Slashdot Mirror
Report Suggests That Nanny State Might Actually Not Be For the Best
tonyreadsnews writes "Usually, 'thinking of the children' is a starting point to impose limitations on video games and internet in general. For once, a study requested by UK's Prime Minister seems to be a bit more objective than most. In the Executive Summary (PDF) 'Children and young people need to be empowered to keep themselves safe — this isn't just about a top-down approach. Children will be children — pushing boundaries and taking risks. At a public swimming pool we have gates, put up signs, have lifeguards and
shallow ends, but we also teach children how to swim.' I think that is an important point that most studies miss, that just 'thinking of the children' and locking the bad stuff away is actually setting them up for failure later in life. A direct link to the full PDF is also available."
Starting off by calling it the "nanny state" is already trying to frame the debate in a way that reinforces particular biases.
No, we should not attempt to foam pad the entire world so the precious little ones don't get hurt, but that doesn't mean we should just toss them out in the woods and let them fend for themselves either. Certain safety regulations are required for the functioning of an advanced society, many of which are created at least in part to keep children safe (school zones, crosswalks, etc).
The debate should be about which regulations and safety precautions make sense, not about creating a false dichotomy by calling any regulation the imposition of a "nanny state".
But sometimes I confuse myself. I mean, sure, don't show children "adult" things, and make sure they don't swear... but why? Why exactly do we embrace an arbitrary concept of "innocence" in children? I believe being honest is the best way to raise children. Of course my child has already seen breasts, he was breast fed. Why deny their existance just months later? Why not explain how society works and give them the honest scoop?
"Sex is only for adults, but since you asked..."
Sometimes I hear a young kid swear in public and it always catches me off guard, thinking "geez, kids these days have no respect." But then I think- what is inherently bad about swear words anyhow? We're just safegarding them from things that we've deemed innapropriate in our society- that they don't even realize is inappropriate, because they're new to society. Why not be brutally honest with them instead?
"Son, Fuck is a bad word that people don't like. Try not to say it in public or around your teacher. Also, don't use it around your parents, it's disrespectful."
Treat them like children.. they'll act like children...
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
At a public swimming pool we have gates, put up signs, have lifeguards and shallow ends, but we also teach children how to swim.
Most importantly, nobody suggest that swimming pools should be outlawed.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
In "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg," Mark Twain warned about this kind of thing. The town was so proud of their righteousness that they wanted to keep that reputation so they made sure kids were never subjected to temptation so they'd never do bad things, then a stranger comes by, gets fed up with their self righteousness that all he does is tempt all the leading citizens. Since none of them have had much experience with temptation or resisting greed, they all fall in his trap and he shows how corruptible they are.
They change the two motto from "Lead us not into temptation" to "Lead us into temptation" because they learn that only by dealing with temptation will they learn to fight it.
It's the same thing here, just took over 100 years later for anyone to actually have the guts to stand up and say it.
Objective - Adj - A viewpoint which is closer to your own
Granted, I totally agree that a nanny state is a Very Bad Thing (tm), but it seems disingenuous to say that because the report doesn't glorify a nanny state, it is therefore more objective.
"Taking warning labels off of everything and letting things work out on their own" would also have been an acceptable answer
Children have parents coming to swimming pool with them. Imagine sending a 5 year old to swim by him/herself and not checking back for 3 hours. Now why would you do the same with an online (or just violent) game or Internet browsing/chat/so on session?
Now the situation would be reversed for a 16 year old teenager. He/she is expected to live independently in just two years, so supervision (on Internet or in the swimming pool) should only happen on voluntary discussion basis of if there is a reason to suspect problems.
People like risk because the thrill of danger followed by the realization of success pushes our pleasure buttons.
Life is dangerous. It's a terminal disease. We can't make everything safe no matter how much we try, because we're all going to die anyway. However, we can make life increasingly unpleasant by removing all the fun, interesting parts of it in the interests of a fundamentally unreachable goal of complete safety.
Thing is: it's a shifting goal. In the early 1900's, being able to buy dynamite at the hardware store made sense. Does it now, from a societal viewpoint? There *are* things that become increasingly dangerous as populations and technologic sophistication rise, so maybe we do need to change our rules over time, to deal with shifting situations. It's not like all safety laws and regulations are bunk. I'm living proof that seatbelts save lives, and if cars weren't legally required to have them, I might've been squished flat by a semi.
The thing is: we, as a culture, need to understand that 'safety' is not, by itself, sufficient reason to pass laws. A better understanding of the consequences is required, to prevent us ending up in a self-imposed prison.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Never mind the children -- how do we teach the damn adults to take care of themselves? What a great world it would be if people took responsibility for their own lives rather than blaming the government for not giving them enough "free" goodies.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It seems like this is all just an attempt to deal with the symptoms of the original cause, which is unqualified parents. We require licenses and tests to be able to drive or fly. Licenses to fish or check out library books, yet we allow any drone or sheep-person to enter into the commitment to raise and rear a human being for the next 18 years without so much as a second glance. This is like trying to clean up pollution while hawking hummers to every soccer mom. -W
Terrorists are people outside a formal government, so no it is not terrorism.
That's a very limited definition of terrorism.
A more reasonable definition of terrorism is any group attempting political change through an attack on a civilian target. That includes governments or quasi-governmental groups.
Terrorists are people outside a formal government, so no it is not terrorism.
Very convenient definition... uh. I'll place it on my bookshelf along with
- It's not fascim when we do it
- It's illegal so it's wrong
- The government can do it because it said it was legal
\u262D = \u5350
Now, considering the general political leanings of the slashdot audience, this next part may get me creamed
Let's take it a step further. Once upon a time, it was "If you work hard and save your money, you can have a nice retirement." Then it was "We're going to take care of our poor retired people (by taxing working people)." Poof--there went a large measure of individual responsibility. We all know how the resulting system (Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid) has worked out: it's losing money rapidly, and in order to sustain it, taxes will have to be raised.
The problem comes down to this: the more the government (or any authority figure) takes responsibility for our well-being, the more we become reliant on that government or authority figure, and less responsible for ourselves. And this reliance comes at a price. In this case, the price is taxes. But in every case, there's an additional cost: our ability to take care of ourselves. We turn to the government for help when something goes wrong. We become victims, powerless to do anything for ourselves.
If you look at the political parties today, it's pretty easy to see which party (or parties) are encouraging further progress down the road to dependence. Government-mandated insurance, anyone?
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
There are two sides to this argument
I disagree. There are no sides at all. The issue is one of continuously varying shades of gray. It's not a binary equation; there are more than two answers. There are, in fact infinite answers, to each variation of the question.
In some cases, people should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. In other cases, they should receive guidance and protection from the government. This varies by the circumstances - everyone should have the government look for obvious signs of criminal behavior, because without government protection, we cannot protect ourselves against Might Makes Right gangs. It also varies by the people in question - some parents do, in fact, need strict government oversight in how they raise, or kill, their children.
There are no simple answers, only simple people asking the wrong question.
Not so. Children are fundamentally different from adults. They don't think the same way. They don't experience the world the same way. Check out any good textbook on cognitive development and couple it with close, unprejudiced observation of your own children.
It's true. My daughter (4.5 yrs) knows that a baby comes from a sperm from the Daddy and an egg from the Mommy and grows in her baby factory, but it has never occurred to her to ask how those two came to be together. An adult would pursue the inquiry to reduction at each level.
The same arguments apply to purely intellectual stuff, too. For example, the present trend to teach algebra skills as early as grade 5 or 6 is almost certainly badly misguided. The mental circuitry required to easily learn algebra is usually (although not in every case) not "hooked up" until early adolescence.
I read this idea elswhere a few weeks ago, and so decided to test it out. On a 20 minute car ride, my daughter learned the idea of X+ and X-, and thinks it's fun to solve for X, for small numbers anyway.
Granted, that's not all of the study of algebra, but the idea of symbolic representation isn't beyond the grasp of a relatively intelligent preschooler (she's not a math savant). I think the right question to ask is, "what ideas from Algebra might be appropriate for a first grader?" Right now everybody is focused on whether Algebra I is appropriate for Age X.
I think we're doing a disservice to learners by teaching:
This is what math is.
[insert 6 years]
Actually, this is what math is.
[insert 4 years]
Turns out, no, this is what math is.
[insert 4 years]
Well, yeah, that's what one kind of math was, but here are a bunch of others.
[insert 2 years]
Turns out we're still figuring out what math is.
We should be figuring out the right way to integrate rather than constantly stratifying. Granted, that's harder, but there are plenty of folks who like to study this stuff, and those of us stumbling around in the dark for lack of it would appreciate some real research.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
EVERYTHING is a matter of debate, like it should be. Some things obviously qualify as terrorism, other things not. The debate is mostly about things that lie in the grey area. It is a way of reflecting: "what these guys over there did was pretty heinous... but could it be that some of the things WE do might be just as bad or almost as bad?"
A way of being enlightened is to not stop debating. I'm not necessarily implying that the "enlightened west" is right in its war on terror (let that be a part of the debate, for now), but that it being a matter of debate is normal. And I want to maintain that what most of us already consider to be terrorism will still be considered terrorism, however the debate turns out.
Hope that made sense...
It shouldn't be "fine". However, there is a difference. One is done out of plain malice, the other one most likely out of ignorance. The parent might not MEAN any harm, so IMO they should be educated, informed or given a warning, before someone takes direct action against them.
Women are more protective of their children, and that tendency has led us to a situation where children are missing necessary social skills as a result of that protectiveness.
The truth hurts, no matter how much you try to dismiss it as chauvinism.
If you respond, use citations, articles, and links. I don't care about your opinion, and I have significant experience in develeopmental psychology. If you have ANY argument to make, make it with facts, again, I don't care about your opinion.
So, are women more protective of their children? Find the research. I have. Convince me I missed something.
And, lastly, read the god damned article. This isn't about children not being innovative.
that's your opinion and you are welcome to it, mine however is different. it's not that my parent were unique its that all parents were like that were I was. we were not in a city, there were no obvious threats and we were judged old enough and sensible enough not to do stupid things. of course, we still did some stupid things but only because we did not know better. we'd always tell them roughly what we were doing and where, and we always had change for a public phone box and we all knew enough phone numbers off by heart to be able to call people. also, in a small village - everybody knew everybody for any conceivable distance we would walk. perhaps I was priviliged to be raised in such an enviroment.
the end result is the same though, and one one thing we agree - putting kids in a soft, comfortable, safe jail for 18 years is not the answer either. so it boils down to the question of balance.
i do think that society has changed since the 70s though, and I'll give another example. before we moved to a village in the country we lived in the suberbs of London. now I remember that even at the age of 6/7 I could name most of the people in my street and they all knew who I was. I fell over once and hurt my leg and a passerby stopped, called to another neighbour he knew and she phoned my parents - just like that. I have lived where I am for nearly 15 years now and I know two people that live on my street and even then not so very well. in many ways we are more connected then ever, and in many others we are more seperated then ever.
this lack of "community" I think is one of the many reasons parents are afraid to be seperated from their children.
States that either sponsor or ignore domestic terrorist organizations to the point of complicity, perhaps even engage in terrorist acts with national forces.
Terrorism would be roughly defined as 'engaging in violent acts against civilians without declaration of war by said state'.
I don't read AC A human right
Fear of injury and litigation have killed so many things for kids. I guess with today's way of thinking...it is amazing a sufficient number of people my age survived childhood in order to reproduce. Bikes without helments, bicycle ramps imitating Evel Kineval (sp?), swimming without 'swimmies', diving boards...[shudder] playing outside on our own days at a time without supervision or cell phones....
What the hell were our parents thinking?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
... what "terrorism" actually is appears to be a matter of some debate. Yes it should be a matter of debate. Although there are formal definitions, the media (and people in general) often use the word "terrorism" as a catch-all phrase without offering any definition. Unfortunately most people would not look up the UN definition of Terrorism when reading a news article, nor do political pundits really seem to care about such definitions except to imply that it is used against their political foes. I would suggest that the word "terrorism" is a Godwinesque colloquialism and should be avoided.Eugenics is not Nazi. Nazis used gasoline so does that mean we are just as bad as them?
In the USA, the government used to sterilize people! Eugenics had gone a long ways towards being acceptable and normal in the 'civilized' world. Eugenics was practiced and gaining popularity all over the world until the extreme distortion and abuse of those ideas by the Nazis linked the two together and guilt by association caused Eugenics to fall out of favor.
Is it not possible that there is some middle ground? Should we be completely dismissing it?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I'd rather have people who think guns are dangerous and don't want to mess with them than people who think they aren't dangerous and are fun to play with.
Guns are dangerous. That doesn't mean we should try to keep people from having them. But it is fine if people recognize they are dangerous and thus shouldn't be messed with unless you know what you're doing.
Don't confuse people who want to take your guns away with people who have no problem with your guns but don't want the responsibility of owning their own.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?