People are seriously overprotective of any and all children.

Issit sad if a kid dies? Sure. Doesn't man you should isolate them from anything that could potentially harm them, as such babying is also harmful over the long run.

Maybe I'm missing this: what led to the statement that people are seriously overprotective of any and all children? This thread is pointing out that kids who can't swim are allowed in pools, which is dangerous and leads to preventable deaths. Isn't that the opposite of people being seriously overprotective?

We should require seatbelts in cars.

It should be your choice to wear one.

If your kid can't swim, it's your job to teach them or keep them safe. If you're not doing that, should it not be on you, that Childs parent, to deal with it?

Where does personal responsibility start, and social intervention begin? Autonomy, responsibility, individuality are the things that should be under discussion... Not save the children.

You might think that's harsh but add in privacy to the above list, and make the topic "searching all your pictures for CP" (as some laws are attempting to do) it suddenly becomes over-reach.

The extreme ends of the individual-collective continuum (complete lack of laws in favor of autonomy and personal responsibility vs. overbearing legal/regulatory intervention that undermines autonomy) make it clear that real life needs to be somewhere in the middle.

Seatbelts should be mandatory though. There's no legitimate reason not to wear one.

Why?

WHy is it your job, or any one else's, to tell someone what they should do for their own good?

Cars are unsafe we should ban them. People might drown we should mandate swimming lessons...

It's an arbitrary line, and why is one different than any other?

> WHy is it your job, or any one else's, to tell someone what they should do for their own good?

The line isn't quiet as arbitrary as you make it sound. Itd be a different story if your health insurance wouldn't have to pay if you didn't wear it etc. There is also the extra inconvenience of having the road blocked for extended periods of time whenever someone offs themselves etc.

Pretty much every personal safety regulation happens because other people are getting impacted/inconvenienced in some way

The root comment said to not allow floating devices in pools with children that can't swim, but only clarified the condition in the latter sentence. The first response (mis-)interpreted it as "do not allow floating devices period" and argued against that, with the discussion getting sidetracked from them on.

That is not suffering and you should be embarrassed to type like that.

You are assigning an arbitrary minimum value of suffering to the term "suffering".

That is needless. Suffering a tiny little bit from losing the option to play with floatation devices is still suffering.