Why contemporary society is so very sensitive on safety

Page 1 of 1 [ 5 posts ] 

pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,732
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

18 May 2016, 10:50 am

Especially children safety,
At the same time I'm not saying that this is wrong.

At the same time I'm not saying that this is wrong.
What I mean is that a lot of people afraid to let their children play sports, and forbids them to engage in sports such as boxing, cycling, skiing, or the newer as skateboarding.

I myself as a child, but not practiced sports, because I had problems heatlh.

Recently I read an article about skateboarding, was the question a kid who got a medal, the names do not remember the comments below the article were full of outraged parents, how can you allow your children to do such things, and I think that's probably better that the kid has some passion, than would be some stupid fat man, in front of the TV, but safe.
Or a junkie, it's probably better to have a hobby, and positively is discharged their excess energy.

Unfortunately, Europe is degenerating, we all want to play it safe, no one wants to be a conqueror!! !

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 442AA1wNDD



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,169
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

19 May 2016, 1:01 pm

I guess it's because as medicine got better we got less used to tragedy and death; particularly for children, as one child out of two dying from infectious disease mean peoples were far less worried of them "only" hurting themselves.



seaweed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Age: 25
Posts: 1,362
Location: underwater

19 May 2016, 3:24 pm

i have some kind of radical ideas on this one.

so, in the early 1900s, the playground movement was beginning in the United States with 50% of cities already constructing fully equipped publicly funded playgrounds. in 1909, the journal of education published two major articles on the benefits of these new sanctioned spaces under the interests of “the value of physical activities in the proper training and development of children, the necessity of adequate and properly equipped play spaces for children, and the proper equipment of school buildings and properties to promote and secure the health of children.” but i think the impacts and implications of these interests are socially regressive, unsustainable, and unsuitable for children. hence why there are so few "conquerors" :wink:
i'll spare you the entire rant i have about adults designing spaces that condition children to behave in ways which conform to standards set by authoritative systems and diminish the interests of children by insisting the interests adults impose upon them are more valuable...but the paternalistic concept of adults defining what is and what isn't suitable for children's play and capitalizing on the values of safety and standardization is how i believe they rationalize promoting safe, boring, and supervised activities. it reiterates a normalized belief that children require protection and separation from adult spaces, and so this seemingly selfless gift of safe play spaces can also be considered from the perspective of adults oppressing children.

okay so, beyond the innate human concern to provide for and protect offspring, i think it is because adults who believe in the system or don't even notice the system want to maintain control. children can explore their physical abilities, social interests, and creative potential as long as it fits within the acceptable framework of play which adults have constructed for them. they can diverge but only so much, creating a false sense of freedom and a reliance on the system to dictate how to think and act. they grow up to feed the system and not dare question it in fear they will be rejected by it. they forget how to play, they forget how to create, and they forget how to escape from the confines of the reality constructed around them.
furthermore, the safety measures taken in the design of playgrounds make children less aware of potential bodily danger and dependent on a false sense of security. this effectively create dumb, docile children. "conquerors" disrupt the hierarchy, and so i believe the inclusion of children's safety in the built environment is a subversive act of

MIND CONTROL



pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,732
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

19 May 2016, 4:21 pm

seaweed wrote:
i have some kind of radical ideas on this one.

so, in the early 1900s, the playground movement was beginning in the United States with 50% of cities already constructing fully equipped publicly funded playgrounds. in 1909, the journal of education published two major articles on the benefits of these new sanctioned spaces under the interests of “the value of physical activities in the proper training and development of children, the necessity of adequate and properly equipped play spaces for children, and the proper equipment of school buildings and properties to promote and secure the health of children.” but i think the impacts and implications of these interests are socially regressive, unsustainable, and unsuitable for children. hence why there are so few "conquerors" :wink:
i'll spare you the entire rant i have about adults designing spaces that condition children to behave in ways which conform to standards set by authoritative systems and diminish the interests of children by insisting the interests adults impose upon them are more valuable...but the paternalistic concept of adults defining what is and what isn't suitable for children's play and capitalizing on the values of safety and standardization is how i believe they rationalize promoting safe, boring, and supervised activities. it reiterates a normalized belief that children require protection and separation from adult spaces, and so this seemingly selfless gift of safe play spaces can also be considered from the perspective of adults oppressing children.

okay so, beyond the innate human concern to provide for and protect offspring, i think it is because adults who believe in the system or don't even notice the system want to maintain control. children can explore their physical abilities, social interests, and creative potential as long as it fits within the acceptable framework of play which adults have constructed for them. they can diverge but only so much, creating a false sense of freedom and a reliance on the system to dictate how to think and act. they grow up to feed the system and not dare question it in fear they will be rejected by it. they forget how to play, they forget how to create, and they forget how to escape from the confines of the reality constructed around them.
furthermore, the safety measures taken in the design of playgrounds make children less aware of potential bodily danger and dependent on a false sense of security. this effectively create dumb, docile children. "conquerors" disrupt the hierarchy, and so i believe the inclusion of children's safety in the built environment is a subversive act of

MIND CONTROL


I still thing we need more daring dashing children who not afraid taking risk, the children than later grow up to become daring and dashing adults :D



ArielsSong
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2016
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 673
Location: Lancashire, UK

20 May 2016, 1:34 am

I definitely struggle a lot with understanding why people 'baby' their children so much. However, it doesn't affect me or my family so I'm not bothered by it. I just find it interesting.

I myself have a toddler. I give her as much freedom and independence (both physically and mentally) as I can without it affecting other people, but I feel that's definitely the atypical approach amongst the people I know. I've definitely been treated as though I'm weird for doing so, many times. And yet I'm often told "She's amazing. She behaves like a much older child!" - I believe it's simply because I let her develop at her own pace. I have no need to hold her back and I trust that nobody knows her better than she does.

Many people acted with disbelief when we spoke of the things she could do at a very young age. A lot never got to see the evidence and probably always thought I was lying. Those that saw first hand were shocked and amazed, and openly admitted that they thought I was making it all up. But I don't think she's 'special' or 'advanced' beyond what any child is capable of, if you believe in it.