![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
So we're in the middle of this whole "thing" about safety and unattended children and whatnot over elsewhere.
And somebody who thinks this woman should not have left her 12 year old babysitting her younger siblings in the mall (actually, I agree with that, I just disagree that it was criminal or that the children were in any particular danger) goes "The world has changed for the worse, it's not safe, doesn't anybody remember Adam Walsh????"
You know what? I don't remember Adam Walsh. You know why? Because he died before I was even born!
When the statistics show that every measure of crime (including violent crime against children, which is what's relevant here) has gone down since then ("do you want your kid to be that low statistic???"), and the facts and the evidence all show that kids today are safer than they were when I was growing up and for a good decade or two before that as well, what does that say about your argument ("If something terrible had happened to any one of those children then nothing would have been written like that and it would be total outrage at the mother then") if the only specific thing you can think of to bolster it is a case that is thirty years old?
Not that any specific cases would make a difference. Horrible things happened to kids in the 50s and the 30s and the 90s and in the past year as well. The question isn't whether or not these things happen, but what the appropriate response to that fact is.
And somebody who thinks this woman should not have left her 12 year old babysitting her younger siblings in the mall (actually, I agree with that, I just disagree that it was criminal or that the children were in any particular danger) goes "The world has changed for the worse, it's not safe, doesn't anybody remember Adam Walsh????"
You know what? I don't remember Adam Walsh. You know why? Because he died before I was even born!
When the statistics show that every measure of crime (including violent crime against children, which is what's relevant here) has gone down since then ("do you want your kid to be that low statistic???"), and the facts and the evidence all show that kids today are safer than they were when I was growing up and for a good decade or two before that as well, what does that say about your argument ("If something terrible had happened to any one of those children then nothing would have been written like that and it would be total outrage at the mother then") if the only specific thing you can think of to bolster it is a case that is thirty years old?
Not that any specific cases would make a difference. Horrible things happened to kids in the 50s and the 30s and the 90s and in the past year as well. The question isn't whether or not these things happen, but what the appropriate response to that fact is.
