4 ms·

The people living in poverty very very rarely hurt a stranger's children. It's the cops who show up and take them, absolutely destroying their sense of securi

The people living in poverty very very rarely hurt a stranger's children. It's the cops who show up and take them, absolutely destroying their sense of security and growing independence.

gretch 4y ago
This is very false. National studies show more violent crime happens in poor areas: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf
- Zetice 4y ago
  What you've linked doesn't really contradict what the commenter said; he's arguing that folks don't generally hurt kids, poverty notwithstanding, and that tends to be my experience.
- notch898a 4y ago
  That study says poor people are more likely victims. Doesn't even say who is performing the crimes (doubtful, but based on this study could be rich people robbing the poor or whatever), nor does it show the rate at which those in poverty victimize a stranger's child (which despite your sidestepped report here was what you replied to). For example, despite all the worries about kidnappings, there are only a few hundred kidnappings of children by complete strangers every year. As an aside (and separate point): The data in there was all 12+. I'm gonna be the one to come out and say it: if the hypothetical reality is the teenager is growing up in a hell-scape world of death-match-violence then unfortunately it's one of those cases of "nows the fucking time to get out there and learn how to (gradually) adapt to the hellscape while we try to make it better." (which honestly is a little what driving feels like when you turn 15)
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  You need to cite more specifically, I'm not reading the whole study looking for the bit you think was relevant to the other poster's point.
  - gretch 4y ago
    Okay don't do it. Instead you're just going to believe the guy who cited nothing? Live your life however you want I guess...
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      I'm not going to believe either of you. What you offered was not responsive to his claim because it didn't address risks to children, which are the topic.
      - gretch 4y ago
        You can’t not believe either of us. He said a thing and I said it’s false. If you don’t believe him then you agree with me. This btw is the correct course of logic since the burden of proof is on the asserter.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        notch898a 4y ago
        "False" is your assertion. You have the burden of proof in that claim. If you just wanted proof you should have asked for that rather than make a new, different assertion. The person you replied to took the 3rd option of the tri-state, which requires no burden, which is to merely remain skeptical.
        Falkon1313 4y ago
        Well yes. So you asserted a thing and didn't prove it. Therefore the correct course of logic is to dismiss your assertion.
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        I have yet to make up my mind - a possibility that seems not to have occurred to you.
- throwaway049 4y ago
  There's a section about poor people more likely to be victims of _stranger_ violence, which backs up your point. I didn't see much about children specifically, but I guess all other things being equal... Just such a sad thing to think about that I don't _want_ to think it unless there's hard evidence.

The people living in poverty very very rarely hurt a stranger's children. It's the cops who show up and take them, absolutely destroying their sense of security and growing independence.

gretch 4y ago

This is very false. National studies show more violent crime happens in poor areas: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf

Zetice 4y ago
What you've linked doesn't really contradict what the commenter said; he's arguing that folks don't generally hurt kids, poverty notwithstanding, and that tends to be my experience.
notch898a 4y ago
That study says poor people are more likely victims. Doesn't even say who is performing the crimes (doubtful, but based on this study could be rich people robbing the poor or whatever), nor does it show the rate at which those in poverty victimize a stranger's child (which despite your sidestepped report here was what you replied to). For example, despite all the worries about kidnappings, there are only a few hundred kidnappings of children by complete strangers every year. As an aside (and separate point): The data in there was all 12+. I'm gonna be the one to come out and say it: if the hypothetical reality is the teenager is growing up in a hell-scape world of death-match-violence then unfortunately it's one of those cases of "nows the fucking time to get out there and learn how to (gradually) adapt to the hellscape while we try to make it better." (which honestly is a little what driving feels like when you turn 15)
anigbrowl 4y ago
You need to cite more specifically, I'm not reading the whole study looking for the bit you think was relevant to the other poster's point.
- gretch 4y ago
  Okay don't do it. Instead you're just going to believe the guy who cited nothing? Live your life however you want I guess...
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    I'm not going to believe either of you. What you offered was not responsive to his claim because it didn't address risks to children, which are the topic.
    - gretch 4y ago
      You can’t not believe either of us. He said a thing and I said it’s false. If you don’t believe him then you agree with me. This btw is the correct course of logic since the burden of proof is on the asserter.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - notch898a 4y ago
        "False" is your assertion. You have the burden of proof in that claim. If you just wanted proof you should have asked for that rather than make a new, different assertion. The person you replied to took the 3rd option of the tri-state, which requires no burden, which is to merely remain skeptical.
      - Falkon1313 4y ago
        Well yes. So you asserted a thing and didn't prove it. Therefore the correct course of logic is to dismiss your assertion.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        I have yet to make up my mind - a possibility that seems not to have occurred to you.
throwaway049 4y ago
There's a section about poor people more likely to be victims of _stranger_ violence, which backs up your point. I didn't see much about children specifically, but I guess all other things being equal... Just such a sad thing to think about that I don't _want_ to think it unless there's hard evidence.