The idea that everyone has the same brain and so goes through the same development following the same linear path is wrong. Moreover the idea that morality is in strict correlation with intelligence is also wrong. Sociopaths are often highly intelligent and have successful career (including in science), most don't even commit serious crimes when they are adults, it doesn't change that they are sociopaths.

Yes, there a few examples of teenagers who were rebellious and then became productive member of society. But there are an awful lot more examples of juvenile delinquent who committed crimes after crimes during all their lives. Prisons are full of them.

Schools are full of kids who never committed a serious crime (apart from trying drugs, which to me is not a serious crime) and who will never commit any. How do you explain that if they can't fully understand the consequences of their actions?

The development of the frontal lobe is somewhat researched (certainly not well research as neuroscience is quite new and changing rapidly), but saying from those data that someone under 25 years old can't fully understand the consequences of his action is nothing but speculative interpretation.

What we are talking here is morality. So go to a any 10 years old, describe what that teenager did and the reason he did it and ask the 10 years old if this behavior was good or bad. Again, try to learn a minimum about children moral development before thinking you know enough to have an opinion, because you really don't.

You think I have a trollish behavior? Tell me... If someone begins to argue with you that the sky is not blue, but red. You show him a lot of pictures with blue skies, but he simply discard them and continue to argue the sky is red. How will you react?

Try to look a bit at the "science" before accepting something as true. It's not science, it's only speculative interpretation of data. Worse, it's speculative interpretation of data which is not only proven wrong by simple observations we all make every day, but also by all research on children moral development which was done in the past by Piaget and all the ones who followed after him.

As for the anecdote, in this case the anecdote is this kid who acted like a narcissistic asshole (and a narcissistic personality disorder is certainly a possibility here). The vast majority of kids will do some small stupid things to test the authority (that's part of our hierarchical nature), but certainly not like this one. If you think this kid is a typical kid, you're a plain idiot.

I was not alone in school and I was not special. All our dissertations were more or less the same value. There certainly was a few morons, but the majority of my classmates were like me.

I am not the one making over generalizations, it's people who think a average 15 years old can't understand the consequences of his actions because of a very few problematic kids who are making ridiculous generalizations.

A 15 years old kid certainly knows the difference between good and bad.

So everyone under 25 is a brain dead moron? I guess it's time we forbid anyone under 25 to drive a car, vote or even live on their own since they are "literally incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions".

As part of the curriculum of my morale class in high school, we learned about Kohlberg's stages of moral development. At 16, I was between stage 5 and 6 (I was beginning to use stage 6 arguments).

A few years ago, I found some of my old class notebooks and dissertations (every Saturday morning we had 3 hours to do a dissertation on a random subject as part of my French class when I was in France). I read them expecting to find them stupid. I was surprised to see how "mature" I was at 13.

I remember reading 1984 when I was a kid. The only thing i didn't understand at the time was why sex played such a major role in the plot. I couldn't understand how sex could be such a motivator since I didn't go through puberty yet. But other than that, I certainly was able to understand all the moral and political message.

I'll go even farther than that. When I was 10, I was distributing flyers to make some cash (I was paid 5$ a week). There's one event I remember. Two girls (probably around 7) came to me and begun to tease me (this was in the 70s, when even 7 years old kids were free to be outside alone). At one time, they asked me which one of them was the most beautiful. I didn't want to answer because I knew the other would have her feelings hurt. I was fucking 10.

I'm sorry, but you are a complete idiot.

He's 15, not 3. At this age, the only which could make him do stupid things is either drugs or sex. That kid has obvious mental health problems or a personality disorder. He WILL commit other crimes.

Trying to avoid punishment is an example of a "moral, principled basis".

I'll quote myself : "And you want those people to pay me to install and maintain a firewall?"

Charities have access to donation from Microsoft. The problem is not the cost of the license (Linux is also completely free), it's my time. I REALLY can't install, configure and maintain a firewall for $30.

Several of my clients are charities for whom recycled Core 2 Duo with 2 Gigs of RAM are the best they can get. Some can't even get a semi-decent server, so they just use an old P4 as a file and print server. And you want those people to pay me to install and maintain a firewall? NAT with a $30 router is an acceptable substitute for a firewall when you don't have the money for anything else.

On an entirely different level? Apart from data about the way I drive, they will have LESS data than what Google (I have an Android phone), my phone company and the government already have on me (they not only have access to my location, but they also have access to most of my communications). Talking about the government, they have also access to what I earn, the money I spend and in big part what I buy (for example when I buy something with my debit card or credit card), they have access to my medical record and what not. The worst is the government is the one who can really destroy my life, Google or my phone company can't do shit against me despite all the information they have.

So what if my car insurance company can also track me? What could they do? Send me a bit more ads on my email address? Do you really think I will notice it?

The question is : does my data about the way I drive could be detrimental to me? Since I never had a single traffic violation ticket in my life (I bought my first car in 1989), you can guess the answer is no. So why should I care? They're willing to pay me to verify that I don't lie when I say I'm a good driver? No problem. I never consider what I do on public property as private information anyway.

You obviously don't know how to negotiate. Being a good negotiator is about making the person you negotiate with believe that what you're selling is worth more than its true value. In this case, it's about making your employer believe you're more valuable than you truly are.

Negotiation is not about collaboration nor finding the best solution, it's about finding the best deal. Good negotiation skill is always detrimental to the person you negotiate with. In a team, a good negotiator is detrimental to the team.

Sociopaths are almost always excellent negotiator. Think about it.

Are you dishonest or just really, really bad at logic?

It's not about punishing, it's about not rewarding useless skills. A Man may run a marathon in less than 3 hours, if his job is to sit all day in front of a computer, his running abilities should not get him a higher salary.

The difference is his "excuse" makes sense, while yours is just a sign of stupidity.