toldailytopic: Is it irresponsible as a parent to allow your child to attempt to sail

[CabinetMaker]

A fall from a horse won't necessarily result in her dying. She might end up with a concussion, a few bruises, a broken neck (which people can live through) or die. Also, it is much more likely that she will get medical attention immediately of shortly after.

OTOH, if your child is alone on the open sea and her boat is overturned or goes down, unless she can dog paddle or float on her back for hours, weeks, days, etc. without getting eaten by shark, drowning or dying of thirst, her chances of surviving and being found alive are far less than the kid that falls from a horse.

But which death results in a deader child? Horses are dangerous. They can be the most peaceful companion you will ever have and then on day, getting into a trailer (as they have done a thousand times before) the horse spooks, rears and comes down on your head and your life is changed if not outright ended. Gymnastics is dangerous. Miss a release move and your life is changed forever if not outright ended. Sailing is no different. The risks death are higher for such a journey as this but are they unacceptabley high? In your opinion, yes. In my opinion, no. Your opinion is based solely on what you b believe a person of a certain age is capable of without ever meeting the person. My opinion is based on the potential that a person of a young age can indeed master the risks if properly trained and prepared. You prefer to protect at all costs while I prefer to encourage despite risks being higher than other activities.

 

[Aimiel]

Risking one's life on the high seas alone, just to make the record books is irresponsible and ignorant, to say the least. Allowing a child to do so is reprehensible, and should be punishable by law.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So we deceive ourselves into believing. Driving a car is mundane in the extreme. We get in our cars and roar off to work, to shop, to shuttle children. How many people are killed in cars every day? So much the mundane being safe.

I should have specified that I don't classify driving a car as mundane in terms of risk. It isn't. I know plenty of people who have been involved in crashes.

Because bureaucrats need a well defined rule to work with. Bureaucrats are incapable of dealing with individual situations and must have a law or rule to point to in order to make any decision. A more interesting question is how are the age laws determined? In America you can drive at 16, kill and die for your country at 18 but not drink a beer until 21. Why those ages? What is so magical about them that says a boy who is 17 years and 364 days old is to young for military service but 17 years and 365 days is okay? Arbitrary based on societal perceptions of what is to young and what is not.

I agree that the laws regarding these are quite bizarre. I think that if you can risk life and limb for country then you should be able to buy a beer and drive a car. I brought this up to TH in the adjoining thread and despite seeing a certain amount of logic in his answer I still think it's pretty ludicrous, and as you say somewhat arbitrary. I think there should be a uniform age for all these things. 18 minimum.

Correct. The risks of the ocean can be dealt with at a much younger age than the risks of living with an abusive individual.

Really? How about pirates? Freak storms? You're downplaying the risks of one to bolster the other. There's more than a decent chance that your partner is not a nutjob by the very same token.

Why would I think that? If you think it is okay to teach your child to be a thief it does not change the fact the steeling is illegal. Sailing is not illegal. There will always be people who want what is not theirs or think that killing is a good option to solve a problem. Society has a vested interest in protecting itself from such individuals so laws are needed.

And there will always be irresponsible parents who needlessly put their children at risk and drive them into things.

Fine. I think that is a great decision for yo and your kids.

You'd think it was great if I let them go abseiling the grand canyon and get married at 16 as well though right?

 

[Rusha]

But which death results in a deader child? Horses are dangerous. They can be the most peaceful companion you will ever have and then on day, getting into a trailer (as they have done a thousand times before) the horse spooks, rears and comes down on your head and your life is changed if not outright ended. Gymnastics is dangerous. Miss a release move and your life is changed forever if not outright ended. Sailing is no different. The risks death are higher for such a journey as this but are they unacceptabley high? In your opinion, yes. In my opinion, no. Your opinion is based solely on what you b believe a person of a certain age is capable of without ever meeting the person. My opinion is based on the potential that a person of a young age can indeed master the risks if properly trained and prepared. You prefer to protect at all costs while I prefer to encourage despite risks being higher than other activities.

I am not talking about *a deader child* but rather which activities are more full of risks.

IF you truly believe what you are saying, then why have any boundaries at all?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I should have specified that I don't classify driving a car as mundane in terms of risk. It isn't. I know plenty of people who have been involved in crashes.

You don't but most of the rest of the world does. How about sports practice? It seems that every couple of years a teen dies in (American) football practice. Sports is usually considered a healthy activity yet kids die.

I agree that the laws regarding these are quite bizarre. I think that if you can risk life and limb for country then you should be able to buy a beer and drive a car. I brought this up to TH in the adjoining thread and despite seeing a certain amount of logic in his answer I still think it's pretty ludicrous, and as you say somewhat arbitrary. I think there should be a uniform age for all these things. 18 minimum.

21 is better so that they could finish college under my insurance. But what about the kids that don't go to college and graduate high school at 17? Hmmm... Arbitrary never ever covers all the bases.

Really? How about pirates? Freak storms? You're downplaying the risks of one to bolster the other. There's more than a decent chance that your partner is not a nutjob by the very same token.

We know what waters have pirates so she can cart a course away from those waters. Storms are rarely freak storms with amount of satellite coverage and she had communications to keep track of storms. Still, there are times when there is just no avoiding a storm. Remember, her original plan was to be done by April. She was late and got into storm season.

And there will always be irresponsible parents who needlessly put their children at risk and drive them into things.

Sad but far to true.

You'd think it was great if I let them go abseiling the grand canyon and get married at 16 as well though right?

I'd go with them to the canyon but I would not think its great you decide to let them get married at 16. (And I even know the exception to the rule and still wont support young marriages!)

 

[CabinetMaker]

I am not talking about *a deader child* but rather which activities are more full of risks.

But you fail to see that a)risks are relative and b)nothing is without risk.

If you are trained to be around horses and how to ride them the the risks of getting injured on a horse is greatly reduced but not eliminated. Same thing with sailing or any other activity.

IF you truly believe what you are saying, then why have any boundaries at all?

Because some things are just plain wrong or stupid. Playing with a gun you found at your friends house when the parents are gone is just stupid. Same kid taking classes at a local gun range and becoming a top marksman at age 15 is not stupid because he has received the training to properly manage the risks of handling a loaded gun.

Boundaries are needed to keep us safe. When we are very young, those boundaries are very rigid and very tight. As we grow, those boundaries expand and become somewhat more flexible but they never go away. It is the parents job to determine what the appropriate boundaries are for their children. You prefer a tighter boundary in an effort to protect your child from harm. I prefer a loser boundary that allows and sometimes encourages my children to try something a little riskier as it provides them with experience that will serve them well as they go through life.

 

[GuySmiley]

There are some decisions in life that parents should not make unilaterally. My daughter became a horse owner at age 11 because it was her dream. My first inclination was to say no. Horse can be dangerous and being around them has the potential of resulting in life altering injuries and even death. They are expensive (one is spending the night at the vets place with colic tonight) and I know nothing about keeping horses. So instead of saying no I encouraged her to save her money and she bought her horse with her own money. Even with the risk of death, it has been a marvelous decision.

So is letting her own a horse on par with letting a kid sail around the world by herself. Let me ask you this, is a child more dead if they are lost at sea or if they fall of a horse and break their neck?

No, they aren't more dead. Let me ask you this? Whats more likely to make them dead, riding a 10 mile trial, or dropping the kid off in Spain with their horse and saying you'll pick them up in China in a year? Even that could be done by a 16 year old. But it would foolish for parents to allow that without some precautions.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, they aren't more dead. Let me ask you this? Whats more likely to make them dead, riding a 10 mile trial, or dropping the kid off in Spain with their horse and saying you'll pick them up in China in a year? Even that could be done by a 16 year old. But it would foolish for parents to allow that without some precautions.

Depends on the trail. A 10 mile trail ride is probably less risky than a ride from spain to china. That said, if she really wanted to ride from spain to china, I would help her achieve that. The main difference would be that it would not be a solo attempt. Why? On a sail boat she would generally only have contact with port authorities is busy ports when she made stops for supplies and repairs. While not a risk free environment, she is probably safer in the ports. Riding cross country is completely different as you are far more likely to encounter quite a few people along the way. There is always safety in numbers.

Now everybody is going to pop a cork about having a double standard. Again, it is not a double standard, it is the application of the same principle. Does my child have the maturity and ability to cope with the risks of do {this activity}. Since the risks between sailing around the world and riding a horse across several countries are very different, so to is my response.

 

[fool]

How come no one is blaming the boat?

 

[CabinetMaker]

How come no one is blaming the boat?

Because that poor boat, broken and battered, was abandoned and left to fend for itself someplace in the Indian ocean. Don't you think its suffered enough!?

 

[GuySmiley]

How come no one is blaming the boat?

Its powered by the peaceful and loving wind, not mean angry fosil fuels.

 

[chrysostom]

How come no one is blaming the boat?

it doesn't have freewill

 

[madman]

Here we go again...