Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[t'Sade]

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/08/25/dutch-government-tri.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8219443.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6813281.ece

This is actually an old article. Earlier this year, a 13 year old sailor wanted to go around the world in a solo trip. She knew what she was doing, but the Dutch government didn't happen to agree with it. You know, 13 year olds can't actually do something that responsible, so they took the parents to court to prevent them from allowing their daughter to do this.

It didn't matter if she already sailed along for weeks at a time.

The Dutch court basically took custody of Laura Dekker to make sure she couldn't do it.

I don't happen to agree with it. Yes, it is a two year trip and it would be rather trialing, but with today's technology, you know she's going to be a radio call away and she would avoid the worst areas. But, while it is fine for a 17 year old to do it, 13 is too young. Australia is trying to prevent a 16 year old from doing the same thing, which pretty much points out that "magic age" where suddenly you are responsible enough to do something like this.

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/

If someone is good at something and thought this through, why stop them. It is like that story of the eight year old who wanted to take the subway. He was fine. He planned it out, he talked it over, and it wasn't a thirty second thing but something a lot more serious.

People have to take risks. As a child, I came home bloody a lot. I broke some bones, and got a lot of cuts. I wandered through junk yards to decorate my play house, alone. I walked a couple miles through forests and said junk yard and my father never worried about it. Because it was called "experience". Yes, there was a chance that I could have gotten seriously hurt. But, I think he decided to deal with it when it happened and educate me instead of preventing me from doing it today.

I know it is scope, but with zero tolerance and everything else, I can't help feeling that he would have been arrested if he did that today.

I can only hope this girl gets a chance to do her dream. It really wasn't that long ago when people were doing a lot more dangerous things at the age of 13.

[Ludovico]

I remember this clearly. All the sailing experts said it was crazy - she didn't nearly come close to having the skills. Also, saving her in case of trouble would have been nearly impossible.

The experts said at her age she didn't yet have the ability to make the kind of split second decisions necessary. The risk of drowning in the middle of the ocean was too great.

[t'Sade]

Who is right though? I don't have a lot of faith in experts when it comes to edge cases, children who are capable of doing more than average. I mean, there are young children who can mountain climb, despite being "too dangerous" for even adults. But, she's been planning and preparing this for years, her parents have been also. Yes, she might not, but then again, she might be just fine. Or only go a few months and give up.

It could go horribly wrong and she could die. But guess what? Farm children who ride tractors could have a terrible accident and get killed by the tractor. Hell, I've been electrocuted when I helped my parents wire their house, and I've been doing that since I was ten. In comparison, Fluffy lost half her cheek has a child when she got electrocuted, but it it was a risk.

There are so many ways we can die being safe. And here is someone who thinks they can do something beyond normal, but you have so many more people saying "you can't do it, so don't even try."

You have to take risks in life and I don't think this is nearly as dangerous as say your average child. But, they aren't look at what she does now, I think they are looking at the average kid (or their own kid), knowing they can't do it.

[necrocorpse]

That's a really good question.  At first blush, I'd say it should be up to the parents.

[Ludovico]

Yes - you have to takes risks in life - and she could get hit by a car when she would have been on the trip - and parents should have the final say.......

BUT

...there are limits to everything. In this case, the gov't thought her parents were using poor judgment.  Sailing experts did too!

You must takes risks in life, but this was too extreme.

[necrocorpse]

Yes - you have to takes risks in life - and she could get hit by a car when she would have been on the trip - and parents should have the final say.......

BUT

...there are limits to everything. In this case, the gov't thought her parents were using poor judgment.  Sailing experts did too!

You must takes risks in life, but this was too extreme.

You might be right in this case - but here we see the start of a slippery slope whereby governments appoint themselves "parents" of all children in their domain.  Somebody else might claim that playing with toy guns is "too extreme".  Each of us has different judgment in such matters.

[LT]

I have to side with the court on this one.  Even if the kid had been capable of sailing around the world solo, I know that in the US that minors under the age of 16 can only be left unsupervised for so long, and leaving them unsupervised for longer would be considered neglectful.  My ex-brother-in-law got into hot water for leaving his daughters unsupervised between when they got home from school and when he got home from work, and he was warned that if he didn't get a sitter or a day-care center arrangement, the state would take his kids.

[Ludovico]

I don't think it's so much a slippery-slope question as simply drawing a line using common sense. In LT's example the state may have been too severe, but there was a case of parents who went on vacation, leaving a 9 year old in charge of a five year old for a few weeks.

So how do you draw the line between risk-taking and recklessness? No one will agree, but you have to draw it somewhere.

[t'Sade]

I think we've gotten too sensitive when it comes to protecting our children. My mother left us alone in the house after school for 2-4 hours every day and guess what? Nothing happened. We had contact numbers, knew who to call, but for the most part, she didn't worry about that type of thing.  We are also getting to the point 5-10 minutes alone in a car is almost arrestable.

I don't like that trend. Yes, two years around the world might be a little much. I'm in favor of letting her try, but I would happily say that 99.99999% of all children are not even remotely capable of it. The problem is, do we know if she is one of them?

There is a pretty big line between those things though. I think 5 minutes alone, or even a few hours along isn't that drastic. 2 years? Probably a bit much. But, I also have no doubt she would be in nearly constant communication that entire time, and probably tutored on classes, giving out talks, and probably will have more gadgets that anyone can shake a large stick at. It wouldn't have been that isolated and alone.

[LT]

Another thing to consider would be that she probably hasn't finished her education back, so taking however long it would take to sail around the world off from school would probably set her back quite a bit.

[necrocorpse]

Another thing to consider would be that she probably hasn't finished her education back, so taking however long it would take to sail around the world off from school would probably set her back quite a bit.

Or she would end up more educated than those who remained in school.

[azalel]

I think we've gotten too sensitive when it comes to protecting our children.

I happen to agree with that statement, but then again, I am a bit of a dick.  The reason I agree with it is that we are protecting them from too much. Kneepads.....elbow pads.....I get that. Same with headlights on bicycles. I am fine with that. But arranging shit like play dates? Fuck that. Listen.  t'Sade makes a very good point.  When we were kids (some of us), we had more freedom. Hell, I used to ride my bike all over the goddamn place.  I would ride my bike to the mall that was something like 10 miles away when I was 11 years old.  I would go out to play in the morning right after breakfast and not come home until dinnertime. Big fucking deal.  Nothing happened. 

George Carlin made a good point as well.  It is survival of the fittest.  The kid who ate too many marbles did not grow up to have kids of his own.  But no, we cannot handle that way of thinking now.  We have to save all the children because they are so precious.  Bullshit.  That line of thinking gets us where we are heading.  A weak gene pool. 

[Ludovico]

But, I also have no doubt she would be in nearly constant communication that entire time, and probably tutored on classes, giving out talks, and probably will have more gadgets that anyone can shake a large stick at. It wouldn't have been that isolated and alone.

That's the problem - she wouldn't have. I watched the special on TV - the last person had an entourage following him. Her parents couldn't afford that - she really would have be alone in the middle of the ocean.

I agree that schooling isn't an issue - kids like this are better off without school.  They are independent self-learners.

[t'Sade]

Yeah, they were really counting on raising money from a lot of sponsors. Which requires a media blitz to pull off because they couldn't do it on my own. So, I think part of the controversy comes from the parents pushing to get publicity. I think it backfired on them, at least a little.

[Ludovico]

Another thing to consider would be that she probably hasn't finished her education back, so taking however long it would take to sail around the world off from school would probably set her back quite a bit.

Or she would end up more educated than those who remained in school.

Coming back to this point - would she really?
 While kids like this are better off learning on their own, that doesn't mean by themselves. She already knows how to sail long distances, so the main thing was accomplishing something daring and spectacular at a young age. It would have been unrivaled fulfillment.

However, would that be worth the loss of two years of social interaction and learning between the age of 13 and 15. Wouldn't she be better off traveling all over the world on land, meeting and learning with folks all over from different cultures.

 The world is great classroom, but alone on the ocean....