Me, too, that your model keeps on making excuses for disobedience as the justifiable response rather than as an exception to the rule of law in a civilized society. In contrast, by the age of eight this boy demonstrates the development of a moral compass together with the cementing of the cost of abandoning it.
I am also sorry that your understanding of "sin" -- of its definition and practice -- is not Biblical. In the lengthy unabridged Webster's Third New International Dictionary, its succinct and comprehensive definition of the intransitive verb is:
1. to violate religious law : to commit an offense against God
2. to commit an offense
There is no component of intention involved in the definition, nor is there any mention of degree.
The boy's gravest error (and he committed two) was not so much that (1) the pellet gun was brought into school, but rather that (2) he forgot that it was in his possession.
However, you are using error (2) as a forgivable excuse (misplaced compassion) for error (1). He knew, and I know, that it was wrong to forget (2), especially in the light that he clearly had not entertained an intention to disobey (1).
Your proposed system of excuses does not seem to recognize that. That is where your system fails, and undermines the rule of law. Ignorance is no excuse. Intent may have a bearing on the adjudicated consequences, but failure to even stay aware that one is carrying a prohibited article, and thus responsible for its disposition, is an inexcusable offense. In this case, it might even have been an AirSoft pellet gun and hence not itself a dangerous instrument. But failure to be aware of transporting it into school was a fault worthy of rebuke and exemplary chastisement in the face of the site's well-known rule. On the other hand, the child's response and integrity was worthy of commendation. Thus, invoking both concurrently but separately might be a just resolution. A practice of one cancelling the other would not. QED.
Contrarily, your view would excuse his fault and rebuke his integrity. I say, "For shame!" to that capricious result.
Capisce?
I am finding my time unexpectedly shorter than I had anticipated, as the time of this post indicates.
Perhaps the crux of our disagreement lies in your line:”your model keeps on making excuses for disobedience as the justifiable response rather than as an exception to the rule of law in a civilized society”.
What I discussed at some length was that the situation was clearly one of “forgetting” rather than “disobedience”.
As Carry_okie said, that socialism inclined pet was teaching submission, not judgment or honesty.
May I suggest that had the soi dissant educator used the boy’s forgetfulness AND also the fact that said student had immediately reported to the schools adults (’adults’ used here in a deplorably casual sense) his unloaded pellet gun, when the trough feeder would have created a “Teaching Moment”, rather than the authoritarian circus which actually occurred.
“In contrast, by the age of eight this boy demonstrates the development of a moral compass together with the cementing of the cost of abandoning it.”
I suggest the boy did not abandon his moral compass at all. He did forget. The two are not the same.
Gun safety is taught with a near ‘messianic zeal’ though I am unconvinced such behavior does much to reduce accidental discharges or accidental shootings.
As a noted Russian gun instructor said “IS GUN! IS NEVER SAFE!!!”
‘But is always better than any other alternative’ - me.
That boy did not receive a lesson in anything other than raw, arbitrary abuse of power. That educator wanted to give the boy an unforgetible negative lesson regarding guns in the hope of furthering the educator’s Liberal agenda.
Perhaps I should have used another paraphrasing from another socialist collective - “Agenda Uber Alles”, in the instant case, the anti-gun agenda of the Libtard and educators.