>>34007Instead of getting all mad at the result of his logic why don't you tell me where I'm going wrong:
Let's take a situation in which a child turns out "bad", whatever that might mean, and let's make these base assumptions:
1. There exist possibilities in this universe where the child didn't turn out "bad" (i.e. people are not just destined to be "evil" as babies).
2. During the formative/developmental years (and past) a child can't really be held accountable for his/her actions, because they don't know better (this is why we have consent laws).
3. We have people (parents) whose specific job in this realm is to guide a child to adulthood.
So in this situation, the child that turned out "bad" had a chance not to (by 1), was not able to be held accountable for missing that chance (by 2), and had people whose job it was to keep them from turning out "bad" (by 3). How can you assign fault to the child?
Now you make a great point, but you don't even realize it: the mother had a chance to have been a "good" mother when she was born, but it didn't happen. Is it really her fault, if, once again, things out of her control by our 3 very basic assumptions kept her from that?
Look, there's obviously complexities past that, and you can intuit where they'd be (people being given what we could traditionally consider a "good" upbringing still turning out "bad"), but maybe instead of reacting with vitriol and sarcasm towards the idea you could actually think about the result and consider that we're all just a bunch of severely flawed-by-design beings thrust naked into a universe that doesn't make sense with zero fucking pre-knowledge trying to raise other, equally flawed, beings, and perhaps use this knowledge to be just a little bit more understanding of people you don't like and the shit that brought them to where they are. There are obviously pragmatist concerns, but you can be empathetic towards a criminal and still send him to jail, if you get what I'm getting at.
