|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 8, 2009 6:50:52 GMT -5
All I'm saying, is that it's easy to get distracted and forget a quietly sleeping child, especially if it's early in the morning, you have to drop the kid off at day care, and you're not the one who usually does that. Can't you see where a tired parent could fall back on routine, and completely forget that the kid is in the car? Except the parent would have had to pack the kid and all the kid's stuff in the car. In other words, they would have already gone through extra effort, making the morning in question atypical. Except that IT HAPPENS.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 8, 2009 8:19:17 GMT -5
Additionally, my claim is that the intentions of unwilling parents cannot account for all of the instances (such as those perpetrated by grandparents or other non-custodial relatives) or seems inconsistent with their other actions (such as in cases of children who were adopted at great effort, or in cases where the parents have other children whom they show no signs of not wanting, who never before or after the incident allege abuse, etc.) So your beliefs are predicated upon your assumption that all parents love all their children equally, and that there are no societal/marriage pressures that could cause someone to adopt a child that they do not want? Note - We aren't discussing non-custodial relatives. We are discussing parents who leave children in cars. I am far more willing to buy someone the kid doesn't belong to leaving the kid in the car as being accidental. I still think it is criminally liable neglect that should be punished with jail time. He isn't researching anything new. It's been done already. False memories and convincing yourself of something that didn't happen has been known to the psychology community for decades now. We have already answered this question, repeatedly. It's also possible that there really was a Noah's Ark. It's highly unlikely to the point it can be more or less discarded, but it is possible that some almighty deity temporarily altered the laws of nature. WTF? Why do you need to ascertain this? Seriously, have you been living in a bubble for your entire life? If you know ten people, I guarantee you know at least one whose parents valued a sibling more. A Child Called It was on the bestseller list for a while. It's not unusual for only one child to be molested. Look to how China treats it's daughters for a major culture-wide example. Then you haven't actually read what I have been saying. I've discussed children being left in cars as a manifestation of a subconscious desire to be rid of the child in several posts, as well as it being a manifestation of just not giving a shit about the child. There is a difference between leaving the house and forgetting to lock the door and leaving the house after showering completely forgetting to put clothes on. It's about equal to the difference between forgetting to turn the lights off and leaving your kid in the car. Because that is the case. You don't just forget where your child is when you were the one that put them there. If you are, you have no business being a parent in the first place. Sounds to me like they put effort into covering their tracks to increase the chances of it being assumed to be accidental. They may even have succeeded in convincing themselves that it was a genuine accident. Because it doesn't and I have no interest in absolving fucktards of their crimes. If we started treating it like the crime it is, it would happen less. Because people are stupid, malicious, or just plain don't give a shit about their kids. I'm not suggesting it. I'm flat out saying that parents who leave their kids in the car to die do so on purpose, either consciously or subconsciously, and people who believe otherwise are deluding themselves. And at this point, I have to ask - Which one of your loved ones left their kid in the car?
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jul 8, 2009 8:36:00 GMT -5
Wow, I'm a father does this mean I get to play middle of the road? My emotional and physical investment in an infant is considerably less than yours yours DV, but I've actually looked after an infant on a daily basis so I know what's actually involved unlike wmdkitty. The fact of the matter is that if you placed the child in the car it is extremely unlikely that you will forget that you put it there. There is simply too much planning and prep work involved. However, if you didn't place the child in the car, and the person who did is no longer in the vehicle when you stop and get out then it is possible. It is an extremely unlikely series of events, but it is possible. On what information are you basing your statements of "unlikely"? Is it intuitive and emotional supposition, or something factual? Unabashedly intuitive. That being said, I am basing my view of it as being unlikely on the total complexity of the process, and not solely on emotion. Not locking the door or forgetting the coffee pot are both single discrete actions that take a matter of seconds to complete. It makes them idea candidates for getting slapped into muscle memory and the autopilot system. Loading an infant into a car is a multi-step process that has variables that tend to change every day. That little bit of chaos and randomness forces the brain out of autopilot mode. Once in active thinking mode it becomes much harder to forget. It's not impossible, just considerably harder. If you have to hunt through the house to find your keys so you can lock the door, are you then likely to forget to lock the door? I would submit that you are not. We also have the entire scope and magnitude of the activity to consider. Babies are important, and require near constant attention and monitoring. A coffee pot you can turn on in the morning and leave alone to do its thing. This is where you and I disagree on cognitive similarities. My feeling is that an infant occupies much more of your brain, and is placed in a higher value category so there are more triggers for your brain to literally trip over and remind you. Excellent posts by the way. I'd exalt you if I could.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 8, 2009 10:03:03 GMT -5
I agree, and I also appreciate how the conversation is not (quite, anyway) dissovling into a flamefest. We should all be able to talk about provocative things without twisting our panties halfway up our ass. Lonelocust, in the interest of hopefully narrowing in a bit, I suggest we focus in on two things: 1) cases being discussed and 2) this issue of remembering kids. Although I fully expect that to balloon to epic proportions as well. First: the cases being discussed. We seem to be in agreement that there are definitely instances where a leaver-of-children-in-cars was grossly negligent, and likely highly purposeful in wanting to pretend the infant wasn't there. Murderer, no, Gross Negligence, totally. We are also in agreement that there are cases where it truly seemed to be unintentional. Still negligent, but not on purpose. Does clarifying that we both agree on these things get rid of the coversation altogether (we both agree there are extremes), or does it leave us to discuss the claims of "thought it was at daycare" at this point? Are we actually arguing a matter of degree, where I think the majority of people who leave kids in cars are doing it on purpose because they don't want to be responsible for a kid for three hours and you're saying the majority of these cases are not about ditching parental responsibility? Let's pare it down a little more. I like the drunk driving analogy, by the way, let's use it some more. As to the second, I think you'll likely find that the process of remembering "stuff" is the same physical process whether it is a coffee pot or a baby. However, take what Canadian Mojo said into consideration, particularly about discreet action. And this is why I suggest that it is more important to ask parents rather than non-parents, because they have experience with infants in a way that nonparents obviously do not. Babies are not programmable and they are not like alarm clocks. Loading a baby in a car is an active process, because while you need to do the same steps each time, it is not automatic that you will perform those same steps in sequence every time. A more likely comparison (although still not quite on the same level) is forgetting to pack the baby's pacifier. Forgetting you put the baby in the car is a much bigger cognitive dissonance to make than turning off the coffee pot. Morally, obviously. But also because parents are usually biologically wired to prioritize an infant -- unless you want to disagree with that? Do we assume that to be true for most parents? Women are flooded with hormones during and just after birth for many purposes including that. We've established that it is possible in some instances to actually forget -- I think what we disagree on is how prevelent that really is (if it's just an excuse) and the priority in one's memory for the baby. Yes? At least be open to the possibility that a parent was looking to get away with a less than optimal solution for a situation involving an infant. This is anecdotal again, yes, but it's important, in my opinion. I have been around parents, especially young ones and not particularly good ones who wanted to drag the infant along to a movie theater anyway when their babysitter fell through -- they thought the infant could just sleep in the car and they'd be out in a couple of hours, no harm, no foul. Babies sleep a lot anyway, what harm was in it? That's the kind of thing you'll have a difficult time finding data on -- but it does exist in our culture. Parents sometimes take parental shortcuts -- it is a possibility that some parents are using the babysitter/daycare/grandma excuse to pawn off the fact that they tried to take a shortcut that they didn't think through. How would we be ableto determine whether this was true or not? Lack of a study on this doesn't invalidate that possibility; but an understanding of the aspects of human nature shows it can be a real possibility. I think it's a mistake to discount the possibility. On a final note, I'm skeptical of claims that pretend to divorce emotion from the situation and look only at "cold, hard rationality." For the simple fact that I don't think that is possible and also because I think human behavior very often is quite irrational and there may be no trackable piece of data behind it. I wouldn't be so quick to throw away the emotional experience, because it is part of human biology -- how can you understand motive if you discount emotion? I would also suggest that anecdotal information has its place. I'm not saying you should prioritize it over data, but it is information nonetheless that can be examined and evaluated. I think not thinking that much about human emotions and human nature under certain pressures is one of the things that allows mistakes like that to keep happening -- we're not willing to really interrogate what's behind it all because we don't have a statistical table or pie chart about it. But I digress. And yes, the quote system can get bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 8, 2009 10:08:42 GMT -5
Um -- kitty, doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that you're arguing against someone who is telling you that people sometimes don't like being a parent and would rather not be around their kid? Frankly, I'm surprised you're not more understanding of the point she's trying to make -- she's questioning the concept of automatic "mother love", something you've done numerous times. So why assume now that the poor, poor parent is just forgetful, rather than purposefully neglectful? Saying "we don't need your kind" isn't a good place to start. Quite a few people might be inclined to think we don't need your kind, either. I'm not arguing that "all parents like being parents and love being around their precious little snowflakes." I'm arguing that, yes, under certain conditions, it -is- entirely possible to space out and forget that you have the kid in the car, which does fall under neglect, but is not -intentional-. Both you and keresm are saying that it's always a -deliberate- act. Are you seriously suggesting that -every- child who has died from hyperthermia from being locked in a car was -intentionally- left there to die? If you were actually reading what was written, you'd see that has already been covered and the possibility allowed for. The question is how prevalent is that possibility. Skimming is not helpful if you want to get into the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 8, 2009 15:27:05 GMT -5
I'm not arguing that "all parents like being parents and love being around their precious little snowflakes." I'm arguing that, yes, under certain conditions, it -is- entirely possible to space out and forget that you have the kid in the car, which does fall under neglect, but is not -intentional-. Both you and keresm are saying that it's always a -deliberate- act. Are you seriously suggesting that -every- child who has died from hyperthermia from being locked in a car was -intentionally- left there to die? If you were actually reading what was written, you'd see that has already been covered and the possibility allowed for. The question is how prevalent is that possibility. Skimming is not helpful if you want to get into the conversation. I did read what was written and found most of it to be the same damn thing over and over. Keresm calling people "stupid" and "bad parents" for spacing out and thinking the kid was with the other spouse/grandma/babysitter. You agreeing with her. And the rest of us saying, "No, this clearly happens, you can't just say that they're all just making excuses for intentional infanticide when the data provided points in the other direction." Followed quickly by Keresm and other parents screaming about how "I could NEVER forget MY baby, so it MUST be INTENTIONAL!" And refusing to look at the facts.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 8, 2009 16:04:55 GMT -5
And refusing to look at the facts. And what are these 'facts' you have? Thus far all you've provided is your admission that you'd forget a baby. But we are supposed to take your word for that, but you are unwilling to take my word for the fact that parents who give a damn about their kids don't leave them in cars. And the overwhelming evidence I provided about mothers killing infants and the homicide rate pertaining to infant mortality was completely lost on you.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 8, 2009 16:24:12 GMT -5
FACT: Parents who -do- give a damn -have- accidentally left their kid in the car, with tragic results.
You're claiming that "it's NEVER accidental," that "it's just NOT POSSIBLE to forget a child," when the data clearly indicates otherwise.
You're the one stating your opinion (they're "stupid") as fact.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 8, 2009 16:52:55 GMT -5
FACT: Parents who -do- give a damn -have- accidentally left their kid in the car, with tragic results. And your proof is where?Prove these parents actually valued their children's wellbeing. See, the counter-evidence to them actually giving a damn is the fact that, oh, yeah, they LEFT THEIR KID IN THE CAR TO DIE. You've stated you would forget a kid in the car. You've also stated that you don't want to be a mom, and thus you wouldn't really give a damn about the kid. You are proof of what we are saying. There is no 'data' to indicate that the parents valued their children except their claims. Their claims are countered by the fact that they LEFT THEIR KIDS IN THE CAR TO DIE. We have provided evidence that parents killing their children, actively, through neglect, or through a subconscious placing of the child in a dangerous situation. You have provided nothing to counter this except an admission that you, someone who doesn't like children and acknowledges you shouldn't be a mother, might leave your kid in the car. In short, you have proven our point for us.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 8, 2009 17:10:38 GMT -5
Your assumption is wrong.
While I have no desire to be a mother myself, that doesn't mean I "wouldn't really give a damn." It just means I don't want children of my own -- I'm perfectly happy to spoil other people's children, and I will go out of my way to keep them safe. Seriously, "don't want to be a parent" does NOT automatically mean "hates children."
None of them left their kid in the car "to die." I have a hard time believing that every case is intentional.
Some are, sure, but MOST are purely accidental.
Why can't you understand that even the most competent and hypervigilant parent is capable of forgetting that they have the kid with them? (Someone here even explained HOW it's possible on a cognitive level, and you dismissed it as "oh, well, they're just stupid for forgetting their kid.")
Why can't you understand that ACCIDENTS HAPPEN?
Why can't you understand that your OPINION (as to whether or not it was a deliberate act, and the intelligence/competence of the parent involved) IS NOT FACT?
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 8, 2009 17:14:08 GMT -5
None of them left their kid in the car "to die." Prove it. Yep. They do. This 'accident' however, requires you to not give a damn about your kid. Given what we already know about infant homicide rates by parents, what do you have to base this on? Come back when you actually read the links I provided. Because they aren't. Didn't say it did. Did say it means you won't value the child as the child should be valued. Perhaps you could actually try reading my posts.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 8, 2009 17:41:56 GMT -5
None of them left their kid in the car "to die." Prove it. Burden of proof is on you to show that it was deliberate, willful, intentional, MURDER. As none of the prosecutors have been able to, I doubt you can, either. And calling them "stupid" or "uncaring" isn't proof.Yep. They do. This 'accident' however, requires you to not give a damn about your kid. Not true. It requires you to be distracted.Given what we already know about infant homicide rates by parents, what do you have to base this on? Come back when you actually read the links I provided. I've read more than I need to. You're a douchebag, and you really should reconsider your hostile attitude. People would actually read your posts if you weren't constantly ridiculing and belittling non-parents, or calling parents grieving the tragic loss of a child through an accident "stupid", or claiming they "didn't care."
Show a little compassion and respect.
Because they aren't. Didn't say it did. Did say it means you won't value the child as the child should be valued. Perhaps you could actually try reading my posts. Wow, so because I don't want to have kids of my own, I "don't value children as they 'should' be valued."
You don't know me.
You don't know my circumstances, my life, my thoughts, or my feelings, and you have NO RIGHT to tell me what I "really" think or feel about, well, anything.
Sure, children are annoying, constantly leaking something foul out of one end or the other, and horribly obnoxious in public places.
But they are the future, and it is our job as a society to see that they are valued and loved, even if they're not strictly "our" children. They may not even be a part of our family, but as a part of our community, as a part of society, it still falls to everyone -- parent or not -- to maintain the safety and security of the children. Yes, even to the point of sacrificing your own life for theirs, if necessary.
I love kids, and am getting a huge kick out of watching my nieces and nephew grow up, and my friends' kids develop. (And they're a great excuse for indulging in, you know, childish behavior. It's fun!)
I just don't want any of my own, because I recognize that I am not cut out to be a parent.
How is my being a responsible adult, and not popping out kids I can't provide for, in any way equivalent to "not properly valuing children"?
How does admitting that, yes, I could conceivably forget that my (hypothetical) child is in the car (as opposed to at the babysitter's), when I'm stressed and running on 4 hours of sleep a night, in any way make me "stupid"?
Shit, if anything, it takes intelligence and insight to know that I am not perfect, to be responsible enough to not inflict my flaws on an innocent child.
Intelligence and insight that you, Miss "I'm a parent, I'm better than you," clearly lack.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 8, 2009 18:05:30 GMT -5
Kitty, might I suggest that you think about your track record of late with conversations before you start jumping on people as "hostile"? The fact that you think we're saying the "same thing over and over" and the fact that you think keresm and I agree on everything is proof enough that you haven't closely read a goddamn thing. Saying it in capital letters hardly makes it true. You said "IT HAPPENS" as in people forget their kids. OK. What we're dealing with is whether they are telling the fucking truth or whether they're coping an excuse for being douchebag parents. For fuckssake, any other day you'd be on the other end of this argument; the fact you can't see any of the contradictions here based on the volumes of other stuff you've posted is mind blowing. This isn't about you popping out kids or not.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 8, 2009 18:29:22 GMT -5
Burden of proof is on you to show that it was deliberate, willful, intentional, MURDER. See all those links I provided? Read them. And you are a bigger hypocrite than the folks over at RR. I suggest you remove your head from your ass and actually read my posts. Wow. You've said the exact same thing I said to you and seem to think I said something different. It's almost like you came in here looking for a fight and didn't bother to read my posts except to pick out a few words you could take offense to. So I say again: You are a bigger hypocrite then the folks over at RR.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 8, 2009 18:31:30 GMT -5
Incidentally, and totally philosophically, I don't believe anyone, ever reads "more than they need to." But that's totally a tangent.
|
|