[Serataru]

She's trying to break a world record. Currently I believe the youngest person to sail solo around the world was 15 at the time of completion. Her dream is to sail younger and break the record. Based on what I've read, she was BORN on a boat, for fucks sake. Lokky is really into this story and knows all the ins and outs of it, because he's been sailing since he was old enough to walk, too. His mom ran a sailing school for YEARS. Again, the only real problem I have with it is that she would be missing school... but as Lokky pointed out to me before, "sometimes the most important lessons are learned outside of school, anyway." Anyway the girl sails all over the place solo, this would just be a longer trip than before, but she's sailed to many places solo before (this is what Lokky tells me, he's done all sorts of research about her apparently) and of course her parents could meet her in certain ports if they wanted to, as the 15 year old who currently holds the record did with his parents. Lokky reckons at 13 he could have done it, too -- and that it seems like a fair age to allow her to try it, if she is indeed the master sailor they say she is (which, if she's been sailing that long -- apparently she's had her own sailboat since she was 6 -- she probably damn well is.)

Really though it seems if nothing else that whats sad about this is: look how easy it is to have your kid taken away from you. Thousands of kids are abused every fucking day, ABUSED, STARVED, etc and those kids are not made a fuss of, but I'll be damned if we'll let your kid break a world record that she's qualified to break! It's all bullshit really, and NONE of it is up to any of us to decide. It isn't as though they're denying her lifesaving medical treatment that she WANTS to have, or anything like that. The kid wants to sail a boat. Get over it.

[pathwriter]

Serataru, on 08 September 2009 - 06:59 PM, said:

Thousands of kids are abused every fucking day, ABUSED, STARVED, etc and those kids are not made a fuss of, but I'll be damned if we'll let your kid break a world record that she's qualified to break!

You're not actually aware of how good the Netherlands is to kids, are you? Those cases of abuse and starvation and whatnot happen in Third World countries like the United States. The Dutch have one of the best education systems in the world for a reason.

[Serataru]

pathwriter, on 08 September 2009 - 07:46 PM, said:

You're not actually aware of how good the Netherlands is to kids, are you? Those cases of abuse and starvation and whatnot happen in Third World countries like the United States. The Dutch have one of the best education systems in the world for a reason.

I didn't mean the Dutch specifically, which is why I didn't refer to them specifically when I made that statement. I meant it as an overall observation. We're all really quick to tell people with "unorthodox" methods to fuck off, even when it's not really doing the kid any physical or emotional harm... Everyone wants to tell everyone else how to raise their kids.

And if the Dutch are that well educated (which, yes -- I was aware of that, Path -- which is why again I did not refer to them specifically) then I am sure these parents are aware of the risks and have assessed the risk and reward of the situation.

The kid's an expert sailor. EXPERT. That in itself is a feat -- sailing is not an easy pastime, and it requires lots of technical skill and strength, and extensive knowledge and practice. Why was no one bitching about the 15 year old who did it, but when a 13 year old wants to do it, then it's the end of the fucking world?

There are more folks than just the Dutch who are in an uproar over this, Path.

[pathwriter]

We Americans can be idiots and in a tizzy over it, but it's really not relevant because we don't take particularly good care of our children, as you've pointed out. There is no reason to drag this out of the realm of reality into the land of fantasy just because it is inconvenient to remember which government is involved.

Also, could you point out what you're talking about with regards to a 15-year-old? Zac Sunderland, unless I've missed something in the past month and a half, is the youngest to complete this. He set out at age 16, spent 13 months sailing, and celebrated his 17th birthday at sea. I recall reading about some British boy who was also 16.

Really, though, it all stinks too much of "I wanna be the record-holder!" Regardless of what she thinks she wants, spending a year or two at sea at her age is insane. Her education worries me less than her development. What about socialization? That's an intrinsic part of adolescence. I don't like the idea of a 16-year-old going out, either, but the ones who did had at least passed early adolescence. Those years do make a lasting difference.

We don't let people drive until they're 16. Actually, the regulations have gotten stricter since I got licensed and, based on how many people I know who have been in accidents because they were texting or drunk (and underage, of course), they're still not strict enough. A poor driver is admittedly a danger to others on the road rather than merely herself, but what makes sense about sending a child out to sea for a year or more? All the youth advocates seem to have forgotten what they were like in their youth. I was dumb as a brick and so were all my friends, male and female. We were intelligent, but as far as common sense and survival instinct were concerned, we suffered the usual lack of both. If this girl turns out to be the one in a million who magically gained adult wisdom without having to pay for it, then I'm sure the government will see fit to set her adrift and then collect her body two weeks later.

[Kenshiro]

So, is she a Master sailor, or an expert sailor? I'm pretty sure it takes more than a few years to Master anything, especially something like sailing. I could be wrong. The American concept of individualism and liberty makes me chuckle.

[firefeng]

pathwriter said:

Well, a 13-year-old is not a sane and rational human being.

pathwriter said:

All the youth advocates seem to have forgotten what they were like in their youth. I was dumb as a brick and so were all my friends, male and female. We were intelligent, but as far as common sense and survival instinct were concerned, we suffered the usual lack of both.

Assumptions. The degree of any human being's 'sanity' is measurable only insofar as contrived social constructs allow. A schizophrenic's brain has different physiological functionality than a "healthy" adult's brain, but we do not base our classifications of schizophrenic severity on increasingly excessive amounts of dopamine but rather that individual's functionality. She is not at the same stage of neurological development as an adult; however, this does not mean she is incapable of making rational choices for herself. One of the most annoying lessons I had to learn growing up is that people rarely mature, and that adults are more often than not psychological copies of their adolescent selves save for additional layers of neuroses and psychological sclerosis. Conveniently, you skirted over the matter of what age would appropriate for such an undertaking, especially considering the human brain is still developing well into people's 20s, and that physical age is a woefully inadequate marker for anything but the most unrefined examinations of cognitive development.

Honestly, though, I don't understand how recounting your experiences of youthful ignorance while also pointing out that a Dutch child's developmental environment is wholly different from your own is supposed to persuade anyone of your point, but to be fair to you I was prepared to ignore most everything you said after I realized you were just repeatedly and over-complicatedly pointing out that the Dutch government was acting ethically while refraining from providing actual justification. You reference, vaguely, a social basis for your claims, which, without an underlying frame of reasoned argument, strikes me as perilously analogous to the "pandering emotional bullshit" I preemptively decried, but without further clarification you are merely a proponent of social subjugation of autonomy in situations where societal vagaries deem it fit to do so.

It is your opinion that a person who is 13-years-old is rationally incapable of comprehending the scale of her actions. Fine, I disagree, but I know the same ratio of idiots right now as I did in middle school, so perhaps you got lucky and chanced across a psychological oasis while I'm still wandering the wilderness. However, your opinions, and by extension, my own and the perceived opinions of society at large, are not fit to nourish governmental infractions against one's autonomy without first undergoing the rigors of reasoned thought. I do not trust any government to tell me how best to live when I know the people running it are wont to fuck up as much or more than I do on my own.

[Cruzandercerberus]

If you believe that the foundation of human dignity is freedom (In the form of property rights and that you own your own body), then you cannot support the government's actions without resorting to emotionally based totalitarian arguments (The government owns your body, and that of your child).

[Serataru]

The people freaking out about this are people who clearly don't know anything about sailing. At all. Except that it involves being on a boat.

pathwriter, on 08 September 2009 - 09:14 PM, said:

We Americans can be idiots and in a tizzy over it, but it's really not relevant because we don't take particularly good care of our children, as you've pointed out. There is no reason to drag this out of the realm of reality into the land of fantasy just because it is inconvenient to remember which government is involved.

It isn't inconvenient, it is irrelevant. My point here is that there are bigger fish to fry in ANY case. They're being invasive, they're violating the privacy of this family. There's really no difference between letting your 15-16 year old do it, and letting your 13 year old do it (in this case) so long as the skill level of the person in question is equivalent, which apparently it seems to be. It's arbitrary to say "but she's 13!~" So what? What exactly is 2-3 more years going to do for her sailing skill at this point? Nothing, really. She sails solo all the time, to places that aren't on the other side of the world, but aren't exactly across the street, either. She'd be constantly in touch via GPS and satillite (most sailors carry MULTIPLES of the same instruments in case one fails,) she's not sailing Christopher Columbus style. Her parents will know exactly where she is, in real time, at all times. It isn't as though if she decides not to finish it she's just STUCK out there. This isn't the 1500s. Why is this up to anyone else's judgment but her parents? Their business, not yours. I'd be more worried about the school she'd miss. That would be MY only issue if this were MY child. But guess what? It isn't, so my opinion doesn't matter. Neither does yours, and neither should the Dutch government's.

pathwriter, on 08 September 2009 - 09:14 PM, said:

Also, could you point out what you're talking about with regards to a 15-year-old? Zac Sunderland, unless I've missed something in the past month and a half, is the youngest to complete this. He set out at age 16, spent 13 months sailing, and celebrated his 17th birthday at sea. I recall reading about some British boy who was also 16.

I think what it was, was that he decided to DO it at 15, and prepared for it, left at 16. I don't know how old he was when he returned for certain, but it's moot, I'll explain why in a sec.

pathwriter, on 08 September 2009 - 09:14 PM, said:

Really, though, it all stinks too much of "I wanna be the record-holder!" Regardless of what she thinks she wants, spending a year or two at sea at her age is insane. Her education worries me less than her development. What about socialization? That's an intrinsic part of adolescence. I don't like the idea of a 16-year-old going out, either, but the ones who did had at least passed early adolescence. Those years do make a lasting difference.

Who gives a fuck what her motivation is? It's HER goal, and an admirable one. Again, the age thing is merely arbitrary at this point. Fucking a 16 year old doesn't make you LESS of a pedophile than fucking an 11 year old (assuming you're overage, of course) -- you're still a fucking pedophile. It's really all the same, 13, 14, 15, 16, who cares. I know 16-20 year olds that have wrecked multiple vehicles, but we still let 'em drive. Oh darn, she's going to be at sea by herself instead of being at home doing drugs and getting knocked up! How tragic. What exactly is your point?

pathwriter, on 08 September 2009 - 09:14 PM, said:

We don't let people drive until they're 16. Actually, the regulations have gotten stricter since I got licensed and, based on how many people I know who have been in accidents because they were texting or drunk (and underage, of course), they're still not strict enough. A poor driver is admittedly a danger to others on the road rather than merely herself, but what makes sense about sending a child out to sea for a year or more? All the youth advocates seem to have forgotten what they were like in their youth. I was dumb as a brick and so were all my friends, male and female. We were intelligent, but as far as common sense and survival instinct were concerned, we suffered the usual lack of both. If this girl turns out to be the one in a million who magically gained adult wisdom without having to pay for it, then I'm sure the government will see fit to set her adrift and then collect her body two weeks later.

Oh cut the melodramatic horseshit, she's 13 not 3. That's Pre-teen. Eighth grade. Ready for high school, and in some places, IN high school. She's not a child, she's an adolescent, and she probably already has her period. Sending a CHILD out to sea by herself, yes I could see your point. Most CHILDREN cannot care for themselves: they can't cook their own meals, they can't do their own laundry, etc etc etc -- but a normal 13 year old can do all that (if they aren't retarded and they had good parents who taught them how to fend for themselves if necessary.) Either way, it's no one's business -- the family and the child both agree on it, so that should be the end of it. If she does die, Darwin wins, and the herd is thinned that much more. Who gives a fuck?

[Cruzandercerberus]

Serataru, on 09 September 2009 - 12:54 PM, said:

The people freaking out about this are people who clearly don't know anything about sailing. At all. Except that it involves being on a boat.

Never thought I'd be on a boat. It's like a big blue watery road.

[IoriYagami]

Cruzandercerberus, on 09 September 2009 - 01:27 PM, said:

Never thought I'd be on a boat. It's like a big blue watery road.

In the end someone's dreams are gone. When ya think deep down about it. Whether were right or wrong about the situation, it's kind of sad and a bit of a downer. Tell me you people at least agree on that.

[pathwriter]

Oh, yeah, this chick is ruined for life. I mean, when your childhood dream of sailing around the world is deferred, there's no way to recover from that. You certainly couldn't just wait until you're an adult and sail without government interference, that's just far too difficult.

If the government breaks her arms and legs then lobotomizes her, then your "someone's dreams are gone" line would be relevant. Moreover, dreams are called dreams for a reason. I once wanted to be an astronaut but I'm 5'9" in tennis shoes and far-sighted. I haven't lost sleep because NASA won't hire shorter people with poor eyesight, but I probably won't be floating in space before my 70th birthday, either.

[Phlow]

firefeng, on 06 September 2009 - 12:48 AM, said:

Since my not-so-subtle topic title abundantly illuminates my own opinion on this matter, at what point, for you, does governmental interference in people's lives proceed past "sane" and into the territory of active harmfulness to individual development?

For the good of the people, Comrade Feng.

[1337NancYBoY]

Serataru, on 09 September 2009 - 12:54 PM, said:

She's not a child, she's an adolescent, and she probably already has her period. Sending a CHILD out to sea by herself, yes I could see your point. Most CHILDREN cannot care for themselves: they can't cook their own meals, they can't do their own laundry, etc etc etc -- but a normal 13 year old can do all that (if they aren't retarded and they had good parents who taught them how to fend for themselves if necessary.) Either way, it's no one's business -- the family and the child both agree on it, so that should be the end of it. If she does die, Darwin wins, and the herd is thinned that much more. Who gives a fuck?

This.

Though I really love how people are trying to use ethics to justify crushing someone's dreams and infringing on their apparently non-existent right to self-determination.

I guess these days it's more of a five-lane interstate.

[pathwriter]

Again with the hysterical claims that someone's dreams have been crushed. Hell, the girl herself has been circumspect about the whole process, which implies that she's either cognizant of how dangerous a feat she was attempting or plans to proceed with or without approval by the government. All of you who are offended by the notion that a child (yes, she's a child, the term "adolescent" carries no meaning) might not be able to do something she wants seem to be taking this far more seriously than she has done. Maybe I should call her an adult, then, and relegate you lot of reactionary libertines to child status.

[1337NancYBoY]

pathwriter, on 10 September 2009 - 10:01 PM, said:

Maybe I should call her an adult, then, and relegate you lot of reactionary libertines to child status.

You're just trying to talk me into dressing up like an alter boy. Again. <.<

[firefeng]

pathwriter said:

Again with the hysterical claims that someone's dreams have been crushed

I'm far more crushed that you are using the emotional responses of a 13-year-old to excuse the behavior of a government. (Or are you trying to trap the tinfoil-hatted anarchists in the thread into saying, "She's 13-years-old, what does she know?!") If society's emotional outbursts are unfit to direct the course of the state, why should this girl's response (or lack thereof) be intrinsically more valuable justificatory fodder for its actions?

Still waiting on a logical argument. Someone surprise me.

[Deo2]

Stopped reading halfway down this page (or previous if new page). Interjecting silly opinion now.

It's too bad going to highschool isn't mandatory (guessing). Being held back 2 years probably won't matter too much just cause she wants to go on a 2year field trip. Maybe her folks will bore her with home schooling throughout the voyage.

Unlike Magellin, she could cut through Panama, and she probably won't run into hostiles on the Pacific Islands... probably. Maybe a few pirates/slavers... scurvy... mutiney... paranoid submarine captains armed with black market torpedoes... wifi disconnections... dinosaur filled islands

Just a fine time of lobster, burgers, coconuts, and thai food...

[Vigilous]

Path, I have to call bullshit on you. You'll scream murder most foul on police asking for ID, but when an example of what you fear is presented, you curl up and it's "for her benefit".

Yeah, we all have dreams. The difference is, most people dream big. This girl's goal is realistic and obtainable, which makes this situation so irritating. If she wanted to drive an ice cream truck in outer space and was some how obtaining rocket fuel to do it, I could certainly understand the government's concern.

But rather than show nationalistic pride in the goals of one of its own by either approval or support, the Dutch chose instead to DETAIN and FORCE her to be EVALUATED for two months. It doesn't matter if she was rethinking her plan or not. The fact is, she was DETAINED against HER WILL because Uncle Dutch-Fag thinks it's "abnormal" for a 13 year old girl to want to do something like this.

[pathwriter]

What part of this is difficult to understand? She's a child; she does not have control of her life. The people of the Netherlands pay out a lot of money to ensure that she and all of her peers are well-educated and healthy, so they (by way of the state) have a stake in her surviving to adulthood and being a productive member of their society, thereby paying back the debts she incurred growing up. It's nice that the American idea of independence (she is a long way from independent) regards human life as disposable. It really comes as no surprise that our healthcare system has gone to hell and that we managed to destroy our economy for the fifth or sixth time in the past century. Do some research into what pure liberty really looks like. Start with Leviathan.

Way to go using the word "abnormal," though, when the word "unsafe" is more accurate. Also, the /b/ speak completely destroys any attempt you might have at wielding credibility.

[firefeng]

pathwriter said:

What part of this is difficult to understand? She's a child; she does not have control of her life.

Of course she doesn't; however, why you are alright with the state having control over her life instead of her parents is beyond me, and something you have yet to explain. The only position you are arguing is that the state knows her capabilities better than her own parents.

Patrick has me on ignore, doesn't he?

The American idea of liberty has been dead for a century, its decaying corpse torn from its shallow grave and publicly sodomized since the start Cold War.