Would you allow your 13 year old child on this forum?

[Agnapostate]

what are you talking about?

I'd entirely scrap consideration of age based on individual appraisal of liberty. There's many a 12 year old that's more mature than a 16 year old, and many a 16 year old that's more mature than a 26 year old, for that matter.

we rely on hearing of news that this has happened and discussing this with our children. It is you who has the problem with the number.

No, what I have a problem with is anyone believing that tabloidism is a sufficient substitute for empirical research that indicates the opposite of what the propagandists care to assert.

Again it is you who has the problem with the number. Not making your child aware of situations which could be dangerous to that child is negligence.

Then have you provided similar information of the statistically greater dangers that your immediate and extended family pose than people on the Internet?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

There's way too much wild-:moon:, off-the-wall, crazy :toilet: on here that his impressionable 13yo brain isn't ready to deal with.

G.

I have a 15 year old. I was amazed at the level of exposure that she had at middle school. I think you probably just don't know what his impressionable brain is dealing with daily.

 

[alexa]

Then have you provided similar information of the statistically greater dangers that your immediate and extended family pose than people on the Internet?

You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about this. It is off topic anyway except where it relates to internet safety in using this and any other site. Your suggestions are getting absurd.

 

[Grateful Heart]

I would not allow my 13-y/o to post on this board. Posting on message boards is a bad habit and a waste of perfectly good time. I am guilty as charged.

I'd no more introduce my child to message boards than I'd introduce them to cigarettes.

I've weaned myself off boards as much as possible but not been able to quit completely. Wish me luck!

:2wave:

 

[Arcana XV]

Yes, under my supervision and definitely NO Basement.

My kid and I talk about politics all the time and I often show her someone's post on here that will trigger an interesting discussion between the two of us.

 

[Goshin]

I have a 15 year old. I was amazed at the level of exposure that she had at middle school. I think you probably just don't know what his impressionable brain is dealing with daily.

Look, my son and I talk freely about everything. I know exactly what sort of crazy **** he is dealing with in middle school. I simply see no need to add to it.

 

[Agnapostate]

You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about this. It is off topic anyway except where it relates to internet safety in using this and any other site. Your suggestions are getting absurd.

Nope! None of my suggestions have been "absurd"; they've merely been based on consultation of statistical reality instead of media tabloidism. :shrug:

But w/e.

 

[mikhail]

A 13 year old should have better things to do then spend their time on here.

 

[Agnapostate]

Shouldn't we all, in a sense? :rofl

 

[Inferno]

Shouldn't we all, in a sense? :rofl

Yes we should. But some of us from time to time don't.

 

[Tucker Case]

Of course I would. Basement, sex and sexuality, Annoucements / Forum News, all of 'em.

There's nothing, absolutely NOTHING on this forum that'll screw my future kid up more than having me as a father will.

 

[Agnapostate]

It's all about genes, amirite? :rofl

 

[Tucker Case]

It's all about genes, amirite? :rofl

Nah, I could **** up an adopted kid just as bad.

 

[Dav]

Of course I would. Basement, sex and sexuality, Annoucements / Forum News, all of 'em.

There's nothing, absolutely NOTHING on this forum that'll screw my future kid up more than having me as a father will.

...Dad? Is that you?

 

[Bodi]

Would you allow your 13 year old child to read and post on this forum?

I would if she was already a mother...

 

[FlappyTheKinkajou]

Why? Some kids have much to say that adults could learn from. They are not as cynical and jaded.

Not in my experience as far as politics goes.

 

[Inferno]

Not in my experience as far as politics goes.

They may not have historical context but they certainly can understand the workings of politics and who is good and who is bad.

 

[Inferno]

I would if she was already a mother...

How about if she wasn't a mother but had 3 abortions already would that work? :shock:

 

[FlappyTheKinkajou]

They may not have historical context but they certainly can understand the workings of politics and who is good and who is bad.

You said "as much to say that adults can learn from."

 

[alexa]

Nope! None of my suggestions have been "absurd"; they've merely been based on consultation of statistical reality instead of media tabloidism. :shrug:

you said

Then have you provided similar information of the statistically greater dangers that your immediate and extended family pose than people on the Internet?

This began with my saying that my prime importance with a 13 year old child of mine would be that s/he knew how to keep themselves safe on the internet and in later posts clarified that it was impossible to know who anyone you are talking to is.

I also pointed out that I have never had to deal with this situation as my daughter was over the age of 13 before any unsavory activity started on the internet. In fact she was 14 before I got a computer in 1995

I further pointed out that when my child was 13 she and her friends were aware of most of the scams which were going on anyway including some of the ones I was unaware of.

From the beginning you got on your hobby horse about how in the US (not where I live and I have not heard of the people you mentioned who apparently go on and on about this) there is an over emphasis on the danger to children and you appeared to be critical of any suggestions to children to be aware they did not know who they were talking to - which was what I was suggesting.

My own belief on the need to be aware is simply because of a few real cases we have had here. If I had a 13 year old I would not want them making arrangements in quiet to go off and meet someone they had met on the internet. That is my opinion and no amount of you huffing and puffing is going to change that.

As it happens and something which I also mentioned in my first post, my daughter knew anyway by 13 how to take care of herself so the likelihood of that happening anyway was highly unlikely. That does not change the fact that some children do and does not change the fact that I would want my child to be aware that she does not know who she is speaking to on the net and should be aware it could be anyone.

That you then suggest I tell my daughter she is in as much danger from her extended family is absurd.

If I am wanting my child to know that when she is on the internet she has to take care I have no need to tell her that people who I know are of know danger to her may harm her.

If however I was educating my daughter on the statistics of various dangers and I had studied the one you mentioned and the statistics you gave were correct in this country then it would be appropriate to tell her that.

That however was not the case.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

In terms of discussion of such topics being an "indicator of internet predation," my libertarian sentiments of course also incline me to realize that application of such labels is merely one step closer to censorship empowered by disingenuous intellectual warfare that could ultimately constitute a far more negative element than mere discussion of said topics. I certainly didn't claim that anything was "clear cut and dry"; I merely thought it necessary to offer a clarification. Not all pedophiles are sexual offenders and not all sexual offenders against children are pedophiles. Even if the former assertion is accepted, some are prone to challenge the latter assertion no matter how detailed the explanation provided to them is, which is unfortunate.

And when discussing topics like an "indicator of internet predation", my anti-libertarian sentiments incline me to realize that behavioral predictors can be very accurate and useful and ignoring them for fear of labeling removes a valuable tool from ones arsenal.

But, I do agree with the second part of your statement: not all pedophiles are sexual offenders and not all sexual offenders are pedophiles, though the second group is more disputable than the first.

Then I suppose it's a matter of mere subjectivity. I think the phenomenon is minor enough to warrant conversational mention of it anomalous. But then again, I also don't believe that restricting children's access to information of any sort serves any meaningful purpose to begin with, and am more often greeted with anecdotal speculation than legitimate responses when I request the provision of empirical evidence that indicates that some legitimate harm is caused to children through exposure to certain media. IMO, the converse is more likely to be true. As put by Richard Farson, "a child's ignorance is a strong political ally of adult society, and adults have learned to rely heavily on it...Women have now come to recognize how being excluded from businessmen's luncheon clubs where the power elite of the business world plan and decide, has systematically denied them access to the kinds of information they need to gain leadership positions. The same kind of exclusion takes place with children, only more so."

Context and terminology is important. One does not discuss sex, for example, with a 4 year old in the same way as with a 12 year old. Restriction of information is not the issue. The ability to process the information is.

Again, I don't disagree. The problem that I identify is that operating primarily from that approach may create an incomplete and ultimately incorrect depiction of the actual dangers that children face in both their homes and the Internet. I believe it should be made clear that as a whole, children are frankly far more likely to encounter violent abuse in the former.

I am a relativist on most issues. However, there is a good point to explaining things the way that you are describing in an ancillary way; though a child may live with non-violent parents, they may not always be subjected to non-violent adults, Better to have that understanding than believe that how things are at home is how things are everywhere.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'd entirely scrap consideration of age based on individual appraisal of liberty. There's many a 12 year old that's more mature than a 16 year old, and many a 16 year old that's more mature than a 26 year old, for that matter.

In my opinion, this would be impossible to assess. What would your proposal around determining this, be?

 

[repeter]

Don't know many 13 year olds interested in politics.....

If there are some, no need to deny them, eh? I wasn't interested enough in politics to debate online when I was 13 (2 years ago) but I was definetely following events. I have a friend who has been stubborn, outspoken, and generally talkative forever. I've known him since he was 15 ( he's 17 now) but he had to have been mature enough to do this sort of thing.

 

[Goshin]

Originally Posted by Agnapostate
I'd entirely scrap consideration of age based on individual appraisal of liberty. There's many a 12 year old that's more mature than a 16 year old, and many a 16 year old that's more mature than a 26 year old, for that matter.

"Maturity" is a question-begging term. We use "he's mature for his age" to describe a child or teen that has more sense, intellect and self-restraint than is commonplace.

Maturity, however, is more than just those things. Experience is one of the greatest differences between an exceptionally intelligent 15yo and an average-intelligence 25yo. It is the difference between knowing something intellectually, because you read it in a book, and knowing something in your gut because it actually happened to you (or in your presence) IRL.

IIRC there is also the issue of brain structure maturity, that those parts of the brain relating to impulse control and so forth do not fully develop until around 20-25.

 

[repeter]

"Maturity" is a question-begging term. We use "he's mature for his age" to describe a child or teen that has more sense, intellect and self-restraint than is commonplace.

Maturity, however, is more than just those things. Experience is one of the greatest differences between an exceptionally intelligent 15yo and an average-intelligence 25yo. It is the difference between knowing something intellectually, because you read it in a book, and knowing something in your gut because it actually happened to you (or in your presence) IRL.

IIRC there is also the issue of brain structure maturity, that those parts of the brain relating to impulse control and so forth do not fully develop until around 20-25.

I'm 15. 3 years ago, I tested as smarter, and undoubtedly more mature then an 18 year old. I have had some crazy feelings before. I've felt intense anger, hatred, passion, lust, sadness, but I am have never let them control me. I've wanted to hurt people, I have wanted to hold people, to love them....but have never lost control. Goshin, it all depends on the person, and age's affect is simply one factor in a large list.