Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was a point to the question. Surely you could see it.
Yes, and there was a point to my sarcasm. Just because a parent doesn't believe in leaving their kid in the park by himself doesn't mean they are generally overprotective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
I don't think it's a silly argument because I believe we, as parents, are becoming way too paranoid and protective of our children. I believe we are stifling these kids and not letting them grow to their full potential and independence by shielding them.
I think very few parents (including those who agree with me on this subject) are actually doing this. I think it's more something you hear about from someone else who is quick to assume than something that's truly happening.
A theory powered only by attitude. One that has not been tested and only makes sense by way of non sequiturs like "A parent who won't let their kid play at the park unsupervised is paranoid".
Yes, and there was a point to my sarcasm. Just because a parent doesn't believe in leaving their kid in the park by himself doesn't mean they are generally overprotective.
I think very few parents (including those who agree with me on this subject) are actually doing this. I think it's more something you hear about from someone else who is quick to assume than something that's truly happening.
A theory powered only by attitude. One that has not been tested and only makes sense by way of non sequiturs like "A parent who won't let their kid play at the park unsupervised is paranoid".
If you are allowing your child other measures of freedom and responsibility, I'd say the place where you do it is moot. I thought that point would be rather clear. I guess not.
If you are allowing your child other measures of freedom and responsibility, I'd say the place where you do it is moot. I thought that point would be rather clear. I guess not.
Not when people on this thread keep wanting to talk about parents being overprotective and paranoid when it isn't the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
There was a story awhile back about a girl who was kidnapped, quite literally, right from behind her mother's back. The mother heard the girl talking one minute, didn't hear her, turned around and she was gone. I believe this girl was between 6-9 years old and they were at a community baseball game. This was a chance incident. Had the mother had her eyes on the girl the whole time, this wouldn't have happened. However is this feasible? Is this an overall healthy way to raise a child? Some things do happen by chance and sometimes we, as parents, are only protecting our children against our imagined fears. And at the cost of their healthy psyche.
I'm not into blaming the parents when things like this happen. But it's one reason to at least have your child next to you and never behind you when you go to public events like this. Is it feasible? I don't see why not. Both parent and child can enjoy the game just fine sitting next to each other. Nothing is harmed by it.
Not when people on this thread keep wanting to talk about parents being overprotective and paranoid when it isn't the subject.
Hmmm. I'll have to disagree. I also think you are being deliberately obtuse and difficult. Had you simply said, "I'm not comfortable with leaving my child at the park but he does bike down to his friend's house alone and hangs out there" I wouldn't have batted an eye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I'm not into blaming the parents when things like this happen. But it's one reason to at least have your child next to you and never behind you when you go to public events like this. Is it feasible? I don't see why not. Both parent and child can enjoy the game just fine sitting next to each other. Nothing is harmed by it.
I don't see why though. There must come a point in time when our kids don't have to be in our eyeline 24/7 (which is really what you are suggesting). I do think you are harming a child when you can't even let a child walk around with his friends at a baseball game and when you insist they stay rightbyyou.
At what age are kids allowed to do little things like this?
Hmmm. I'll have to disagree. I also think you are being deliberately obtuse and difficult. Had you simply said, "I'm not comfortable with leaving my child at the park but he does bike down to his friend's house alone and hangs out there" I wouldn't have batted an eye.
The point is, a parent shouldn't have to deal with accusations of being overprotective over this one thing. You and others should learn not to jump to conclusions. Without assumptions, you would find that not leaving a kid at the park without adult supervision is a perfectly rational choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
I don't see why though. There must come a point in time when our kids don't have to be in our eyeline 24/7 (which is really what you are suggesting).
Unless a person is at a public event 24/7, no, that is not what I am suggesting. Let me ask you something: When your kid is sitting on the couch watching TV, do you buckle them up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
I do think you are harming a child when you can't even let a child walk around with his friends at a baseball game and when you insist they stay rightbyyou.
At what age are kids allowed to do little things like this?
So now there are "friends" involved in the scenario. How many? And how old are they? Also, how big and how crowded is the baseball park? In what neighborhood in what city? How reliable is your child's cell phone and provider? It's not necessarily a "little thing".
I already said it's not all about age. There are many, many other factors to consider. How smart or responsible your kid is is only part of the equation.
The point is, a parent shouldn't have to deal with accusations of being overprotective over this one thing. You and others should learn not to jump to conclusions. Without assumptions, you would find that not leaving a kid at the park without adult supervision is a perfectly rational choice.
I'm sorry, but if it's your position that you won't let your kid hang out at a park and you take the view that it's somehow dangerous for them to be there and that you don't allow them that risk, then the onus is on you to clarify that you have other means of teaching them independence.
The logical conclusion for others to come to would be that you're not comfortable leaving them alone in any public venue, as it's been continually pointed out that parks are not inherently more dangerous than say riding your bike or walking to school.
The point is, a parent shouldn't have to deal with accusations of being overprotective over this one thing. You and others should learn not to jump to conclusions. Without assumptions, you would find that not leaving a kid at the park without adult supervision is a perfectly rational choice.
You do realize you are on a message board that engages in debates, right? The only way we have to communicate on here is through the written word. If you'd like your position more clearly understood, perhaps you should be more clear in your writings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Unless a person is at a public event 24/7, no, that is not what I am suggesting. Let me ask you something: When your kid is sitting on the couch watching TV, do you buckle them up?
Again, you are being obtuse. You know what I meant. I am with my children nearly 24/7. It is impossible to keep an eye on them ALL the time - whether it's in our backyard, at a game, at a festival, in the library, etc. Simply cannot be done.
No, I do not buckle my children up on the couch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
So now there are "friends" involved in the scenario. How many? And how old are they? Also, how big and how crowded is the baseball park? In what neighborhood in what city? How reliable is your child's cell phone and provider? It's not necessarily a "little thing".
I already said it's not all about age. There are many, many other factors to consider. How smart or responsible your kid is is only part of the equation.
:sigh:
I'm not sure why you are so defensive in your language towards me. Instead of being in attack mode, perhaps we can have a discussion with an exchange of ideas.
You could say, "I'm not comfortable with leaving my x year old walking alone, but I'd let him walk with his friends." There is no reason for your defensive, attacking behavior towards me.
I understand and accept differences in parenting techniques. I learn every day that things I do may be tweaked by my exposure to other ideas. However, I do not appreciate your tone towards me. Nor do I do appreciate your insistence on taking what I say and making it into something it wasn't.
I'm sorry, but if it's your position that you won't let your kid hang out at a park and you take the view that it's somehow dangerous for them to be there and that you don't allow them that risk, then the onus is on you to clarify that you have other means of teaching them independence.
The logical conclusion for others to come to would be that you're not comfortable leaving them alone in any public venue, as it's been continually pointed out that parks are not inherently more dangerous than say riding your bike or walking to school.
I'm sorry, but if it's your position that you won't let your kid hang out at a park and you take the view that it's somehow dangerous for them to be there and that you don't allow them that risk, then the onus is on you to clarify that you have other means of teaching them independence.
The logical conclusion for others to come to would be that you're not comfortable leaving them alone in any public venue, as it's been continually pointed out that parks are not inherently more dangerous than say riding your bike or walking to school.
All you had to do was say so.
We're not mindreaders.
As I've already said, teaching independence does not require leaving them at the park alone. Just leaving them alone in terms of not interfering and letting them do their own thing. This could be in a public place or at home.
Yes, conclude that I don't want my child left alone in public. But that's not all parents are being accused of.
If you're not a mindreader, don't act like one. Don't assume. Ask
My kid's already learned to be independent from playing in his room by himself, and he's not even 2 yet. He's learning social skills from playing with other kids in the room without adult supervision. He'll learn to be social from our guidance in the process. He's learning to enjoy the outdoors all the same with or without the presence of a parent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
No, I do not buckle my children up on the couch.
Okay then. I have to watch my kid, but only in certain situations. Not 24/7.
As I've already said, teaching independence does not require leaving them at the park alone. Just leaving them alone in terms of not interfering and letting them do their own thing. This could be in a public place or at home.
It's far from logical to conclude that just because a parent doesn't want their kid actually left alone in public that they're not teaching independence.
If you're not a mindreader, don't act like one. Don't assume. Ask
Dude, it's part of having a discussion. If we're discussing that it could be overprotective, then explain why you aren't. Otherwise you leave yourself open to assumptions.
I disagree that having a presence in a public place (even while not interfering) vs leaving them alone where they know they have to deal with situations without you are equivalent scenarios.
At some point your child is going to have to deal with being in public without you. We're trying to ascertain, in order to have a discussion, what that point would be for you, but you've never actually answered. In light of this conversation, it's a fair question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
My kid's already learned to be independent from playing in his room by himself, and he's not even 2 yet. He's learning social skills from playing with other kids in the room without adult supervision. He'll learn to be social from our guidance in the process. He's learning to enjoy the outdoors all the same with or without the presence of a parent.
What does that even mean? Toddlers are not equipped to be outdoors without an adult.
The question is, when will you let your child do things in the outside world without your immediate presence? If the answer is "not until he's 15", then fine.
Your answer as it stands is that you don't plan to leave him alone in public.
What conclusions are one supposed to draw from that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
