I don't understand how it fits the definition of elder abuse, which according to Wikipedia is: "a single, or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust, which causes harm or distress to an older person." The article goes on to directly contradict the notion that what happened to Paul was elder abuse, saying that elder abuse does "not include general criminal activities against older persons, such as home break-ins, "muggings" in the street, or "distraction burglary," where a stranger distracts an older person at the doorstep while another person enters the property to steal."
~ Do not try to make sense of anything regarding this nonsense "attack " . The entire situation sounds fake. Rumors are that the "intruder " is the same unidentified man in the car with Pauly Pelosi when he cracked up DUI. Maybe Bob Woodward or George Stephanopoulos will do an investigative interview and report on it ...
Elder abuse does "not include general criminal activities against older persons, such as home break-ins, "muggings" in the street, or "distraction burglary," where a stranger distracts an older person at the doorstep while another person enters the property to steal." Instead, elder abuse is "a single, or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust, which causes harm or distress to an older person." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_abuse
You are asking a stupid question. It depends on semantics. It falls under the meaning of "elder abuse" in some sense but not in another sense. Whether it is "elder abuse" depends on your exact definition of "elder abuse". Words like "elder abuse" usually carry implied meaning that goes beyond just its literal meaning. In this case, the words "elder abuse" is being used not because the perpetrator of the abuse had a responsibility for caring for the elderly person, but because the elderly person was supposedly weaker because of age and more vulnerable. Really what it is is just a kind of misleadingly dishonest and sensationalist news ploy, using language with exaggerated meaning to make the attacker appear worse.
Which contradicts: Elder abuse does "not include general criminal activities against older persons..." Instead, elder abuse is "a single, or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust, which causes harm or distress to an older person." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_abuse
I think the issue is you are not able to understand that a statement or words can have different meanings in different contexts. It's very common and completely normal for statements to be made that are not completely fully literally accurate in all situations. That does not mean that the statements are "false" or dishonest. It would simply just be too complicated and impractical to always word every statement to be completely accurate. It would require statements to be much longer and in many cases make them too difficult to understand. When that Wikipedia article defines "elder abuse", it is defining a particular type of elder abuse with a particular concept. Chris, are you familiar with "equivocation fallacy" in logic? When one article says that elder abuse does not include a some crime, and another separate news article uses the words elder abuse to refer to that same crime, then the two separate articles are not referring to the same thing, they are not referring to the same kind of "elder abuse". The Wikipedia article is referring to elder abuse under a specific concept and particular meaning of the term. I suppose we could say that this has to do with limitations in language.
Okay. I would just expect that the Wikipedia article would mention all of the various TYPES of elder abuse in the 'elder abuse' article.
