5) Please watch this video, and answer the question (below):

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3cgUhtRUbE

Someone could object to the film in the following way:

"I hear what is being said here, and we certainly need to fight our tendencies to being whiny, self-centered, and entitled.

But the video is committing the 'Hasty Generalization' fallacy by pointing to virtually all of society's ills and tying this directly to today's children alleged deficiency in 'Vitamin N.'

Society is always changing (and in ways we cannot easily understand) and there are often more than one plausible explanation for why we are the way we are. (Just take an 'Introduction to Sociology' class, and you will see all the competing theories of society, and how each of them has some plausibility but also significant weaknesses.)

In fact, there is very good reason to believe that the lack of 'Vitamin N' visible today has significant beneficial effects on society. Think of all the millions of young people in the 1920s, for instance, who never developed themselves to the fullest, and had their personal creativities, drives, and passions squelched, because they were told discouraging 'everyday truths,' such as: 'The sky IS the limit!,' 'You are burning your candle at both ends!,' 'Dreaming is for sleep -- get back to work!,' etc.

We need the current generation of young people to feel self-confident in their own ideas to demand the 'impossible' from those of us who are too small-minded or frightened or lazy to see the world any differently than the way it is.

Children need to be told 'YES, it IS possible!,' 'You ARE entitled to demand a better world than what you have been handed by previous generations!,' and 'It is possible that you -- that's right, YOU! -- may be the ONLY ONE in the world who can cure cancer, walk on Mars, end poverty, be an ethical role-model in your sphere of influence, etc.'

Indeed, it takes a lot of chutzpah to believe you can positively impact the world -- but this necessary self-esteem will not develop if it is poisoned with too much 'Vitamin N.'"

What do you think of this criticism? Is it compelling or weak? Please explain.

6) Lafollette lists several objections to his proposal. Please choose the strongest objection among his list, and explain if his response is compelling or weak, and why.

7) Please study the following two ads, and explain what you think the main message is (note: there are multiple messages):

https://www.adsoftheworld.com/media/print/save_the_children_kitchen_circle

https://www.adsoftheworld.com/media/print/save_the_children_livingroom_circle

8) Imagine if someone read Lafollette's article and concluded the following:

"Look, it's unrealistic to think actual licenses to parent will happen any time soon.

However, it is more than clear that waiting until something happens, and only then intervening (with Child Protective Services, etc.), is not working.

That's our current approach -- presume competence, and only if you demonstrate incompetence, will you be denied your rights.

Imagine if we said: 'Okay, I will presume you can drive safely, so here's your license! But if you mess up, then we will have to take this away.'

Yet, we do that with innocent, vulnerable children every single day.

At the present moment, we have no way of screening out beforehand those who are prone to serious abuse, violence, or neglect (except with adoptive parents, that is -- as LaFollette points out -- who are much, much safer for children to be with than one's biological parents; this is because adoptive parents were screened so carefully beforehand).

What I am proposing is not a license, but requiring prospective parents to watch, for instance, a 8 minute video about child-safety, and then they must pass a short Quiz afterwards in order to take their baby home.

For example, a basic video like this:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjyhfIZKmSg

What if they fail the Quiz? Well, what if they do? Do you want to have YOUR child in the 'care' of someone who cannot pass a simple Quiz on child-safety? If not, then it is not fair to put another innocent child in potential danger, either.

Maybe it should just be 'recommended' viewing for new parents, but not required? Well, please answer this: Would you study for a Quiz if you are guaranteed to pass beforehand?

If they fail the Quiz, they can always come back to the hospital the next day to watch an hour long video on the same topic (all on the most elementary basics of child safety for new parents), and this time have a conversation with a social worker, who can answer any questions and will then administer another simple, brief Quiz over the material in the video.

If they still do not pass (or if the social worker is told facts about their home that makes it clearly unsafe for children), then the prospective parents can still see their child in a supervised environment for as long as they like during the day or night. However, they cannot be alone with their child until they can demonstrate that they understand, and observe, the fundamentals of protecting children from easily preventable harm.

They may apply as many times as they like to take the Quiz, but the consultation with the social workers will continue to lengthen (and why shouldn't it?) with each failed attempt to show basic competence with child safety.

There will, of course, be a clear and independently-reviewed process -- with the goal of being as fair as possible -- to appeal the Quiz results, to grant special accommodations for alternative testing for those who have difficulties concentrating on Quizzes, etc., and for all other exceptional situations.

I am the first to admit that this would not be a perfect solution, but what we have now is not in any way acceptable. Not just anyone should be in charge of a little human being who has no voice and no defenses. The responsibility falls on us to make sure we do something at the front end (not after-the-fact, when it is sometimes, tragically too late).

And, yes, it will be inconvenient, will have a financial cost, and will be stressful for new parents, etc., etc.

But compare all this to the value of even one child being saved if we really put everything else to the side and made sure that child's life and safety came first."

Do you think this is a strong or weak response? Please explain.

In your answer, please also mention if you already knew everything in that short video (the one on child safety mentioned above)? Or not?