11–20 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The perceived danger is that a stranger will kidnap your children if you let them walk to and from the park. The real danger is they're more likely to be kidnapped if you leave them at home with friends or relatives.
I once read that for every 2 kids kidnapped by a stranger, someone is killed by a lightning strike. This was backed up by stats.
What's the difference between perceived and real? Someone preceiving it thinks it's plenty real. I've never been in a traffic accident - is the need for seat belts and air bags real?
Ask people you know if they know anyone who's been involved in a plane crash, however minor. Most people are at least two degrees away from such an event even if they know a lot of people. It's rare to know someone who knows someone who's been involved in a plane crash because as traumatic as these events are, they impact a very small number of people, under 1000 per year world-wide. There are significantly more people that win over $1M in the lottery in the same time period, and most would agree that's a huge long-shot.
Now ask the same people if they've personally been involved in a collision. Most people over 30 have been involved in at least one, and it's not uncommon to know someone who's been involved in two or three. You probably know at least one person who's lost a friend or relative to a car crash.
The need for seat belts and air bags is absolutely real. You'd know this if you did even a cursory amount of research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perception: there's a 75% chance my kid will be kidnapped by a pedophile. Reality: there's a 0.01% chance of the pedophile kidnap, but a 75% chance of drowning in the bathtub. Numbers are made up. Perception is not reality. Another example: Trayvon Martin was a dark-skinned young male wearing a hoodie. Perception: he is a criminal casing the houses in order to commit a future crime. Reality: he was a kid walking home…
The question is, would the factual probability go up if the perceived probability goes down? ;)
E.g. number of kids falling and breaking their arm will be larger, but the population is larger and medical care is better, now. So, overall, I think the risks are actually lower than when I was a kid running around unsupervised.
I don't know about the number of pedophile predators per capita, but I imagine that may be a roughly fixed proportion of the population. Kids now also have cellphones, so that's a lifeline kids never had in the past. So, I'd imagine that percentage would not really rise, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perception: there's a 75% chance my kid will be kidnapped by a pedophile. Reality: there's a 0.01% chance of the pedophile kidnap, but a 75% chance of drowning in the bathtub. Numbers are made up. Perception is not reality. Another example: Trayvon Martin was a dark-skinned young male wearing a hoodie. Perception: he is a criminal casing the houses in order to commit a future crime. Reality: he was a kid walking home…
The question is, would the factual probability go up if the perceived probability goes down? ;)
There needs to be some way of walking this back, but I can't think what that might be except literally trying to get a law in place giving parents broad immunity. I can't even really imagine how such a law would be worded without completely gutting CPS and related organizations in other countries.
What's the difference between perceived and real? Someone preceiving it thinks it's plenty real. I've never been in a traffic accident - is the need for seat belts and air bags real?
The perceived danger is that a stranger will kidnap your children if you let them walk to and from the park. The real danger is they're more likely to be kidnapped if you leave them at home with friends or relatives.
> How much risk was there of some harm coming to the child while the parents were gone?
As a parent to young children, I would say pretty damn high, actually. Kids do stupid things all the time, and if you aren't there, and they know you aren't there, there is no limit to the stupid things a 2 year old can do. It's a normal part of growing up, but that doesn't make it safe to do it alone in the slightest.
That said, I agree with the gist of the article overall.
you're all idiots.
But if you talk with "regular people", you'll notice that media coverage gives people an unwarranted fear of outlier events: terrorism, mass shootings, plane crashes, etc.
In reality, almost everyone in the US should fear the real killers: obesity, cancer, stroke, etc.