quote:Originally posted by Darth Mikey: So what you're saying is that when a stranger abducts a child for the purpose of rape and/or murder than they are protecting that child from their parent.
No I'm saying that stastically parents hurt their children more then strangers do. Teaching your child that "strangers" are always bad people is counter productive. Children need to learn that mommy and daddy can hurt them too, and that its okay to go to a stranger to seek help for that.
Teaching children to be wary of strangers is not a bad thing. And parents are not the enemy. What on earth are you advocating here? I don't think I am the only one completely confused by your tangents.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Christie: Teaching children to be wary of strangers is not a bad thing.
It is when say a child lost in the Utah badlands hides from rescue workers for 4 days because his parent drilled the concept of "stranger danger" into his brain his entire life.
quote:And parents are not the enemy.
Parents stastically hurt thier children more often then strangers do. The word "enemy" might not be accurate, but "threat" might very well be.
If I have a room of 100 children who have been victims of a crime, more of them will have been hurt by their parents then by other people in their lives, and fewer still will have been hurt by total strangers.
Stastically speaking a child has more to fear from a person the close they are to them, with parents at the top of that list.
quote:What on earth are you advocating here?
Nothing more then more reasonable attitude toward what really is a risk and what is an overblown, media hyped scare. All I'm asking for is a realization of the fact that just because something is scarier then something else, doesn't mean that's its not really a greater threat.
On personal level you can be paranoid about whatever you want. If you want to stand on your lawn with a baseball bat because you're 100% sure that you're children are going to be attacked by Brian Dennehy, knock yourself out.
However the the problem comes when a person wants to waste the police, courts, and law makers times with it.
You don't have a right to demand that the local police create a anti-Dennehy taskforce, that Congress stop what they are doing and pass stronger anti-Dennehy laws and justify it to others, or yourself for that matter, because you're "just worried about your children."
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: All I'm asking for is a realization of the fact that just because something is scarier then something else, doesn't mean that's its not really a greater threat.
I'm sorry Joe but I really don't think you are doing anything more than stating the obvious. The vast overwhelming majority of parents already take the middle of the road approach that you seem to be advocating. Sure whenever something particularly hideous hits the newspaper, parents may be a little extra cautious for awhile but most go back to life as normal pretty quickly.
There are an exceptional few out there who do wrap their kids up in virtual bubble wrap but you are wildly overstating this as if it is a huge problem within "society today" when it's not.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: Parent are more of a threat. Again I'm not making stuff up here. I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass. Parents commit crimes against their children more then strangers do. It's that simple.
Your original quote was not that strangers are less of a threat. Your original quote was that "technically speaking from a purely stastic standpoint the stranger who snatches the child away from the parent is making it safer."
I would say that's completely wrong. Because the kind of stranger who would snatch a child away from his parent is usually more likely to do harm than a parent. (Consider that the overwhelming majority of parents are NOT harming their children.)
So do you, as you originally said, believe that a child is safer after being snatched away from a parent than he would be with the parent?
Posts: 345 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by keokuk: So do you, as you originally said, believe that a child is safer after being snatched away from a parent than he would be with the parent?
I like to think I shouldn't have to make my sarcasm that obvious.
The statement was an intentional hyberbole meant to express the problem with the idea that a child is always safer with their parents then with a stranger. That's why I used the terms "from a stastical standpoint" and "technically speaking." It was never meant to be taken literally.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: Parents stastically hurt thier children more often then strangers do. The word "enemy" might not be accurate, but "threat" might very well be.
Careful there, Joe...it looks like you're starting a public panic about a child's safety in the home. Really, what's more likely in a kid's lifetime, that they'll be killed by mom and dad, or that they'll hurt themselves with a kitchen utensil? Statistically speaking, your setting these kids up to be injured in their own kitchen. From a purely technical standpoint, a parent beating their kid to death is actually saving that child from a kitchen utensil-related peril.
I don't understand the non-mainstream media's need to create such hype and panic over parents hurting their kids when there are perils that occur in even larger numbers out there.
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by keokuk: Consider that the overwhelming majority of parents are NOT harming their children.
And an even greater overwhelming majority of strangers are not harming the child either, but children are still taught to be afraid of them and treat them with suspicion.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
ETA: Never mind, he played Gacy in a tv movie, right?
Posts: 763 | From: Chicago | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Methuselah: Careful there, Joe...it looks like you're starting a public panic about a child's safety in the home. Really, what's more likely in a kid's lifetime, that they'll be killed by mom and dad, or that they'll hurt themselves with a kitchen utensil? Statistically speaking, your setting these kids up to be injured in their own kitchen. From a purely technical standpoint, a parent beating their kid to death is actually saving that child from a kitchen utensil-related peril.
I'm honestly not sure what point your trying to make here. I'm not claiming that dangers don't exist, I'm saying that our society often has problems judging what the actual risk for something is. People tend to worry more about things that bother them more then things that are actually a threat.
If you were to be walking down the street and saw someone poking a fully grown Kodiak Grizzly Bear with a stick, you'd probably think the person was stupid and yell at them to stop. But how many of us have walked up on someone shaking a vending machine because their Snickers got stuck against the glass and said nothing, even though from a stastical standpoint the vending machines has a greater chance of killing you then the bear does?
Because the bear gives a base emotional fear reaction that was breed into us by millions of evolution that tells us to be scared of large things with big teeth and claws, yet there is no equivilent in our DNA to tell us to be scared of the Coke machine and we need to be aware of that.
The idea that I think people should "Kill your child to save them from a threat" is so silly its ludicrious. I've never suggested anything even remotely on that level.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by keokuk: Consider that the overwhelming majority of parents are NOT harming their children.
And an even greater overwhelming majority of strangers are not harming the child either, but children are still taught to be afraid of them and treat them with suspicion.
And the overwhelming majority of parents are teaching children to be cautious with strangers when mom & dad are not around, not to be afraid of them. This is hardly new. I was taught to be cautious of strangers when I was growing up too. Don't take rides from people you don't know and don't take candy from strangers are hardly mantras for the new millenium.
As usual Joe you are long on criticism of parents and parenting but pretty short on actual realistic advice - or at least advice that *most* parents aren't already following.
You take a handful of news stories (that are news stories precisely because they're so rare) and extrapolate that into a breathless condemnation of all parents.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Simply Matsuya-line: Brian Dennehy? What am I missing here?
ETA: Never mind, he played Gacy in a tv movie, right?
Actually I just picked a person's name totally at random in order to make the point that just because a person is afraid of something, doesn't mean its actually a threat.
Are people scared of sharks and killer bees and flesh eating viruses and being victims of random crimes? Of course they are. Are these things really threats? Sometimes yes, but not even remotely to the degree that many, perhaps even most, people see them as.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christie: Teaching children to be wary of strangers is not a bad thing.
It is when say a child lost in the Utah badlands hides from rescue workers for 4 days because his parent drilled the concept of "stranger danger" into his brain his entire life.
Ah, I see you are afraid of occurances that are even more rare than kidnapping by strangers. Next time we're trekking in the badlands, I'll remember to tell my son, "If you get lost for a few days out here, just remember, it's okay to talk to strangers." Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
The case of Brennan Hawking was an extreme example I'll admit, but its the symptom of a bigger problme.
quote:The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children does not ascribe to the "stranger-danger" message. We have learned that children do not have the same understanding of who a stranger is as an adult might; therefore, it is a difficult concept for the child to grasp. It is much more beneficial to children to help them build the confidence and self-esteem they need to stay as safe as possible in any potentially dangerous situation they encounter rather than teaching them to be "on the look out" for a particular type of person. The "stranger-danger" message is not effective and, based on what we know about those who harm children, danger to children is greater from someone they or their family knows than from a "stranger."
And even if the concept of "stranger danger" isn't usually directly dangerous as it was with Brennan Hawking, it often seems to be the only message given to children as to how to stay safe.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: Because the bear gives a base emotional fear reaction that was breed into us by millions of evolution that tells us to be scared of large things with big teeth and claws, yet there is no equivilent in our DNA to tell us to be scared of the Coke machine and we need to be aware of that.
If that was the case then people wouldn't do something like walk up too closely to bison because millions of years of evolution tells them that big herbivores are dangerous. I'm with Archie2K I think people are really far too complacent about their dealings with wild animals. It would be better if they were a bit more worried about it.
Noemi
-------------------- Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult. My blog, no guarantees about witty or intelligent content. My current projects. Coveted Beads <---- our eBay store, new items being added somewhat regularly Posts: 8418 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: If you were to be walking down the street and saw someone poking a fully grown Kodiak Grizzly Bear with a stick, you'd probably think the person was stupid and yell at them to stop.
That may not have been the point but it still made me LMFAO!
Posts: 480 | From: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: Are people scared of sharks and killer bees and flesh eating viruses and being victims of random crimes? Of course they are. Are these things really threats? Sometimes yes, but not even remotely to the degree that many, perhaps even most, people see them as.
Well, you've made this claim several times without even the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. I think it's time to say: Cite, please.
I know this is a common gripe on skeptics' blogs and several books have come out about the subject but I don't know anyone who's afraid of these things. Where are they? Sounds like you're the one who's been suckered into believing something that's not true.
Furthermore, people try to protect against things that are more practical to protect against. I know my son is far more likely to be harmed by family than by strangers but how do you suppose I should change his education to meet that threat? Telling him to beware of strangers has the added benefit that he avoids the very real danger of someone trying to sell him something, such as some dumb religion. Telling him to beware of uncles and aunts would annoy my family. I know he's more likely to drown in the bathtub but he may start to smell after a few weeks without one. Telling him to stay out of swift-moving rivers, on the other hand not only prevents drowning but keeps him from getting mud in the house. When I swim in the water, I know my greatest danger is fatigue. The only way to avoid that is to stay out of the water. However, on the rare chance that a shark happens to be in the area, well, I'm more than happy to stay out, even if he's not likely to bite. Looking for sharks is fun, too. As I said in a previous thread, staying alert is a good survival skill, even if you sometimes are afraid of things that aren't likely to happen.
Why do boy scouts learn what to do in case of a snakebite but not what to do when their dad gets drunk and starts smacking them? Clearly the one is more likely than the other and maybe the scouts should learn what to do in both cases but that doesn't mean most scouts are more afraid of snakes.
As for random crimes, they happen every day. What's the price of a little awareness, even a little alertness? I've lived in pretty dangerous neighborhoods. Even the people there were not so afraid that they couldn't come out of their houses. They were alert. Where's all the scared people? Maybe you've just been watching too much TV.
On the other hand, I do know people who are scared to death of members of their own family. It doesn't make for a good news story but they are out there.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that all-encompassing "stranger danger" is as widespread as you seem to. Every parent that I know has told their kids not to put themselves in a position to be alone with a stranger by entering their house or car. I don't think that's an unreasonable standard. Also, most parents I know tell kids that if they get lost or are in trouble, they should find either another parent with a child or someone in a uniform. (Uniform could be a police officer, or it could be the janitor at a mall.)
These aren't unreasonable, by any stretch of the imagination. There is an appropriate balance of caution to keep it from becoming paranoia, and I think that the majority of parents understand it.
Posts: 345 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: [QUOTE]If you were to be walking down the street and saw someone poking a fully grown Kodiak Grizzly Bear with a stick, you'd probably think the person was stupid and yell at them to stop. But how many of us have walked up on someone shaking a vending machine because their Snickers got stuck against the glass and said nothing, even though from a stastical standpoint the vending machines has a greater chance of killing you then the bear does?
I see your point, but I disagree with your logic here. I don't know that we have the statistics necessary to make this determination.
It is reasonable to assume that 100% of the vending machine deaths come from people shaking them and forcing them to fall.
However, I would think that poking a bear with a stick would enormously increase the chances of an attack.
Like I said, I don't have numbers, but I would imagine that a greater percentage of people who poke fully-grown Kodiak Grizzly bears with sticks end up suffering harm as a result than the percentage of people who shake vending machines.
Posts: 345 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I just have to say too is that with all stats looking at recent events, there is the issue of what is cause, and what is effect. Joe looks at stats that say that children are not often abducted by strangers, and says that we therefore do not need to be especially worried about stranger abduction. Another person could look at the same stats, and point to the obvious effectiveness of stranger danger campaigns and parental vigilance in preventing stranger abductions. You would not come even close to knowing the truth without some pretty long term research looking at a number of variables.
me
-------------------- Check out my handmade pens Check back often because the page changes often Posts: 831 | From: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by keokuk: Also, most parents I know tell kids that if they get lost or are in trouble, they should find either another parent with a child or someone in a uniform. (Uniform could be a police officer, or it could be the janitor at a mall.)
These aren't unreasonable, by any stretch of the imagination. There is an appropriate balance of caution to keep it from becoming paranoia, and I think that the majority of parents understand it.
We used to tell our children if they got lost and there was no one in uniform or in charge (i.e. clerk behind the counter in a store) that they should approach an elderly woman to ask for help. I'm sure that almost any "stranger" probably would have been perfectly harmless and willing to help a lost child but you can't tell a small child to go up to any random total stranger and ask for help. Despite what Joe may think of that.
The one time my then 4 yr old got lost at a county fair he remembered what he was told. No nonsense about "stranger danger" just a common sense solution to give a lost child some semblance of control over his situation.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to abductions: Why are people more afraid of strangers abducting children even if parents do it more often? Because it's the parents who are afraid of their children being abducted. Not being a parent myself, I can't personally testify, but I imagine that many parents worry excessively about what would happen to their child. Why? Probably because their young kid is both very meaningful to them and largely defenseless when left alone.
Parents generally aren't going to be afraid of themselves hurting their child. Hopefully they trust their spouse enough not to as well. For people who aren't in abusive (or otherwise very stressed) relationships and who don't have serious potential for insanity, these aren't real issues. For a "normal" family, the chance of this happening to them is very low. There would probably be warning signs if it were to happen, in any case.
But a random kidnapping, by its very nature, could happen to anyone with no warning at all. Here the fear of such a sudden and dramatic occurance is the root of the issue, not the odds of it actually happening to you.
And as far as school shootings go, it's largely a matter of concentration. People die all the time, for incredibly varied reasons. Even kids die sometimes for all sorts of reasons. Sad but true. So when one high schooler dies at football practice, it's not as big a deal as when 15 people die on the same day at the same place in a violent manner. (And it's not like football deaths get no attention in the media, they're big news too. Just not as big.) Concentrated tragedy is a much bigger deal than an isolated one.
And the reasonings behind fear of child kidnapping also apply to school shootings. The Columbine shooting was essentially random and totally unexpected...the idea was very much, "If it happened there it could happen anywhere without warning."
With diseases, I suspect the lack of any sort of warning before a potential pandemic triggers fear of those rare but potentially rampant diseases. And I wouldn't dismiss bird flu so casually if I were you...just because it hasn't killed anyone yet doesn't mean it won't. Flu pandemics have happened before, with tragic results. It makes a great deal of sense to be worried about the lack of preparedness by the U.S. government and try to do something about it.
I think fear of sharks stems both from pop-culture (Jaws, etc) and a human being's natural discomfort at being in deep water. It's not really our ideal medium: we aren't really at home in it, we can't really tell what's under there, and we are far less effective at fight/flight in water than on land.
As far as dog maulings go, how many people are really afraid of that? I mean, of course there are a lot of phobias around, but I don't feel like that sort of fear is really that widespread.
And for bear attacks, really it's usually just a matter of teaching precautions to prevent bear issues. What's wrong with that? Again, I don't really see widespread fear of this sort of thing.
Finally, as to flying vs. driving, I have two things to say:
- What are the numbers on flying deaths per time flying versus car deaths per time driving? Sure, a lot more people die driving, but people also spend a lot more time driving. Most people not in cities in the U.S. are in cars or drive several times a week, at least. Most people fly a few times a year, at most.
- Again, I think fear of flying also has to do with being in an environment not really natural for humans, just like sharks in water. Humans aren't really "meant" to fly. Thus generally we avoid being above large drops, because if we fall off that's all she wrote. Relying on some unknown person controlling an inctricate machine that functions based on a physics principal that's not intuitively observed in everyday life is a sketchy situation which obviously might make some people uneasy. Especially if it's something they rarely do.
Plus here it's easy to let the imagination run away with you. Sure, it may be unlikely for a particular thing to go wrong with a plane, but it's easy to imagine the catastrophic results that would follow if something did.
"But why go to Petersburg?" Natasha suddenly asked, and hastily replied to her own question. "But no, no, he must... Yes, Mary, He must...."
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christie: We used to tell our children if they got lost and there was no one in uniform or in charge (i.e. clerk behind the counter in a store) that they should approach an elderly woman to ask for help.
Right. That was good advice for Hansel and Gretel. (The longevity of story of Little Red Riding Hood, of course, is proof that our society has a lasting fear of cross-dressing wolves. We must be genetically programmed that way.)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:- What are the numbers on flying deaths per time flying versus car deaths per time driving? Sure, a lot more people die driving, but people also spend a lot more time driving. Most people not in cities in the U.S. are in cars or drive several times a week, at least. Most people fly a few times a year, at most.
Count per mile travelled, count it per flight, count it per travel hours, it doesn't matter. Flight is still safer.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:- What are the numbers on flying deaths per time flying versus car deaths per time driving? Sure, a lot more people die driving, but people also spend a lot more time driving. Most people not in cities in the U.S. are in cars or drive several times a week, at least. Most people fly a few times a year, at most.
Count per mile travelled, count it per flight, count it per travel hours, it doesn't matter. Flight is still safer.
Most people who are afraid of flying *know* the stats (mainly because well-meaning "friends" are constantly telling them the stats) that doesn't change that they are afraid.
Frankly I think people who are afraid of something, no matter what, who can still manage to go ahead and face that fear - like getting on a plane even though it scares them to death - are pretty courageous myself.
Not sure why there seems to be this pressing need on the part of some (not you Troberg) to insist that since that fear may be statistically misplaced it is not a valid fear.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Joe Bentley: For instance in 1999, the year the Columbine School Shooting occured, 15 students were killed on school grounds by guns, all of them during the Columbine shooting.
Anybody want to take a radical guess at how many children died on school property while playing football in 1999? Go ahead take a guess.
15.
And that wasn't a freak year. In 2000 no children died as result of a school shooting. 11 died from football.
But isn't this because guns are banned from schools? And if they weren't, they might be responsible for a lot more deaths?
Posts: 124 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by F minor: But isn't this because guns are banned from schools? And if they weren't, they might be responsible for a lot more deaths?
I've been a teacher for more than ten years and I've never once had to draw my gun.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
quote:We agonize over avian flu, which to date has killed precisely no one in the U.S., but have to be cajoled into getting vaccinated for the common flu, which contributes to the deaths of 36,000 Americans each year. We wring our hands over the mad cow pathogen that might be (but almost certainly isn't) in our hamburger and worry far less about the cholesterol that contributes to the heart disease that kills 700,000 of us annually
quote:Shoppers still look askance at a bag of spinach for fear of E. coli bacteria while filling their carts with fat-sodden French fries and salt-crusted nachos.
quote:At the same time, 20% of all adults still smoke; nearly 20% of drivers and more than 30% of backseat passengers don't use seat belts; two-thirds of us are overweight or obese. We dash across the street against the light and build our homes in hurricane-prone areas--and when they're demolished by a storm, we rebuild in the same spot. Sensible calculation of real-world risks is a multidimensional math problem that sometimes seems entirely beyond us. And while it may be true that it's something we'll never do exceptionally well, it's almost certainly something we can learn to do better.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Absolutely 100% of all deaths are the result of birth. Immutable fact that one.
Everything between day one and day final on this mortal coil is down to chance. Sure you can act to minimise risk, but sooner or later - be it by a toppling vending machine, really narked off bear (or statistically more likely a mosquito) or invisible pathogen, SOMETHING is gonna kill you.
Surrender to irrational fear and we all may as well never leave the uterus....
-------------------- 'Do not follow in the footsteps of the wise, seek instead what they sought' Matsuo Basho Posts: 97 | From: Adelaide, South Australia | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always carry a bomb when I'm flying. From a statistical point of view it's almost impossible that there are two bombs on board an aeroplane independently of each other.
-------------------- Små hönor skall inte lägga stora ägg för då blir de slarviga i ändan Posts: 1334 | From: Sweden | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eccles9: This statistic just in:
Absolutely 100% of all deaths are the result of birth. Immutable fact that one.
Everything between day one and day final on this mortal coil is down to chance. Sure you can act to minimise risk, but sooner or later - be it by a toppling vending machine, really narked off bear (or statistically more likely a mosquito) or invisible pathogen, SOMETHING is gonna kill you.
Surrender to irrational fear and we all may as well never leave the uterus....
Statistically though how many people actually surrender to their irrational fears? I'm afraid of flying, as an example, but I do it anyway. I have a friend who is terrified of monkeys (she has no idea why) so she avoids the monkey cages at zoos & isn't planning a safari to Africa anytime soon - but how do those choices impact on the quality of her life? I know several people who are afraid of clowns - I guess if they stayed cowering in their basement on the off chance that a clown might pass them by I could see that being described as "surrendering to their irrational fears" - but they don't do that.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christie, I've seen it happen on a different scale: women who are afraid to go anywhere without a man, for example.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I totally agree that it does happen, no question. What I am suggesting though is that statistically few people are surrendering to irrational fears compared to how many people probably have irrational fears. Or at least in terms of irrational fears that really make any significant difference to their quality of life.
-------------------- If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
Some schools do have target shooting teams. Not as many as formerly, but there are a few.
-------------------- "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch Posts: 3307 | From: Charleston, WV | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christie: We used to tell our children if they got lost and there was no one in uniform or in charge (i.e. clerk behind the counter in a store) that they should approach an elderly woman to ask for help. [/QB]
-------------------- "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch Posts: 3307 | From: Charleston, WV | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
(The longevity of story of Little Red Riding Hood, of course, is proof that our society has a lasting fear of cross-dressing wolves. We must be genetically programmed that way.)
