discussion

<< Retour au forum || Aller tout en bas

English only
All your questions about the English language, no French allowed.

Ce sujet est fermé, vous ne pouvez pas poster de réponses

discussion
Message de gewurz posté le 05-03-2005 à 08:07:19 (S | E | F | I)
Hi there !
What do you think about :
" Do children have the right to be right ? " (Les enfants ont-ils le droit d'avoir raison ?)

Réponse: discussion de moanie, postée le 05-03-2005 à 10:43:33 (S | E)
Hi everybody.
What an interesting question!!
Don't we say "the truth leaves the mouth of children"??

Réponse: discussion de jardin62, postée le 05-03-2005 à 15:03:10 (S | E)

Interesting and difficult, especially in English. I beg your indulgence for an inappropriate English. Correct it if you think it needs to, please.

-Do you mean 'has a child the right to say firmly and quietly :'I am right and you-adults- are wrong'?'

To me the problem is that if we answer positively, it supposes that childen are equal to adults and that there's no longer 'infancy', no right to be a child. I have the feeling that , thus, we deprive a child from his right to 'be on the way to... '. It doesnt mean in the least that they aren't right! They are, very often! and we should recognize it and say it.
But, what has lead to this statement?... I am convinced that we make the child go into trouble. 'Am I still a child, am I allowed to lack logic, or am I an adult?' Finally I should say that childhood should be respected in a child. It takes time, let's respect this time. Let's welcome, listen, the child's voice but don't go further. It's a child who has given an opinion, it's not a child who's opinion will forcebly become a decision to take: 'if he's right...Let him be our leader!' That's one of our way-out very often...
Are you thinking of all the recent trials in which the voice of the children causes a problem?... Your question is a 'burning one'.

Réponse: discussion de gewurz, postée le 05-03-2005 à 15:26:59 (S | E)
ah, no, I don't think of those appalling events that are taking place at present.
See, what you think of the right for the child to be objectively right and his struggle against adults.
for instance, can insolence be an easy tool for adults to humble the child, abuse of authority ?
those kind of things...

Réponse: discussion de jardin62, postée le 05-03-2005 à 16:07:53 (S | E)

I agree.
- Insolence isn't always perceived as so by the child or teenager himself/herself. It's true that instead of listening to the opinion 'thrown out', the adult hears the tone. He takes advantage by pointing out 'the WAY' it is said and not WHAT is said. That's how a discussion goes out of contol. That's how a discussion is easily avoided.
" Don't talk before knowing how to talk". We forget that learning to talk is talking.

Réponse: discussion de ruofei, postée le 06-03-2005 à 08:32:24 (S | E)
Hum..very complex topic?
To start with, insolence and humiliation should not be rights neither for a child nor an adult. Now, to the question: do children have the right to be right? I’d ask back: can children distinguish right from wrong? Children see and live events otherwise (than adults)…They aren’t quite rational and can’t actually weigh the moral consequences of bad behaviors; they can only measure the ‘physical?damages of them…For example: a kid would feel less guilty if he says rude words to his classmate (physically unhurt) than if he breaks his glasses (material damages)…from an adult point of view, which one of these two cases are the less acceptable?
Besides, from their childhood to their adulthood, people develop various moral stages, during each of which their definition or sense of ‘right?evolves: are we talking about younger children, older children, teenagers?? (it’d have been relevant here to describe each stage, unfortunately I’m not a child psychology expert!)
As a whole, it’s not that children don’t have the right to be right, but can’t rationally, morally and sometimes even legally be. This, however, doesn’t mean that they can’t be reasoned with.

-------------------
Edit?par ruofei le 07-03-2005 04:00

Réponse: discussion de serena, postée le 07-03-2005 à 02:52:54 (S | E)
Hello !

A child has the greatest aptitude for seeing the truth, in any fields.
He's the one who clearly understands the adults feelings and behaviours. For he looks at things with a brighter heart and isn't yet overwhelmed with worries and adults' problems. His brain is fresh and opened to reality. Most of the time, what he thinks is right.

I'm not talking about life in a general view, but only about the ability to know what HE needs, and not what WE want to make him like.
You can find a 3 year-old boy letting his parents become aware of some situations and save them from some kinds of disasters.

If we listen to children more than we use to do, considering deeply their thoughts, we'll find a wealth of wise and true information inside of them.
But adults' pride always gains the upper hand, by the only advantage of being older. And this leads children to having weak personalities later, making them look for the right way to survive, while that was just too near.

In this extent, yes, a child has the right to be right.

Well, don't think I'll go so far as to let him follow a dangerous path !
I only mean that our truth, or a great part of our truth, is in our children's opinions.

This is MY OWN point of view.

( Hope You won't behead me ! )

Réponse: discussion de jardin62, postée le 07-03-2005 à 06:11:01 (S | E)
serena! I think all you say is true and could make a final point.
(The question could be 'what of our own fears?' We hide them behind the mask of certainties and they build the wall between generations.)
But that's probably another path ...

Réponse: discussion de vance, postée le 26-03-2005 à 09:21:59 (S | E)
Hi, gewurz

Your question reminds me of my philosophy classes..... quite a long time ago indeed ! I used to like philosophy though.

First of all my answer is a question : why on earth would a child be denied the right to be right ? I have read the answers here, they seem to imply that childhood is a very special position and status, one in which a child is considered as not having all the mental abilities, logic and information an adult has. As for information, it is true that a child lacks experience in order to weigh all the elements about a problem. But it depends on what subject he gives his opinion.

And anyway, I would like to add something : I have often experienced the fact that children have a great sense of logic, especially children under 10 (an age when they start being contaminated by adult prejudices). Besides, when a child is wrong, he is able to admit his mistakes, whereas an adult is too easily sturborn, persuaded that he has the ownerwship of truth. Let us listen to adults when they talk about politics or religion for instance : have you aver witnessed a discussion that has not fallen into an argument ? Nobody agrees to consider the other person's point of view. Whereas, when you talk with a child, either the topic won't be of interest to him, and he will say it, or he will listen to what you have to say.
So, I still don't see why a child shouldn't be right : you may manipulate a child, that's true. But I am convinced that deception and manipulation cannot last long with a child.

Réponse: discussion de gewurz, postée le 26-03-2005 à 12:45:55 (S | E)
Precisely, experience and maturity are two of the ingredients which enable (wo)men to be able to comprehend the various points of view in an "affair/case". I think that the child's innocence enable him to see only the logical one, whether it is the one to adopt or not. The child has often difficulties to understand, to know that others are able to feel, which may handicap him in comparison with an adult.
But a lot of growns-up don't even try to assess child's opinion because they are sure to be right since they are the adults.
On the one hand, children lack experience but have the reliability of innocence and on the other hand, adults have experience but have also the deceitfulness of pride. If children were more paid attention to, adults would be more enlightened, civilized.
One solution : kill pride !!!

Réponse: discussion de vance, postée le 26-03-2005 à 13:10:43 (S | E)
I know a precise exemple. it is about a woman who was very unhappy in her marriage. once, she started crying in front of her four-year-old son. She couldn't bear the situation anymore, so she said "I can't stand it ! I'm too unhappy with your Dad". The child just had a big smile and said "Take another man, then".
One year later, the woman got divorced. The child, in his innocence, had seen the only solution. It took one year of suffering for the woman to accept reality (although she DIDN'T go so far as "just taking another man")

Réponse: discussion de gewurz, postée le 26-03-2005 à 13:58:15 (S | E)

Réponse: Children de brubrulapatate, postée le 30-03-2005 à 20:35:18 (S | E)
I'm a teenager, and I think (Yes, I can think) that we can be right, and if you don't like children, say it to M.J.?
But, I ('m) agree with you, children often speak for nothing, and it's irritating.
Me? I'm 15.

-------------------
Edité par serena le 30-03-2005 20:48

Réponse: discussion de mathou, postée le 31-03-2005 à 01:23:54 (S | E)
I think that people should consider children's speech, because like an adult, they're able to think. Sometimes their thoughts are more valuable than how an adult can think. That ('s) means, a child can prevent you from danger, despite their different capacity of thinking. Also they could be good advisers,they can show what is the right direction to take

-------------------
Edité par serena le 31-03-2005 02:47
I also think so. Not for everything, but most of the time, yes.

Ce sujet est fermé, vous ne pouvez pas poster de réponse.