Let’s assume so. The sign says “No Swimming”. Supervised or not, the toddler shouldn’t be in the water.
100% agreed. Parenting isn’t easy, and little kids are difficult to control.
My question is why does the public opinion gavel fall faster for block parents than white ones?
Clearly the child was black in the zoo videos, and within 24 hours photos of the parents started making their rounds online. I saw one Tweet from some blonde white bitch showing a photo of the parents saying “This is what criminals look like.” Whats THAT supposed to mean? We all know!
Trust me, the temperature was turned up once the public found out it was a fat unmarried black woman who was supposed to be watching that kid.
For those of us like you and me who are semi-intelligent.
When I see a “No Swimming” sign, it to me means many things: the body of water could have dangerous undertow, theres no lifeguard on duty, its polluted, theres deep holes near the beach, a million reasons tell me not to get in, let alone let me kid in there.
But, these parents chose to let their 2 year old waddle right in.
But they are a lily white, all-American white couple from Nebraska, so absolutely theres absolutely no reason to blame them for any of this, right? But a fat, unmarried black woman takes her eyes off a 3 year for a second, she’s the worst Mother in the world.
Originally the media reported the kid was grabbed off the beach, now theres something that would have been horrible that no parent could do anything about.
But when the facts came out the parents let him wade in the water with a No Swimming sign, they begrudgingly changed their story. Yet, theres still no outrage at the parents. So no, its not a red herring. It’s a legitimate issue in the story.
I’d suspect that familiarity makes them less skittish. It’s a common thing I’ve seen a lot. In places where there are a lot of people, animals seem bolder than the ones I see out here. Around here, a rabbit runs away the second it notices I looked at it. But other places I’ve seen people walk straight up to them.
In other words, familiarity breeds contempt.
Also there are more tourists in Florida who do stupid things like feed alligators.
If it’s impossible to keep the 7 seas lagoon free of gators, then they need to either keep them off the beaches with fences or netting in the water or something, (yes, even the beaches with “No Swimming” signs), or close the beaches. Sure, closing the beaches will mean Disney is on welfare next winter because their guests might venture off property for a day or two, but right now Iger is the Chairman of Alligator City.
Prejudice.
“No Swimming” means “no swimming,” it doesn’t mean don’t enter the water at all. If the water itself is hazardous, it needs some other kind of warning. If the hazard is alligators, then the sign needs to say “Don’t come within 6 feet of the water.” The kid would have been in almost equal danger if he was on the beach without even dipping a toe in the water. Gators can lunge at least half their body length onto land.
I’m not sure I see the contempt. Do the people in these other places hate bunnies? Or, do the bunnies in these other places hate people?
I’ll go with definition #2 when Googling “contempt” - “disregard for something that should be taken into account.”
So I think the bunnies are the ones with contempt. It explains Bugs’ attitude.
The hotel sets up a large movie screen right on the beach and puts out a bunch of beach chairs so families can sit right on the beach, watching the movie, right next to the man-made lake. A reasonable person would not think the lake must be filled with radioactive plutonium. Or man-eating alligators.
I don’t understand your logic. A mom who lets her kid crawl past a barrier, through some bushes and drop into a 15’ endangered and dangerous animal enclosure is blameless because she’s black, but white parents at a Disney hotel letting their kid splash around in a mad-made lake designed for their enjoyment on family movie night on the beach are the worst parents ever, because they’re white.
As I said, I was just down the “beach” from there the day before this happened. It’s a beautiful beach, and even though I spent a vacation last year watching alligators from a balcony in Texas it didn’t even occur to me that the reason for the “no swimming” sign was because you might get eaten. I actually thought about dipping my toes in it at one point, but didn’t do it simply because the weather was so oppressively hot and muggy.
Honestly, I figured Disney didn’t want the liability of swimmers in the lake, and instead wanted their guests to swim in the (many) pools.
Likely not - according to the alligator experts. There were four big things happening
- It was dusk. Gators feed at dusk
- He was splashing in the water - that drew the attention of the gator
- He was small - while alligators will attack larger prey - they generally go for toddler size or smaller unless provoked
- It was June - alligators are most predatory in May and June as water temperatures rise and they are still hungry from the colder lazy weather.
I’d add five - the expert didn’t - idiots feed gators at Disney World if they see them. In general, animals at Disney are super aggressive - birds and squirrels especially. If the gator was one that got fed on the beach when he was small (Disney tries to remove them from property once they reach three feet - I posted upthread that they take them to a non-populated place on property, but they actually have a year round permit to remove them from property once they reach three feet - and have a full time team of gator wranglers who do that).
Disney has agreed to put up alligator signs. But I have to wonder - a few years ago a kid died from a poisonous snake bite when he was digging around in the bushes. Should they also put a sign in every planting? People from Nebraska probably don’t realize that there are poisonous snakes in Florida that lurk in Disney’s bushes and flower gardens. (The case did not go to trial).
No, it’s not, no matter how much you want it to be to justify your weird fixation on making this a racial issue. The kid did not have to be a foot into the water to be grabbed by the gator. He could have been pulled from the beach, he could have been on the wet sand, he could have been sitting in an inch of water splashing around like toddlers do. Are any of those “swimming?”
According to comments I’ve read online from people who have stayed at this resort, it’s common for guests to let their kids play at the edge of the water and the Disney lifeguards/staff don’t do anything about it. After all, they aren’t actually swimming. I’ve been to countless beaches, both ocean and lake, where swimming isn’t allowed and you will always find people playing at the edge of the water.
Only one of those four factors, the splashing, was dependent on the kid being in the water instead of on the beach. He still would have been at risk at the edge of the water even without going in, which was my point.
Here in Panama we have lots of 10-foot crocs in Lake Gatun. While there have been only a few cases of attacks of humans, I have heard of crocs lunging out of the water to take a dog walking along the edge.
There are several large hotels on the lake catering to international tourists. I don’t recall seeing any “beware of crocodiles” signs. But the lake is not that inviting for swimming, being fairly muddy and murky.
Maybe the invasive Burmese pythons are stressing them out, and they take their frustrations out on humans.
Crocs tend to be way more aggressive than gators. It isn’t unknown that a gator will lunge like that six feet up the beach, but it isn’t likely that it would have, nor is it likely that without the splashing, the attention would have been drawn.
(I still don’t go near the water or into the bushes if I lose my ball on a Florida golf course) - and the chairs on a Disney beach are set a good fifteen or twenty feet from the water at least by staff - although guests move them.
Seeing Malthus’ name, made me think of fences for some reason… 
Someone else mentioned a fence. Seems like a low decorative fence a couple of feet up from the shoreline would have been a wonderful deterrent - not only to keep the public from entering the water, but also to keep the gators from surprising someone at the waterline. Not sure something a couple of feet tall and decorative would have ruined the view, and it would have enforced a boundary.
If I were a plaintiff’s atty, I’d be showing the miles and miles of fencing erected by Disney, and ask why they couldn’t have installed a couple hundred yds more here.
I don’t think I’ve seen it addressed plainly, the crocodilians in the Jungle Cruise are animatronic, right? :eek: