The Childrens Rights Movement Must Go!

[Liberationist]

Edited.

[CodArk2]

i dont support childrens rights either, its another way to get increased "parents rights", of course, these fairly brainless people dont know is parnets dont have rights, they have responsibilities, youth rights is to free youth from oppression, childrens rights is to enslave us farther, notice they think all people up to 18 are children?GOD DAMMIT, IM NOT A CHILD, IM 16 YEARS OLD, I HAVE AN ADULT BODY AND IM CAPBLE OF THINKING LIKE AN ADULT SO IM A FUCKING ADULT YOU DUMB MORONS, GET IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ayliana]

i dont support childrens rights either, its another way to get increased "parents rights", of course, these fairly brainless people dont know is parnets dont have rights, they have responsibilities, youth rights is to free youth from oppression, childrens rights is to enslave us farther, notice they think all people up to 18 are children?GOD DAMMIT, IM NOT A CHILD, IM 16 YEARS OLD, I HAVE AN ADULT BODY AND IM CAPBLE OF THINKING LIKE AN ADULT SO IM A FUCKING ADULT YOU DUMB MORONS, GET IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes I'm sure you are, but typing in all caps on a message board sure doesn't show it.

[CodArk2]

that doesnt mean im immature, it means im angry, i mean, people who are 50 scream just as much as i do, noone is mature when they are angry, but i consider myself an adult in most circumstances and a youth in the rest, but im not a child at all, a child is someone aged 5-12, so i cant be a child

[SciVille]

What's a 4-year-old? Is he/she not a child?

[Balore]

Every human being in the world is a child. If you were born to someone then you are the child of that person.

GOD DAMMIT, IM NOT A CHILD, IM 16 YEARS OLD, I HAVE AN ADULT BODY AND IM CAPBLE OF THINKING LIKE AN ADULT SO IM A FUCKING ADULT YOU DUMB MORONS, GET IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, a young adult.

In the child rights movement, there are only two things that benefit children. The rest just gives parents and the government more power over children.

[Galen]

The term "Children's Rights" has gotten bastardized by these idiots... I fully support REAL Children's Rights, not this fake ass we'll-call-it-children's-rights-but-really-mean-parents-rights bullshit.


-Galen

[KPalicz]

Actually the 'youth rights' movement in the 70's called itself Children's Rights or Children's Liberation. It was only in the 80s, when that same movement was bastardized into the crappy stuff Suffragist posted above. Of course we must respect them greatly for their work fighting child abuse.

[Galen]

Aye, they fight child abuse and I'll give 'em props for that, but at what cost to the child's rights? "Those who trade freedom for security get neither" (Ben Franklin... I think).


-Galen

[OmegaWolf747]

Maybe we should call it Youth or Teen Liberation instead of Youth Rights or Children's Rights.

[Liberationist]

Edited.

[CodArk2]

i dont support "childrens rights", its like a wolf in sheeps clothing, promising to give us rights them going behind our backs to take our rights away, stupid childrens rights bastards, if you say childrens rights, it means give children actual rights, not give it to parents(some of whom dont deserve their already too large amount of power), i think that teens(ages 14-19)should be given adult rights,oh and some of you may be confused, i dont put people in categories based not on age but on maturity, ages o-4 is infant, because they totally depend on mommy for every thing and arent mature, child is 5-13, and is divided into two halves, early childhood(5-10) and preteens(11-13), 13 year olds are not really teens because most of them lack maturity and exhibit more childish tendencies than a true teen, a 13 year old, while having teen as a suffix, is no different than eighTEEN year olds being adults,then you have the teen years, ages 14-18, and are generally independant and adults in everything but name, i would fall into this category, and then come young adults or college people, people aged 17-25 who still face age discrimination. anyway sorry about that, but i think the childrens rights movement should go!

[Freeflow1]

Activists for the general welfare of youth vary greatly from region to region and person to person. Neither security nor liberty should be allowed absolutely, such is the founding principle of our Democratic Republic. I agree with Alex (KPalicz), for child abuse is the ultimate oppression of youth. Fighting it as they do is not sacrificing liberty for security. It protects us and allows greater freedom. In this way, our opponents are indeed on our side. They do not seek to oppress us for their benefit, they seek to guard us for ours. Do not view them as enemies, view them as allies with different means to the same cause: our general welfare. Diplomacy and open discussion will surely bring us to a far greater resolution than the destruction of either one of us. Especially, come this May, when we will need them, and they us.

[Yasha]

BIG problem with that Kevin. In no way, shape, or form do movie ratings, V-chips, internet censorship, and the many forms of spreading infantilization in all of society, do a damn bit of good in the fight against child abuse. If the focus is on "protecting" children from the world to the point where they experience nothing of it, then you aren't fighting child abuse, you are enabling it. Children must be empowered to take better care of themselves, just as the connections and safeguards needed in their lives for them to be free from predatory abuse must be strengthened. But it takes a delicate hand to legislate and parent effectively without it all turning into the oppressive mess that so many of our schools, communications, and laws have become.

[SciVille]

http://www.snipeme.com/archive04/victimization.html

[Balore]

Well I understand that most parents don't want their children subjected to all the kinds of garbage on the internet and TV which could be detrimental to their psychosocial development It is reasonable. The kids are living in the parents house they have to abide by the parent's rules. It's not that unreasonable for parents to set rules on what their kids can look at online and on TV. It is their decision and their right to determine how best to raise their children and to decide what is appropriate for their child. It's their right to exercise not the government's law to enforce thankfully. This way parents can decide when their children are mature enough to be given full access to the media.
Sure from the children's point of view it's oppression, but it's not really oppression, it's just watchful parenting. If a kid feels that it's unfair that they are being censored then they could offer to pay the internet and cable bill. Then they can do what ever they want.
When I have kids, I plan to use parental controls on them until they are 14, then if they're good and I feel that I could trust them, I'll take the controls off.

[SciVille]

When I have kids, I plan to use parental controls on them until they are 14, then if they're good and I feel that I could trust them, I'll take the controls off.

I'm adding you to my "Castrate" list. Now consists of you and Alex.

[Balore]

[greaternyrania]

Children's rights is about protecting the "interests" of young people (though often they are misguided), Youth Rights is about liberating young people and empowering them to make their own desicions, weather or not those desicions are correct. The problem with the Children's rights movement is that despite its noble intentions, it really represents the interests of the protectors (or oppressors, as I see it), not the young people. For whatever reason people have a need to feel superior, that they are ordained to be in charge of others, by their birthdate, the color of their skin, their intelect, or whatever. Martin Luther King expressed this idea very eloquently in his "Drum Major Instinct" sermon. The Youth Protectionists like to force young people in to bubbles, because it makes them feel warm and fuzy. They don't realize that the bubble keeps the "protected" person from having experiences, both positive and negitave, that are integral to that persons development as a human being.
All that aside, I feel that young people, particularly when they reach the age of about eleven or twelve, deserve much the same rights as older individuals. This is another thing the protectionists fail to realize. If the drinking age were lowered, maybe more stupid 18 year olds would crash their cars and die (this is a false, ageist statement, but lets pretend for the sake of argument) but those people have a right to consume alcohol. Public safety comes after public liberty.

[Yasha]

Fuck. I give up. I tried to post something in reply to Revere and then it fucked up cause I had hit his edit button instead of quote. I fixed that (your post should be fine except for the little edited by Yasha thing at the bottom of it) but then I lost what I had written -- for the second time!!! AHHHHHHH!