4 ms·

You see the irony in this, right? All the parents that don’t let their kids off the leash even for a second use the same reasoning. “It not OK to play the odds

You see the irony in this, right? All the parents that don’t let their kids off the leash even for a second use the same reasoning. “It not OK to play the odds if all it takes is one kidnapping to take my kid away for ever” I’d say that OP’s point is the odds are so low, that it is OK to play them.

fweespeech 10y ago
http://www.pollyklaas.org/about/national-child-kidnapping.html http://www.pollyklaas.org/about/national-child-kidnapping.ht... > 99.8% of the children who go missing do come home. > Only about 100 children (a fraction of 1%) are kidnapped each year in the stereotypical stranger abductions you hear about in the news. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/in-a-year-child-protective-services-conducted-32-million-investigations/374809/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/in-a-yea... > In a Year, Child-Protective Services Checked Up on 3.2 Million Children > 2.5 million of those kids were declared 'non-victims.' Another 686,000 were 'abused' or 'neglected.' And an estimated 1,640 kids died as a result. To be fair, one of these has a much higher rate of incident than the other. Personally, I'm more concerned with the quality and accuracy of CPS than I am about child abduction simply because a 10% improvement in CPS would save more lives than a 100% reduction in child abductions. Then again, I feel that way about medical errors vs. terrorism and the value of spending money to save lives. A 10% reduction of medical errors would save more lies than a 100% reduction in terrorism. :/
- Diederich 10y ago
  Thanks for digging up this data, which is something my long anecdotal comments were lacking.
- rocqua 10y ago
  Regarding a 100% reduction in terrorism, in the long run, that shit might have some very significant knock-on effects. Especially the massive reduction of wars. I do agree that the risk of terrorism is massively overrated. I think this is because terrorism requires 'agency' and thus feels both worse and more preventable.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    > Regarding a 100% reduction in terrorism It was meant to represent the impossible goal of 100% success, not that I actually meant it was achievable. I don't think we can substantially reduce terrorism below current levels. There is always going to be some group of people who are angry and violent as long as humanity hasn't achieved the Singularity imo.

fweespeech 10y ago

http://www.pollyklaas.org/about/national-child-kidnapping.html http://www.pollyklaas.org/about/national-child-kidnapping.ht... > 99.8% of the children who go missing do come home. > Only about 100 children (a fraction of 1%) are kidnapped each year in the stereotypical stranger abductions you hear about in the news. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/in-a-year-child-protective-services-conducted-32-million-investigations/374809/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/in-a-yea... > In a Year, Child-Protective Services Checked Up on 3.2 Million Children > 2.5 million of those kids were declared 'non-victims.' Another 686,000 were 'abused' or 'neglected.' And an estimated 1,640 kids died as a result. To be fair, one of these has a much higher rate of incident than the other. Personally, I'm more concerned with the quality and accuracy of CPS than I am about child abduction simply because a 10% improvement in CPS would save more lives than a 100% reduction in child abductions. Then again, I feel that way about medical errors vs. terrorism and the value of spending money to save lives. A 10% reduction of medical errors would save more lies than a 100% reduction in terrorism. :/

Diederich 10y ago
Thanks for digging up this data, which is something my long anecdotal comments were lacking.
rocqua 10y ago
Regarding a 100% reduction in terrorism, in the long run, that shit might have some very significant knock-on effects. Especially the massive reduction of wars. I do agree that the risk of terrorism is massively overrated. I think this is because terrorism requires 'agency' and thus feels both worse and more preventable.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > Regarding a 100% reduction in terrorism It was meant to represent the impossible goal of 100% success, not that I actually meant it was achievable. I don't think we can substantially reduce terrorism below current levels. There is always going to be some group of people who are angry and violent as long as humanity hasn't achieved the Singularity imo.