Should safety be taken to any & all extents?

[CrAz3D]

http://www.katu.com/stories/85715.html

I'm all for safety, but this seems nuts.

Where do y'all stand on injury lawsuits?  What about extreme safety measures like banning running?

[raylu]

That's not nuts...that's way over-the-top and absolutely fanatical.

[Newby]

That's ridiculous. I say we cut their heads off and say ban machettes from stores so you can't buy them so you can't risk hurting someone.

[Arta]

Designing safe playgrounds is a great idea (ie, soft flooring, rounded corners etc). Telling kids they can't run is COMPLETELY stupid. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

[Joe[x86]]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
    -- Ben Franklin

[MyndFyre]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
    -- Ben Franklin

So, what he's saying is, in order to gain a little security (economic cooperation and common infrastructure), the American Confederacy in the 1770s and 1780s should not have abandoned the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution, because the states gave up much liberty in order to do so.

Right?

Psst, Joe, that's why you shouldn't just copy down quotes and not think through the implications.  It sounds good for sure, but it has little practical value.

[Rule]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
    -- Ben Franklin

So, what he's saying is, in order to gain a little security (economic cooperation and common infrastructure), the American Confederacy in the 1770s and 1780s should not have abandoned the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution, because the states gave up much liberty in order to do so.

Right?

Psst, Joe, that's why you shouldn't just copy down quotes and not think through the implications.  It sounds good for sure, but it has little practical value.

What Joe quoted was a general statement -- note "[a]ny society..."  Perhaps Franklin voiced this idea to support an argument that the articles shouldn't have been abandoned; however, this is a rather irrelevant consideration in the sense that it doesn't take away from the generality of the quote, and hence it doesn't mean that Joe used it inappropriately.

[Arta]

He did, however, misquote Franklin -- as seems to be rife with this particular quote -- the correct 'version' is:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Essential liberty vs temporary safety is, of course, quite different from little liberty vs little security.

[Rule]

He did, however, misquote Franklin -- as seems to be rife with this particular quote -- the correct 'version' is:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Essential liberty vs temporary safety is, of course, quite different from little liberty vs little security.

Hmmm.  You may find this interesting.  Further, it seems that Joe's version is also widely attributed to Franklin.  *Tom Cruise voice*, "I want the TRUTH"; *Wikipedia* "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH."

[iago]

So the position of you guys is that there's nothing wrong with 17 dead children and 200,000 seriously injured children each year?  And yet, when a mine collapses and kills 15 miners, there's a huge outcry and it's considered a "national tragedy"?  I think that 17 little graves is more important than the entertainment derived.  (like the loaded language?  It's fun to use it once in awhile )

[topaz]

So the position of you guys is that there's nothing wrong with 17 dead children and 200,000 seriously injured children each year?  And yet, when a mine collapses and kills 15 miners, there's a huge outcry and it's considered a "national tragedy"?  I think that 17 little graves is more important than the entertainment derived.  (like the loaded language?  It's fun to use it once in awhile )

Hundreds of miners in China die every year, but all they do is replace them. The US values life more than the rest of the world, or so it seems.

[Rule]

So the position of you guys is that there's nothing wrong with 17 dead children and 200,000 seriously injured children each year?  And yet, when a mine collapses and kills 15 miners, there's a huge outcry and it's considered a "national tragedy"?  I think that 17 little graves is more important than the entertainment derived.  (like the loaded language?  It's fun to use it once in awhile )

Ah, but the error in your reasoning is that these lives will be saved somehow through putting rather extreme artificial limits on how children are to interact with one another. 

1) If the children can't play "tag" or use a teeter-totter, or vent their energy in other similar mostly harmless activities, how do you know they won't express this pent up energy in more dangerous and creative ways when no-one is looking?  Do you propose that children are watched and controlled 24/7?  Is this feasible?  Would it be good?

2) "200,000 injured" is extremely vague.  First of all, where do they get that number?  Is large scale surveying on this matter really done?  Secondly, what qualifies as "injured"?  A sore knee?  Do you believe there was a set criteria used and consistenly applied when making the "200000" assessments? I sure wouldn't have traded a lot of the excitement in my childhood away to save myself from having received a few minor "injuries."

3) Wouldn't we save a lot of lives by secluding children in their own 100 sq ft padded rooms and sliding food and water under the doors?  Perhaps in this particular case the very small freedom of being allowed to play tag is worth the risk.
 
4) Where do you draw the line?  Should children not be allowed to run?