Annals of culpability: committing suicide in self-defense

Curiously enough, I did make a comment Tuesday night about whether one was guilty of murder if one committed suicide in self-defense. On the other hand, I never once said that New York borders Ohio, unlike our former Westchester DA, so I'm not totally losing it.

As for whether or how much I'll judge at TOCs, mentioned in some earlier comments, at the moment it is uncertain whether they'll use MJP again, which, if they do, is my ticket to Starbucks. You've got to love reading the Sunday Times in Kentucky with a gallon of latte and a muffin the size of Termite's head. But if there is no MJP, given the ratio of judges to students, everybody will have at least 8 rounds off, which still means gallons of latte and Termite-sized muffins. CLG simply thinks I've simply written bogus paradigms to weasel out of judging, but this presupposes that I even *have* a paradigm above and beyond doing my best to pay attention to what's said, and not being interventionist; i.e., if you run something idiotic, it's up to your opponent to point it out, not up to me to drop you for it if it sails right over your opponent's comparably idiotic head. My favorite paradigms are the ones that are longer the Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Anyone with that much time on their hands to write out how they'll respond to something they haven't heard yet is someone you do not want to be alone with in a classroom late at night without which you have first consulted the local list of sex offenders (although in these cases, it's probably more of a wishlist).

O'C mentions in his comment running a K on Mar-Apr that the idea of "juvenile" is a recent social invention, and therefore, presumably, we can't treat them differently from adults. This is, of course, simply running that society is unable to establish age boundaries, which is about #2 on the list of bad ideas for aff, although calling it a critique does, at least, get you off the hook of having to debate the round, which is what most Ks are about anyhow, while making you sound sooooo "progressive" and cutting edge. O'C seems to like the argument, for some reason. No doubt he also believes that it is merely a social convention that we don't let three-year-olds vote, and that all social conventions are intrinsically wrong. Let me see. Not burning suspected witches at the stake is a social invention that, if I'm not mistaken, is only a little older than recognition of juveniles as not being adults. Correct me if I'm wrong, but world opinion pretty much holds nowadays that children do not equal adults, and that special treatment of juveniles is enlightened. Maybe I missed something when I read Roper and all the flap from Nino about consulting foreign courts... Anyhow, I love that social convention must be wrong per se. I mean, all culture is social convention, isn't it? Or at least the choices that a people make as groups in defining their culture is their selection among social conventions. Short of not having a culture, some choice must be made, so unless the act of choosing or the possession of culture is intrinsically wrong, social convention is neutral.

Oh well. I don't mean to attack OC here; I prefer to do it in person. Or on SFW. Nor do I wish to list all the bad arguments on a resolution, as I prefer at least at the beginning of a rez's life for people to run them against my team, which is usually prepared to bat them down and get to the good stuff. Arguing that juveniles don't exist, or shouldn't exist, or that adolescence can't be socially defined because any one kid doesn't magically become an adult on his or her 18th birthday is just silly. It's not what the resolution is about, or what anyone interested in juveniles charged with violent crimes wants to hear as rational discourse on the subject.

Rational discourse on the subject. That's what it boils down to, doesn't it? Of course, the word discourse has been co-opted by some modernists and pomos as a concept, or more to the point, dismissed as a possibility, but communication of ideas in aid of understanding and addressing an issue -- that is rational discourse. Perish the thought that LD should somehow fall into that category. Communicating ideas in aid of understanding and addressing an issue? Menick, what kind of dinosaur are you, anyhow?

Jeesh.