So, what you're saying, is that if a child participates in an activity, where there is the slightest chance that harm could later ensue, then you should prevent that child from participating in that activity. Especially if the child actually experienced something positive from that activity.
Like riding in a vehicle. Or swimming, bicycle riding, skateboarding, shooting, running....
All of which are much more likely to end up with childhood harm (certainly up to and including death) than abduction from strangers. Thus, all should be off limits, per the 'flave logic system.
Right?
Nope.
Not even close.
Go back and read the thread two more times.
Except, that it is a concise summary of your logic.
Exactly.
1) Looking at the numbers, at present there's an approximately 1 in 40,000 chance that a child in the USA might be the victim of a "stereotypical kidnapping" while between the age of 0 and 18. (76,000,000 children * 18 years/100 incidents yearly)
2) Due to the chance of this happening, deflave does not want his children to have any interaction with a stranger. Negative interaction would mean abduction. While a positive interaction would mean that deflave's children would possibly learn that interaction with a stranger is not dangerous. And thus might not feel anxiety when some person does have evil intentions towards them.
3) Children are exposed to activities that are statistically tens to hundreds times more likely to end in injury or death to the child. These activities do include: Riding in a vehicle, swimming, bike riding, running etc...
4) Children that have only have positive experiences while participating in the activities in 3) above, may learn to not treat them as the dangers that they (statistically speaking) truly are: Vehicle deaths account for the majority of childhood deaths in the USA from ages 5-19. Drowning kills more children 1-4 than any other accidental cause. Suffocation in a crib is the leading cause of accidental death in infants.
Ergo, were deflave's thoughts to be logical, not only would talking to strangers be off limits, so should the above activities in 3)
But like I said, if you'd phrased your PSA as "Hey, if someone says "Please don't talk to my kids". Just listen to them and move on", well then you'd likely have 100% buy in. Your kids, your parenting. Got it.
But don't frame it as being logically consistent, or that for a man to talk to a child is tantamount to pedophilia.
