The girl who was run over [Archive]

Buffalobiian

Sun, 10-16-2011, 09:09 PM

Just re-watched the video, and thought this might not be apparent from just the imagery.

The beginning was not in slow motion. The car was initially driving very slowly, and then accelerated in the kid's direction.

The second driver may not have seen the kid on the ground.

Time between collision and help was 6 minutes.

The mother came over after hearing the cries of the helping woman. That means a) she was within earshot, and b) the kid mustn't have screaming that loudly (you know, as in kids on a bus).

edit: to clarify, the commentator added that the kid must have been screaming. Actual witnesses didn't testify. The kid was pretty quiet by the time she got help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_world_theory

People seem a lot less like assholes when you realize they're just subject to socio/psychological effects they're not aware of.

The commentator was explaining the SMS-survey at the end. at least one of those choices was providing excuses for the passer-bys.

Animeniax

Sun, 10-16-2011, 09:36 PM

I was referring to your comment about the parents. They have nothing to do with what happened. Your assumptions about their competence falls into the Just World theory.

The other stuff you said is abhorrent but probably a product of a jaded world-view that comes from experience. I can't hold that against you, just hope that you value human life a little more :(Well I only asked where were the parents and why was their kid sitting in the road. If your 2 year old daughter is lying in the street to be run over passersby, I think the parents are culpable to some degree.

I value human life for the most part, but I think westerners over-value human lives. I don't think it's enough to have a life, quality of life matters too.

XanBcoo

Mon, 10-17-2011, 05:54 PM

If your 2 year old daughter is lying in the street to be run over passersby, I think the parents are culpable to some degree.
Given the information we know, which is nothing, they are not culpable for anything. You have no idea what was going on and to assume in any way that the parents are somehow responsible is idiotic.

Even if you are the best parents in the world, it takes about 15 seconds for a child to wander off. They had absolutely no control over the situation. End of story.

Gonna stop replying.

Animeniax

Mon, 10-17-2011, 06:27 PM

What the fuck, what world do you people live in where your 2 year old can wander off, even for 15 seconds, and you're not fucking responsible??? I don't want to live in that world. Even if you say "maybe the babysitter let her wander off", then it's still the parents' fault for entrusting their 2 year old to an irresponsible babysitter.

You should stop replying, you're making yourself look foolish defending shitty parents.

Archangel

Tue, 10-18-2011, 05:23 AM

You're the one jumping to conclusions while completely unaware of the facts regarding the whole situation.

If anyone is looking foolish in this little back and forth you two are having then that would be you.

Animeniax

Tue, 10-18-2011, 07:57 AM

What conclusions am I jumping to beyond that parents should be responsible for their 2 year old's whereabouts at all times? This isn't your pet dog or cat getting out of the yard, it's your 2 year old kid. And if you watched the video, the mom isn't that far away, but far away enough to not be aware of her 2 year old's situation, which is wrong no matter how far you want to push personal responsibility.

Archangel

Tue, 10-18-2011, 09:51 AM

Oh and i'm done replying as well, sorry shoud have mentioned that.

Sapphire

Tue, 10-18-2011, 10:13 AM

Horrifying. Disgusting. Infuriating.

I've had random people off the side of the street help me if I even resembled being in distress, and I'd probably be dead or worse without the altruism of random passerbys. I know for a fact that I wouldn't be able to continue living with myself if I saw this and did nothing. The people who didn't help should all burn in hell.

And to think that the mom let the kid walk around before she learned how to look out for cars makes it almost entirely the mom's fault. I mean the kid was alone for THAT LONG? WTF? Children who obviously don't know how to watch out for cars need to be watched like a hawk until they can do so. This is why.

Oh, and Ani, I hope your comment about wishing dead on the kid for being in a bad situation was a poor attempt at a joke. Otherwise, you might as well just go vigilante and kill all children with shitty parents, and then yourself.

Buffalobiian

Tue, 10-18-2011, 10:17 AM

And to think that the mom let the kid walk around before she learned how to look out for cars makes it almost entirely the mom's fault.

I believe Ani never said it was almost entirely the mother's fault. He was reasoning that she had some part in this whole situation.

Oh, and Ani, I hope your comment about wishing dead on the kid for being in a bad situation was a joke. Otherwise, you might as well just go vigilante and kill all children with shitty parents, and then yourself.

Saying that he should go vigilante and kill all children with severely crippling injuries/conditions would better reflect where he's getting at. By saying what you said, it implies that Ani thinks all unsupervised children will get run over with non-recoverable injuries.

edit@below: ban me (http://forums.gotwoot.net/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_nocontentfree).

Sapphire

Tue, 10-18-2011, 10:19 AM

Oh, nice, you've yet again managed to completely skew my post, which was not entirely directed at Ani, in a retarded and annoying way.

Like I've said before, shut up with your loud and useless nonopinions.

edit@below: ban me (http://forums.gotwoot.net/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_nocontentfree)

Sure.

Kraco

Tue, 10-18-2011, 10:43 AM

Do you guys know something more of this case than I do? For all I know, the mother could have been deperately looking for the kid elsewhere when this was happening. Kids that small have poorer brains for self-preservation than the cats and dogs Ani referred to. The kid could have been walking alongside the mom in a throng and accidentally got separated by following a stranger in similar clothing. Or if they were at home, the kid's five years old cousin could have opened the locked front door while the mom was preparing food or taking a shower. Even for non-bad parents there exists a statistical possibility for a tragic mistake/accident to happen. Just to put things into perspective, thousands of kids die every year around the world, and the deaths aren't all due to bad parenting, though many are.

Archangel

Tue, 10-18-2011, 10:49 AM

edit@below: ban me (http://forums.gotwoot.net/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_nocontentfree).

Sure.

http://i.imgur.com/QV0ly.jpg

I wish i was enough of a bitch to make a big deal about this on abuse of power and bla bla but unfortunately i just don't have the patience :(

Splash!

Tue, 10-18-2011, 12:35 PM

I value human life for the most part, but I think westerners over-value human lives. I don't think it's enough to have a life, quality of life matters too.

I don't really understand how that justifies letting the girl die because it would have been the 'merciful' thing to do.

Instead you seem to be questioning whether it's WORTH saving her from a practical point of view if you can't guarantee a certain quality of life. I assume since somebody paid her hospital bills at the end, the question of what her life is worth is irrelevant.

I agree that there is a point where quality of life is so low that continuing to live on can be far too difficult for a person. But to prematurely let her die for what PROBABLY could be a very tough life is just not good enough a premise, especially when no one has any way of knowing yet how that kid will be able to cope. It is not an act of mercy but simply an act of convenience.

You need a much deeper understanding of the situation and all possible outcomes before you can even begin to conjecture what the merciful thing to do would be. Being merciful requires you to step into the other person's shoes and have an understanding of the situation from their own perspective. This becomes that much harder with children, who have yet to develop their own understanding. There are just too many unknowns for you as an outsider to 'mercifully' let her die.

Assertn

Tue, 10-18-2011, 12:59 PM

Follow up on the girl that got ran over. (http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-10/18/content_13924846.htm)

Also, who deleted my post?

Splash!

Tue, 10-18-2011, 01:07 PM

Maybe you accidentally hit the rep button instead of the reply button to my post. I have a rep with a quote from my post...

Archangel

Tue, 10-18-2011, 01:13 PM

Bill or Kraco did it

This is what you get for giving up your seat of power

Dark Dragon

Tue, 10-18-2011, 01:42 PM

I think it would be wise if you move everything related to that video and make it into a separate thread. The discussion for this is getting way out of hand (as expected of course).

Dark Dragon

Tue, 10-18-2011, 04:10 PM

As terrible as this situation seem to many of the people here, please realize that much worst things than this happens on a regular basis in undeveloped third world countries.

I can understand why these people would react this way given the environment that they grow up in. Please do not confuse understanding with accepting, because in no way do i find these actions to acceptable. I merely see how it might be possible for these people to ignore a dying child given the circumstances of their environment. Many of us who live in the western civilized world take for granted the luxuries we are given.

Yes, caring for others is often a luxury. If that concept seems absurd to you, then simply refers to the way people act after major tragedies (Katrina and the likes). You will find that there are many kind people who will be willing to help others, but at the same time there will be many more of those who are willing to hurt others or ignore their plight in order to look after themselves. Apply that mentality to these people, except it's not something that only occurs during tragedies, but is prevalent in their everyday life.

Lucifus

Tue, 10-18-2011, 04:20 PM

@Sapphire, I absolutely understand where your coming from. As I watched this video (which I posted about in the "In the News Today" thread, I felt an equal amounts of disgust, horror, and anger.

People, this is obviously quite a sensitive topic, so please treat it as such.

@Archy, you really need to learn some manners. -_-
And this is coming from the guy who you have dick-rode since you got here.

I felt I had to make this public, and if you feel like following up on this post, feel free to private message me. One off-topic post is enough.

I don't post very often, especially outside of the fan-art section, but I'm always watching, and do share my opinion from this to time. This is one of them.

I disliked Animeniax initially, until I realized he was just having fun with me and that his opinions actually bring up valid points.

You on the other hand spout out some baseless opinion and attack people.

Those types of nonsensical trolling posts would never have held up to quality control on Gotwoot five years prior. I honestly believe the mods have been entirely too lenient for a number of years. I mean, come on, your at 8,222 posts! I can't bring up statistics due to the number of posts, but I can say with confidence that a great majority of these posts were downright spam. Think about what you say before you post!

As for Bill's situation. He is a contributing member with valid points, manners, humor, and from my impression, and all around Gotwoot kinda guy. I'm fairly certain his ban isn't permanent, or even that long. He did however, challenge the authority of the boards, and quite simply, when is the last time we've had any real authority put their foot down? He shouldn't have stepped outta line with that comment.

I reiterate: "this is obviously quite a sensitive topic, so please treat it as such." as I am sure Sapphire & I aren't the only one's whom this news-clip managed to infuriate.

Kraco

Tue, 10-18-2011, 04:54 PM

As terrible as this situation seem to many of the people here, please realize that much worst things than this happens on a regular basis in undeveloped third world countries.

I could understand that reasoning if it was just people choosing to ignore a dying child, but there's no way you can defend the drivers of the two vans in any way possible. Their statements of not seeing anything is pure bullshit, and you wouldn't need to be Sherlock to see through that lie. Besides, this happened in a city in China, and China is already among the most powerful countries in this world, in various ways, so it's not just any "underdeveloped third world country" either. The times when China could explain anything by calling themselves a developing country are long gone.

Lucifus, Bill's title is set to "Banned". But that's all. So, chill a cycle.

Dark Dragon

Tue, 10-18-2011, 05:00 PM

My statement was merely about the people ignoring the child and leaving her there for a full day from what i understand.

The van drivers is something else entirely, what they did was truly terrible and they fully deserve anything that is coming to them.

I still see China as a "developing countries". Despite how powerful China has become, the majority of its population still lives in poverty. Their condition isn't much better than those living in countries that is classified as "third world". This comes from a government that is more interested in raising the power of the "nation" and have no interest upon improving the living condition of its citizen.

Carnage

Tue, 10-18-2011, 05:13 PM

What did Bill say? Im curious as to what he was banned for.

I also think youre all giving Animeniax too much shit. Whilest I respectfully disagree with his opinion, I can see where he's coming from. I think he's pointing out not that the girl doesnt deserve to live or should for certain be killed, but the likely unfortunate circumstances that she will find herself in should she live. It seems more to me a commentary on the shitty third world system and conditions in china, where again, if female fetuses are dumped like trash, can we imagine how the girl will be treated after this accident? In society's eyes she might be deemed useless (note before you start calling me evil: I said society's eyes, not mine). I think Animeniax is just being pragmatic not only given the condition of the girl, but the environment she lives in.

Again, I disagree with this notion, but I can see where Animeniax is coming from.

I also agree with him on the parenting bit. I would rest a vast majority of the blame on the van, but parents should be aware. There's a difference between cooking at home and taking your child out to go shopping. You can stick your kid in a play pen or keep close watch at home, but it really is unreasonable to let the kid walk either out of your sight or onto the streets when being out of the house.

Also, to everyone telling Animeniax that he's full of shit because he doesn't know the full story or situation: look who's talking. Do you know the full story either? Let the man speak his opinion without slander, because yours is just as worthless. I doubt none of us have lived in a 3rd world village, and I doubt Animeniax is saying that he is absolutely certain he would pull the plug on the little girl. Its a no shitter that he is basing his judgement on the information and perspective that we have. Do you really think if he were in the position, he would just kill off the girl without spending much more time and consideration on the matter?

darkshadow

Tue, 10-18-2011, 05:19 PM

buff is trolling you guys so super hard.

Animeniax

Tue, 10-18-2011, 05:23 PM

I believe Ani never said it was almost entirely the mother's fault. He was reasoning that she had some part in this whole situation.

Saying that he should go vigilante and kill all children with severely crippling injuries/conditions would better reflect where he's getting at. By saying what you said, it implies that Ani thinks all unsupervised children will get run over with non-recoverable injuries.
Oh shit, someone who understood what I was saying without layering on their own misguided notions of personal responsibility! I started by asking where the parents were, which Archie replied saying I was wrong to wish death on the young crippled girl with 95% chance of not recovering, then Xan comes in and says I was blaming the parents via some theory which doesn't apply in this situation (not that I'm against that theory or that it doesn't apply to some of my worldview) and then it's a flame fest. Finally a voice of reason in Buffalobiian.

I could understand that reasoning if it was just people choosing to ignore a dying child, but there's no way you can defend the drivers of the two vans in any way possible. Their statements of not seeing anything is pure bullshit, and you wouldn't need to be Sherlock to see through that lie. Besides, this happened in a city in China, and China is already among the most powerful countries in this world, in various ways, so it's not just any "underdeveloped third world country" either. The times when China could explain anything by calling themselves a developing country are long gone.I think you were one of many who had the wool pulled over your eyes by the Chinese representation of themselves during the last Olympics. Most of China is still 3rd world. There are some centers of 1st world development, but with 3rd world values as more and more countryfolk migrate to the cities for work and prosperity.

buff is trolling you guys so super hard.No, he has an Eastern worldview similar to mine. By your western views, this planet will be overpopulated and used up in another 100 years.

Lucifus

Tue, 10-18-2011, 05:31 PM

Far too many assumptions being made on this topic. Too much damn trolling as well, you'd expect people to pay a little more attention with the sensitive manner of the subject.

It was obvious to me Animeniax didn't mean some of what was insinuated; and that most of what he wrote was simply commentary, that appealed to the common sense of the reader to interpret it. It all comes down to context and a mild communication barrier. Forums aren't perfect I guess.

As far as China goes, have any of you even seen their roadways/highway systems? They're quite recent and extremely built up, economically I wouldn't call China a third world country, however; on the flip of things. Look at the drivers and rules on Chinese highway systems. There are just about no rules, its a free for all and plain madness.

That is NOT what I would expect from a developed country with massive new highway infrastructure. I suppose it's all the new drivers that China lacked before on the roads.

XanBcoo

Tue, 10-18-2011, 05:46 PM

What is this thread even about anymore??

I also agree with him on the parenting bit. I would rest a vast majority of the blame on the van, but parents should be aware.
"Should"

To assume these ones weren't.

Love the internet. I can just post links and hope you'll read them rather than wasting my time explaining why you're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

There's a difference between cooking at home and taking your child out to go shopping. You can stick your kid in a play pen or keep close watch at home, but it really is unreasonable to let the kid walk either out of your sight or onto the streets when being out of the house.
"to let the kid walk out of your sight"

Like they fucking ushered the little girl into the street while they did blow off of a dirty newstand.

You have no idea what was going on and to assume in any way that the parents are somehow responsible is idiotic.

Lucifus

Tue, 10-18-2011, 05:54 PM

Has anyone placed a final verdict on the child's parents XanBcoo? No?

No one said with any sense of finality that the parents were at fault. We, don't, know, any details. Assumptions don't really hold any value, so I don't see the cause for your aiming your anger at our opinions.

Shall I also do what my professors have always told me not to?

Quote Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger
The new form of trolling.

On another note: Punishments,

Who do you guys feel should be held responsible for the state this young girl is now in? Should those who passed her by be punishable by law? I don't even think I have to ask about the first van driver who o so slowly decided run over a little girl. I can't tell you how much I'd like to hurt that guy right now.

The second truck driver, at the very least I could potentially believe his story of not seeing the little girl; however, all his credibility goes out the window after he keeps on driving despite the fact that he knew he ran over something, namely, a bleeding little 2 year old girl's feet.

Assertn

Tue, 10-18-2011, 06:34 PM

The title of this thread sounds like it belongs on the cover of a children's book.

Splash!

Tue, 10-18-2011, 06:55 PM

No, he has an Eastern worldview similar to mine. By your western views, this planet will be overpopulated and used up in another 100 years.

Yes, because the Western world is so overpopulated because of these 'Western views'...

RyougaZell

Tue, 10-18-2011, 07:29 PM

I'll be skipping all the previous post for sanity... I just wanted to say... I refuse to watch that video. Since I learnt of what happened I just feel that if I end up watching that video I won't be able to erase it from my mind ever. I just hope the fuckers that ran her over get their just punishment. And also those that ignored her or just moved her away from the road and left her behind.

Animeniax

Tue, 10-18-2011, 08:43 PM

Yes, because the Western world is so overpopulated because of these 'Western views'...They impose their views on others about how they should live. Still their views.

@Ryougazell: while it's very graphic you should still watch it. Lots of misinformation and conjecture about what happened being posted that probably aren't true.

Kraco

Wed, 10-19-2011, 02:15 AM

I think you were one of many who had the wool pulled over your eyes by the Chinese representation of themselves during the last Olympics.

I doubt that could happen any time soon considering how much I laugh at the Sankaku articles on China... However, in my nihilistic world view if a country is already the second largest economy in the world (we are talking about a country that is giving financial aid to the banana republics of southern EU), has launched astronauts into space - not only satellites, has nukes, has world-class scientific researchs, etc. it's not any developing country anymore. If it has problems, it has those problems because it chooses to have them, not because it can't do anything about them like real (and poor) developing countries.

So, yeah, I won't fully accept calling this a side effect of being a developing country. It works for some unfortunate African states suffering from famine, drought, and wars where dying and dead people lie on the streets and nobody simply has the energy to do anything about them. But if the same happens in China, the only explanation would be that nobody cares. And like I said before, this happened in a town, not in some rural village that just got the electricity and TV.

Edit:

The title of this thread sounds like it belongs on the cover of a children's book.

You gave the name to it. Although it's a bit grammatically fixed from your suggestion.

darkshadow

Wed, 10-19-2011, 06:57 AM

No, he has an Eastern worldview similar to mine. By your western views, this planet will be overpopulated and used up in another 100 years.

What? Who is 'your'? Don't act retarded and immediatly assume stupid shit, I was refering to buff being "banned" and not his comment about you; try not to act like a self-centered asshole sometimes.

Carnage

Wed, 10-19-2011, 07:38 AM

I doubt that could happen any time soon considering how much I laugh at the Sankaku articles on China... However, in my nihilistic world view if a country is already the second largest economy in the world (we are talking about a country that is giving financial aid to the banana republics of southern EU), has launched astronauts into space - not only satellites, has nukes, has world-class scientific researchs, etc. it's not any developing country anymore. If it has problems, it has those problems because it chooses to have them, not because it can't do anything about them like real (and poor) developing countries.

I think youre mixing up GDP with GDP per capita. Because in those terms China is far from the 2nd best, its not even in the same league. Sure the country is on its way, but for now the vast majority of it is 3rd-world. Imagine if 99% of America was hill billy town, and suburban and urban centers only represented 1% of the country? Yes those numbers are stark, but you know what Im getting at.

Animeniax

Wed, 10-19-2011, 01:53 PM

What is this thread even about anymore??

"Should"To assume these ones weren't.

Love the internet. I can just post links and hope you'll read them rather than wasting my time explaining why you're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

"to let the kid walk out of your sight"

Like they fucking ushered the little girl into the street while they did blow off of a dirty newstand.

You have no idea what was going on and to assume in any way that the parents are somehow responsible is idiotic.Might as well say any conjecture about what happens to a character in the coming episodes of Bleach is idiotic so close the anime forums because its all assumptions. But we know where Bleach has been and we know where it's going, same as some of us have an idea of life in 3rd world Asia and some know bad parenting better than others. You might as well label everyone's opinions in the CERN "speed of light" thread moronic because it's all conjecture as well.

And you all need to stop calling her a "little girl". She isn't 6 years old, or 10, or 13. She is a 2 year old. She first learned to walk maybe 6 months ago. I wish all kids were as independent and personally responsible as some of you must have been at 2.

XanBcoo

Wed, 10-19-2011, 07:12 PM

Has anyone placed a final verdict on the child's parents XanBcoo? No?

No one said with any sense of finality that the parents were at fault.
Actually, yes. It's fun to read threads and say things that are actually true instead of not true, Lucifus.

their baby is sitting in the road to be run over by cars. Great parenting there.

Where were the parents and why was their kid sitting in the road??

I think the parents are culpable to some degree.

What the fuck, what world do you people live in where your 2 year old can wander off, even for 15 seconds, and you're not fucking responsible??? I don't want to live in that world. Even if you say "maybe the babysitter let her wander off", then it's still the parents' fault for entrusting their 2 year old to an irresponsible babysitter.

You should stop replying, you're making yourself look foolish defending shitty parents.

And to think that the mom let the kid walk around before she learned how to look out for cars makes it almost entirely the mom's fault.

Sorry your daughter was raped. But really, you should know better than to let them get raped you shitty, shitty parent.

Animeniax

Wed, 10-19-2011, 07:55 PM

Again, you're somehow missing the fact that this is a 2 year old. Pretty much anything bad that happens to your 2 year old (outside of dying in their sleep) is your fault.

The title of this thread sounds like it belongs on the cover of a children's book.It sounds like it should be written by Lars Steig.

Lucifus

Wed, 10-19-2011, 09:16 PM

Let's break out the bolds and italics for emphasis.

XanBcoo, you can't be seriously arguing this. Parent or not, whoever is the guardian of this child is deemed to be responsible for the child's safety (a child by the way, at the age of two, is as intelligent as a brick. it would be easier to protect a chicken).

Admittedly despite this, guardians cannot operate twenty four/seven with the sole function of watching their children, and thus it becomes their responsibility to transfer the duty of their child's protection elsewhere for an allotted period of time. Accidents and unforeseen circumstances will always occur, however; the risk to a child's safety is always ever present, and it's up to a guardian to compensate for that risk.

This child was at the moment of this accident unsupervised. An unsupervised, curious, plant with legs.
Ex.)

Take this video, is anyone going to blame the child for walking into the slowly moving van approaching her? No, because this child might as well had been a plant at this stage in her life. Why a parent allowed for and granted the possibility for her to take root in the road of a back alley is not on the child, but on the guardian.

It should go without saying that a guardian is to be held responsible for their child's location, safety, education and well being for the entire duration of their 'can't fend for themselves' stage in life.

I'm not saying this parent deserves to be punished (obviously, they already have been), I am saying however that whatever circumstances led to this child being in front of a vehicle (in a country renowned for bad drivers, though the same claim can be made for just about everywhere) lie with the parent.

The fact that the child was run over, and the pedestrians horrifying indifference however, is an unforeseen circumstance/accident for which the parent cannot be held solely accountable for.

XanBcoo

Thu, 10-20-2011, 05:35 AM

The fact that the child was run over, and the pedestrians horrifying indifference however, is an unforeseen circumstance/accident for which the parent cannot be held remotely accountable for.

Fixed.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Please continue to go about your life believing wrong things? There's not much else I say. Please read up on victim blaming and rethink your definition of "responsible".

shinta|hikari

Thu, 10-20-2011, 06:16 AM

I don't think the parents should be blamed for what happened to their daughter.

I do think they are pretty dumb to let their daughter wander around a street. The incident could have been easily prevented if they were more careful. However, not being able to prevent a bad thing from happening does not make you responsible for it.

Killa-Eyez

Thu, 10-20-2011, 07:01 AM

It's obvious this thread shows different sociological p.o.v.'s about accidents and the ones responsible. All arguments seem to have some truth in them but we don't know which one applies unless we have a full scope of the situation.

I couldn't help but feel it was all planned. She is a girl and seeing it happen like that seemed so... surreal.

I guess it's a combination of unfortunate circumstances though there really isn't an explanation for all the passersby not to help.

Very, very infuriating.

Animeniax

Thu, 10-20-2011, 07:50 AM

shinta|hikari

Thu, 10-20-2011, 08:07 AM

Not really. Like I said, their carelessness is stupid. The fact that the girl was walking unsupervised is their fault. The incident itself is not. If we attribute the blame in the way you propose, then there will be no end to it. The parents actions (or inaction) made the event possible, but they did not cause it.

Kraco

Thu, 10-20-2011, 10:27 AM

I'd bet it's statistically safe to say that most cases where a kid is temporarily separated from the parent(s) end up having no dire consequences. It actually happens all the time. Just listen to people reminiscing their early childhood and you will eventually hear stories of how horrible it is to notice your mommy isn't anymore standing next to you. Most cases are much shorter than the one in this video, but on the other hand getting into a traffic accident doesn't take more than a fleeting moment.

In short, losing sight of a kid does not automatically result in a disaster. In fact it shouldn't. Monsters like the ones driving the vans are the reason why it might.

XanBcoo

Thu, 10-20-2011, 04:15 PM

In short, losing sight of a kid does not automatically result in a disaster. In fact it shouldn't. Monsters like the ones driving the vans are the reason why it might.
Thank you, Kraco.

Sorry your baby got shot in the stomach in the middle of the street by a random gunman, but you really should have been more careful. What were you doing letting your child near a random gunman, you shitty, shitty parent?? You're basically taking care of a potted plant and you went and let them get shot in the stomach.

That's not a strawman. That's literally the argument some of you are making.

Not really. Like I said, their carelessness is stupid. The fact that the girl was walking unsupervised is their fault.
You have no idea what was going on and to assume in any way that the parents are somehow responsible is idiotic.

I mean, you realize objectively that if the van hadn't hit the little girl and this video was never recorded you would have no opinion on the parents whatsoever. But because of the actions of two - not just one, two - careless (or sociopathic) drivers, you are now calling into question the parenting skills and saying things like "they were careless" rather than "their daughter got run over twice by a couple of fucking vans."

Carnage

Thu, 10-20-2011, 04:33 PM

You have no idea what was going on and to assume in any way that the parents are somehow responsible is idiotic.

Or its completely idiotic of you to not understand we are making these judgements based on the facts that we have. No one is passing a final verdict on these parents. No shit we're making assumptions to have an opinion, you have to do that for almost everything in life. Hardly anyone hearing the story is ever involved in it, we form an opinion on the information we have. From all we can tell, since the child in the video had no adults right next to her outside, it is not unrealistic to assume that she was unsupervised.

I mean, you realize objectively that if the van hadn't hit the little girl and this video was never recorded you would have no opinion on the parents whatsoever. But because of the actions of two - not just one, two - careless (or sociopathic) drivers, you are now calling into question the parenting skills and saying things like "they were careless" rather than "their daughter got run over twice by a couple of fucking vans."

How is this a hard concept to understand? No one is saying that the drivers are not to blame, or even saying that this incident isnt MOSTLY their fault. Again, no shit most of the blame can be attributed to them. But again, under the assumptions above, the parents are somewhat guilty for leaving the girl unsupervised.

Try and imagine another scenario, where there are no aggressors. Instead, the child is left unsupervised and ends up falling off a cliff or running into the sharp corner of a table. Would you actually say that the parents arent guilty at all? If so, for the love of god never have kids.

Animeniax

Thu, 10-20-2011, 05:27 PM

I posit that if the parents were within 5 feet of their 2 year old child, there would have been slightly less chance the kid was run over by the trucks. Like Carnage said, no one is not blaming the truck drivers, their guilt is plain and on video. But just imagine if the 2 year old was under the direct supervision of her parents. Probably a slightly smaller chance of her wandering down an alley to be run over. Just slightly, but still a smaller chance.

XanBcoo

Thu, 10-20-2011, 07:45 PM

How is this a hard concept to understand? No one is saying that the drivers are not to blame
I'm not saying you are.

But shifting any blame whatsoever to the parents is hardcore victim blaming, especially given the information we have at hand. Which is none. You have no idea at all of the events leading up to the video. To make any assumption about the parents is ridiculous.

And yes, several people have either directly stated or implied that the parents were irresponsible and therefor culpable or complicit in the running over of their daughter by 2 separate vans. I'm here to tell you that that is a wrong opinion.

Right now - unless they themselves ran over their daughter - they carry no blame or responsibility whatsoever. Please read Kraco's post again:

I'd bet it's statistically safe to say that most cases where a kid is temporarily separated from the parent(s) end up having no dire consequences. It actually happens all the time. Just listen to people reminiscing their early childhood and you will eventually hear stories of how horrible it is to notice your mommy isn't anymore standing next to you. Most cases are much shorter than the one in this video, but on the other hand getting into a traffic accident doesn't take more than a fleeting moment.

shinta|hikari

Thu, 10-20-2011, 08:00 PM

I explicitly said that the parents were not at fault.

I just think that leaving a 2 year old unsupervised on the road for more than a few seconds is careless, that is assuming that there were no extenuating circumstances that caused it. If we get more info showing that there was a valid reason why the parents left their child wandering like that, then I would gladly take back what I said about them being careless.

@Kraco - I think statistics on safety depend on the place. I can definitely say that leaving a toddler unsupervised for a few minutes on the urban roads of my country will almost surely cause severe injury or death. Traffic laws hardly matter here.

XanBcoo

Thu, 10-20-2011, 08:06 PM

I just think that leaving a 2 year old unsupervised on the road for more than a few seconds is careless

If we get more info showing that there was a valid reason why the parents left their child wandering like that, then I would gladly take back what I said about them being careless.

Ok, serious question then. Why are you insisting on using language that places the parents in an agentive role? Why are you assuming they were complicit in having their child run over?

Bearing in mind, once again, that under similar circumstances, had the little girl not been run over, their parenting would not be called into question.

Edit: And of course bearing mind that a human child is not a goddamn plant. Seriously Lucifus...

Lucifus

Thu, 10-20-2011, 08:14 PM

Traffic laws hardly matter here. This holds true for China, especially with the influx of new drivers on their new road infrastructure who believe the roads to be a massive free for all.

Edit @ above: Are you seriously trying to take every word literally? I don't believe or equate the value of a human life to a plant. I was trying to break things down for you, since you have difficulty understanding. Otherwise, there must be some deep miscommunication here.

What are you trying to argue? That the parents hold zero responsibility whatsoever, and should hold no guilt?

Please clarify this in your next post, because I truly find myself unable to follow your reasoning.

Oh god lord, why are you so stuck on these wikipedia syndromes? Do you think we (or maybe just me?) are that uneducated/inexperienced in life?

If I wanted to become a victim blamer XanBcoo, here's what I'd do.

That stupid little girl deserved it, she ran into the vehicle on its own territory. What right had she to be on the road? She deserved to have her bones crushed and bleed out without a soul to help her. Stupid little brat. I feel sorry for the truck drivers who had their lifes ruined by the careless actions of this little girl.

You need to remember, that this innocent, guiltless two year old child is the true victim here. I understand that the parents are victims as well, but to a lesser extent, and you can be damn well sure that they're feeling the guilt for not being with their daughter at the moment of the accident.

Yes, the parents are not guilty for the majority of the fault (according to the little information we have, and assumptions made - and pray tell Mr. Bcoo, there is no other accessible information that I know of. Of course assumptions are being made, but I think you need to relearn the definition of Assumption) whatsoever in the fact that their child was run over.

They are guilty of leaving their child outside of their immediate care. Not of getting in a van and running over their daughter. How much of this neglect was factored into the occurrence of the accident, I have no idea. That is up for people with more information to decide.

You also seem to misunderstand, that at least in my case (I can't speak for others, though I am somewhat certain they share this point of view), the parents are not the root cause or even a significant cause of what happened to their child, but they do hold a percentage of responsibility. Ask them yourself if they feel guilt; they probably (another assumption, woe is me!) feel even more guilty than they actually should.

I am merely saying, at this point with the information that I have, that they shoulder at least a small percentage of the burden (for not having been watching their daughter, though for all I know, the mother could have been just a few feet away sitting down with no idea her daughter had been run over), despite not having anything to do directly with the accident.

Edit 2: BETTER QUESTION. This should help me understand your point of view.

XanBcoo, let me propose a hypothetical situation for you. Say you had a daughter, and you took her out shopping with you. You get a phone call, and it starts going on for longer than you had expected. You sit down, and get into a deep conversation and your daughter wanders off without your knowledge, or even worse, you tell her to go play outside. Stay by the window. Regardless, you don't see your daughter get run over because you were too sucked in to your conversation.

Would you feel guilt? And do you think you should rightly feel guilt?

The same situation could be applied to your driving. Say this occurs, or you have some sort of lapse in focus while driving. An accident occurs, should you feel at least partially guilty for what has happened?

Animeniax

Thu, 10-20-2011, 08:17 PM

Bearing in mind, once again, that under similar circumstances, had the little girl not been run over, their parenting would not be called into question.If I see a 2 year old child wandering about with no supervision, pancaked or not, I'm thinking she has some shitty parents or something is seriously wrong.

I think I've figured out the confusion here. Xan sees the parents as party to the victim in this tragedy. Some others, including myself, see only the child as the victim, both of asshole drivers and lack of parental/guardian supervision. I don't see how people can separate a 2 year old from her parents as far as legal or moral separateness, like she's an individual with her own agency, but if that's how you roll, good luck raising your own kids.

The fact remains that the child was left unattended, opening her up to all sorts of dangers. And when speaking of a 2 year old, her parents are very much to blame for her being left unattended.

XanBcoo

Thu, 10-20-2011, 08:24 PM

So you both believe that the child is its own, independent entity.

But you also believe that the child is not its own, independent entity.

So the little girl is considered to be grouped under the parents until something outside of their control goes wrong, and only then are the parents removed from the equation.

...Kay.

Lucifus

Thu, 10-20-2011, 08:28 PM

What?

Please, please. Expand. I feel that whatever is going on here is due to miscommunication.

Otherwise, you truly are 'In my own little world'.

Edit: Ah, did not see Ani's post sandwiched in-between.

Animeniax

Thu, 10-20-2011, 08:28 PM

So you both believe that the child is its own, independent entity.

But you also believe that the child is not its own, independent entity.The child became its own independent entity when its parents left it to nature and providence. Unfortunately providence cursed the child with shitty parents, and nature eats its own young. Prior to that, a child is its parents.

And replying to Kraco's quote:
I'd bet it's statistically safe to say that most cases where a kid is temporarily separated from the parent(s) end up having no dire consequences. It actually happens all the time. Just listen to people reminiscing their early childhood and you will eventually hear stories of how horrible it is to notice your mommy isn't anymore standing next to you. Most cases are much shorter than the one in this video, but on the other hand getting into a traffic accident doesn't take more than a fleeting moment. No 2 year old remembers shit about being 2. This one, if she lives, won't even remember getting run over, much less that mommy wasn't next to her.

Carnage

Thu, 10-20-2011, 08:29 PM

I'm not saying you are.

To make any assumption about the parents is ridiculous.

No its not, because I dont see any parent outside with the child. Based on the fact that I dont see any parent outside within a radius of a few feet, its safe to assume the parent was not outside (unless invisiblity superpowers). In the best case scenario, they were right by the door. So no, its not ridiculous to assume they werent close enough to the child.

Right now - unless they themselves ran over their daughter - they carry no blame or responsibility whatsoever. Please read Kraco's post again:

Statistics are conditional. If for a majority of the time children are left unattended within then household or even the same room, then yes, most of the time its reasonable to assume nothing will happen if they are within eyesight. However this was outside the home, and the child was literally outside. You want to tell me its unlikely for something bad to happen to an unattended 2 year old walking out on the street? Parents should have the sense to know that this is a bad idea, hence why they are partially, even if only a little, at fault. I do feel very bad for them, and they are victims as well. But I have to blame them a little under these basic assumptions/circumstances.

Animeniax

Thu, 10-20-2011, 08:31 PM

What?

Please, please. Expand. I feel that whatever is going on here is due to miscommunication.He's saying that I'm arguing on one hand that the child and parents are one (thus the parents are responsible for the child), and on the other hand they are separate since the child is victim and the parents are not. I'm saying it's two stages. The child and parent are one until the parents show complete and utter disregard for the child and let it come to harm, as which point the they are separated because one is the victim and the other is party to the offender.

shinta|hikari

Thu, 10-20-2011, 09:00 PM

Ok, serious question then. Why are you insisting on using language that places the parents in an agentive role? Why are you assuming they were complicit in having their child run over?

Bearing in mind, once again, that under similar circumstances, had the little girl not been run over, their parenting would not be called into question.

This is where you misunderstood me. The parents were not complicit in having the child run over. They were only at fault for leaving her unsupervised. Leaving a child unsupervised for me is already a mistake, considering where the child was at that time, even if she did not get run over. That is where the parents' responsibility ends.

If she returned happy after her solo trip, I would still be just as pissed at her parents for leaving her alone.

Lucifus

Thu, 10-20-2011, 09:04 PM

Just in case you he doesn't follow, perhaps you should italicize the 'for leaving her alone' part.

I am not saying they are responsible for their daughter being run over. They are responsible for leaving her unsupervised, which in turn results in the possibility of their daugther being run over. Once again, I ask. What are you saying?

Dark Dragon

Thu, 10-20-2011, 09:23 PM

Bearing in mind, once again, that under similar circumstances, had the little girl not been run over, their parenting would not be called into question.

That's a ridiculous assumption. EVEN if the little girl had NOT been run over, their parenting SHOULD be called into question. I don't know how you deal with the children in your family, but i watch over my little cousins like a hawk if we ever go out together.

It's common sense, children are very curious and most often get themselves into dangerous situation. It is the adult job to be responsible and keep watch over them. The fact that it took them as long as they did to get to the child (much less than i initially thought) means that she wander far enough from them that they couldn't respond immediately when something happened. That's a far cry from letting her play within your sight and keeping one eye on her.

darkshadow

Thu, 10-20-2011, 09:46 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4u2ZsoYWwJA#t=381s

Animeniax

Thu, 10-20-2011, 10:36 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4u2ZsoYWwJA#t=381sWatch the episode of Louis where he berates a parent for getting physical with his teenage son (episode is called "Bully"). Apparently he has different views on parenting for different comedy routines.

And again, there is a big difference between a 2 year old and a child who is old enough to ask annoying questions.

So the little girl is considered to be grouped under the parents until something outside of their control goes wrong, and only then are the parents removed from the equation.

...Kay.Monitoring and supervision of your 2 year old child is not "outside of their control". The parents are never out of the equation; they just get moved to the other side with the other people who should be held accountable for what happened to the 2 year old.

Lucifus

Thu, 10-20-2011, 10:49 PM

The child has died. For anyone who actually still cares.
http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-toddler-left-bloody-hit-run-dies-020238365.html

Assertn

Thu, 10-20-2011, 11:49 PM

I blame video games.

rockmanj

Fri, 10-21-2011, 12:43 AM

I saw that she died...what a sad story. I do not want to get into this debate, but I will say that although accidents happen, there are a number of people at fault.

Kraco

Fri, 10-21-2011, 08:20 AM

And replying to Kraco's quote: No 2 year old remembers shit about being 2. This one, if she lives, won't even remember getting run over, much less that mommy wasn't next to her.

Catching the point as splendidly as only Ani can. It doesn't matter if it's 2, 3, or 4 - all of them will panic sooner or later when they notice they can't see their mom (or dad) anywhere.

However this was outside the home, and the child was literally outside. You want to tell me its unlikely for something bad to happen to an unattended 2 year old walking out on the street? Parents should have the sense to know that this is a bad idea, hence why they are partially, even if only a little, at fault. I do feel very bad for them, and they are victims as well. But I have to blame them a little under these basic assumptions/circumstances.

Nah, and I won't even deny that if you push a kid out of the airlock in space, something bad will happen. Mentioning particularly the street is irrelevant. Especially since the video showed some bloody backalley or whatever, certainly not a proper street with cars driving 40-50 km/h. So, for all we know, the kid might have escaped from indoors. In any case, if we start from the Western tradition of assuming not guilty unless proven otherwise, then it's plausible to assume the parents didn't let the kid to wander the street alone. She simply ended up there in some manner that will remain unexplained forever. Just like a few people here claim the parents did too little to ensure she was safe, it's also possible to claim somebody else did too much to make it possible she wasn't. Like open a door the parents thought would remain locked.

Still, I admit there's a reasonable chance the mother will bear real responsibility by having been negligent. We will never know.