The Baby-Jumping Colacho The Catholic festival-Spain

pizzaman it's hard to take anything you say seriously if you continue to deny that jumping over babies poses no greater risk than not jumping over them. And if you do admit it poses a greater risk than not doing it how can you possibly defend the continuation of it considering the increased risk offers absolutely no benefit?

Answer me two simple questions, let's see if you can manage it.
1. Does jumping over babies pose a greater risk of injury than not jumping over them? (note: I'm not asking you if any child has ever been injured or killed, There is no way you can know that, I am asking you if jumping over babies poses a greater risk than not jumping over them)
2. Is it acceptable to force a child in to a situation of obvious increased risk when the increased risk has no benefits?

 

I'm sure parents are going to report into the hospital with "some dude dressed up like the devil stomped on my baby's face"

It's not the point anyways. It's stupid and pointless. And adults should know better.

Hey, you know what'd rock? Let's throw babies over this cow because the cow will bless them with its holy power.

 

no known mishap to clear things up.
assuming that these people or any other people would knowingly put their children in danger is prejudice.

 

Yeah, what evidence do any of you have?

 

1-no not a substantial increase in this case.as evident by all people that are participating in the picture.
2-no
i do not like what they do
i object to assuming you have more feeling for their kids than they do, is what i object to

 

It is not prejudice, it's simple logic that there is a chance that something bad could happen to the children.

To believe otherwise is simply being, well I wont post that

 

based on what?
why would you think they would put their kids in danger? love of ones children is the most basic instinct of all people and most animals. to assume these people are that deprived that they would put their children in danger is prejudice.
i am kind of thick about this so walk me through it.

 

that is a "yes - But not a substantial increased risk" then, and not a "no" as you tried misrepresenting as. either there is an increased risk or not, Regardless of how substantial you believe the increased risk to be.

As you admit that there is an increased risk and also say it's unacceptable to force a child into a situation of increased risk if the increased risk offers no benefit, what logic did you use when you decided you were going to defend what these people are doing when what they are doing is A) an increased risk and B) unacceptable?

Of course. that must be why it took you until page 3 to say that, while in numerous posts you made the case that it's perfectly safe, There have been no accidents (even though you can't possibly know this), The parents know best and in one instance trying to brush the whole thing under the carpet by insinuating that the OP had ulterior motives for bring this practice to our attention.

 

i have been trying to show the prejudice of assuming they would hurt their children.

 

Most people put their children in danger, well actually all people in one form or another.

To say otherwise is simply foolish and dishonest.

To say this is not putting the children in any form of danger is simply illogical to say the least.

 

this is not an individual action that is being judged but the action of the whole society
i guess we can disagree

 

What you were actually doing was desperately trying to find an angle from which you could approach this. You already decided you were going to defend it, But you didn't know from what position. You first tried to play it down by making out that this is a harmless practice that poses no risk to the children, Then you started playing the victim card by claiming that criticising these peoples behaviour was in some way prejudice (no doubt you have been feverishly reporting peoples posts).

By your own admission they are putting their children in increased danger than offers no benefit, which is the exact point we have been making all along, But for some reason you don't think this should be highlighted. How is it prejudice for us to say something which you yourself agree with? What you mean when you say it's "prejudice" is that we are right, But you just don't want to hear it and as you don't want to hear it we shouldn't say it.

Tell me, Are you Catholic?

 

no i am not catholic.
in order to demonstrate the prejudice i must first show that the supposed danger to the kids is not real. and based on the available information there is no danger exist. i never said there is any substantial known risk
then we have to ask why some one thinks that these people would put their children in danger?

 

There is danger, you'd have to be simply brain washed to think there is no danger.

---
Your argument of no danger is simply based off the article not stating any children have been hurt in the past, it stated something about nobody being hurt this year which would make it surely sound in these celebrations of years past people have been hurt, was it children though? Who knows.

Your argument to me sounds like, well I threw this brick over that window there, it hasn't broken yet so there is no danger of the window breaking. Of course there is a danger, how you can not see that, wow is extremely puzzling.

 

you are talking about 400 years of experience and there is no mention of any kid being hurt.
one can depend on his experiences to reach a conclusion and these people do.

 

Do i have to ask you this question again pizzaman?
Does jumping over babies pose no greater risk than not jumping over them?

 

Yet again you are pulling facts out of thin air that do not exist.

It states nobody hurt this year, which by any logic does not state no child was ever hurt.

You are using facts that do not exist for your argument, even with your 'facts' you have no argument as it's simple logic.

Grown adult jumping over young children can slip and fall, how you can not see that is simply amazing.

 

i think that there is no extra danger to the babies in this ceremony based on all the available information

 

there is no mention of any kid ever being hurt.
the fact that these people perform this ceremony is the evidence that there is no danger.

 

ODD, apparantly AOL had it listed at #10 in the top 10 most dangerous celebrations. I'm glad to hear it's safe.

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=19201&PID=356361