ElvisL1ves - we’re never in complete control of our vehicle. Other drivers (crocs) may run us off the roads, or we may hit an oil slick in the road and careen to our fiery death.
I perhaps am a little biased given my knowledge of how easy it is to die on the roads. If you were in my town, and knew how many unlicensed drivers were on the road, you might not step into your car and strap your new-born into the backseat. Taking a calculated risk, though - you probably would do so.
The value is showing your baby (in a calculated risk, where-in you didn’t feel the child was in danger) what you do for a job.
What now? Are we going to pit the parents who “teach” their kids to swim by throwing them into the pool? I’ve seen it, and it’s not pretty. I’m not prepared to put Steve on the “worst parent of the year” list.
Well, I would need more details on the skydiving and playing in the street - but I’ll tell you what would happen in Memphis if the ole croc man had his kid taken from him, nah, I’ll skip that part and just say that the kid would be better off helping feed the crocs on a regular basis than going to HHS around here.
No, if Irwin and his wife were ok with this, well, they should be left alone. You probably ought to concentrate on your kids.
I don’t think the baby should be taken away, I’m just kind of stunned by the blase attitudes people seem to have about this because he’s a “crocodile expert”. It was a stupid stunt, whether you’re a native Australian crocodile expert or some schlub from the Bronx on vacation in Queensland.
I would have to disagree. If it was a moron at the Bronx Zoo I think it would be a completely different situation than Irwin doing it. Personally, I doubt I would have done it, but then I am not Irwin.
As for them “blase” attitudes, well, that’s typing for you.
Blonde, you’re a fucking idiot. Crocodiles are infinitely more dangerous than cars, even taking into account Irwin’s experience. Besides, and I don’t know how you haven’t comprehended this yet, motor vehicles are an every day risk that nearly all people will encounter every day of their lives. Of course you should try and reduce the chance of an accident - and as far as I’m concerned, anyone who doesn’t put a seat belt on their kids is a moron and probably breaking the law. But, there is absolutely no reason for a kid to be around a crocodile, particularly a 1 month old baby.
Are you ignoring what you’re being told, or are you a blithering idiot? Some risks have to be taken. Some don’t. Some risks have to be assessed on behalf of others, like one’s own baby. The risk did not have to be taken. Got it?
A one-month-old baby has that kind of developed curiosity? There’s the answer, then: You’re a blithering idiot. Let’s hope you never have kids - for their sake, that is. You’re a Darwin Award waiting to happen.
I’d like a nice, juicy cite for that, hopefully taking into account Irwin’s expertise.
Come to that, has a cite been presented that the kid was in any danger at all? It seems that about half of us know that the kid was in grave danger, but the supposed expert didn’t know this. What is more likely, the expert is wrong, or you all?
Photo. That good enough to show the danger for ya, pal? Spoofe, where are those precautions you speak of? Good Gawdamighty, I hope none of you idiots have spawn of your own.
Well, I doubt very seriously that being a parent gives anyone the expertise to tell another parent what to do or not do with their own children. Irwin and his wife were ok with this. They are the parents. Some of you people need to lighten up about an event concerning a father and his child.
county, who gives a fuck if the parents were ok with it.
Read these boards for a day and you will see horrific shit that peoples parents were “ok with”. Their being ok with it is beside the fucking point.
Noone is calling for this guys kid to be taken from him, noone is saying he is the worst parent of the year, noone is saying the child almost died. All they are saying (those who are saying it) is that he is a fucking dork for taking an unneccessary risk, even if there was only a 1% chance of the baby getting even hurt, it was still a pointless risk.
Iteki sez: “who gives a fuck if the parents were ok with it”
Well if you don’t, you should give a fuck if the parents were ok with it, because that is how children are raised. Parents take “unnecessary” risks with children every day in a variety of ways. Risks are part of growing up.
No, this one happened to be on TV so a lot of people had to come unglued. Much ado about jack-shit.
Re Siegfried and Roy, I don’t think either of them has any regrets about their career path. Given the option of giving up their cats or risk dying to keep them, they’d undoubtedly choose the latter. Some people would rather die trying to fly than to never fly at all.
I think they are BOTH calculated risks. An experienced driver takes a risk driving an infant about. They control their car (themselves and by default the infant). They cannot control the other drivers (crock) Who are by nature unpredictable. I being an experienced driver can predict that the other drivers will obey the rules and act as they always have in the situatiion. Irwin knew what the hell the crock would do in that situation; as much as you do when you drive. Infants are NOT as fragile as popular culture and marketing would like you to believe.
ElvisL1ves - don’t call me a blithering idiot again.
The vast majority of the posters on this board are NOT police officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses or paramedics. If our child was drowning in the back yard pool, trapped upstairs in a house fire, snatched off the street…we’re probably all less experienced to handle those specific situations than Steve was. Got it now?
gex gex - same thing. Don’t call me a fucking idiot. Care to go look up vehicle fatalities?
On the scale of dumb things to do with your kid, this ranks right up there with the field trip to the crack house.
Still, it was no different than what Jackson did, but lucky for Irwin he’s not perceived as a pederastic malcontent and all around freak, so the end result in the press is bound to be better for him.
Do I think he should be punished or the kid taken away? Nope. People do unspeakable things to their children in the name of things much less noble than wildlife education.
Seriously, what about the crack babies and kids with cigarette burns on their arms and legs, who have to use the stove for heat and live in the company of rats and roaches, hell, what this twit did was tame by comparison.
Stupid risk, no doubt, but as many have pointed out, a calculated one. Let the dude be, if he wants to feed his kid to a croc, it’s up to him.
Blonde, he shouldn’t have put the kid at risk at all. That has been explained to you enough times by enough people that it can only be concluded you’re a blithering idiot.
PunditLisa, you’re probably right. Siegfried, Roy, and Steve all chose their careers and accepted the risks involved. A baby cannot do so, though.
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned it, but the Irwins’ act, for all its veneer of conservation, is essentially a circus side-show - the man rassles with dangerous critters for our amusement.
I don’t buy his explaination that he was teaching his kid about crocs. As several have pointed out, babies can’t learn that stuff, and I think Steve knows it.
So why did he do it? I think, to “up the ante” for his show. People are used to him rasslin’ with dangerous critters - it no longer shocks; we expect him to “know what he is doing” and get out un-eaten. Now, be amazed and shocked as Steve rassles dangerous critters while holding his baby!. [Yes, I know he only fed the crock. But still.]
In other words, a publicity stunt. People will now watch Steve, wondering what crazy-ass stunt he will pull next. Better ratings for Steve; more cash for his family.
I myself think it inappropriate to use kids as a prop for a show, whether it is dangerous or not; much more so, if there is an element of danger to it. Knowing nothing about crocs, I can’t say whether it is really dangerous or not. It certainly has the appearance of danger, which is why people watch his show in the first place.
In other words, more of a cynical self-interested move than stupidity - if the ratings for his show grow as a result.