The Baby-Jumping Colacho The Catholic festival-Spain

You'd think, but it isn't. Sad fact is, some people are really, really thick. Something like this, or like, say, someone placing their kid out the window to cool them while driving down the freeway, well, you know.

To be clear, I'm not talking about making it a criminal charge, which would be outrageously ridiculous. I'm talking about something like a small fine for doing it. This is a stupid, dangerous practice, with the kids not asking to participate, as it seems we all (outside of Pizza) agree, unless I've missed something. Where "shame" won't stop it, some nominal measure of wallet bite might. I could be wrong.

 

No, this is the obvious effect of this. But since we're trading in the obvious this evening, well...

 

Uh, ever heard of a soccer practice being cancelled when there is a lightning storm?

Rob, about that poll...

 

I think a better example is parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids on religious or some sort of conspiracy grounds. I'd be more concerned about that than this. And it is an actual problem as well.

It's all part of the same thing though, I suppose.

Yeah, I doubt it. You can't have police everywhere to watch every weird thing people are gonna do or not do, writing tickets to people, saying "hey lady, don't let that drunk guy jump over your kid okay?"

 

Again I am not saying it should be illegal. Sports however is the choice of the child in most cases. From a parental view point I think it's stupid IMO to have grown adults jump over a bunch of very vulnerable, VERY young children.

Hell I'd have less trouble with this if the kids were 8 or 10 years old, who could more than likely not take a little boo, boo. Children as young as shown could be seriously hurt from a little mishap, your sports comparison truly is not even remotely in the same neighborhood.

Vaccination can cause side effects, the pluses however far outweigh the possible side effects making the argument null and void on your side IMO.

Exactly, something you do these people might see as being dangerous and stupid. Possibly driving in the wrong type of car for instance. If you open the governments powers to govern something you think is stupid, it also opens the doors for that same government to turn it around on you.

Maybe that truck of yours has too big of an engine in some peoples eyes, or perhaps you dress the kid in clothes that are a bit slippery, the shoes he wears doesn't have good enough traction, your outdoor activities could cause some possible infection, or he could get a tick, perhaps your trip to Africa with your child could be considered abuse, the list goes on.

 

You're right, mine was a lousy example. Your post goes to what I am saying. It isn't "outlaw stupidity" I'm arguing, it's "make it a pain in the ass to be stupid, when your stupidity very likely can harm innocent others." Bottom line, some laws simply exist to stop well-meaning people from hurting others.

And you are probably right re: the ticket thing. But if enough get a stupid nuisance ticket, it gets around, doesn't it?

 

again there is no evidence of danger. to assume that these people would put their children in danger is what i don't agree with. it seems to imply that they do not like their children or they do not care for them. after 400 years of experience they know that there are no danger

 

More dangerous...


This?



Or this?

 

What evidence do you need?

I'm sorry but an adult jumping over an extremely young child, you do not see that the adult can fall and land on the children?

You seriously have to be kidding me.

 

Sports generally have positive aspects to them that outweigh the risks. From playing sports kids keep fit, they improve their hand eye coordination, they build social skills, they learn to work in a team, the list goes on.

Having a man dress up as the devil and jump over babies offers no benefit what-so-ever, Besides the satisfaction the parents get from doing this year something which they done the previous year, So the increased risk is an unacceptable one.

this is the point, it's an unnecessary increased risk which offers absolutely no benefit. This is what makes the increased risk unacceptable.

 

Yeah dude but 90% of the time no babies are going to be injured in any way.

 

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Thanks, man. Now I have to watch Mr. Rogers for 12 hours straight, just to be able to get to sleep.

 

Imagine if one of the adults was like my fat ass, I'd wipe the entire lot of the kiddies out when I crashed back to earth!

 

why am i kidding?. do you think if lets say 10 kids got hurt this year and another 6 the year before, they would do it next year?

 

I was gonna vote no, but it's getting there.

I'd still say the guy who thought it was cool to have sex with a 19 week old fetus was #1. But it's gettin' closer.

Pizzaman might get the dubious honor yet.

 

More than likely...

YES..

Even if no child ever got hurt, even if you believe that, you can not be that inept to not see how easy it would be for a child to get severely hurt if not killed during such a practice.

 

why do you believe that they would do it even if the kids were getting hurt? are you familiar with these people? do you belive they like their children less than you like yours?
if no child has gotten hurt for the past 400 years then the chances are they are not going to get hurt next year also. this is a very simple matter of probability.

 

#1 You are absolutely certain no child has ever gotten hurt?
#2 Even if no child has gotten hurt the chances are there, you simply can not refute it.
#3 Traditions such as this are rarely stopped because of a mishap, unless public outcry brings government interference from outside. Nothing to do with 'these people'
#4 Speaking of 'simple matter of probability' if as you state none have ever been hurt before, the probability is that they are due for a horrific accident sooner rather than later.

 

#1 no mention of any mishap in the article.
#2 very small chance. a lot less than swimming
#3 no such tradition would exist if the children were going to get killed. unless you feel that they lack the basic human feeling for their child
#4 it does not work like that. the chances are reset with every jump

 

#1 The article does not speak of years passed, it only states no injuries this year.
#2 Less chance than swimming? I don't know about you but must do not allow children to swim alone at that age, honestly do not get your argument one bit. Swimming, allowing a child who is capable of swimming to swim is totally different than an adult jumping over a young child like this.
#3 Traditions like this exist in almost every religion. How you are unable to grasp what would happen or could happen if an adult landed on one of their heads is beyond me.
#4 You don't even know what the true chances are, how can you claim what the chances would be? It does work like this, if there has not been a mishap yet 'even though you don't even know if there has been one, you pulled that out of thin air' the likely hood is there that they are due for one.