BlackSails wrote:My question before remains unanswered.
Why should a 13 year old be allowed to sail around the world, but not enlist in the navy, and sail around the world?
Again, there are quite a few OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES between recreational sailing and warfare. The primary difference is in one you may be in a situation where you are forced to kill or be killed, regardless of rating.
SanderJK wrote:Dutch law is not american law in this case. Dutch law requires a child of up to 16 to have about 2000 contact hours, at an institution that's surveyable by the Ministry of Education. I'm pretty positive this is physical presence only. This is the responsibility of the parents, and because they actively searched for ways to dodge it, child protection agencies stepped in, culminating in the news and having it end up in court.
I was surprised by the court ruling, to be honest. I was fairly convinced that the schooling laws would trump any desire or such. But apparently the judge thinks there is room within the law for this.
About the situation, I'm not sure the government should actively prevent a 13 year old girl from doing this, as long as it is within the law, but I'm certainly against it. It seems unwise to have a girl solo on the ocean, mostly devoid of direct human contact, in a critical phase of her development. There are reasons why the law only considers you adult at eighteen, and no mature how "mature" you are or appear at thirteen, both your body and your brain are still rapidly changing at that age, and the ability to deal with longterm consequences is one of the last things to fully develop.
mmm. I'm not trying to say no one here can be personally against it, as long as they recognize the difference between "the government must stop them!" and "oh, that seems like a bad idea." It seems like quite a few fall into the former group =/
I didn't base the homeschool argument on american law. I googled it first
While homeschool isn't common there, it does happen.
Angua wrote:One thing that I've been thinking about...
What would have happened if the parents had let her do this, the government hadn't stepped in and we didn't hear about it until a terrible accident happened at sea? Would as many people still be defending this? Would her parents have been charged with neglect?
I realise that it is probably not very useful arguing what-ifs as they could be countered by many other things, including her doing it and setting the world record with no problem, but I think that this is the worst possible outcome, and might bear some thought. Feel free to ignore this if you don't think that it's helpful.
I think theres only a few people defending this, which scares me, especially so on this forum.
IF that happened, I suppose I would feel the same way I felt about a local (same division, our school played theirs) HS football player who went into a coma. (I dont know if he got better or not). Its a tragedy, but you can't live your life in fear. If you have goals, try to achieve them. If they are risky, don't ignore the danger but do your best to manage it.
Should the government have tried to stop Amelia Earhart? No. She knew how to fly and knew the dangers of flying yet attempted it anyway for the same reasons she did her atlantic flight.
If your primary argument is that "it's an adventure she really wants to go on", it's not much to say that's a good enough reason to allow it. It's hard to say if anyone that age can be fully prepared for something like this, and sure, you can say that she seems mature enough (which she may be), but the reason the laws exist is to protect her until it is reasonably sure that she can make these decisions full well knowing the risks. It seems the government is at least looking into it though, rather than flat out saying no, which seems like a decent enough compromise.
Elvish Pillager wrote:
I'm not one to snatch away someone's dreams, to tell a mature, self-assured person that I know better than they do what is good for them. Nor do I wish to take away the chance, for everyone who will ever meet her, to interact with someone who has had truly, profoundly different experiences. The XKCD comic pertinent to this situation is not 308, but 137
What you would
do, and what the government is required
to do are two entirely different things.
It doesnt matter why she wants to, its her life and her parents support her. The only questions that matter are "does she want to?" It seems she does, and isnt being forced to at gunpoint. "Is this going to inflict on the rights of others" Sorry, but you(plural, not necessarily you you) actually dont have the right to control other peoples lives based on your halfinformed opinions! No other reason or motivation matters, because its her life.
"The Dutch Child Protection Agency had requested Miss Dekker be made a ward of court because, it said, it was "irresponsible for such a young girl to make a two-year solo trip around the world"." That is not a fact, it is an opinion. What next, will the government decide digg or twitter or facebook use is irresponsible and shut down the websites? Will they decide wasting time on highschool and little league athletics is irresponsible and ban those? Will they decide watching cartoons is irresponsible and stop people from doing that? If anyone wants to live in a world where bureaucrats control your lives, then fuck that shit and you can enjoy that hell.