I feel like I am in a Monty Python sketch right now. She “contributed to delinquency” because he could have gotten in trouble that he didn’t get into if things had gone entirely differently?
Kids that are denied their freedom have stunted development. The formerly imprisoned children become adults that can’t cope with the world and end up dying from drug addiction in their twenties.
And yes, it is cowardice. Your comment that it’s a dangerous world demonstrates cowardice and a fear-based worldview. It demonstrates that you’ve formed your judgment based on irrational fear and haven’t considered the real harms of obsessively trying to prevent absolutely every possible harm to children.
The actual risks of childhood deaths from accident or abduction are at historic lows. Kids have literally never been safer. Cowards justify all sorts of evils based on the imagined risk of child abduction, but there are only a couple hundred actual kidnappings of children in the US each year. It’s an incredibly low risk that cowards will use to justify incredibly evil and damaging policies. The lives of countless children are destroyed based on the mostly imagined fears of cowards.
It’s cowardice to not take a reasonable look at the actual level of risk involved. A coward screams, “think of the children! No cost or risk is too high if it prevents a single child’s death!” On a global average, a child has only about a 0.035% chance of drowning before their 5th birthday. By locking kids indoors, you end up stunting the development of three thousand children for every one you save from drowning. Children with stunted development end up with lifelong negative consequences. You cannot simply ignore those consequences by sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, “think of the children!!”
And you’re making a bad-faith comparison here. A mom let her kid go play by the duck pond of a gated community, not play in the road. Kids that old are mature enough to understand when you tell them to stay out of the water.
The job of a parent is not simply to make sure their kids survive into adulthood. The job of a parent is to ensure that their kids actually become healthy and happy independent adults. Part of that is ensuring that kids survive to adulthood, but another part is making sure kids have enough freedom and life experience to make wise independent choices. Cowards will justify completely failing at the latter task to justify a tiny insignificant improvement in the former.
I feel like I am in a Monty Python sketch right now. She “contributed to delinquency” because he could have gotten in trouble that he didn’t get into if things had gone entirely differently?
Yes.
The government decided that children that young should be supervised. She failed to provide that supervision.
The child coming back safe that time doesn’t count- it’s a dangerous world.
And we all know that the government is always just and never gets it wrong.
did I say the government was right?
the good news here is that, as part of that government by means of voting, you can go and change yours.
That was heavily implied by what you wrote, yes.
I live in a well governed country, this case would never get as far as prosecution where I live.
It’s not a dangerous world. It’s an incredibly safe world. You’re just a coward.
yeah. because it’s cowardice to not let a 5 yo play in a roadway where they can get ran over by a half ton truck by some jackass late for work.
Your comment, though, is that of an asshole.
Kids that are denied their freedom have stunted development. The formerly imprisoned children become adults that can’t cope with the world and end up dying from drug addiction in their twenties.
And yes, it is cowardice. Your comment that it’s a dangerous world demonstrates cowardice and a fear-based worldview. It demonstrates that you’ve formed your judgment based on irrational fear and haven’t considered the real harms of obsessively trying to prevent absolutely every possible harm to children.
The actual risks of childhood deaths from accident or abduction are at historic lows. Kids have literally never been safer. Cowards justify all sorts of evils based on the imagined risk of child abduction, but there are only a couple hundred actual kidnappings of children in the US each year. It’s an incredibly low risk that cowards will use to justify incredibly evil and damaging policies. The lives of countless children are destroyed based on the mostly imagined fears of cowards.
It’s cowardice to not take a reasonable look at the actual level of risk involved. A coward screams, “think of the children! No cost or risk is too high if it prevents a single child’s death!” On a global average, a child has only about a 0.035% chance of drowning before their 5th birthday. By locking kids indoors, you end up stunting the development of three thousand children for every one you save from drowning. Children with stunted development end up with lifelong negative consequences. You cannot simply ignore those consequences by sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, “think of the children!!”
And you’re making a bad-faith comparison here. A mom let her kid go play by the duck pond of a gated community, not play in the road. Kids that old are mature enough to understand when you tell them to stay out of the water.
The job of a parent is not simply to make sure their kids survive into adulthood. The job of a parent is to ensure that their kids actually become healthy and happy independent adults. Part of that is ensuring that kids survive to adulthood, but another part is making sure kids have enough freedom and life experience to make wise independent choices. Cowards will justify completely failing at the latter task to justify a tiny insignificant improvement in the former.
But they didn’t charge her with endangering him, that’s a different thing.
Edit to add: And I suspect they didn’t because he was, self evidently, not in danger. So I remain confused about why this became an entire affair.
Because prosecutors are elected in the US, they do all kinds of stupid things.