5 ms·

I don't know, I'm pretty sure this leads to putting kids in bubbles - and for full disclosure, I'm a proponent of right to roam laws. How do you balance letting

I don't know, I'm pretty sure this leads to putting kids in bubbles - and for full disclosure, I'm a proponent of right to roam laws. How do you balance letting kids learn to manage risk in unstructured environments with banning objects and activities that might be dangerous?

rhizome 8y ago
How do you balance letting kids learn to manage risk in unstructured environments with banning objects and activities that might be dangerous? People have been doing it for generations, so consider it something you'll want to think about for yourself before having children.
- faitswulff 8y ago
  I think you misread my intent in asking that question.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    I read your intent and I don't agree with a libertarian implication that ignores how things have worked more or less fine, and which is certainly not banning everything.
    - dhruv_bansal 8y ago
      yeah right
thomasfedb 8y ago
This is a really different issue from right to roam. Magnet ingestion is something that will happen when curious little hands get hold of these magnets, and is also not something you can obviously know has happened. That's scary given the great potential for severe adverse health consequences.
- faitswulff 8y ago
  I don't think it is terribly different. Getting struck by a vehicle is at least as great a danger, if not a much more likely scenario, than ingesting magnets, and is also not immediately apparent for the simple fact that the kids are out of sight. I would put "right to roam" laws as being in opposition to the banning of object like magnets or Kinder Eggs. That said, I do understand they can cause great harm. But what do we lose when we choose to isolate our kids from reality?
  - thomasfedb 8y ago
    A child being struck by a vehicle is almost always immediately obvious to the driver of that vehicle if nobody else. That said, I wouldn't ban magnets myself, though I'm against selling then directly to young children.
jerf 8y ago
Children need to be able to hurt themselves. That may bother some people to hear, but I'd suggest googling "congenital analgesia" for them. Children need to not be able to kill themselves via hazards their genetic heritage provides them no way to realize is dangerous. That is, children quickly learn not to fall too far [1], but they've got no inherent defense against eating two magnets slightly spaced apart in time. Or antifreeze. Or electricity. Etc. There's still a lot of judgement involved, and I'm right there with you on children being overprotected in general. But they need to be kept from the unrecoverable mistakes. One of the interesting things about child proofing your home, if you are of an introspective mindset, is the cataloging of how much danger you causally live with. Or at least, danger from a certain point of view. [1]: Not 100% perfectly, of course. But there's a qualitative difference between our natural instinct's ability to deal with fall damage, and eating rare earth magnets.
- romwell 8y ago
  >But they need to be kept from the unrecoverable mistakes. Unless those mistakes involve trampolines[1], because wheeee! Those are cool. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of dangerous things, but we don't necessarily ban all of them. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-terrifying-statistics-trampoline-safety-everett-sanderson/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-terrifying-statistics-tramp...
  - jerf 8y ago
    Well, I wasn't explaining the logic of the law, but the logic I use. I'm consistent; we have rejected requests for a trampoline, and the usage my kids have had has been heavily supervised. One thing about trampolines is that AIUI, the vast majority of the danger comes from having multiple people on one at a time. Most of the remaining risk is manageable, more in the normal range of risk, especially with supervision. As evidence, I cite that in lawsuit-crazy USA, there are businesses like Sky Zone that provide trampoline play commercially. That kinda bounds the upper level of risk... I have some additional considerations that require that for other reasons, but I think I'd still feel the same way even without them.
    - 8y ago

rhizome 8y ago

How do you balance letting kids learn to manage risk in unstructured environments with banning objects and activities that might be dangerous? People have been doing it for generations, so consider it something you'll want to think about for yourself before having children.

faitswulff 8y ago
I think you misread my intent in asking that question.
- rhizome 8y ago
  I read your intent and I don't agree with a libertarian implication that ignores how things have worked more or less fine, and which is certainly not banning everything.
  - dhruv_bansal 8y ago
    yeah right

thomasfedb 8y ago

This is a really different issue from right to roam. Magnet ingestion is something that will happen when curious little hands get hold of these magnets, and is also not something you can obviously know has happened. That's scary given the great potential for severe adverse health consequences.

faitswulff 8y ago
I don't think it is terribly different. Getting struck by a vehicle is at least as great a danger, if not a much more likely scenario, than ingesting magnets, and is also not immediately apparent for the simple fact that the kids are out of sight. I would put "right to roam" laws as being in opposition to the banning of object like magnets or Kinder Eggs. That said, I do understand they can cause great harm. But what do we lose when we choose to isolate our kids from reality?
- thomasfedb 8y ago
  A child being struck by a vehicle is almost always immediately obvious to the driver of that vehicle if nobody else. That said, I wouldn't ban magnets myself, though I'm against selling then directly to young children.

jerf 8y ago

Children need to be able to hurt themselves. That may bother some people to hear, but I'd suggest googling "congenital analgesia" for them. Children need to not be able to kill themselves via hazards their genetic heritage provides them no way to realize is dangerous. That is, children quickly learn not to fall too far [1], but they've got no inherent defense against eating two magnets slightly spaced apart in time. Or antifreeze. Or electricity. Etc. There's still a lot of judgement involved, and I'm right there with you on children being overprotected in general. But they need to be kept from the unrecoverable mistakes. One of the interesting things about child proofing your home, if you are of an introspective mindset, is the cataloging of how much danger you causally live with. Or at least, danger from a certain point of view. [1]: Not 100% perfectly, of course. But there's a qualitative difference between our natural instinct's ability to deal with fall damage, and eating rare earth magnets.

romwell 8y ago
>But they need to be kept from the unrecoverable mistakes. Unless those mistakes involve trampolines[1], because wheeee! Those are cool. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of dangerous things, but we don't necessarily ban all of them. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-terrifying-statistics-trampoline-safety-everett-sanderson/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-terrifying-statistics-tramp...
- jerf 8y ago
  Well, I wasn't explaining the logic of the law, but the logic I use. I'm consistent; we have rejected requests for a trampoline, and the usage my kids have had has been heavily supervised. One thing about trampolines is that AIUI, the vast majority of the danger comes from having multiple people on one at a time. Most of the remaining risk is manageable, more in the normal range of risk, especially with supervision. As evidence, I cite that in lawsuit-crazy USA, there are businesses like Sky Zone that provide trampoline play commercially. That kinda bounds the upper level of risk... I have some additional considerations that require that for other reasons, but I think I'd still feel the same way even without them.
  - 8y ago