The debate "Every child should have a mobile phone" was started by
November 14, 2015, 2:38 pm.
33 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 68 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
toffeebrush posted 1 argument, SalonY posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
ekakus posted 1 argument, MylifeisaJoke posted 1 argument, Lane posted 4 arguments, thereal posted 3 arguments, itsme1 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
liberalssuck, IceKnower, pinkypunkpinkypunk, toffeebrush, AstroSpace, adreonnasky, HiBye, Blue_ray, yabbster, Gaurangi, SalonY, kidkck, tyler0300 and 20 visitors agree.
benhawthorne, mtemple74, vercetti406, MarlemR, ekakus, Kaleighltay, MylifeisaJoke, Nury, Tiredandred, DannyknowsItAll, obaidnb, Lane, Picassota, AlenaMaisel, StarSoul, alexoliver, lucylou15, Razor, thereal, itsme1, NationalistGuy, Najam1, slothgrill, jack_tim_45, TheProudWeirdo, Zuhayr, BBQonions, Deepak09, nellie11iah, ThePhilosopher, ceedotrock, Namra_ta and 36 visitors disagree.
now the time has been changed..& we hv to change ourself with the changing flow of time..Yaa I support every child should have a phone.. bt the phone shouldnt be connected to internet...
Right there, parents are almost 100% responsible for how their child has turned out so far. Did the parents correctly teach the child about respect and responsibility? In the first group, the answer is no. In the second group, the answer is still no. The third group, however, has been taught respect and responsibility, in other words, their parents have set up for them the kind of value system that most of us wish the whole world could operate by, and the child has caught on to it. That is how every child is affected directly by their parents. After the first day, that social influence starts taking a turn. A child from the 3rd group may see a child from the 1st group get away with acting out, and that leads them to believe that perhaps they can do the same thing, despite what they have been raised to do. Typical modeling, becoming like a domino effect as more and more kids try the bad behavior. This is one way that a school can be "teaching" kids something other than what parents are trying to teach, but that relates straight back to the fact that some kids received bad parenting in their most impressionable years, which kind of proves my point that the parents have a huge amount to do with how their child behaves. If you meant that the school is intentionally teaching kids something against what parents teach, I would like to request two examples of that, because I am stumped. My thoughts are leading me to think that behaviors that teachers teach you in school are typically the behaviors that society accepts as normal, like "don't fight with peers". If parents teach something other than that, that again indicates a parenting problem.
Sorry for so many words to address that one part.
Maybe you will be glad to know that my parents were not abusive :D But I think your point about social influence is valid if you can show me how some things cannot be linked to bad parenting one way or another. If all parents did do a good job with their kids, the world would certainly be a better place. Some people do a great job. But the ones who don't, which is an increasing amount of people, are slowly outnumbering and bringing down the others, making the whole of society worse and worse as morality begins to leave people. To tie this all back to the debate, I don't think that mobile devices are a part of this. They may act like a conduit for people with bad parents, but that cannot be applied to everybody. Mobile devices can have a positive effect, see 1st st8ment
I apologize for misinterpreting what you said.
In response to the rest of what you said, I would agree that parents are not always the reason kids lack morals, and I understand that I didn't address the social influence on children outside of their homes. Parents cannot control every single aspect of their child's life, especially as he grows up. I am curious about what you mean when you say "parents teach one thing, schools teach another". When referring to what is taught in school, are you talking about what the school knowingly, intentionally teaches? Or the behaviors that kids almost unconsciously pick up and model from other individuals at the school?
The reason I am confused at this part is this. Pretend with me that we have a kindergarten class of 20 students, all 4 years old. None of them have had any real experiences in society during these first years of life. While that may be unrealistic to a degree, it is true that children at such a young age model their parents more than anybody else. They trust their parents more than anybody else, and they probably hardly even know anybody else. So assume that the biggest and most impactful experiences are happening in the home. These students, for the sake of this example, will be at 3 different levels. 7 kids come from households where parents did not correctly discipline and abused their child regularly. They behave poorly by talking back to adults, insulting or injuring other kids, and refusing to do work that they don't feel like doing. Another 7 kids come from households where parents at least held some standard for their kid's behavior. They were disciplined occasionally, but often parents would let bad behavior slide because they didn't want to deal with it. These kids would act probably the equivalent to how you'd expect a typical 4 year old to act. Respectful sometimes, but fits whenever they don't get what they want. The other 6 kids in the class are the ones whose parents held them to a high standard from the very start. These kids know right from wrong with ease, even at such a young age. They may be almost afraid to show disrespect towards an adult or even a classmate because they know it will not end well. So that is our class. If you were to observe a kindergarten class, you could probably make out these three groups. Right from the start, these kids are how their interactions in the home have shaped them to be, primarily interaction with the parents. .........
i never asserted mobile phones were the reason children today were pathetic. also sometimes parents are the reason children dont have good morals but that is not always the case. there is only so much a parent can do. a parent teaches one thing, then the school teaches something else. thats whybi think the subject of morality should be left to parents not the state. i dont know if you had abusive parents or not but you seem to think that if parents arent abisive amd teach their children morals, all children will grow up as angels. unfortunately thats not true, though i wish it was. society has a major influence on the way children actand the morals of society today are f***ed up.
@thereal I realize that we are in agreement on this topic, but I wonder if you are implying that mobile phones are the reason we see certain behaviors in the newest generation? I happen to be a part of the "pathetic generation"... couldn't certain behaviors be traced straight to bad parenting? That would place some blame on the earlier generations too. What I am saying, I guess, is that mobile phones do not cause bad behavior. Instead, I think that the cause is that parents often seem to do a poor job in "instilling morals" in their children, as you put it. The best and most effective time to do this is, of course, the early years, the age that most of us seem to agree is too young for a child to be using a mobile device anyway. That is the critical time for teaching morals and values. After age 12, or earlier in some cases, it can become nearly impossible to do due to the natural independence that children start to feel as they grow up. It starts to become a matter of whether or not the parent did a good job while the child was young and if the parent sets a constant example that follows the pattern their child has learned. If all of that is absent, a child is more likely to follow his own rules as he becomes more independent, do the things he wants to do. Perhaps that is porn, or spending hours on a video game, maybe communicating online with people he hasn't met in person, or worse, arranging to meet those people. Children do have a responsibility(as long as their parents have taught and held them to a certain standard) to avoid that kind of thing, but parents have had a similar responsibility from the day their child was born.
In conclusion, I don't agree with your assertion that mobile phones are one of the main reasons that my generation is "pathetic". Alternatively, parents are the biggest reason, and mobile devices in the hands of small children are, in my opinion, a symptom of bad parenting.
its not ALL about porn but that is a part of it.
its all about porn, isnt it?:p
kids shouldnt have phones until theyre adults. there are simply too many risks and bad activities they can and do get involved in. especially in this pathetic generation and its only getting worse. in that time that they dont have phones you can instill some proper morals in them.
I agree with toffeebrush. When they start to get more freedom, around the middle school age, a phone could become necessary. My biggest fear would be addiction to the device, but if the parents do a good job at enforcing certain rules, the phone would allow for communication with friends so that they can actually go out somewhere, do the whole socialization thing that is a natural part of healthy development, and the parent can feel comfortable letting that happen. When parents don't set ground rules and enforce them, that's when the child will become attached to the device and give up sports and maybe even friends to stay on the device.
I don't think that any child under the age of 10 should have a phone, they just don't need it. They're probably, on a typical day, around some adult who can supervise what they're doing. But when kids get old enough to start learning independence, a phone could even be helpful with that process.
In my opinion
there is only one reason to allow children to have mobile phone: to call their parents
otherwise, mobile phone is not a necessity for them and it harms more than it benefits.
well I think child should learn from the environment first to develop their socialization with people, animals and other living things. And I don't think mobile phone is good for child because it can be the cause for a child to become introvert and doesn't care about other things in life.
not having fun and have a fun childhood
I think at about 10, when kids go 2 middle school and starts having more freedom