If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Knit Chic says... "Cathy Weeks" wrote in message oups.com... Knit Chic wrote: "Cathy Weeks" wrote in message ps.com... Knit Chic wrote: "toto" wrote in message ... http://health.theledger.com/article/...11/FAMILY/1478 IMO the author of this article has very poor logic skills. The information that is used to back up her issue has nothing to do with the issue that has been presented. Comparing apples to oranges ... Oh? Give examples please? Hard to have a good conversation without knowing your reasons. Cathy Weeks I haven't chosen a "side" IMO the article has no real value as it is illogical. If your asking me if I think some parents are over the top w/ how they act w/ their children and dangers, I would have to say yes. Do I think that some parents are not attentive enough w/ their children and dangers, again, I would have to say yes. If you asked do I think that I handle the issue w/ my family in a healthy and positive way, again I would have to say yes ... and I may say about you even though that you may chose to handle it a completely different way ... it doesn't mean that I think your dealing with it incorrectly or "wrong" (I have no idea how you deal w/ it, it's a hypothetical you) I also don't think that making a child aware of dangers and making a child fearful (as an adult or a child) go hand in hand. I believe that making a child aware of dangers is the easy part ... giving them the tools they need to deal with those dangers ... that's not so easy. And it's often overlooked. I don't mean to be dense here, but what things in the article are illogical? I don't understand how they are comparing apples to oranges. I do have a "side" - I tend to think parents don't have a good perspective on risk taking, but that does NOT mean I cannot overlook a problem with the article, nor does it mean I spot every logic error. In fact, *because* I agree with the writer of the article, I am *less* likely to spot logic errors. grin that's where you come in handy! :-) Cathy Weeks I believe the article isn't logical because rating non related behaviors and then using them to justify behaviors isn't sensible to me. Comments like: 'there is more danger letting my kid wash dishes and getting hurt than letting my child walk home from school alone. So ... I'll let my kid walk home from school alone' make no sense to me. One activity has nothing to do with the other. Where is that in the article? I read it, then searched for the word "dishes", and didn't find it. Are you talking about something other than the link that's posted above? I believe that each activity has to be assessed on it's own merit and w/ the abilities of the child in mind. ie. My daughter has difficulty w/ balance and coordination. I encourage her to use climbing toys at the park to help her with this, however there is one park that we go to that has one piece of equipment that I don't allow her to climb. While there are other 7 year olds climbing that particular piece of equipment and my daughter would like to climb the 12 foot high equipment, I don't allow it. Not yet at least, she will get there but she isn't ready yet. I could easily be viewed as overprotective by those who do not know my reasoning. However they don't know that I have truly assessed the risk to her and have decided that the risk is too great. OTOH my daughter is an excellent swimmer at the age of 3 I permitted her to dive into 12 foot water while I stood at the edge of the pool, other parents looked at me w/ horror. So .. my point ... and I think I have one is that while I could be viewed as overprotective by one set of parents (at the park) and under-protective by another set of parents (at the pool) I know that I have made the best choice for my child by the facts concerning that particular activity. I didn't have to compare the risk of unrelated activities to make a good judgment. also .. thanks for asking It helped me gather my thoughts on the issue. OK - different children may need different limits, even in a world where limit-setting is always appropriate. It still doesnt' clarify what you think is apples vs. oranges in the article. Which analogy fails, and why? This is a quote in the artical .. they are using to prove their point "Intellectually, we know the odds: The chances of dying aboard a plane are slim (Lifetime odds: 1 in 500,000, and that's for frequent fliers). But emotionally, we aren't convinced. Flying scares us." um .. flying has nothing to do w/ child hood dangers. I used my own example as my post isn't written to the the OP but someone else who asked me a question. Even *if* there were a sentance about dishwashing (where I think the danger may be in grabbing a knife or something like that), it would depend on what point is being made or how it's being made, and whether or not the obvious differences are pertinent to the point beging made. In analogies there are *always* differences. exactly, that is one of the reasons I think this artical stinks ... again, I don't have a side in the issue. I pretty much parent the way I want to parent and don't really care much what others think of my parenting. I do my best to be a mindful parent, my kids are doing well ... I think I'm going in the right direction w/ them. If there is a time I think I'm not ... I'll change what I'm doing. I have had to do that before. What matter is whether or not they're differences which make the analogy false ("apples and oranges"). That's the kind of clarification I'd be looking for. Banty well, I gave you the best I had w/ the time I had. on the side, I just went back and read what you wrote, I have no idea what you are asking me, if anything at all. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
In article , Knit Chic says...
"Banty" wrote in message ... OK - different children may need different limits, even in a world where limit-setting is always appropriate. It still doesnt' clarify what you think is apples vs. oranges in the article. Which analogy fails, and why? This is a quote in the artical .. they are using to prove their point "Intellectually, we know the odds: The chances of dying aboard a plane are slim (Lifetime odds: 1 in 500,000, and that's for frequent fliers). But emotionally, we aren't convinced. Flying scares us." um .. flying has nothing to do w/ child hood dangers. But why isn't it an analogy to childhood dangers? It seems that you're dismissing *any* analogy, or don't quite get how a point is made by analogy. To spell it out, what the analogy is, is that: 1a. Flying entails a risk of crash. 1b. Crashes are quite severe and make the news, but they are also quite rare (which is why they make the news). 1c. Not flying also has a cost - limiting oneself in one's travels. 1d. People nonethesless fly to access the benefits of travels, even if they are mindful and somewhat fearful of rare crashes. 2a. Children playing outside without immediate, direct parental supervision entails a risk of abduction. 2b. Abduction is quite severe and examples of abductions makes the news, but they are also quite rare (which is why they make the news). 1c. Not playing outside, or much less often and only under immediate and direct supervision has a cost - limiting the child from childhood experiences, excerise, opportunities for growth. 1d. People should nonetheless allow their children some freedom to access the benefits of the freedom to play, even if they are mindful and somewhat fearful of rare child abductions. I used my own example as my post isn't written to the the OP but someone else who asked me a question. The question was as to why, exactly, you thought the article was "apples and oranges". It was _about_ the article. Even *if* there were a sentance about dishwashing (where I think the danger may be in grabbing a knife or something like that), it would depend on what point is being made or how it's being made, and whether or not the obvious differences are pertinent to the point beging made. In analogies there are *always* differences. exactly, that is one of the reasons I think this artical stinks ... But arguing by anology is a perfectly legitimate way to reason. again, I don't have a side in the issue. I pretty much parent the way I want to parent and don't really care much what others think of my parenting. I do my best to be a mindful parent, my kids are doing well ... I think I'm going in the right direction w/ them. If there is a time I think I'm not ... I'll change what I'm doing. I have had to do that before. Oh, I agree with all that - and I think that none of what is said in the article negates the need for individual parents to make informed decisions concerning individual children keeping in mind various circumstances. What is being advocated in the article is that parents understand that there is always some risk, and to make decisions knowing *real* relatie risks (instead of what's the scariest risk), and also to understand that there are real costs and risks in a decision NOT to do or allow something because of small risks. *Then* make a decision. What matter is whether or not they're differences which make the analogy false ("apples and oranges"). That's the kind of clarification I'd be looking for. Banty well, I gave you the best I had w/ the time I had. on the side, I just went back and read what you wrote, I have no idea what you are asking me, if anything at all. To justify where you think the article was arguing "apples and oranges". Banty -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5222154.stm |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
Banty wrote:
In article , Knit Chic says... I THINK that what Banty is asking is for you to say why the analogies are not appropriate. You are saying that the article compares apples to oranges. That's what analogies do. Compare one thing to another. The apples and oranges being inappropriate comes in when you are assuming that the two things being compared are equivalent. For instance, if you are comparing the price of a VCR/DVD player with just a straight DVD player, that is comparing apples to oranges. "Banty" wrote in message ... OK - different children may need different limits, even in a world where limit-setting is always appropriate. It still doesnt' clarify what you think is apples vs. oranges in the article. Which analogy fails, and why? This is a quote in the artical .. they are using to prove their point "Intellectually, we know the odds: The chances of dying aboard a plane are slim (Lifetime odds: 1 in 500,000, and that's for frequent fliers). But emotionally, we aren't convinced. Flying scares us." um .. flying has nothing to do w/ child hood dangers. But why isn't it an analogy to childhood dangers? It seems that you're dismissing *any* analogy, or don't quite get how a point is made by analogy. To spell it out, what the analogy is, is that: 1a. Flying entails a risk of crash. 1b. Crashes are quite severe and make the news, but they are also quite rare (which is why they make the news). 1c. Not flying also has a cost - limiting oneself in one's travels. 1d. People nonethesless fly to access the benefits of travels, even if they are mindful and somewhat fearful of rare crashes. 2a. Children playing outside without immediate, direct parental supervision entails a risk of abduction. 2b. Abduction is quite severe and examples of abductions makes the news, but they are also quite rare (which is why they make the news). 1c. Not playing outside, or much less often and only under immediate and direct supervision has a cost - limiting the child from childhood experiences, excerise, opportunities for growth. 1d. People should nonetheless allow their children some freedom to access the benefits of the freedom to play, even if they are mindful and somewhat fearful of rare child abductions. I used my own example as my post isn't written to the the OP but someone else who asked me a question. The question was as to why, exactly, you thought the article was "apples and oranges". It was _about_ the article. Even *if* there were a sentance about dishwashing (where I think the danger may be in grabbing a knife or something like that), it would depend on what point is being made or how it's being made, and whether or not the obvious differences are pertinent to the point beging made. In analogies there are *always* differences. exactly, that is one of the reasons I think this artical stinks ... But arguing by anology is a perfectly legitimate way to reason. again, I don't have a side in the issue. I pretty much parent the way I want to parent and don't really care much what others think of my parenting. I do my best to be a mindful parent, my kids are doing well ... I think I'm going in the right direction w/ them. If there is a time I think I'm not ... I'll change what I'm doing. I have had to do that before. Oh, I agree with all that - and I think that none of what is said in the article negates the need for individual parents to make informed decisions concerning individual children keeping in mind various circumstances. What is being advocated in the article is that parents understand that there is always some risk, and to make decisions knowing *real* relatie risks (instead of what's the scariest risk), and also to understand that there are real costs and risks in a decision NOT to do or allow something because of small risks. *Then* make a decision. What matter is whether or not they're differences which make the analogy false ("apples and oranges"). That's the kind of clarification I'd be looking for. Banty well, I gave you the best I had w/ the time I had. on the side, I just went back and read what you wrote, I have no idea what you are asking me, if anything at all. To justify where you think the article was arguing "apples and oranges". Banty |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
How Dangerous is Childhood
Untrue. My Dad grew up in a totalitarian regime. There was plenty of obedience, but no respect for the people at the top. This is what I think the whole issue is, its comparing extremes... most children will never be put in a situation like that (my father fled from Poland to escape Auschwitz as a child) There will be no absolute fear to make them obey without respect. I can honestly say I was much more interested in learning/listening in classes where teachers showed respect and belief in each individual. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | April 20th 06 05:33 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | December 19th 05 05:35 AM |
Childhood leukaemia risk doubles within 100 metres of high voltage power lines - damning results known for 3 years. | john | Kids Health | 9 | September 19th 04 01:48 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | June 28th 04 07:41 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 3 | March 18th 04 09:11 AM |