Quote:
Originally posted by irishpipes
Does it matter what his intent was?
Furthermore, I was responding to 33's position that the parents gave the kid motive by making a big deal about the allergy. So, following that logic, the kid did not have good intentions and WAS trying to engage an allergic reaction. I don't buy into the "he didn't mean to do it" line of discipline.
1. The kid knew the other kid was allergic to PB.
2. The kid forced the PB on the kid anyway.
3. The kid is guilty.
Does a kid necessarily understand the severity of the consequences of his actions? Probably not. He did know that it was wrong and did it anyway.
Let's just build more prisons and put all the disobedient, PB-wielding kids in there. That will solve all the world's problems.
OK, kidding. But if your kid has this allergy, it is a great concern. If your kid is mean enough to exploit someone else's weakness, that is a greater concern.
|
You're allowing your "mom" feelings to interfere with rational discourse here - which is both commendable and obvious, but is really causing you to miss the trees for the forest here (if you'll allow).
First - no one is disputing that the kid's allergies are severe, and that the other kid was in the wrong.
Second - you have just indicated reasons why the kid's behavior is totally dissimilar from 'trying to kill him' but objectively similar to other such 'he knew it was wrong but did it anyway' things, such as faking a seizure (which would be done to embarrass/hurt the kid with epilepsy - also 'wrong', also intentional).
Finally, 33's point is NOT that the parents are giving anyone 'motive' - again, you're not viewing this objectively.
Instead, I think her point is that the parents are giving the child OPPORTUNITY - that is, without the knowledge of the allergy, it probably would not have occurred to the child to smash the cracker onto the kid's face. There are, most likely, ways in which the child can be protected from food allergies but not singled out - and 33girl is simply pointing out that some extreme parental actions may create unintended consequences outside the protective cocoon. Does this make sense? I feel like I'm being overly obtuse here, but I'm not sure on what level I agree with her - I just know you're not seeing her point at all.