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

61–70 of 193 posts

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

#61

Post by galfarragem »

gwatch wrote: post #42
Stratoscope wrote: post #37

Back around 1960, when I was eight and my little sister was six, we went with our dad to a chess tournament at the Mechanics' Institute in San Francisco. [1] Of course if you're six and eight and not really into chess, nothing could be more boring. So we asked Dad if we could do something else. He gave us a few nickels and quarters and said "sure, how about riding the cable cars and go see the town?" So we did! It wa…

This won't happen today in San Francisco city, because of decrease in social capital. I live downtown and I will not anyone's kids to wander around like that. First, you'll be lucky if MUNI driver is even remotely friendly, then there are druggies on the street, and so on. Illegal immigration, homelessness fueled by liberal/leftist policies, crime, gangs, drug trade have turned the city into a place quite unrecogniza…

Translating parent comment and playing devil's advocate:

What did happen in the western world that made parents not allowing their kids to wander around?

He proposed one explanation in a contrived way: leftist politics. Instead of mindless downvoting, how would you explain it?

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

#62

Post by Dove »

I don't mind the idea of the state protecting children. What I mind is it happening without essential protections such as a right to jury trial, a presumption of innocence, and illegal behavior being limited to what is defined by actual laws written by elected representatives.

What we have here is the terror of the police state. Anonymous tips, petty bureaucrats making life changing rulings on a whim with no clear laws to establish legal behavior. I would love to see the whole thing challenged as unconstitutional and abolished and folded into the much more functional justice system.

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

#63

Post by oblio »

imcrs wrote: post #46
oblio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every "bet" consideration needs to include possible loss, not only the odds. Losing your child is for many people not that far off from losing their own life, so people tend to react in a very cautious way.

Not when they decide to drive themselves and their kids on the freeway every workday.

The illusion of control is just as important :)

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

#64

Post by CalRobert »

pmiller2 wrote: post #41
new299 wrote: post #21

I'm sympathetic. But given the article is against "fact-free" parenting. I didn't find the data presented very compelling. Basically you'd need to know how common crime against children traveling unsupervised on buses in a similar scenario. The closest example presented is kids in New York riding the subway, so presenting stats on that would be useful. I'd also like more details on the Japanese example, it's honestly…

Hearing reports of a thing on the news is actually a signal that such things are not common. That's why you don't see every little (or even big) traffic accident on the news. It's not special. It happens every day.

Incidentally, the regularity of pedestrians being killed by drivers - to the extent that many folks (sorry, anecdata) blame the pedestrian more than the driver because walking is seen as the aberration, is my biggest fear about letting a kid run about. Funny enough people move their families to the suburbs for "safety', thereby increasing their miles driven and increasing the kid's risk of getting killed by a car.

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

#65

Post by EliRivers »

pamqzl wrote: post #53
tanto wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just checked your other comments. You really seem to HATE "leftism". You really should think about the fact that you are calling the political direction of many other people "cancer"

That's pretty common on both sides of politics these days, sadly.

both sides

I think that's a big part of the problem right there. Politics doesn't have two sides; it's got far more dimensions and nuances than that, but in some cases it's been turned into a brutal, hatred-prone "us and them" of a ridiculously simple and inflexible two tribe system.

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

#66

Post by vacri »

sametmax wrote: post #16
vacri wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint is, however, that the 'risk' is real: while most parents wouldn't hold the ministry accountable for minor risks, 'most' is not 'all'. They're doing CYA for a reason, not because they get jollies from it. It's the same reason why politicians say nothing of substance anymore. In the olden days, the occasional slip-up would slide. These days if you say the wrong thing, you can spend weeks or months defe…

> In the olden days, the occasional slip-up would slide. These days if you say the wrong thing, you can spend weeks or months defending it, and it can even cost you your job. I think Trump is proving you wrong. But I get your point, the risk is really because a few people are idiots with too much powers to break things. We see the same things with the medical personal: they get very cautious and conservative because…

Trump isn't really proving me wrong. He made a lot of promises. He's completely unable to get any of them done; he's a completely ineffective politician. He's alienated his own staff and political allies. He won't survive the next election, and doesn't even want to. He doesn't care to stay, and without impeachment, there's no way to remove him. Total amount of elections won = 1, total amount of 'stuff done' = 0.

Trump doesn't care about keeping his job or doing his job and he effectively can't be fired (which is rare for most positions). If you don't care about those kinds of ramifications, then you don't need to defend your slip-ups. He really is an atypical case here.

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

#68

Post by orf »

gwatch wrote: post #42
Stratoscope wrote: post #37

Back around 1960, when I was eight and my little sister was six, we went with our dad to a chess tournament at the Mechanics' Institute in San Francisco. [1] Of course if you're six and eight and not really into chess, nothing could be more boring. So we asked Dad if we could do something else. He gave us a few nickels and quarters and said "sure, how about riding the cable cars and go see the town?" So we did! It wa…

This won't happen today in San Francisco city, because of decrease in social capital. I live downtown and I will not anyone's kids to wander around like that. First, you'll be lucky if MUNI driver is even remotely friendly, then there are druggies on the street, and so on. Illegal immigration, homelessness fueled by liberal/leftist policies, crime, gangs, drug trade have turned the city into a place quite unrecogniza…

> because of all these problems caused by the cancerous lefties!

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Yeah. Cancerous lefties indeed.

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

#69

Post by DanBC »

Dove wrote: post #62

I don't mind the idea of the state protecting children. What I mind is it happening without essential protections such as a right to jury trial, a presumption of innocence, and illegal behavior being limited to what is defined by actual laws written by elected representatives. What we have here is the terror of the police state. Anonymous tips, petty bureaucrats making life changing rulings on a whim with no clear la…

In the OPs situation he can just politely tell the child protection team that he's heard their advice, but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to change his behaviour.

The social workers then put all the information together and take it to their lawyers, who'll either say it's not strong enough to go to court, or ask him if he really does want to ignore the advice because they think they have a good case.

At that point I assume they go to court, and then the state has to persuade the judge that he's an unfit parent and that removing the children is the only option - that nothing else will do. He doesn't have to prove he's a good parent; the onus is on the state to make their case.

The court has to respect his parenting choices, unless those choices are harmful or neglectful or put the children at risk of significant harm.

The court also has to take into account the views of the children, and it's likely these children will be happy about the travel arrangements, and will be persuasive to a judge.

This (quite old) report includes information on Canadian parents allowing children to engage in risky activity (11 year olds taking cannabis, for example) and Canada ranks 17th, which is pretty poor.

http://cwrp.ca/publications/401

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

#70

Post by DanBC »

galfarragem wrote: post #61
gwatch wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This won't happen today in San Francisco city, because of decrease in social capital. I live downtown and I will not anyone's kids to wander around like that. First, you'll be lucky if MUNI driver is even remotely friendly, then there are druggies on the street, and so on. Illegal immigration, homelessness fueled by liberal/leftist policies, crime, gangs, drug trade have turned the city into a place quite unrecogniza…

Translating parent comment and playing devil's advocate: What did happen in the western world that made parents not allowing their kids to wander around? He proposed one explanation in a contrived way: leftist politics. Instead of mindless downvoting, how would you explain it?

> Instead of mindless downvoting, how would you explain it?

Or how about don't feed the trolls?

Post reply on HN