Something I find interesting... (Innocence)

[Deleted]

Commensing textwall.

www.unicef.org/crc/

The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out the rights that must be realized for children to develop their full potential, free from hunger and want, neglect and abuse. It reflects a new vision of the child. Children are neither the property of their parents nor are they helpless objects of charity. They are human beings and are the subject of their own rights. The Convention offers a vision of the child as an individual and as a member of a family and community, with rights and responsibilities appropriate to his or her age and stage of development. By recognizing children's rights in this way, the Convention firmly sets the focus on the whole child.

The Convention and its acceptance by so many countries has heightened recognition of the fundamental human dignity of all children and the urgency of ensuring their well-being and development. The Convention makes clear the idea that a basic quality of life should be the right of all children, rather than a privilege enjoyed by a few.

Children start life as totally dependent beings. Children must rely on adults for the nurture and guidance they need to grow towards independence. Such nurture is ideally found in adults in children's families, but when primary caregivers cannot meet children's needs, it is up to society to fill the gap.

The actions, or inactions, of government impact children more strongly than any other group in society. Practically every area of government policy (for example, education, public health and so on) affects children to some degree. Short-sighted policymaking that fails to take children into account has a negative impact on the future of all members of society by giving rise to policies that cannot work.

Children's views are rarely heard and rarely considered in the political process. Children generally do not vote and do not otherwise take part in political processes. Without special attention to the opinions of children—as expressed at home and in schools, in local communities and even in governments—children's views go unheard on the many important issues that affect them now or will affect them in the future.

Many changes in society are having a disproportionate, and often negative, impact on children. Transformation of the family structure, globalization, shifting employment patterns and a shrinking social welfare net in many countries all have strong impacts on children. The impact of these changes can be particularly devastating in situations of armed conflict and other emergencies.

The healthy development of children is crucial to the future well-being of any society. Because they are still developing, children are especially vulnerable—more so than adults—to poor living conditions such as poverty, inadequate health care, nutrition, safe water, housing and environmental pollution. The affects of disease, malnutrition and poverty threaten the future of children and therefore the future of the societies in which they live.

When in doubt about the rights of children, UNICEF has all the answers.

www.unicef.org/crc/index_30177.html

Here you can find the documents of the children's rights.

Here are the ones applying to this topic:

- Best interests of the child (Article 3): The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers.

- Right to life, survival and development (Article 6): Children have the right to live. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.

- Article 14 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion): Children have the right to think and believe what they want and to practise their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights. Parents should help guide their children in these matters. The Convention respects the rights and duties of parents in providing religious and moral guidance to their children. Religious groups around the world have expressed support for the Convention, which indicates that it in no way prevents parents from bringing their children up within a religious tradition. At the same time, the Convention recognizes that as children mature and are able to form their own views, some may question certain religious
practices or cultural traditions. The Convention supports children's right to examine their beliefs, but it also states that their right to express their beliefs implies respect for the rights and freedoms of others.

- Article 18 (Parental responsibilities; state assistance): Both parents share responsibility for bringing up their children, and should always consider what is best for each child.

- Article 12 (Respect for the views of the child): When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account.

[Stal]

You know UNICEF isn't any kind of binding or protected rights on anything, right? It would be like us making a constitution and telling everyone it fits them, too. Sure it's a UN org but that really has little impact on anything, reality wise

Basically UNICEF's documents don't really answer anything either. It comes closer so far, but doesn't answer the whole "right" premise.

Edit -- A UN treaty at that. And for example, looks like the US hasn't ratified it so the rights therein don't apply to US.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child


Basically, I'm looking for where the premise of some universal right of the child for self-direction is founded on. Governing documents should point to something (as they usually support a premise, not build one), but don't do a good job at answering.

[Deleted]

Oh, I wasn't trying to answer your question per se, Stal. I was just adding some info for Sae.

Edit:
Though...

Built on varied legal systems and cultural traditions, the Convention is a universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations. These basic standards—also called human rights—set minimum entitlements and freedoms that should be respected by governments.

...

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. In 1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not.

Editedit:
*read the Wiki* Even if the US hasn't ratified it, doesn't make it any less valid.

[Stal]

Jul 17, 2011 3:28:30 GMT -5 RilahFalco said:

Oh, I wasn't trying to answer your question per se, Stal. I know that their rights isn't anything binding. But that doesn't make their 'guide' any less valid.

That depends, though.

In a hypothetical world, let's say parents were given the right to send their children to work for an income (collected by the parents), for the betterment of the family. This was protected by a governing document. If we wanted to know where that "right" came from, the document could be pointed to as a guide. Does the fact it's codified by law make the answer more valid? That's what I'm getting at with my question.

That's not even an extreme example. It's pretty similar to many things that happened in the world for centuries and you still find in a lot of African countries (especially the ones based around strong family and tribe units and the betterment of the unit over the individual). So when one group says "this is what we say are the rights"... Why? Where? That's the premise I think still needs answering.

Edit - regarding the rest of the quote you edited in, it's "legally binding" only as UN things and international law go. Which is honestly pretty flimsy. And it's really open to interpretation in some ways that countries have disagreed with the UN council on. The best thing I can say about that is it's a bunch of people giving lip service to an idea without any true need for backing or follow thru (even aside from the articles I disagree with). But again, doesn't give much answer on the nature of the rights.

[Deleted]

Well, I guess then, it's a matter of culture, ethics and moral?

In the olden days, kids did work for the betterment of the family. Heck, families had a bunch of kids just to have a workforce. And I'm sure there is a long document explaining why that was made illegal up to a certain age (depending on where you are from - in Denmark you must be 14 to have a job).

Or am I misunderstanding something?

[Stal]

Jul 17, 2011 3:41:54 GMT -5 RilahFalco said:

Well, I guess then, it's a matter of culture, ethics and moral?

In the olden days, kids did work for the betterment of the family. Heck, families had a bunch of kids just to have a workforce. And I'm sure there is a long document explaining why that was made illegal up to a certain age (depending on where you are from - in Denmark you must be 14 to have a job).

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Yes. The question is simple. Why are they rights. Where did they come from. As Sae called them natural rights before, which means a government's opinion has no say other than to protect or support or attempt to deny--but not give. And if we go with just documents then again why? Who says the documents are right? Some governments deny certain rights that others feel are universal. So that leads to contradictions and a matter of where do rights really come from, etc.

I'm not saying that something is or isn't a right. I'm saying build the premise and explain why they ARE rights.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2011 3:48:19 GMT -5 Stal said:

Jul 17, 2011 3:41:54 GMT -5 RilahFalco said:

Well, I guess then, it's a matter of culture, ethics and moral?

In the olden days, kids did work for the betterment of the family. Heck, families had a bunch of kids just to have a workforce. And I'm sure there is a long document explaining why that was made illegal up to a certain age (depending on where you are from - in Denmark you must be 14 to have a job).

Or am I misunderstanding something?

Yes. The question is simple. Why are they rights. Where did they come from. As Sae called them natural rights before, which means a government's opinion has no say other than to protect or support or attempt to deny--but not give. And if we go with just documents then again why? Who says the documents are right? Some governments deny certain rights that others feel are universal. So that leads to contradictions and a matter of where do rights really come from, etc.

I'm not saying that something is or isn't a right. I'm saying build the premise and explain why they ARE rights.

I wonder if this could shed some light on it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

And the whole universalism vs. culture:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Universalism_vs._cultural_relativism

One could also question the Bill of Rights. Why does it exist then?

I think that the rights should exist as the unirversal rights they aim to be, to protect humans from themselves and others... basically. It's easy to see the results from the countries who do not take on these rights. North Korea, just to name one.

I'm not gonna question the Bill, despite my not agreeing with some of them - because I know it's off topic and it'll probably be too heated of a discussion anyway. So I'm just using it as an example of rights.


Edit:

I found this article to be rather interesting:
civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/f/where_rights.htm

Especially this part:

One of the benefits of the natural law theory of rights is that it implies that everyone has the same rights, always, and that these rights never change. That consistency is appealing. If we reject it, then rights become more fluid--things that we create--and therefore subject to change. The great American biologist Ken Hudgins once wrote that "the meaning of life is to give life meaning"; in a world where we can't look to nature to tell us what our rights are, we have to find them in our shared values. And let's face it: That's what we tend to do anyway. We believe that rights exist because we care enough about people to respect their livelihood and their autonomy.

Editedit:
Another statement I found:

Humans have individual rights only because our society has evolved to think of the individual as having rights. Nature itself certainly didn't give them to us. We have rights because we respect the value of the individual. Beyond that is nature and nature operates on rights given to the strongest. Human society was created for humans to live in a way to maximize our combined strengths so that we could share in the benefits that come from that, not the least of which is a greater ability to live a life with the maximum sense of peace possible to pursue what we, as individuals, want.

And this document is very thorough in explaining the rights:

www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2011 1:00:55 GMT -5 Cow-winkle said:

Jul 16, 2011 22:38:41 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Because to me, it never was about believing in magic and Narnia, it was about how our world view (which is GREAT as a child) is often pulled out of us. And that just happens to include, in most cases, belief in magic, which is not a bad thing! It's a personal choice, and is as honest as believing in a god.

Believing something to be true about the physical world isn't the same thing as a simple preference. If I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, I'm not trying to make a statement about the physical world, it's just something I happen to like.

But no adult should choose what they believe about the physical world the same way they choose which ice cream they like. You can't just say "This must be true because I like it." I suppose this can be forgiven in children, but I don't think it's something to encourage.

This seems to be suggesting that fan fic writers do not have the right to think of their stories as canon even if it is perfectly reasonable for them to do so. That singers do not have the right to feel that their music brings joy to the world. That people in general do not have the right to stick to their opinions. That writers do not have the right to believe that their books are the best.

These are all, to put it bluntly, likes. And you're saying because they like it they shouldn't believe in it. Now, if you look at religion, many people like the religion they're following. Does that mean they should lose faith? I don't think so.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2011 7:28:58 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Jul 17, 2011 1:00:55 GMT -5 Cow-winkle said:

Believing something to be true about the physical world isn't the same thing as a simple preference. If I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, I'm not trying to make a statement about the physical world, it's just something I happen to like.

But no adult should choose what they believe about the physical world the same way they choose which ice cream they like. You can't just say "This must be true because I like it." I suppose this can be forgiven in children, but I don't think it's something to encourage.

This seems to be suggesting that fan fic writers do not have the right to think of their stories as canon even if it is perfectly reasonable for them to do so. That singers do not have the right to feel that their music brings joy to the world. That people in general do not have the right to stick to their opinions. That writers do not have the right to believe that their books are the best.

These are all, to put it bluntly, likes. And you're saying because they like it they shouldn't believe in it. Now, if you look at religion, many people like the religion they're following. Does that mean they should lose faith? I don't think so.

It's less about 'likes and beliefs are mutually exclusive' and more like 'likes and beliefs aren't facts.' A like and a belief aren't mutually exclusive, but at the end of the day they're subjective and have no bearing on reality.

For example, the sky is blue. I can like the color red, I can passionately believe that the sky is red, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2011 7:57:21 GMT -5 @bettyming said:

Jul 17, 2011 7:28:58 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

This seems to be suggesting that fan fic writers do not have the right to think of their stories as canon even if it is perfectly reasonable for them to do so. That singers do not have the right to feel that their music brings joy to the world. That people in general do not have the right to stick to their opinions. That writers do not have the right to believe that their books are the best.

These are all, to put it bluntly, likes. And you're saying because they like it they shouldn't believe in it. Now, if you look at religion, many people like the religion they're following. Does that mean they should lose faith? I don't think so.

It's less about 'likes and beliefs are mutually exclusive' and more like 'likes and beliefs aren't facts.' A like and a belief aren't mutually exclusive, but at the end of the day they're subjective and have no bearing on reality.

For example, the sky is blue. I can like the color red, I can passionately believe that the sky is red, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue.

We're not talking about things that have been proven. We're talking about things that haven't. And everyone has the right to believe what they want in that sense.

And that wasn't even my point. My point was that not encouraging believing in something because you like it can be stifling, especially for anyone who expresses creativity (including musicians. Music is a form of art).

[M is for Morphine]

Jul 17, 2011 7:28:58 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

This seems to be suggesting that fan fic writers do not have the right to think of their stories as canon even if it is perfectly reasonable for them to do so. That singers do not have the right to feel that their music brings joy to the world. That people in general do not have the right to stick to their opinions. That writers do not have the right to believe that their books are the best.

These are all, to put it bluntly, likes. And you're saying because they like it they shouldn't believe in it. Now, if you look at religion, many people like the religion they're following. Does that mean they should lose faith? I don't think so.

Fanfic writers can think whatever they'd like about their stories, but as Bettyming said, that doesn't make it true. I can believe that I've written the best book in the whole world, but if that stops me from objectively evaluating it I'm going to have a heck of a time taking criticism, or letting an editor touch it, or what have you, and my ego is going to make my book suffer.

So they can believe in all the things you listed, but there are reasons why they maybe shouldn't. Also, I'm sure most people's reason for believing in a religion are a heck of a lot stronger than simply liking it. I actually like quite a few religions, it's not enough to make me a part of any.

Anyway, no one is saying "You shouldn't believe in it because you like it", they're saying you shouldn't believe in it just because you like it. Belief needs a strong foundation, because it will be tested.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2011 8:28:37 GMT -5 M is for Morphine said:

Jul 17, 2011 7:28:58 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

This seems to be suggesting that fan fic writers do not have the right to think of their stories as canon even if it is perfectly reasonable for them to do so. That singers do not have the right to feel that their music brings joy to the world. That people in general do not have the right to stick to their opinions. That writers do not have the right to believe that their books are the best.

These are all, to put it bluntly, likes. And you're saying because they like it they shouldn't believe in it. Now, if you look at religion, many people like the religion they're following. Does that mean they should lose faith? I don't think so.

Fanfic writers can think whatever they'd like about their stories, but as Bettyming said, that doesn't make it true. I can believe that I've written the best book in the whole world, but if that stops me from objectively evaluating it I'm going to have a heck of a time taking criticism, or letting an editor touch it, or what have you, and my ego is going to make my book suffer.

So they can believe in all the things you listed, but there are reasons why they maybe shouldn't. Also, I'm sure most people's reason for believing in a religion are a heck of a lot stronger than simply liking it. I actually like quite a few religions, it's not enough to make me a part of any.

Anyway, no one is saying "You shouldn't believe in it because you like it", they're saying you shouldn't believe in it just because you like it. Belief needs a strong foundation, because it will be tested.

I have no reason to think why any sort of artist (writer, singer etc.) shouldn't believe their stuff is good. If you don't that isn't going to help you creativity-wise. It will stifle you.

And about religion...just saying, even if driven by more than like, like is certainly a part of it. After all, I can't see how a person following a religion they don't like can really be happy.

[M is for Morphine]

Jul 17, 2011 8:55:14 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

I have no reason to think why any sort of artist (writer, singer etc.) shouldn't believe their stuff is good. If you don't that isn't going to help you creativity-wise. It will stifle you.

You didn't say good, though. You said the best. There's a difference between confidence and arrogance. Also, I think it is important to recognize when your work isn't good. If you know it doesn't work, you can take it apart and find out why. You can fix it and do better.

And about religion...just saying, even if driven by more than like, like is certainly a part of it. After all, I can't see how a person following a religion they don't like can really be happy.

No argument that people generally like their religion, or else they wouldn't practice it. But my point is that just liking it isn't enough, not that they shouldn't like it. I though I was pretty clear on that.

[Huntress]

So uh, what's this thread about again? x'D

On the topic of rights, it tends to be arbitrary because all the laws and concepts of fundamental rights are, at the end of the day, manmade. Like Stal said, if we're to look at nature's inherent laws then they're not even remotely pretty. The law of the jungle applies everywhere. If you're not strong enough, you won't survive. Animals don't have any rights in the wild, they only get what they fight out for themselves.

Now, if we're looking at manmade rights, then I think they're mostly societies' collective creations for the sake of easier coexistence. We have a society because it makes life easier. We don't have to fight for our survival every minute of the day because the society looks out for us. But as such, it's a horribly complex society, one you won't survive in if you don't get prepared for it for a long, long time. To my knowledge, humans are the only species on this planet where the parents raise their kids for such a long time. A mammal is usually an adult ready to fend for itself when it's less than a year old (if it lives that long). Humans take 18+ years, and due to the complexity of the society and the sheer volume of all the things that need to be taught, they flat-out aren't ready to function in said society in less time than that.

Basically, it's a tradeoff. Humans have a much higher level to shoot at, to grow up to. We wouldn't be able to develop things like imagination, abstract thinking, strong familial ties, appreciation for the beauty of the world and whatnot if we were only raised for a year and then pushed out there. In return for that high level, and so that we'd have the lower tiers of Maslow's pyramid covered in order to be able to develop the higher ones, we remain dependent on our parents for a long time, being shaped by them - every minute spent with them is spent subconsciously leeching information off them, whether or not they actually actively teach you - and being guided by them. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to become fully functional adults.

What I'm saying is, parental guidance is hardly something to be resented. Sure, this whole "mother knows best" shtick is sort of overdone, especially in teen movies where they get turned into villains who never understand (Tangled doesn't count xD) but as a rule... yeah, uh, they do know best. Because they're fully functioning adults who are able to put bread on the table and converse with their coworkers, even those they don't like very much, and pay bills and manage the money and basically do everything without having to rely on their parents every step of the way. And their aim is raising their kids into someone who's also able to put their own bread on the table and converse with different sorts of people. It's a constantly ongoing cycle of independenzation (look ma, fun new word =D)

[Dju]

Jul 17, 2011 8:21:00 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Jul 17, 2011 7:57:21 GMT -5 @bettyming said:

It's less about 'likes and beliefs are mutually exclusive' and more like 'likes and beliefs aren't facts.' A like and a belief aren't mutually exclusive, but at the end of the day they're subjective and have no bearing on reality.

For example, the sky is blue. I can like the color red, I can passionately believe that the sky is red, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue.

We're not talking about things that have been proven. We're talking about things that haven't. And everyone has the right to believe what they want in that sense.

And that wasn't even my point. My point was that not encouraging believing in something because you like it can be stifling, especially for anyone who expresses creativity (including musicians. Music is a form of art).

No, I don't think we should be encouraged to believe in something that has no proof...in the religion area, I have my beliefs because all the philosophy behind it makes sense to me, it all fits, but encouraging a little kid to believe in portals and fairies and mermaids blindly is serious stuff.

It's not something that keeps the person going on like faith, mystical creatures are great for stories and art- absolutely, that what's art is about, transforming imagination so other people can see it- but making a kid believe blindly that one day it will find a fairy or, I dunno, a unicorn doesn't makes this little kid a better person for a better world, on the contrary! This future adult will rely on wishes instead of working, it will spend time searching instead of working for their dreams, it will be ignorant. It will be weak. Like Huntress said, it won't survive.

Not that we shouldn't believe, I'm just saying that instead of believing that these creatures already exist we should make them exist. Paint, write, sing about it.