Internet Not Really Dangerous For Kids After All 445
Thomas M Hughes writes "We're all familiar with the claim that it's horribly dangerous to allow our children on to the Internet. It's long been believed that the moment a child logs on to the Internet, he will experience a flood of inappropriate sexual advances. Turns out this isn't an accurate representation of reality at all. A high-profile task force representing 49 state attorneys general was organized to find a solution to the problem of online sexual solicitation. But instead the panel has issued a report (due to be released tomorrow) claiming that 'Social networks are very much like real-world communities that are comprised mostly of good people who are there for the right reasons.' The report concluded that 'the problem of child-on-child bullying, both online and offline, poses a far more serious challenge than the sexual solicitation of minors by adults.' Turns out the danger to our children was all just media hype and parental anxiety." Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.
They made fools out of themselves. (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.
Fuck 'em.
It should fine.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Equally Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
Internet is still a dangerous place for kids, it's just not as dangerous as what others might have put it.
I certainly don't want my kids to use this report to tell me it's more dangerous for them to play in the playground across the road than letting them surf net all day.
The report says child-on-child bullying is more serious a problem to deal with, and I'm sure if they could solve this problem for kids, they would have solved the sexual solicitation problem as well.
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... I've yet to get the shit beat out of me on the internet, but have gotten my ass kicked at a playground a couple times.
Which is more dangerous?
The internet is safe for children? (Score:4, Insightful)
A few words:
tubgirl
lemonparty
meatspin
goatse
mr. hands
2girls1cup
Do you know how easy it is to stumble across these things? Of course, that does not mean that the government should step in and do the job of a good adult to protect their children... I'm just saying, the internet is not exactly the most kid-safe place.
For instance, I was playing on a counter-strike source server a few days ago. A six year old kid rolled into my server. We regularly have pornographic sprays, adult voice chat, etc... We all tone down how we act when he's in the server. But for every group of people who try to act good around young children on the internet, there will be 100 more groups willing to link them to 4chan.
Do your jobs, you god forsakenly poor parents!
Japanese Subways (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen 8 year olds riding Tokyo's subway system solo. The instant any of them show any signs of confusion or distress -- and that's very rare, since their parents teach them how to ride -- any number of genuinely helpful adults (plural) in the vicinity come to their rescue. This is all perfectly normal, and it's entirely within the physical world. Everyone is safe.
The Internet is not even physical. There's always a wire (or wireless connection) separating its participants. Simply combine the Internet with a parent or responsible adult and it's safer (psychologically) than even the Tokyo Metro. (And it's always physically safer.) If government simply concentrated on promoting and supporting good parenting, that'd solve myriad problems. [How about starting by allowing all qualified parent(s), including same-sex parents, to adopt?] The Internet is not a parent any more than a subway car or glass of milk is, so it's ridiculous that any government would try to make the Internet a parent.
Richard Blumenthal needs a new job (Score:5, Insightful)
My kids have been on the internet since a age of 2 (each).
Yes, the browser was pointed to Disney or Sesame Street, but they learned to go where they wanted to go. My oldest had the lock Netscape, but around 5yr I came one day found she had found away to URL prompt. So from that day forward I have left the browsers unlocked. My youngest first words would to the effect of "mom-dot-see-oh-em'.
Yes, I check on kids usage via firewall logs from time to time, but find nothing wrong. I even enter their rooms to see what they are doing (but VNC is easier).
My wife while telling about the birds and bees, also give the kids on-line lessons as well. Showing what happens when you mis-type some kids site names and showing how to get out of the mistake.
It is up to us to raise our kids.
It is up the Richard Blumenthals of the world to find a new job and let us raise our kids!
Re:The internet is safe for children? (Score:5, Insightful)
But for every group of people who try to act good around young children on the internet, there will be 100 more groups willing to link them to 4chan.
I think most kids figure out in about 2 minutes on the internet not to click on random links. The ones that don't, deserve what they get.
Experience is the best teacher.
Fear is a tool of control (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who have aggressively pushed the issue of the dangerous Internet, such as Connecticut's attorney general Richard Blumenthal, are less than happy with the report.
Of course, because without fear it is far more difficult to control people.
Those aren't even safe (Score:5, Insightful)
for adults.
But seriously sights of nudity and sex will not destroy a child. Parental abuse on the other hand...
I saw porn at age 8 due to discovering a friend's older brother's cache, and I am not a rapist nor would I ever hurt anybody...in fact, the porn was not that interesting until I hit puberty.
All it did was make me realize how much of the world was being hidden from me by adults, and it got me to read some childbirth books in the library to confirm the rumours.
So my theory is beating your children will make them rapists, not porn, because violence is taught best by action and those with bitter hearts will have less mercy.
Re:They made fools out of themselves. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Internet is not a Baby Sitter (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet isn't a baby sitter any more than videos/DVDs. Responsible parents should monitor their children's media consumption and teach them about being critical, separating fantasy from reality etc.
My kids are too small to use a computer for now, but once they become big enough I'm not going to just let them browse at their leisure. I'm going to monitor them by first being there with them, and once it seems they are OK on their own I'm going to be in the same room. Only much later will I allow them to browse on their own, and even them I'm going to reserve the rights to monitor their logs.
Parents should get a grip and deal with the fact that getting kids involves parenting and responsibility. Not just media. I'm responsible for seeing to it that they exercise enough, eat healthily, brush their teeth, go to bed in time... That's the way it works.
Re:Japanese Subways (Score:5, Insightful)
it's ridiculous that any government would try to make the Internet a parent.
Actually, I like the idea. The net is full of fun things your parents will never know about. It's also an excercise in critical thinking. Of course, it's easier to point at the bad things and ban everything.
Also, filtering information is one of the most useful skills a child can learn this millennium.
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruises heal without any effort, and as a kid it's usually within days. Emotional scars can last a lifetime.
What utter nonsense. And I suppose you don't think you get emotional scarring from having the crap kicked out of you by a playground bully?
Re:Japanese Subways (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as an ugly lug of a male American, I can say, and I'm probably speaking for a few others, that if there was a random kid in distress in a public, my top priority would be to put a safe distance between myself and the area the kid is in. Exceptions might be made for situations as extreme as obviously being abducted at gun or knife point. Other than that I dare not risk the cops-and-lawyer-on-conference-call-speed-dial response enough parents have.
The poetic injustice of the whole situation is that in their mindless quest to protect their kids from everything they've actually made it more dangerous for their kids. The only random people likely to willingly interact with their kid are "the bad people" because the non-bad people don't want to get slapped with being a pedophile/molester/deviant. Sort of like the moron out west who is suing someone who tried to rescue them from a possibly life threatening situation. I help you, you sue me, my life is ruined, you live happily ever after. I don't help you, you die, I live. Great precedent to establish.
Re:The internet is safe for children? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No more reality cheques please (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowledge is valuable. Ignorance is dangerous. Censorship is unacceptable.
Re:*plop* (mind blown) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Those aren't even safe (Score:4, Insightful)
More "primitive" societies (like our own not much more than 100 years ago) could not afford physical privacy to the degree many of us enjoy now: the children of the time might have been prohibited from mentioning or discussing sex, but they sure as hell knew a lot about it.
Re:Fear is a tool of control (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, because without fear it is far more difficult to control people.
Of course, because without fear it is impossible to control people.
There, fixed that for ya.
Re:Japanese Subways (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really too bad that you're that afraid. That society has somehow put so much fear in you that you're afraid of helping a child.
In all likelihood any child who has lost her or his parents is far more scared than you.
If you ever find yourself reconsider the "I don't help children because it puts me at risk" policy, here's some pointers that might make it a little less frightening for you:
1. Respect the child's personal space. You don't have to touch the child, just stand back a few feet and ask if everything is all right, or if they know where their parents are. Where did they last see their parents?
2. Get someone else involved. Ask another stranger if they've seen the child's parents. It doesn't matter whether you think the other stranger may have actually seen the parents. The point is that you're no longer a strange, single guy talking to a kid. Now you're a strange, single guy and someone else. If it makes you feel better, try asking a cute, elderly woman for help. Grandma probably won't hurt you. And she might have better ideas on comforting the child too.
3. If nobody else is immediately around, ask the child to stay where they are while you go look for help. Assure the child that you won't go out of their sight, and that you'll keep an eye on them to make sure they're okay too.
4. There's probably someone who works at the place you found the lost child who can help. Find someone official. A store employee, a security guard.
5. If the child starts to yell at you to stay away or pulls a gun or dirty needle or something, just keep going. Leave the child alone but you should still let someone else know that a child is in distress.
The point is to use some common sense. Don't threaten the child by invading their space. Don't try to be inconspicuous. Drawing attention to the situation is the exact opposite effect that anyone dangerous to children would want. Why would someone who wants to kidnap a child draw attention to them self that way?
I've helped a few lost kids find their parents. It usually doesn't take very long as parents are generally eager to find their children once lost. And every single time the parents expressed genuine gratitude.
Much Ado About Nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
I was born in 1989, and I had unsupervised internet access starting around 1997 (when my parents first got dial-up). The first few times I was online, I was with my parents (just because we were in a group looking at this cool internet thing). A porn banner came up at one point during the group experience. I'm grateful this didn't launch my parents into knee-jerk lockdown mode. On the contrary, they just sat me down in the living room and talked to me for about 10 minutes. The gist of what they told me about the internet:
- Don't reveal your name, address, share photos of yourself, or do anything that identifies you (I didn't care; I already had enough friends at school. I didn't want to talk to anyone new online).
- If someone asks you for this info, don't tell them, and stop talking to them (Same as above).
- Don't look at porn; it's unrealistic and gross (I looked at porn anyway. It gave me a boner but I didn't even know what to do with it. After a while I got bored and went back to playing Quake).
- Don't do anything illegal. If you're not sure about something, ask us (I downloaded a ton of warez off of Hotline servers, but that's in a legal gray area).
Overall, it was pretty laissez-faire. Just some warnings about what to avoid. But that was it... no monitoring software, no cyber-sitter bullshit, no "you can't use the computer if we're not in the room" rules. I was happy about the rules they set up. I'd often be at a friend's and we'd want to play an online game or something. We could hardly ever do it because all of my friends' parents were scared shitless about the internet by shows like 20/20 and Dateline. They'd insist on being in the room if we were going to be online. Sometimes I'd argue with other parents, using defenses like "We're not idiots; we know not to tell people where we live or who we are. Give us a break". This didn't do much other than result in some angry calls to my own parents. My best friend's dad was pretty computer literate and went all CIA on his son's internet use... logs checked weekly, blacklisted sites, the works. This treatment lasted all the way through senior year at high school! Worse yet, when I offered to hook my friend up with a proxy or VPN, he balked and said he didn't want to go against his parents' wishes. I feel sorry for anyone who's conditioned to think that total surveillance like this is at all reasonable.
Parents who monitor your children's browsing: I realize you just want what's best for your child, but remember that you are not a demigod and that your children are human beings with a right to see the world for themselves. Seriously. "Shielding" them from pedophiles and naughty pictures is like never letting your kid out of the house for fear of ticks and rattlesnakes. If you're worried your kid will see goatse and be scarred for life, then open a web browser, look at it together, and talk about it. Your kid will probably see it either way (after he moves out, if it comes to that), so you might as well take the initiative and put it in perspective to minimize any danger. I'm living proof that seeing rotten.com, goatse, playing Quake, and looking at porn (all at an early age) does not fuck you up.
Should I ever have kids, they'll get about the same treatment I got - they'll know they can do anything and everything that doesn't risk measurable physical harm. They'll know right away that screwing up this simple rule means no more internet until they've learned their lesson. Considering my own childhood 'net experience, I don't expect any problems. I'll do my best to foster in my children an unquenchable curiosity about all parts (good and bad) of life on planet Earth... doing otherwise would serve only to chisel away a little bit of their lives.
Prior to looking at porn, I honestly had NO CLUE that anyone would partake in anal sex. It sure wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise. Seeing things like that led me to develop an academic interest in everything that I had never encountered in daily life
Re:Mod Up! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not prepared to let your half of the species take all the credit for that one - there's more than enough men fearmongering the same issue. The thing is really caused by the media and politicians beating it up far out of proportion - while it's absolutely horrible that it does happen, the instances of child molestation by a stranger are statistically extremely rare, and there are really much more likely things to be worrying about (like the general decline in altruism for fear of this sort of bullshit). Unfortunately, though, these types of stories make great news articles (because everyone's in agreement) and shortly thereafter great bandwagons for politicians to jump on (see the previous reason), so that's what people's attention is focused on. It was a wise (wo)man that said that one of humanity's greatest foes is an inability to really comprehend statistics.
Thanks, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not about scaring the child, and it is not about giving the child false impressions, etc. In fact, it is not about the child at all. It is about the adults.
If you do not understand this dilemma, then you have been living a sheltered life. Wake up.
Re:Those aren't even safe (Score:2, Insightful)
in fact, the porn was not that interesting until I hit puberty.
EXACTLY, ma man!
It disgusts me to hear the crying babies who say oh we can't show little jimmy porn because it'll destroy his mind. It's just not true. And it disgusts me because those who said this had been through childhood themselves. Stop lying, and do something useful.
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
But, there are a small number of kids who can't brush it off so easily, due to some convergence of psychological factors; and they're probably the ones more likely to be picked on in the first place. I'm not sure what can be done about that, other than having the parents try to stay involved and aware of what the child is going through. Sheltering kids may do more harm than good.
Re:They made fools out of themselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Children are solicited every day online," Mr. Blumenthal said. "Some fall prey, and the results are tragic. That harsh reality defies the statistical academic research underlying the report."
He could use that disgusting sentence in a nice anti-intellectualism banner.
Re:The internet is safe for children? (Score:3, Insightful)
With several of them, I have actually tried to find them on the net upon hearing the phrases. Why? Because nobody would say what they were about, just that they were the sickest thing ever.
So my curiosity peaked, I went out to look for them. I am a 27 year old IT guy, mind you, and I had trouble finding anything BUT yet more references to how sick they were.
To this day I haven't seen ANY of them, but a plethora of videos on youtube of people's reactions to them.
I can find porn easily. Because I know how to look for it. I could do so back when I was like fourteen as well. Different methods and rules applied, but I knew how. And interestingly enough, I have no emotional scars from back then. At least not concerning the net.
Overly protective parents (Score:2, Insightful)
One of my regrets raising my two daughters, both in their early/mid teens, is that we have been over protective of them. They have lived very protected lives. When they were young, school was a couple of miles away and there were no kids in our neighborhood. They now live in the county so they have to be driven every where. So other than a couple of hours after school, we have complete control over what they do, who they see, who their friends are.
This is how my wife wants it to be. She has bought into the fear factor. "Everything is so much more dangerous these days." "Kids are not safe." "My child might get kidnapped, molested, or killed."
But at age 12 when she was growing up in the California Bay Area, she used to ride her horse 20 miles to the top of skyline not returning all day. When I point this out to her, she says "Oh but that was different, things were safer then."
I don't thing this is true. I think that if you look at the percentages, incidents per 100,000 people, I suspect that the numbers are probably similar to the 1950s and 1960s and better than in in the early 1900s or late 1800s. It is just that the population has increased by an order or more in magnitude and the media picks up each horrible event and makes it front page news. This makes the events seem much more common. "Yikes! Kids are getting raped and murdered every day!"
The regret I have for over protecting my kids is that in a few years they are going to go off to college. This may be the first time they are on their own. I think we have done a good job raising them so I am not too concerned that they will do something to totally screw up their lives. But they will face a lot of temptations. They will make bad choices; drugs, sex, lifestyle, paying attention to school work, etc. My concern is that they will be facing these situations without the security of home an family to moderate their behavior or to act as a protective cushion when they get hurt or in trouble. Yes we are there, but we are not there every night.
And I feel lucky. At least we have talked about sex and birth control. They live in the Sierra foothills in a rather conservative and religious community. I see some of our friends who have raised their kids in an even safer "Just say no" environment and I wonder what their kids are going to do in college. As an older generation used to say, "You know what they say about Catholic girls..."
Kids need to be given chances to make mistakes when they are young so they can learn from them in a loving protective environment.
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
When the torment is physical, you can easily fight back and have a fairly good chance of winning (especially if it's not your first time and/or it's not jock-on-dork). If you lose, yeah, it's not a great feeling psychologically, but you eventually wind up with the idea that you can take the guy if ever in another altercation. You're also less likely to be suspended/expelled if you fight back "in self defense"; whereas if you throw a punch because a bully said something that pushed your buttons, he gets a medal of commendation and you get a week's worth of detention.
With just word of mouth bullying, how do you fight it?
Your own retorts? The bullies will just laugh; they've spent lots of time thinking of good remarks to use on you, and find your response amusing, as it means they won.
Tell the teacher? Most teachers don't give half a shit. Same thing for the principal, and sometimes even the school counselor (if yours has one). If you succeed, the bully gets one or two detentions. It's nothing new for him (or her), and when it's over he comes back twice as hard because "you went crying to mommy".
Litigation/filing for assault just seems way out of proportion, and likely will have the same result as telling a teacher.
And then of course there are female bullies. From my experience and those related to me, male bullies are relatively fucking cheerful. Female bullies, especially towards other females, take the "passive aggressive" approach; rather than just making fun to a target's face, they'll take their time to, as a group, make up and spread rumors about the target. As these rumors get around, kids tend to take them more to heart. It also becomes much harder to find out who originally started the rumors (technically slander). And then everyone will start giving stares in the hallway or in class, and the target won't know exactly why, which just adds to it.
So you keep it pent up inside and it does stuff to you. As someone who was picked on often as a kid, I sure as hell wish my tormentors had turned physical so I would have had a good reason to fight back. Even if I lost, I would have given them a few shiners and would have lost a lot of my aggression/aggravation.
Physical bullying can have an emotional impact, but not nearly as hard or long-lasting as non-physical bullying.
On a somewhat-related note, should I ever have a kid (of either sex) I plan to tell them to do the following if they are bullied, each step if the previous doesn't stop it:
1) Tell the kid to stop.
2) Tell the closest teacher when an incident happens.
3) Tell the principal
4) Punch the kid in the nose
Every step they should tell me what's going on, and I'd probably be included in the discussion with the principal. If the school won't try to handle the situation (or does a bad job), I feel my kid is fully in the right to take matters into his own hand. One could try contacting the bully's parents, but, honestly, it's quite rare to find parents that will accept such accusations without hardcore proof (as a negative light on their child reflects back on them.)
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously, you've never been picked on at the playground. Every time it has happened to me, there were at least 5 of them. Bullies get followers and they travel in packs. A bully that fights alone would have a chance to lose, and would eventually lose and no longer be a bully. So, what are my chances of winning when it's 5 on one?
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue that fighting back physically does more to reduce public ridicule than verbally. Also, that fighting back physically has a far larger chance of success than verbally, regardless of the level.
Verbal responses require a very quick wit as well as not being afraid to speak in public. One or two good comebacks won't last very long, and no one but the bully will really take note.
A physical response has a much better chance of landing a lucky punch. Except in cases of a massive beatdown by the bully or a Perfect K.O. (the target lands no punches), the bully will still be wearing some bruises and scars for a week or two, which will make a much more lasting impression. Everyone will know who got some licks in on the bully, and the wounds will speak every time they are seen, rather than just when someone opens their mouth.
You're right, though, when you say that the classic victim sucks at both. I would think that they would learn faster from a physical attack than a verbal one. Since I can't compare, I may be wrong on this one.
Re:Those aren't even safe (Score:2, Insightful)
Clearly, the library is a source of disturbed thinking and flagrant immorality!
One of my earliest exposures to pornography was quite by accident, in a library, and thanks to the U.S. Government. Somehow I stumbled upon the Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography [wikipedia.org], which describes pornography in surprising detail. It also says porn ain't so bad. I was a kid -- a voracious reader, but still a kid -- and thought to myself, what the heck? It didn't really interest me until I was a little older.
(Aside: not unlike the dissenting attorney generals noted in the social-networking article, then-President Nixon issued a statement [ucsb.edu] against the report.)
Re:*plop* (mind blown) (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is in jest, but, it is sad to think that in many places today, that if parents raised their kids like they did myself and my generation, and let us do the things we did, they'd possibly be arrested for child endangerment/neglect and actually risk having us taken away from them by child services!!
Corporal punishmens (especially in public??)...letting us roam about the neighborhood playing unsupervised? Running around on bicycles and skateboards without 2 tons of armor (often with NO protective gear at all)? No cell phone to keep in touch 24/7? Going to pools to swim and jumping off diving boards ???? Not knowing where we might be at all times?
Yep, it is truly amazing we made it to adulthood given the rough times we had growing up as kids without all the protections we have today...
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
I applaud you for that. That is ideally how it's done: they put forth all the effort, but it proves futile. Yours is the way for physical; the equivalent verbal response is just to smile, maybe laugh a little, at every insult they throw.
However, both are incredibly hard to do, especially at the age where bullying is prevalent.
Re:The internet is safe for children? (Score:2, Insightful)
It doesn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks such a study will change the hearts and minds of people is naive at best. Consider that:
-- Human beings have a strong inclination to cling to the anecdotal, the intuitive, the "obvious." There is a dearth of ability to look at things in a well-rounded, complete, scientific manner or to allow facts to override innate prejudices.
-- Never forget that many of the "think of the children" campaigns are not about "the children" at all -- the kids are just a convenient, emotional peg on which to hang the desire to ban or sanitize things for all of us.
-- Facts are simply not viewed as "facts" when they conflict with a strongly held belief, most especially one based at least in part on religious grounds.
These factors rear their ugly heads time and time again. Every yardstick shows that the War on Drugs is a failure, and actually counterproductive, yet the notion of legalizing/decriminalizing those substances (and shifting money and resources away from law enforcement and punishment, and towards education, prevention, and treatment) is anathema because "using drugs is wrong." Climate change is a fact that must be dealt with, but you will find countless naysayers who either have their own interests to protect (the oil companies, big business), or have such a limited and narrow understanding of the phenomenon that every colder than average event, trend, or season in isolated areas (such as what has been happening this winter in some parts of the U.S.) is instantly seen as "proof" that no such change is taking place. In the same manner, studies such as the one cited will not deter many individuals from believing that scads of ogreish perverts are stalking our children and that the "Internets" are a cesspool of danger.
Until and unless evolution produces more humans capable of accepting fact over emotion, of embracing the scientifically proven in lieu of the simplistically observed, of seeing the big picture and not focusing on isolated exceptions to the rule, then we shall continue to have studies like this marginalized or outright ignored. Maybe someday...don't hold your breath.
Re:Richard Blumenthal needs a new job (Score:1, Insightful)
Great parenting until:
(but VNC is easier)
Congrats, your kids will be well adjusted to the coming police-state.
Please don't dismiss the value of just "being there". Direct social interaction with your kids is more valuable to them than browsing the Disney website.
Not to mention you could always get them out of the house...
Re:*plop* (mind blown) (Score:5, Insightful)
My parents wanted me to be seen on my way to school, so I had to wear white clothes. White boots, white pants, white jacket, white scarf, white poodle hat, and then the snow plow got me.
While I know you're being sarcastic (or at least I really, really hope you are), there are far too many who'd consider what you said serious and would actually do that. But that's not how life works. You cannot childproof the world.
There are sensible things to do. There's such a thing as sensible childproofing. It's sensible to childproof your power sockets, because your child may well die, even with quite a bit of likelyhood, if they should cram something into them. It's sensible to childproof your stove, because hot water or, worse, oil can lead to life threatening injuries. It's sensible to lock away those bathroom chemicals because kids see some funny bottles and take a sip.
It's sensible to do all that when your child is 3. It crosses the border to insanity if you do that when your child is 13.
Kids are, if anything, explorers. They want to know. They want to learn. Last time I checked, parents wanted their kids to learn. So why is "you must not know/learn that" essentially what they keep repeating over and over?
Re:They made fools out of themselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Children are run over by cars every day. That harsh reality defies any statistical research that most of them don't."
So let's ban cars. Or let's keep kids from crossing streets.
Seriously. When you send your kids to school, they'll have to cross a street or two (provided you're not in the fortunate position of having a school bus or similar system). So what do you do? Do you throw your little 6 year old out and tell him "this way, keep going 'til you're at the school"? Or do you take him or her by the hand and guide him, show him the traffic lights and how they work, show them the pedestrian crossing places and that they have to look out for cars? Go with him a few times, then send them alone while still following them to see whether they heed your guide?
So you do that when teaching your child to go to school, yes? Why the hell do you not do anything similar when they start using the internet? It works the same way. Sit down with them, explain to them how the various things work, what they should be aware of, how they should never tell anyone their real name or address, no matter how "nice" they are or how much they claim they're just another child, etc.?
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the internet is the great equalizer. Because we know a shitload more about technology to fuck up the bully's facebook and myspace accounts for good to ridicule them.
Only drawback is that we MUST stay in the basement from then on because, oh boy, if they EVER find out who did it and EVER get a hold of us...
Re:They made fools out of themselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
A couple of weeks ago, my son was walking across my in-laws' kitchen when he slipped and fell on the back of his head. (Think Charlie Brown trying to kick the football falling.) He had a concussion and possible seizure that resulting in an ER trip. (This part is true. Luckily, he's ok now, but he did scare us for a bit.)
By Mr. Blumenthal's reasoning, I should now lobby to ban all tile-based flooring for kitchens. All flooring surfaces should be like bean bags. If you fall on it, it just absorbs the impact and you don't get hurt. I'm sure I can count on Mr. Blumenthal's support in this ban on dangerous flooring materials. At the very least, we need to encase all small children in industrial strength bubble wrap. PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!
Re:*plop* (mind blown) (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
I've experienced both. I had both individual bullies torment me and packs. The packs were definitely worse. When one of them would pass me in a hall, he would leave me alone. (I wasn't a violent person, but could easily have taken any single one of them in a fight if pushed hard enough.) But when two, three, or more were together, they would suddenly get brave. They would follow me from class to class making fun of me and laughing at me the whole way. Attempts to lose them would only get me more verbal abuse from my followers. Because of this, I became very paranoid. I was convinced that all laughter on the school bus was directed at me (whether it really was or wasn't).
One of their favorite activities was gathering near the door of one of my classes and tormenting me as I passed through. One day, while they blocked my path and verbally abused me, I nearly lost it. You know that expression "Seeing Red?" Well, I literally saw red. Everything around me turned red and I almost got extremely violent on the nearest group member. Luckily for me/them, my teacher saw what was happening and broke up their little gathering. It's because of this incident that I have a small degree of sympathy for those kids who are picked on and turn to school shootings. Not that I'm forgiving the violent outbursts, mind you, but because I know my life could have turned out like theirs all too easily.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh boy do I hope you're kidding. I guess either you don't have any children, or they are very young, otherwise you'd have a clue of the normal state of development at the age of 2. If they're not inquisitive enough already and show interest in learning to read by themselves, please do them the favour of *not* making circus attractions out of them. Each kid has its own learning speed and interests.
You know, I've spoken complete phrases before I could walk (at 12 months) and could read at the age of 3, but it was *me*, not my parents trying to teach me something that normal kids learn at age 5 or 6.
I say this as a father of three, the oldest being 6, the youngest 2 years old. They're amazingly different and each is interested in completely different things (speaking/communicating, physical activities, logic/puzzles, music/rhythm, drawing, mathematics...), and trying to "feed" them things they don't want to learn themselves would be an exercise in frustration - for you *and* for them. Each one has one or more fields where s/he is very advanced, and others in which s/he isn't interested at all, and that's the way it *should* be. Teach them what they're interested in, not what you think they should learn - you'll have enough to do to keep up with *that* already. ;)
May I ask how old your children are, or are you talking about your future? If so, you're in for quite some surprises. Hint: Life is what your children do while you're busy making plans. ;)
Re:Japanese Subways (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:*plop* (mind blown) (Score:5, Insightful)
[sensible child proofing] It's sensible to do all that when your child is 3. It crosses the border to insanity if you do that when your child is 13.
While I understand and agree with the general point being made, I strongly disagree with the specific example.
One of the worst horrors from my years as a Registered Nurse in an Emergency Room was the grief of the 70 year old grandparents when their 3 year old grandchild drank from the bleach bottle kept under the sink during the first fifteen minutes of the kid's first visit to their home. It had been more than 40 years since they had children in the house and now because they had relaxed their guard, their grandchild was in incredible pain from the esophageal burns and at best faced growing up with frequent corrective surgeries because scar tissue just doesn't adapt to growth the way that normal esophageal tissue does. We got the child stable enough to transfer her to the Pediatric ICU, but this was one case where I did not want to know anything about how she did after that. I've seen a lot of misery of one kind or another, but this was so senseless...
If there is ANY possibility of young children visiting your house, keep up with the child proofing. Think of it as very low cost insurance against having nightmare memories of the worst kind of catastrophe for the rest of your life.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*plop* (mind blown) (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple solution: Don't come to my home with small children in tow. It's for the best of everyone involved. Especially my sanity.
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullies are cowards, especially the ones that travel in packs. That's why they travel in packs. Bullies also latch on to fear and insecurity like sharks on fish blood. If they know they are getting to you, they will keep at it as long as you give them their "hit" of fear and misery.
Alas, it took growing up and overcoming childhood loneliness and insecurity to learn how to deal with them. The verbal/internet kind, just ignore--bullies get bored if they don't get a response and soon leave for more interesting targets--though if they go past the limits of legality or TOS/AUP, it's fun to quietly report them and watch them then whine about how people are mean to them and it was all "just a joke".
Schoolyard bullies, really, the response is to punch back and show no fear. It's not fun for the bullies when the "victim" isn't scared, won't run, won't cry, and the bully gets bruised.
Physical attacks get physical responses, verbal attacks are best just ignored. Words are just noise, even if they are hurtful; consider the source. The map is not the territory. In my childhood, the mantra was "Sticks & stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." I prefer the one I got from the "Back to the Future" movies: "Why do I care what he thinks? He's an asshole!"
Physical scarring has the advantage of automatically healing, will he or nil he. Emotional scarring (from bullying) lasts exactly as long as you hold onto your grievances or buy into the bully's lies. Are you "emotionally scarred" if the monkeys at the zoo hoot at you? No, it's just noise. Ignore the hooting monkeys of the world, you'll be much happier.
Re:Equally Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you much on that last statement. That hyper paranoid thing thinking all laughter is directed at you, esp that insatiable giggle laugh that is the 'laughing at someone/thing' tone. Took me a long while to get over that and even to this day at almost 30 years old do I occasional get a twitch when I hear just the right pitched laughter.
As you said everybody has their breaking point. I just wish that that breaking point would always come out in an explosion of fists rather then guns.
I wonder if high school, or any other painful social situation is something we really need to all go through to learn how to be social? I think much of the restraint adults have in terms of making personal comments or picking on other's differences comes from sympathy from having it done to them, or perhaps it is just the greater understanding that not everything different is to be ridiculed.
I don't know, it seems to me that as we "mature" it is just a process of getting hurt and upset a bunch of times and recovering from it to the point that we can deal with life without it crippling us. Confidence is not confidence unless it stands strong in the face of ridicule, that sort of thing. /ramble ramble
Re:*plop* (mind blown) (Score:3, Insightful)
At first I thought your post was going to argue against excessive child proofing.
Is it possible the only reason the child decided to drink the bleach was because they'd never been able to get into cupboards before? Maybe if their home wasn't excessively sanitized they wouldn't drink everything they came across.
Not being a parent, I don't know if that's too much to ask from a 3 year old.