and the government should also hand out free fresh fruits and vegetables to kids and give out free gym memberships to kids and health care and dentist visits and free government run baby sitting in case the parents need to step out and people to walk kids to school and 24 hour camera surveillance on all kids and people to monitor kid's teachers in case they're not doing well and a computer in every kids home and of course. government run piggy back rides.
As for the use of expert; I have a hard believing there is someone who is so insanely qualified as to know more about your own child than you do. There are so many circumstances surrounding why kids are the way they are, that I have a hard time putting my faith in some government appointed employee to know anything close to what is truly best for every child that some "concerned individual" takes issue with.
If your child is a slice of pizza away from diabeties, I think you've proven you don't know squat about parenting.
Based on what? Title, degree, experience? This is the same gov that puts people in charge of things they have no experience in.
As for the use of expert; I have a hard believing there is someone who is so insanely qualified as to know more about your own child than you do. There are so many circumstances surrounding why kids are the way they are, that I have a hard time putting my faith in some government appointed employee to know anything close to what is truly best for every child that some "concerned individual" takes issue with.
You make it sound like parents are more equipped to understand the myriad of circumstances surrounding a child's health, which is what we're specifically discussing here. I'm sorry, but that's just completely untrue. Being a parent doesn't impart that knowledge. You need to actually have an education in those areas to understand that.
Hell, my aunt thinks her daughter is healthy eating nothing but meat so long as she takes a multivitamin as well. Where is her special parental knowledge there?
Government education plans to help parents do a better job is a good idea. Monetary incentives, such as tax breaks for healthy food and higher taxes on unhealthy food, perhaps. But we should not outlaw or explicitly punish "bad parenting", because it's such a vague and ill-defined term. The government should not be intervening just because you're a lousy parent. The government should be intervening when you're such a god-awful fuckstick that your child is in serious and immediate danger. "The kid might have an increased risk of heart trouble in 30 years" is not immediate at all.
And as to environmental hazards, I think the region you live in is generally more a factor than what your parents have in the household. Cities with a lot of smog or a lot of pollen are going to fuck up your allergies and increase your risk of asthma, but it's not like we should fine everyone who lives in such places, right?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Can't we just let the schoolyard sort this out with fistacuffs?
As for the use of expert; I have a hard believing there is someone who is so insanely qualified as to know more about your own child than you do. There are so many circumstances surrounding why kids are the way they are, that I have a hard time putting my faith in some government appointed employee to know anything close to what is truly best for every child that some "concerned individual" takes issue with.
If your child is a slice of pizza away from diabeties, I think you've proven you don't know squat about parenting.
But how do you know that the kid is one slice away from diabetes? Again, we go back to the doctors. Not some shop keep being offended by the rambunctious fatty and his skittles.
There would have to be a whole process involved for anything close to this to become logically and reasonably possible.
As for the use of expert; I have a hard believing there is someone who is so insanely qualified as to know more about your own child than you do. There are so many circumstances surrounding why kids are the way they are, that I have a hard time putting my faith in some government appointed employee to know anything close to what is truly best for every child that some "concerned individual" takes issue with.
Nobody is likely to know more about your specific kid than you are, true. But most parents aren't masters of psychology, and have not raised more than a couple kids. While you may know best how to get your child to eat his green beans, someone who actually studies children for a living may have a better idea of how to get your kid to stop hitting others at school, or how to help him cope with a divorce.
If every parent was an expert in child rearing, we wouldn't have books like "What to Expect the First Five Years" and so on.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As for the use of expert; I have a hard believing there is someone who is so insanely qualified as to know more about your own child than you do. There are so many circumstances surrounding why kids are the way they are, that I have a hard time putting my faith in some government appointed employee to know anything close to what is truly best for every child that some "concerned individual" takes issue with.
If your child is a slice of pizza away from diabeties, I think you've proven you don't know squat about parenting.
But how do you know that the kid is one slice away from diabetes? Again, we go back to the doctors. Not some shop keep being offended by the rambunctious fatty and his skittles.
There would have to be a whole process involved for anything close to this to become logically and reasonably possible.
Yes. Doctors can tell when a patient is pre-diabetic. Doctors can also tell when a child's morbid obesity is cause for other immediate or short-term concerns.
As for the use of expert; I have a hard believing there is someone who is so insanely qualified as to know more about your own child than you do. There are so many circumstances surrounding why kids are the way they are, that I have a hard time putting my faith in some government appointed employee to know anything close to what is truly best for every child that some "concerned individual" takes issue with.
If your child is a slice of pizza away from diabeties, I think you've proven you don't know squat about parenting.
But how do you know that the kid is one slice away from diabetes? Again, we go back to the doctors. Not some shop keep being offended by the rambunctious fatty and his skittles.
There would have to be a whole process involved for anything close to this to become logically and reasonably possible.
So would you be okay with making doctors or school nurses obligated to report cases where a child's health has reached a certain point?
The only problem with that that I can think of is that it might constitute a disincentive to taking your kid to the doctor, in which case we'd have to find some way to compensate for that.
Based on what? Title, degree, experience? This is the same gov that puts people in charge of things they have no experience in.
As for the use of expert; I have a hard believing there is someone who is so insanely qualified as to know more about your own child than you do. There are so many circumstances surrounding why kids are the way they are, that I have a hard time putting my faith in some government appointed employee to know anything close to what is truly best for every child that some "concerned individual" takes issue with.
You make it sound like parents are more equipped to understand the myriad of circumstances surrounding a child's health, which is what we're specifically discussing here. I'm sorry, but that's just completely untrue. Being a parent doesn't impart that knowledge. You need to actually have an education in those areas to understand that.
Hell, my aunt thinks her daughter is healthy eating nothing but meat so long as she takes a multivitamin as well. Where is her special parental knowledge there?
not all parents know more than those educated folks, but those educated folks don't know more than all of the parents. See my issue here.
Couldn't we just have employees at schools keep on the lookout for obviously unhealthy kids and alert CPS? I don't think random government inspections is the answer, especially since it would lend credibility to those people with a deep fear of the government.
Based on what? Title, degree, experience? This is the same gov that puts people in charge of things they have no experience in.
As for the use of expert; I have a hard believing there is someone who is so insanely qualified as to know more about your own child than you do. There are so many circumstances surrounding why kids are the way they are, that I have a hard time putting my faith in some government appointed employee to know anything close to what is truly best for every child that some "concerned individual" takes issue with.
You make it sound like parents are more equipped to understand the myriad of circumstances surrounding a child's health, which is what we're specifically discussing here. I'm sorry, but that's just completely untrue. Being a parent doesn't impart that knowledge. You need to actually have an education in those areas to understand that.
Hell, my aunt thinks her daughter is healthy eating nothing but meat so long as she takes a multivitamin as well. Where is her special parental knowledge there?
not all parents know more than those educated folks, but those educated folks don't know more than all of the parents. See my issue here.
Of the two scenarios you outlined, which is the more like to occur? I'd wager that, more often than not and especially in cases regarding child health, the expert will know more than the parent.
Furthermore, I think it's important to point out that the inevitability of people in power making bad decisions at certain points is not reason enough to not grant power. You have to show that the mistakes they make outweigh the benefits and that their mistakes cannot be compensated for with some manner of oversight.
There's also the fact that for low income families the situation is such that your children may be subjected to an attrocious diet not due to parental neglect but simply due to living conditions. For example, in many areas with housing shortages lots of low income families live in motels with no cooking facilities beyond a microwave. These are situations where you can't even go to a food bank and get rice because you have no way to prepare them.
Even if the kids ARE obese, possible even due to a terrible diet, it doesn't necessarily imply neglect on a level that would warrant losing your kids over it. I'd have to agree that the better route would be education and in specific localities just raising the general standard of livinng.
And as to environmental hazards, I think the region you live in is generally more a factor than what your parents have in the household. Cities with a lot of smog or a lot of pollen are going to fuck up your allergies and increase your risk of asthma, but it's not like we should fine everyone who lives in such places, right?
While cities themselves are a problem but, according to the epa, second-hand smoke is responsible for:
increases in the number of asthma attacks and severity of symptoms in 200,000 to 1 million children with asthma;
between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (for children under 18 months of age); and,
respiratory tract infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year.
I also changed the title of this thread, since "bad parenting" is a bit misleading.
There's also the fact that for low income families the situation is such that your children may be subjected to an attrocious diet not due to parental neglect but simply due to living conditions. For example, in many areas with housing shortages lots of low income families live in motels with no cooking facilities beyond a microwave. These are situations where you can't even go to a food bank and get rice because you have no way to prepare them.
Even if the kids ARE obese, possible even due to a terrible diet, it doesn't necessarily imply neglect on a level that would warrant losing your kids over it. I'd have to agree that the better route would be education and in specific localities just raising the general standard of livinng.
No one here is talking about taking kids away. And, yeah, there are circumstances when parents simply cannot provide even the most basic nutricious diet for their children. Aside from the fact that there is something seriously wrong with this country when families are living in hotels, I think a combination of charity and government assistance could provide these people with at least the most basic of amenities.
And as to environmental hazards, I think the region you live in is generally more a factor than what your parents have in the household. Cities with a lot of smog or a lot of pollen are going to fuck up your allergies and increase your risk of asthma, but it's not like we should fine everyone who lives in such places, right?
While cities themselves are a problem but, according to the epa, second-hand smoke is responsible for:
increases in the number of asthma attacks and severity of symptoms in 200,000 to 1 million children with asthma;
between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (for children under 18 months of age); and,
respiratory tract infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year.
I also changed the title of this thread, since "bad parenting" is a bit misleading.
But how many kids are affected by geography? I would think that, as many smog- or pollen-infested regions as there are in the US, the numbers would also be in the millions.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
But how many kids are affected by geography? I would think that, as many smog- or pollen-infested regions as there are in the US, the numbers would also be in the millions.
I was purposely glossing over that little inconvenience. I'm not sure, though, if outside polution is more harmful that second-hand smoke, and obviously there are deeper implications to cities and businesses I'm sure the government wouldn't want to tackle. So, perhaps smoking parents are exempt from the re-education camps. For now.
How about simply providing/making grants available for people to provide free or low-cost parenting classes?
My husband and I are thinking about having kids soon and I've been talking to my Mom a lot. When she had myself and my sister's the hospital and local YMCA put on childbirth/parenting an infant classes for ~$20. She had such a good time and found it so helpful to meet other expecting parents that my mom took this class three times. Similar classes today cost several hundred dollars.
Yeah, parents would have to be motivated enough to sign up but I think most parents are. Especially if the classes are well run and offer opportunities for discussion. Even if the presenter doesn't have an answer for their question, maybe someone else there will.
EDIT: Some recent research is actually pointing towards roaches as being a bigger factor in the sky high rates of asthma in lower income city dwelling children than second hand smoke or smog.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
Posts
You make it sound like parents are more equipped to understand the myriad of circumstances surrounding a child's health, which is what we're specifically discussing here. I'm sorry, but that's just completely untrue. Being a parent doesn't impart that knowledge. You need to actually have an education in those areas to understand that.
Hell, my aunt thinks her daughter is healthy eating nothing but meat so long as she takes a multivitamin as well. Where is her special parental knowledge there?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
And as to environmental hazards, I think the region you live in is generally more a factor than what your parents have in the household. Cities with a lot of smog or a lot of pollen are going to fuck up your allergies and increase your risk of asthma, but it's not like we should fine everyone who lives in such places, right?
But how do you know that the kid is one slice away from diabetes? Again, we go back to the doctors. Not some shop keep being offended by the rambunctious fatty and his skittles.
There would have to be a whole process involved for anything close to this to become logically and reasonably possible.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Nobody is likely to know more about your specific kid than you are, true. But most parents aren't masters of psychology, and have not raised more than a couple kids. While you may know best how to get your child to eat his green beans, someone who actually studies children for a living may have a better idea of how to get your kid to stop hitting others at school, or how to help him cope with a divorce.
If every parent was an expert in child rearing, we wouldn't have books like "What to Expect the First Five Years" and so on.
Yes. Doctors can tell when a patient is pre-diabetic. Doctors can also tell when a child's morbid obesity is cause for other immediate or short-term concerns.
So would you be okay with making doctors or school nurses obligated to report cases where a child's health has reached a certain point?
The only problem with that that I can think of is that it might constitute a disincentive to taking your kid to the doctor, in which case we'd have to find some way to compensate for that.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
not all parents know more than those educated folks, but those educated folks don't know more than all of the parents. See my issue here.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Of the two scenarios you outlined, which is the more like to occur? I'd wager that, more often than not and especially in cases regarding child health, the expert will know more than the parent.
Furthermore, I think it's important to point out that the inevitability of people in power making bad decisions at certain points is not reason enough to not grant power. You have to show that the mistakes they make outweigh the benefits and that their mistakes cannot be compensated for with some manner of oversight.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Even if the kids ARE obese, possible even due to a terrible diet, it doesn't necessarily imply neglect on a level that would warrant losing your kids over it. I'd have to agree that the better route would be education and in specific localities just raising the general standard of livinng.
I also changed the title of this thread, since "bad parenting" is a bit misleading.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
But how many kids are affected by geography? I would think that, as many smog- or pollen-infested regions as there are in the US, the numbers would also be in the millions.
My husband and I are thinking about having kids soon and I've been talking to my Mom a lot. When she had myself and my sister's the hospital and local YMCA put on childbirth/parenting an infant classes for ~$20. She had such a good time and found it so helpful to meet other expecting parents that my mom took this class three times. Similar classes today cost several hundred dollars.
Yeah, parents would have to be motivated enough to sign up but I think most parents are. Especially if the classes are well run and offer opportunities for discussion. Even if the presenter doesn't have an answer for their question, maybe someone else there will.
EDIT: Some recent research is actually pointing towards roaches as being a bigger factor in the sky high rates of asthma in lower income city dwelling children than second hand smoke or smog.