shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Oct 10, 2013 15:01:23 GMT -5
You're conflating type II error (failure to detect) with conditional probability. Try the following: Suppose you go in for a cancer screening. Would you rather that the cancer test turn up positive or that it turn up negative? Either way, the test doesn't predicate whether you have cancer or not. You either have it or you don't. The test doesn't change that. Moreover, a negative result doesn't change the national cancer rate. What a negative result does provide is greater confidence that you don't have cancer. Apply the same logic to your friends, family, and neighbours: Would you rather that a domestic violence test (i.e. visible symptoms) turn up positive or that it turn up negative? Obviously you want a negative. Just because the test is considerably less efficient than a cancer screen doesn't mean that the principle isn't the same. You're stepping into this at the wrong point in the analogy. Try re-framing to start here:
You have a family history of cancer, one that has genetic ties and gives you a 9%* chance of developing that same kind of cancer. You have the option of getting a cancer screening, but instead choose not to, on the theory that if you can't "see it", it's not there, or even the theory that if you don't see it, it's less likely to be there.
But neither are true. There's a 9% chance it's there, see it or not. And by refusing to look for it, you are actually causing more harm, because you remove the possibility of early treatment.
*I base the 9% number on the recent survey that came out reporting that 9% of young people self report having COMMITTED sexual violence. It's not truly comparable, but it makes a good starting point.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Oct 10, 2013 15:01:35 GMT -5
I think you're kind of naïve.............. And I think you're more interested in what you want to hear--so that you can shove me and my analysis into a nice predefined box that doesn't require any rational consideration of my arguments--than you are in what I've actually said. But far be it from me to express my gratitude for a violence-free life, hence I'll thank you for taking on the tough job of representing abused children (or child witnesses of abuse) in a custody fight and take my leave. Virgil, I don't need someone to parrot back what I say, or to agree with me, or to assume you mean something. I am considering your arguments and frankly, I think it's really whacked and cold to apply mathematical analysis to something like domestic violence. I also think you don't have much life experience outside your family, friends and church and don't really understand how widespread some of these issues are. I'm glad you live in a violence free bubble. I pretty much do too. I'm grateful for it. But I also realize everyone isn't as lucky as me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 10, 2013 15:02:57 GMT -5
I think you missed the point of my exchange with Virgil. The victims often know the score. But it doesn't mean their neighbor does, and just because the neighbor doesn't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Virgil doesn't know anyone involved in an abusive relationship, therefore they aren't. Virgil THINKS he doesn't know anyone involved in an abusive relationship. That is an utter lie. Nothing I've said in this thread supports it. And you people who supposedly value truth and reason so highly should darn well learn how to read an analysis without twisting it into your own bloody fantasy. Good riddance to this thread.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Oct 10, 2013 15:05:00 GMT -5
Virgil THINKS he doesn't know anyone involved in an abusive relationship. That is an utter lie. Nothing I've said in this thread supports it. And you people who supposedly value truth and reason so highly should darn well learn how to read an analysis without twisting it into your own bloody fantasy. Good riddance to this thread. This sounds like support for that thought to me: "I can say with a great deal of thanksgiving that my life has never been touched by domestic violence. Never known it. Never witnessed it. Never suspected it in the homes of friends and family--even the broken ones. Never heard about it in a classmate. Never come across it in the course of my work. Never had to discuss it in any sense other than academically."
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 10, 2013 15:06:12 GMT -5
Virgil THINKS he doesn't know anyone involved in an abusive relationship. That is an utter lie. Nothing I've said in this thread supports it. And you people who supposedly value truth and reason so highly should darn well learn how to read an analysis without twisting it into your own bloody fantasy. Or, perhaps you could stop twisting what we say into something that suits your fantasy, Virgil. Reducing human misery to an algebraic formula ... that's your wagon to ride, not mine.Good riddance to this thread. Say what? If not saying you don't know anyone involved in an abusive relationship, Virgil, what does this statement of yours mean: "But far be it from me to express my gratitude for a violence-free life" The only way your life could be violence-free is if the only things you consider a part of your life are directly connected to you. Is that the case? Additionally, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't call me a liar again.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Oct 10, 2013 15:07:30 GMT -5
Can't we just concede that Virgil is both naive and lucky?
You can be schooled in danger signs and checklists for decades but a lot of recognizing interpersonal violence has to do with the hair on the back of your neck rising in some sort of recognition.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 10:26:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 17:00:36 GMT -5
Yes, of course I don't want people to be smacked around by people who are supposed to love him. What I, and a bunch of other posters are telling you is just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Abusers don't smack people in public, generally. This is not a problem that can be fixed by applying math and you're kidding yourself if you think nobody you know is ever involved in domestic violence incidents. At no point have I said "it's not there". At no point have I stated that the problem can be "fixed by applying math" or that "nobody (I) know is ever involved in domestic violence incidents". I've stated that I've been blessed to never have experienced or witnessed domestic violence in my lifetime. If you contest this statement, if you believe it is better that I should have witnessed or experienced some domestic violence by this point, then by all means let me know. But this is the only statement I've made and have been defending in this thread. The math is elementary probability and its conclusions make no assumptions about the nature of the violence whatsoever. Actually you have mathematically claimed that there is a good probability that where you have not seen it there is no abuse happening. At best your math proves that there is a there is a possibility that where you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. We are telling you it is a low probability. If someone in your circle is being abused it would be better if you witnessed it rather than having it effectively hidden so it can continue.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Oct 10, 2013 17:18:16 GMT -5
I can say with a great deal of thanksgiving that my life has never been touched by domestic violence. Never known it. Never witnessed it. Never suspected it in the homes of friends and family--even the broken ones. Never heard about it in a classmate. Never come across it in the course of my work. Never had to discuss it in any sense other than academically. Given the numbers they put up year after year, I count that a blessing. I've always suspected it but this confirms it. You live in your parent's basement and you've never been let out of it. I have to say that you are one lucky guy because I was raised with it starting at about 5 years old, experienced it, witnessed it, heard about it from numerous friends/neighbors/family - especially the broken ones. I've heard about it from classmates and always came across it in the course of my work in some aspects (I befriended many and was very social). Have always discussed it in every sense other than academically. I will count your blessings as well.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 10, 2013 18:28:18 GMT -5
Which would be a reasonable concern if I was actively "refusing to look for it". It's not my intent to ignore domestic violence; I've simply never witnessed any.
I know enough about them to consider myself blessed not to have been directly affected. You've claimed that makes me naive, laterbloomer has claimed it puts me "not in a position to help the victim", and others seem to think makes me callous or oblivious.
And where in that quote did I indicate it couldn't possibly be happening? Everything in that post pertains to observable violence.
I'm not be attuned to the subtle signs of domestic violence, but I can still perceive the big things. None of my friends or family ever showed up with mysterious bruises or injuries. We could all go to each other's houses and be sociable with each other's parents, and we often did. Nobody ever fretted about going home. There were no scandals circulated (that I can recall), no visits from police or social services. No screaming matches. Nothing untoward turning up in long conversations about our goings-on in our lives.
Indeed there is a chance that some or all of them were in abusive situations. My point is that I never observed anything obvious to indicate abuse. It never affected me. My personal world of friends, family, and acquaintances is indistinguishable from a world in which no abuse exists. Since I'm well aware that abuse does exist, I'm grateful for that isolation. If abuse is even the slightest bit detectable, the absence of observable signs reduce the chances of the underlying symptom. You can argue "not by much" and I won't contest you since I honestly don't know. I do know that unless domestic violence is 100% undetectable, there is a non-zero reduction in the probability.
You make the singular statement "Virgil THINKS he doesn't know anyone involved in an abusive relationship."
I've claimed nothing of the sort. Reply #39 and Reply #85 blatantly contradict the claim. The only statement that even qualifies prima facie is "Never suspected it in the homes of friends and family--even the broken ones." But if not suspecting something means I automatically THINK the opposite, then I must THINK there are no bank robbers since I've never suspected anyone of bank robbery, and I must THINK that nobody on NMSNM lies about their age because I've never suspected any poster of lying about their age, etc.
Your bold statement about what I THINK is completely untrue.
Define "good probability". Show me where I use the term "good probability". There is an increased probability, which is the whole point of my analysis. The analysis makes no assumptions about the baseline probability, nor does it quantify the increase.
That's not necessary, but appreciated. And more specifically, I appreciate you not calling me a naive, oblivious idiot living on lollipop island for considering myself blessed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 10:26:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 18:33:41 GMT -5
Virgil you are setting up a straw man argument. Not one person has said you aren't blessed. We are all telling you that unfortunately statistics say that a few people in your circle are or have been abused. All you need to do is say "that's so sad". When many of us tell you it seems that you are claiming that isn't true you say "that's not what I meant, but I am hoping it isn't true"
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 10, 2013 18:44:32 GMT -5
Virgil you are setting up a straw man argument. Not one person has said you aren't blessed. We are all telling you that unfortunately statistics say that a few people in your circle are or have been abused. All you need to do is say "that's so sad". When many of us tell you it seems that you are claiming that isn't true you say "that's not what I meant, but I am hoping it isn't true" In Reply #39, Swamp says "The problem with domestic violence is that people don't talk about it. ... I'll bet you do know someone, it just isn't talked about." My reply was: "Given the statistics, I'm sure there must be. Even so, there's a correlation--however partial--between no observed violence and no actual violence, and I'll take not observing violence any day." It's been my argument ever since. If it will make people feel better to state the obvious: I deplore that domestic violence exists and that some of my friends, family, colleagues may be affected by it. I very much long to live in a world where husbands, wives, sons, daughters, and grandparents didn't have to live in fear of the very people whose proper role is to love, protect, and strengthen them.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Oct 10, 2013 18:55:34 GMT -5
LOL! That had already been covered and I try not to be redundant! And now I want a lollipop.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Oct 10, 2013 19:14:15 GMT -5
Geez one abused 6 year old and you all get so touchy...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 10, 2013 20:24:46 GMT -5
And I think you're more interested in what you want to hear--so that you can shove me and my analysis into a nice predefined box that doesn't require any rational consideration of my arguments--than you are in what I've actually said. Where is this "analysis" - or even arguments? Not observing or even observing something is neither an analysis nor an argument - it is an observation. The arguments are scattered throughout the thread. The analysis starts here; a trivial proof that the probability of DV conditioned on not observing DV is strictly less than the baseline probability of DV. Yes, it's mathematical in nature, but that doesn't make it callous, incorrect, or irrelevant.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 10, 2013 22:59:06 GMT -5
Analysis of why I consider myself blessed to never have been touched by domestic violence. Not an analysis of domestic violence itself. Or if you prefer, a more detailed examination of why I consider myself blessed to never have been touched by domestic violence.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 10, 2013 23:13:49 GMT -5
Ahh. Then, you must think you MAY know someone who has experienced abuse, or is experiencing abuse. You said you "Never suspected it in the homes of friends and family--even the broken ones." Either you have never suspected it, or you did suspect it. It's got to be one or the other ... or, perhaps, you just never gave it a moment's thought. My post was in response to the post of another (neither you, nor me). You've left the same impression with several posters, Virgil. Thing is, abuse doesn't necessarily leave visible signs. That doesn't mean it isn't occurring; however, one must be aware it exists and care enough to keep an eye out for the possibility. I think that's what people here are getting at.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 10, 2013 23:16:54 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be a PITA, Virgil, but there are, I believe, several here who would disagree with that statement. I'm one of them. Human beings cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. Emotions are involved and those just don't compute, IMO. The matter is more complex than a series of numbers and letters.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 10, 2013 23:19:26 GMT -5
Lollipop for POM!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 11, 2013 0:57:51 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be a PITA, Virgil, but there are, I believe, several here who would disagree with that statement. I'm one of them. Human beings cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. Emotions are involved and those just don't compute, IMO. The matter is more complex than a series of numbers and letters. You have to respect the scope of the analysis. It's not trying to quantify the human condition. It's an examination of a very specific, very elementary facet of the problem. I could just as well use mathematics to calculate the mean age of reported abuse victims or to compute the distribution of number of ER visits per year per child in the US. In either of those cases, the limited scope is more obvious, but the equation I presented in this thread is no different. It's simply a 1 + 1 = 2 relationship between several very broadly defined probabilities. Mathematics is a universal tool. It's not wrong to apply it to facets of a problem as "human" as domestic violence, provided the underlying assumptions are clearly stated. If I start throwing equations at you along with statements like "assuming child-on-parent abuse is comparably common to parent-on-child abuse...", you can critique the analysis either by contesting the assumption (i.e. "We have no basis to assume xyz...") or by narrowing the scope of the analysis (i.e. "Very well, but your equation therefore only applies to the limited subset of families pqr..."). Or if the math is wrong, you can obviously critique that too.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 11, 2013 1:43:55 GMT -5
No, Virgil. I can critique the analysis for any reason I see fit. You don't tell me what I can, or cannot do. While you may see reducing human suffering to a "very elementary facet of the problem", I don't. I don't care to apply a "1+1=2 relationship" to this matter, nor do I care to "broadly define" the probabilities. While you might not see that as wrong, I certainly don't see it as right. I see it as cold, and that bothers me in this case. If you start "throwing equations" at me over things like this, you'll get pretty much the same reaction every time. If you'll read back through this thread, I think you'll find I'm not alone in my assessment. Numbers don't give you a basis for determining how many human beings are dealing with abuse. They might give you some comfort, but they don't do a thing for me.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 11, 2013 4:31:35 GMT -5
Beam me up, Scotty...
|
|
happyscooter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 9:04:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by happyscooter on Oct 11, 2013 6:00:05 GMT -5
I had to google the book you guys were talking about. I wouldn't be able to read it, I now have grandchildren. But we have a case in the newspaper at least once a week where a child has been abused. Not always by a man but usually that is the case. And the 'mother' turns her head. No one finds out until the very end when someone takes the child to the hospital. Then broken bones, skull fracture and other things. And in most cases the child dies.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 11, 2013 6:56:26 GMT -5
No, Virgil. I can critique the analysis for any reason I see fit. You don't tell me what I can, or cannot do. While you may see reducing human suffering to a "very elementary facet of the problem", I don't. I don't care to apply a "1+1=2 relationship" to this matter, nor do I care to "broadly define" the probabilities. While you might not see that as wrong, I certainly don't see it as right. I see it as cold, and that bothers me in this case. If you start "throwing equations" at me over things like this, you'll get pretty much the same reaction every time. If you'll read back through this thread, I think you'll find I'm not alone in my assessment. Numbers don't give you a basis for determining how many human beings are dealing with abuse. They might give you some comfort, but they don't do a thing for me. But in some instances equations are being used to model out human behavior and interactions with positive results. 1. In Chicago the police department has worked with a mathematical expert to develop an algorithm that works to define the probability of someone getting killed. This is done with people with whom they have frequent contact. These people are then warned/given notice that they have appeared on the list, almost like person of interest, and advised to change their activities/associations. It's not always criminals as you may suspect. It may be the 15 yo girl who has an uncle and a boyfriend who are involved in gang activity, but she would never suspect her life is in imminent danger. www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/6403037-Chicago-police-use-heat-list-to-prevent-violence/2. In schools that serve large populations of at-risk children similar methods are used to identify those most likely to drop out, get pregnant, and become involved in illegal activity. These children are then targeted with extra intervention to make sure they stay on track and in school. (don't have a link for this one, it was on the PBS special "Dropout Nation") Does it work 100% of the time? Of course not, but to say applying numbers to people is cold is, IMHO limiting, and you deny the potential benefit of using such methods to do good.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 10:26:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 7:09:48 GMT -5
I don't think you need an algorithm to figure out that someone who lives in the 'hood has a higher probability of getting shot over someone who lives in the suburbs.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 11, 2013 7:15:14 GMT -5
I don't know if you read the full article, but at least to me it was pretty interesting. No, you don't need an algorithm to figure that out, however you can use one to figure out who is MOST likely to get shot and try to get them to change.
You get enough people to change (as is mentioned in the article) and eventually you see a shift in the bell curve.
|
|
Nazgul Girl
Junior Associate
Babysitting our new grandbaby 3 days a week !
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:25:02 GMT -5
Posts: 5,913
Today's Mood: excellent
|
Post by Nazgul Girl on Oct 11, 2013 7:22:28 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be a PITA, Virgil, but there are, I believe, several here who would disagree with that statement. I'm one of them. Human beings cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. Emotions are involved and those just don't compute, IMO. The matter is more complex than a series of numbers and letters. You have to respect the scope of the analysis. It's not trying to quantify the human condition. It's an examination of a very specific, very elementary facet of the problem. I could just as well use mathematics to calculate the mean age of reported abuse victims or to compute the distribution of number of ER visits per year per child in the US. In either of those cases, the limited scope is more obvious, but the equation I presented in this thread is no different. It's simply a 1 + 1 = 2 relationship between several very broadly defined probabilities. Mathematics is a universal tool. It's not wrong to apply it to facets of a problem as "human" as domestic violence, provided the underlying assumptions are clearly stated. If I start throwing equations at you along with statements like "assuming child-on-parent abuse is comparably common to parent-on-child abuse...", you can critique the analysis either by contesting the assumption (i.e. "We have no basis to assume xyz...") or by narrowing the scope of the analysis (i.e. "Very well, but your equation therefore only applies to the limited subset of families pqr..."). Or if the math is wrong, you can obviously critique that too. Virgil, to me, math is your comfort zone. The subject of domestic violence in this thread comes from an emotional standpoint. Swamp was posting her reaction to having to be the only rational adult in a painful case of child abuse (besides the judge, most hopefully ). She was weary and emotionally scorched by what she had been through that day, but moreso, ans a parent and a decent human being, she knew that the child's situation was just one of millions, perhaps billions in a never-ending cycle. You expressed the thought that you had never seen or suspected domestic violence in your circle ( if I may paraphrase you ) and then did some kind of analysis which you found satisfying, I do believe. Nobody else responded in a particularly positive manner, to which you have taken umbrage. I admire your abilities. I just don't know if this exercise of them has contributed much to the conversation. I think it has thrown a lot of people off. I'm not trying criticize you. There's just not much audience out there for your "analysis". I guess, anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 10:26:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 7:50:19 GMT -5
And there is a problem with your mathematical assumptions that I keep trying to tell you about and you keep ignoring. You are assuming that there is a correlation between YOU observing domestic abuse and actualy domestic abuse. In higher income areas the instance of actual domestic abuse is significantly higher than the observed instances. It is higher in low income areas as well, just not as significantly. Without including that variable your math is extremely misleading.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 10:26:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 7:52:53 GMT -5
AND your mathematical question is wrong. You are using it to prove your preconcieved hypothesis. Your question should be "How much domestic abuse is happening in my circles that I am not identifying?"
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 11, 2013 7:53:59 GMT -5
I wish I had never seen or experienced it. Lucky are those that never do.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Oct 11, 2013 9:13:10 GMT -5
I had to google the book you guys were talking about. I wouldn't be able to read it, I now have grandchildren. But we have a case in the newspaper at least once a week where a child has been abused. Not always by a man but usually that is the case. And the 'mother' turns her head. No one finds out until the very end when someone takes the child to the hospital. Then broken bones, skull fracture and other things. And in most cases the child dies. How about the ones who refuse to let the child off life support, even though they're brain dead, because it means the abuser will be charged with murder/manslaughter. Poor kids.
|
|