I don't think comparing children with gown folk to be a fair assessment. First of all the prefrontal cortex (which is responsible for complex causation reasoning) isn't fully developed until on average around 25-28 years of age.
Obviously a 19 yo is capable of much more cause and effect reasoning than a six year old, but they still on average can't compete with a 30 yo. This is probably why so many "young adult" males wind up in prison for much of their early years. This is also why males car insurance drops so low after reaching 25 and 28 consecutively.
Stopping a child from needlessly harming themselves in a super serious way, prior to them understand the basics of said danger is very different than, trying to stop a grown man from ingesting some sort of drug that he is fully aware of it's effects on his own health.
I think that their are three forms of parents.
The first, just doesn't care to much for the child and could not care less what happens to them.
The second is the parent that takes immense self worth in preventing any form of "harm" to fall onto the child, even if it means literally harming the child to prevent some sort of perceived harm. I'm sure that they tell themselves many lies as to why they are so protective, but at the end of the day, they only find self worth in being a tyrant protector of said child and will do anything to keep that position.
The third is one who will allow the child to make mistakes and even get hurt. For we won't learn lessons if we are protected from all harm and consequences. This parent will only intervene when it is in prevention of serious or mortal harm without justifiable gains in learnings.
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with states if they only sought to follow the 3rd version of "parenting." But history has shown us that number two is business as usual. laws will be made to insure that their presents is required.
Right, and the other thing that I think is so wrong about it (about trying to compare the state to how we parent kids) is that when you parent a child, you're personally viewing it and stopping him from a specific thing (ie touching the stove) that matters in this unique moment. When it's a state, we're talking about generic rules that apply to everyone all the time.
So the comparison is just faulty from all angles.
It wouldn't pass any logic type of test, it's just a thing they say as an ex post facto rationalization that (imo) they wouldn't actually think up if they weren't invested in trying to rationalize the state.
And it's an argument I've heard before -- I'm kind of speaking about the people in general who say these things, not trying to tee off on my friend.. who's always fair and interested in his emails.
Ya, I feel like I've used this metaphor a few times recently, but it seems similar to how exposure to viruses actually helps your immunity, and if you try to avoid all germs it's probably just worse in the long run.
Letting kids get some bumps and bruises will help them be familiar with their bodies and the consequences and make judgments. In the long run they're more likely to be safe more often when you allow them some wiggle room.
Aside of course for the "exceptions" they make for themselves. It's interesting to see just how many presidential pardons have been for trafficking of narcs. Also interesting that the fed has mary-jane as a class 1 narc (meaning to medical use recognized) while it also holds patents for synthetic and other thc concentrates for medical purposes. But If I were to continue the blockchain would surly crash from the shear amount of bandwidth it would take to list all of their hypocrisy's.
I remember a time when playgrounds weren't made up of rubberized foam, and the "castle" in the playground was able to be climbed without giant blockers preventing would be adventurers from testing their luck.
It only took watching one kid get a broken arm, and everyone learned that "hey, if you fall, you can get hurt." We used to have pea gravel on the playgrounds and if you jumped to high off of the swings you would wind up with small rocks under the skin of your hands. These things pretty much would prevent fatal harm from coming to a child, but it would still allow for some serious pain, if you went to far.
Many of the kids of today have never really experienced this sort of thing. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather have my child learn that there are consequences to their actions early on. Rather than the first time they learn this is from a cop with a gun, or a sharp corner at 120mph.
I'm pretty sure that I have gone off topic, If just makes me sad to see how all this "protection" is really killing so many young people.
I agree this argument doesn't hold up to logic.
Oh wow, didn't know that but not surprising. It's only illegal if you don't have the right connections. Windfall profits for those allowed to do it.
Haha, playground stuff def a bit of a tangent.. I tend to like that foam, lol.. but ya, shielding from consequences def I think has a blowback of "what they'll do later in life when you aren't looking"
Now they're allowed to do whatever they want (they don't have a parent holding them back), and so they aren't as in tune with what's actually good for them.
It's funny how you just can't trick the universe. You can't remove the possibility of bad consequences. You can just maybe shift it to be less likely to happen today at the expense of being more likely tomorrow.