ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th November 2012, 12:33 PM   #281
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,025
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
In your analogies you leave out the familiar vs the unfamiliar, public campaigns vs assuming people know better.

With seatbelts there are now laws, but parents who lost an unbuckled child in an accident were not prosecuted before mandatory car-seat/seatbelt laws. What's the difference? Shouldn't the parent have known better, law or not?

As for playing in the road, in a small town on a dead end street, kids play in the road. Near a busy boulevard, a parent would be familiar with the risk. What happens is a parent misjudges the speed a child moves when they turn their back. That would be a mistake. Good parents make such mistakes.
Good parents make mistakes.

No one who places their child over a safety fence is a good parent. That isn't a mistake, it's deliberately putting your child in danger, even if you're sure that you can keep hold of him.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:03 PM   #282
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
She put him over the fence.

Criminally. Negligent.

LOL. Still. I think I just landed on a perfect defense if she IS prosecuted.
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:06 PM   #283
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
The net was there to prevent people from dropping cameras or food or other things down into the dogs place. It wasn't a bouncy toy.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:11 PM   #284
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,250
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
LOL. Still. I think I just landed on a perfect defense if she IS prosecuted.
That would indeed aid the defense, but obviously it still is not an excuse.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:16 PM   #285
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
That would indeed aid the defense, but obviously it still is not an excuse.
Well no. I didn't think it was an excuse. Just food for thought.
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:17 PM   #286
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
The net was there to prevent people from dropping cameras or food or other things down into the dogs place. It wasn't a bouncy toy.
How big are the holes in the net? Are you sure that's what it's there for?
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:20 PM   #287
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
For crying out loud, use some common sense......
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:23 PM   #288
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,250
The more I think about it, the more I think that she should be charged and that she might have even let him try and balance on his own. Can anyone here honestly tell me that even had you decided to make such a stupid decision as to endanger your child over a pack of wild animals, that you would not have had a death grip on said child? I simply cannot imagine how a two year old could squirm away from a mother while she was watching him over a cage. This could only be done if she was not properly holding him. I have a two year old, and no he would NEVER be able to slip out of my hands.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:24 PM   #289
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
I feel the same way. We're talking a two year old not a five year old.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:26 PM   #290
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Oh please.
bookworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:30 PM   #291
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...87_634x382.jpg

You look at this and think "Oh great they have a safety net in case I drop him! Let's dangle him out!"

Seriously?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...11_634x365.jpg


Edited by LashL:  Removed hotlinks and replaced with regular links. Please see Rule 5.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury

Last edited by LashL; 9th November 2012 at 06:43 PM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:53 PM   #292
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,173
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Nonsense, of course it's gross negligence.

Would you consider it gross negligence to let your child play in the road?

How about not putting a seatbelt on them in the car?

This woman removed the safety features put in place by the zoo. She didn't lose sight of him in a dangerous place, she put him in danger.

If some of you can see yourself putting your children in danger as a simple mistake then I have no idea what to say to that because it's so ridiculous I don't think there is a rational answer.
I wouldn't make such bold statements about what it is since they don't appear to be charging her with anything.

I would consider it gross negligence to allow a child to play in the road, unattended. If, however, the child got away from the parent and the child got hit by a car, no, I might not, depending on the circumstances.

She did put him in danger, under the assumption that she had a firm grip on him. Would I recommend doing that? No!

It's not a matter of seeing myself putting my child in harms way. It's a matter of sometimes thinking I have control of the situation and learning that I do not.
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 01:58 PM   #293
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
Quote:
The enclosure has a 14 foot wall because it was previously the cheetahs exhibit. The mother put her son on the ledge (supposeably in a standing position) and he fell in. I do feel sorry for the family and the people that witnessed this but since I have been to the Pittsburgh Zoo thousands of times (was just there last week) I know that the zoo is not at fault. The railing is at least 5 feet high and there are many signs saying "Do not climb or sit on railings!"
gathering some comments off the web. Also sgtbaker, how fast would you be in the pit if your kid fell in?\


Quote:
I work for the Pittsburgh Zoo and PPG Aquarium and know that unless the parents were holding the child up and over the railing, there is no way the kid could have fallen into the exhibit unless he was climbing and no one was watching him. I am saddened to know that a situation like this occurred and I will be extremely disappointed if the zoo is held responsible for an accident and a mistake. It is not the zoo's fault that a child fell into a wild animal's exhibit after they have taken the necessary precautions to prevent incidents such as this from happening.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury

Last edited by truethat; 7th November 2012 at 02:00 PM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 02:03 PM   #294
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
But were the bears? Canadian bears are a lot less aggressive than American bears.
Because Canadian bears don't usually have arms.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 02:04 PM   #295
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,173
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
gathering some comments off the web. Also sgtbaker, how fast would you be in the pit if your kid fell in?\
That's a difficult question to ask since I've never had to contemplate diving into a pit of vicious animals to save my child. If it ever happens, I will let you know. Until then, my opinion of what I would do, from the safety of my computer chair is merely speculation.
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 02:15 PM   #296
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
Well I can tell you I'd be in the pit in seconds and I'm sure you'd be as well. There is no indication that this was an accident except for the word of the mother and her emotional fall out.

What concerns me is how willing people are to immediately accept this as an accident simply because it was the mother that did it.

It's scary.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 02:26 PM   #297
Savant
Thinker
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Because Canadian bears don't usually have arms.

How do they hug each other?
Savant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 02:28 PM   #298
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,173
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Well I can tell you I'd be in the pit in seconds and I'm sure you'd be as well. There is no indication that this was an accident except for the word of the mother and her emotional fall out.

What concerns me is how willing people are to immediately accept this as an accident simply because it was the mother that did it.

It's scary.
I don't see why you feel compelled to inject a sex issue into it. I don't take the fact that it's a mother into consideration, it could easily have been the father.
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 02:36 PM   #299
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
I'm not the one who stuck the parental gender in it. The other posters did. But "hasn't she suffered enough" has been the mantra. There does seem to be in society this sort of lack of understanding that just because someone is a mother or father but in general people stereotype the mother, that she's going to automatically be this devoted mother. She didn't jump in to try to save him and she also risked his life.

So my sympathies are not lined up quite yet. Would it be a different story if she was annoyed with him whining and crying because "he couldn't see" and she grabbed him and roughly put him up on the edge and lost her grip?

No one knows the details and everyone's immediately buying it was a total accident.

There are innumerable ways for a parent to kill their child and get away with murder. This is because people tend to look at these "accidents" as if the parent is completely devastated. It's not always true.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 03:00 PM   #300
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 33,304
Wait, did that say the fence is FIVE feet high? That's not a casual "here you go, sweetie" height to lift a child. That makes me much less sympathetic to the theory of sad accident. That took effort, not something absentminded like three feet might be.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 03:12 PM   #301
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,166
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
How do they hug each other?
.
Yeah, and bears like to say it with a slap!
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 03:19 PM   #302
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,173
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
I'm not the one who stuck the parental gender in it. The other posters did. But "hasn't she suffered enough" has been the mantra. There does seem to be in society this sort of lack of understanding that just because someone is a mother or father but in general people stereotype the mother, that she's going to automatically be this devoted mother. She didn't jump in to try to save him and she also risked his life.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. We don't know why she didn't go over, after the child. You feel is safter to bet based on the very small minority of parents who don't care. I say based on that minority, it's safer to assume that she did care.
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 03:21 PM   #303
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
The ones that do don't usually kill their kids.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 04:43 PM   #304
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,173
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
The ones that do don't usually kill their kids.
That statement sounds more emotional than logical.
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 04:50 PM   #305
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
Really. LOL Well it's completely true. Or are you saying that people who take care of their kids usually kill them? You're not making any sense here.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:16 PM   #306
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,752
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
To me it really is a case by case basis as to when a mother (or anybody) should be charged in cases like this.

As much has been made of it..... what she did was really not that dangerous. What she did probably happens millions upon millions of times each year.... There might not be a pack of wild dogs on the bottom, but people do the Micheal Jackson thing all the time.

<snip>

This is a perfect example of a classic fallacy which is the bane of anyone who ever has to deal with workplace safety. It is one of the first sorts of thinking people are cautioned against in every safety course.

"That's the way we always do it." "We never had a problem before."

It is exactly this sense of complacency and comfort which results in "accidents". "Accidents" is in scare quotes because another fact of workplace safety is that most accidents aren't. Accidents, that is.

They are the easily predicable consequence of doing something stupid. The frequency of tragic results is not a useful metric to judge the danger of the action.

Safety 101.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:26 PM   #307
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
This is a perfect example of a classic fallacy which is the bane of anyone who ever has to deal with workplace safety. It is one of the first sorts of thinking people are cautioned against in every safety course.

"That's the way we always do it." "We never had a problem before."

It is exactly this sense of complacency and comfort which results in "accidents". "Accidents" is in scare quotes because another fact of workplace safety is that most accidents aren't. Accidents, that is.

They are the easily predicable consequence of doing something stupid. The frequency of tragic results is not a useful metric to judge the danger of the action.

Safety 101.

Exactly.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:27 PM   #308
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,752
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Yes, but hasn't she suffered enough?

The two standards are not compatible. One doesn't add or subtract from the other, does it?
Twisting twisting, you're twisting some straw into the argument to support your case.

'Suffered enough' is separate from stupid vs criminal. It's not suffered 'enough' it's saying you don't need a prosecution in order for the parent to be punished.

Good work, SG. That's a very credible job of re-stating the very point I was making. I'm not sure why you think there was straw involved, since you seem to be in agreement.

Quote:
Of course one could argue that parents who make a stupid mistake suffer a lot more than a parent who would go to sleep with their toddler child in the tub. The latter is evidence the child doesn't mean much to you.

I suppose that one could make that argument, but I wouldn't.

There is no trade-off between stupidity and emotion. One doesn't subtract from the other. They are two different issues.

It could also be argued that someone who lost their child through an act of irresponsible stupidity would suffer more because they would have to live with the realization that just a little more thought and effort on their part would have prevented the tragedy.

Maybe the stupid people deserve more sympathy, if their own remorse is a gauge for that.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:49 PM   #309
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
That is a very interesting take on it. You are suggesting that she should be punished for the act, which the punishment is supposed to discourage/punish (Duh) the individual. But if she were to drop the child, you think no punishment should be in order, because killing her child is punishment enough. I don't think the law works that way, but I am no lawyer. Where is LashL?
Well it would really depend on the situation. I think these laws are great. But I just don't see how in some of these cases, including the one in the OP, that it serves society in anyway charging the parent... the same goes for your example... and the same would go for the horrible exaples of parents leaving their kids in hot cars.... (except where they leave the purposely and go off gambling or shopping)).


It's funny thinking about my own childhood. There is a picture of me and my older brother in the local paper, him 11 me 6... jogging one of our racehorses down the street.... I can remember Dad loading 10 or so kids in the neighborhood in the back of the truck and taking us up the mountain fishing... all the while we are reaching out and grabbing leaves of trees as were driving... it certainly was a different time.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:54 PM   #310
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
The more I think about it, the more I think that she should be charged and that she might have even let him try and balance on his own. Can anyone here honestly tell me that even had you decided to make such a stupid decision as to endanger your child over a pack of wild animals, that you would not have had a death grip on said child? I simply cannot imagine how a two year old could squirm away from a mother while she was watching him over a cage. This could only be done if she was not properly holding him. I have a two year old, and no he would NEVER be able to slip out of my hands.
That's the only case I can see for charging her... that she may have been very careless in how she was holding him.

because the act of holding a child on a rail (Michael Jackson) really isn't all that dangerous.... I have a 16 month old and if there is a potential drop even 20 feet away, I have a death grip on him.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:55 PM   #311
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
Well it would really depend on the situation. I think these laws are great. But I just don't see how in some of these cases, including the one in the OP, that it serves society in anyway charging the parent... the same goes for your example... and the same would go for the horrible exaples of parents leaving their kids in hot cars.... (except where they leave the purposely and go off gambling or shopping)).


It's funny thinking about my own childhood. There is a picture of me and my older brother in the local paper, him 11 me 6... jogging one of our racehorses down the street.... I can remember Dad loading 10 or so kids in the neighborhood in the back of the truck and taking us up the mountain fishing... all the while we are reaching out and grabbing leaves of trees as were driving... it certainly was a different time.
How are you making this distinction though? How would you prove I didn't do it on purpose. There's no witness to what she did with the kid, how do we know she didn't lift him up there and topple him out onto the net as an attempt to try to sue the zoo. But then he bounced off. Perhaps she had no idea the dogs would attack. She though he'd just land on the net.

How do you prove it? By the tears and the screaming? Anyone can do that.

This is the part that people just seem to be glossing over.

Reports stated (which I'm trying to verify) that the mother had on several occasions in the park put her son at risk or in dangerous situations, even over a waterfall.

Perhaps she chose to do it here because of the safety net, and she didn't get involved but started screaming at the top of her lungs. Once she saw what happened she lost her mind.

But how do you know if it was an accident or if it was deliberate?

Take the kids left in hot cars. Perhaps a man doesn't want to have a baby and the girlfriend gets preggo so he "accidentally" leaves the baby in the hot car all day and voila problem solved.

How do you prove it?
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 05:57 PM   #312
sgtbaker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,173
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Really. LOL Well it's completely true. Or are you saying that people who take care of their kids usually kill them? You're not making any sense here.
The mother didn't kill her child. The mother made a decision that led to the death of her child. There is a difference and I think you know that. Your statement was completely irrelevant.
sgtbaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 09:04 PM   #313
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 14,497
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
What evidence do you have that this was an accident?
The default position means that you have to find evidence of her deliberate attempts to kill the child.

Originally Posted by truethat View Post
There's no witness to what she did with the kid, how do we know she didn't lift him up there and topple him out onto the net as an attempt to try to sue the zoo. But then he bounced off. Perhaps she had no idea the dogs would attack. She though he'd just land on the net.
We are glossing over it because your innuendo about her murdering her child or attempting a lawsuit is nothing more than innuendo. You have more work to do to prove that.

It seems that you are trying to crow bar in the idea that because we don't know it was an accident we should assume it wasn't and charge her for murder.

Strangely, you have also said that she shouldn't be imprisoned but should be prosecuted as a form of catharsis.

This apparently is what you consider to be rational thinking.
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 09:54 PM   #314
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
They are the easily predicable consequence of doing something stupid. The frequency of tragic results is not a useful metric to judge the danger of the action.
Absolutely it is.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 09:59 PM   #315
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
How are you making this distinction though? How would you prove I didn't do it on purpose. There's no witness to what she did with the kid, how do we know she didn't lift him up there and topple him out onto the net as an attempt to try to sue the zoo. But then he bounced off. Perhaps she had no idea the dogs would attack. She though he'd just land on the net.

How do you prove it? By the tears and the screaming? Anyone can do that.

This is the part that people just seem to be glossing over.

Reports stated (which I'm trying to verify) that the mother had on several occasions in the park put her son at risk or in dangerous situations, even over a waterfall.

Perhaps she chose to do it here because of the safety net, and she didn't get involved but started screaming at the top of her lungs. Once she saw what happened she lost her mind.

But how do you know if it was an accident or if it was deliberate?

Take the kids left in hot cars. Perhaps a man doesn't want to have a baby and the girlfriend gets preggo so he "accidentally" leaves the baby in the hot car all day and voila problem solved.

How do you prove it?

You can't. I think we just assume very few parents would intentionally leave a child in a hot car on purpose. It almost always happens the same way. If someone intentionally killed their child by boiling them in a car I think it's safe to say most people would want that parent put away in jail for life...... I'm not going to ask for the same thing for an accident... just because I can't prove it was not an accident.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 10:05 PM   #316
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
This is a perfect example of a classic fallacy which is the bane of anyone who ever has to deal with workplace safety. It is one of the first sorts of thinking people are cautioned against in every safety course.

"That's the way we always do it." "We never had a problem before."

It is exactly this sense of complacency and comfort which results in "accidents". "Accidents" is in scare quotes because another fact of workplace safety is that most accidents aren't. Accidents, that is.

They are the easily predicable consequence of doing something stupid. The frequency of tragic results is not a useful metric to judge the danger of the action.

Safety 101.
Also, I'm not making an argument that this is how we always do it... I'm saying dangling your kid on a railing is not that dangerous... hence why it is done so many times and results in so few causalities. I'll argue that it is not much more dangerous that putting your kid in the car and simply driving across the city. You have just as much chance of killing your kid via car accident then you do accidentally dropping them when holding them over a railing. Mind you... I don't go near a railing with my own kid.... needless risk.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 10:07 PM   #317
Caper
Illuminator
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Good parents make mistakes.

No one who places their child over a safety fence is a good parent. That isn't a mistake, it's deliberately putting your child in danger, even if you're sure that you can keep hold of him.
You deliberately put your child in danger when you take them in a car.... or a tub... or a pool. ... or let them go near stairs.

Lots of good parents do that.
Caper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 11:22 PM   #318
elipse
Master Poster
 
elipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,328
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
I know what you're saying. I guess what I am saying is that since we don't prosecute everyone who endangers their child, what good will picking THIS mother accomplish? I think it will be a miracle if she survives the guilt of this. I seriously think I would imagine it over and over and it would drive me insane and I would kill myself.

"...I guess what I am saying is that since we don't prosecute everyone who speeds through a school zone, what good will prosecuting this guy who hit and killed a child accomplish?"

a. Just because it is not reasonable to prosecute a violation of a law in all cases does not make it invalid to prosecute any violations of that law.
b. her actions DIRECTLY RESULTED in the death of another human being.

Should she go to jail? Not necessarily. But she should be prosecuted. Society should make her officially responsible for her actions. We, as a society, need to say to her "Your actions were grossly negligent and unacceptable. You are responsible, and no one else."

Otherwise what the **** are laws FOR?
__________________
either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue
elipse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 11:29 PM   #319
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,146
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
How do they hug each other?
Well, if they were NZ bears they wouldn't need to hug, they'd hongi
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2012, 11:31 PM   #320
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,146
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
I don't see why you feel compelled to inject a sex issue into it. I don't take the fact that it's a mother into consideration, it could easily have been the father.
What sex issue was introduced? It was the mother, so the mother is referred to. It wasn't the father, so the father wasn't referred to, just as the sister or the uncle of the grandmother or the neighbour were not referred to
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.