Sad news near where I live

[notyou2]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57597460/mother-of-2-boys-killed-by-python-posted-facebook-photos-of-boys-in-snake-enclosure/

[/]

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.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Why go straight to prohibition as the answer?

If the owner makes it clear that they have a dangerous animal on the premises, then wouldn't it be wise not to bring one's children to such a place?

I didn't spend the time to read the story, so I'd appreciate your patience--if these questions were answered in that article.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

Why go straight to prohibition as the answer?

If the owner makes it clear that they have a dangerous animal on the premises, then wouldn't it be wise not to bring one's children to such a place?

Even supposing that the owner did make it clear, should the children lose their lives because they have parents that make poor decisions?

[/]

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.

Why go straight to prohibition as the answer?

If the owner makes it clear that they have a dangerous animal on the premises, then wouldn't it be wise not to bring one's children to such a place?

I didn't spend the time to read the story, so I'd appreciate your patience--if these questions were answered in that article.

I don't really care if it's prohibited wholly or not, but a certain level of responsibility is needed.
This particular animal did require a special permit, and said permit was not issued. It was a dangerous animal and the shop owner likely intended to sell it as the sort of snake you can keep safely in a tank.
This was obviously not the case.

As for my statement that you underlined. I do believe that exotic pets in particular do need an extra level of scrutiny, for the welfare of the animal and the safety of the owner, the buyer in question needs to know how to handle and care for their animal. An improperly cared for exotic pet can spread infectious and foreign diseases, and some idiots just turn them loose once they get tired of caring for them, resulting in populations of invasive species that can occasionally do large-scale harm to the local environment.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Why go straight to prohibition as the answer?

If the owner makes it clear that they have a dangerous animal on the premises, then wouldn't it be wise not to bring one's children to such a place?

Even supposing that the owner did make it clear, should the children lose their lives because they have parents that make poor decisions?

It would've been unnecessary, but so would have the unintended consequences of prohibition been unnecessary.

Cliches can be crappy, but "two wrongs don't make a right."

I understand your point, but it relies on the benefit of hindsight. Aren't you presuming that the central planners have such foresight? And if so, have they calculated the relative benefits and costs for the entire society correctly? Do they even have the incentive to do so? Have they overcome the knowledge problem of such planning?

Or is it really about looking good, gaining votes, exercising power, and justifying further taxation for essentially unnecessary services?

If the answer to the latter question is "yes," then I don't see any need to encourage those swine any further---unless of course one voluntarily joins a neighborhood which prohibits such animals and to which the new comer explicitly agrees via a real contract to abide by the rules.

[thegreekdog]

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.

Why go straight to prohibition as the answer?

If the owner makes it clear that they have a dangerous animal on the premises, then wouldn't it be wise not to bring one's children to such a place?

Even supposing that the owner did make it clear, should the children lose their lives because they have parents that make poor decisions?

It would've been unnecessary, but so would have the unintended consequences of prohibition been unnecessary.

Cliches can be crappy, but "two wrongs don't make a right."

I understand your point, but it relies on the benefit of hindsight. Aren't you presuming that the central planners have such foresight? And if so, have they calculated the relative benefits and costs for the entire society correctly? Do they even have the incentive to do so? Have they overcome the knowledge problem of such planning?

Or is it really about looking good, gaining votes, exercising power, and justifying further taxation for essentially unnecessary services?

If the answer to the latter question is "yes," then I don't see any need to encourage those swine any further---unless of course one voluntarily joins a neighborhood which prohibits such animals and to which the new comer explicitly agrees via a real contract to abide by the rules.

Nevermind all that, a law preventing ownership of the animal doesn't actually physically prevent someone from owning the animal.

Hey, I know! We should have a law against murder. That would stop all murders.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

Why go straight to prohibition as the answer?

If the owner makes it clear that they have a dangerous animal on the premises, then wouldn't it be wise not to bring one's children to such a place?

Even supposing that the owner did make it clear, should the children lose their lives because they have parents that make poor decisions?

It would've been unnecessary, but so would have the unintended consequences of prohibition been unnecessary.

Cliches can be crappy, but "two wrongs don't make a right."

I understand your point, but it relies on the benefit of hindsight. Aren't you presuming that the central planners have such foresight?

Seeing as there is a law against having this type of snake in the territory, I'd say that they did a pretty good job predicting this sort of thing.

[Gillipig]

That article has a very misleading title. Almost makes you think she posted pictures of them being eaten or something.

[crispybits]

Always amazing how many people don't even give the link a quick glance before commenting....

The snake, an African rock python, apparently escaped from its enclosure, slithered through a ventilation system and fell through the ceiling into the room where the young boys were sleeping, authorities said. They had been visiting the apartment of a friend whose father owned an exotic pet store on the floor below.

They weren't killed because their parents let them run free in a snake enclosure, the snake escaped and invaded the apartment they were sleeping in...

[2dimes]

I think I'll mention. There was a guy running a pet store here. Once they fined him or something, and took away his personal collection of several illegal very deadly exotic venomous snakes. It was against the law to posses everyone of them in Canada and possibly the United States of America.

[/Indiana Jones]

[patches70]

Just a strange combination of factors that contributed. People aren't prey to the Rock python. Not normally. We don't smell right to them, so usually it never even occurs to a snake to do such a thing (unless it feels threatened, which is hard to imagine given the children were sleeping and not threatening to the snake at all).

So why did the snake kill the children?

The two children, during that very day all day, were at a farm. At the farm the children petted llamas, goats, fed the pigs, played with the horses and all such things. After the farm trip, instead of going all the way home, they spent the night at the family friend's house. Somewhere they'd been before, but never after just visiting a farm.

It's possible that the scent on the children fooled the snake into thinking they might be prey animals. Snake kills one, discovers that this isn't actually a prey animal that it knows, and so kills the other child just to figure out that he isn't a prey animal either. The snake curls up in the corner and is discovered later.

Just a comedy of errors that help lead to a tragic end. The biggest error being that the snake wasn't secured properly. Snakes are notorious for getting out of their enclosures. I feel bad for the parents of those two adorable children, and for the children themselves who met a gruesome fate. Even the owner of the snake I feel sympathy for, I can only imagine how badly he must feel about this.

There are no bad guys in this tale of woe, unless you count fate as the bad guy. The snake wasn't the bad guy, the guy who owned the snake wasn't the bad guy, the mother wasn't the bad guy and certainly the children weren't the bad guys. It's probably not a good idea having such a snake like a rock python living with people. They don't make good pets at all, due to their size and aggressiveness. Seems like common sense to me, and I'll bet ya a dollar to a doughnut that the children themselves smiled with glee when they likely observed the snake in it's tank before they shuffled off to bed. Never a worry in their minds at all.

So it is all too often in life. We wake up and go about our days without a care in the world not realizing that this day is to be our last. It's tragic, often it preventable but it's also just life and death.

Just a sad story all around I guess.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Why go straight to prohibition as the answer?

If the owner makes it clear that they have a dangerous animal on the premises, then wouldn't it be wise not to bring one's children to such a place?

Even supposing that the owner did make it clear, should the children lose their lives because they have parents that make poor decisions?

It would've been unnecessary, but so would have the unintended consequences of prohibition been unnecessary.

Cliches can be crappy, but "two wrongs don't make a right."

I understand your point, but it relies on the benefit of hindsight. Aren't you presuming that the central planners have such foresight?

Seeing as there is a law against having this type of snake in the territory, I'd say that they did a pretty good job predicting this sort of thing.

And what of the remaining questions? I'll let you think about it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Always amazing how many people don't even give the link a quick glance before commenting....

The snake, an African rock python, apparently escaped from its enclosure, slithered through a ventilation system and fell through the ceiling into the room where the young boys were sleeping, authorities said. They had been visiting the apartment of a friend whose father owned an exotic pet store on the floor below.

They weren't killed because their parents let them run free in a snake enclosure, the snake escaped and invaded the apartment they were sleeping in...

Ahhh, as owner of the apartments, I wouldn't want such an animal inside.

[oVo]

This is a very strange story and I'm not certain it has reached it's final conclusion. The circumstances of the "strangulation deaths" of these two kids is very suspect, as the snake's behavior is not at all typical for such creature.

The python has been euthanized and I wonder if local authorities are satisfied with the conclusions reached by their investigation into this incident.

[thegreekdog]

This is a very strange story and I'm not certain it has reached it's final conclusion. The circumstances of the "strangulation deaths" of these two kids is very suspect, as the snake's behavior is not at all typical for such creature.

The python has been euthanized and I wonder if local authorities are satisfied with the conclusions reached by their investigation into this incident.

Sorry, I didn't read this because I was looking at your avatar.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

Why go straight to prohibition as the answer?

If the owner makes it clear that they have a dangerous animal on the premises, then wouldn't it be wise not to bring one's children to such a place?

Even supposing that the owner did make it clear, should the children lose their lives because they have parents that make poor decisions?

It would've been unnecessary, but so would have the unintended consequences of prohibition been unnecessary.

Cliches can be crappy, but "two wrongs don't make a right."

I understand your point, but it relies on the benefit of hindsight. Aren't you presuming that the central planners have such foresight?

Seeing as there is a law against having this type of snake in the territory, I'd say that they did a pretty good job predicting this sort of thing.

And what of the remaining questions? I'll let you think about it.

The remaining questions are meaningless. The way you phrase questions suggests that we should never actually try to solve problems, because we can never know for sure the consequences of what we do. The point is both completely correct, and completely irrelevant. We do the best we can with the information we have. You can continue to live in your ivory tower of political paralysis if you like, but the rest of us will live in a world where decisions need to be made, and actual lives are at stake. Policy decisions are probabilistic in nature, and it is much easier to assign probabilities when it comes to African rock pythons than with Obamacare, so I feel pretty confident in this type of decision making.

[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?

[BigBallinStalin]

Why go straight to prohibition as the answer?

If the owner makes it clear that they have a dangerous animal on the premises, then wouldn't it be wise not to bring one's children to such a place?

Even supposing that the owner did make it clear, should the children lose their lives because they have parents that make poor decisions?

It would've been unnecessary, but so would have the unintended consequences of prohibition been unnecessary.

Cliches can be crappy, but "two wrongs don't make a right."

I understand your point, but it relies on the benefit of hindsight. Aren't you presuming that the central planners have such foresight?

Seeing as there is a law against having this type of snake in the territory, I'd say that they did a pretty good job predicting this sort of thing.

And what of the remaining questions? I'll let you think about it.

The remaining questions are meaningless. The way you phrase questions suggests that we should never actually try to solve problems, because we can never know for sure the consequences of what we do. The point is both completely correct, and completely irrelevant. We do the best we can with the information we have. You can continue to live in your ivory tower of political paralysis if you like, but the rest of us will live in a world where decisions need to be made, and actual lives are at stake. Policy decisions are probabilistic in nature, and it is much easier to assign probabilities when it comes to African rock pythons than with Obamacare, so I feel pretty confident in this type of decision making.

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

RE: italicized, there's no need to use logical fallacies. Don't be stupid when you get angry because you aren't willing to think harder.

[/]

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.

[Metsfanmax]

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

Central planning: 0
Market: -2 young boys

RE: italicized, there's no need to use logical fallacies. Don't be stupid when you get angry because you aren't willing to think harder.

Angry? No. Just bemused as to why you exclude yourself from the modern democratic process.

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.

[Lootifer]

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!!

[saxitoxin]

The python has been euthanized and I wonder if local authorities are satisfied with the conclusions reached by their investigation into this incident.

How "convenient." Your typical Oswald/Jack Ruby scenario. In a conspiracy you tie up all the loose ends before they can talk.

[nietzsche]

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.

[Gillipig]

The baby was probably selling drugs.

















































*okay, even I think that joke is a little extreme*