5 ms·
No, not at all what I'm saying. My point is that the parent who is accidentally negligent most likely is providing their child with a safer environment than th
by gph 10y ago
No, not at all what I'm saying.
My point is that the parent who is accidentally negligent most likely is providing their child with a safer environment than the parents who intentionally leave their child alone.
BTW have you even had a 2-year old? I doubt very much there was ever a point in history where 2-year olds were left with zero supervision. Sure it might be an older sibling or some other community member watching them, but I can't imagine how someone feels leaving a 2-year old alone at home is a reasonable thing.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago"I doubt very much there was ever a point in history where 2-year olds were left with zero supervision." In Denmark today 0-2 year olds are regularly left outside in a baby stroller to nap while their parents are inside.
- gph 10y agoThat's not zero supervision IMO. The parent is easily within range of the child, and most likely checks up on them from time to time. Edit: I think a lot of people in this thread are getting the idea that I'm advocating parents need to helicoptor parent their 2-year olds 24/7. Not at all what I'm saying. I don't think you are greatly increasing risks to your child in that scenario.
- dmichulke 10y ago> My point is that the parent who is accidentally negligent most likely is providing their child with a safer environment than the parents who intentionally leave their child alone. In both cases you usually don't see whether the parents left their child intentionally or not. Whatever the real reason, harassing the parents is quite a judgement based on a statistics with sample size 1.
- gph 10y agoI never contended that we should harass the parents in question. I'm against litagating parenting. Everyone in this thread is really twisting my words to their own perceptions. Point I'm making is directed at the study, which contends that our moral judgements should have no impact on how we assess the risk to a child. Even though I think our morals are heavily skewed and unnecessary, I bet they at least point in the correct direction of what the risk to a specific child is as compared to the average statistical risk to all children.
- cmurf 10y ago>I doubt very much there was ever a point in history where 2-year olds were left with zero supervision. Your comment seems culturally biased. See the movie Babies? The Mongolian baby Bayar was often left alone for hours.
- c22 10y agoThey also took him home from the hospital tied to a board on the back of a motorcycle!
- compiler-guy 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babies_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babies_(film) Shows a toddler in Mongolia--probably younger than two--tethered to a bed in a tent all day while her parents work in the field. She gets checked up on at lunch time when her parents come back (and probably other times). Such actions are routine in other cultures.
- juliendorra 10y agoI was very surprised to discover that Sophie, in "Sophie's misfortunes", is not even 4 years old (in recent illustrations and movies she's pictured much older, around 7). She is left alone to play, and obviously cause some mischief — she's 3 going on 4! Her mother also tell her that if she wants to cross the forest with her she'll have to keep pace and she won't help her or even check if she's around. And the forest is supposed to be haunted by wolf. This is a fiction, but it seems very literal and normal behavior from a high class 19th century family. Obviously things have changed.
- jessaustin 10y agoPerhaps it's relevant that even high-class families in 19C had to view young children as somewhat replaceable, given the higher rates of childhood mortality?