5 ms·

> How the hell did you people let it come that far? The number of petty busybodies who think they know how other people should raise their children, even when

> How the hell did you people let it come that far? The number of petty busybodies who think they know how other people should raise their children, even when (especially?) they don't have children of their own, is on the rise. But hey, it takes a village, right?

m_mueller 12y ago
> But hey, it takes a village, right? You mean in Switzerland, to have children on the streets like that? Well we have cities too (albeit smaller ones) and our roads can be very busy as well. Everything tends to be very decentralized however, so each neighbourhood usually has their Kindergarden and primary school, in 15min walking distance from every home. At worst children have to cross one main road on their way, which will be trained with their parents beforehand.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  Right, well when I lived in Zurich children all walked to school without adults. The problem here in the USA is most of our built environment is completely unsuitable for walking or bicycling, even by adults, so adults with life-long windshield perspectives are understandably ignorant of walking.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    The problem here is not the condition of the sidewalk. IMO the problem is too much immunity on the part of the CPS agents. Threatening to abduct a child from their parents in this situation, if they don't sign some absurd contract to not let their children walk outside, should open them up to a lawsuit that should most certainly win, and the agent making the threat should lose their job. Instead, in the current legal environment the lawsuit would be dismissed and the CPS agent is praised for doing a good job!
    - zaroth 12y ago
      There are two ways an agency can react when presented with a case like this. On the one hand, by interpreting the law absurdly broadly, you expand your own authority until some check-and-balance comes along and pushes you back in line, which could very well be never. On the other hand, the more you push the boundaries, the less you can focus on where the real problems are. An agency which can't evaluate a situation like this, and in an hour walk away with a 'Have a nice day,' is a broken agency. The bar must be higher than this. Kids are incredibly safe in these neighborhoods, and the more kids that are out, the safer it gets. We need to be encouraging this behavior, not apply some seriously chilling effect. What can be more chilling than the threat of taking away the kids?! The idea that this could reach to that level is I think the worst part of the whole ordeal. This is so far removed from 'we need to get the kids out of here' it is absolutely ridiculous that could even come up. But I think, again, it's about the state trying to maintain 'easy access' to their biggest weapon, so they can use it easily when they need to. I think what there needs to be is a bright line test which assures parents their kids are not at immanent risk of being seized by the fucking state. For this, I think the answer is simple, you cannot ever remove children, you can merely arrest the parents. If you can't legally arrest the parents, then you shouldn't be taking the kids. I can't even imagine how traumatic that must be. I mean... if I was actually working at an agency like this, if I got a call about those kids walking on their own with multiple residents calling the police, the reasonable thing to do is first establish the parents knew where the kids were, and then second ask a few basic questions of the kids, and see if the eldest knows the right answers. It's really no different than if you encounter a park ranger, some of the questions they might ask you to ensure you are safe. We/They are there for your protection. So it's hugely concerning for such a simple case to get this out of hand.
    - spiritplumber 12y ago
      In my family it would result in them having to repeat the threat in front of the child, and having to listen to the child being given the "stranger danger" lecture with them as Exhibit A. Then depending on whether they physically touched the kid or not, they could be allowed to go home with or without a quick beating. What we've been having to teach to kids lately has been, is this person a friend of the family? okay. is this person not a friend of the family? not okay. is this person claiming to be from a school, government, anything like that? ignore that, see the two rules above. (And yes if you look at our family picture, it looks like a Sopranos wrap-up party)
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  No, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Hillary Clinton's book, "It Takes A Village," which is often cited, correctly or not, as a touchstone of government-knows-best parenting. Apologies for the USA-centric reference :)
  - m_mueller 12y ago
    Thanks for explaining ;). So Hillary Clinton, even though being on the left side of the political spectrum, promotes government steered parenting (='liberal' in the US)? Now I know American liberal doesn't mean the same as European liberal (which is usually attributed to the right/centrist side there), but man - you people sure seem to have a badly infected case of governitis there. Have you tried turning it off and on again?
    - brandonmenc 12y ago
      Based on personal experience, our "liberals" are very opposed to physical discipline and putting children in danger of any kind (driving tractors, shooting guns, living with smokers), in contrast with our "conservatives," who subscribe to the idea that getting hurt is part of growing up. Both sides like big government enforcing their pet concerns.
      - darklajid 12y ago
        I like that in a discussion about child safety we've started with 'go to the nearby park unsupervised' and arrived at 'shooting guns'. That's an interesting range right there and potentially another clash of cultures for me (I assume I started with similar values as the thread starter, substitute CH with DE).
        brandonmenc 12y ago
        I admit to being facetious. What I meant was, "shooting guns under competent adult supervision." Which, I'd rather have my kids do than walk to the park alone. How about this for a culture clash: When I was 14, my mom would drop me off at my high school so that I could participate in the rifle club. We had a shooting range in the basement of the school. Guns and live ammo were kept in the school - in a locker - at all times. This was in like, the year 1994, in a medium-sized city - not some little farm town in the 50s. However, it was a private school. This could never happen at a public school. Crazy, huh?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

m_mueller 12y ago

> But hey, it takes a village, right? You mean in Switzerland, to have children on the streets like that? Well we have cities too (albeit smaller ones) and our roads can be very busy as well. Everything tends to be very decentralized however, so each neighbourhood usually has their Kindergarden and primary school, in 15min walking distance from every home. At worst children have to cross one main road on their way, which will be trained with their parents beforehand.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
Right, well when I lived in Zurich children all walked to school without adults. The problem here in the USA is most of our built environment is completely unsuitable for walking or bicycling, even by adults, so adults with life-long windshield perspectives are understandably ignorant of walking.
- zaroth 12y ago
  The problem here is not the condition of the sidewalk. IMO the problem is too much immunity on the part of the CPS agents. Threatening to abduct a child from their parents in this situation, if they don't sign some absurd contract to not let their children walk outside, should open them up to a lawsuit that should most certainly win, and the agent making the threat should lose their job. Instead, in the current legal environment the lawsuit would be dismissed and the CPS agent is praised for doing a good job!
  - zaroth 12y ago
    There are two ways an agency can react when presented with a case like this. On the one hand, by interpreting the law absurdly broadly, you expand your own authority until some check-and-balance comes along and pushes you back in line, which could very well be never. On the other hand, the more you push the boundaries, the less you can focus on where the real problems are. An agency which can't evaluate a situation like this, and in an hour walk away with a 'Have a nice day,' is a broken agency. The bar must be higher than this. Kids are incredibly safe in these neighborhoods, and the more kids that are out, the safer it gets. We need to be encouraging this behavior, not apply some seriously chilling effect. What can be more chilling than the threat of taking away the kids?! The idea that this could reach to that level is I think the worst part of the whole ordeal. This is so far removed from 'we need to get the kids out of here' it is absolutely ridiculous that could even come up. But I think, again, it's about the state trying to maintain 'easy access' to their biggest weapon, so they can use it easily when they need to. I think what there needs to be is a bright line test which assures parents their kids are not at immanent risk of being seized by the fucking state. For this, I think the answer is simple, you cannot ever remove children, you can merely arrest the parents. If you can't legally arrest the parents, then you shouldn't be taking the kids. I can't even imagine how traumatic that must be. I mean... if I was actually working at an agency like this, if I got a call about those kids walking on their own with multiple residents calling the police, the reasonable thing to do is first establish the parents knew where the kids were, and then second ask a few basic questions of the kids, and see if the eldest knows the right answers. It's really no different than if you encounter a park ranger, some of the questions they might ask you to ensure you are safe. We/They are there for your protection. So it's hugely concerning for such a simple case to get this out of hand.
  - spiritplumber 12y ago
    In my family it would result in them having to repeat the threat in front of the child, and having to listen to the child being given the "stranger danger" lecture with them as Exhibit A. Then depending on whether they physically touched the kid or not, they could be allowed to go home with or without a quick beating. What we've been having to teach to kids lately has been, is this person a friend of the family? okay. is this person not a friend of the family? not okay. is this person claiming to be from a school, government, anything like that? ignore that, see the two rules above. (And yes if you look at our family picture, it looks like a Sopranos wrap-up party)
brandonmenc 12y ago
No, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Hillary Clinton's book, "It Takes A Village," which is often cited, correctly or not, as a touchstone of government-knows-best parenting. Apologies for the USA-centric reference :)
- m_mueller 12y ago
  Thanks for explaining ;). So Hillary Clinton, even though being on the left side of the political spectrum, promotes government steered parenting (='liberal' in the US)? Now I know American liberal doesn't mean the same as European liberal (which is usually attributed to the right/centrist side there), but man - you people sure seem to have a badly infected case of governitis there. Have you tried turning it off and on again?
  - brandonmenc 12y ago
    Based on personal experience, our "liberals" are very opposed to physical discipline and putting children in danger of any kind (driving tractors, shooting guns, living with smokers), in contrast with our "conservatives," who subscribe to the idea that getting hurt is part of growing up. Both sides like big government enforcing their pet concerns.
    - darklajid 12y ago
      I like that in a discussion about child safety we've started with 'go to the nearby park unsupervised' and arrived at 'shooting guns'. That's an interesting range right there and potentially another clash of cultures for me (I assume I started with similar values as the thread starter, substitute CH with DE).
      - brandonmenc 12y ago
        I admit to being facetious. What I meant was, "shooting guns under competent adult supervision." Which, I'd rather have my kids do than walk to the park alone. How about this for a culture clash: When I was 14, my mom would drop me off at my high school so that I could participate in the rifle club. We had a shooting range in the basement of the school. Guns and live ammo were kept in the school - in a locker - at all times. This was in like, the year 1994, in a medium-sized city - not some little farm town in the 50s. However, it was a private school. This could never happen at a public school. Crazy, huh?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]