You know, this has been bugging me for about a year as I pieced it all together through rants in my brain. Ever since the slave ages, kids have not had full human rights in America. The closest to having full human rights was child labor, but that was something of slavery as it had tiny wages. Are children not human enough to have full human rights of freedom of speech, right to bear arms and earn a wages from doing something besides house chores?
Yes, DDX said that on another thread. If only there were more conservatives here who could undermine the journalistic travesty that is FOX News...
...anyway, when I saw this thread, I thought it was referring to an existentialist conundrum paraphrased in the Ghost In The Shell series, because existentialism holds that autonomy is a property necessary to personhood. And a child is defined as starting with no autonomy, and it appears that jurisprudence at least somewhat agrees with this.
At least, this is relevant:
Noone knows what the full consequence of their actions will be.
Because children, by law, are generally defined as exempt from many adult judgements due to their lack of awareness. However due to the rising prevalence of child-crimes that strongly resemble adult crimes (e.g. assault, rape and murder), the grounds are changing and it is not infrequent that some legal proceedings describe "a child beind trialled as an adult".
But then again the title of the thread was "are children not human", not "are children not persons", so evidently not.
A human child strictly speaking is a human who is under 18
I'm not assessing my own intelligence; I'm saying that many people are putting down generalizations which don't apply to many children- and I'm pointing out the unfairness and incorrectness of those generalizations. I wasn't assessing my own intelligence, and sorry if I came off that way.
I beg to differ. The vast majority of 12/13 year olds cannot even look after themselves let alone handle any extra responsibilities. As Iv'e said several times, a point which has not been countered, is that legislating for the minority does not work because of pragmatic issues with enforcement. Especially for something as ambiguous as 'intelligence'.
I was simply challenging the generalizations put down- not speaking of myself as much as for children who do understand stuff like that. If I was assessing my own intelligence, I was doing so unknowingly, and I apologize.
Flag I'm sorry, but no. Don't even try to compare us to those struggles. We have it much, much easier and much, much fairer. [quote]Back then, we were slightly better off. Now, they are heaps ahead
Not really, you see they used to not be able to vote and what not EVER. You just have to wait a few years so stop bitching. Do you have to work? NO Do you have to support your self? NO Do you have to pay the bills? NO Hell you get free schooling for fuck sake.
I'm sorry, but no. Don't even try to compare us to those struggles. We have it much, much easier and much, much fairer. [quote]Back then, we were slightly better off. Now, they are heaps ahead
[/quote]
Not really, you see they used to not be able to vote and what not EVER. You just have to wait a few years so stop b.itching. Do you have to work? NO Do you have to support your self? NO Do you have to pay the bills? NO Hell you get free schooling for **** sake.
I was simply challenging the generalizations put down- not speaking of myself as much as for children who do understand stuff like that. If I was assessing my own intelligence, I was doing so unknowingly, and I apologize.
Well, children have never and will never, be looked upon in a particularly serious light. Giving children more responsibilities won;t change the attitude of most adults. You know why? Because adults can remember how comparably immature they were whilst they were children, even if they did not know it at the time.
As for the assessing your own intelligence, I was reffering to all the banging on about IQ, and I can't be bothered to find the post, but you said something along the lines of 'not all kids should have the rights,just smart ones like Thoad, Mary and me' or something like that.
I remember saying that- and that's not what I meant. I simply meant that if extra adult rights ate ever introduced to children (they probably won't be) then they should be sure to target more intelligent children- all people deserve rights, period, but I was referring to the more difficult, accelerated specialised classes earlier on being a sort of advanced thing that you should be tested for- like the classes at my school that are accelerated. Sorry for creating confusion.
That doesn't really require special rights though, just a change in school policy. However as I don't know much about the US education system I won't comment.
I would consider participation in those types of classes to be a right in their own right- I love being in accelerated classes in middle school, and consider that to be a right.
