How to describe it?
Children are innocent but then adults are too when proven not guilty. So what is what?
Printable View
How to describe it?
Children are innocent but then adults are too when proven not guilty. So what is what?
Presumption of innocence?
do you mean one is pretending to be innocent like the famous case of the south African blade runner?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleeding Pawn
what I am trying to say is does one need the title of innocence if one is what the meaning says anyway? in other words why point and say oh that is man when one knows one is?
He means the burden of proof lies with the accuser, who must presume innocence until they can prove guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
It is a way of protecting people who are accused of crimes but have yet to be convicted. So in this context, the presumption of innocence does matter.
Why would you say children are innocent? Have you ever been around children?
Also, presumption of innocence is used for determining legal guilt or innocence. Does it have anything to do with moral or factual guilt or innocence?
By innocence, he means lack of knowledge about the real world, where they think everything is fine, and they will grow up and be millionaires and nothing bad will ever happen. Just like when people talk about children begin to lose their innocence as they start to find out that there is no Santa Claus, as they begin to realize that the real world is cruel.Quote:
Originally Posted by togre
My personal take on this, is that I am only 14, I have a ways to go before I have kids, but when I do, I don't want believing strongly in religion, or Santa Claus. You might be like, wow, you are cruel, but I want my kids to be logical thinkers, I want them to make decisions for themselves as soon as they are able to, not that some floating guy in the sky should decide what you do. Now, I believe loosely in the Christian faith, in the sense that I believe in an after life, but I don't believe in the sense that God made everything, and **** has been going down for only 2013 years. Mainly since science has proven that we have been around for millions of years, and has strong evidence that everything has existed for aver 14 billion years.
So if not teaching my kids about religion, or Santa Claus is them losing innocence, in exchange for them being intelligent, and logical thinkers, than so be it. I just don't want my kid believing that some fat crusty white dude flies around with reindeer in the sky and delivers presents to every single kid in the world in one night.
tabula rasa pretty much sums it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by togre
Hmmm...I guess, which I hadn't realized before now, that I view those two examples with different definitions. As for a crime, being proven innocent simply means you've been proven to not have done the crime or whatever you've been acused of. As for the innocence of children, that is something much more pure....much different. And in response to the other posts about questioning the innocence of children...it is how you raise them and their own personalities. Just because there are roudy potty mouth children in the world that may deliberately hurt others for the fun of it...doesn't mean there aren't sweet loving children who are truly full of innocence.
Some people are born and die with a tabula rasa.
ROFLMAO
Nah it always fills up with something.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Nah,Nah. Something always goes empty. LOL
children are innocent by nature. adults are not by default. there a time difference between a child and adult as you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by togre
I am talking about the inner innocence not the legal one per say.Quote:
Also, presumption of innocence is used for determining legal guilt or innocence. Does it have anything to do with moral or factual guilt or innocence?
tabula rasa. what is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
It is an epistemological proposition claiming that individuals are born without mentality and that the mind is created by education. We now know that it is false. Experiments have been done with people, animals in isolation, where it is shown that the brain comes proprogrammed to obey laws such as time for migration, kinds of feed, etc. The tabula rasa proposition can't be but an idiotic joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
You are severely misinformed cafo.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
tabula rasa is the claim that perception is based on experience, not mind based on education. they are similar, but not equal.
Tabula rasa and pre-existing, genetic dispositions can coexist. organisms respond to things like migration and kinds of feed for the same reason that they develop limbs without conscious attention; some things are genetic. but perception is not genetic. there have been numerous studies that what you experience affects your perception, that is pretty obvious.
saying that "we know migration without experience" is an argument against tabula rasa is just plain wrong.
and please do not compare experiments done on animals to the human brain. similar again, but not equal.
Another piece of info: WE are all animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
our brain is not in the same class as other animal brains, making our perception vastly different.
This has been bugging me a lot lately. Hopefully someone from the boards can heed me advice.
There's this relatively big problem going around in my family concerning my grandma especifically. After my uncle went to prison for shooting his wife over a serious problem they had, the state decided to leave his two kids(ages 5 and 3 at the time of the incident four years ago) to the care of the deceased woman's mother. Since, my grandma had a better financial estate though both parties came up with the resolution to share the children's expenses. My grandmother would pay for their private school and share some utilities with the other woman. Now, keep in mind that my grandma loves these children dearly since my uncle is literally her favorite son; she visits him every saturday. Now, the problem is that the woman is constantly arguing with my grandma over pure interest reasons (she wants to be the legal owner of the house where my uncle used to live in arguing for reparation causes and the children's inheritance). Much of these arguments arise in part from the deceit that is constantly placed by the youngest kid, a girl of 7, who is very observant and a compulsive liar. She often tells the other woman that so and so from my grandma's household, either my cousin or her daughter of 4, treated her badly when, in fact, the truth is the complete opposite. This results in the woman coming over to my grandma's and starting arguments over lies that the child has said. My cousin, a single mother, has called me a couple of times crying and said she was going to leave and find an apartment because she can't tolerate anymore of the kid's constant trouble.
The kid, in my own opinion, reflects the character of her maternal grandma in some ways. The kid is very mischievous, i think there's a serious problem in her personality because i personally think she enjoys causing these arguments even after time and time again me and other relatives have told her to stop it. It's disturbing because she concedes her fault at times but still keeps on lying.
So, the question is this... is the kid genuinely innocent and will she get worse once she's an adult, or is it just a phase that will die out in a few years?
I AM not. Just to clarify it cafo. WE is very vague in this instance.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini