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

Kids need freedom, too

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 391 posts

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#111

Post by endymi0n »

I can‘t find the link anymore, but in the prologue of (I think) a German norm for building playgrounds it said something along these lines that resonated a lot with me: „Kids have the right to hurt themselves and test their boundaries in a safe and limited way“

That‘s just so important for kids I think. US playgrounds all look sad to no end compared to the 15 meter high rope pyramids you see here in a lot of schools.

First time you see them, you tell yourself: No way I‘m going to let my kids play on that thingy.

But when you take a close look, all ways down you‘d bump into a rope, there‘s no direct free fall and there‘s usually thick rubber or sand below.

Sure it‘s going to hurt and maybe break a bone in the very worst case if you miss, but that is just super rare.

But what it adds in developing courage, resilience and risk awareness is just priceless.

Then again, having your kids break a bone won‘t bankrupt your family for life over here…

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#112

Post by knolax »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #106
hallarempt wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a four-year old forty-five years ago. I was walking to my pre-school and back, a couple of blocks and a pretty big and busy street across daily. The cars weren't a problem. Getting mobbed by primary school kids on my way back and getting beaten up was a problem. A bigger problem was when I told my parents the reason I was getting home later and later was because of the detours I was taking to avoid getting beat…

> The past wasn't a better place, it just was a place where you didn't talk about being abused, no matter what. I guess that is true, but an interesting question is: Did the past prepare kids better to become responsible and capable adults?

No. Just look at the boomer generation.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#113

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #74
caturopath wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eyes on the street used to be provided not only by stay-at-home parents, but by other folks going about their lives: people walking through, shopkeepers, etc. Over time, modern suburbanism became more and more locked in: extreme separation of uses, strikingly non-through streets, non-street-interacting access to apartments, houses, and shops, lower density, etc. This isn't the only story, but it's certainly a part of…

Also just general breakdown of people knowing each other in the community. When I grew up, I was a "latchkey kid" with a single parent, yet I was allowed to freely roam the neighborhood on bicycle. The idea was (or at least the perception was): If I ran into a problem, I could knock on any random neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get kidnapped or murdered and 2. the neighbor would know my dad and either watch over me…

[deleted]

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#114

Post by jedberg »

endymi0n wrote: post #111

I can‘t find the link anymore, but in the prologue of (I think) a German norm for building playgrounds it said something along these lines that resonated a lot with me: „Kids have the right to hurt themselves and test their boundaries in a safe and limited way“ That‘s just so important for kids I think. US playgrounds all look sad to no end compared to the 15 meter high rope pyramids you see here in a lot of schools.…

> Then again, having your kids break a bone won‘t bankrupt your family for life over here…

That's the key. I've noticed in places with universal health care, they tend to have more fun playgrounds. Because the owner knows they won't get sued for medical expenses.

That applies in general in places with universal healthcare. My friends who live in those places told me their car and home insurance are much cheaper than when they lived in the USA, because there is no risk of getting sued for medical expenses.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#115

Post by bcrosby95 »

ryandrake wrote: post #74
caturopath wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eyes on the street used to be provided not only by stay-at-home parents, but by other folks going about their lives: people walking through, shopkeepers, etc. Over time, modern suburbanism became more and more locked in: extreme separation of uses, strikingly non-through streets, non-street-interacting access to apartments, houses, and shops, lower density, etc. This isn't the only story, but it's certainly a part of…

Also just general breakdown of people knowing each other in the community. When I grew up, I was a "latchkey kid" with a single parent, yet I was allowed to freely roam the neighborhood on bicycle. The idea was (or at least the perception was): If I ran into a problem, I could knock on any random neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get kidnapped or murdered and 2. the neighbor would know my dad and either watch over me…

Our neighborhood is really good at this. As far as walkability and weather goes I hate it, but we know around 20-30 of or neighbors on a first name basis. And pre-pandemic we would have somewhat regular block parties where we would grill food and setup activities for kids.

We would like to move for other reasons, but what keeps us here is because you just never know what kind of neighbors you're going to get.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#116

Post by lotsofpulp »

mumblemumble wrote: post #110
lotsofpulp wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My take is myopia can be effectively treated with an inexpensive and non-invasive device Like what? >while LASIK comes with significant risk of causing different kinds of visual impairments that cannot be treated The numbers behind LASIK (and PRK) are pretty solid such that one can make an objective claim that it is a low risk endeavor unless you have some specific conditions. Here is one study: https://www.ncbi.nl…

It completely depends on the severity of your myopia. If it's mild, yeah, it's pretty safe. If it's moderate or severe, then things start looking a lot more dicey. The overall numbers give a biased perspective. With the way the risk/benefit ratio varies, people with milder cases are a lot more likely to get it. This is in addition to there being more of them in the first place. The inexpensive and non-invasive device…

Of course, but an unstated assumption for claiming any procedure is safe that you qualify as a safe candidate for it.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#117

Post by mox1 »

dpeck wrote: post #65
tootie wrote: post #63

I think parents may tend to be afraid of the wrong things, but there's plenty of things to be scared of. My oldest walks herself around Brooklyn daily and my number one fear by a mile is her getting hit by a car. Also, I think every single woman I know who rode the subway regularly as a teenager was accosted or flashed by a crazy person at least once if not routinely. Certainly they grew up without permanent injury,…

100% agree. Most other things I accept the risk, but cars around kids worry the hell out of me. Drivers don’t pay attention, kids don’t either. Even places with sidewalks, it doesn’t take a lot of things to go wrong before taller SUVs can easily have a tire hop onto the curb.

This. Every reasonable statistic shows drivers paying less attention and more in a hurry.

I'd send my 5 year old to the park by himself, if crossing a road by himself wasn't involved.

In my state multiple elderly people have been hit by cars while getting their mail! Like, if grandmas are dying somewhat often while spending 30 seconds on the side of the residential road, what chance does my kid have!?!?!

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#118

Post by 908B64B197 »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #37
asciimov wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's between that, the zero tolerance policies that many places have, and the unwalkable suburban residential nightmares we have built. I know for several of my minority friends, they won't let their kids go anywhere alone due to run-ins with law enforcement.

Sadly, most zero-tolerance policies exist because getting sued is simply too expensive for the schools to deal with. Why make a nuanced judgement when you risk getting a lawsuit by trying to be fair?

> Why make a nuanced judgement when you risk getting a lawsuit by trying to be fair?

School policy has exactly 0 legal weight. It won't protect the school against a lawsuit. Maybe the low end of layers believe it, but there's a reason lawyer's compensation is bimodal.

But by the time school administrators figure this out, they are typically being offered an out-of-court settlement with a confidentiality clause.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#119

Post by 908B64B197 »

indymike wrote: post #76

I've got five kids. The more I loosen up and let the kids take risks and learn for mistakes the better. The challenge is when the adults inject a ridiculous level of risk to something that should be a learning experience. For example, allowing police to arrest and charge a child for bad behavior at school (i.e. won't obey the teacher, outbursts - not for actually criminally violent behavior). Another is lifetime acad…

> For example, allowing police to arrest and charge a child for bad behavior at school (i.e. won't obey the teacher, outbursts - not for actually criminally violent behavior). Another is lifetime academic and other records.

Just send them to a private school where matters are handled privately.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#120

Post by TheTrotters »

knolax wrote: post #112
funcDropShadow wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The past wasn't a better place, it just was a place where you didn't talk about being abused, no matter what. I guess that is true, but an interesting question is: Did the past prepare kids better to become responsible and capable adults?

No. Just look at the boomer generation.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them. At least compared to every other generation.
Post reply on HN