posted
"Some people may have looked at the line and said "you could get hurt" and you know what, you could get hurt"
I am sorry to jump in at the end.
You could have done the same activity quite safely, and without the need of armor or a padded landing. The kids would get the same feeling of risk and excitement, but they would be roped in, with an appropriate zipline set-up, which braked soon enough before the tree so they would not smash into it. This type of apparatus should be set up and supervised by an experienced person.
Another factor is that the parents of a child hurt on your parents' property would sue not you, but your parents. For a lot of money. We live, after all, in a country which allows these things to happen:
quote: This year's favorite could easily be Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other complete morons buying their recreation vehicles.
posted
I constantly struggle with my fear for my boys' safety vs. fear of over-insulating them.
I watch, and after they prove that they CAN do a thing, I back-off and let them try something even more challenging. I think this is a good compromise, but it frustrates my kids who think that they are invincible. They have much more fun playing with Dad.
My husband is a "let them prove that they can't do it" kinda guy. They come home from almost every outing scraped, dirty, cold, tired and excited. Shortly after they get home, I'm regailed with stories of "John got lost, but..." or "Jacob didn't bleed that much after I...".
My husband is a risk taker and has a much stronger sense of fun than I have. I want those qualities for my boys.
But I want my boys to outlive me. I want them to realize there are limits and that being here tomorrow gives you the chance to overcome those limits and set sights on the next goal. I don't want them to lose all the moments ahead and waste all their beautiful potential in one blaze of glory.
Being a parent means constantly struggling with issues that have no right answer. And whether you're a parent in North America or Africa, you want two things: 1) You never want to see your child injured and 2)You want your children's lives to be even more fullfilled than your own. Sometimes it just feels like those two goals are mutually exclusive.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa. 200 posts in one day. This is why I have names like that. Attention grabbers.
Anyway, I guess we can't argue this anymore. It all comes down to morals which we can't argue. We all have our own lines and in my opinion, most of you need to let your kids live more. Case closed.
How about we switch this to the topic of sueing people. how many of you people would sue your school board or whatever if your kid died on it?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, I can't resist, but if they had set up a zipline like yours and a kid fell off or slammed into a tree, I might be sueing.
If the kid fell on the playground, which is as safe as it can possibly be made, I wouldn't sue.
If the kid died because he was being beat on, and teachers could have prevented it, I might sue. If they had no way of knowing, then I probably wouldn't.
It isn't about "would you sue or not". It is about circumstances. If it were preventable by reasonable precautions, then I would sue. Otherwise, I'd just chalk it up to life. If I sued, the money would pay for expenses and then go towards doing something to fix it.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I don't mind dogpiling on Laurenz0 for his arrogant assumptions about parenting, or his odd tendency to put young children in dangerous situations, but I think you've crossed the line between TEASING someone about bad grammar and, frankly, harping on it.
The strange catfight you're initating with EllenM doesn't make much sense, either. She was more confrontational than she needed to be, true, but surely you can recognize that she essentially extended a flag of truce in her last few posts?
posted
It was, indeed, mean, and I shouldn't've posted it.
It was not, however, the intro to a drawn-out catfight -- largely to Laurenz0's credit, I might add.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for saying that, Tom, because it surprised me and seemed out of character for you. Liz
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it was. I've been grumpy for the last week, thanks to work and general exhaustion. Never do a 2003 server conversion in the same week you decide to clean and stain your deck. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't mind dogpiling on Laurenz0 for his arrogant assumptions about parenting,
Yes. arrogant. thats a good word.
Sorry peoples if I come off as that, but I have a tendency towards devils advocacy, and if someone has something so i'll probably disagree and once I disagree backing down is not an option so I often say things more strongly than I mean them to get the point across and is often misinterpreted. example "dying isn't the worst thing that can happen to your kid"
I do however disagree that I shouldn't have let the kid down the line since at that time, we were just a bunch of friends hanging out, and when that happens, no one can really force people do anything. Just suggest.
I felt that he had the power to make his own decision, he isn't stupid/un-self aware therefore the i think the decision was up to him and not me. I was just a guy hanging around, and contrary to what some of you have said, i don;t see many attempts to impress me in particular. Perhaps my thirteen year old friend, but not me. I was not appointed by the parent to look after the kids rendering me in a position of just bystander. I suggested that it was quite dangerous, but he decided to go ahead. I think he made the right decision but many of you would disagree, but thats moral differances which we can't argue.
posted
Is there anybody out there who agrees with me that most perants are overbearing? Perhaps not to the same degree as me. *shifts eyes*
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I think a lot of parents are much less overbearing than my parents were. My mother in particular was the oldest of 7 kids. After keeping the six younger kids in line for years, she only had 3 children herself. Keeping track of us was a piece of cake for her and we never got away with anything.
Please forgive me for saying this, but at your age it does feel that way. It is a natural reaction for you to have at your age. You are nearly an adult, but not quite yet. You feel like an adult but aren't yet aware of some of the, erm, realizations and attitudes that adults need to have. Even very mature people who are your age still don't have the experience they will have as an adult that will make them look back and realize that they were still very young at that age. Your parents are more aware than you are that the dangers they are trying to prevent could actually happen to you. They have a better understanding of what is 'out there' than you do.
Older people understand more than younger people give them credit for. Adults have seen their friends or children of their friends die in accidents. Adults have made stupid mistakes themselves that is still affecting their life. Adults realize that you don't have to learn from your own mistakes. It is better to learn from the mistakes of others.
It is not very wise, for instance, to learn that drugs are bad by getting addicted, bottoming out in a trip to the emergency room, and then going through rehab with lingering effects the rest of your life. Clearly, you are much better off gaining that knowledge not through personal experience but by seeing the examples of others.
I think it is about the time you are as old as your earliest memories of your parents that you start to think "I'm as old as my parents back then and they were my parents at this age." Especially when you have children, and not before (even if you are mature), you understand what your parents were thinking when they restricted you. If anything, you begin to think of your parents as having been quite liberal with you. You certainly wouldn't have put up with the bs you gave your parents. But then you realise that, well... you have to put up with it and give them some freedom because they have to learn.
Yeah, some parents don't learn that and do over react. But not most of them.
My dad laughed at me when I talked about how hard it was to get my kids to bed, and exclaimed "Ahhh, revenge."
quote: Please forgive me for saying this, but at your age it does feel that way.
Actually, i'm not basing this on my experiance with perants. I'm basing it on the news and my friends and their perants.
What i'm comparing it to is what kids were allowed to do back in earlier days, when they coud really go out of the house say "mom I'm going to the river, be back for lunch" go down to the river, relaly do whatever the hell they wanted. Come back for lunch, head out and do something else.
I'm worried that this will become a trend. each generation allowing their children to do less and less. Eventually if we keep on this road, we will keep our kids in padded boxes. \
posted
L, this is nothing against you, and I hesitate to say this because I don't it to be criticism.
But thinking padded boxes are within the realm of possibility shows how young you are.
It's like those extreme utopia and dysopia books - they appeal young to me, because I've figured out the principle of regression to the mean, and I've seen enough cycles to know that the pendulum usually swings back.
Now, it is definitely a trend that kids are getting less and less physical, and fatter and fatter as a result, but that doesn't come from overprotective parents. It comes from a host of other factors, a more urbanized and sedentary society being one of them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I felt that he had the power to make his own decision, he isn't stupid/un-self aware therefore the i think the decision was up to him and not me.
You say that now. What if he had been killed? Would you still feel secure saying that it was his own decision and his own fault?
quote:I was not appointed by the parent to look after the kids rendering me in a position of just bystander.
I'm sorry, but until you're mature enough to realise that it is your responsibility, whether explicitly given or not, to stop 10-year-olds from doing dangerous things, you really have no right to tell parents what their responsibilities are. 10-year-olds are stupid. It falls upon those who are presumably wiser with age to stop them from breaking their damn necks.
So basically, what you're telling parents to do—and an interesting point to note is that many of the people you're issuing these imperial instructions to are old enough to be your parents—is to let their kids do whatever they damn well please with damn fool friends like you. And to what end? So that they won't end up "sit[ting] in all day and play[ing] nintendo, computer, watch[ing] tv, whatever". So effing what? They have the rest of their lives to grow up, just as you have the rest of your life to come to the realisation that you're responsible for people beyond yourself. In the meantime, I and others will thank you for not recklessly shortening the time period we're talking about when we say "the rest of their lives".
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, Do you realy believe that perants let their kids do as much nowadays as they did before? No whos blaming the victim? "its the kids fault for being less physical"
Well, I can tell you. Your wrong. Since you seem to bash me alot, let me tell you. Thats a rather naive thing to say. I don't know where you grew up, but you hear the stories all the time. "back in my day, we could go play on the streets for hours." "we would go find rocks and throw at each other" And so on and so forth. Mind you, big cities also account for a parents reluctancy to do let their kids do something.
But the padded boxes was a metaphor. No, padded boxes are not probably not goign to happen.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What i'm comparing it to is what kids were allowed to do back in earlier days, when they coud really go out of the house say "mom I'm going to the river, be back for lunch" go down to the river, relaly do whatever the hell they wanted. Come back for lunch, head out and do something else.
I don't know that any child, aged 10, has *ever* been allowed to do that, even in these good old days you seem to be glorifying.
[ August 06, 2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps not at ten, but slightly older, maybe 12. 11 even. Anyway, the perants let the kids go and didn't really know what they were doing, and most of the time. No one really got hurt.
posted
Lorenz0, different times, different cities, different rules, buddy. Parents aren't sitting their kids in front of the TV because it's the safer thing to do, they do it because it's the easier thing to do. It's not like they think, "Little Kelly can't go outside and play in the brook, she might trip! Let's just sit her down at the computer, it's so much safer there!" It's more along the lines of "Good Lord, I just worked 12 hours and there isn't any food started for dinner. And I still have to call my accountent, make the kids lunch for the morning, balance the checkbook, work in the garden, finish sanding the deck and ... argh! Kelly's yelling at me again! *spoken* Kelly? Why don't you watch some TV, Ok honey?"
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway, the perants let the kids go and didn't really know what they were doing, and most of the time. No one really got hurt.
I'd like to start with the following: although I kicked and screamed at various points during my childhood, I do not feel that my parents were unecessarily overprotective. I think they found an excellent balance, actually, and I think it shows. This summer, for example. I'm 18 and going to college next year, granted, but I am living away from home -- housesitting for friends and such -- all by myself. My parents let me do this so I could take advantage of a great job opportunity I had this summer. Which is great. I appreciate both the freedom and the trust they've given me.
I enjoy the freedom, yes. But I talk to my mom or dad every night. If I'm going someplace, or doing something, especially if it's far away, I let them know about it. Not because they pressure me to. But what if, God forbid, I'm in a car accident? What if it's 12 am on a back road somewhere where there's little possiblity of someone finding me? At least someone knows when I was supposed to be home, or where I was coming from.
There have only been a few times in my life when my parents have not known where I was, regardless of my age. It was always because I lied to them, and I'm very lucky that nothing happened to me.
That said, I also expect the same courtesy from my parents. Even when I was living at home, if they went out, I always knew where they were going and when they were coming home. If they were an hour, two hours late, at I would know that something might be wrong.
Knowing where your loved ones are is not just something that applies to children. It applies to all of us. My parents still know when my grandparents will be in Michigan, or in Florida, or if they'll be travelling to visit friends. It's not because they think they're too old and need to be watched for. We're a family. We watch out for each other. That's what families do.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, you know what? THere are parents out there who do let their kids "go down to the river, back for lunch, and then do whatever the hell they want". Those are the same parents who don't care if the kid comes back for lunch or not. Those are the parents who might even hold a secret hope that the kid falls in the river and drowns so he doesn't interupt their busy lives so much. They don't really want him to drown, but they do certainly wish he would just go away and quit inconveniencing them. Loving parents, those.
Lorenz0, you don't live anywhere near Bellingham, WA, do you? I just want to make sure that you don't spend a lot of time with MY 10 year old.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Parents aren't sitting their kids in front of the TV because it's the safer thing to do, they do it because it's the easier thing to do
You know bob. i never thought of that. its a good point, but I also disagree with you. i think that perants could just as easily send their kids outside, but they worry to much. saying, go to the park, or something is just as easy as saying go play computer. But then again. They wouldn't go to the park if through all that time perants just said play computer and they got hooked. Ya know. you raise an excellant point and in a lot of cases probably applies.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
((((Kasie)))) I know. I used to have that as my blood-related family; I remember what it's like. ((((jeniwren)))) Thank you for the compliment. I'd be delighted to be your sister. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'll jump in here. It seems to me the conversation has polarized, between the loving caring parent and the neglectful parent. I think if Lorenzo used different statements instead of saying “parent are overbearing” or kids used to be able to “really do whatever the hell they wanted.” Then we might be able to see each other POV.
Let’s just say most children are over scheduling and are left with no free time unless it's unsupervised in front of the TV, Nintendo, or computer. I know there are a lot of you that live in cities and you can't just let you children "go out" for their safety and your peace of mind. I live in the Northwest and it seem to me Lorenz0 does too. I live in a medium size town in Eastern Idaho. Crime is low. Parks are plentiful: providing baseball diamond, swings, bike paths, and so forth. In addition, acres of undeveloped land for hiking and exploring. However, it seems most children are either over scheduled or in front of an electronic passive entertainment devise. Moreover, I get to hear mothers complain about always being in the car taking their children to their many activities. And my children and I are left to deal with children who don't know how to socialize. unless they're in uniforms or the TV’s on.
posted
It's irrelevant because the fact that parents used to let their kids run wild—if they actually did so—has no bearing on whether it was correct then and, more importantly, whether it would be correct now.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
okay? on my way to bed)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
<-- platonic and sisterly
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
