Badges also have badge numbers and a bar code that the eTicketing app can read. Anyone associated with the convention can easily look up a badge number. The argument that officials need a last name to identify a lost child is not true.
The argument that Gen Con
officials need the last name may not be true (I didn't know the eTicketing app already read badge numbers, good to know). But police don't have access to that app afaik. The one time I got significantly lost as a child I ended up pretty far away from the event my family was attending.I was also suggesting the name on the back of the badge be in small print--i.e. print you would need to have the badge in hand to see.
It's also one of those situations where it's absurd to claim that people without children should not offer opinions. My brain works just as well when I think about issues involving children as a parent's brain does. "I don't understand". BS. I understand the emotions that parents have regarding their children, and I understand rather well how emotional states affect cognition. Those parental emotions (even if I do not have them, which is debatable as I have nieces and nephews and god-children and friends) do not make particular arguments
about the safety
of children right or wrong. Are your arguments about what would actually
make children safer better arguments because you feel certain emotions? Or are you saying there's information, data, that isn't accessible to me because I don't have children?
I like you, have for years, and more importantly I respect the heck out of you. But that 'you're not a parent you should be quiet' line is baloney.
I've been on the other side of parental issues for most of my life. And I used to offer up my thoughtful opinions to friends and acquaintances as well. Once I became a parent I realized that my viewpoint and opinions had drastically changed. It's a matter of perspective. A matter of "skin in the game" as it were. it's like your heart lives outside your body and likes to run around and climb things.As an analogy, I understand the physics of sky-diving, but I wouldn't offer an opinion as to how it feels to jump out of a plane, or why it's important to pack your own chute. I'm just saying that in matters of child safety, a parent's perspective is far more meaningful. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I completely agree that viewpoints might change. That doesn't mean that quality of arguments
will improve :)
There were, and are, a lot of people in the US who's viewpoint as a parent led them to not vaccinate their children--a large part of that was due to emotions, fear for their children. At least, that's what the ones I've heard interviewed said. A claim with no merit preyed on their emotions. I haven't heard of a single non-parent anti-vaxxer. Clearly their viewpoints changed. But in the anti-vaxxer case, for those people, it changed (due to their emotions) into a terrible, harmful to their children, viewpoint.
So yeah. Viewpoints about names on badges may change with parenthood too, I will easily accept that. But that is no proof that the viewpoint it changes to is a better viewpoint. As with the anti-vaxxers, the effect of emotions and oxytosin on someone's thinking might actually lead to a plan of action that is worse for the children involved. The opinions of the emotionally-involved parents were not more 'meaningful'. They were 'more strongly felt'. But they were less-than-clear-headed, really terrible opinions.
In a legal setting, there's precedent for people with emotional attachments actually not being the ones who make the decisions. Same in an educational setting (me grading my own child could be a problem). That's because it's understood that these emotional attachments aren't really good for clear-headed thinking much of the time.
So the question is whether we want policies that are good for kids, or policies that parents feel are good for their kids (regardless of their actual effect).
Because simply feeling an emotion does not make someone's rational thinking and critical analysis any better. And I will argue that policies coming from rational thinking and critical analysis are what will actually keep kids safer, not policies coming from feeling certain emotions.