| ▲ | BeetleB 4 hours ago |
| Because I want a device for my kids to play games. Not communicate. Not buy stuff. Just play (local) games. Stuff like online communications will come at a later age. Absolutely no reason to start explaining that to a 5 year old. And absolutely no reason to have all 3 bundled in one. > Take an earnest interest in your child's activities, both online and offline. Guide them how to behave in strange, even weird and scary situations with strangers. Be the reliable adult in their life to whom they can tell when they encounter something unpleasant, online or offline. Under the guidance of a parent your children will be safer than behind any amount of protective layers that these so called child-safety apps provide, and they will also know how to help their friends to navigate risk and avoid danger. Everything you just said is true for gun ownership as well! |
|
| ▲ | squibonpig 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Gun ownership isn't a terrible example honestly. I would have been probably 8 or so when I was allowed to traipse around in the woods near my dad's house with a BB gun, following extensive safety teaching of course. We would go out in the yard and shoot a shotgun and a rifle around that same age. People are probably not careful enough with guns right now in America given the stats, but it's not at all unreasonable in a rural context for a relatively young kid to be trusted with use of a firearm, even for short unsupervised periods. The real thing that a parent has to do (beyond still waiting until an appropriate age) is to extensively drill in the safety habits and proper use and know their kid well enough to determine whether they're ready for that responsibility. |
| |
| ▲ | ip26 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe the analogy here is you can buy only one kind of gun. That gun can load any ammunition. It’s easy for children to get their hands on anything from bb’s to BMG50. The gun has parental controls to allow selecting which ammunition the gun will accept. It’s up to the parents to decipher the difference between all the types, and the out-of-box default is all types are allowed. Some commenters admonish parents for trying to use these parental controls at all. “Just be good parents and instruct your 6 year old not to use hollow point, 7.62mm, or fmj” | |
| ▲ | BeetleB 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, but do you understand that it's perfectly reasonable to be able to buy a toy gun and not have to explain gun safety to them? Or would you recommend that all toy guns have the ability to be dangerous and all parents should train them because of the prevalence of guns in society? | | |
| ▲ | sojsurf 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | A few thoughts: - Perhaps we have different ideas of the appropriate age to wean kids off of toys and teach them to use real (and sometimes dangerous) things. Today's discussion is about guns, but the same could be said for boats, motorcycles, woodworking equipment, etc. I would like my children to be well rounded and well equipped when they become adults. However, I acknowledge that this may not be normal anymore: Many families seem to be content with their teenagers playing games all day long (ironically, games with guns!) - It sounds like you have the gun in a "toy" category. For my kids, guns are absolutely not in the toy category. They are tools, used for hunting and protection, and access to these tools comes with guard rails and significant responsibility. I would rather my kids never get used to guns as toys. - This is bigger than just personal decisions: In my state, teenagers used to be allowed to work on construction sites in the summers. By the time they graduated, many of these guys had real skills they could support their family with. In our rush to protect kids, this kind of work is no longer taught in classes or available as summer work for young people. We have made it increasingly hard for young people to "grow up"! | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Unsupervised access to most dangerous tools can wait until they're teenagers. Dangerous tools shouldn't be the only option. | |
| ▲ | crusty 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How big are your feet? Because the shoe horn you just used to squeeze your barely veiled disdain for parentting "choices" that aren't like yours into this thread about user-adversarial parental settings by major game system manufacturers was massive. | | |
| ▲ | sojsurf 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This thread was a follow-up to squibonpig's comment about the parental responsibility and the value of giving young people access to things that are dangerous when it's done with proper guidance. I agree with him, with the caveat that "the internet" is dangerous more like a city at night than a gun. |
| |
| ▲ | BeetleB 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > For my kids, guns are absolutely not in the toy category. They are tools, used for hunting and protection, and access to these tools comes with guard rails and significant responsibility. The same is true for cars. Are you also against toy cars? > By the time they graduated, many of these guys had real skills they could support their family with. In our rush to protect kids, this kind of work is no longer taught in classes or available as summer work for young people. We have made it increasingly hard for young people to "grow up"! This is a totally different issue from access to games. Why couple the two? Are you implying one cannot be taught those skills if they have access to games? | | |
| ▲ | sojsurf 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Are you implying one cannot be taught those skills if they have access to games? Nah, I think games can be very valuable, especially communal, in-person games. I don't mind access to games at all... I think I look at the various forces around children and teens today, and it feels like we've taken away a lot of the things that were very valuable for development because they might be dangerous, and replaced them with replicas that are safe but lack some of the value and experience that came with the dangerous thing. As an example, hunting games are safer than hunting, but hunting games do not teach you to be patient and still for hours, they do not teach gun safety, they do not teach you to stick it out when things get cold and uncomfortable. They do not teach you how to do something useful with the animal after you shot it, and there is no real cost to being sloppy and injuring but not killing an animal that is now suffering in the woods. I'm sure you've heard people talk about the "infantilization" of young adults. What factors do you see behind this? How would you suggest we teach young people how to do hard things? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | elros 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| On a certain level, it’s also a question of different parenting philosophy. > Stuff like online communications will come at a later age. Absolutely no reason to start explaining that to a 5 year old. I agree, but I also see absolutely no reason why 5 years old children would have access to a gaming device. Pretty much any other activity I can imagine is better for them. |
| |
| ▲ | krupan 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | We got an Atari computer when I was 5. I was allowed to play Pac-Man and Donkey Kong for as long as I wanted. Turns out, those games were not designed by the same people who make slot machines, and they got frustrating pretty quickly and I chose to go do other things. This scenario not even being an option today is what most people are complaining about here. | |
| ▲ | BeetleB 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I agree, but I also see absolutely no reason why 5 years old children would have access to a gaming device. Pretty much any other activity I can imagine is better for them. I suggest expanding your imagination skills. There are definitely worse activities, like watching TV. And there's physical limit to how much physical activity one can be doing. There's definitely a point of diminishing returns there. And the skills one can develop with carefully curated games are hard to reproduce in any entertaining manner. I mean, sure, I could have him do math but it's a lot more boring. Playing games is definitely an "and", not an "exclusive or" proposition. I was given access to computer games at that age and I'm definitely appreciative for it. I only realized the value when I was well into my 30s. | | |
| ▲ | soperj 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > And there's physical limit to how much physical activity one can be doing Do you hang out with many 5 year olds? They're made of energy. > I could have him do math but it's a lot more boring I did Math all the time with my 5 year old and he loved it, but then I also love math, and it's easy to make fun. | | |
| ▲ | BeetleB 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fair points, but understand that this is a multidimensional issue, with each dimension being a continuum. I know plenty of people using the exact same arguments to argue that kids should not waste time with Lego. There are better physical activities. | | |
|
|
|
