Sad news near where I live

[BigBallinStalin]

For someone who ostensibly shuns the central planner, you certainly engage in a lot of "I am right and everyone else is stupid" type of thinking.

lol!

He's got ya there!!

Most people, albeit seemingly stupid, possess a great amount of local knowledge for various activities. That can't be denied. Mets is just being an idiot because he's so far been relying on logical fallacies, and he refuses to think--short of "government must do X cuz herpderpderpocracy, no matter what."

That's just sad--especially for a grad student. Even some people without high school degrees know more about the political process than this alleged scholar, who ITT has refused to challenge his core beliefs. What a joke.

[AndyDufresne]

What a joke.

Joke? I got your joke right here!




--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

In similar news, 4 dogs, pitbulls, killed a 2 year-old baby.

He was walking by the fenced house of the pitbulls with her mommy, when one of them reached him through the fence, dragged him in and with the help of the other 3 pitbulls, bit him to death in front of his mommy.

This in Mexico.

Prohibit all teh bulldogs cuz government foresight!!!!!

[patches70]

In similar news, 4 dogs, pitbulls, killed a 2 year-old baby.

He was walking by the fenced house of the pitbulls with her mommy, when one of them reached him through the fence, dragged him in and with the help of the other 3 pitbulls, bit him to death in front of his mommy.

This in Mexico.

Prohibit all teh bulldogs cuz government foresight!!!!!

Right after we had our first kid and bought our first house, some friends of ours who raise pitbulls said "we'll give you one of our baby pitbulls. They make great guard dogs". My response was "you are out of your mind if you think I'm going to have a pitbull around a little baby and eventual toddler".

We didn't get a pitbull.

We used to have a real nice mutt. The kids when they were real young would bug the hell out of that dog, and the dog would just look at us as to say "you gonna do something about this?" with that resigned look. It'd have been extremely hard to ever get that dog so pissed as to gore a toddler. A pitbull, not so much I think.
People gotta keep their kids safe around animals, it requires a bit of common sense. Like not letting your toddler get close enough to be dragged and bit to death by 4 pitbulls and have animals that are of the right temperament around your young children.

Nothing against pitbulls mind you, but they aren't really a good breed to have around children generally speaking. I'm sure there are plenty of very nice pitbulls who'd never do such a thing. I'd rather err on the side of caution though.

[Metsfanmax]

who ITT has refused to challenge his core beliefs. What a joke.

Out of curiosity, the last time you challenged your core beliefs, was it Shakira or Britney Spears who was on top of the charts?

[thegreekdog]

RE: underlined, There are alternatives, e.g. the market.

Central planning: 0
Market: -2 young boys

In 1776, murder was made illegal.

Number of murders in the US since then - hundreds of thousands

Central planning: 0
Market: 0

Nobody wins!

[Dukasaur]

That is quite unfortunate.
It's a bit silly that they are investigating the snake's motive though, it's a python, does it need a reason?
And it wasn't permitted to be kept in the shop in the first place; it's unfortunate when people don't realize that there are many good reasons as to why most people shouldn't have undomesticated pets.

So, there have been what... maybe a dozen people in the last decade killed by domestic snakes and other exotic pets?

In that same period, how many have been killed by dogs, one of the most common domesticated animals and "Man's Best Friend"? How many have been killed by elephants, one of the most useful domestic animals and an indispensable part of the rural economy in some areas? How many have been thrown by horses?

Domestic animals can be dangerous at times. They can also be a source of much pleasure to their owners. People really need to gain some perspective; a handful of tragic mishaps does not represent a crisis. People get killed skiing, too, but do we really need to outlaw skis?

I apologize for wording that poorly, I was not insinuating that it was some sort of crisis; every animal of course has special needs, and proper safety measures must be taken. We always court disaster when we integrate an exotic specs to a new environment, domesticated or not, we cannot be sure how an animal will adapt to a foreign location. If one cannot properly contain their pet, then owning it is amoral and downright stupid. The point is that they allowed the snake to escape, and they had it illegally.

Pythons are wiping out entire species in the everglades, and even "harmless" cats and rabbits cause millions in damages worldwide. If we must be entertained by animals for whatever reason, we must not take on more than we can handle; if you're some bigshot that is willing two feed a lion a couple dozen pounds of meat per day, give it proper immunizations, and keep it secured in a way that complies with your local laws, then by all means, have a lion. If you can't keep track of a hamster, then stick to a local species or be satisfied with Youtube videos.

I don't disagree. There are retards, not a few but very many, who haven't the slightest idea of how to take care of a particular species, but they think it looks oh so cool, so they go buy one and bring it home without the slightest foresight. The spoiled kid wants it, the irresponsible parent buys it, the profiteering breeder is happy to sell it. That little four-inch spectacled cayman looks so cute when he's eating little goldfish from your hand, but he will grow to a seven-foot predator that will take off your arm without hesitation. So, out the door he goes, to either die a miserable death, or become a menace to the public, or become an expensive burden on some animal rescue park.

Trust me, I grew up around reptile collectors. For every horror story you can tell me, I can tell you twenty. One time my dad bought a king cobra off another collector. They were both really stoned at the time, so he just threw the cobra in an empty cage and completely forgot all about it. This was back in the 70s when you could still buy cobras quite openly. A few weeks later he sends me to clean that bank of cages, told me they were all empty, completely forgot that there's a king cobra in one of them. There's little 13-year-old Dukasaur, cleaning "empty" cages all by himself, opens a door, lifts a pile of newpapers, and finds himself face to face with a king cobra that hasn't eaten in a long time. Oh, what a treat! I just slammed the cage door, and the cobra hadn't made up its mind to strike yet. It happened so fast I didn't even have time to panic. But it might have been one for the newspapers if it had been just a little bit different.

But I digress. The point is, the situation really isn't any different for anything else. There are irresponsible dog owners that either intentionally or not create killer dogs, there are irresponsible car owners that cause a carnage on our highways, there are irresponsible chainsaw owners that cut down a tree and smash their neighbour's house. Outlawing pythons because some idiot let his escape and eat the neighbour's kids makes no more sense than outlawing forklift trucks because some idiot rolled his over and killed a couple co-workers. There isn't any situation quite so bad that a little political involvement can't make it worse.

[Timminz]

I've always thought a good, market solution would be to hold people responsible for the actions of their pets.

Your Chihuahua bites the mailman: you get an assault charge.

Your African Rock Python kills two children: you go to prison for a double-homicide.

Responsible animal owners can have their pets. Irresponsible ones can suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.

[Dukasaur]

I've always thought a good, market solution would be to hold people responsible for the actions of their pets.

Your Chihuahua bites the mailman: you get an assault charge.

Your African Rock Python kills two children: you go to prison for a double-homicide.

Responsible animal owners can have their pets. Irresponsible ones can suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.

Yes. That's already the way it work in civil court. Just have to wait a few more millennia for the rest of the legal system to catch up.

[nietzsche]

I've always thought a good, market solution would be to hold people responsible for the actions of their pets.

Your Chihuahua bites the mailman: you get an assault charge.

Your African Rock Python kills two children: you go to prison for a double-homicide.

Responsible animal owners can have their pets. Irresponsible ones can suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.

Yes. That's already the way it work in civil court. Just have to wait a few more millennia for the rest of the legal system to catch up.

In the case of the pitbulls I mentioned earlier, the owner is going to prison.

I'm not sure though, if that's the law or it's something someone politician decided because the case was on the papers and there were lots of people outraged. Anything can happen in Mexico.

[BigBallinStalin]

who ITT has refused to challenge his core beliefs. What a joke.

Out of curiosity, the last time you challenged your core beliefs is

Pretty often. I read from authors of different methodologies and ideologies. I can't say anything impressive about your performance though. Best stick to astrophysics while holding VERY mild views beyond that field, but if you don't want to, then your refusal to think should carry you strongly through. Good luck.

[Metsfanmax]

Best stick to astrophysics while holding VERY mild views beyond that field

I hold mild views in basically every field, precisely because of my lack of knowledge on most subjects. There's a reason my advocacy on most policy issues (with the notable exception of global warming) is limited to internet forum debates. I suspect that this should be the case for most people on most issues. I think scientists in general, but astronomers in particular, know better than most people how unimportant they are in the grand scheme of things, and how little we really know about the way things work. You'll rarely find a group of people more humbled by what there is know to than us.

I don't have an ideological bias towards government or against the market. As a scientist, I have an ideological bias towards problem solving. I am skeptical of anyone who reeks of an ideology for how to problem solve because that sort of narrow-mindedness rarely works in general. The truth is almost always somewhere in between the extremes, regardless of the subject.

If you see a regulation regarding the prohibition on having a dangerous and invasive snake species and your immediate reaction is "we should be letting the market solve this," then you are an ideologue. This is not a good thing to be.

[BigBallinStalin]

Best stick to astrophysics while holding VERY mild views beyond that field

I hold mild views in basically every field, precisely because of my lack of knowledge on most subjects.

Haha, no you don't, but thanks for bullshitting.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't have an ideological bias towards government or against the market.

Judging from your history, and not from your own imagination, it's completely obvious that this is false.

As a scientist, I have an ideological bias towards problem solving. I am skeptical of anyone who reeks of an ideology for how to problem solve because that sort of narrow-mindedness rarely works in general. The truth is almost always somewhere in between the extremes, regardless of the subject.

You disagree with the existence of contracts over dead people's stuff, so given such a view (plus the above and more), I wouldn't find you capable of understanding How problems are solved (e.g. via political processes versus market processes). At one time, you outright refused to even think about the market process (how childish). Asking such questions isn't narrow-minded; it's completely related to the various frameworks through which problems would be solved. How much more fundamental can you get??

But you'd think your way simply because you don't understand any of it. Oh, but the "scientist" here has no ideological bias while his ignorance carries him past the fundamental questions on different processes. How hilarious! Have you any understand of science but for astronomy and statistics? (If not, then how can you arrive at such conclusions? Gee, I bet it has nothing to do with your historic pattern of blundering through with your eyes shut, does it?)

Sure, no mild views from Mets here! Hahaha! Ridiculous!

If you see a regulation regarding the prohibition on having a dangerous and invasive snake species and your immediate reaction is "we should be letting the market solve this," then you are an ideologue. This is not a good thing to be.

Haha, sure, Mets. Keep hammering at those logical fallacies, and maybe you'll start seeing the 'truth' in them. (Oh, is it too late?) You're hopeless, and all this back-and-forth because you didn't want to try to answer questions which would challenge your core beliefs. How pathetic--Oh, or rather "scientific" as you define it, hahaha!

[mordigan]

i never see the mainstream media reporting on the hundreds of thousands of snakes that are eaten by humans each year. out of sight, out of mind.

[Metsfanmax]

This quote is relevant at this point:

Also, I'm starting to get tired of your arrogant and rude responses. The next time you do that, I'm probably just going to foe you again, and leave it there this time.

Goodbye, BBS.