CuriousMe Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Ah, I see. It's different hearing it from a boyfriend or husband, but I'm sure you know that. Well, as dapperpoet and I aren't dating or married, it seems we've avoided that quagmire entirely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TubaJon Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Why is this thread still going!??!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dapperpoet Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 I understand that you think I'm on the wrong side of this. I think you're on the wrong side of this....that's why we disagree. To say that I'm empirically on the wrong side of this is pretty arrogant. So, we've had posts from people who marched drum corps who have lost friends from melanoma, and have had cancer themselves. But that's not empirical (before you decide to school me on research methods, please know that I teach research methodology to doctoral students, but I'm sure saying that's just arrogant...so nevermind). We've had posts that point to US military recommendations about risk of UV radiation exposure, but I'm sure they all got together had a couple of beers, and put the web page up- nothing empirical there. We've had posts discussing how the Australian government considers it such a serious problem that they've made a major effort to educate their citizens about it (one of thousands of sites discussing this can be found at http://www.theozonehole.com/australianskincancer.htm), but hey, those Aussies are full of it. What would, in all my arrogance, pass for empirical proof for you? Recommendations and studies from the Centers for Disease control saying people working outdoors should wear clothing protection? Okay: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/uvradiation/ But, again, all this is just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 That's correct. Wearing shirts would destroy dci. congrats, that was not my point. My point was that even if people wear shirts, they will still be out in the sun and have exposed body parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 This is a similar situation in the real (non DCI) world: parents who drive over their kids by accident. I think the solution is to be intelligent and aware, so you don't drive over your kids. Other people think the solution is to cover cars with cameras: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110626/NEWS/106260329/Driveway-tragedy-leads-mom-on-crusade-for-safety?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dapperpoet Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 Putting t-shirts on kids to protect them is like parents who drive over their kids by accident. Okay. This is a similar situation in the real (non DCI) world: parents who drive over their kids by accident. I think the solution is to be intelligent and aware, so you don't drive over your kids. Other people think the solution is to cover cars with cameras: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110626/NEWS/106260329/Driveway-tragedy-leads-mom-on-crusade-for-safety?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbevillekid26 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I don't know if I agree with the OP about making it mandatory but I'm sure lol'ing at the outraged responses. So frequently the term "babying" is thrown around because things aren't done the same way as they were when we knew less. The worst sunburn I've ever had in my life was from not wearing a shirt or putting on sunscreen at a drum corps rehearsal and I sure learned my lesson. I guess some people don't but hey you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousMe Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 You're obviously very smart as well, so let's stop twisting what I said. No one is saying that getting sun burns as kids/young adults is a good thing. We have all seen the research that shows a correlation between folks who received severe burns as kids with getting skin cancer later in life. We also all know that folks with fair skin have more of a risk of developping skin cancer at some point in their life. No one is disputing any of this. That's not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is whether DCI should mandate behavior based on that. So, no....there is no empiric answer to that (unless you know of a study in this population? Even then, as you know from your education, the data wouldn't give an answer as to whether DCI should mandate behavior). Using your examples: Do you really want your kid to have all the health mandates that the US Military requires of it's members? Or just this one? The vaccine list alone is substantial. The Austrailian Government isn't mandating, they're educating...which is what I've been a proponent for. The CDC is also educating people, not mandating. Yes, there's anecdotal evidence, everyone knows someone who had skin cancer at some point...what does that really tell us? You didn't address any of my points. Do you think that wearing a shirt outside in the summer should be legislated (by the government) for everyone under 21? If not, how are folks not marching (who could still be outside all day everyday) different from those marching? Kids to young to make their own decision have parents who are supposed to make it for them (maybe make wearing a shirt a condition of them marching). Young adults are responsible for making their own decision. Decisions about their diet, about smoking, about attending class, about being safe sexually, drinking alcohol (once they're 21), and about deciding how to protect themselves from the sun. Legislating those decisions only delay when they have to manage it themselves. At some point, they will need to learn how to take care of themselves. So, I'll ask again: Just how long do "kids" need to be protected from themselves? When do we let them grow up? So, we've had posts from people who marched drum corps who have lost friends from melanoma, and have had cancer themselves. But that's not empirical (before you decide to school me on research methods, please know that I teach research methodology to doctoral students, but I'm sure saying that's just arrogant...so nevermind). We've had posts that point to US military recommendations about risk of UV radiation exposure, but I'm sure they all got together had a couple of beers, and put the web page up- nothing empirical there. We've had posts discussing how the Australian government considers it such a serious problem that they've made a major effort to educate their citizens about it (one of thousands of sites discussing this can be found at http://www.theozonehole.com/australianskincancer.htm), but hey, those Aussies are full of it. What would, in all my arrogance, pass for empirical proof for you? Recommendations and studies from the Centers for Disease control saying people working outdoors should wear clothing protection? Okay: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/uvradiation/ But, again, all this is just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dapperpoet Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 Beats me, but I think it's worth talking about. So, I'll ask again: Just how long do "kids" need to be protected from themselves? When do we let them grow up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TubaJon Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Beats me, but I think it's worth talking about. Unfortunately theres less talking about that, and more talking about how the other side is wrong in here. Neither side has gained any traction in a few pages... hence the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts