Bad Parenting?

It wasn't me! · 24-05-2010 01:25PM

davyjose wrote: »

15 people have gone over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Ten have survived. Would you ascribe the same logic to a parent who allowed their child do that?

Not so much a daring feat of human accomplishment though, no?

Biggins · 24-05-2010 02:30PM

Think about it OP.

The parents managed to raise into the world a child that by passing on of high level skills, did something outstanding.
They taught their child to stay away from things that are of a bad un-natural nature (illegal drugs/drinks, etc).
They taught their child to gain the ability to further gain dedication and willingness to see ambition though to its successful outcome.
They taught their child to see the world as something to be explored with a touch of safety measures thrown in, not as a thing just to be feared and run away from.
They raised their child to be healthy.
They raised their child to be versatile clearly.
They raised their child with a wide education in the ways of the world besides just mainstream scholastic topics
....and that only the start.

Why on earth would the likes of social services be called in?

It wasn't me! · 24-05-2010 04:56PM

My parents encouraged me to play rugby, to go hill walking, to go swimming, to go rock-climbing, to cycle, to learn to drive and to always approach the world with a view to having an adventure in it. They picked me up when I fell, cleaned out my wounds when I injured myself and sought medical attention where appropriate. They didn't wrap me in cotton wool and cuddle me constantly for fear I might bruise myself on the corner of a table. They encouraged me to do many things that kill hundreds of people every year, and to act responsibly and carefully in so doing, to prepare myself for whatever I wanted to do. That's how to raise children. You can't protect them from everything, and shouldn't, either.

Smart Bug · 24-05-2010 05:31PM

stovelid wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd let my kid sail round the world as a teen but parenting is like the economy on AH: every fucking bellend in the country has an opinion without experience,,,,

Well buddy, everyone on here (unless they were reared in an orphanage) has had experience of being parented, so speaking for me that gives 'em authority to speak on it.

Sykk · 24-05-2010 05:44PM

stovelid wrote: »

You do.

If you don't: I'm not listening so don't answer?

Derp

Snowie · 24-05-2010 06:07PM

davyjose wrote: »

Impressive as it is, are these parents right in the head? Should social services be round? Put it this way, if every parent set their kid off round the world, or up a hill that kills a large number of adults each year (that even while at the top, your body begins to quit living), would it still be acceptable? My guess is they'd all be jailed.

Yeah they are the educating them in something that school seem unable to do Its called risk. Maybe you where wrapped up in cottin walla s child? or just braught up to be mr averdage jow and live your life the boreing way.

There also teaching there kids how to be independent, as wella s think for them selves which i totally agree with.

Personally speaking I was braught up in the sailing/moutainering life as a child at 8 i was climbing single pitch with my dad at 16 i was gfoing to wales for 4 weeks and climbing multi pitch with my friends, My dad a mum supported me.

Now when i started hanging around with abunch of the local douche bags my dad, turned round and had me a part time in his buisness why because Hanging around with a bunch of idiots when your 14 to 16 your liable to get your self into trouble, I never did get my self into much trouble simply because i was to busy doing something.

now let me ask you how many kids have you seen walking the streets with nothing to do. useually kids start sailing very early like 4 or 5 so 11 years experence of sailing all different kinds of boats of the years thats enough expoerence to sail around the world.
plus for your ignorence there would of been a saftey boat close bye!

I think most parent should be locked up because fvck all of them take that much off an interest in there lives....

davyjose wrote: »

An average of four people a year die attempting to climb Everest. These are also excellently trained people. The difference is, they're adults.

I have a son if something he wished to undertake killed four of the most excellently trained people a year in that field, I would wait until he was at the peak of his physical/mental/emotional maturity before allowing him to proceed.

I would not consider that moment to occur in his early teens!

how many young teanagers have been killed in dublin in the past 2 years from other kids weather its stabing or beating them till ther ebody shut down, as a person with moutain Leader, traning il ask you how many rich americans who are unhealthy, are the ones that die ? and to a degree everist is now a dump of climbing equipment. so many people have been up there.

I dont think you know what your talking about i think your one of those idiots who wrap there kid up in cottin wool and say oh billy dont climb the tree you might fall. Your mental atitude to parenting will probably cause more trouble then help. At 13 kids in the meedi evil peroid where allready haveing babys and doing a full days work!

To be honest you really need to see the picture these kids probably wanted to do it and cleerly can and there parents backed them I saay fair p;lay to them because those kids have cleer done more in the short time on this earth then you ever meet.

peasant · 24-05-2010 06:08PM

Biggins wrote: »

Think about it OP.

The parents managed to raise into the world a child that by passing on of high level skills, did something outstanding.
They taught their child to stay away from things that are of a bad un-natural nature (illegal drugs/drinks, etc).
They taught their child to gain the ability to further gain dedication and willingness to see ambition though to its successful outcome.
They taught their child to see the world as something to be explored with a touch of safety measures thrown in, not as a thing just to be feared and run away from.
They raised their child to be healthy.
They raised their child to be versatile clearly.
They raised their child with a wide education in the ways of the world besides just mainstream scholastic topics
....and that only the start.

Why on earth would the likes of social services be called in?

Because you can do all that without sending them on top of Mount Everest.

These parents have no sense of proportion and I fear that these kids will end up as either very disillusioned adults (because they've already achieved it all) or so unbearably full of themselves that they won't fit in anywhere either.

Snowie · 24-05-2010 06:13PM

peasant wrote: »

Because you can do all that without sending them on top of Mount Everest.

These parents have no sense of proportion and I fear that these kids will end up as either very disillusioned adults (because they've already achieved it all) or so unbearably full of themselves that they won't fit in anywhere either.

no no no nono

you see when you do things like climb or sail your aware of this natrul force called your surroundings when your in 18 feet sees crashing around you and your hoiseting a storm jib in force 10 seas its all very real....:rolleyes:

again another person who deosnt know what there talking about simply because its arogence that kills people in extream sports. you cant control gravitiy the same way yuo can control the seas but you can learn how to wrok with your surroundings these are the reason why these kids have acheved what they have acheved

moonpurple · 24-05-2010 06:45PM

people die every year on everest, the fool who brought 13 year old up there needs kick in the trousers

dr.bollocko · 24-05-2010 06:50PM

moonpurple wrote: »

people die every year on everest, the fool who brought 13 year old up there needs kick in the trousers

More children die a year at home with their parents than on top of Everest.

peasant · 24-05-2010 08:23PM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

no no no nono

you see when you do things like climb or sail your aware of this natrul force called your surroundings when your in 18 feet sees crashing around you and your hoiseting a storm jib in force 10 seas its all very real....:rolleyes:

again another person who deosnt know what there talking about simply because its arogence that kills people in extream sports. you cant control gravitiy the same way yuo can control the seas but you can learn how to wrok with your surroundings these are the reason why these kids have acheved what they have acheved

As if Kilimadjaro wouln't have been enough

Why feckin' Everest?

It isn't like that runs away, you know ...it would have still been there in 10 years or so, when said kid would have had finished his muscular, skeletal and mental development ...the achievement would still have been the same, just the risk and the sensationalism would have been less.

What's next for that kid?
K2 at 14 ...barefoot and naked?

Those parents are irresponsible, sensationalist and egotistical idiots of the highest order. Without any sense of proportion or realism.
Not fit to be parents in my opinion.

All this kid stuff is raising eyebrows in the adventure community—and sometimes the legal community as well. Polling a number of well-known Everest climbers and guides, I couldn't find one who thought that leading a 13-year-old up the world's highest mountain was a particularly good idea. Though a climber that young might possess the necessary stamina, most had serious reservations about a teen's emotional strength, psychological awareness, and plain old know-how. "I do not see how young people under the age of 18 can gain enough experience about mountaineering or themselves to undertake such a project safely," said Russell Brice, one of Everest's most successful guides.

http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/201004/jordan-romero-teenager-extreme-adventure-everest-2.html

RMD · 24-05-2010 09:28PM

The 13 year old has a history of climbing the highest mountains in the world, this isn't just some random 13 year old who wanted to climb Everest. He's a skilled climber and what matters here is his physical and mental condition. If he has both required for this, age means nothing.

I'd consider most 16 year olds just as mature as the average 18 year old. Let her sail around the world, the only difference IMO if the 16 year old dies compared to the 18 year old dieing is the tabloids have someone to point the finger at.

peasant · 24-05-2010 09:38PM

From the article I quoted above

Few studies have been done on kids at altitude, but what science can tell us is this: The teenage brain works differently. In the past decade, MRI technology has shown that the adolescent brain is only about 80 percent developed. The areas that control spatial, sensory, auditory, and language functions are mature, but the frontal lobe, which handles reasoning, planning, and judgment, isn't fully grown until a person's mid-twenties. "It's not a lack of worldly experience," says Dr. Lynn Ponton, a San Francisco–based psychiatrist and the author of The Romance of Risk: Why Teenagers Do the Things They Do. "It's the physical development of the brain. Some of these kids may have climbed ten mountains, but they still don't have the capacity to make sophisticated decisions or choices. And it fools people. Their parents will think, They've done this and that—they're ready for the much bigger challenge. But the kid's brain is still developing.

"When I was 13, I wanted to climb Everest," he says. "There was a reason I didn't. I wasn't ready for it. At that age, I would've climbed K2 if you let me. And I would've died. You've got to be careful. You've got to remember that at 13 you're still talking to a kid, no matter what his physical abilities. I'm 17 and I still think I know it all—and at the same time I realize I don't. At 13, you just don't have the ability to employ logic, complex reasoning, and weigh consequences in high-risk situations."

I don't think many of you have any idea of what it actually means to climb Everest ...the climbing is the easiest bit.

Idjit · 24-05-2010 10:17PM

I don't think the parents should be considered bad as long as the children were aware of the dangers and had either safety measures or knowledge of how to take care of themselves.
Every human is different so I don't think that saying things along the lines of 'they are children, they dont understand, they are in danger' is right. A child prodigy is called such because they are unique in having equal or far greater intelligence of someone at a more mature stage in life. These kids could be considered prodigies for all I know. They may be more intelligent and mature than their years.
I don't believe all children of certain ages groups should be lumped in together as I think putting them all under the same safety blanket impairs those who are more advanced, creates self-doubt and impinges on individual development.

Biggins · 24-05-2010 10:26PM

peasant wrote: »

Because you can do all that without sending them on top of Mount Everest.

These parents have no sense of proportion and I fear that these kids will end up as either very disillusioned adults (because they've already achieved it all) or so unbearably full of themselves that they won't fit in anywhere either.

The parents have no sense of proportion - al least according to your way of seeing things.
Others differ, me amid them - at least give them that right - who is each of us to know better? You, I?
Is the child alive or dead, is he worse off now or better off?

His "Mount Everest" obviously might differ from your personal goal(s).
With foresight, preparedness, wisdom and a touch of caution, who is each of us to say another cannot try and achieve our own personal goals, reach the peak of our "hierarchy of needs" as Maslow put it?

...and if you knew anything about "hierarchy of needs" and the reasoning behind that train of thought, one would realise that there will always be another ambition in the distance for one to reach if one has the courage to keep going...

peasant · 24-05-2010 10:55PM

Biggins wrote: »

The parents have no sense of proportion - al least according to your way of seeing things.
Others differ, me amid them - at least give them that right - who is each of us to know better?

The highlighted part is the crux of the matter ...which right?

The right of the parent to show off their prodigy child?
The right of the parent to realise their unrealised childhood dreams through their children?
The right of the parent to just simply be plain irresponsible and to prove everybody who advises against wrong ...just because their child is a willing participant?
The right of the parent to tag along their kids for their own ego trip?

or maybe ...

The right of the child to a normal childhood, to uninterrupted education, to health, to safety?

Look ...I have no issue with children doing extreme sports (did some rock climbing myself as a teen) I have no issue with parents granting their kids a large amount of freedom and self governance either (also enjoyed that as a kid and am thankful for it) ...but does it have to be bloody Everest or a circumnavigation?

In a way this is no different than the cinderalla coach for first communion ...only a lot more dangerous.

Also, it creates precedent and followers. This kid wants to be the youngest person ever to complete the seven summits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Summits he's ticked off most of them already. More young kids will follow in his footsteps ...until it goes horribly wrong one day.

By all means, take your kids mountaineering or sailing, show them the world, expand their horizons, develop their skills and abilities and support them in doing so ...but lay off the silly competition and the ridiculously dangerous feats.

Idjit · 24-05-2010 11:51PM

peasant wrote: »

The highlighted part is the crux of the matter ...which right?

The right of the parent to show off their prodigy child?
The right of the parent to realise their unrealised childhood dreams through their children?
The right of the parent to just simply be plain irresponsible and to prove everybody who advises against wrong ...just because their child is a willing participant?
The right of the parent to tag along their kids for their own ego trip?

or maybe ...

The right of the child to a normal childhood, to uninterrupted education, to health, to safety?

Look ...I have no issue with children doing extreme sports (did some rock climbing myself as a teen) I have no issue with parents granting their kids a large amount of freedom and self governance either (also enjoyed that as a kid and am thankful for it) ...but does it have to be bloody Everest or a circumnavigation?

In a way this is no different than the cinderalla coach for first communion ...only a lot more dangerous.

Also, it creates precedent and followers. This kid wants to be the youngest person ever to complete the seven summits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Summits he's ticked off most of them already. More young kids will follow in his footsteps ...until it goes horribly wrong one day.

By all means, take your kids mountaineering or sailing, show them the world, expand their horizons, develop their skills and abilities and support them in doing so ...but lay off the silly competition and the ridiculously dangerous feats.

But what competition is involved? What evidence is there that the parents are using their children in the ways you pointed out? If the child is ambitious to complete these tasks(as you stated yourself in the case of the mount everest child, he wants to be the youngest person to complete the seven summits) what makes you think it's the parents pushing them? Some children are naturally ambitious and express themselves through different means.
Personally, I was one of the types that stayed on my own street, read alot and avoided scary movies, but I have friends who, like yourself, went rock climbing, parasailing and completed dangerous feats at a young age while I cowered under my bedsheets at the very thought. Every child, like every adult, develops at different mental and physical rates. Some speed by right into the mental maturity of adults at a very young age and that's fine. A very few, like these children, are at the top of that ladder of ambition and drive and want to complete bigger tasks,perhaps because they are not satisfied with the ones normally associated with people their own age. I think children may be too cushioned. They shouldn't be forced into completing things like mountain climbing or sailing the world etc. But then, children shouldn't be forced into beauty pageants either and they are. If they really want to do something important to them, it may impinge on their development to stop them and they may find alternative and worse ways to direct that drive in them. Like with sex and young people; they will probably do it even if you don't want them to, so the best thing is to educate them about it so that if they do choose to do it, they will be safe and their development will not be affected by it. If the child can take care of themselves climbing mountains or sailing the seas, if they have the knowledge, the sense, and the preparations to do it safely then they should be seen to be as qualified to do it as adults.
The number of their years on earth should not box them in to one category of intelligence, maturity and perseverance.

Snowie · 25-05-2010 12:05AM

peasant wrote: »

As if Kilimadjaro wouln't have been enough

Why feckin' Everest?

It isn't like that runs away, you know ...it would have still been there in 10 years or so, when said kid would have had finished his muscular, skeletal and mental development ...the achievement would still have been the same, just the risk and the sensationalism would have been less.

What's next for that kid?
K2 at 14 ...barefoot and naked?

Those parents are irresponsible, sensationalist and egotistical idiots of the highest order. Without any sense of proportion or realism.
Not fit to be parents in my opinion.

http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/201004/jordan-romero-teenager-extreme-adventure-everest-2.html

Sure what harm is it to you the boy and girl did there challanges in life and they suceeded what about kis who are told youle never walk again yet they do ?

I dont think you know enough about moutainering, as a child I was taught when your out there in th emiddle of know where you always show caution don't mess. all this what if stuff oh your still talking to a child your talking to a child whos probably had to under go training for that kind off climb you just dont get up and say i wanna climb everist...

for everest you have to learn night navigation how to read a map, Rope work. amounst many other aspects the kid would have been taught what is safe and not its part of any moutain ering, you gott arespect whats around you. do you not understand that even a kid will no weather or not to do something or other, your 5 miles up at one point, its not like walking up carintohill.

whats next for the kid who knows, thats not our problem he's suceeded where other have rasied an eye brow!

as for K2 she lets you up you just dont go to k2 and climb it .... your either granted to climb her or not.

How are they " irresponsible, sensationalist and egotistical idiots of the highest order. Without any sense of proportion or realism.
Not fit to be parents in my opinion"

So does that mean you tell your kids theyle never amount too nothing?
What that we should all know our place. and stick within the guide lines?
I think your atitude is the one that needs to be cheacked judging bye what you think you may know!

Snowie · 25-05-2010 12:11AM

peasant wrote: »

The right of the child to a normal childhood, to uninterrupted education, to health, to safety?

Look ...I have no issue with children doing extreme sports (did some rock climbing myself as a teen) I have no issue with parents granting their kids a large amount of freedom and self governance either (also enjoyed that as a kid and am thankful for it) ...but does it have to be bloody Everest or a circumnavigation?

Mate serously how is what the kids parents any worse then that beauty pagent crap some young girls have to put up with in america ?

whats worse.

Right so you rock climbed as did I, except ivcan teach it and ive seen kids climb better then people whove been doing it for 20 years kids are well able to climb they dont see fear like we do you should no that.

as a child I knew no fear the only thing I new was how to climb, and well.

all to right paretns at time live there dreams through there children all to a good and well but some children are baught up to be independted thinkers at an early age know what they want to do and maybe he was braught into the moutinering life style.

if thats the case, Children learn like sponges, they talke information 5x times wuicker then most adults and do it with out question...

Would you honestly hanbd on heart say a 13 year old up everest would throw a tantrum?

because personally any one up that high knows one thing there on egg shells.

PK2008 · 25-05-2010 12:11AM

Dub13 wrote: »

What about the parents that let there kids sit in front of a X Box all day should the social services be called for them..?

........or the ones that get them "Virtual Everest Climber 2: Rapid Descent" for the XBox

They're the worst

Biggins · 25-05-2010 12:23AM

peasant wrote: »

The highlighted part is the crux of the matter ...which right?

The right of the parent to show off their prodigy child?
The right of the parent to realise their unrealised childhood dreams through their children?
The right of the parent to just simply be plain irresponsible and to prove everybody who advises against wrong ...just because their child is a willing participant?
The right of the parent to tag along their kids for their own ego trip?

or maybe ...

The right of the child to a normal childhood, to uninterrupted education, to health, to safety?

Look ...I have no issue with children doing extreme sports (did some rock climbing myself as a teen) I have no issue with parents granting their kids a large amount of freedom and self governance either (also enjoyed that as a kid and am thankful for it) ...but does it have to be bloody Everest or a circumnavigation?

In a way this is no different than the cinderalla coach for first communion ...only a lot more dangerous.

Also, it creates precedent and followers. This kid wants to be the youngest person ever to complete the seven summits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Summits he's ticked off most of them already. More young kids will follow in his footsteps ...until it goes horribly wrong one day.

By all means, take your kids mountaineering or sailing, show them the world, expand their horizons, develop their skills and abilities and support them in doing so ...but lay off the silly competition and the ridiculously dangerous feats.

I understand where you concern is coming from.
As a parent of 4 children myself, I indeed do.

But for one second have you considered what you deem to be normal might be just outside others scope as being "normal" - and who is to say your "normal" is right and theirs are wrong - why can't both be right under the proper guidance, training, companionship and back-up?
Do you know better than the rest? Have you that such high divine knowledge? (...and I am not trying to be smart, just making a point)

All I see is:
The right of the parent...
The right of the parent...
The right of the parent...
...

Have you stopped for one second while typing those, and also thought about the right of the child - under supervision (probably constantly), under high extreme training (much of which I'm sure he has done and tested on many times), under companionship with other's even more highly trained... to try and achieve his/her goals in life?

There is also the right of the parents too to do their best, to see that under the right conditions, they don't indoctrinate their offspring into thinking that something is beyond worth trying for!

...lay off the silly competition and the ridiculously dangerous feats.

Again by your standard of "silly" and "ridiculously dangerous".
You adopted your levels (which is fair enough FOR YOU) and imposing them onto others blankly with even stopping to ask even if your are right first to do so!

...More young kids will follow in his footsteps ...until it goes horribly wrong one day

Indeed they will follow and once in a while things will indeed go wrong.
As will adults who follow other adults who do other stuff.
As will younger who follow other youngsters and adults who do other stuff...
Should we all just stay at home and adopt the reasoning "Ok, we better not do it for others might or might not try it too???"

We as humans, irrespective of age, have achieved so much and there are many examples young and old, that give others inspiration by achieving and/or simply trying.
There are many others young too, that have done dangerous things. And in their footsteps others came behind them and pushed the boundaries further in the previous ones wake and example.
We are human. For sure there will be failings for that reason alone but to deny from the outset the possibility of even trying, to dis-allow putting one step forwards in front of the other according to personal "scopes" - your killing many future ambitions of many others and possible further advancement in the history of humans on this earth, perhaps some day beyond too - right there!

DublinWriter · 25-05-2010 12:29AM

davyjose wrote: »

Impressive as it is, are these parents right in the head? Should social services be round? Put it this way, if every parent set their kid off round the world, or up a hill that kills a large number of adults each year (that even while at the top, your body begins to quit living), would it still be acceptable? My guess is they'd all be jailed.

It's very easy to pick on these two events and completely wig-out with the "won't somebody think of the children!" hyperbole without knowing the full facts about the preparation, training and safety protocols that happened behind the scenes.

As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is only a statistic.

If you want to witch-hunt bad parents then go after the tens of thousands who can't cook, won't cook and ply their kids with processed foods full of carbs, salts and sugars while at the same time mothballing them into a sedentary lifestyle in the hope of protecting them from the realities of the world.

peasant · 25-05-2010 09:16AM

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

Mate serously how is what the kids parents any worse then that beauty pagent crap some young girls have to put up with in america ?

I didn't say they were worse, I abhor both

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

kids are well able to climb they dont see fear like we do you should no that.

Finger right on the pulse there!
Kids can't evaluate risks properly (yet) (see my quote earlier)

Now, Everest isn't just "risk". Risk is climbing the Wicklow mountains in
a fog and people have died doing that.
Everest is an insane gamble with your life ...one wrong decision and you're a goner. Sending someone up there who has bags of ambition but underdeveloped risk assessment skills is irresponsible ...especially so if that someone is your own child.

In the article I quoted you may have noted that the family did Everest not on the standard route from Nepal, but from the Chinese side ...mainly due to the fact that Nepal has an age limit of 16 for Everest and China doesn't.

To draw a very simple hyperbole ...you don't encourage a three year old to play in the road, you don't encourage a seven year old to learn how to drive and you don't encourage a nine year old to climb Kilimandjaro or the same kid at thirteen to climb Everest.
It's irresponsible.

Biggins · 25-05-2010 09:53AM

I only offer the following as a counter thought - not to be argumentative or to annoy you.

peasant wrote: »

Kids can't evaluate risks properly (yet)

...But the many trainers and on the ground older, more experienced climbers can. This was obviously done many, many times. The boy at NO stage went alone.
Clearly they have done their job continuously under the watchful eye of others too - including the parents and other family relatives who would raise their own fears and point things out too - which would if necessary, be addressed...

peasant wrote: »

Now, Everest isn't just "risk". Risk is climbing the Wicklow mountains in a fog and people have died doing that.
Everest is an insane gamble with your life...

Everything is a risk but again by adopting one persons assessment of "risk" (which might not match others anyway), is unfair to others who having assessed risk and took as much necessary precautions, training, seen their offspring are accompanied by older, skilled, experienced people, etc means a different form of risk assessment is carried out to yours and they have progressed onwards from that.

peasant wrote: »

Everest is an insane gamble with your life ...one wrong decision and you're a goner.

Absolutely. All one can do is make the best decisions possible given the dedication/desires of those involved. For example, the parents gave permission to their son for him to increase his climbs as his training, experience, and knowledge grew with every higher climb. They just didn't decide to let him "go for it" (nor am I saying you said they did).

peasant wrote: »

Sending someone up there who has bags of ambition but underdeveloped risk assessment skills is irresponsible ...especially so if that someone is your own child.

...which is why they saw that he was allowed to be trained hard, very hard, as much as he could take due to his age and over lengthy periods of time.
...And they did not send up up there alone. don't forget that. Does anyone really think the boy during the climb made the biggest on the spot decisions about how to change route, where to stride, etc. Those accompanying him, the more experienced with him, would have spoken up more and if necessary (I'm sure under orders from the boys parents) have reversed if something was wrong.

peasant wrote: »

To draw a very simple hyperbole ...you don't encourage a three year old to play in the road, you don't encourage a seven year old to learn how to drive and you don't encourage a nine year old to climb Kilimandjaro or the same kid at thirteen to climb Everest.
It's irresponsible.

Very true but...
...A 3 year old is only allowed go where the parents allow, having assessed the risks. and if necessary taken further precautions.
...7 year old driving? No, because most hasn't the strength to turn hard steering, length in the feet to reach pedals, and so many other reasons. However there might be the rare "special" kids that could manage these feats under training and supervision too!
...I'm sure the parents didn't just encourage, they also safeguarded the best they could, advised the best they could, stopped their son at times the best they could... and in all that time they also sent the message to their son "Son, if you REALLY want something, with much training, experience (previous climbs), knowledge, and so, so on, your future possibilities are as lengthy as your desires. you won't achieve them all but at the very least, you should try and go for them..."

What more can a parent do?

peasant · 25-05-2010 11:07AM

IMO it is bad parenting to encourage/support/tolerate excess.

Whether that ecxess manifests itself in kids glued to the computer for hours on end, in kids feeding exclusively on McDonalds, in little princesses demanding cinderella coaches for their communion, children in beauty pageants, teens coming home drunk or drugged out of their minds or indeed teens wanting to circumnavigate the world, climb Everest or go down Niagara Falls in a barrel.

You can have a fulfilling childhood, achieve and even exceed your ambitions, ground yourself for a good life ahead, rise above mediocrity, whatever ...all without going to excess.

Excessive behaviour should be the domain of adults deciding for themselves alone in full knowledge and cogniscence of the (possible) consequences ...not for their children, who don't know any better.

Biggins · 25-05-2010 11:25AM

peasant wrote: »

IMO it is bad parenting to encourage/support/tolerate excess.

Whether that ecxess manifests itself in kids glued to the computer for hours on end, in kids feeding exclusively on McDonalds, in little princesses demanding cinderella coaches for their communion, children in beauty pageants, teens coming home drunk or drugged out of their minds or indeed teens wanting to circumnavigate the world, climb Everest or go down Niagara Falls in a barrel.

You can have a fulfilling childhood, achieve and even exceed your ambitions, ground yourself for a good life ahead, rise above mediocrity, whatever ...all without going to excess.

Excessive behaviour should be the domain of adults deciding for themselves alone in full knowledge and conscience of the (possible) consequences ...not for their children, who don't know any better.

I hear what your saying and there is a lot of very good sense in it.

I would just point out that what you deem to be "excess", is to the parents of that child (and others), a further step taken also with highly trained repeated guidance and training, prior continuous mental and physical assessments, accompanied on the days with same skill levelled people and a modicum of risk assessment as to when to go, what way to go, knowledge of possible conditions, alternative/emergency plans and proper equipment, etc...

One persons "excess" might not be just mean a full stop for everyone else (not should it be - else man would not have gained the goals he/she has). It could be another persons "pause" - take stock, improve chances, think twice, etc - and then forge ahead fully aware and ready to break boundaries and make inner/outer discoveries.

Again, as a parent, I can exactly see where your coming from and your right in adding words of caution and assessments too.
(its always good to have a prior devils advocate - just in case...)

Bad Parenting?

Comments