Comments for Free Range Kids

Comment on “If the Sex Offender List Saves One Child…” by Maggie

Maggie — Thu, 23 May 2013 18:00:36 +0000

@Dawn, when a family moves to a new neighborhood, the neighbors ARE people that children will come into contact with, especially for those of us who actually let our kids play outside without a bodyguard and GPS tracker

Comment on Why Kids SHOULD “Stick a Needle in Their Eye” — at Least Metaphorically by Emmanuelle

Emmanuelle — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:57:30 +0000

Agreed. I remember loving my childhood adventures, and wish my kids could live those too. I still fail to see how they were that dangerous, or how they could have turned us into serial killers. I strongly believe that these were challenges that we needed to test our metal, and which gave us strength, confidence and independence. No matter how hard “they” try to convince me that kids are forced to grow in padded rooms wearing straight jackets because it’s the best way to protect them, what I truly believe is that they are forced to grow up this way so society can control how much, or how little to be more accurate, they develop in strength, confidence and independence, to limit, stunt our kids, not keep them safe.

Comment on “If the Sex Offender List Saves One Child…” by Maggie

Maggie — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:55:52 +0000

Registries would be unnecessary if we had more sense of community. Growing up in a small town, there were men that “everybody knew” young girls weren’t safe around, many of whom had never been convicted of anything and wouldn’t have been on a registry anyway, and people warned their kids to stay away and warned newcomers to the community. As an adult and a parent, I have moved frequently (military family) into neighborhoods where the neighbors didn’t make any effort to welcome us or get to know us. I checked the registries, knowing that not everyone listed was dangerous, and knowing there may be people not on the registry that were dangerous to my kids. I checked so I could prevent known offenders from becoming friendly with my children.

Comment on “If the Sex Offender List Saves One Child…” by Donna

Donna — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:54:34 +0000

@a grateful mom – I don’t doubt being on the registry impacts job prospects. Frankly, ANY felony conviction seriously impacts your job prospects. If you think convicted murderers, thieves and drug dealers are regularly getting jobs as data-analysts, you are crazy. It is a buyers market in the job world and felons are not getting hired over the hundreds of others who apply for every job. Being a convicted murderer may be easier to hide from prospective employers than being a convicted sex offender but prospective employers are not readily hiring either of them.

The point was that the registry is not necessary to keep dangerous people from working with children. A criminal background check and google serves the same purpose (for a small fee, there are agencies that can check every state for criminal history if you want that in depth). And they are actually more inclusive since I don’t want a person convicted of selling crack last year teaching my child any more than I want a convicted child molester teaching my child. Or a convicted embezzler handling my money. And so on.

FYI, an argument that sex offender registries provide more protection for employers is not helping your case here. Arguing that there are other ways to get the exact same information without a public registry might convince some people to agree with doing away with the registry. Arguments that sex offender registries make it harder to hide convictions that would make employers not want to hire you doesn’t really get you anywhere.

Comment on Why Kids SHOULD “Stick a Needle in Their Eye” — at Least Metaphorically by Uly

Uly — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:21:00 +0000

Point: Ring around the Rosie is STILL not connected to the plague, or death, or anything of the sort.

Comment on UPDATE! Stick A Needle in My Eye? Not Anymore! by Free Range Kids » Why Kids SHOULD “Stick a Needle in Their Eye” — at Least Metaphorically

Thu, 23 May 2013 17:18:13 +0000

[...] a letter I got from Chris Byrne, who is always deep and wise about childhood. He was responding to the post about a new, less “scary” rhyme kids have picked up from My Little Pony. Instead of [...]

Comment on “If the Sex Offender List Saves One Child…” by Dawn Marcotte

Dawn Marcotte — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:05:54 +0000

I am appalled to find out that people are still actively using this list. I had thought (obviously incorrectly) that people were aware that the list is not exclusive to active, violent predators. I completely agree that parents need to be vigilant, but they need to be vigilant about the people the kids come in contact with daily, not strangers.

Comment on UPDATE! Stick A Needle in My Eye? Not Anymore! by 20percentcooler

20percentcooler — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:03:39 +0000

I’ll probably get crucified for saying this, but I don’t think updated rhymes are part of any child protection conspiracy. I think that things just evolve over time.

And even if newer versions WERE taught to kids as a safer alternative, or even if they just evolved at play group, I think we should let our kids decide which one they like to say. While I believe in Free-Range Kids, I also believe in kids who decide what they like for themselves, not being told to like one version over the other for any reason. It takes all the fun out of it, if you ask me.

Maybe they sing “Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep” because rainbows are more appealing to four year olds because rainbows are more fun than the color black. Or maybe the three blind mice were given cake because kids like cake.

As long as you’re not getting snapped at by other moms who are overly concerned about you teaching your daughter about the original black sheep or tailless mice, I see no problem with teaching your kids both old and new and letting them decide which to use.

Comment on Worst-First Thinking: Pet Version by Reziac

Reziac — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:03:00 +0000

The rescue industry has become quite profitable playing on people’s fear of not being “good enough” to “adopt” a pet… for which the “adopter” will pay $100 to $500 (and I’ve seen “adoption” fees as high as $1,200) and agree that the “rescue” or “shelter” can invasively inspect their home, and repossess the pet if they deem you unfit.

And re-sell, er, I mean adopt it out again, to someone else.

Comment on “If the Sex Offender List Saves One Child…” by Reziac

Reziac — Thu, 23 May 2013 16:43:59 +0000

Also, this mentality of “if one child is saved that’s worth 100,000 ruined lives” is counter to what our entire system of justice is founded on, to wit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”