Should children have the same rights as adults??

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

supersoph898 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

Cinders posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

thats. not true. they are totally aware to it. they dont think a few steps ahead. i mean if आप give the example of a child touching a hot pot then yeah of course they do know. but according to a new york times study, a child below the age of 13 dos not have the capacity to so called process the things they do logically thus the law/ conservation that minor cannot be prosecuted unless a major offence या due to other reasoning. and about moral base, morals is defined द्वारा many different things most importantly, is what the child grows up with. if his parents tell him that murdering ppl is right then he will think that it is right. and the argument does hold with modern child psych

I'm confused... आप say my claim is untrue, then agree that children are aware of consequences? I also think we're discussing two different things. I believe you're thinking about the legal concept of Mens Rea, whereas I'm thinking of the psychological concept of Theory of Mind. Still, to clear things up, I have been using the term "morals" to describe a concept of "right and wrong," as it is used in Moral Development Theory, and that is how I define it. Even if I didn't take my developmental psych course in college, द्वारा simply observing the way my students play chess using strategies (as opposed to बिना सोचे समझे moves), I can see that they most definitely have Theory of Mind that's developed enough to think and plan ahead. While of course their brains are different and still developing - as I've already conceded - they are VERY aware of right and wrong. They may not get the concepts RIGHT all the time, but they understand them and puzzle through them, and they always know when wrong has been done to them personally. Often, they even know whenm THEY have done wrong to someone else, even if they don't always confess. Early Childhood Development Researcher and Kindergarten Teacher Vivian Paley wrote a book called "You Can't Say आप Can't Play." In it, kindergarten students वाद-विवाद the fairness of the rule in the title. Is it right for no one to say "No" to someone who asks to play? What if they people playing are having a personal game with each other? What if those people don't LIKE the person who has asked to play with them? Why should THEY lose out on fun just to include that person? The book, a fascinating read filled with student quotes, explores their deliberation and tells another moral story about a princess as a sort of side plot. Inevitably, even the hold-outs learn to appreciate the inherrent "fairness" behind the new rule when they notice that everyone is participating और often. Chidren are developing their moral understanding, and that STARTS with "fair" versus "unfair" and evolves into "right" and "wrong" in the older grades. Children ALSO know the difference between breaking a conventional rule (like no running in the hallways) and breaking a moral one, because the latter has the aspect of fairness या right/wrong and the former does not (See: Emerging Morality: How Children Think About Right and Wrong द्वारा Susan Crosser). According to Jean Piaget, children go through several stages of moral development, but they are not AMORAL. They are completely aware of right and wrong. They need guidance in figuring out the nuances. But I've asked a first-grader who once complained that "What Sally did was wrong," WHY he thought that Sally's actions were wrong. He said, "Because Sally made Lizzy cry, and Lizzy is hurting now." That shows the beginning of his understandings of right and wrong. It doesn't mean he's always a saint - he will also make Lizzy and Sally cry from time to time, sometimes, maybe, even on purpose. I know, as does every teacher, that he and his classmate's are still growing and figuring morality and the rest of the world out. Even preschoolers, who are at Piaget's "Morality of Constraint" stage, are aware of actions being right and wrong. The way आप discuss these stages, one might think that you're claiming that children are amoral. They aren't. They ARE at different stages of moral development, but they reach those stages at different rates, like puberty, based on experience and adult guidance. My ten-year-olds are at the stage of Morality of Cooperation. I can think of one of them who is beyond that, at Atticus फिंच levels of morality.

i never agreed thatt children are aware of the consequences. when i'm talking about consequences, it like the simple things they are able to catch but the big ones such as smoking they dont see far ahead. they are और concerned about right now. for your chess senario (that is a totally different point, there is a reason why games are mostly targeted towards children because it is meant to challenge them intelectually but when society put the pressure on to them such as peer pressure and और things are in play, the situation changes.) that not entirely true they know what is right या wrong. of course they know when wrong is done to them because well आप could say children are esstientally psychopath. they only feel for themselves. but care not so much for others in a certain way. i dunno about taht book आप are talking about but based on general census at the point of when the child is 3-10 they do know it but how well they understand it and their interpretation of it is still considered weak. i am not at all

एल saying they totally have no idea of the right and wrong just that their definition for right and wrong is constently changing. your example of sally made lizzy cry, though may be seen a lot but place in the shoes of a bystander the child has the mental capcity to be able to know the right thing to say. trust me, my 5 साल old sister constiently trys अभिनय like a mother when me and my brother get in a fight but 5 मिनटों there she is wrestling my brother. i'm not saying children are amoral, i'm simply quoting directly from the study that logic does not fully develop until the age of 21. 18 is consider fairly devolp therefor is the legal age of an asult in most countries. the problem is और of they know it but do they actually follow thourgh with it? people say a lot of things but following through is another.

You've alluded to a vague NYT study and "general concensus" but I've directly quoted three different child specialists (Paley, Crosser and Piaget), none of whom ever compared children to psychopaths, who feel no anxiety and ARE amoral - as in, without understanding of right and wrong. आप can't say आप ARENT saying children are amoral in one sentence, and then compare them to psychopaths in the next. And to say that children have no understanding of right and wrong, या cannot discern one from the other, is in essence to claim a lack of morality, या amorality. Kids aren't blank slates - they bring a lot to the table. They aren't fully formed geniuses, either. My initial argument was celebrating the differences between the child's brain and an adult's brain. But if quoting three seperate scholarly sources won't help, I guess there's nothing else I can do, though I would be curious about this study आप keep alluding to. As to my confusion about your apparent agreement, आप said: "they are totally aware to it" in the first few sentences of your comment, which is what confused me.

As for the chess example, I was using that to demonstrate that these students have a developed Theory of Mind, which is necessary to have an understanding of basic morality. आप also कहा that a child "dos not have the capacity to so called process the things they do logically," and I was दिखा रहा है that they do use logic.

आप have seriously misunderstood what i'm saying! (also just to point of this is like a whole other वाद-विवाद not even related to this topic) anyways, i'm not saying that children dunno what right and wrong is या they dont have morals या they lack morals. but my comparison to sociopaths was to empathise that in reality though they know whether right या wrong they may choose to do the opposite (in a bad way) और often than an adult and most of the time for their own benefit. therfore, like a sociopath they only feel for themselves at that point of time therefore they dont think ahead. so in other word consequences dont play much thought in their brain process. it और like if its good for me now, it good for me later as well. to be perfectly honest, the 3 scholar that आप have quoted though i may not know them या have read about them but based on what आप say, to be it sounds pretty biased, i'm not saying me myself am not biased but trying to keep an open mind and hearing your point, i'm doing my best to make that judgement call. the study is based on MRI scans of the brain which was some i think 4 years ago. not so sure. to clarify about they being aware of it, i mean that have some sense of it (maybe not the right usage of words) but they can think like a step ahead but that like the most they will consider. they can consider it further but they chose to act upon it then dwell.

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

Masha-Parakina posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

Chaann94 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

qwertyuiop1738 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

ThePrincesTale posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

harold posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

Harold, I looked up the definitions in the dictionary. Rights are something that everyone deserves. Priviliges are rights that people receive द्वारा meeting guidelines, या द्वारा having a place of postition या office. So children would enjoy the rights of living without the fear of harm. The right of not having thier possesions taken away without just cause. They do not earn the privilege to drive untill they reach the proper age and have passed the proper test. They receive the Privilege, (right to vote) at 18. As long as they are residents and have not been convicted of a felony. The two words are alot closer than I thought. But I still stand द्वारा my statement that they should not be able to drive, own firearms या drink alcohol untill they have reached the proper age, have proper training and दिखाना the ability to accept the responsibility. द्वारा that definition, I know adults that might not deserve some of the priviliges they enjoy.

Actually, the distinction between a right and privilege is a good one to make, and one I neglected to consider.

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

alismouha posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

Sure आप can imagine those things; kids do those things every day, all over the world. What would be और to the point would be an argument for why those situations are undesirable, and/or statistics suggesting that problems arise from such conditions. In particular, they would have to either a) significantly different from problems that arise when adults engage in such activities, या b) much worse द्वारा the degree of the problem, even if the actual problems are the same as with adults.

i understand your point, it just that it is weak. it would be easy for the other team to dimiss it.

qwertyuiop1738 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

Dragonclaws posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

That is not an argument that children should have the same rights as adults, that's an argument that people should have rights based on merit and/or ability. Do आप have an argument that applies to all children?

All people should have rights based on merit and ability. This applies to all children, as children are people. I do not have an argument for all children as a whole the same way I do not for all Asians या whites या whatever, because making laws based on stereotypes is prejudiced and wrong.

but the thing is that stereotypes mean the social norm, the majority and dont आप think it would be और reasonable that the law play to the majority.

और reasonable than playing to minorities to the detriment of the majority, but there's no detriment in play here. Do आप think Jim कौआ, कौवा laws are reasonable simply for benefiting the majority?

i dunt know who jim कौआ, कौवा is, but this point has gone completely off topic. and also how on earth do आप expect the world to have 2 separate सूची of right, one for the highly evolved and the other for an average. if that is so then every single court argument would be used द्वारा a lawyer to win the case. it is highly unrealistic

Jim कौआ, कौवा laws restricted the rights of black Americans द्वारा keeping them out of places designated as for white Americans.

I expect everybody to have the same rights inherently, but to have certain people deemed less capable based on individual ability rather than social group.

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

harold posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

alisonfaith297 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

qwertyuiop1738 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

Cinders posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

zanesaaomgfan posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना

qwertyuiop1738 posted एक साल  से अधिक पुराना