“At least one parent at 20% of schools” is an incredibly strange way of saying ~0.04% of parents (assuming each school is an average of 500 pupils).
Children have a right to socialise safely, with proper tools to keep themselves safe, rather than forced to be secretive about even owning a device. This is from a group of middle class helicopter parents who refuse to parent and want to move their responsibility onto the state in a poorly thought out one size fits all model.
I feel this is a reductive argument. Parents should help their kids avoid harm while also encouraging growth. Phones and the Internet can absolutely encourage growth. The parent’s job is to ensure that the phone isn’t harming them. If the kid isn’t on the phone too much, isn’t picking up bad shit from the phone, and isn’t harming anyone else, I don’t think it makes sense to deny them.
If the kid is being harmed by being on the phone, then the parent should try to figure out what the problem truly is so they can find good solutions. I was on the computer too much as a kid and missed out on important shit. Rather than ripping out desktop out of the desk in a rage (which is what happened), my dad should have thought about why I felt the need to escape from my life so much (e.g. being afraid of a father who would do shit like rip out a computer and threaten to throw it off of a second floor balcony, self hatred, intense bullying at school, or alllll the crazy shit my mom did). He didn’t try to help me fix the things that were harming me, so all I had was my computer and the few people who didn’t seem to hate me.
I spent so many hours browsing Wikipedia, learning about scientific concepts. I talked to people who had lives like mine and were able to commiserate. I found a place and community that I was lacking in my everyday life. I learned skills that eventually translates to a successful career in software development. I don’t think that it’s good when kids feel like they need to escape to the Internet, but I think that having access to all the great stuff out there is worth it. For the kids who have awful lives because of shitty fucked up parents, the internet (or any escapist coping mechanism) can literally save them, albeit at a substantial cost.
The internet can be harmful, but we only seek out harmful things when the alternative is going without things we need. I think this is also true of children, so the question I feel parents should ask is “what does my phone-addicted kid need?”
“At least one parent at 20% of schools” is an incredibly strange way of saying ~0.04% of parents (assuming each school is an average of 500 pupils).
Children have a right to socialise safely, with proper tools to keep themselves safe, rather than forced to be secretive about even owning a device. This is from a group of middle class helicopter parents who refuse to parent and want to move their responsibility onto the state in a poorly thought out one size fits all model.
If a kid wants to use a mobility scooter instead of learning how to walk should the parents let them?
I feel this is a reductive argument. Parents should help their kids avoid harm while also encouraging growth. Phones and the Internet can absolutely encourage growth. The parent’s job is to ensure that the phone isn’t harming them. If the kid isn’t on the phone too much, isn’t picking up bad shit from the phone, and isn’t harming anyone else, I don’t think it makes sense to deny them.
If the kid is being harmed by being on the phone, then the parent should try to figure out what the problem truly is so they can find good solutions. I was on the computer too much as a kid and missed out on important shit. Rather than ripping out desktop out of the desk in a rage (which is what happened), my dad should have thought about why I felt the need to escape from my life so much (e.g. being afraid of a father who would do shit like rip out a computer and threaten to throw it off of a second floor balcony, self hatred, intense bullying at school, or alllll the crazy shit my mom did). He didn’t try to help me fix the things that were harming me, so all I had was my computer and the few people who didn’t seem to hate me.
I spent so many hours browsing Wikipedia, learning about scientific concepts. I talked to people who had lives like mine and were able to commiserate. I found a place and community that I was lacking in my everyday life. I learned skills that eventually translates to a successful career in software development. I don’t think that it’s good when kids feel like they need to escape to the Internet, but I think that having access to all the great stuff out there is worth it. For the kids who have awful lives because of shitty fucked up parents, the internet (or any escapist coping mechanism) can literally save them, albeit at a substantial cost.
The internet can be harmful, but we only seek out harmful things when the alternative is going without things we need. I think this is also true of children, so the question I feel parents should ask is “what does my phone-addicted kid need?”
Trouble is that you send them to school for most of the day, schools aren’t really working with you on this.
That’s the most idiotic argument I’ve seen on Lemmy. Congratulations.
Let me continue with that logic:
“If a kid wants to use a computer to research something instead of checking out an encyclopedia from the library should the parents let them?”
“If a kid wants to use a pen to write stuff down instead of learning to remember, should the parents let them?”
“If a kid wants to cook their food instead of using their appendix, should the parents let them?”
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/reduction-to-absurdity/
Reduction to absurdity fallacy.
Basically, you can’t actually refute the point, so you carry it to a ridiculous extreme without giving it serious consideration.
And since people here use it all the time, I can’t even give you points for originality.
Did you actually bring up logical fallacies? Haha