Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So now I'm paranoid for not thinking 4 is old enough to walk to school by yourself. Okayyyyy

How come four-year-olds used to be able to do it, and now they aren't?

You say they did. I never knew any 4yos who walked to school alone. I know my dad was walked to school by his teenage sister when he was 6. And that was the fifties. Somehow, he's the most capable independent person I've ever known.

I was the 4-year-old of whom they speak that walked to school on my own just outside of Washington, DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So now I'm paranoid for not thinking 4 is old enough to walk to school by yourself. Okayyyyy

How come four-year-olds used to be able to do it, and now they aren't?

You say they did. I never knew any 4yos who walked to school alone. I know my dad was walked to school by his teenage sister when he was 6. And that was the fifties. Somehow, he's the most capable independent person I've ever known.

The former four-year-olds say that they did, right here on this very thread on DCUM.

Actually, I did too, but not in the US.

[Anonymous]

Yes, kids who are neglected tend to be very independent at a young age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, I don't really understand why people keep saying that because they walked a certain distance from home when they were 4 or 6 and didn't get hurt, that means it was fine. When I was a kid, I never sat in a car seat. Ever. My parents didn't use seat belts. We are all just fine, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

They're not saying that it was fine. They're saying that they were capable of doing it. The proof that they were capable of doing it is that they actually did it. Therefore, people who say that 4-year-olds or 6-year-olds are not capable of doing it are wrong.

Not capable of doing it with an acceptable level of safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So now I'm paranoid for not thinking 4 is old enough to walk to school by yourself. Okayyyyy

How come four-year-olds used to be able to do it, and now they aren't?

You say they did. I never knew any 4yos who walked to school alone. I know my dad was walked to school by his teenage sister when he was 6. And that was the fifties. Somehow, he's the most capable independent person I've ever known.

I was the 4-year-old of whom they speak that walked to school on my own just outside of Washington, DC.

I also climbed trees; swam in creeks; raised frogs from tadpoles; played in the mud; and frolicked in the woods. *GASP*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, I don't really understand why people keep saying that because they walked a certain distance from home when they were 4 or 6 and didn't get hurt, that means it was fine. When I was a kid, I never sat in a car seat. Ever. My parents didn't use seat belts. We are all just fine, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

They're not saying that it was fine. They're saying that they were capable of doing it. The proof that they were capable of doing it is that they actually did it. Therefore, people who say that 4-year-olds or 6-year-olds are not capable of doing it are wrong.

People aren't saying they aren't capable, they are saying that there are situations and dangers that an adult recognizes that a child does not. My six year old cousin was perfectly capable of going to the park without an adult, but if he had been with an adult, he would not have been hit by a car. Another child is not adequate supervision and it is not fair to a child to expect him to shoulder a responsibility that should be an adult's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So now I'm paranoid for not thinking 4 is old enough to walk to school by yourself. Okayyyyy

How come four-year-olds used to be able to do it, and now they aren't?

You say they did. I never knew any 4yos who walked to school alone. I know my dad was walked to school by his teenage sister when he was 6. And that was the fifties. Somehow, he's the most capable independent person I've ever known.

The former four-year-olds say that they did, right here on this very thread on DCUM.

Actually, I did too, but not in the US.

So what? That doesn't support the notion that "four year olds can do it". My brother could read at 2. Doesn't mean "two year olds can read".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So now I'm paranoid for not thinking 4 is old enough to walk to school by yourself. Okayyyyy

How come four-year-olds used to be able to do it, and now they aren't?

You say they did. I never knew any 4yos who walked to school alone. I know my dad was walked to school by his teenage sister when he was 6. And that was the fifties. Somehow, he's the most capable independent person I've ever known.

I was the 4-year-old of whom they speak that walked to school on my own just outside of Washington, DC.

I also climbed trees; swam in creeks; raised frogs from tadpoles; played in the mud; and frolicked in the woods. *GASP*

So did I. With my dad, until I was about 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, I don't really understand why people keep saying that because they walked a certain distance from home when they were 4 or 6 and didn't get hurt, that means it was fine. When I was a kid, I never sat in a car seat. Ever. My parents didn't use seat belts. We are all just fine, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

They're not saying that it was fine. They're saying that they were capable of doing it. The proof that they were capable of doing it is that they actually did it. Therefore, people who say that 4-year-olds or 6-year-olds are not capable of doing it are wrong.

Not capable of doing it with an acceptable level of safety.

Capable of doing it safely, evidently. As for acceptable -- that depends on the person who's doing the accepting or non-accepting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, I don't really understand why people keep saying that because they walked a certain distance from home when they were 4 or 6 and didn't get hurt, that means it was fine. When I was a kid, I never sat in a car seat. Ever. My parents didn't use seat belts. We are all just fine, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

They're not saying that it was fine. They're saying that they were capable of doing it. The proof that they were capable of doing it is that they actually did it. Therefore, people who say that 4-year-olds or 6-year-olds are not capable of doing it are wrong.

Not capable of doing it with an acceptable level of safety.

Capable of doing it safely, evidently. As for acceptable -- that depends on the person who's doing the accepting or non-accepting.

You do get that just because nothing bad happened that doesn't mean it was safe, right? See earlier no-seatbelt example. Most people who never wore seatbelt survived. Should we not require them? Should we not require car seats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So what? That doesn't support the notion that "four year olds can do it". My brother could read at 2. Doesn't mean "two year olds can read".

It doesn't mean that all two-year-olds can read, but it actually does mean that two-year-olds can read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, I don't really understand why people keep saying that because they walked a certain distance from home when they were 4 or 6 and didn't get hurt, that means it was fine. When I was a kid, I never sat in a car seat. Ever. My parents didn't use seat belts. We are all just fine, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

They're not saying that it was fine. They're saying that they were capable of doing it. The proof that they were capable of doing it is that they actually did it. Therefore, people who say that 4-year-olds or 6-year-olds are not capable of doing it are wrong.

Not capable of doing it with an acceptable level of safety.

Capable of doing it safely, evidently. As for acceptable -- that depends on the person who's doing the accepting or non-accepting.

You do get that just because nothing bad happened that doesn't mean it was safe, right? See earlier no-seatbelt example. Most people who never wore seatbelt survived. Should we not require them? Should we not require car seats?

Not wearing seatbelts actually is safe, unless you get into a wreck. How often do people get in wrecks? Often enough to justify wearing a seatbelt, especially since wearing a seatbelt has a lot of benefits and very few costs. How often did four-year-olds walking to school by themselves get into the equivalent of a car-wreck while walking to school by themselves? And what are the costs vs. benefits of not allowing four-year-olds to walk to school by themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, kids who are neglected tend to be very independent at a young age.

And kids who are coddled are whiny, anxious, have attention issues and run to Mommy for everything. They also say " I am bored" all the times because they can't entertain themselves.

[Anonymous]

Accidents are the number one killer of teens.

Yet we still let them drive.

If you really looked at the risk factors of a teen driving, the chances of death are waaaaaaay higher than a 10-year-old walking home from the park.

So are you neglecting your duties as a parent by letting your teen drive and having their best chance of dying by doing so?

[Anonymous]

Doesn't matter what I think... it's what CPS, and ultimately a judge thinks.

Allowing the children to stay with parents who repeatedly ignore what CPS tells them not to do, is not a great way to get CPS to say that it is the kids best interest to reamain with their parents. At best you are rolling the dice that they will say it's not worth putting the kids in foster care, at worst you lose your kids... not a gamble i think any parent, who wants to keep their kids would take.