Report Suggests That Nanny State Might Actually Not Be For the Best 430
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."
UK Government has Multiple Personalities (Score:3, Interesting)
Hypocritical much?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, in this case the children really have no choice in their diet, so it doesn't apply.
I read that article and thought how terrible...then I looked up how much a ston weighs(14 pounds)(6.35Kilo)
An 11 year old weighing 168 pounds has health issues, and it's not 'Baby fat'.
Clearly the parents need educating, and no there children shouldn't be taken away unless they are being fed a dangers dies and the parents refuse to change.
".' Last year, an eight-ye
Re:UK Government has Multiple Personalities (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:UK Government has Multiple Personalities (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Poor kids of today.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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', div
Re:UK Government has Multiple Personalities (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:UK Government has Multiple Personalities (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorism would be roughly defined as 'engaging in violent acts against civilians without declaration of war by said state'.
Re:UK Government has Multiple Personalities (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:UK Government has Multiple Personalities (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't breeding licenses be more effective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you dont allow people to procreate any more than you allow them to feel emotion. procreation is not a privilege you grant, it's a fundamental aspect of life. not civilized life, not even human life, but life, period.
a society that would regulate it horrifies me.
Re:Wouldn't breeding licenses be more effective? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Your real name wouldn't be "Private Joe Bauers" by any chance would it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're an evil, evil neo-Nazi organization that worships at the altar of eugenics. They're the main reason why I've come to consider extreme pro-science zealots to be just as bad as extreme anti-science zealots.
The only reason I've even heard of them is because I know a guy who's a member, and after finding out about his crazy belief system (he actually identifies as a neo-Nazi), I've done my best to avoid him.
eugenics (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Wouldn't breeding licenses be more effective? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think about it more in depth for a second, the answer as to why not is clear: there is no easy way to evaluate the 'worthiness' of anyone. There may not even be any way to do it whatsoever. For instance,
It's highly unfeasible to try issuing licences for people to exercise their biology.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Option A: Give the government control over a human experiment which will cause untold suffering, be vulnerable to abuse, is ethically and morally anathema to everyone I know, and is doomed to failure.
Option B: Have more unprotected sex with a clean partners.
I'll take Option B. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[Leaving aside that most of the complete morons I've known are in fact "intelligent" people by any objective scale, but lack all trace of common sense.]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, by describing this as an act of terrorism, you show yourself as a true devotee of the Mail school of hyperbole. So well done you.
"Top down approach","children will be childern"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Top down approach","children will be childern" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The needs of the US are different from the UK. (Score:5, Funny)
The needs of the US are different from the UK.
Obese people just naturally float, just like the really big chunks in the septic tank (and politicians) always rise to the top ...
Re:The needs of the US are different from the UK. (Score:5, Funny)
Middle ground (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we film it? Bet it would be fun to watch... kinda like battle royal...
[badum-ching]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Middle ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I missed something, the entire report is basically arguing for such a middle ground. I don't see anywhere it says we should throw children into dangerous situations they can't cope with. Rather, it seems (from a first quick scan at least) to be advocating throwing children into somewhat dangerous situations carefully so they can learn to handle them safely in their own right.
This sounds like the kind of common sense you'd get from someone who actually deals with children professionally and sorts out problems in real life. Oh, wait, she is. :-)
Sadly, I gather she's decided that her television programmes weren't necessarily in the interests of the children participating and discontinued them now. That's a pity; they were very informative and seemed to be done quite responsibly from a naive but interested observer's point of view.
Re:Middle ground (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Middle ground (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Middle ground (Score:5, Insightful)
...and I'm sick of self-righteous soccer moms telling me what is "too dangerous" for MY kids. They don't want their crotch-fruit to catch sight of a tit until they're 18, fine. They've no right to make that determination for the rest of us under the guise of "it'll warp their poor lil' minds!".
The problem, IMHO, is that ANY simple childhood pleasure can be dangerous. I'll bet our older users can remember merry-go-rounds, and quite possibly being flung from one. A good real-world physics lesson, lost to time and litigation... all because a kid or three lost a baby-tooth after tumbling from one. Are they dangerous? Not especially... but shrill, overprotective parents will invariably make them out to be kid-killers. Ditto for see-saws.
We need a better definition of "dangerous", not more protection from that which isn't....
Re:Middle ground (Score:4, Insightful)
Where does this idea that tits are inappropriate for children come from, anyway? They're MADE FOR CHILDREN!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Crotch Fruit.
-
Re:Middle ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Be involved with your children's lives, but be there as a "sanity check" and not as the one that directs every little thing they do. And LET them get hurt a bit. Not seriously of course, but hey, that skinned knee really DOES teach them something. Or as Calvin said, "If your knees aren't green by the end of the day, you haven't been living!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Most of the things talked about aren't safety. Is the kid going to get hurt if they see something that scares them? Or if they see violence and no way should they ever be exposed to swear words. While some things are for safety this article isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
I admit that people are prone to thinking of this as being an example of a false dichotomy, but it isn't really.
The basic fundamental difference between protecting kids and nanny state rules comes down to the intent. The former focuses on known threats that are the most likely to leave a kid dead or unable to function in the future and acknowledges that freak accidents will happen regardless of number of resources spent trying to prevent them. The later focuses on anything which could possible harm a child
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's the latter that people are against, not the former. Overall, there seems to be an inclination to always blame the driver in any kind of accident. That's simply not reasonable, but the people doing this are the ones yelling "think of the children!"
Re:Middle ground (Score:5, Insightful)
A Nation of Wimps [psychologytoday.com]
The idea is that by over-protecting our children, we deprive them of the opportunity to learn for themselves, to learn to assess a situation and choose an appropriate course of action. In the long run, it actually hurts them, because they haven't had the chance to develop those skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Middle ground (Score:4, Insightful)
It's that SCARED PARENTS will eagerly pay lots of money for products to make the scaries go away, and they are easy to manipulate into watching (and staying tuned to) scary TV filled with advertising, and they can easily be manipulated into voting for/against any candidate in the voting booth.
*BOO!*
-
You sure you understand 'right of way?' (Score:2)
This whole "crossing guards suck" and "Why do they always blame the driver?" line of reasoning seems like a personal tangent to me. You didn't, uhhhh, run over a kid by any chance, did you?
Re: (Score:2)
School zones and crosswalks are fine; having crossing guards run out and demand you stop even though you have right of way is not.
Pedestrians always have the right of way. If a crossing guard runs out and tells you to stop, THEY have the right of way.
I think it's the latter that people are against, not the former. Overall, there seems to be an inclination to always blame the driver in any kind of accident. That's simply not reasonable, but the people doing this are the ones yelling "think of the children!"
It's like the guy said:
At a public swimming pool we have gates, put up signs, have lifeguards and shallow ends, but we also teach children how to swim.
He's not saying we should get rid of fences, gates and lifeguards. He's saying that we should ALSO teach our kids to swim in the event that children somehow get around the precautions we set up. I see it this way, it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids to swim. It is the state's responsibility to build fences around pools for the idiot parents w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now there are crossing guards in front of every school, and kids are quite obviously NOT taught the basics of how to cross the street -- this is evident when I see kids of this same age group elsewhere, clearly without the vaguest notion of how tra
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the driver should be paying attention. Are you willing to chance your life on that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A certain level of cultural awareness about what is and isn't safe might be required for a functioning society, but there is no inherent need for regulations. The modern world is no more dangerous that that of ancient agrarian societies, but the dangers have changed. Past cultures didn't need government regulations telling them not to eat all their seed stock, or not to confront a pack of wolves alone and unarmed. Nor do we
Humbug (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Middle ground (Score:5, Interesting)
Bingo.
Insert Ferris's monologue from "Atlas Shrugged" here.
(Oh, alright, here:
-- Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged' (1957))
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm all for protecting childrens (Score:5, Insightful)
"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...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm all for protecting childrens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. (Score:5, Funny)
If we have six-year-olds running around saying "fuck" willy-nilly, all that does is ruin the shock value of a perfectly good swear word. At that point you might as well be saying "boink."
"Oh yeah, boink me harder, baby."
"If Johnson doesn't get that report in by Tuesday the whole department is boinked!"
Now where's the fun in that? We'd just have to come up with a NEW swear word so horrifying that no child would be able to pronounce it without immediately being swallowed by the jaws of Hell, and honestly, I don't really feel like digging that far into the Windows API documentation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
SO they fit in socially. In my house there is no such thing as 'Bad Words' only impolite words. Which is strictly enforced.
Now, I don't knwo what you mean by 'adult'. Exposure to sexual situations buy young children have a negative impact later in life.
As I'm sure you know, kids are not little adults.
"Treat them like children.. they'll act like children..."
treat them like adults.. they'll act like confused children and develop issue.
Now, the care about these situation for a 2 year old is differe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying treat them like adults, just don't baby them. The idea is simple: give them just a little more responsibility than they know so they have room to grow. Don't give them room to grow, and they won't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that waiting until the hormones are racing through their body is way too late. I was intensely curious about where I came from by the age of 8. I was also masturbating by the age of 6 (practice early! practice often!). I may have been precocious, but I feel strongly that waiting until the edge of puberty is waiting too long.
My mom told me all about the birds and the bees shortly after my eighth birthday at my request. I remember
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, telling children swear words are inappropriate because they are not polite and can offend people is okay, but telling them
children aren't computers (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Most importantly, the way children think changes fairly rapidly as they grow. How a child reacts to a naked tit, for example, completely changes from age 1 to school-age, and again in middle school, and once again at sexual maturity. A wise parent considers these changes, and does not try to use the same reasoning and the same solutions at all ages.
And, in recognition of the fact that children don't think the same way at the same age, society tends to say that certain experiences should be shoved into certain age ranges, when they are easiest to successfully understand and cope with (either for the child or for the adults around him). It's among our oldest traditions as a species, the idea that certain experiences are best at certain ages, and it would generally be gross folly to overturn them without damn good reason. ("Gee! Tt seems reasonable to me! What could possibly go wrong?" doesn't qualify, by the way.)
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. That means kids are tortured with stuff that is very hard to get, when waiting a few years would make it a piece of cake. Again, a failure to understand that children are not merely miniaturized, ignorant adults.
Requires Further Study (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with your thinking is that it seems to assume that children are just like adults...
Many times, when people bring up the point of treating children with respect and intelligence somebody will inevitably say they are not just miniature adults.
Of course children are not adults, either physically, mentally, or experientially. Children are not idiots either, and neither should they be treated like retarded adults or like trained dogs. Children should not be leashed or fenced in like pets. Children are human and need to be treated individually based on their own personalities and intelligence.
Re:I'm all for protecting childrens (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
We don't deny they exist, we simply say that they do exist, but that we general keep them to ourselves.
"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."
Swearing is used to express a particular emotional circumstance. If everyone swore whenever they felt like it, it would cease to be useful for the situations we use it for. Kind of like calling every marklar a marklar. Then marklar wouldn't be able to marklar when you were marklar or marklar. See what I'm saying? Since kids don't have the emotional maturity to make that distinction we simply ask the
Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most importantly, nobody suggest that swimming pools should be outlawed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The number of deaths came from (I think) the CDC about a year or so ago. I don't remember the exact citation, but I do remember 2 days vs 1 year very clearly. I'd google it, but I can't be bother
Funny...Even Mark Twain Warned About This (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Definition of Objective (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
But... But... (Score:3, Funny)
Won't somebody think of the busybodies?
British Nanny State - obviously bad! (Score:4, Funny)
More importantly... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Life is dangerous: that's why it's fun (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, take it a step further. You choose to wear your seatbelt and it helped. But why do you feel you have the right to tell someone else they must do so, especially given that a third of the time a seatbelt could kill
Tags (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh really (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the rest of your viewpoint, but society as a whole has been overtly masculated for as far back as when men won their women over by clubbing them and dragging them back to their caves. Saying that there was balance during the time when kids ran around with firecrackers blowing their hands off with their fathers standing on the sidelines going "boys will b
This and other findings brought to you.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides the nanny state, what about this concept that "everybody wins". Society needs mediocrity to reward the true winners. It also needs Darwin Award winners.
I propose the following test. (Score:2)
1) Tell them that strangers candy always tastes the best.
2) Tell them that a highway makes a great playground.
3) Tell them that walking around in Harlem with a shirt that has a racial slur is a good idea.
Those who survive these tests not only will have a firm understanding of how our society works, but have a healthy dose of common sense. The others we can weed out before they get a chance to breed.
Good grief.... (Score:2)
Just the other day (Score:2)
Talk about situational awareness.
Nature (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I think that's appropriate. The problem arises when people in authority take away a parent's right to teach their kid to use a power tool or a gun altogether. It used to be "You're the parent. You decide when your kid's old enough to do X." Now it has become "We, the government, know better than you whether your child is old enough to do X." Of cou
Great idea -- Let's put the gummint on it (Score:5, Funny)
The bill will create a new Federal agency, the Protection Against Nanny State Agency. This new Agency will monitor public behavior and watch for complacency and exaggerated reliance on the State. Its agents will have power to monitor private conversations and intervene in public or private places. Whenever someone will be heard saying "they oughta be a law" or "why doesn't Congress do something", the agents will intervene, battering down doors if needed, and vigorously wag an aseptic, non-latex-gloved finger in the face of the offender, who will be sternly warned: "That would be asking for a nanny state, Sonny".
The new Agency will cost an estimated $134 billion a year. But this is a small price to pay, considering the Federal government will protect us against the growing menace of the Nanny State.
Feuding a priori's (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
The Nanny State (Score:4, Insightful)
I support this report! (Score:2)
On a completely different note, I would also suggest there's never been a better time to buy my flaming, radioactive razor-blade ball. It's the happy fun ball [google.com] for the next generation. Fun for all ages!
Great tagging... (Score:3, Funny)
its kinda sad. (Score:4, Interesting)
It was simply how children behaved.
Now mothers are frightened to let children out of their sight, and a whole generation is growing up mollycoddled and unable to think on their own or take risks. Worse, numerous studies show that without exposure to other people, children to play with etc., they grow up lacking many social traits they need to learn from their peers and with little immunity for many common viruses. And don't even get me started on education.
It's sad, and I wonder (a) how we got to this situations and (b) how to get out of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How we get out is simple, we don't be the irrepsonsible parents yours were and put our children out there in dangerous situations, but we also learn that sticking them into a bubble and locking them up for 18 years isn't healthy either.
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
Nanny State (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But I guess if I need a titanium rod up my back to make me not be a creampuff, so be it.
-b