Baby boy is mauled to death by two family dogs.

[Beorn]

Baby boy is mauled to death by two family dogs


A three-month-old baby was mauled to death by two dogs at his grandmother’s home yesterday.
The boy, named by neighbours as Jaden Mack, suffered fatal neck injuries after being savaged by a Staffordshire bull terrier and a Jack Russell.
He is understood to have been left at the house in Ystrad Mynach, near Caerphilly in South Wales, by his parents, Christopher and Alexandra, who were going away for the weekend.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/02/07/article-1138608-035585F6000005DC-387_468x300.jpg

Mauled: Jaden Joseph Mack was killed after two dogs set upon him as he was being looked after by his grandmother

Neighbours rushed to the scene after hearing screams in the early hours of yesterday morning but were too late to save him.
Heather Organ, 47, said: ‘It seemed as if somebody was very distressed or being attacked. I came out and saw my neighbour and he knocked on the door.
‘When the door opened, two dogs ran out. At the time I didn’t realise what had happened so, rather than let the dogs get hurt, I picked up the Jack Russell and ushered the other one off the road. The grandmother came out and she was screaming, “The baby’s dead! He’s dead!”
‘When I entered the room the baby was obviously dead. He had a severe injury to his neck and, with that, the police arrived.’
Ms Organ added: ‘It was dreadful. There was blood on the floor. I know people can’t prove anything but it does suggest that it was the dogs.’

Jaden, whose parents live in the same village, was taken to nearby Prince Charles Hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
Another neighbour, who declined to give his name, added: ‘It was the worst screaming I have ever heard. It was sickening.’
Another neighbour, Gail Jones, 45, said: ‘You see these stories on the telly and you don’t think it is going to happen on your street.
‘I know one neighbour tried to give the baby the kiss of life, so you can imagine what state he is in.
‘Your heart goes out to the family. It is just tragic.’
Mrs Jones said she thought Jaden was an only child and that his parents had married ‘a year or so ago’.
The grandmother, named locally as Denise Wilson, 53, was taken to hospital for shock but later released to help police with their investigation. Jaden’s parents were yesterday being consoled by friends.
Neighbours said he was regularly looked after by his grandmother and had stayed at her home before.
Ron Willetts, 57, said Mrs Wilson had bought the Staffordshire bull terrier – named Tyson after the boxer Mike Tyson – two years ago after having problems with a peeping tom.
‘I know she had been nervous being on her own and got the dog for company,’ he added. ‘We used to see both dogs at the window of the house.

‘They seemed very friendly and, as far as I know, she has never had any trouble with them.’
Chief Inspector Jim Baker of Gwent Police said the dogs had since been destroyed. ‘We would like to reiterate that dogs should never be left unsupervised with children,’ he added.
A post-mortem examination was being carried out by a Home Office pathologist yesterday.
Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138608/Baby-boy-mauled-death-family-dogs.html)



Absolute tragedy in my eyes.

This could have been avoided by better standards of care by the dog's owner, and, a simple policy of not allowing dogs within spitting distance of small children.

Cases like this seem to happen several times each year in Britain, and simply put, I am sick to bloody death of having to still hear of incompetent dog owners and incompetent parents actions resulting in the deaths of innocent children.

It's about time we instigated a rigorous licensing system for animal ownership.

[Æmeric]

It's about time we instigated a rigorous licensing system for animal ownership.

Not all animals are dangerous. I don't think it is fair to lump owners of Labradors & Cocker Spaniels with persons who buy Pit Bull Terriers or Rottweilers. What is needed is criminal prosecution of persons who own animals like these dogs & who do not control them. And maybe requiring insurance for dangerous dog breeds.

No infant should be left along with any dog. Any of them can behave weirdly with a newborn. But the friendlier breeds become protective as they enter toddler stage.

[Treffie]

I was just about to post this BWW. It's such a sad story - the grandmother will have to live with this guilt for the rest of her life. She obviously thought that the dogs would never do such a thing.

[Beorn]

Not all animals are dangerous. I don't think it is fair to lump owners of Labradors & Cocker Spaniels with persons who buy Pit Bull Terriers or Rottweilers. What is needed is criminal prosecution of persons who own animals like these dogs & who do not control them. And maybe requiring insurance for dangerous dog breeds.

I wasn't for one second implying the whole species are devoid of "civility" and are in need of licensing, but under the same licensing I would suggest the potential owner/s is subjected to a thorough overall check to ascertain suitability for the relevant license.

An outlawing of certain breeds would also be preferable though.

[Treffie]

An outlawing of certain breeds would also be preferable though.

Wasn't this tried before?

[Beorn]

Wasn't this tried before?


Yes, yet with all such acts, it rarely gets enforced until it's too late.

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

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/ukpga_19910065_en_1

[Brynhild]

At the risk of repeating what other people have already said, but any animal can turn on a human, out of jealousy - sadly this seems to be the case in this tragedy. The poor grandmother has not only lost a precious little baby, the dogs will be destroyed as well, at least they should be.

Dogs belong outside, especially when there are babies and toddlers in the home. Children and animals together should be watched at all times! It really does come down to basic common sense.

[Æmeric]

Yes, yet with all such acts, it rarely gets enforced until it's too late.

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

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/ukpga_19910065_en_1


Even the Royals have had problems controlling their dogs. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3345585.stm)

[Beorn]

I'd not heard of that incident concerning her dog attacking a Corgi, but remember the attack upon the children.

Just goes to show the power of the law faced by the power of the Royal family.

[Revenant]

This is human error. Animals can't be blamed when this sort of thing happens. I've said this before, there are no bad dogs just bad owners.

[Skandi]

Any idiot who owns a breed like a staffy is asking for trouble, they were bred to be a pest and to fight you can hardly blame the dog. Jack russels are known to nip and that could be a problem for a small baby. However most dogs don't do this and saying you should never leave them alone would just be impossible unless you tie one or the other too you. My nursemaid when I was that age was a dog, a ex racing grayhound, I actually wonder if these were the families dogs or just the grandmothers? If that were so they wouldn't recognise the baby as pack and therefore would not be safe around it.

[SPQR]

Any idiot who owns a breed like a staffy is asking for trouble, they were bred to be a pest and to fight you can hardly blame the dog. Jack russels are known to nip and that could be a problem for a small baby. However most dogs don't do this and saying you should never leave them alone would just be impossible unless you tie one or the other too you. My nursemaid when I was that age was a dog, a ex racing grayhound, I actually wonder if these were the families dogs or just the grandmothers? If that were so they wouldn't recognise the baby as pack and therefore would not be safe around it.

Any idiot saying a dog can't be trained due to it's breed are just ignorant and don't know how to successfully care for a dog themselves, so they say it's impossible. Rottweilers, Bull terriers, Dobermans, etc are all simply dogs. With the right care and discipline they're as good as any other properly trained dog. Don't blame the breed for a humans ignorance and laziness.

With that said, this is tragic and as others have said it's a human mistake. People like THIS display the ignorance and laziness that I mentioned earlier. Control your dog!

[Skandi]

Some dogs CANNOT be trained because we have spent several hundred years breeding them to be that way. Ever tried to get a husky to walk to heal?
Why do you think that many people breed their dogs to be as close as possible to the banned types? they think it's cool and they use them as an alternative to carrying a knife. Dobermans and Rottweilers are always trained, because they have to be it would be way to dangerous otherwise but I have never come across a jack russel that anyone has bothered with, I hate the damn things because they always bite. (and owners don't like you kicking their poor baby)
You have just said the same as I, just I blame the people who made them like that, AND the idiots who own them.

[SPQR]

There is no such thing as an entire dog breed that cannot be trained. No I've never tried to train a husky, but I have successfully trained two Rottweilers and a friends Staffordshire Terrier. I can take these dogs anywhere, and never have an agressive incident. All dogs operate the same, you have to get them into a "dog behavior" rather than "breed behavior". I agree there are some idiots who shouldn't own a powerful breed, but there are many responsible pet owners who have large dog breeds.
I agree in whole about your statement on small dogs, people rarely take the time to discipline them and they end up with a dog more vicious than most large dogs, but nobody cares because it's small. There are far too many irresponsible people who shouldn't be allowed to own an animal.

[Beorn]

Either way, the exception to the rule is not acceptable.

[Vargtand]

Either way, the exception to the rule is not acceptable.

Umm... what do you mean exactly?

[Beorn]

I mean that danger prone dogs may very well be trained to lead a more human civil cohabitation, but an animal is still an animal.

I know that some cases are brought upon by sheer human stupidity and negligence, but others are purely down to the dog being an animal, with animal instincts.

I would prefer to see the dogs which are deemed "dangerous" to be wiped from the face of the Earth and never bred again, or, for them to be bred purely for what they were bred for originally, ie: Killing and aggressive guardianship/protection and kept under full supervision.

[Vargtand]

I mean that danger prone dogs may very well be trained to lead a more human civil cohabitation, but an animal is still an animal.

I know that some cases are brought upon by sheer human stupidity and negligence, but others are purely down to the dog being an animal, with animal instincts.

I would prefer to see the dogs which are deemed "dangerous" to be wiped from the face of the Earth and never bred again, or, for them to be bred purely for what they were bred for originally, ie: Killing and aggressive guardianship/protection and kept under full supervision.

Umm.. why? Would society be better without those dogs? Would society benefit from having nothing to be weary of? I don't think so, there needs, no there must be things that people are afraid off.
Hell we have a designated area in our brain to handle that sort of emotions, and exclusively that sort of emotions, with your thinking, as even you must realise is that it won’t stop with dogs it will continue to absurdity.
And in this utopia of yours where all dangerous things are done away... what will the result be? People that never experience fear?
They would be as damaged as people who were never allowed to see, smell speak or hear as their brains would be under stimulated. I argue for humanities sanity we need to keep dangerous things and animals around.
Even introduce more, more wolfs to our forests, or would you rather have those done away with as well?

[Beorn]

Umm.. why? Would society be better without those dogs?

A grieving family would be better off.


Would society benefit from having nothing to be weary of?

Yes. If there was nothing to be weary of, what would you need to be weary of?


I don't think so, there needs, no there must be things that people are afraid off.

I'll agree to an extent, but why?


...as even you must realise is that it won’t stop with dogs it will continue to absurdity.

Not necessarily, but we do have a habit of being overzealous in our approach at times.


And in this utopia of yours where all dangerous things are done away... what will the result be?

A world without anything to realistically fear.


They would be as damaged as people who were never allowed to see, smell speak or hear as their brains would be under stimulated.

How so? Fear in all guises will always exist in man's imagination.


Even introduce more, more wolfs to our forests, or would you rather have those done away with as well?

I would be the first to take a weapon and go on the hunt for the animal which put my people at risk, but the difference between man and animals is our capability to build obstacles to prevent animals from wandering our streets and towns and attacking us.

If Wolves were introduced back into the wild, I would insist on building an enclosure around them.

[SPQR]

I would prefer to see the dogs which are deemed "dangerous" to be wiped from the face of the Earth and never bred again, or, for them to be bred purely for what they were bred for originally, ie: Killing and aggressive guardianship/protection and kept under full supervision.

What an unbelievebly ignorant thing to say. You do know that MOST of these "dangerous" dogs were bred for different jobs prior and after being bred as gaurd dogs, fighting dogs, etc. Basically these dogs were bred to be ACTIVE, not specifically "uncontrolable man-eating machines". All of these "dangerous" breeds are some of the only dogs that can successfully do jobs for us, albiet police work, farm, ranch, or rescue work. You teach a Rottweiler to herd cattle, and that's what he'll do. If someone cannot provide a highly active lifestyle for these dog breeds, they shouldn't own one. And I want to state that ANY breed of dog has the chance of becoming victious, you have to control your dogs!

You saying they should be completely exterminated is rediculous. You'd feel better knowing that tons of responsible pet owners can't have their dogs because of their breed? What kind of rediculous bigotry is that?

And you saying they should be kept under full supervision. No shit, EVERY dog should be under supervision, and contained properly when you can't supervise them. If YOU decided that you should possess this animal, it is YOU who should control it.

[Vargtand]

A grieving family would be better off.
So a grieving family goes in front of the interest of the rest of your countrymen?

Sort of the same reasons why steroids got banned :P all the doctors said it was fine, yet because of one father who's son committed suicide, and they blamed the steroids it was made illegal, stop thinking with your bloody emotions, is what I want you to take out of that...




Yes. If there was nothing to be weary of, what would you need to be weary of?
What would prepare us for the next threat then? Because unless you stop time things will change, and you propose bringing a people to retardation instead of prepare them for tougher times?



I'll agree to an extent, but why?

Because the world is an ever changing thing, if we stop being afraid, then we let our guard down and then when the trolls come we will let them walk straight in, that's why.



Not necessarily, but we do have a habit of being overzealous in our approach at times.
If you learn from history you will see this allways happens, when ever is only one thing enough? it might be enough for one generation but the next will continue to push further and further...



A world without anything to realistically fear.


Undesirable.


How so? Fear in all guises will always exist in man's imagination.

If you never experience fear, how can you know what it is? and seeing as there is a large part of the brain dedicated for this emotion alone that would result in under stimulation, and I think you have seen your fair share of things what an under stimulated mind is capable of.

Sort of like an under stimulated dog starts to bite people and things..


I would be the first to take a weapon and go on the hunt for the animal which put my people at risk, but the difference between man and animals is our capability to build obstacles to prevent animals from wandering our streets and towns and attacking us.


May so be.


If Wolves were introduced back into the wild, I would insist on building an enclosure around them.

You seem to be driven by an over zealous desire for being safe...

[Beorn]

What an unbelievebly ignorant thing to say. You do know that MOST of these "dangerous" dogs were bred for different jobs prior and after being bred as gaurd dogs, fighting dogs, etc. Basically these dogs were bred to be ACTIVE, not specifically "uncontrolable man-eating machines". All of these "dangerous" breeds are some of the only dogs that can successfully do jobs for us, albiet police work, farm, ranch, or rescue work. You teach a Rottweiler to herd cattle, and that's what he'll do. If someone cannot provide a highly active lifestyle for these dog breeds, they shouldn't own one. And I want to state that ANY breed of dog has the chance of becoming victious, you have to control your dogs!....


I shall forgive you for your outburst as I can see that this subject is very close to your heart, but you quite clearly quoted my opinion and then reiterated it in your own opinion.


I would prefer to see the dogs which are deemed "dangerous" to be wiped from the face of the Earth and never bred again, or, for them to be bred purely for what they were bred for originally, ie: Killing and aggressive guardianship/protection and kept under full supervision.Either way, I think of my own first before another species.

[SPQR]

I shall forgive you for your outburst as I can see that this subject is very close to your heart, but you quite clearly quoted my opinion and then reiterated it in your own opinion.

Hmmm I don't see how I reflect your opinion, considering you would prefer to wipe out these "dangerous breeds" and you fail to give a solid arguement against what I said in my last post. I asked, would you feel better knowing that tons of responsible pet owners would be without their dogs? I'm saying that the whole notion towards deeming certain breeds "dangerous" is nonsense. While you are saying that you'd rather rid the world of them because they are, in your mind, dangerous breeds.

You continue to say that these breeds were bred simply to kill, while I argue that they're working dogs, bred to be active and be assigned a job, not specifically killing. How did I reiterate your opinion into my own, when I'm clearly arguing against it?

[Vargtand]

I shall forgive you for your outburst as I can see that this subject is very close to your heart, but you quite clearly quoted my opinion and then reiterated it in your own opinion.

Either way, I think of my own first before another species.


You stated
I would prefer to see the dogs which are deemed "dangerous" to be wiped from the face of the Earth and never bred again,

That is not dubious in any way or form, you say you wish to have those dogs, well the dubiousness here would be if you are referring to the breed or the individual dogs, how ever as you are then are speaking about 'never bred again'
That indicates you are referring to the breed as individual dangerous dogs are already put down thus rendering them unable to breed, which takes care of the dubiousness...

All dogs were breed for an intention be it work or warfare, to be honest few dogs are strictly breed for being kept as pets.. It’s a modern phenomenon at best it belonged with the aristocrats.. So what you are really saying is then you rather not see people keep dogs at all.. What are you some kind of cat-person?

Jokes aside, I ask who you think you are to make such a claim. With what right do you take to judge the work of several generations of breeders, with what right do you think you have to decide what to keep and what to discard for future generations? It is people like you who destroy culture, how can you see you’re self as a pagan when you rather eradicate certain aspects of our culture, because you deem it as unsafe? Particularly things that has been in our culture for so long… there are a breed of hunting dogs in Sweden who are over 9000 years old, now hunting dogs can of course become aggressive so according to your judgment they should not be allowed to breed?

[Beorn]

So a grieving family goes in front of the interest of the rest of your countrymen?

One man and his dog are of no concern of mine when the welfare of my people is concerned.


Sort of the same reasons why steroids got banned :P all the doctors said it was fine, yet because of one father who's son committed suicide, and they blamed the steroids it was made illegalI would have to question why the son took the steroids in the first place and work back from that.

Steroids are not exactly high up on my concern. If someone wishes to take them, then fine. Let them do to their bodies as they will, but as soon as they do it to others against their will...


What would prepare us for the next threat then? Because unless you stop time things will change, and you propose bringing a people to retardation instead of prepare them for tougher times?Eliminating threats will not "retard" the human race in anyway.

Threats will always exist. Some you can control, others you can't.
The ones you can control would require some level of retardation to not consider tackling.


If you learn from history you will see this allways happens, when ever is only one thing enough? it might be enough for one generation but the next will continue to push further and further...I always read history with the conclusion that not enough was done.


Undesirable.Why? I can't for the life of me see how a world without anything to fear would not be desirable.


If you never experience fear, how can you know what it is? A fear that does not exist is not worth fearing.


You seem to be driven by an over zealous desire for being safe...Yes. As any sane man having experienced nothing but fear, pain, hurt and every other God damned unwanted emotion would do.

I do not want to have my children experience what I have experienced, when I can go out and eradicate, or in the case of the dogs; regulate, the object of that fear.



Hmmm I don't see how I reflect your opinion, considering you would prefer to wipe out these "dangerous breeds"

I never said I would wipe out these "dangerous breeds", but rather regulate the ownership of them.
What you took umbrage to was my emotional and hypothetical response to a situation.


I asked, would you feel better knowing that tons of responsible pet owners would be without their dogs?If I can be brutally honest for one second, I would say that I couldn't care less for the owners of dogs.
That isn't to say that I don't take their opinions and overwhelming contributions to mind, but my aim is to counter balance the deaths of my own people. Not another species.


You continue to say that these breeds were bred simply to kill, while I argue that they're working dogs, bred to be active and be assigned a job, not specifically killing.I said: "ie: Killing and aggressive guardianship/protection and kept under full supervision."

Very clearly I said that dogs do more than kill.

I'm sorry for any misunderstanding on my part.

[Vargtand]

One man and his dog are of no concern of mine when the welfare of my people is concerned.

Did they ask you to be their guardian and to decide for them?


I would have to question why the son took the steroids in the first place and work back from that.
You are avoiding the point, I shall not pester you more about it as you read what I write as the church reads the bible.


Steroids are not exactly high up on my concern. If someone wishes to take them, then fine. Let them do to their bodies as they will, but as soon as they do it to others against their will...


Learn to see the message behind what is written rather than the wording it self.


Eliminating threats will not "retard" the human race in anyway.

Idealist, every change you subject a people too will have consequences for said people, it will change that people. and in simple terms an under stimulated brain equals a retarded brain.


Threats will always exist. Some you can control, others you can't.
The ones you can control would require some level of retardation to not consider tackling.

what is a threat to you is not a threat to me, should I let you decide for me what I should or should not experience? I argue that keeping things as they are far outweighs the right for thoughtless change.


I always read history with the conclusion that not enough was done.


Would you have done better? Seeing how you argue you want to take us to a state where we run around with helmets on our heads and cushions strapped to our body.



Why? I can't for the life of me see how a world without anything to fear would not be desirable.
And that is for the same reason why you never would understand history, you can't place your self in an other perspective than your own.


A fear that does not exist is not worth fearing.
Fear it self must be experienced as it is part of our humanity.


Yes. As any sane man having experienced nothing but fear, pain, hurt and every other God damned unwanted emotion would do.

Burnt child fears fire, who has not experienced pain fear hurt and suffering? It made me hard and cold, while it made you fearful.

You are not thinking with your mind, your are thinking with your heart it is illogical

I do not want to have my children experience what I have experienced, when I can go out and eradicate, or in the case of the dogs; regulate, the object of that fear.

Get a hold of your self, you are driving things into absurdity, there needs to be some form of balance.


I never said I would wipe out these "dangerous breeds", but rather regulate the ownership of them.
Yes you did I even pointed it out and explained how it was interpreted.

[SPQR]

I never said I would wipe out these "dangerous breeds", but rather regulate the ownership of them.
What you took umbrage to was my emotional and hypothetical response to a situation.

If I can be brutally honest for one second, I would say that I couldn't care less for the owners of dogs.
That isn't to say that I don't take their opinions and overwhelming contributions to mind, but my aim is to counter balance the deaths of my own people. Not another species.



My point is that you have a skewed vision of "dangerous dogs". It is individual dogs and their owners, not an entire breed as you seem to believe. To write off an entire dog breed as dangerous is the same as labeling every German a jew-murdering fascist.

All i'm trying to say is these breeds are working dogs. NOT warrior dogs. There's no reason to fear an entire breed for the actions of a few.. Don't regulate certain dog breeds, regulate dog ownership as a whole if anything. A poorly trained Golden Retriever has just as strong of a chance of attacking as a poorly trained Pit Bull. It's all up to the humans..

[Beorn]

Did they ask you to be their guardian and to decide for them?

No, but when has civilisation ever formulated against a danger by considering the individual freedom of the minority?


You are avoiding the pointNo I'm not. Steroids are dangerous. They increase the risks of of liver damage, hepatitis and a long-term use link with liver cancer. They can also cause cardiac abnormalities.

The most likely reason the son took the pills was through a low self esteem and an unattainable level he wished to target.

The banning of such substances is correct, regardless of the individual case that preceded it.


Learn to see the message behind what is written rather than the wording it self.Thank you for the lesson, Vargtand, but when I do lose my teeth I know who to see to suck eggs. :D


Idealist, every change you subject a people too will have consequences for said people, it will change that people. and in simple terms an under stimulated brain equals a retarded brain.I fail to see how eliminating an aspect of a certain instinct can retard the human brain.
So, I would like for you to prove it.


what is a threat to you is not a threat to me, should I let you decide for me what I should or should not experience?
It doesn't matter. Given a choice, people would prefer the eradication of a fear than having to adapt to it.

If people wish to continue a relationship with the fear in question, then they will be welcomed gladly to exit the main safety of the compound and live side by side with it.



Would you have done better? Seeing how you argue you want to take us to a state where we run around with helmets on our heads and cushions strapped to our body.
If you saw me with my children you would know how much that made me smiled. :)
I would rather a danger was non-existent, but if it still exists, my children are ready for it.


Fear it self must be experienced as it is part of our humanity.Just as stabbing ourselves in the eyes, or immersing fingers into boiling water is "part of our humanity"?


Burnt child fears fire, who has not experienced pain fear hurt and suffering? It made me hard and cold, while it made you fearful.
It made me wise.

I'm wise enough to seek and implement measures to avoid re-occurrences.


You are not thinking with your mind, your are thinking with your heart it is illogicalHow is it "illogical"?

Man hurts himself>Man learns>Man teaches offspring to not repeat.


Get a hold of your self, you are driving things into absurdity, there needs to be some form of balance.I'm not entirely sure what would constitute "balanced" in your mind.


My point is that you have a skewed vision of "dangerous dogs". It is individual dogs and their owners, not an entire breed as you seem to believe.

And I already told you that that is what I also believe.

Another quote by me which proves how fruitless this exchange has been.


under the same licensing I would suggest the potential owner/s is subjected to a thorough overall check to ascertain suitability for the relevant license.
To write off an entire dog breed as dangerous is the same as labeling every German a jew-murdering fascist.
My recent run ins with Germans of late; I wouldn't be so far from thinking that. :thumb001:

[Loki]

My recent run ins with Germans of late; I wouldn't be so far from thinking that. :thumb001:

I know exactly what you mean. :D :thumb001:

[Vargtand]

No, but when has civilisation ever formulated against a danger by considering the individual freedom of the minority?
You see ghosts, that is the problem


No I'm not. Steroids are dangerous. They increase the risks of of liver damage, hepatitis and a long-term use link with liver cancer. They can also cause cardiac abnormalities. Nope, it is not there is no research for the simple reason that researching it is illegal. You are pulling facts out of your ass so to speak, I recommend you watch some documentaries regarding the issue, and read up on it.

Though again this was not the point the point was that despite the doctors advice it was ultimately banned because a heartbroken father could not accept the fact that he had failed as a father and rather cast the blame, that is what I wanted you to comment on that is the obvious point to my statement.


The most likely reason the son took the pills was through a low self esteem and an unattainable level he wished to target.
Irrelevant.


The banning of such substances is correct, regardless of the individual case that preceded it. And you have no knowledge at all, yet you make a statement based on questionable facts, when ultimately it is simply that you are afraid, an illogical fear.


Thank you for the lesson, Vargtand, but when I do lose my teeth I know who to see to suck eggs. :D I do not understand what this means such I wont comment on it. That is a lesson I rather wish you would adhere to...


I fail to see how eliminating an aspect of a certain instinct can retard the human brain.
So, I would like for you to prove it.


Prove that it does not, as you are the one in favour of change. it is you who must prove that it does not lead to retardation as you are the one who wishes to change what you have around you, that is the advantage of being conservative. Old>New.



It doesn't matter. Given a choice, people would prefer the eradication of a fear than having to adapt to it.

Oh mr high and mighty you know humanity, yet you are driven by it's most primitive emotion which is interestingly enough fear.


If people wish to continue a relationship with the fear in question, then they will be welcomed gladly to exit the main safety of the compound and live side by side with it. That is not what you are in favour of you are in favour of a complete change of society all together, which means that people have your society or they can stand outside it. That is hostile to your culture… this is a culture and ethnic preservation board.. it does not compute..



If you saw me with my children you would know how much that made me smiled. :)
I would rather a danger was non-existent, but if it still exists, my children are ready for it.

Second part that they are ready for it, that is the entire point I am trying to bring across, by removing fears altogether they won’t be ready for anything when it does come. then it is better to have small explosions so to speak that keeps them on their toes rather than a big nuclear blast that will kill them, would you argue against that?


Just as stabbing ourselves in the eyes, or immersing fingers into boiling water is "part of our humanity"?

No, those are not human traits, those are traits of idiocy. Try again.


It made me wise.

I'm wise enough to seek and implement measures to avoid re-occurrences.

Yet you see no value in fear what so ever? There are lessons each generation needs to learn.


How is it "illogical"?

Man hurts himself>Man learns>Man teaches offspring to not repeat.
You are not talking about that, you are talking about.

Man hurts himself > man does away with thing that hurt him > offspring is left oblivious > offspring will hurt them self in other way unforeseen ways as they did not learn how to duck or any other useful skill the thing that initially hurt the man should have thought him.

[Beorn]

You see ghosts, that is the problem

You've lost me! Come again?


Nope, it is not there is no research for the simple reason that researching it is illegal. You are pulling facts out of your ass so to speak, I recommend you watch some documentaries regarding the issue, and read up on it.

With a response like that, I can't even begin to formulate a reply?


Though again this was not the point the point was that despite the doctors advice it was ultimately banned because a heartbroken father could not accept the fact that he had failed as a father and rather cast the blame, that is what I wanted you to comment on that is the obvious point to my statement.

I would question the doctors credentials. http://www.worldwide-web.com/JeffreyBabad/Simpsons/Nick/nick.jpg


Prove that it does not, as you are the one in favour of change. it is you who must prove that it does not lead to retardation as you are the one who wishes to change what you have around you, that is the advantage of being conservative. Old>New.

I proposed the unveiling of any proof first.

If it cannot be presented, I will accept this as submission by you, to it simply not being true.


Oh mr high and mighty you know humanity, yet you are driven by it's most primitive emotion which is interestingly enough fear.
:confused:

What do I fear? You have me lost here.


That is not what you are in favour of you are in favour of a complete change of society all together, which means that people have your society or they can stand outside it. That is hostile to your culture… this is a culture and ethnic preservation board.. it does not compute..

Okay, let's keep the gates wide open and live side by side with our fears.


Second part that they are ready for it, that is the entire point I am trying to bring across, by removing fears altogether they won’t be ready for anything when it does come.

The whole premise of removing the need to fear is preceded by the actual removal of the fear in the first place.


No, those are not human traits, those are traits of idiocy. Try again.But you said we had to experience our fear. So, poking ourselves in the eyes and scolding ourselves on the fire would be a valuable lesson, no?


Yet you see no value in fear what so ever? There are lessons each generation needs to learn.

True! If the fear was still present.


Man hurts himself > man does away with thing that hurt him > offspring is left oblivious > offspring will hurt them self in other way unforeseen ways as they did not learn how to duck or any other useful skill the thing that initially hurt the man should have thought him.


Man hurts himself>Man does away with thing that hurts him>Man tells children to not fall off cliff as it hurts>Man's children avoid falling off of cliffs.

Would you propose we regularly threw our children off of cliffs in order to avoid their "retardation"?

[Vargtand]

I refrain my self from ranting, you on the other hand fail to provide a meaningful discussion, you pick and chose what to answer to, it goes to absurdity as you chose to answer the words and not answer what they are saying. How else would you explain your desire of discussing steroids in a discussion which I stated a numerous times were not about steroids it was an example of how fear and the desire to cast blame can lead to absurdity, you know nothing about it. Yet you chose to argue, you do not use logic you argue with emotions, you argue from the next step perspective, you fail to see the consequences that it will lead to, most likely because you lack the ability to see two steps ahead, or three or four.

This is the end of this discussion unless you can actually start answering what write and not interpret freely out of context.

[Brynhild]

Fair bloody dinkum you two. I'm just gonna have to headbutt the both of you and put you in your separate corners - if not separate rooms - till you cool down! :D:tongue

[Beorn]

How else would you explain your desire of discussing steroids in a discussion which I stated a numerous times were not about steroids it was an example of how fear and the desire to cast blame can lead to absurdity

And I presented the reason as to why steroids can be feared, and deservedly so.
Your response was that my ass contained information and that I needed to be educated.:ohwell:


This is the end of this discussion unless you can actually start answering what write and not interpret freely out of context.

That's fine. Your opinion.

[Crose]

Apparently common sense isn't so common after all. Hopefully with tragedy comes a lesson to us all. Just because they're soft, cuddly, and mans best friend.. best friends have been known to turn. The little guy was so cute. :(