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

Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills

letgrow.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 531 posts

Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills

#301

Post by ethbr0 »

jehb wrote: post #265
Aeolun wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a high crime area What exactly do you expect to happen to your 6 year old? They’re not a very useful target for anything I can think of.

The use of the phrase "high crime area" in this context, when just referencing child safety, is itself problematic. Everyone who is reading that phrase right now is forming a mental picture of what it means, and I guarantee it's not a picture of illegally burning garbage in the yard while drinking raw milk, sitting on an unpermitted deck, listening to an illegally downloaded MP3 while making a trade on their phone ba…

I was in a college class that had a mix of inner city and suburban kids.

Ask the suburban kids to describe the inner city? Dangerous. Crime-ridden.

Ask the inner city kids to describe inner city? Community. Know their neighbors.

Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills

#302

Post by bluGill »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #216
bluGill wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly kidnapped by the parent that doesn't have custody. Once in a while other aunts or uncles who don't approve of the way their brother/sister is raising kids.

In China they might get kidnapped for adoption, at least that is what my (Chinese) wife thinks.

That happens in places, but probably not in the places where people living here are.

But if you are adopting from a foreign country beware that it is easy to kidnap some baby from a remote village. Some of the less ethical adoption agencies have done this in the past.

Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills

#304

Post by [deleted] »

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #212
andrepd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, a reasonable risk is tolerable. But, for instance, car-centric infrastructure has *intensely* exacerbated those risks: space is completely surrendered to cars, sidewalks are non-existent, crosswalks go across 8 lanes of 60+mph traffic. All of this, plus terrible public transport, makes it impossible to travel anyway except by car. This leads to lack of independence for children, and sedentarism.

It feels like this infrastructural risk is media driven to the extent of "pedophile kidnappers" or "razor blades in apples". For example I grew up in an Eastern MA "suburb" in the mid 90s - early 2000s, characterized by narrow winding roads, fast drivers, and no streetlights. Everyone too young or unconnected to have car access bicycled or walked everywhere; parents were a bit fearful but ultimately acquiescent ("bet…

[deleted]

Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills

#305

Post by vore »

RHSeeger wrote: post #299
vore wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I (non-consensually) spank an adult, that's abuse. If I spank an animal, that's also abuse. But if I spank a child, that's somehow magically not abuse? Most of Europe has been getting along fine without physically hitting their children for discipline. Parents should not be teaching their children that pain compliance is an acceptable method for getting what they want.

Your analogy makes no sense. If I ground my child, preventing them from leaving the house, that's a reasonable punishment. If I prevent an adult from leaving my house, that's kidnapping. There are some things you can do to your child that you cannot do to another adult. And that's normal and good.

That's fair, and I don't disagree that parents and guardians should have rights over their children to punish them for discipline. That said, you certainly still can't spank your pets...

Look, I agree that the state should have a lot of leeway in letting parents decide what is best for their children. But in and of itself, spanking is the direct use of physical harm (the fact people even split straws on whether or not it causes "lasting damage" is really the wrong question to be asking) to a child to get your way, whether you feel it's justified or not. And there is this reflexive defense of it because it's just this completely weirdly ritualized punishment where people have completely distanced themselves from the idea that while yes, they are inflicting physical pain upon their children, they've made themselves comfortable with the idea because it's a traditional parenting method.

Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills

#306

Post by uulu »

andrepd wrote: post #126
danjoredd wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its been a genuine problem. I have heard people actually say that if a kid is playing outside by themselves, then the parent should be charged with child neglect because the kid could get hurt. Any time a kid gets hurt on YouTube the comments are filled with people blaming the parent for not being outside with them. Thing is, playing outside by yourself gives you a strong sense of independence. The kid might get hurt…

Sure, a reasonable risk is tolerable. But, for instance, car-centric infrastructure has *intensely* exacerbated those risks: space is completely surrendered to cars, sidewalks are non-existent, crosswalks go across 8 lanes of 60+mph traffic. All of this, plus terrible public transport, makes it impossible to travel anyway except by car. This leads to lack of independence for children, and sedentarism.

> crosswalks go across 8 lanes of 60+mph traffic

Do such crosswalks really exist? Seriously. AFAIK, 60+mph speed is allowed usually (if not exclusively) on Controlled-access highways where pedestrians are not allowed at all. I highly doubt such crosswalks exist at all.

Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills

#307

Post by ethbr0 »

nemothekid wrote: post #225
geraldwhen wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such extreme privilege right here. Kids that young will be pressured into using drugs and committing crimes, mostly vandalism and theft, but sometimes worse. That’s around the age when kids started dealing drugs where I grew up. I knew kids who threw bricks through windows and huffed paint when left alone. Bad areas are bad.

> Kids that young will be pressured into using drugs and committing crimes This is DARE level propoganda. What person is spending real money to give a 6 year old drugs?

Altruists?

Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills

#308

Post by makeitdouble »

danjoredd wrote: post #100
kwhitefoot wrote: post #26

The US seems to be the only country that has this problem. Children here (Norway) walk to school on their own at the age of five or six, some of them take buses. "Ashley Smith, a foster dad, testified about being investigated for neglect because one afternoon his daughter, 8, was doing her homework on the front lawn. A passerby reported an “unsupervised” child (not knowing Ashley was actually inside). The upshot: “We…

Its been a genuine problem. I have heard people actually say that if a kid is playing outside by themselves, then the parent should be charged with child neglect because the kid could get hurt. Any time a kid gets hurt on YouTube the comments are filled with people blaming the parent for not being outside with them. Thing is, playing outside by yourself gives you a strong sense of independence. The kid might get hurt…

As a general rule, parents seem to be blamed for anything happening to a kid under any specific setting.

Kids playing outside is one of them, kids talking to strangers, kids browsing the internet will also be seen the same...and then kids using voice chat in online games, kids talking to strangers in VR, kids just playing in VR, kids watching youtube etc.

It seem well accepted that pervert/criminal will go after kids at any occasion, the community can't be expected to police itself nor stop other people from hurting kids, and kids need to be locked away or under adult supervision 24/24 until adulthood or the parents are failing their job, and they shouldn't have kids if they're not up to the challenge.

I think there is a real issue on what people perceive as society's role and what parent's role is.

Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills

#309

Post by Falkon1313 »

q1w2 wrote: post #111
tristor wrote: post #77

I recently moved from a very low average income city to a very high average income city. In my former city it was nearly unheard of for children to unsupervised, despite most people having large families, because there was a very real concern about kidnapping/human trafficking and other issues (and this concern wasn't unfounded, this city made national news for masked men in a van grabbing multiple children while the…

It's not socio-economics - it's Crime. They are correlated, but where they are not, children walk to school despite the poor neighborhood. When I grew up in India, we were dirt poor and we literally hitchhiked to and from school each day from the age of maybe 7. Students would get out of school, walk to the nearest busy intersection, and ask people to let us ride on the back of their motorbikes to get home. No helmet…

Drug use was always common and not just among people arrested.

"The War On Drugs" really butchered how we view that. Goodhart's Law states that "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Since at least the 80s, incarceration for drug use has been batshit crazy in the U.S. It's the metric, so it's what people work for. So of course it's common among most people arrested.

But how does it relate to actual crime? Or to people feeling that kids are able to play outside safely?

Well, since I was a kid, crime rates have dropped in half (literally they're like 40-49% what they were in the late 80s early 90s). Maybe some part of that is indeed because we incarcerated so many people for drugs instead of actual crimes. But maybe not, and also even if it did, that doesn't change anything for the better. Things are actually worse now, societally. Why?

Back then, in objectively more dangerous times, it was normal for kids to play outside and everyone thought that was ok. Now, in objectively much safer times, that's not a thing.

I really don't think we can pin that on drugs or even crime. Especially not when we've incarcerated so many many people because of drugs and also crime rates have dropped in half.

No, there must be a societal effect that isn't really related to drugs or crime or actual danger.

Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills

#310

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #300
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to say this, but this is an amazing lack of imagination over what could happen ( based merely on what did happen before and not coming up with wild scenarios ). I am saying this as a likely free range parent ( still internally debating, but a lot will depend on how my kid handles things ).

The underlying problem is the same as the lottery: the human brain adjusts probability on the basis of severity. Terrible things happen. They aren't likely to happen.

You are definitely onto something. Humans are horrible at estimating risk, but are forced to do it all the time. In some cases, it is a very clear miscalculation resulting in overdoing it one way or another. Sometimes it is just dumb luck.

I think this is the wrong way of looking at this. Most people believe that lightning does not strike people that often. This does not give one has carte blanche to prance around the backyard with a metal rod.

Or, to use less crazy example, my street is relatively quiet and slow. And yet, I still look both ways crossing the street, because you never really know. Individual disposition and approach affects statistics.

Post reply on HN