6 ms·

Rural areas are not typical in terms of where most kids live and grow up. Explaining how things are in rural parts of the country is not a valid counter point.

Rural areas are not typical in terms of where most kids live and grow up. Explaining how things are in rural parts of the country is not a valid counter point. In large parts of the country walking has more or less become criminalized and discouraged. I’m talking about areas where a large percentage of people live. We have also criminalized giving kids autonomy. https://www.texaspolicy.com/lets-not-criminalize-parents-who-give-their-kids-an-old-fashioned-free-range-childhood/ https://www.texaspolicy.com/lets-not-criminalize-parents-who... https://works.bepress.com/lewyn/125/ https://works.bepress.com/lewyn/125/

giantg2 4y ago
I'm not talking about truly rural areas. I'm talking about suburbs and developments where a significant number of children live. Living in town is in fact suburban or even urban depending on the density. Honestly the walking thing is BS. CA was the last hold out. I believe all states now take the reasonable approach of it only being a crime if you impede traffic, or if you choose to walk in the stret when there is a sidewalk available. Yes, there are parenting laws that are overbearing. This is not an urban vs rural thing given that those laws cover both areas (varies by state). The biggest factor is mindset. Kids can have varying levels of autonomy depending on a number of factors. Not having a car only prevents autonomy for those who lack imagination.
- syzarian 4y ago
  The walking “thing” as you put it was clearly not read by you. I think the author of the paper knows more about it than you. If you think walking isn’t criminalized in America then go out for a walk in an affluent white neighborhood with 4 black teenage boys and experience it for yourself. We can believe the children of the nation lack imagination or that society has evolved in such a way that discourages walking and free roaming. One of these two seems to me to be a more reasonable explanation for the dearth of children walking in America’s populated areas. Next time it’s best not to use rural when you don’t mean rural. I go by what people write.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I did read. It has outdated information. Appeal to authority? Any real argument behind that? You comment about black teenagers is not a cogent argument. Walking is not a crime. Show me otherwise. The one that's more reasonable to believe is the one where kids have their noses in phones and aren't independent enough to go out on their own. "Fairly rural neighborhood" and "rural town". Rural, but in the context of a neighborhood or a town. There are varying levels of development, and the larger surrounding area can add context. It sounds like you're trolling if you can't make a good argument and are simply attacking me. Bye
    - syzarian 4y ago
      Appeal to authority is not an argumentative fallacy. Appealing to a false authority is. For instance, appealing to the authority of a Ph.D. in quantum physics is perfectly fine to do when the topic is quantum physics. Appealing to that same authority about the law is not. It appears your understanding of what “trolling” is mirrors your understanding of argumentative fallacies.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Here we go again, misinterpreting me uncharitably. I never said it was a fallacy. It's a weak basis for an argument.
        syzarian 4y ago
        Appealing to authority is not a weak basis for an argument. It’s as if you don’t understand the role of expertise. Almost everything you know comes from knowledge discovered by experts. I suppose when you read a paper you don’t like sources being cited. I didn’t uncharitably read what you wrote. You asked if I had a real argument to give because, apparently, you think getting knowledge/facts from an expert and citing said facts is not a real argument. The only reasonable interpretation of what you wrote is that you think citing an expert in their area of expertise is not a valid (“real”) arguement.
  - 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago

I'm not talking about truly rural areas. I'm talking about suburbs and developments where a significant number of children live. Living in town is in fact suburban or even urban depending on the density. Honestly the walking thing is BS. CA was the last hold out. I believe all states now take the reasonable approach of it only being a crime if you impede traffic, or if you choose to walk in the stret when there is a sidewalk available. Yes, there are parenting laws that are overbearing. This is not an urban vs rural thing given that those laws cover both areas (varies by state). The biggest factor is mindset. Kids can have varying levels of autonomy depending on a number of factors. Not having a car only prevents autonomy for those who lack imagination.

syzarian 4y ago
The walking “thing” as you put it was clearly not read by you. I think the author of the paper knows more about it than you. If you think walking isn’t criminalized in America then go out for a walk in an affluent white neighborhood with 4 black teenage boys and experience it for yourself. We can believe the children of the nation lack imagination or that society has evolved in such a way that discourages walking and free roaming. One of these two seems to me to be a more reasonable explanation for the dearth of children walking in America’s populated areas. Next time it’s best not to use rural when you don’t mean rural. I go by what people write.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I did read. It has outdated information. Appeal to authority? Any real argument behind that? You comment about black teenagers is not a cogent argument. Walking is not a crime. Show me otherwise. The one that's more reasonable to believe is the one where kids have their noses in phones and aren't independent enough to go out on their own. "Fairly rural neighborhood" and "rural town". Rural, but in the context of a neighborhood or a town. There are varying levels of development, and the larger surrounding area can add context. It sounds like you're trolling if you can't make a good argument and are simply attacking me. Bye
  - syzarian 4y ago
    Appeal to authority is not an argumentative fallacy. Appealing to a false authority is. For instance, appealing to the authority of a Ph.D. in quantum physics is perfectly fine to do when the topic is quantum physics. Appealing to that same authority about the law is not. It appears your understanding of what “trolling” is mirrors your understanding of argumentative fallacies.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Here we go again, misinterpreting me uncharitably. I never said it was a fallacy. It's a weak basis for an argument.
      - syzarian 4y ago
        Appealing to authority is not a weak basis for an argument. It’s as if you don’t understand the role of expertise. Almost everything you know comes from knowledge discovered by experts. I suppose when you read a paper you don’t like sources being cited. I didn’t uncharitably read what you wrote. You asked if I had a real argument to give because, apparently, you think getting knowledge/facts from an expert and citing said facts is not a real argument. The only reasonable interpretation of what you wrote is that you think citing an expert in their area of expertise is not a valid (“real”) arguement.
- 4y ago