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.
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.
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
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...
... 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.