steve irwin - off his croc-er

[mantis]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
And they are ALL Dockers Supporters.

That is cruelty at it's most hideous.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by mantis
That is cruelty at it's most hideous.

Why did I just know you would say that?

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
Why did I just know you would say that?

You're just Psycho I guess, oops, psychic.

 

[Dasher39]

This is the biggest beat up possible. Now people are comparing him with Jacko, how ridiculously unfair for Steve. He is NOTHING like that freak. Steve Irwin is a PROFESSIONAL wildlife handler, people who dont like what he did, take another look at this word, PROFESSIONAL!! He has been doing this for over 20 years, he knows what he is doing. Does this mean whenever a father takes a newborn to their workplace they are a bad parent. I saw footage of Glenn McGrath at the nets at the SCG, I hope he didnt take his kid in their, he would be labelled a bad parent

The fact is, while Steve loves his Crocs, he loves his kids even more and if there was any danger to the kid he wouldnt have done it, and he said in an interview "I was in complete control"

As Steve said, he did the same thing with Bindi and NO ONE said anything, why the beat up this time??

And a bit of advice for new parents, or parents with new borns...dont take your newborn to the Zoo, you would be a bad parent, just think of the danger you would be putting them in.

 

[Fishfinger]

Michael Jackson is spewing. He would have organised a pool of pirahna's or a crocodile pit to be under his balcony if he knew he'd be outdone so soon. In his defence though at least he dangled his baby by the arms.
Steve will need to do something really dangerous and scarey to better this effort, like take the baby on a Frankston bound train after dark.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Did anyone just watch the special on ACA?? An interview wityh Steve Irwin, and to be perfectly honest I felt very sorry for him after watching how passionate and heartfelt his explanations of the incident were. While it is true it may have looked careless, he is totally correct in saying that the public, as outsiders, have little to no idea of the environment he lives in, is surrounded by and raises his kids in everyday.

Interesting to see they interviewed numerous people who witnessed the incident, and all them said the same thing: no one felt the child was in any danger, and the media's view of it was completely biased and unfair (surprise surprise). He had numerous 'spotters' in the audience watching the croc's moves closely and informing him through his headset, and I think a lot of people are looking at it from the surface and tarring him with a brush that perhaps isn't warranted.

 

[Thrawn]

All a media beat-up IMO... especially evident when they made a comparision towards Michael Jackson. Yes, what he did was risky and stupid. but he is a professional after all and has been tempting danger all his life without any serious concenquences. Well, maybe this time there will be one, but I do agree with him on the fact that his children should be aware of their surroundings considering that they live near dangerous creatures. But, not at an age as young though... he did a stupid thing, but he doesn't deserve all this media beat-up.

 

[Fire]

Did anyone just watch the special on ACA??

Have you ever known a Current Affairs show to interview, or even acknowledge, anyone opposing their chosen viewpoint?

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Originally posted by Fire
Have you ever known a Current Affairs show to interview, or even acknowledge, anyone opposing their chosen viewpoint?

I'll take that as a "No".

I don't rate ACA very highly either, but they let Irwin have his say in a live cross, even though it was obvious the interviewer didn't agree with his explanations.

 

[JUBJUB]

Originally posted by Petrie Dish
I'll take that as a "No".

I don't rate ACA very highly either, but they let Irwin have his say in a live cross, even though it was obvious the interviewer didn't agree with his explanations.

Nice to see Tracey try to match outfits with Steve.
How many times did he call her "mate" ?

 

[Mead]

I think it really comes down to two questions.

Do you think Steve Irwin would knowingly put his 3 month son in serious danger for no good reason? Unless you think he is a really heinous, evil person, the obvious answer is no.
So instead, people are saying that he put the baby in a situation where he was recklessly exposing the baby to serious injury because he didn't think things through and appreciate the risks.

If you agree with that, fair enough, you obviously feel you have a better understanding of the danger his baby was in than he did. In other words, Steve Irwin didn't think that the crocodile was dangerous to his son, but you, the seasoned observer, know better and think that misguided Steve put his son in a dangerous situation without realising.

Hold on- are you seriously suggesting that you know more about crocodiles than Steve Irwin? If not, how do you know that the baby was in danger? Steve, who has probably more practical experience dealing with crocs than anyone on the planet, didn't think there was any danger, but you think there was?
The thing missing from every sanctimonious **** who has put in their two cents about what a bad parent Steve Irwin is, is a shred of practical experience with crocodiles, and ergo, any real understanding of the situation.
In the absence of any person with greater expertise in this field than Steve Irwin stepping in and saying there was actually any real danger, any criticism of his actions is about on par with someone who has lived in the Sahara Desert all their life criticising a parent for recklessly teaching their child to swim in their backyard pool.

 

[Fire]

In the absence of any person with greater expertise in this field than Steve Irwin stepping in and saying there was actually any real danger, any criticism of his actions is about on par with someone who has lived in the Sahara Desert all their life criticising a parent for recklessly teaching their child to swim in their backyard pool.

That isnt the best analogy. His excuse that 'He must teach his children about Crocks' was clutching at straws. Bit too young, plus a lot of other parents in Queensland do not... 'teach' their children like that.

Would you be saying that a crash expert would not be wreckless in placing his two year old child a meter meter infront of a cars estimated breaking distaince for entertainment is not wreckless? Just because he is an expert?

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by Fire
That isnt the best analogy. His excuse that 'He must teach his children about Crocks' was clutching at straws. Bit too young, plus a lot of other parents in Queensland do not... 'teach' their children like that.

Would you be saying that a crash expert would not be wreckless in placing his two year old child a meter meter infront of a cars estimated breaking distaince for entertainment is not wreckless? Just because he is an expert?

I would say that again it comes down to two possibilities.. That either the crash expert was an evil person putting his child in danger, and he knew it... Or that he thought there was no real risk, and that in the absence of me knowing more about the situation than him, its none of my business.

A better analogy would be a physicist performing the conservation of energy experiment with a pendulum- (take a bowling ball, attach to a rope hanging from ceiling, pull pendulum up to within a few inches of child's nose, release, and let it swing back)
To a layperson that might look extremely dangerous- they might be outraged that the physicist could so callously expose their child to a situation where they are in danger of having their head cracked like an egg by the bowling ball, but the physicist knows that unless the laws of physics momentarily suspend themselves, there isn't actually any real danger.

 

[Fire]

To a layperson that might look extremely dangerous- they might be outraged that the physicist could so callously expose their child to a situation where they are in danger of having their head cracked like an egg by the bowling ball, but the physicist knows that unless the laws of physics momentarily suspend themselves, there isn't actually any real danger.

But in this example it is physically impossible for the kid to get hurt. What Steve Irwin did was reletivly safe, but there was STILL an element of danger in it, where something could have gone wrong. No matter how small the odds, it is still stupid to put your kid in danger, which he did, just for a possibility stunt.

 

[The Passenger]

aside from Bam and Sadam (which everyone is over now) and Waugh (which is sport) there really isn't much newsowrthy stuff so the papers need to beat soething up to sell.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by Fire
But in this example it is physically impossible for the kid to get hurt. What Steve Irwin did was reletivly safe, but there was STILL an element of danger in it, where something could have gone wrong. No matter how small the odds, it is still stupid to put your kid in danger, which he did, just for a possibility stunt.

Yeah, those possibility stunts are a real bitch.


Just stop for a second, and reassess this statement-

"What Steve Irwin did was reletivly safe, but there was STILL an element of danger in it, where something could have gone wrong. No matter how small the odds, it is still stupid to put your kid in danger"

Do you honestly believe that? There is always an element of danger in absolutely any activity with a child. in my example, someone could rush out and grab the weight and throw it back at the child, or a mysterious gust of wind could catch it, or the child could leap out of their parents hands and try and headbutt the bowling ball etc etc etc.

Letting children play in a public park exposes them to an enormous number of possible dangers. Driving anywhere with your children in the car exposes them to elements of dangers. Allowing them to get up in the morning exposes them to elements of dangers, as does letting them sleep.

So assuming you aren't advocating locking your children in a padded cell until they become legal adults, I guess what you mean is that the element of danger in this particular instance is greater than those a child would experience in the course of 'normal' activities?
So, in other words, you're back to arguing that you have a better understanding of how dangerous a crocodile in that situation is than someone who has been dealing with them on a daily basis for several decades? Alarm bells are ringing...

 

[Fire]

Obviously you need to take risks if you plan to live a day in your life.

But there are risks, like getting in a car and driving down the street, or playing in a part, and there are risks like holding your child while you feed crocidiles.

Can you see the differaince?

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Fire
Obviously you need to take risks if you plan to live a day in your life.

But there are risks, like getting in a car and driving down the street, or playing in a part, and there are risks like holding your child while you feed crocidiles.

Can you see the differaince?

Driving the car is probably more dangerous. This is backed up with statistics. I know of no child that has been killed while his/her parent has been feeding a crocodile .

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by Fire
Obviously you need to take risks if you plan to live a day in your life.

But there are risks, like getting in a car and driving down the street, or playing in a part, and there are risks like holding your child while you feed crocidiles.

Can you see the differaince?

..... Such a big backtrack in such a short time.

" But in this example it is physically impossible for the kid to get hurt. What Steve Irwin did was reletivly safe, but there was STILL an element of danger in it, where something could have gone wrong. No matter how small the odds, it is still stupid to put your kid in danger, which he did, just for a possibility stunt. "

But anyway, the answer is, no I can't see the difference, I have absolutely no idea what risk there actually was to Steve's baby in this instance, because I'm not prepared to put my opinion as a complete layperson against that of someone with perhaps the more practical experience of dealing with crocodiles than anybody in the world.
All you and those like you are really saying is that, based on some second hand footage you saw of something you have absolutely no understanding of, you think you saw somebody you know nothing about expose their child to a greater risk than what you think is reasonable. Ignorance and arrogance going hand in hand...

 

[Fire]

Checkmate.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by Fire
Checkmate.

..yes, its good that you know that.

 

[Fire]

..... Such a big backtrack in such a short time.

Backtrack??? Have you comprehended anything I haave said?

The idfferaince is that one is necesary. You need to drive places. Kids need to play in the park. But you do not need to hold your kid whilst feeding a crocodile.

All you and those like you are really saying is that, based on some second hand footage you saw of something you have absolutely no understanding of, you think you saw somebody you know nothing about expose their child to a greater risk than what you think is reasonable. Ignorance and arrogance going hand in hand...

When I see it I see a man who puts his child at risk, regardless of how experianced he may be, in the name of publicity to further his career.

What pleople like you are saying is that you saw something, Thought that you had no idea on the issue and assumed that someone who is more experianced would know better. You cant see things for yourself.

FFS, He was needlessly holding his child while he was feeding a crocodile. Evveryone makes mistakes, even Steve. How many times has he been bitten by a crocodile or a snake? If he made one of his rare mistakes, and it was the baby in the corcks mouth and not himself....

No matter how experianced you are, or how much you know what you are doing, thisgs still go wrong.

 

[Fire]

BTW, the checkmate comment was directed at Ripper.

In the 5 seconds it took me to post it, your reply came up.

From now on I will quote everything.

 

[Mead]

Originally posted by Fire
Backtrack??? Have you comprehended anything I haave said?

The idfferaince is that one is necesary. You need to drive places. Kids need to play in the park. But you do not need to hold your kid whilst feeding a crocodile.



When I see it I see a man who puts his child at risk, regardless of how experianced he may be, in the name of publicity to further his career.

What pleople like you are saying is that you saw something, Thought that you had no idea on the issue and assumed that someone who is more experianced would know better. You cant see things for yourself.

FFS, He was needlessly holding his child while he was feeding a crocodile. Evveryone makes mistakes, even Steve. How many times has he been bitten by a crocodile or a snake? If he made one of his rare mistakes, and it was the baby in the corcks mouth and not himself....

No matter how experianced you are, or how much you know what you are doing, thisgs still go wrong.

...Yes, we've been here before. There is a risk involved in absolutely everything. So, if we follow your entertaining logic to its next progression, its okay to expose kids to risks as long as they're necessary? Well come now, allowing kids to play in a park is hardly necessary. etc etc etc.
All we've established is there was a tiny risk in this as in all activites, but one which steve, based on his experience, felt was so minimal as to not be serious.
What people like me are saying is we saw something and *knew* that in this instance the person making this decision was better able to judge the risk than us, so rather than pretend to ourselves and the world that we know about something we don't, we left it at that.
If you feel that by tapping into your deep stores of ignorance and taking your cue from such philosophical luminaries as Ray Martin to express an opinion about something you know nothing about,
you have somehow qualified for a pat on the back for 'thinking for yourself', then, well, bully for you.

 

[myee8]

Originally posted by Petrie Dish
...I don't rate ACA very highly either, but they let Irwin have his say in a live cross, even though it was obvious the interviewer didn't agree with his explanations.

What a surprise.