> But then, this is a gov't that does not trust its citizens to raise their own children, or even historically to decide how many kids to have.
The Chinese government is worse than most others, but not for this reason. All governments and societies make all kinds of "tyrannical" rules about raising children, in the name of limiting harm to children. This is no different.
In Germany, the government does not trust parents to home-school their children
In the US, legal adults between the ages of 18 and 21 can decide to join the Army, travel to exotic lands and die there. The same adults are not trusted to make the decision of buying and drinking beer.
> In Germany, the government does not trust parents to home-school their children
This is to protect children from their parents, this "anti-excessive-gaming" bullshit is directly attacking personal agency!
If you have the resources (time, money, teachers etc.) to get your children the same education they would get in a (german) public school you might as well found a private one. This is even incentivized by federal and local government. ("Freie Trägerschaft")
(Anecdotal warning:) Everyone I've met (about a dozen people) who wanted to home school their children did so for a specific reason. They were religious, wanted their kid to hold the same religious/esoteric views and thought their kid was their property. Most (older) kids were very happy they could visit an actual school.
>If you have the resources (time, money, teachers etc.) to get your children the same education they would get in a (german) public school you might as well found a private one.
Unless Germany's public school education somehow doesn't show its results on tests like PISA then this shouldn't be too difficult to provide to one or two kids. More than that would make it way harder. And I'm sure that if you did try to found a private school you'd have to deal with a mile long list of inane regulations as seems standard in all aspects of Germany.
Just an example of the absurd regulations in a different subject: Germany requires a license to stream to more than 500 people and they've actually enforced this on streamers. The license can cost €10k.
> Just an example of the absurd regulations in a different subject: Germany requires a license to stream to more than 500 people and they've actually enforced this on streamers. The license can cost €10k.
This information is outdated and misleading. Since 2020, licenses for public broadcast are only required for broadcasts which, averaged over six months, exceed 20000 viewers and have significant importance for the formation of public and private opinion [1].
Prior to this change, some streamers had indeed been forced to acquire such a license (although there were more conditions than just regularly having 500 viewers). Also, licenses for streamers actually cost around 1000-2500 €, instead of the 10000 € you claimed. In addition, there was an exception for cases where this would be an undue hardship [2]. The regulator basically agreed that this was pretty silly, but that it planned to enforce the law as written (as is its job), until it was changed (which it has been).
Maybe it's different in the USA, but I feel like public school was a complete waste of my time.. I'd read through the entirety of all the textbooks in the first couple of weeks of the school year and learn everything a kid my age was expected to know. Then I'd sit in class for 5 hours a day for 9 months, reading pulp sci-fi, shuffling a deck of cards, or just moping with my head on my arms. I came out of it with such a bad work ethic that I almost flunked out of college in the first quarter
My cousin is home-schooling her daughters, and they're all years ahead of kids their same age while only needing to study ~9 hours a week. They have two full weekdays devoted to social activities with other homeschooled kids. It looks really amazing IMO
Where I grew up in a liberal big city, the only home-schooled kids I met were super well-educated children of professionals, and were way ahead of both public and private school kids. I was a lot like you - always finished my homework before class was over, read all the materials and was bored in school most of the time. I was jealous of the home-schooled kids. My parents would say, "well but it's good to be around people your own age," but the home-schooled kids had plenty of friends. That gave me the idea that homeschooling was a better way.
That was before I met home-schooled kids from the rest of the country, where it had nothing to do with giving them a better education; it had a lot to do with limiting their education, and forcing them into a fundamentalist Christian or Mormon ideology. Those kids really didn't get out to socialize much, and they didn't get a good education, either.
I think parents have a right to homeschool their kids, and a government ban on that scares me. But I also think the parents need to meet or exceed the qualifications of the teachers who would otherwise be teaching, and [edit][strikethrough]the government[/strikethrough] *society* has some interest in preventing someone from having 48 children and forming a cult.
So like a lot of other stuff extremist wackos do, "this is why we can't have nice things." The goal is to walk a fine line in the center where government can stop crazy people from using freedoms to do crazy things, while still allowing sane people to have the rights and privileges they need as free individuals within the framework of society.
That's a good point, the government has to decide where to draw the line between parents' freedom to educate their kids and kids' freedom to have access to an actual first world education
I think having to pass standardized tests as homeschooled kids makes sense
I'm always surprised how people in the US immediately lose their shit at the sight of a child locked in a car. Like yes it is dangerous but it does not automatically make the parent the most horrible person to ever exist.
The idea of an unsupervised child being being cooked in a car as hot as an oven is unsettling to most. Doesn't take long for a child to succumb to the heat.
Only couple of months ago in my area a mum had left a 3 year old and baby in the car, walked into her house and fell asleep for an hour. She woke up, realised what happened, ran to the car and the kids were dead. Another more recent incident occurred where a child was left in a day care bus unknowingly by the driver. He did not inspect the seats prior to locking up the bus outside in the sun. The child was found dead when he got back in the bus that afternoon.
People gather even if the car is on and the AC is clearly on full blast and the blinkers are on clearly indicating that the adult has just left in the last few minutes.
My wife was screamed at by someone who thought there was zero risk involved in bringing the little ones through an incredibly busy parking lot where everyone drives SUVs and oversized trucks. It’s as if they couldn’t imagine a situation where the parents have already done the risk analysis and determined it is far less safe walking a pack of kids through the jungle of death machines.
Why are you trying to convince us leaving kids unsupervised in car parks is no big deal? You walk with the child in hand or if you're really concerned just pick them up. Point is there is a responsible parent who is watching and looking after the kids. Parenting isn't easy, its annoying to take kids in for short trip to shops, but you just have to do it.
If there are multiple kids, it is clearly more risky to walk them through a busy parking lot.
Edit. For those interested in the risk analysis side:
“ On average, 38 children under the age of 15 die each year from heatstroke after being left in a vehicle. Nearly every state has experienced at least one death since 1998. In both 2018 and 2019 a record number of 53 children died after being left in a hot vehicle.”
..
“ an average of 50 children per week are injured by being backed over in a parking lot or driveway. Despite the increasing prevalence of back-up cameras in vehicles, parking lots remain dangerous for families due to: Driver distraction (looking for a perfect spot or other in-vehicle distractions)”
Nothing to do with risk, everything to do with supervision. A person sees a child in a car alone, they don't create a risk assessment with instant access to available stats in their brain. They see a child alone and immediately think 'where are their parents?'. When you see those horror stories in the news a person's first thought is 'where are their parents?'. Regardless of the overall risk, people will always ask 'where are the parents?'. You've obviously experienced the negative consequences of these actions and are attempting to prove in whatever way that leaving the kids unsupervised is the best option, but that is generally not acceptable in the wider community.
"Acceptable in the wider community" is a fairly poor standard to go on. Hitting your child with a belt was acceptable until recently (and still is, in many places).
It's only in the past 15 years that our histrionic society has decided that in all instances, without exception, that leaving your children unsupervised in a car is attempted murder.
My parents used to leave me in the car from time to time, they always made sure the window was cracked, the car was out of direct sunlight, and the sunshade was put on the windscreen. On the other hand, the thing that came closest to killing me (multiple times) was traffic.
That said, here in Australia, apparently parents leaving their kids in the car while they go to the pub to play pokies (slot machines) is enough of a problem that venues have signs reminding people not to leave children in cars. The pub round the corner from my place even has a kids playground, which I suspect was put in to stop parents leaving their kids in the car.
The hitting a child with a belt is a weird analogy. I don't think it's as acceptable as you think it was. Yes we all probably experienced it growing up, but how many times do you see a child given the belt in public? Did you ever see someone walk up to a parent with a crying child and ask 'why haven't you given them a flogging? You can use my belt if you want'. It's always done behind closed doors out view. An adult hitting child is always likely to spur negative emotions in people and opinions are likely to change.
That is completely different to kids in cars, there wont be a time where we will decide 'Hey maybe leaving them in the car is better.', it just wont happen.
Society views always change, that should be obvious to anyone. Events that shock people change the way we think about certain situations. Kids dying in cars as hot as oven's is one of them.
‘My parents used to do it’, is also a poor standard to work from.
Those incidents I mentioned occurred in Australia. ‘Well the incident rate is low’, that’s because almost all parents take their kids with them. If we all decided to start leaving kids in cars then the number of incidents would increase.
You live in a community, if you take actions generally frowned upon by the majority of people, like it or not you will possibly receive some negative consequences, especially if it involves children. Likewise a business like a pub would be trying to avoid an incident with a child left in a car while their parents played their addictive pokies. No business wants to deal with those negative consequences.
“ You live in a community, if you take actions generally frowned upon by the majority of people, like it or not you will possibly receive some negative consequences, especially if it involves children. ”
This is the logic used by people who call the police on children walking to the park without an adult. These are commonly people who watch a lot of news (and are therefore more misinformed according to multiple studies) and who would fail basic knowledge tests on actual risks of various activities.
Stop pretending you're more 'informed' then others or an expert on risk management. You think leaving multiple kids in a car with the engine on is effective risk management. Now you're trying to convince us it's weird that someone would ring the police if they saw a child wandering the streets without a parent. So they are too young to manage a carpark and its best they stay locked in a car, but letting them wonder off to the park on their own across how many roads is fine. People who would be concerned are generally stupid and watch too much news.
This is all one big joke. I think I'm about finished arguing the absurd.
Until 10 to 15 years ago, all of that was completely normal, and kids did not die en masse. Consider why you think the world is drastically more dangerous than it used to be. Is it based on fact, or is it based on living in a culture of fear?
It was never normal to let say a 3 year old walk unsupervised to a park which may have roads and vehicles on the way. You have simply been misled into the idea of that safety is synonymous with fear.
I like a good internet 'debate', why I don't know. If It comes across as aggressive I apologise, It's more arguing the point then the person. 'Nothing personal' as they say.
Well first risk analysis doesn't work like that. Second leaving ur kids unsupervised in a car is illegal in most states here. Hell in most states it's legal for me to break your car window if you do that to a freaking dog. so yea ur so wrong I'm pretty sure you're trolling us.
It’s clearly safer to leave a group of kids in the car with the air conditioning running while they are on their iPads for seven minutes then it is to bring them all through parking lots, regardless of how the media has distorted the risk of this situation ( Extreme cases are usually the result of drug addiction).
Totally not trolling, just pushing back against media misinformation.
No it’s not ‘safer’. You’re ‘stats’ don’t consider the fact that nearly all parents take their kids with them after parking the car. If parents on masse decided to leave their kids in the car then the number of incidents would greatly increase.
In what world would it be acceptable to leave multiple kids unattended with the car engine on?
Who lets their children run around in different direction around moving vehicles? Thats the whole point of having a parent present. Thats your responsibility... you go on about risk, but ignore the fact you should go another time or another shop if its too busy for you to manage multiple kids, find a car park closer to the entrance or find some help. Thats mitigating risk. Locking kids in cars with engines running is the exact opposite of risk mitigation.
I don't claim that any of this is easy, quite the opposite. But it was 'too hard' is not going to cut it.
You've completely distorted the statistics to justify, I assume your wife's actions. Imagine the scenario where instead of all parents taking their child with them into the shops, they all left their kids in the car with engine running. What do you think would happen to your statistics?
Man, the article was maybe 10% of the source code of that page.. what a bloated nightmare
[{"@type":"WebPageElement","isAccessibleForFree":"False","cssSelector":".content-container"}],"articleBody":"It happened on a mild day in March, in the quiet suburb in Virginia where I grew up....
In the US, legal adults between the ages of 18 and 21 can decide to join the Army, travel to exotic lands and die there. The same adults are not trusted to make the decision of buying and drinking beer.
They're trusted to join the Army which includes fairly strict supervision from the chain of command. This is more akin to drinking with your parents than going off by yourself.
"We are going to trust you to go into war - a stressful situation - and know who to kill and who not to kill, if need be... but no, we definitely won't let you sit at home and drink a beer, even if it is with your parents. That is criminal"
It is pretending to treat someone like a mature adult, with all of the responsibilities, but refusing to allow beer and bars, which are common recreational and social habits in the culture.
Voting and drinking ages used to both be 21. Notably, around 1969-1971 during the height of the Vietnam draft, 30 states lowered their drinking and voting ages to 18. Most of these went back to a drinking age of 21 by the early 1980s, but voting remained at 18. It was directly due to pressure from the anti-war movement.
Are there any other countries that enforce a daily time limit on an activity, whether for children or adults?
It seems either an activity (like smoking) is typically banned entirely or allowed; having it be partially allowed like this is difficult to enforce and consequently invites weird and invasive measures like these.
Yes, there are. Examples that immediately come to mind:
- Anyone driving a large vehicle for more than 9 hours per day, 56 in a week, and 90 over a two-week period in the European Union.
- Adults using a tanning under a sunlamp for more than one cycle in a 24 hour period in many countries (others, such as Australia, did ban them entirely).
- Children spending more than 10 hours per day in child care centers in many US states, such as Washington.
- Alcohol purchases are limited to certain times of day in many European countries (compare "No games between 10pm and 8am" in China).
Many of these are very difficult to enforce, and enforcement benefits from intrusive technology (such as tachographs) and even more so from intrusive AI (e.g. many EU countries were set to implement platforms to monitor truck drivers using AI, until the European Commission's Artificial Intelligence Act forced a change of plans).
I also disagree with the previous examples being as different in kind as you seem to think: e.g. the "no home-schooling" requirements, combined with mandatory attendance, still limits children's gaming time to something less than 19 hours on weekdays. Which is different from "no more than 1.5 hours", but only quantitatively, not qualitatively. And it certainly matches "the government does not trust its citizens to raise their own children", which was my main point.
All of your examples limit or prescribe hours of work. This implies that the remaining time is free. There is a fundamental difference between telling a minor what they have to do some hours of the day - e.g. go to school - and telling them how they must apportion the entire rest of their time when they've finished their work. "Free time" loses meaning if it's all surveilled and controlled. Truckers don't have to be watched when they're not driving. Adults, too, have all their time free when not working, to waste or use productively as they please. To say you're limited to the remaining 19 hours of the day just means you have 19 hours of free time. It's no longer free time if the government begins to restrict it for reasons that are outside its remit.
> All of your examples limit or prescribe hours of work.
Well, I guess you should give those examples another read. Unless you consider using a tanning bed to be work. Not to mention "buying alcohol at night".
You're allowed have sex. You're allowed to give someone money. But you're not give someone sex for money.
What China has done is take an arbitrary, ridiculous rule like that, and make it even more absurd. Imagine if they said that after 30 minutes, a massage is by definition sex. And if you do it more than 90 minutes a week, it's sex addiction.
It's just arbitrary ways of controlling the populace. I doubt if they care whether kids play games. It's just a way to start facial recognition for the social credit system early.
Feel free to name at least one government or society which has no such rules.
All societies have them, and many such rules are widely accepted by the societies that have them as beneficial. E.g. such laws are the reason parents are not allowed to expose their children to obscene images, even if the parents really are convinced that doing so would benefit their children.
Also, how is "not allowing homeschooling" tyrannical? Corona especially has shown us that the quality of education received at a school is much higher than at home. Every child deserves to not be held back by their parents in this way.
There are many, many cases in which home-school can lead to a better education quality than a public school.
It's not the same to have the parents purposefully owning and caring and dedicating to the education of the children and on the other side, an unexpected circumstance that causes your children to suddenly stay at home and try to follow an education program in which no one is prepared for such scenario.
Homeschool as a way of life is not comparable to what happened during/because of the pandemic.
"Not allowing homeschooling" in an absolute way is completely tyrannical.
> Corona especially has shown us that the quality of education received at a school is much higher than at home.
Among a population of parents who have a revealed preference not to home-school, sure. But it says nothing about outcomes among a population of parents who actually want to home-school their kids.
In the Corona case education was still the schools' responsibility, they (and the parents really) just were suddenly thrust into it with little prep or time to rearrange things.
This is very different to homeschooling.
Particularly with parents making a conscious decision to homeschool and properly planning how they're going to find the time.
> Corona especially has shown us that the quality of education received at a school is much higher than at home.
This definitely depends on whether those are the only two choices. If homeschooling includes the parents having the choice to send their kids to private academies of their choosing instead, then it's possible that homeschooling can be superior.
I don't know what it's like in the Netherlands, but in South Korea, with the very strong private academy culture, the public school system is actual comparatively subpar. Public schools are more useful for subjects like civics and history than more academic subjects like math and science.
On the contrary, the last couple of years (including corona) have shown how much misinformation governments and schools are willing to spread. I worry a lot about the best ways to shield my children from that.
> last couple of years (including corona) have shown how much misinformation governments and schools are willing to spread.
I'm genuinely curious--
What specifially are you talking about?
I'm having a really hard time coming up with harmful misinformation that is perpetuated intentionally by the education system (or government) in any western country...
At the beginning of the pandemic in the UK, the government was perpetuating misinformation about masks, recommending that people not wear them, even as East Asian countries had made them mandatory.[1][2][3][4] The same misinformation was also spread by US authorities, hoping this would alleviate the mask shortage for healthcare workers.[5][6] Some even admitted this later.[7]
With Trump (or maybe just the rise of social media in general) cancel culture has become rampant. The general discussion culture has become angrier and unforgiving. People feel they are fighting a war and the enemy has to be shut down at all cost.
With Corona and climate many people feel like literally their lives are at risk. With Corona, censorship of dissenting opinions has become the norm.
I don't want my kids to be taught that boys are bad by nature and have to be taught to be like girls, and girls are only good if they behave like boys.
I don't want my kids to be taught that they are inherently sexist or something-phobic if they are not gay or Trans, or merely approach somebody they are attracted to.
I don't want them to be taught that they are inherently racist and bad because they are white.
I don't want them to be taught that they are doomed because global warming will end the world in a couple of years.
I don't want them to be taught that capitalism exploits people and socialism is the only recourse.
I don't want them to be taught that they should listen to "experts" and believe the scientists. They should be taught critical thinking and doing science.
It's not to wrong tho. In many western countries you can not take your children of school. Or even have no real choice which school they may visit (if you can't pay for a private one that is) if you do not agree with your local schooling system that appears tyrannic in a way.
I am sure I can't find other examples. Not saying what china does is right, but we obviously haven't mastered raising children either.
> The same adults are not trusted to make the decision of buying and drinking beer.
My understanding is that studies showed that drinking before a certain age (on average of course) has a high chance of causing physiological brain deterioration, but I haven’t done any recent research to see if this was still a thing. The age requirement is the government not trusting their citizens not to damage themselves.
> The age requirement is the government not trusting their citizens not to damage themselves.
The incoherence is still there.
Not trusted not to damage themselves with alcool, but trusted to be given weapons and sent to the far side of the world where quite a few people would love to get their heads or, barring that, at least kill them?
From the little research I’ve done, soldiers have greater chances of dying violently, being maimed, of remaining traumatised years after their service, and of killing themselves once back home (apparently more kill themselves after than are killed in action by enemy bullets [1]).
How is letting them enlist not letting them damage themselves?
It isn’t, because the average age of the enlisted soldier is less than 21. So if they actually went all the way and bothered being aligned with themselves and their supposed values, they’d bar anyone less than 21 from joining the army and lose many, many, of what are probably the most easy to recruit recruits.
What does society lose if enlisting before 21 is banned? Most of its recruits. The military would be in ruins, the strength of the country on the battlefield in jeopardy.
What does society lose if drinking before 21 is banned? Some revenue for brewing companies and associated tax income, which are easily compensated by having saved significant amounts of brain cells in young adults to have an impact on the economy for generations.
Everything government is a tradeoff. And in politics. And in life.
I certainly know most things are arbitrations between needs and preferences.
However, pretending that preserving these precious young people even against themselves is of the utmost importance while still making such tradeoffs is hypocrisy.
There’s no shame in making such a choice, and wether or not it is a wrong one is a whole other matter.
The hypocrisy lies in pretending it isn’t what it is.
Also, other countries have an average age of 28 for their soldiers. And given that apparently the brain’s functions, and particularly the prefrontal cortex, aren’t all finished until 25[1], it seems like a sensible thing to wait a few years before relying on their judgement on how to apply the use of lethal force in more than stressful environments.
But then again, if one were to be cynical, one could say it makes them all the more easier to recruit.
Hmm, I went through the American educational system from elementary through grad school, and I never felt any social expectation to learn football, either the rules or how to actual play. Maybe it's a costal city versus middle America thing? (I grew up in NY and went to California for post secondary education)
If that's the case, then where is the crackdown on rampant underage drinking?
My college gives a presentation to freshman that essentially says "we know you're going to drink, so please drink responsibly and take care of yourself." And I personally think this is much better than telling kids to not drink underage.
It reminds me of parents who teach their kids abstinence and then are shocked to find them pregnant.
The Chinese government is worse than most others, but not for this reason. All governments and societies make all kinds of "tyrannical" rules about raising children, in the name of limiting harm to children. This is no different.
In Germany, the government does not trust parents to home-school their children
In the US, legal adults between the ages of 18 and 21 can decide to join the Army, travel to exotic lands and die there. The same adults are not trusted to make the decision of buying and drinking beer.