A brilliant son, that is, who ran off a cliff to his death because he feared an "unclean" dog.

One Darwin nominee, coming up.

He also was afraid of dogs. That is not an unreasonable fear.

How does this constitute "extreme stupidity" (the Darwinism Award definition)? Why do you make light of a tragedy? The kid died not because he was behaving stupidly, but because he panicked.

Actually, it says that "the Muslim teenager regarded dogs as "unclean"". He wasn't afraid of them, he had an unsubstantiated religious belief that they were somehow not safe.

And then he was dumb enough to fall off a cliff.

'nuff said.

Happy trolling!

"He wasn't afraid of them"

You have a problem with reading comprehension.

"The inquest was told the Muslim teenager regarded dogs as "unclean" and was afraid of being bitten by one."

Notice the word "afraid."

Happy reading.

Being afraid of being bitten because a dog is "unclean" is different than being afraid of dogs. Having worked with dogs for half my life, I can tell you that I'm not afraid of dogs as a whole. However, there were still one or two dogs so far that would ONLY respond to their owners, and were otherwise powerful animals that deserved to be respected and feared.

So, to say that I was afraid of dogs just because I was afraid that one or two *particular* dogs could likely maim me if I wasn't careful is a false assertion.

Or, to form an analogy, that's like saying a person is afraid of raccoons just because they actively avoid rabid raccoons that are foaming at the mouth.

In which case, it's one thing to be afraid of a dangerous or rabid animal. It's another entirely to regard that animal as somehow "unclean" based solely on an unfounded religious belief, and to therefore go to extensive lengths to avoid them.

You still have a problem with reading comprehension. From the original article:

"...and was afraid of being bitten by one."

Note the use of the word "and", which adds an _additional_ justification for his actions. He was "afraid of being bitten by" a dog. Perhaps he was bitten by one in the past. Perhaps he knew somebody who had. Perhaps he was simply afraid of an animal that was loose and had sharp teeth and that was approaching him. How in the world does this make the young man "stupid" and worthy of ridicule?

"How in the world does this make the young man "stupid" and worthy of ridicule?"

If your with a group of people and you run off a cliff and kill yourself to avoid being bitten by a dog, you might be stupid! I guess being dead is better than being "unclean".

"and was afraid of being bitten by one."

Since the article doesn't expound on whether "one" refers to "an unclean dog", or just "a dog", either interpretation could be considered correct.

But, since the kid's dead, we'll never know.

Yes, because there's never any reason to be afraid of dogs:

http://www.poynterextra.org/extra/king/images/birm3.gif

Yeesh.
Look, if you run off a cliff and die in order to avoid a POSSIBLY dangerous dog, that's a pretty stupid choice.
This guy was no Einstein.

I'm not laughing at the kid who ran off the cliff. I'm laughing at the commenter who is trying to show that the kid had a perfectly good reason to run off the cliff.

And I at the assertion that this kid was also somehow a "brilliant lad".

> The inquest was told the Muslim teenager regarded dogs as "unclean" and was afraid of being bitten by one.

I'm afraid of being bitten by a dog, so let's see how this "brilliant" lad earned his raisins.

> Friends said as a dog approached the group, Asif became agitated and ran off.

In other words, sight of a dog. He had no reason to believe that the dog in question was going to bite him.

He ran off the cliff because of an irrational fear or because he couldn't handle proximity to dogs. Neither one is worth defending. Besides, if the fear of being laughed at post-death by commenters saves one person from a similar fate, the laughs are justified.

The kid was a silly kid, and managed to jettison his wits and get himself killed. I can't bring myself to make fun of him, if I couldn't say something in front of his grieving parents, I won't say it here.

This does bring up a deeper subject, however. The UK, the most dog-loving nation on the face of the planet, has a steadily growning Muslim population. Consider the impact on dog owners if this population cohort grows in influence to the point where it begins to impact their rights. Do the British dare let Islam have any greater influence in their country than it does now, or does any other part of the West, for that matter? Sure, they're running off of cliffs at the mere sight of a dog now, but what happens when there is a majority Muslim city council?

In the city of Derby, in the UK, there was a statue of a boar in the middle of a park, dating from 1840--the Florentine Boar. This statue had been beheaded by a German bomb during the Blitz, and the town had made plans to restore it. These plans were scrapped because of veiled threats from local Muslims, who outrageously, unjustifiably bleated that the statue was "unclean."

Well, so much for thinking that the UK belongs to the British, the Heckler's Veto at work. And what happens in the future, when ungrateful newcomers gain real political power? Don't think it won't happen. We are beginning to discover the limits to the liberal West's ability to tolerate alien creeds.

Too bad about the kid, and my condolences to the parents. But I'll bet there is already a quote in the press from some Muslim somewhere in Britain about the need to do something about all the "unclean" dogs. If so, the time to slap such alien attitudes down is now.

It seems I put up a little out-of-date information, below is a link to the Derby Arboretum website:

Florentine Boar

The last I'd heard, the boar statue restoration was stopped. This page, around the bottom, says a bronze replica will be in place in 2005. It is to be hoped. Doesn't affect my point, which is that the Religion of Submission must not be accomodated, except in the barest terms--it is folly to extend ourselves on their behalf when it comes to such things as old statues in parks, honor killings, dogs, and etc.

I recall once reading an anecdote about the British Governor-General of India who abolished the practice of suttee - the burning of widows alive on their husbands' funeral pyres. I don't remember the names of either the Governor-General or of the Indian potentate who also figures in the story. At any rate, the potentate was taken aback by the news that this ancient custom was to thereafter be banned.

"Suttee is a very old tradition in my country," the potentate protested.

"In my country it is a very old tradition to hang men who burn women," replied the Governor-General. "I suppose, then, we shall each simply have to observe our traditions as we see fit."

Pity the chap's been dead a century or so. I believe England should return to its tradition of expecting every man to do his duty.

The tragic death of a young man should not be an item of humour