> There's a massive gulf between revenge killing and boys fidgeting.
I mean... no shit? The point wasn't to compare revenge killing to fidgeting. The point was to illustrate that impulse control is necessary for a civilized society to function.
> Development is different than adulthood. Your argument is like saying breast feeding a child is crippling it's ability to integrate into society later in life.
It's frankly insulting that you would take the stupidest possible interpretation of my argument, make a counterargument, and claim slam dunk.
How do you think it is that kids become adults? Do you just let kids run wild, controlling none of their impulses, and then they turn 18 and suddenly they're in full control of themselves? That's absolutely laughable.
It's development for a reason: you're _developing_ the kids. They are going to be at a lower level of ability than an adult with regards to impulse control. That's why you start to teach them. Babies can't chew hard food. It's impossible. So you don't give them hard food. It's _NOT_ impossible to teach a kid to control some of their undesirable impulses.
> I haven't seen any compelling evidence that you can train impulsiveness out of a child. You have a lot more faith in public schools than I do if you think language arts workbooks have that effect.
Uh... wat? No, you can't train _all_ impulsiveness out of anybody. But you can absolutely train people to recognize and mitigate negative impulses.
Almost the very first skill any kid learns is to control the impulse of blurting out when they want to speak in a classroom. They are taught that they should raise their hand and wait to be called on. And lots of parents have to teach their kids that they can't hit other kids.