[deleted]
The day I accidentally killed a little boy
321–330 of 683 posts
Re: The day I accidentally killed a little boy
#322Ever since I became a father (2 months ago), I've been seeing the world as a dangerous and an ugly place. This is confounded with the fact that, a month ago, I came to find out that my brother was bullied in HS and was never the same.
My brother has been out of high school for about 9 years now, but It took me 6 whole years to consider the possibility that something was wrong. I was in undergrad and focused on my studies, and then moved to NYC, so my time wasn't really spent at home with my brother, which should never be an excuse when it comes to family. But I let it be. Until my child was born.
9 years ago, my brother dropped out of high school and started seeing a therapist with the help and support of my dad. Both of them hid this from me until a month ago. The details of his high school days weren't revealed, but my brother has spent 9 full years dreading human interaction. I scolded him a year ago for not wanting to come to my wedding, and a month ago, begged him to come celebrate Christmas with my in-laws so that he can meet his nephew. He didn't end up coming, and that's when my dad finally revealed the details of the past 9 years.
It doesn't have to come to death to point out our primal fears as fathers. I used to be ambitious for the sake of being ambitious, but the arrival of my son, confounded with the revelation of my brother, has lead to a change in perspective. Everything can change in an instant, and contrary to the popular opinions of HN, the largest changes in our lives are beyond our control. The utter powerlessness of not being able to rewind to 9 years ago to be there for my brother gets at me. As does my fear and uncertainty of the life my son will be subjected to.
Re: The day I accidentally killed a little boy
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed the civil engineer who allowed such an egregious speed limit is at fault here.
Speed limits are not speed targets. In the UK most b-roads are 'national' speed limit (i.e. 60mph or 70mph). It is expected that the driver selects the appropriate speed for the conditions, visibility, road etc etc. Of course, we're humans, which means errors are made, people are impatient, we don't balance risk very well etc etc.
Speed limits are a function of road conditions, both static (e.g design) and dynamic (e.g. weather).
Posted speed limits are a function of the 90th percentile speed (usually based on typical conditions).
If you set low speed limits because "think of the children" you get other (safety) problems.
Re: The day I accidentally killed a little boy
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
With respect to your comment about time spent with your child, I was in a similar boat a couple of years ago: I was weighing the implications of taking a new job that came with a significant salary increase, but aslo had the massive downside of having to be in the office and away from my family most days / evenings (60hrs per 5-day workweek). I vividly recall a conversation I had with my father who said something to…
Of course no one says that on their deathbed. Many people on their deathbeds have been retired for more than 20 years. People in their 20s often care about their career. People in their 80s often do not. Who's right? It's often a trade-off. The goal is not to be happy on your deathbed; it's to be happy throughout life.
I think the idea is that if you're happy throughout life, you will be happy, or at least content, on your deathbed. The "deathbed life analysis" is the thought exercise some people use to evaluate the long-term utility of decisions that seem to have obvious short-term benefits.
Re: The day I accidentally killed a little boy
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're talking about trigger warnings, this is the crux of the so called "SJW" movement: it's a bunch of emotion from ignorant people. Actual studies show that trigger warnings are actually more damaging than not having them [1] [2] [3]. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-cod... [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/cover_story/2016/09/w... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTU3hxg…
I'm unsure if you posted the wrong links, or if you mistook those for science. None of those links reference any "actual studies" whatsoever, let alone peer-reviewed scholarly studies regarding the impact of trigger warnings. Additionally, the first article linked is one of the worst long-form stories I may have ever read. It's scattered, making a claim and then jumping to another without justifying it in any way, sh…
I couldn't find a direct link to the scientific studies but the second link mentions one of the scientists and talks about their findings.
You can say what you like about Jonathan Haidt but he's a credited psychologist who's simply going to know more about this subject than you do (or what that troll in the 3rd link did). Your assessement of Heterodox Academy is also, itself, bullshit propaganda of the worst order. (1) I don't believe Haidt is actually right wing. (2) Social justice is a fringe thing on the left, not all (probably not even most) liberals actually subscribe to it (see Bill Maher). (3) They're not trying to "de-left" colledges, they're trying to ensure colledges remain a place of debate and sharpening of ideas instead of pandering to spoiled helicoptor children. (4) The statement "They don't care about diversity of views, they just want college kids to take up their antiquated mantle." is a bold face lie. Please edit your post to remove this, or I'll be forced to conclude you are a liar.
Re: The day I accidentally killed a little boy
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
This did not actually happen: http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/23/ye-olde-ikea-sex-traff...
Apologizing for the source, but sometimes it does happen: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2123200/man-arrested-after-thr...
Re: The day I accidentally killed a little boy
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Many would quicker forgive an ex convict that killed a rival gang member than someone who intentionally seriously injured a child. When has this ever not been true? People instinctively (and reasonably[1]) consider crimes to be more serious where the victim is more sympathetic or vulnerable, and vice-versa. [1] Though they might be unreasonable in their sympathies and/or assessments of vulnerability, like a misogyni…
>When has this ever not been true? In the past before child abuse became seen as a big deal. Granted, if you hurt the child of some wealthy/powerful individual it was considered bad, but children of the poor, and especially children of single mothers were offered no where near the status they are given today. Just look at societies where infanticide was common place to see that harming a defenseless child wasn't cons…
But those are examples of acts which we consider immoral and criminal today, but were acceptable and legal (or even moral and mandatory) in the past. People didn't think it was okay to commit crimes targeting child victims, they just didn't think of those things as crimes at all (which, at the time, they weren't).
That's a separate issue from what you were (or seemed to be) saying in the post I responded to, that in the past criminal gang members would be considered more sympathetic victims than children.
I don't believe there has ever been a society anywhere or at any time where violent crime between rival criminal gangs (of adult males) was considered morally worse than violent crime where adults harm children, in both cases assuming no third parties were harmed, and there were no differences in social rank, blood or marriage relations, blood feuds, religious reasons etc. which that society and its laws considered wholly or partially mitigating factors.
Re: The day I accidentally killed a little boy
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
And all of you saying "same here" because your children are so precious, you all swore off driving cars, right? Because other people's children are precious?
What a nasty little comment. No, we did not all swear off cars, but we will do our damnest to drive slow in areas where children are known to be about, keep our vehicles in top shape so that when you need to swerve or do an emergency stop there are as few variables in the equation as possible, will not do drugs, will not drink and will keep our eyes on the fucking road . By your standard we should all jump off the ne…
You're on the right track trying to be safe, but in the Kubler-Ross sense it's a lot like the "bargaining" phase of grief or loss. "I can still have my car if I check the tires and drive sober etc." What this article shows is that you still have a nonzero chance of killing someone anyway. (Which you knew already.) Where I'm going further is to say, no, it's not an "accident" in my book - you chose to travel by the deadliest method. It's the elephant in the room that nobody sees. So, I expect lots of downvotes from the very people who most need to hear this perspective.
So yeah, there's one more variable you can adjust before taking that leap off the bridge, which is to choose a safer method of travel. I've been living without a car for 25 years, using a bike mostly, thereby substantially reducing the chance anything bad will happen to your children because of me. So "by my standard," you should simply do that. I know it can be done because I'm doing it.
But it's also the reason I have little patience for all the posturing about safety. Your children are safe inside the metal box you use to murder everyone else's. Not only by running into them, but incrementally by air pollution, and spiritually by the creation of awful places built around car ownership (which includes most of Silicon Valley), and maybe even economically by assisting in a process of extracting your money out of your own community and into the coffers of faraway one-percenters.
Jumping off a bridge would certainly work too though, and reduce the risk to the rest of us. However I don't recommend it, as suicide is usually the last resort for people going through problems a lot worse than reading a lovely novel as they ride a bus to work. In fact, suicide is an issue that deserves serious treatment, rather than to be used as a lot of forehead-wiping over-dramatics.
Re: The day I accidentally killed a little boy
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being careful is fine and understandable but over-protective "helicoptor" parenting is bad for the kids: it destroys their self confidence. I know a helicoptor family where their youngest daughter couldn't properly walk down stairs until she was 12. She's already broke more bones than all my kids combined.
I don't believe this story, unless this child has some sort of medical frailty. Your post complains that helicopter parenting causes broken bones, meanwhile other anti-helicoptering activists argue that breaking bones is a necessary part of healthy development, that helicoptering prevents.
I'm having trouble seeing your argument for all the straw people. I don't care what you believe, I watched her walk down my steps one step at a time, both feet stable on that step before taking the next one. Why? Because her whole life she's hearing "NO! BE CAREFUL! STEPS ARE DANGEROUS!" so of course she's terrified and has no confidence that she can do it.
>meanwhile other anti-helicoptering activists argue that breaking bones is a necessary part of healthy development
Who says that? The fact is, the broken bones came, in her case, from the fact that she has no experience or confidence in things kids her age are able to do but ends up playing with other children (often younger!) who can. My kids already had their falls and scrapes when they were younger and closer to the ground. Now they know how to swing on a swing, roller blade, etc., without getting terrified and falling over. They also know better how to fall to minimize damage because they have experience with it.
Look, over-protection is simply bad [1]. That's why it's called over-protection. If you're doing it, you're harming your children and you need to stop.
[1] http://www.brainy-child.com/articles/negative-consequences-h...
Re: The day I accidentally killed a little boy
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm unsure if you posted the wrong links, or if you mistook those for science. None of those links reference any "actual studies" whatsoever, let alone peer-reviewed scholarly studies regarding the impact of trigger warnings. Additionally, the first article linked is one of the worst long-form stories I may have ever read. It's scattered, making a claim and then jumping to another without justifying it in any way, sh…
I couldn't find a direct link to the scientific studies but the second link mentions one of the scientists and talks about their findings. You can say what you like about Jonathan Haidt but he's a credited psychologist who's simply going to know more about this subject than you do (or what that troll in the 3rd link did). Your assessement of Heterodox Academy is also, itself, bullshit propaganda of the worst order. (…
Conclude what you will. Anyone who has even a modicum of familiarity with them will know that this is correct.