Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

5kids1condo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 193 posts

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#181

Post by Spooky23 »

DanBC wrote: post #116
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to change his behaviour. I don't think that's how it works, in this day and age. As Adrian mentions in the article: Being a divorced, single dad who has his kids 50% of the time, I have little recourse to challenge the Ministry’s decision. Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry st…

> could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children, It's not true though. The ministry can't strip him of equal custody rights, they can only go to court. A judge is the only person who can strip his rights away. THe claim is: > Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my c…

Social workers, CPS and similar people have a lot of power, both through direct action like testimony and reports, or more indirect/passive-aggressive action like filing anonymous complaints or withholding/providing key data strategically.

Most judges are doing to hear "child endangerment" and do exactly what they recommend, or what is called for. People performing assessments have broad discretion in many types of determinations. When you suffer from a serious medical malady like a stroke, the social workers/discharge planners in hospitals and rehab facilities have even greater power with less accountability.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#182

Post by new299 »

tarboreus wrote: post #171
new299 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems tangential to what I was trying to (perhaps unclearly) express. I personally would agree with author of the post. However, the author is saying "it's not dangerous to do this", as opposed to "it is a basic human right to do this". He is also asserting that the opposing view is not supported by the facts (it's "fact free"). That's all fine. But then the author presents statistics he's gathered, none of whic…

Again, the burden of proof is (or should be) on the state here. And there are no stats showing that this is dangerous, because it isn't.

You seem to be arguing with a point I'm not trying to make.

But if you are suggesting that the decision should be fact based and present an argument with supporting statistics. Then those statistics should be relevant to your argument.

The statistics presented in the article were not relevant. If it is not dangerous, it should be possible to show this with data... the data presented in the article is poor and doesn't support his case well.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#183

Post by new299 »

tempestn wrote: post #178
new299 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I'm now reading the article he cites to support this. It's an old article, from 2013. It states that: "Police statistics show 25 children of the 46,718 reported missing in 2011 listed as "abducted by stranger." And then goes on to show that in the majority of cases that the abductor was known to the parents. So, the useful dataset would be. * How many of the children were abducted with unsupervised? * In the Cana…

Fair enough. The original statistic could well be inaccurate. I was simply responding to the comment that it's irrelevant without knowing the number of underage bus riders.

What is the relevance of the statistic present? I can't see is? (honestly).

If no (or very few) children are left unsupervised in Canada, then the statistic isn't relevant to calculating the probability of unsupervised (or lone traveling) children being abducted is it?

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#184

Post by tempestn »

new299 wrote: post #183
tempestn wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. The original statistic could well be inaccurate. I was simply responding to the comment that it's irrelevant without knowing the number of underage bus riders.

What is the relevance of the statistic present? I can't see is? (honestly). If no (or very few) children are left unsupervised in Canada, then the statistic isn't relevant to calculating the probability of unsupervised (or lone traveling) children being abducted is it?

I'm using personal experience. I live in Canada, and I'm a parent, so I tend to frequent places that kids congregate. From my experience there are plenty of opportunities out there for someone to abduct children if they were halfway intelligent and motivated to do so. If indeed there was only one incidence over a two year span in the entire country (although your reference is apparently 25, not one?) it therefore suggests a lack of potential abductors.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#185

Post by new299 »

tempestn wrote: post #184
new299 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the relevance of the statistic present? I can't see is? (honestly). If no (or very few) children are left unsupervised in Canada, then the statistic isn't relevant to calculating the probability of unsupervised (or lone traveling) children being abducted is it?

I'm using personal experience. I live in Canada, and I'm a parent, so I tend to frequent places that kids congregate. From my experience there are plenty of opportunities out there for someone to abduct children if they were halfway intelligent and motivated to do so. If indeed there was only one incidence over a two year span in the entire country (although your reference is apparently 25, not one?) it therefore sug…

> it therefore suggests a lack of potential abductors

Or a lack of unsupervised children?

I don't know. I think you're probably correct. But really the assertion would be might stronger if there was more than anecdotal evidence to back it up.

This is what I'm trying to say the data presented in the article, is on the level of anecdotal evidence. Which, tends to weaken the argument rather than strengthen it.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#186

Post by Chris2048 »

falsedan wrote: post #158
Chris2048 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vilifies a large group of people based on their political preferences If I say Marxism is evil, aren't I also vilifying subscribers to that philosophy? That's fine, since it's a choice; both to take ideological criticisms personally, and to subscribe to it in the first place. > Comparing a political stance to a disease does affect the users I can't see how.

> If I say Marxism is evil, aren't I also vilifying subscribers to that philosophy? Yes, and I would not be surprised to see people challenging that statement/asking for facts. > > Comparing a political stance to a disease does affect the users > I can't see how. See my example from the post you quoted. Does it make sense? Try to put yourself in the shoes of a professional, successful PHP programmer who is aware of t…

> I would not be surprised to see people challenging that statement/asking for facts.

Then we disagree. I distinguish ideology from person.

> Try to put yourself in the shoes of a professional, successful PHP programmer

I'd say that programmer has too much of their ego invested in their choice of language. The question is not of being merely unhappy about criticism, but being personally affected.

Would you happily say the same wrt criticism of a belief in flat-earth?

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#187

Post by pharrington »

pharrington wrote: post #123

I smell a confidence trick. Nowhere in his article does Crook mention any specific names of government workers he interacted with, specific dates when he met with caseworkers, or specific actions or enforcements the government would take regarding his case. In an article full of links to specific stats and empathy inducing images of his children, he does not show a single government correspondence. I hope my assumpti…

from https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vanco...

"In a June 23 letter that Mr. Crook provided to The Globe and Mail, the ministry said it looked into concerns that "you were pulling the children's ears and allowing them to take transit unsupervised." Asked about the ear-pulling, Mr. Crook said it was treated as an afterthought in the investigation and follow-up, and that the main focus was the bus trips.

The letter says there are no child-protection concerns and that the children are safe in their father's care."

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#188

Post by falsedan »

Chris2048 wrote: post #186
falsedan wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I say Marxism is evil, aren't I also vilifying subscribers to that philosophy? Yes, and I would not be surprised to see people challenging that statement/asking for facts. > > Comparing a political stance to a disease does affect the users > I can't see how. See my example from the post you quoted. Does it make sense? Try to put yourself in the shoes of a professional, successful PHP programmer who is aware of t…

> I would not be surprised to see people challenging that statement/asking for facts. Then we disagree. I distinguish ideology from person. > Try to put yourself in the shoes of a professional, successful PHP programmer I'd say that programmer has too much of their ego invested in their choice of language. The question is not of being merely unhappy about criticism, but being personally affected. Would you happily sa…

> I distinguish ideology from person

So do I? Bit of a non-sequitur…

> Would you happily say the same wrt criticism of a belief in flat-earth?

Happily? What a loaded question.

Would I expect a flat-earther to respond to claims which criticized their point-of-view by requesting evidence? Yes I would.

edit

> The question is not of being merely unhappy about criticism, but being personally affected.

People are affected by criticism simply by receiving it. Feeling unhappy because of criticism is being personally affected. Words can harm and kill.

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#189

Post by Chris2048 »

falsedan wrote: post #188
Chris2048 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would not be surprised to see people challenging that statement/asking for facts. Then we disagree. I distinguish ideology from person. > Try to put yourself in the shoes of a professional, successful PHP programmer I'd say that programmer has too much of their ego invested in their choice of language. The question is not of being merely unhappy about criticism, but being personally affected. Would you happily sa…

> I distinguish ideology from person So do I? Bit of a non-sequitur… > Would you happily say the same wrt criticism of a belief in flat-earth? Happily? What a loaded question. Would I expect a flat-earther to respond to claims which criticized their point-of-view by requesting evidence? Yes I would. edit > The question is not of being merely unhappy about criticism, but being personally affected. People are affected…

> So do I?

Do you? you said you agree that "X is evil" villifies subscribers that philosophy.

> Feeling unhappy because of criticism is being personally affected

Not really, there is a difference between "I am a bad person" and "I subscribe to a bad ideology". The difference is you can un-subscribe if persuaded.

> Words can harm and kill

that's a non-sequitur..

Re: How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence

#190

Post by DanBC »

Spooky23 wrote: post #181
DanBC wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children, It's not true though. The ministry can't strip him of equal custody rights, they can only go to court. A judge is the only person who can strip his rights away. THe claim is: > Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my c…

Social workers, CPS and similar people have a lot of power, both through direct action like testimony and reports, or more indirect/passive-aggressive action like filing anonymous complaints or withholding/providing key data strategically. Most judges are doing to hear "child endangerment" and do exactly what they recommend, or what is called for. People performing assessments have broad discretion in many types of d…

> Most judges are doing to hear "child endangerment" and do exactly what they recommend, or what is called for.

Maybe that's true in the US, but it just isn't true for Canada (which uses forced adoption rarely).

It's not even true in England, which is criticised for using forced adoption quite heavily.

There's a suspicion that judges just rubber stamp these applications. It's bizarre to think that they do.

Here are a few cases from England.

In this one the local authority gets a kicking from the judge: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2014/22.html

And another: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/...

That last one is useful here. The parents were misusing alcohol; were violent; had neglected their child. Their child had gone into foster care. The local authority is applying to have the children adopted. The judge rejects that because the judge thinks the child should maintain contact with the parents. (And eventually go back to the father).

There's also talk about judges separating children from fathers, but that's not true either. This case, written so the children will understand, nicely illustrates that:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2016/9.html

The judge ordered that the children should continue to have contact with their father, even though he was a violent and aggressive man. After that order was made the father was arrested, charged, and convicted of firearms offences, and got a prison sentence.

Post reply on HN