4 ms·

I think you may have misunderstood the parent; the argument is that an unattended child in the home of a drug-addicted negligent parent is at the SAME level of

by gervase 10y ago

I think you may have misunderstood the parent; the argument is that an unattended child in the home of a drug-addicted negligent parent is at the SAME level of risk whether that parent left them alone to purchase drugs, or whether they went to work, but that observers don't rate the two situations as comparable.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Well that sounds completely unreasonable to me. Isn't it more likely that the drug-addicted parents are more likely to leave drug related paraphernalia around. I'm talking about mostly-empty baggies of cocaine, methamphetamine, weed, whatever. Needles, bongs, half empty bottles of booze. Isn't the drug-addicted parent more likely to not be aware or not care or not notice all sorts of other safety related issues. Probably the working-parent shouldn't leave a child under a certain age unattended. But it seems perfectly reasonable that people should judge the drug-addict house as more dangerous. I don't claim to have full knowledge of every situation, but as someone who spent the better part of a decade injecting meth on a very regular basis I feel my opinion ought to carry some authority.
- scatters 10y ago
  They're the same parent. The drug-addict parent is the working-parent is the drug-addict parent. The drug-addict house is the working-parent house is the drug-addict house. Do you still feel the child is in more danger if left unattended by the drug-addict parent leaving to buy drugs versus the working parent leaving to work? How about the drug-addict parent leaving to work versus the working parent leaving to buy drugs?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    In my experience that isn't always the case. For those circumstances where that is the case then ok.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Your experience doesn't matter here, because we're really talking about a physics problem. There is no known physical process by which parent's intent for leaving the child at home could alter the risk profile of that action. Now that the people really answered a different question that they were actually asked is another thing. Not uncommon with humans in psychological studies.
      - gph 10y ago
        Yes, but the parent's intent is indicative of their general lifestyle and choices. The point I'm trying to make is that our moral judgements of that intent, while likely being well overinflated, does give us reason to believe that that person's child is at a higher risk when left alone in the environment the parents have given them as compared to the general statistic of perceived risk given to the average child.
        tedunangst 10y ago
        Even drug addicts leave the house to go to work. What makes the house safe for a child when that happens?
        gph 10y ago
        It isn't. I'm saying under all circumstances the house is less safe for the child based on my assessment of the parents actions. If you were to ask me to rate the risk to a child in their house given only the information that the parent left them to go to work then I wouldn't know they are a drug addict. But if you say one child is left home alone mistakenly by a caring parent versus a parent that intentionally left them home alone to play pokemon go, then I'm going to assume the willfully negligent parents are leaving their kid in a house that is likely less safe. This research is saying we shouldn't change our assessment of the risks to a child in a situation based on our moral assessment of their parents. I'm saying the fact that the parents are drug addicts or willfully negligent is likely indicative that the child IS at higher risk that the statistical average. Not sure how I can make this any clearer in any of my responses.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - gph 10y ago
    But from what I understand the basis of the research is that it's wrong for us to use morals when judging perceived risk to a child. They base this on the fact that there's x% chance that a certain risk will happen to any child. But that statistic is based on general population. My contention is that our moral judgement can be used to heighten perceived risk to a child, even though it might blow it well out of proportion. So just because the average child is at a perceived risk of being injured at x% when left alone, I don't think it's wrong to say a child of parent I judge to be amoral or willfully negligent is most likely at an increased risk of being injured.

by gervase 10y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

Well that sounds completely unreasonable to me. Isn't it more likely that the drug-addicted parents are more likely to leave drug related paraphernalia around. I'm talking about mostly-empty baggies of cocaine, methamphetamine, weed, whatever. Needles, bongs, half empty bottles of booze. Isn't the drug-addicted parent more likely to not be aware or not care or not notice all sorts of other safety related issues. Probably the working-parent shouldn't leave a child under a certain age unattended. But it seems perfectly reasonable that people should judge the drug-addict house as more dangerous. I don't claim to have full knowledge of every situation, but as someone who spent the better part of a decade injecting meth on a very regular basis I feel my opinion ought to carry some authority.

scatters 10y ago
They're the same parent. The drug-addict parent is the working-parent is the drug-addict parent. The drug-addict house is the working-parent house is the drug-addict house. Do you still feel the child is in more danger if left unattended by the drug-addict parent leaving to buy drugs versus the working parent leaving to work? How about the drug-addict parent leaving to work versus the working parent leaving to buy drugs?
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  In my experience that isn't always the case. For those circumstances where that is the case then ok.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Your experience doesn't matter here, because we're really talking about a physics problem. There is no known physical process by which parent's intent for leaving the child at home could alter the risk profile of that action. Now that the people really answered a different question that they were actually asked is another thing. Not uncommon with humans in psychological studies.
    - gph 10y ago
      Yes, but the parent's intent is indicative of their general lifestyle and choices. The point I'm trying to make is that our moral judgements of that intent, while likely being well overinflated, does give us reason to believe that that person's child is at a higher risk when left alone in the environment the parents have given them as compared to the general statistic of perceived risk given to the average child.
      - tedunangst 10y ago
        Even drug addicts leave the house to go to work. What makes the house safe for a child when that happens?
        gph 10y ago
        It isn't. I'm saying under all circumstances the house is less safe for the child based on my assessment of the parents actions. If you were to ask me to rate the risk to a child in their house given only the information that the parent left them to go to work then I wouldn't know they are a drug addict. But if you say one child is left home alone mistakenly by a caring parent versus a parent that intentionally left them home alone to play pokemon go, then I'm going to assume the willfully negligent parents are leaving their kid in a house that is likely less safe. This research is saying we shouldn't change our assessment of the risks to a child in a situation based on our moral assessment of their parents. I'm saying the fact that the parents are drug addicts or willfully negligent is likely indicative that the child IS at higher risk that the statistical average. Not sure how I can make this any clearer in any of my responses.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gph 10y ago
  But from what I understand the basis of the research is that it's wrong for us to use morals when judging perceived risk to a child. They base this on the fact that there's x% chance that a certain risk will happen to any child. But that statistic is based on general population. My contention is that our moral judgement can be used to heighten perceived risk to a child, even though it might blow it well out of proportion. So just because the average child is at a perceived risk of being injured at x% when left alone, I don't think it's wrong to say a child of parent I judge to be amoral or willfully negligent is most likely at an increased risk of being injured.