Hacker News Reader

That argument reads to me like this: "If my kid injured himself, I would be inconvenienced - so let's take extra steps to make sure I am not inconvenienced."

And to your point, there are cases where this is valid - when the inconvenience would extend beyond just "oh my afternoon is ruined" and into "everybody's afternoon would be ruined".

>>If your child crashes his bike and gets a bloody knee on the playground, your relaxing afternoon at the park is most likely over and now you have a crying child, bloody clothes, a damaged bike wheel, and potentially another child who is now screaming because you have to leave the park to go find bandages.

Well, yes. This is called parenting: it is expected that, as a parent, you will have to endure a certain amount of inconvenience so that your kid can learn to ride a bike. Now, if he or she is endangering other kids while learning, then it's valid to step in. But thinking about your own convenience sounds a bit selfish.

If the only way humans could learn was through directly physical stimuli, we'd be scratching dirt and running down antelope still.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practise.

In practise, there is.

Even if, as I presume, you are trying to spell in Australian/Commonwealth English, it should be "practice" here because it's a noun. Only the verb is "practise".

Yeah, that's still a weak point in my spelling. I'm generally pretty good and most misspellings are only typos, but that one's always an issue for me. Curious.

Everyone? I've only witnessed this behavior as a way to avoid inconveniencing themselves.