's lacking are strategic C&C capabilities on the EU level: There's just too few of them, there should be more cooperation on that level (member states have those kinds of capabilities) which is exactly what the "EU army" thing is about, operationally. Although it has to be said that push come to shove, with so many EU members in NATO, everyone would just re-assign everything NATO to the EU should the NATO fall flat. Armies have scrambled into fighting stances from worse positions.

Macron could lead Europe, yes, but first he has to manage to lead France.

Das wird als Begehren nicht durchkommen zu wenig Interesse.

Was gute Aussicht hätte wäre mal bei solchen Stellen wie Dataport anzufragen, Firmen/Behörden die Staats-IT machen und eh schon auf dem FLOSS-Zug sitzen, was die denn so brauchen und das dann zumindest in Grundzügen zu basteln bis es für die kollektiv Sinn macht es zu übernehmen.

Braucht halt auch wirklich kein Gesetz um das zu machen.

I mean sure but they're commonly referred to in US politics as left, and also consider themselves to be on the left.

Not my fault y'all's overton window is fucked.