4 ms·

It sounds to me like you're purposely downplaying the dangers of overwhelmingly mentally-ill, drug-addicted, societal outcasts just so you can post about how en

It sounds to me like you're purposely downplaying the dangers of overwhelmingly mentally-ill, drug-addicted, societal outcasts just so you can post about how enlightened you are. Normal people do not want to put their kids into dangerous situations. And doing so does not make you a good person.

mplewis 5y ago
You're afraid of a parent choosing to walk with their kid down a public sidewalk? Get a grip.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  The person answered “yes” to a question that implied they would send their 5yo child alone down the street. Then described the reason why they would be comfortable doing that is because they have walked it with them. I think it’s reasonable to question that decision based on what they described happening on that street. Your response acts as if the question is whether it’s fine to take your child with you down that street, but that’s not what is under discussion.
- rglullis 5y ago
  Walking with the kids? Not a problem. But the thought of letting my kids (5 and 2.5) run errands by themselves (in a city like Berlin with its abundant number of homeless and mentally-ill people everywhere) gave me goosebumps. "It's only one block away" and "most homeless people are harmless" would never be words of consolation in case of any calamity.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    > "It's only one block away" and "most homeless people are harmless" would never be words of consolation in case of any calamity. This is extremist thinking and frankly quite useless without considering the actual level of risk involved.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      Of course it is extremist thinking! We are talking about the survival of your own children, not some utility maximization function. Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with one bullet in a gigantic chamber (N slots) where you get to win a small prize every time the gun doesn't fire. Is there any sense in asking if there is a N large enough to make you consider playing this game consistently for 2-3 years, when the gun is pointed at your kids? Mind you, I am not defending helicopter parenting and I do believe that we should err on the side of autonomy vs safety. But I can think of other ways to exercise this autonomy (e.g, drop the kid at the door of a local supermarket and say "here is 10€, can you please go get X, Y and Z while I am outside looking for something else?") without worrying about is the worst possible thing that could happen.
      - CogitoCogito 5y ago
        > Of course it is extremist thinking! We are talking about the survival of your own children, not some utility maximization function. Extremist thinking does not improve the likelihood of your children's survival. > Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with one bullet in a gigantic chamber (N slots) where you get to win a small prize every time the gun doesn't fire. Is there any sense in asking if there is a N large enough to make you consider playing this game consistently for 2-3 years, when the gun is pointed at your kids? You do this all the time when you take your kids for a drive, on a plane, outside, when you feed them, etc. Hell in your supermarket example, someone inside the store could just kill them there after you dropped them off.
        rglullis 5y ago
        Like I said, this is not a maximization function. It is a filter. The idea is to avoid things where the upside (even if highly likely) is small but the downside is (even if highly unlikely) catastrophic. > You do this all the time when you take your kids for a drive, on a plane, outside, when you feed them, etc. Kids need to go outside, occasionally get on a car or plane and they certainly need to be fed. These are all things were the upside is significant, so of course they need to be done and we do it without wondering about the downsides. Going on the streets of Berlin by themselves at age 5 is an unnecessary, avoidable risk with very little benefit. It doesn't need to be done, so we don't. It's simple as that.
sealaska 5y ago
It sounds to me like you're purposely upplaying the dangers of people who live outside, many of whom have substance abuse issues. I'll refrain from guessing how enlightened you are.

mplewis 5y ago

You're afraid of a parent choosing to walk with their kid down a public sidewalk? Get a grip.

jtbayly 5y ago
The person answered “yes” to a question that implied they would send their 5yo child alone down the street. Then described the reason why they would be comfortable doing that is because they have walked it with them. I think it’s reasonable to question that decision based on what they described happening on that street. Your response acts as if the question is whether it’s fine to take your child with you down that street, but that’s not what is under discussion.
rglullis 5y ago
Walking with the kids? Not a problem. But the thought of letting my kids (5 and 2.5) run errands by themselves (in a city like Berlin with its abundant number of homeless and mentally-ill people everywhere) gave me goosebumps. "It's only one block away" and "most homeless people are harmless" would never be words of consolation in case of any calamity.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > "It's only one block away" and "most homeless people are harmless" would never be words of consolation in case of any calamity. This is extremist thinking and frankly quite useless without considering the actual level of risk involved.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    Of course it is extremist thinking! We are talking about the survival of your own children, not some utility maximization function. Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with one bullet in a gigantic chamber (N slots) where you get to win a small prize every time the gun doesn't fire. Is there any sense in asking if there is a N large enough to make you consider playing this game consistently for 2-3 years, when the gun is pointed at your kids? Mind you, I am not defending helicopter parenting and I do believe that we should err on the side of autonomy vs safety. But I can think of other ways to exercise this autonomy (e.g, drop the kid at the door of a local supermarket and say "here is 10€, can you please go get X, Y and Z while I am outside looking for something else?") without worrying about is the worst possible thing that could happen.
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      > Of course it is extremist thinking! We are talking about the survival of your own children, not some utility maximization function. Extremist thinking does not improve the likelihood of your children's survival. > Imagine a game of Russian Roulette with one bullet in a gigantic chamber (N slots) where you get to win a small prize every time the gun doesn't fire. Is there any sense in asking if there is a N large enough to make you consider playing this game consistently for 2-3 years, when the gun is pointed at your kids? You do this all the time when you take your kids for a drive, on a plane, outside, when you feed them, etc. Hell in your supermarket example, someone inside the store could just kill them there after you dropped them off.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        Like I said, this is not a maximization function. It is a filter. The idea is to avoid things where the upside (even if highly likely) is small but the downside is (even if highly unlikely) catastrophic. > You do this all the time when you take your kids for a drive, on a plane, outside, when you feed them, etc. Kids need to go outside, occasionally get on a car or plane and they certainly need to be fed. These are all things were the upside is significant, so of course they need to be done and we do it without wondering about the downsides. Going on the streets of Berlin by themselves at age 5 is an unnecessary, avoidable risk with very little benefit. It doesn't need to be done, so we don't. It's simple as that.

sealaska 5y ago

It sounds to me like you're purposely upplaying the dangers of people who live outside, many of whom have substance abuse issues. I'll refrain from guessing how enlightened you are.