Everyone is equal, why can adults play with mobile phones?

Everyone is equal, why can adults play with mobile phones, then this must be asked by a child, then everyone has what everyone should do in life, adults play mobile phones not necessarily just to play, maybe there are a lot of work needs, then as a minor, your main thing is to study. So, don't compare this matter with adults.

Everyone is equal but you need to pay to get something in return, adults can play with mobile phones because mobile phones are bought by adults, and if you can earn money to buy mobile phones, then you can also play with mobile phones.

Adults play with their phones because their work already has a certain amount. Ability to act. In fact, the question you asked is better, as a parent, you should set a good example. Try to play with your phone as little as possible.

Because adults have jobs and can support themselves and you, do you have them? Of course, you can also play, but you should plan the time well, and after arranging your time and your own work properly, you can relax and not affect your academic performance.

Because each age group has its own things that can or cannot be done, such as adults working hard to earn money, and children don't have to, children should go to school hard to reassure their parents and have a good future in the future.

Adults play with mobile phones, he doesn't delay learning, he doesn't go to school, children can't play, he delays learning.

Children can also play with mobile phones. It's just that children have to go to school and learn knowledge. You don't want to study, you just go and play with your phone.

Because children are going to read, adults can play with their phones.

1) The special protection of minors by law is to strike a balance between legal capacity and legal capacity. Minors have incomplete social capacity due to their physical and mental development, and in order to maintain the uncertainty of society, the law imposes certain restrictions on minors' legal capacity. This gives rise to incapacitated persons and persons with limited capacity.

This is the negative impact of the law on the rights of minors.

2) It is precisely because the law restricts the equal legal capacity of minors, and the law stipulates that all persons are born with equal legal capacity. Therefore, the law must complement the restricted rights of minors. This gives rise to special protection of the rights of minors.

Of course, this is a purely theoretical mode of thinking that follows the social contract theory.

3) In fact, there are physical and psychological defects in the social capacity of minors, and the law supplements the rights of minors based on the principle of equality of all to make up for the lack of legal status of minors. It is the embodiment of the principle of equality for all.

On the other hand, the special protection of minors in the law is also the protection of other legal subjects and social stability. For example, the legal provisions on the effectiveness of transactions of minors beyond their capacity are to be determined, on the one hand, to protect the minors themselves, on the other hand, to maintain the stability of social transactions, and finally to ensure the security of transactions between the guardians of minors and the counterparties.

4) In summary, theoretically speaking, the special protection of minors is the consideration of the legal significance of the law in restricting the behavior of minors in order to reflect the principle of fairness. In fact, it is a supplement to the lack of capacity of minors for the sake of fairness. Finally, it is also the protection of the rights of minors and the overall interests of society.

This part of the underage population is a vulnerable group, they are mentally immature, do not have their own positions and opinions, and cannot make their own subjective judgments, so it is understandable that they enjoy privileges that adults cannot enjoy. Just like a little lamb, he is in danger all the time, shouldn't he be protected? The law has an obligation to give them the privilege to remove obstacles from their growth and take care of their healthy growth!

The former is easy to induce, and the latter is self-inflicted.

Because children have no self-control, they don't understand a lot of things, and they need the correct guidance of their parents.

This is actually the same as a company in the old employees always bullying new employees is a truth, when parents are still children, their parents often scold them as adults and beat them, they feel that adults have a lot of power since they were young, they hate adults, they also want to be adults, so when they give birth to you, they have not been willing to be equal to you, if they are equal to you, it is not equivalent to their status is reduced? They beat you and scold you to experience the pleasure their parents had from beating and scolding them.

Children don't have a sense of right and wrong, and they need their parents to tell you what to do.

When I was a child, I was taken care of so that I would not be managed when I grew up!

The child is a minor, and the parents have the right and duty of guardianship over the child.

Different parents have different ways of disciplining their children.

If you are born, you can make money on your own and live a life without being controlled by adults.

Because this is in China, the family education method is basically like this, the real equality of everyone can not be done, that is, there is no absolute equality of people in foreign countries, but foreign parents respect children more and pay attention to equal communication with children, in China is basically Lao Tzu has the final say, children can only obey.

Asking this question must be a beating.

Children should be managed by adults, but they should not be beaten by adults. Whoever is justified should listen to whomever he is. Adults should also listen to children's reasonable advice.

However, because children have to rely on adults in all aspects, they eat adults with short mouths. So you can't always be so tough when you speak, and sometimes you have to be aggrieved. Right?

Children are still young and don't know what to do and what not to do. Don't let the adults take care of it.

Children have to be managed, not formal.

Because I love you so much, child!

It may be the influence of traditional thinking. But equality before the law is certain. Because of our ancient ** judgment, ordinary people call them adults, and some people still think like this in modern times, but most people will not use this name anymore.

Because judges do not have any prerogatives beyond their powers.

Because you don't respect the judge as a specific person, but the law behind what the judge represents, and of course this is the sacred status that the law gives him.

When judges are ordinary individuals in everyday life, of course, everyone is equal.

But when, as a neutral adjudicator, decides a case as a judge, the law gives him a sacred status.

After all, children's abilities are still relatively weak, and they still have to rely on adults, so the right to speak will naturally be smaller.

They are equal, but they can do whatever they want, they don't take us into account for a long time, and they all rub our dignity on the ground.

1.All citizens are equal before the law, and no one has the privilege of going beyond the law.

2.Every citizen is equally protected by the law and equally enjoys rights and fulfills obligations.

3.Anyone who violates the laws of the country must bear the corresponding legal responsibility.

Minors are in a vulnerable position in life, so the law must give appropriate tilt in order to guarantee substantive fairness. Perfectly neutral fairness is not fairness.

Accord with. Regardless of reality, from the perspective of legal theory, equality before the law is not absolute equality, but conditional equality. Minors are not entitled to this right because they are considered to be still in their formative years, most of them do not have full capacity for civil conduct, and are considered to have insufficient cognitive capacity to enjoy the right to vote and to stand for election.

On the issue of the right to vote and the right to stand for election, minors are equal to minors, and adults are equal to adults.

Fourth place in software upgrades, I'm hungry is Murdoch, oh.

Equality of all people is relative equality, not absolute equality.

Special protection for minors is necessary for the long-term peace and stability of the country.

This involves the difference between civil capacity for rights and capacity for civil conduct.

Equality of all persons refers to the equality of personality, that is, the equality of civil rights and capacity. It refers to the qualification to have rights and obligations.

A minor is a person with no or limited capacity for civil conduct. So give them special protection.

"Everyone is equal before the law" is based on the premise that everyone is equal before the law.

The special protection of minors is provided for by law, so the law for the protection of minors is the same for everyone. Of course, "everyone is equal before the law" pulls!

As for the law on the protection of minors, there are provisions that distinguish them from those for adults. That's for the sake of social balance in a lighter sense.

China's law is a civil law system, and on the whole, it embodies collective interests above all else. There is an essential difference with the supremacy of individual rights in European and American legal systems.

Not contradictory.

The key is an understanding of equality. The premise of the phrase "everyone is equal before the law" is that there are differences between people, and there are differences between people, such as tall, short, fat and thin, old, weak, sick and disabled. It is the existence of such differences that creates the need for equal protection for all.

Compared with adults, minors are mentally and physically disadvantaged, so only by giving special protection can equality with adults be achieved, and this special protection truly embodies the spirit of equality.

So the two are not contradictory.

A little personal opinion, where it is not enough, please correct it in time.