The War Amps "Play Safe" program - why are we blaming the kids?

My dad's favourite line was "Why don't you go play hopscotch on the 401" and I think a lot of the time he meant it !

You mean teach them that its always someone else's fault?

Teach them preventions, not who to blame

But they'll never learn proper virtue-signaling that way!

j/k. I completely agree with you, and was just being facetious above.

Let me put it this way, what's more likely to have the desired effect (i.e. preventing serious injuries) telling the kid to "Play Safe" or dad to "Boat Safe"?

Doesn't the responsibility lie with the adult driving the boat or the tractor and not the kid who gets in the way?

The message to "Play Safe" only makes sense to me when the adults aren't around, but tell me when was the last time there was a war amps ambassador who wasn't injured in an accident involving an adult operating a piece of equipment? (In other words, that robot who puts his arm back on after playing in the power lines is a lie).

(My team is out of the playoffs so my post-season is well under way hence the non-game related rant)

I'd say COMPREHENSION is most important. Regardless of how well the lawnmower man mows the lawn or how well the captain pilots the boat, it's not until the kids COMPREHEND that these things can seriously harm them - that increased safety occurs.

Ex: I cut lots and lots of grass and also own a boat and use it often. Doing both activities to perfection doesn't make little Ellie next door comprehend one single solitary new thing that could save her limbs.

Bobo: I was just taking a drink of chocolate milk when I saw that last animation of the guy walking sideways in an attempt to "obey" the walkman sign. Thanks to you I got chocolate milk all over my computer screen! Too funny my friend. Too funny! Whatever it is you do for a living, if it isn't in comedy, change professions! You are too much!

...should've been the Medicine Hat Separatists...

so if daddy is not being safe and has not instructed the kids about proper safety, then if the kids jump in and lose a limb, it's ok for them because it was dad's fault?? The kids just have to live with it.

ultimately, it is not about blame or responsibility, it is about teaching us all at a young age that in the end, you need to be smart and look out for your own safety, no matter what anyone else is doing wrong.

Why is this a thread on the CFL talk ? Should we talk about DR HO's therapy too . It advertises as well .

I want to know why kids are still getting their feet cut off under a lawnmower?

What the hell is going on during cutting the grass?

[i]How is it relevant?

[/i]How is a ignorant stupid political anti-Quebec comment relevant?

Sorry, RO, but I believe you may be extremely sensitive about this. Heck, I saw it in light of other gentle digs at characteristics of cities. I am not sure why it is offensive.This is also not a general attack on Quebec.If he had said disparaging remarks about separatists then you might begin to have a stronger case, I believe. All the best.

That is interesting quelphcatsfan. I've seen the ad you're talking about and I've never come to the conclusion that the kid is being blamed for losing a foot or an arm because he was being foolish. I do not see an implication being made by the presenter of the ad or in this case the boy who lost his leg/foot. I do see how some might "infer" that that is what is being communicated.

What I see is a reminder that lawn mowers for example are not toys and they must be given lots of respect. As adults we have the benefit hindsight and experience. We are able to anticipate a dangerous situation and take steps to avoid it. Most youngsters don't have the benefit of discernment. They simply have not been around long enough. Sometimes unfortunate accidents happen and no one is to blame. They are just terrible accidents. For example a parent is sitting by the pool with her small tot who is able to stand and walk. The mom scampers into the house to turn off the unit on the stove. She is momentarily distracted but only for a couple of briefly. She comes out to find her tiny tot face down in the pool. Do we blame the tot for not obeying mommy? Of course not. Do we blame the mom for negligence? Some might. I wouldn't.

Many confuse the terms 'implication' and 'inference'. You might make a comment about something and I assume that you must be implying something when in fact you're not implying anything. I am simply coming to a conclusion or trying to read between the lines. I am inferring that you mean something by what you said.

As someone pointed out. I think the war amp commercial is attempting to communicate the importance of respecting power equipment because if you are playing around it carelessly without respecting it you can end up getting seriously injured. That is the educating part.

I don't think the boy is implying, " Hey, if you are foolish like me and you don't play safe, the same thing could happen to you. I was stupid. I'm to blame. " If someone comes to that conclusion it is because that person has made that inference not because it was being implied.

On the other hand, the implication I think is that it is important to teach our children to be very respectful of power equipment whether it is operating or not. It is amazing how children can come with creative ways to maim themselves.

I think there is another more latent message in that ad. The image of a youngster wearing a prosthetic is lasting. I think the inference I would make is that children [and adults] will have that image conjure up the next time power equipment is being operated around children.

Good point FootBalYouBet although to an extent it is also about taking responsibility by being smart and looking out for one's own safety.

EVERYTHING is secondary to the welfare of our children.

Simple physics is what the kids need to grasp at an early age. When my sons were preschool age they had to cross a fairly busy street in our new neighbourhood. I observed some parents instruct their kids only to simply press the red button for the X-Walk lights and then they had the RIGHT to cross and the cars HAD to stop. Most weren't being taught to look both ways. While in an ideal world that's great, but who says traffic is ideal? While the kid might be right in knowing the X-Walk should protect them, he or she could also be dead by being so naive. Looking both ways multiple times before you cross ANY street is what the kid needs to know because two tons of moving steel and glass will beat the 40 lbs of skin and bone every single time.

I think the WarAmps/CFL PlaySafe Campaign is very relevant, and practical.