That Turkish restaurant took the wounded people inside and locked the doors, there was no terrorist they were waiting for the events calm down.

Tom's Hardware Italy's Bruno Gulotta Victim Of Barcelona Terrorist Attack - http://www.tomshardware.com/news/toms-h ... 35260.html

Police found 120 gaz cylinders in a house linked to the terrorists. 120, ffs...

Julian Cadman, seven, confirmed as among 13 killed in Barcelona attack - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... b-gdnworld

Barcelona attack: Thousands of Muslims march against terrorism - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 09611.html

tuco wrote:Julian Cadman, seven, confirmed as among 13 killed in Barcelona attack - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... b-gdnworld

Actual question. Why is a child's death more remarkable than an adult?

This I know exactly. Because humans are psychologically biased towards children.

Not me, hate the little fuckers. Barely tolerated my own but they're OK now that they've grown up.

Actual question. Why is a child's death more remarkable than an adult?

I suspect it's "never had a chance to experience a life" ....I think the same applies to older people dying in an accident...they've had a life ....child's loss takes away a big chunk of the future for the family involved....an 80 year old..that future is shorter and could happen any time so people are somewhat prepared in their mindset....

If a child dies at very young age, when being a baby, "loss" of those concerned is usually not as great as when they already have formed relationship with such child, when child is older. So this is primary - having relationship - while "having life ahead" is secondary. Either way, humans have psychological bias towards children, for obvious reasons.

What do you mean what the fuck, do you dispute the claim? No but I carried dozens to morgue and that's what experts in the field told me. When for example children are born prematurely with very low chance to live, being placed in NICU, doctors do not recommend to parents to keep in touch with them exactly for the reason stated.

I'd like to see some sort of citation for this bullshit Tuco.

Whilst it might seem to make sense to you to avoid becoming attached to a baby likely to die, I can't find a single thing to support what you say. NICU & SCBU procedures here encourage parental involvement, support parents massively and certainly do not advise them to not keep in touch.

I am not going to spend time and energy on what I stated was an anecdote. Take it or leave it for all I care.

I said .. with very low chance to live .. and given very low child mortality in developed healthcare systems such cases are quite rare. Why would forming bond be encouraged in almost hopeless situation especially since some very preterm babies show bonding difficulties due to neurological impairments?

Either way, it was just a side note. The point was: If a child dies at very young age, when being a baby, "loss" of those concerned is usually not as great as when they already have formed relationship with such child, when child is older. Shall I spend time and energy on showing you citation for this too? Be gone, this is off topic anyway.

Be gone? You posted bollocks and I'm calling you out on it. Go on, demonstrate your point with a citation if you can.

Quite how you're going to demonstrate a baby's loss is somehow less of one than of an older child will be interesting to see. Perhaps, in a logical way it ought not to, I get the idea but in issues such as emotional bonds, logic doesn't always win out. Children dying is not the natural order of things we're generally geared up for. We're child rearing mammals, it's in our nature to nurture them to independence and to expect our elders to die first. A child dying, particularly in infancy is a devastating loss to parents and I see no meaningful way of attributing some form of value to the loss felt in order to support your assertion. But, go on blow me away with a citation to support what you say.

lol I'd be more interested for proof of content of your freezer.

So you can't back it up then. Thought so. Going even more off topic doesn't make it less bullshit.

monkeyboy wrote:not the natural order of things we're generally geared up for. We're child rearing mammals, it's in our nature to nurture them to independence and to expect our elders to die first....

Where do you get this stuff? Humanae Vitae? What does it mean to be 'geared up for' whatever it is? Is this some kind of scientific term? If you're going to call somebody out on what you consider some bullshit, don't start by making the pile higher than it was before with wording used by some (ugh) authority figure somewhere. Don't ask somebody for citations if you're only going to be regurgitating sound bytes from the popular press or papal encyclicals.

I hope you don't believe you were actually making a biological observation with "we're child-rearing mammals" if the reason that we are child-rearing mammals is that it takes young humans at least 8 or 10 years to be able to contribute to the well-being of the clan of the cave bear. You've got yourself a chicken-egg problem there, @monkeyboy.

felltoearth wrote:

tuco wrote:Julian Cadman, seven, confirmed as among 13 killed in Barcelona attack - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... b-gdnworld

Actual question. Why is a child's death more remarkable than an adult?

Is it? As I understand it, nobody knew where he was for a few days, so when it turned out he was amongst the dead, he got his own news story. He also got his own news story, because he's British and it's a British newspaper.