People are comparing Steve Irwin’s carrying his month-old son tucked under one arm while feeding meat to a croc (Crikey!) to Michael Jackson’s dangling his son over a balcony.
There is no comparison. To Irwin, it’s the equivalent of “Take your child to work” day. He’s so confident that nothing could go wrong that he perceives no danger.
Except these are wild animals we’re talking about, something *could* go wrong, and he shouldn’t do it again because it’s just plain asking for trouble.
Michael Jackson, on the other hand, was just plain nuts. Bringing your month old baby along to your work environment, albeit a hazardous one, is simply not the same as dangling your infant over a three story drop just for laughs, and I’m still furious that the German police didn’t arrest him.
Jackson remains a frustration for me. I’ve always been a major proponent in separating the person from the art. I’m the first one to say that you shouldn’t allow personal antipathy to color your enjoyment of the work. But Jackson’s personal life, from his creepy facial metamorphosis to his horrific risk of that infant, has made it so I can’t even watch his older stuff which I used to enjoy a hëll of a lot. That bugs me, because I want to be able to hold true to the philosophies I espouse. But in his case, I really, really can’t.
PAD
• 
My biggest problem with Irwin is that there is no good reason on earth for him to do what he did other than a cheap publicity stunt or to prove his own manhood at the expense of the unnecessary risking of his child’s life.
Gotta agree, and this is from someone who has benefited from Mr Irwin’s videos (they make a good 10 minute diversion in bio class, where the general consensus among my students is that he’s “the craziest white man on TV”).
I just don’t see what was supposed to be gained. The kid’s too young to learn anything from the experience so it had to be for the benefit of we the viewer. And the only “thrill” for us is in the knowledge that the kid is a few feet away from a creature with a brain about the size of a small walnut. And a crocodile. (rimshot! Thank you! I’m here all week!)
Seriously, Steve had to know we would all think that that kid was in danger. He was right. What amazes me is that he didn’t forsee the reaction.
Can’t say any of this comes as a shock since we are talking about the guy who went looking for Spitting Cobras with a pair of dainty John Lenon type glasses as opposed to what I would use, which would be enormous bulbuous things that would make me look like I went though a transporter with a fly. Also, I’d be wearing them while sitting on my couch, as far away from any continent that actually has spitting cobras as is geographically possible.
And someone else pointed that his stance was a guarded, prepared one. I could see it too. Roy was supremely confident, and it cost him. Irwin KNOWS something can always go wrong. He went in with both eyes open, and the croc at arm’s length. If anything, the croc would have gone for HIM instead of the baby, giving the handlers time to grab the kid.
Once again Bovine Excrement. Roy was considered to be one of the most knowledgable people on the planet in dealing with those tigers, he was performing an act he had done probably hundreds of times, the exact same way he had done it hundreds of times with the exact same tiger he had used in the show for 7 years. The alleged cockyness you refer to was part of his act, for the benifit of thrilling the audience much the same way the croc hunter does things on his videos to thrill the audience. People who actually know about the tigers and how the act worked did not see anything Roy did that was out of line or careless on his part, the supposed mistakes were for the benifit of the audience and something the cat was supposed to be aware of and be trained to react to. But hey quess what, he’s a wild animal and sometimes animals, even trained animals, don’t react the way humans think they will. Oh and Roy had handlers offstage too, didn’t really help him. Unless STeve had Superman, The Flash and Quicksilver off camera I don’t see how any human being could have have been fast enough to pull the baby out of harms way if the croc lept for it. Tell me honestly, Would you defend a fireman if he ran into a burning building with an infint straped to his back just because he was excuting the proper firemans crawl and there were other firemen outside ready to jump in and rescue the kid if things got to hot, and, oh yeah, he’s an expert firefighter who really knows what he’s doing? How about Would you defend the croc hunters actions if it was your infant son he was holding?
My, pissy today, eh Darrien?
Again, there’s a difference between a fire, which is, in most cases, unpredictable because no two situations are alike, and what Irwin did, which was a controlled environment dealing with an animal he’d dealt with likely hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
Both are forces of nature, but a mind one has known for years is infinitely easier to predict than the interior of a building one has never been in.
As I said before, and will say again since you’re apparently BLIND, what he did was inexcusible, but, in its own way, safer than what Jackson pulled.
And to further illustrate the dfferences… Firemen are trained to not put people in danger. Irwin, however, lives in a zoo with any number of wild animals, and, if nothing else, he needs to learn to adapt his lifestyle with the kid there. He’s an idiot, but a trained idiot learning that it’s not smart to bring his kid to work.
James Asked: “For all those people out there who say that they would “trust” Steve Irwin to take care of his own child because he’s a professional, I’d just ask — would you be so trusting if he asked if he could take YOUR child with him instead of his own? In fact, would you trust him if he invited YOU? “
Yes, completely, totally and implictly.
Your doctor is only human, do you trust him to perform surgery on you?
Steve knew the croc he was dealing with, if it had been Agro, then yes, Steve would be nuts to take the baby in with him.
Besides, considering how much he has shown on his TV shows with his first child, Bindi, how much do you imagine his kids interact with these dangerous animals off-screen, and on a regular basis.
Based on the condemnation you people are heaping on him, None of you are allowed to take your children anywhere in your cars, because there could be an accident AT ANY TIME! No matter how safe a driver you are!
Oh, and no cribs, kid could die of SIDS. Oh, and better have prefoessional doctors and microbiologists test each and every single thing your kid eats too…
This incident is why we need more “island nations” owned and run by individuals with the governments of the world minding their own dámņ business…
Your doctor is only human, do you trust him to perform surgery on you?
IF the surgery is necessary, yes. But if any doctor said to me “I want to perform a very dangerous surgery on you. You don’t need it, you won’t have any benefit from it, but I’ve got a med student who’s never seen it before and I’ll get paid extra for it.” NO WAY. There was no reason for Irwin’s stunt other than titillating the crowd and extra publicity.
Based on the condemnation you people are heaping on him, None of you are allowed to take your children anywhere in your cars, because there could be an accident AT ANY TIME! No matter how safe a driver you are!
Again, this misses the point. Good parents do take _necessary_ slight risks for the benefit of their children. This stunt was not necessary for anything but Irwin’s enormous ego and lining his pocketbook. It certainly did not benefit his infant son. One month olds can’t learn anything about being “croc savvy” and won’t remember any “sensory experience” in any detail. And the risk was in no way slight.
Again, there’s a difference between a fire, which is, in most cases, unpredictable because no two situations are alike, and what Irwin did, which was a controlled environment dealing with an animal he’d dealt with likely hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
Every been on a movie set when they are filming a fire and/or explosion scene. Carefully controller situations supervised by professionals who have done it hundreds if not thousands of times. And if someone put an infint in the middle of that situation they would be arrested imediatly even if the infint was unharmed. We wouldn’t even be debating it, the crocodile situation is no different.
Both are forces of nature, but a mind one has known for years is infinitely easier to predict than the interior of a building one has never been in.
See above.
He’s an idiot, but a trained idiot learning that it’s not smart to bring his kid to work.
Yes he’s an idiot, but he’s an idoit that deserves to have his kid taken away, (at the very least).
You people are always in a hurry to take people’s children away but you never seem to want to take care of them yourselves…
Separating the person from the art is something I know I should do, but I have a hard time with it.
One odd thing is that it’s usually easier with folks who aren’t performers. Pablo Picasso, Walt Disney, Roman Polanski, Frank Lloyd Wright…none of these are people I’d want hanging out in my house (especially the three of them who are dead), but I can admire their work. But for a performer like Michael Jackson, to some extent their look, their interaction with the public is their work. And whenever I look at him or hear him, whether the way he is now or the way he was when he was black, the thought that flashes through my mind now is train wreck.
I think Gerry was right when he talked about necessary vs. unnecessary risks. We may be putting our kids at risk when they have surgery, or drive in the car, or we carry them… but these are necessary for the child’s life. What was necessary about Bill Irwin bringing his baby into a dangerous situation? (And being in the same area as a crocodile that’s feet aren’t bound, that’s mouth isn’t tied shut, and that isn’t separated from you by any barrier is a VERY dangerous situation.) What was the benefit to the child here? I climb up a lot of ladders at my job, and if a child wants to watch me that’s fine; it doesn’t mean that I’m going to bring any one-year-old child up there with me.
As for separating the artist from the art, it really depends on the artist. Sometimes I don’t know the personal beliefs or politics of some of my favorite artists — I don’t know what the Old 97’s think of Iraq, or what Orson Scott Card’s religious beliefs are — and I still enjoy their work. Sometimes I can separate things they’ve done or thought from their work (Lovecraft was anti-Semitic and Thomas Pynchon is pretty paranoid, but I love their writing) without problem. Unfortunately, sometimes artists make it IMPOSSIBLE to ignore their personal lives. Sinead O’Connor ripping up the Pope’s picture, the Dixie Chicks absolutely blasting President Bush, Michael Jackson’s, well, every action and utterance since the 1980s… these are so public, so in-your-face, that it’s almost impossible to separate the person from their work. It’s just something every fan has to decide for themselves, if they need to know or, if they can’t avoid knowing, if it’s more important than the work.
Alas, no easy answer for this issue.
Darren, your idea of “necessary” risk is flawed. It’s necessary to take your children to school or day care and back, but where else do they need to go? Do you leave them in the care of a child-care professional everytime you go someplace other than the educational facility? Can’t grandma and grandpa drive over to see them?
Not all risk we take with children is necessary. Letting your child out of your sight for even a moment is the worst risk you can take; a baby could suddenly swallow its own tongue, a toddler could trip and fall on something presumed safe or simply mutilate himself on a mundane object out of simple curiosity.
So, compare mundane life, where a person often faces risks of which they are largely ignorant from areas of life in which they can hardly be considered experts, from the operation of a motor vehicle to advanced electrical engineering, to Steve Irwin’s zoo-oriented life, in which he is a genuine expert in all that surrounds him, being the chief animal handler at the zoo.
You’re insisting there’s a massive unnecessary risk in putting a baby on the same side of a cage with a crocodile, but considering what Steve Irwin knows about it, is the risk that great? True, his control of the situation could never be “absolute” as it’s been suggested; he could trip, lose his grip on the baby, and a small number of other things that could have gone wrong resulting in injury or death for the baby. The thing is, what about the average person carrying a baby through the kitchen? There are knives and a hard floor and sharp corners, and the average person, holding a baby with one hand and preparing food with the other, could trip or lose his grip on the baby or a small number of other things could go wrong, resulting in injury or death of the baby.
So, really, the risk of both is the same, the potential harm is comparable; sure, the kitchen won’t eat the baby with its chainsaw-like jaws or rend its flesh with its virtually unstoppable claws, but that baby can be hurt or killed just the same. So, really, you’re not bothered by the risk (unless you think all people who carry their baby in one arm while they do something else with the other should have their babies taken from them, and if you do, I hope you’ve got a lot of foster homes lined up), you’re bothered by the means of death. A crocodile in a controlled environment isn’t that much more dangerous for a baby than a kitchen, it’s just more violent. You’re horrified at the prospect of a crocodile eating a human baby, and you assume that the presence of a crocodile automatically endangers a child. It’s true that the presence of a crocodile increases the likelyhood of the child being eaten by a crocodile, but only because chances are slim when there’s not a crocodile around.
As for the insinuation that Irwin only did this as a stunt; I’m not so sure. There are plenty of reasons he could have done it that had nothing to do with publicity. I didn’t see the news coverage, so I can’t say for certain, but I don’t see how you can say he doesn’t just want the croc and baby to be comfortable with one another. That animal is as comfortable with Steve as it can be; it knows him by scent and behavior. He probably wants to acclimate his children to the zoo as much as he is. They are, after all, going to grow up there.
If Steve had done this without a cameraman and it was just an intimate affair for his family and friends who work at the zoo, and we just heard about it after the fact, would the reaction be this harsh?
I’ve re-read the article about it, and there’s one thing I do take issue with on Steve’s account: The police that visited him didn’t discuss child endangerment with him but allowing unauthorized personell into the crocodile pen. In that, they have a good point. Then again, he and his wife have a point that since the area they live in has a number of crocodiles in it, not to mention the ones at the zoo, their children need to be “croc-savvy.” His options were a zoo croc and a wild one. I know which I’d prefer.
Aaron: He’s well trained, fast enough to get away if something goes wrong, and has handlers standing by to help in the event of an emergency. Those guys are almost as fast as Irwin himself.
Luigi Novi: The croc’s faster.
The fact that Steve is fast means he might get away. You could even be generous and say it is likely, or even more probable than not that he’ll get away. But to say that it’s a certainty, as if the croc like a snail, or something, is arrogant presumption, the kind that can get you killed, or worse, that kid.
Liana: Please, stop with the comparisons between Steve Irwin and Roy Horn. Roy was on stage in front of a huge audience that was out of his control. Didn’t Steve have just a few other people around, including his trained wife and a trained cameraman?
Luigi Novi: What does who else was present have to do with it? Roy Horn is an expert who supposedly knows what he was doing, just as Irwin.
Liana: Roy was behaving cockily because that’s what his public expected. An example? Oh, how about the way he hit the tiger’s nose with his microphone right before he was bitten?
Luigi Novi: Roy wasn’t injured because he was cocky, or because he hit Montecore on the nose. He was injured, as I understand, because he tripped, perhaps due to the stroke he suffered, and because of one of these things, Montecore perceived Roy to be in danger, grabbed him around the throat in his mouth and dragged him off stage to instinctively protect him.
Liana: I agree with PAD — although I think Steve took a risk, I don’t think Steve thought it was a risk.
Luigi Novi: Neither did Michael Jackson. Which is why they were both irresponsible.
Joesph: No, my purpose in mentioning Terri in regards to the topic was that PAD, at no point, mentioned her “complicity” in this horror/fiasco
Luigi Novi: Okay, I see what you meant. Yeah, you’re right. He gets the emphasis because he’s the star, the footage is of him, he actually did the deed, and he’s the more famous one.
Gerry: Is taking your child into the crocodile cage different from taking them scuba diving? Obviously I’ve never taking either one of my kids near a 300 lb reptile, but they have touched sharks while swimming in the ocean. Remember, that each parent weighs the need to protect a child against the need to give them experiences that they’ll cherish forever.
Luigi Novi: First, no one takes one-month old infants scuba diving to touch sharks. Kids are generally much older than that, old enough to learn to swim, to follow direction, and to form memories of the event to “cherish.” The infant can do none of this. Second, sharks don’t generally attack humans, and even in the rare instances in which they do, they invariably vomit whatever human flesh they ingest, because humans don’t taste good to sharks. I’m also guessing the ones that you touch are the smaller ones, not the huge variety. Crocodiles, on the other hand WILL attack and eat humans and enjoy it so much that they’ll keep it down.
So the analogy is entirely false in every possible aspect.
Paul F. P. Pogue: I do have to wonder if everyone here who is an instant expert on the behavior of wild animals has anywhere near the level of expertise Steve does on this matter.
Luigi Novi: Ad hominem. The idea that “oh, he’s an expert, so he knows what he’s doing” is a fallacy. As Mark Twain reportedly said, “An expert is just some guy from out of town.” Any given assertion or point of argument rises or falls on its merits, not on whether the guy “is an expert.” To act as if experts necessarily know what they’re doing, when many, if not most so-called “experts” aren’t qualified to šhìŧ into a toilet, is to give a moral and intellectual blank check because you simply don’t want to assert that they might just be wrong. How many accidents, deaths and disasters happen in the presence of “experts”? Weren’t the designers of the Titanic experts? And her captain? How about the pilot of the Hindenberg? The engineers who work on space shuttles? The guys who made that King Kong balloon for Kong’s 50th anniversary to hang off the Empire State Building that kept falling apart? All the writers, directors and actors who create every single Hollywood box office bomb? Are we to believe that every single TV show cancelled before its time is created by amateurs?
When Sharon Stone’s then-husband Phil Bronstein wanted to step inside a komodo dragon cage at the zoo, he was advised by the zookeeper—an EXPERT, mind you—that he should take off his white tennis shoes so that he dragon wouldn’t mistake it for the white rats usually fed to him, and try to eat his foot. Bronstein did so.
The reptile attacked Bronstein’s shoeless foot, crushing his big toe while thrashing its body around, and severing tendons. So much for expertise. And yes, Roy Horn is also an expert who’s worked with the tigers for decades. Cops get shot to death on the job. Chernobyl was manned “experts.” So was the Union Carbide factory in India. Hëll, so are the government and U.N. institutions who squander or even lose billions of dollars.
So speaking as a wildlife layman, let me say that if Irwin is an expert, then he should know that BRINGING A MONTH-OLD CHILD INTO A CROCODILE CAGE TO FEED IT IS INSURMOUNTABLY STUPID, BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMETHING MIGHT GO WRONG. Expertise may be needed to draw conclusions on technical matters, but it isn’t omnipotence or perfection, nor a wellspring of basic common sense, which is something that is often in short supply among experts and laymen alike, and that idea that a layman cannot opine on such NON-TECHNICAL things like the stupidity of bringing a baby into a croc cage is bûllšhìŧ.
Paul F. P. Pogue: An awful lot of statements and accusations that Steve didn’t know what he was doing are being made as if they were absolute gospel…
Luigi Novi: I haven’t heard or read anyone say that he didn’t know what he was doing. The problem is that what he did was dumb.
Aaron: Still a fool for doing it, but it’s trained for that kind of situation.
Luigi Novi: No, he’s trained to feed crocodiles. He is NOT trained to feed crocodiles while holding a month-old infant in one of his arms.
Aaron: Not the point. I’m saying that, god forbid, my child had to be carried through an area filled with wild animals…
Luigi Novi: He doesn’t. And more to the point, Robert Irwin didn’t. Steve did what he did because he felt like it. Not because he had to. If he did, then no one would be criticizing him. But this isn’t that situation.
Aaron: Again, there’s a difference between a fire, which is, in most cases, unpredictable because no two situations are alike, and what Irwin did, which was a controlled environment…
Luigi Novi: Unless the animal is dead or tranquilized/strapped down, it can’t be a completely controlled environment.
Aaron: …dealing with an animal he’d dealt with likely hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
Luigi Novi: Again, the same thing can be said for Roy Horn.
James: “For all those people out there who say that they would “trust” Steve Irwin to take care of his own child because he’s a professional, I’d just ask — would you be so trusting if he asked if he could take YOUR child with him instead of his own? In fact, would you trust him if he invited YOU? “
Bladestar: Your doctor is only human, do you trust him to perform surgery on you?
Luigi Novi: A doctor is trained to perform surgery, which a NECESSARY PROCEDURE, and a situation where all or most of the variables are known. Irwin is NOT trained to hold babies while feeding crocodiles, which is NOT necessary.
Bladestar: Besides, considering how much he has shown on his TV shows with his first child, Bindi, how much do you imagine his kids interact with these dangerous animals off-screen, and on a regular basis.
Luigi Novi: A one-month old infant? None at all, I’d say.
Bladestar: Based on the condemnation you people are heaping on him, None of you are allowed to take your children anywhere in your cars, because there could be an accident AT ANY TIME! No matter how safe a driver you are!
Luigi Novi: More false analogies. Transportation is necessary. Bringing a baby into a croc cage ISN’T.
Bladestar: Oh, and no cribs, kid could die of SIDS. Oh, and better have prefoessional doctors and microbiologists test each and every single thing your kid eats too…
Luigi Novi: And yet more. SIDS cannot be foreseen, nor every single thing eaten tested. Those risks cannot be entirely rid of. But not bringing a baby into a croc cage IS something you can do.
Bladestar: You people are always in a hurry to take people’s children away but you never seem to want to take care of them yourselves…
Luigi Novi: Um….what? What “you people”? What “children”?
Can you elaborate a bit? Provide some examples? Who here has demonstrated either a desire to “take people’s children away” OR “not wanting to take care of them ourselves”?
nekouken: Darren, your idea of “necessary” risk is flawed. It’s necessary to take your children to school or day care and back, but where else do they need to go? Do you leave them in the care of a child-care professional everytime you go someplace other than the educational facility?
Luigi Novi: You should leave them where you know they’re being cared for, or take them with you. That’s unavoidable.
nekouken: Can’t grandma and grandpa drive over to see them?
Luigi Novi: Sure. Why not? What does this have to do with anything?
nekouken: Not all risk we take with children is necessary. Letting your child out of your sight for even a moment is the worst risk you can take…
Luigi Novi: No it isn’t. You can be reasonably comfortable if he’s with your spouse, in another room in his playpen, at school, etc. Letting someone take him into a crocodile cage is far worse than merely “letting him out of your sight for even a moment.”
nekouken: a baby could suddenly swallow its own tongue…
Luigi Novi: How can you swallow a body part that’s attached to the inside of your mouth? Even if such a thing could happen, parents nowadays monitor their infants with baby monitors.
nekouken: …a toddler could trip and fall on something presumed safe or simply mutilate himself on a mundane object out of simple curiosity.
Luigi Novi: But those things are often UNAVOIDABLE. Bringing a baby into a croc cage ISN’T. Responsible parents keep infants in cribs and playpens, and when they start becoming mobile, put barriers in front of staircases, and childproof locks on cabinets containing sharp kitchen utensils or poisonous cleaning agents. Bringing a kid into a croc cage IS avoidable.
nekouken: You’re insisting there’s a massive unnecessary risk in putting a baby on the same side of a cage with a crocodile, but considering what Steve Irwin knows about it, is the risk that great?
Luigi Novi: It’s greater than if the kid is on the opposite side of it, which is great enough. Why are some here so insistent on bringing the kid in there? What good comes from it? Why can’t Irwin wait until the kid is old enough to learn about crocs, take Steve’s instruction, and maybe take care of himself?
nekouken: The thing is, what about the average person carrying a baby through the kitchen? There are knives and a hard floor and sharp corners…
Luigi Novi: What is it with all the false analogies here? Knives are inanimate objects that are kept in drawers, or on counters, out of the reach of children. They’re not WILD ANIMALS that slither around, jump out of the drawer or off the countertop and snap at you because it’s feeding time. And again, kitchens are NECESSARY. Croc cages are NOT.
nekouken: …and the average person, holding a baby with one hand and preparing food with the other, could trip or lose his grip on the baby or a small number of other things could go wrong, resulting in injury or death of the baby.
Luigi Novi: Who the hëll holds a baby while preparing food? People with three arms?
nekouken: So, really, the risk of both is the same, the potential harm is comparable; sure, the kitchen won’t eat the baby with its chainsaw-like jaws or rend its flesh with its virtually unstoppable claws, but that baby can be hurt or killed just the same.
Luigi Novi: The level of risk is NOT the same. Comparing a wild animal to a common kitchen is horseshit.
So, really, the risk of both is the same, the potential harm is comparable; sure, the kitchen won’t eat the baby with its chainsaw-like jaws or rend its flesh with its virtually unstoppable claws…
It doesn’t have to.
When I was about one, one and a half, my father was sitting in a chair in the kitchen, holding me so that I was facing over his shoulder. There was water boiling in a pot on the stovetop. Somehow I managed to extend my reach, grab the pot handle (which was not sticking out beyond the edge of the stove), yank it off the stovetop and send the water cascading. My father’s back was protected by his shirt; I, on the other hand, got first degree burns on my left arm from the boiling water, sustaining scarring that I carry to this day.
Crikey.
PAD
“Luigi Novi: You should leave them where you know they’re being cared for, or take them with you. That’s unavoidable.”
Taking the baby with you is an unnecessary risk, if the baby’s safety is the only issue at hand. For the record, I’m a big believer that one parent or the other should be unemployed or work from home in a household with a baby (or even one of the “household” from my comments over in the first gay marriage thread down below). A parent raising a child has very few places they genuinely need to go.
“nekouken: Can’t grandma and grandpa drive over to see them?
Luigi Novi: Sure. Why not? What does this have to do with anything?”
That was supposed to say, “… see them, rather than taking the baby to the grandparents’ house to visit?” People take their infants to all sorts of family gatherings, and even in the presence of several doting adults, there’s still some unnecessary risk both in the travel and staying in another person’s house; heretofore undiscovered allergies, for example.
“Luigi Novi: No it isn’t. You can be reasonably comfortable if he’s with your spouse, in another room in his playpen, at school, etc. Letting someone take him into a crocodile cage is far worse than merely ‘letting him out of your sight for even a moment.'”
How? The baby was held tight in his arms, and his body was between it and the crocodile. That baby was safer than Steve.
“Luigi Novi: But those things are often UNAVOIDABLE. Bringing a baby into a croc cage ISN’T. Responsible parents keep infants in cribs and playpens, and when they start becoming mobile, put barriers in front of staircases, and childproof locks on cabinets containing sharp kitchen utensils or poisonous cleaning agents. Bringing a kid into a croc cage IS avoidable.”
Sure, it’s avoidable, I never claimed it wasn’t; in fact, I think I made it fairly clear I understood that. You’re stating that unnecessary risk should always be avoided; I’m saying unnecessary risk is a part of life from day one. The very act of existing is dangerous. The issue isn’t necessity here, but recklessness. Was this reckless on the Irwins’ part? As it’s been stated many times in this thread, Steve Irwin is well-known for his caution around the wild animals he interacts with. The terrain was familiar, the animal was familiar, paramedics stood by, and so on and so on. If it was reckless, I wish all the careless actions in my life had been half as carefully planned and methodically accident-proofed. I wouldn’t have gotten hurt nearly as bad when I fell off that cliff blindfolded.
“Luigi Novi: It’s greater than if the kid is on the opposite side of it, which is great enough. Why are some here so insistent on bringing the kid in there? What good comes from it? Why can’t Irwin wait until the kid is old enough to learn about crocs, take Steve’s instruction, and maybe take care of himself?”
Well, as I said, the danger of a child being eaten by a crocodile is extremely low in the absence of crocodiles. The danger of a child being injured or killed is really about the same, and considering the caution exercised, probably less. As for the kid’s ability to learn from the experience, Terri seems to think he did. Are your maternal instincts more in tune with a baby halfway round the world than his own mother’s?
“Luigi Novi: What is it with all the false analogies here? Knives are inanimate objects that are kept in drawers, or on counters, out of the reach of children. They’re not WILD ANIMALS that slither around, jump out of the drawer or off the countertop and snap at you because it’s feeding time. And again, kitchens are NECESSARY. Croc cages are NOT.”
Croc cages aren’t necessary? You think crocodiles should wander freely about the zoo?
All kidding aside, the difference between a wild animal the person holding the baby is paying attention to and counters and knives the person isn’t paying attention to isn’t that much. The guy didn’t just casually stroll through the croc’s cage, whistling a happy tune with one hand holding the baby and the other jingling his keys in his pocket; he was feeding a crocodile. That’s a pretty big attention-grabber. I’d venture to say that the audience and cameras were irrelevant to him; when he was in there, the entire world was him, the crocodile, and the baby. The difference between the two is that a person carrying a baby as they do mundane house tasks is probably at ease, while Steve was anything but. My analogy isn’t false. It’s merely a common thing all baby-carriers probably encounter.
“Luigi Novi: Who the hëll holds a baby while preparing food? People with three arms?”
No, people with two arms who have to prepare food but their baby needs attention. You may find the concept alien, but I assure you the phenomenon of baby-holders preparing food while holding a baby is as common as babies.
“Luigi Novi: The level of risk is NOT the same. Comparing a wild animal to a common kitchen is horseshit.”
90% of all accidents occur in the home, Weege. Know why? That’s where you’re at ease, and not as careful as you are in traffic, or out walking, or feeding the crocodiles. I’ll thank you not to call my comparison horseshit, especially since it quite decidedly is not. If you don’t think simply holding a baby as you move is dangerous, think again. When that wet spot you didn’t notice or that bowl of marinara falls out of the fridge and your attention is not suddenly %100 percent on that baby in your arms, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Again, it all comes down to this notion that being injured at the claws of a wild animal is somehow worse than being injured anywhere else by any other means. In the case of a baby especially, it’s not. Babies are fragile things; they break easy. The rapt attention to what’s going on that someone feeding a crocodile has is drastically greater than a guy puttering around in his kitchen. Put a baby into the guy’s arms, and which one is safer? If you really think the baby in the kitchen is automatically safer simply because there’s not a wild animal there, you don’t really know anything about kitchens, wild animals, or life in general.
Posted by PAD — “When I was about one, one and a half… “
‘What we have here is the common saucepan in its natural environment! A saucepan on the range is one of the most dangerous beasties in the entire kitchen! Now, what I’m going to do is capture it, add some pasta, then release it into the wild! Blimey!’
1) I can see how it’s hard to seperate Jackson’s work from the man himself, since he’s put lyrics (lamely) blasting Tom Sneddon, prosecutor of the first and currect sex abuse cases, into one of his songs. He’s made a consious effort to not keep his private life seperate from his music, so in my mind that justifies a person staying away from his music as a result.
Personally I would not want to buy his CD so I can hear him criticize a prosecutor for doing his job, whether the plaintiff was telling the truth or not. It makes him sound very petty, not to mention immature (“Tom Sneddon is a bad man. He’s just a dog.” – ouch. Sneddon must still be reeling from that burn.)
2) Irwin is an idiot, no doubt about it. But I don’t think charges should be filed, not at this point at least. I would like to think the negative publicity will be enough to make him think twice next time.
I have a bad feeling Irwin is going to wind up being one of those parents who expect their child to have the exact same interests as they do, and will be very displeased if the child is not. That strikes me as very selfish. Surely the child will very likely have a natural interest in his activities, but for God’s sake, at least give him a few years so he can make a consious decision.
**Roy was behaving cockily because that’s what his public expected. An example? Oh, how about the way he hit the tiger’s nose with his microphone right before he was bitten?
Liana**
Best description I’ve come across on the web about what happened to Roy that night is here:
ttp://klastv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1475112&nav=168XIQs2
Admittedly this was written long before the question of just when Roy had the stroke/mini-stroke came up, but otherwise it is the most detailed account I’ve seen so far. Apparently bopping a tiger on the nose with a microphone no more hurts the tiger than a properly used training collar (aka ‘choke chain’) hurts a dog. Otherwise, the only way the public is going to see for themselves just what went on that night is to wait a year or so for the video to make its debut on TV.
Seriously, there is (evidently) an existing videotape of the attack that night. Whether it was made by S&R themselves for a proposed ‘concert tape’ release or by the Mirage as Standard Operating Procedure for insurance purposes (in case something similar to this ever happened to one of the other performers or the audience), or whether it is SOP for live performances in general, I don’t know. What I have heard about it is that the MIrage has possesion of it, that very few people have seen it, and that it will be kept under lock and key unitl Roy gives his permission for it to be shown. Which, I’m guessing, won’t be until Roy’s up to giving his own version of what happened (by the end of 2005 at the lateset, I’m guessing) to a newshow like Larry King Live, 60 Minutes, 20/20, or one of the other legitmate news magazines/shows out there. The main reason it hasn’t been released before now was to keep it from becoming the centerpiece of tabloid shows like Hardcopy and When Animals Attack! pt. XX on Fox.
Chris
**1) I can see how it’s hard to seperate Jackson’s work from the man himself, since he’s put lyrics (lamely) blasting Tom Sneddon, prosecutor of the first and currect sex abuse cases, into one of his songs. He’s made a consious effort to not keep his private life seperate from his music, so in my mind that justifies a person staying away from his music as a result.
Personally I would not want to buy his CD so I can hear him criticize a prosecutor for doing his job, whether the plaintiff was telling the truth or not. It makes him sound very petty, not to mention immature (“Tom Sneddon is a bad man. He’s just a dog.” – ouch. Sneddon must still be reeling from that burn.)
Vincent Valenti**
Is this the same song where he (allegedly) used the word ‘kike’ in reference to the other victim and his lawyer, because one or both of them were Jewish? The word/song that also cost him his friendship with Steven Spielburgh (sp?) ?
Chris
Darren, your idea of “necessary” risk is flawed. It’s necessary to take your children to school or day care and back, but where else do they need to go? Do you leave them in the care of a child-care professional everytime you go someplace other than the educational facility? Can’t grandma and grandpa drive over to see them?
When dealing with children There is resonable acceptable risk and there is unreasonable unacceptable risk. Life is full of dangers, we all know that, good responcible parents do not put thier children in unnecessary danger . This is why good responcible parents when they do have to go somewhere, (which BTW is unavoidable, unlike say holding the baby while feeding a wild animal, which could have simply been avoided by leaving the kid behind the cage walls), put the child in a proper car seat for extra protection. Really people this shouldn’t be rocket science, it’s just common sence.
What Steve did was not good for the child and it was not good for the family. That’s what makes it an unnecessary risk as compared to NORMAL family activities. He can say all he wants that it was for the BABY, but we all know as well as he does that the baby is too young to gain any benefit. And, as Kathleen pointed out, Steve wasn’t even paying attention to the needs of the baby if he didn’t notice the head all flopped foreward. It’s certainly not good for the FAMILY if it brings the authorities knocking on your door. It was CAREER motivated. If he wanted to get cute pictures for his career, it would have been a lovely photo if the baby had been in Mommy’s arms outside the fence watching Daddy feed the big scary animal.
So it’s universally agreed that everything we do or don’t do involves an element of risk. Why are some risks necessary and others not?
It’s about living a normal and enjoyable life. I AM the stay-at-home mom that nekouken beleives is necessary for raising children appropriately (not my belief mind you, just my own choice.) It’s POSSIBLE for me to keep my kids home all the time. Hëll, I’m a licenced teacher; I could even homeschool. But isn’t this a risky behavior in itself? I can protect them from germs, bad guys, bad drivers, bad mannered folks looking to squeeze their little cheeks in the supermarket….but is it normal and healthy to stay home to avoid the possible? My kids LIKE going foodshopping and to the park to climb on high equipment. They like it better when they get to go to Grandma’s than when Grandma comes here. It’s GOOD for them to interact meaningfully with society. Also, for the good of the family, I’m the one who HAS to run the day-to-day errands while my husband is working his job and his overtime and often his side-jobs. In the past week I’ve had to go to the DMV, the insurance agency, the bank, Home-Depot, the drugstore, the party-supply store, the car-wash and the dry-cleaners. (Yes, the comment that stay-at-home parents have few places they really need to go hit a nerve; it’s no party for me keeping the kids well-behaved during these errands, but it’s in the job-description.)
To sum up, if it’s good for the child and/or good for the family, it’s okay. If it’s only good for your career and clearly risky for your child and/or family, it’s not okay.
Luigi Novi: You should leave them where you know they’re being cared for, or take them with you. That’s unavoidable.”
nekouken: Taking the baby with you is an unnecessary risk, if the baby’s safety is the only issue at hand.
Luigi Novi: It is not an “unnecessary” risk. What are you supposed to do, never let the child leave the house?
nekouken: For the record, I’m a big believer that one parent or the other should be unemployed or work from home in a household with a baby (or even one of the “household” from my comments over in the first gay marriage thread down below). A parent raising a child has very few places they genuinely need to go.
Luigi Novi: Work. Shopping. Relatives’ houses. And many couples cannot afford to have only one of them working nowadays.
nekouken: Can’t grandma and grandpa drive over to see them, rather than taking the baby to the grandparents’ house to visit?” People take their infants to all sorts of family gatherings, and even in the presence of several doting adults, there’s still some unnecessary risk both in the travel and staying in another person’s house; heretofore undiscovered allergies, for example.
Luigi Novi: To argue that children should never leave the house, and stay home always, and that merely taking them over to their grandparents’ house is unnecessarily risky, is horseshit. Any type of risk therein is one we can agree to live with. It is not comparable to taking them inside a croc cage.
nekouken: The baby was held tight in his arms, and his body was between it and the crocodile. That baby was safer than Steve.
Luigi Novi: Wild animals are not completely predictable. The croc could’ve lunged at Steve and the kid. Steve could’ve not been fast enough to get away without having the croc grab him by the foot or leg. To argue that going over grandma’s house is more dangerous than this is obtuse.
nekouken: You’re stating that unnecessary risk should always be avoided; I’m saying unnecessary risk is a part of life from day one. The very act of existing is dangerous. The issue isn’t necessity here, but recklessness.
Luigi Novi: The issue is necessity. Existing is a necessity. So is leaving the house. Going into a croc cage isn’t. Putting that kid into a croc cage wasn’t necessary, and WAS reckless. Existing isn’t. Existing is both necessary and unavoidable. There is nothing “unnecessary” about going to grandma’s house, when people NEED to maintain personal and familial relationships, in part to allow the kid to get to know the family.
nekouken: Well, as I said, the danger of a child being eaten by a crocodile is extremely low in the absence of crocodiles. The danger of a child being injured or killed is really about the same, and considering the caution exercised, probably less.
Luigi Novi: Let me see if I got this straight: The danger of a child in the absence of crocodiles is about the same or probably less than when in their presence?
Sorry, I don’t think so, I’m not buying it. The risk of being injured or eaten by a croc is far GREATER in their presence than in their ABSENCE.
nekouken: As for the kid’s ability to learn from the experience, Terri seems to think he did.
Luigi Novi: Then she’s a much an idiot as Steve is.
nekouken: Are your maternal instincts more in tune with a baby halfway round the world than his own mother’s?
Luigi Novi: Why do you assume that forming an opinion on this requires a technical or esoteric experience that she has that I don’t? It doesn’t. I don’t need maternal instincts to form an opinion, I only need logic and common sense. This is about the fact that crocodiles are dangerous. Not what it feels like to breast feed.
nekouken: All kidding aside, the difference between a wild animal the person holding the baby is paying attention to and counters and knives the person isn’t paying attention to isn’t that much.
Luigi Novi: And how do you know this? How do you know what others are and are not paying attention to? Whenever I am the one watching my nephew while my sister or brother-in-law eats or converses with family during get-togethers, I am most CERTAINLY paying attention to objects that he can get into, and am constantly steering him away from cabinets, electrical outlets, standing guard behind him when he crawls up and down the stairs, and so forth, as does my mother, father, sister, brother-in-law and anyone else when they’re watching him. And if the guardian happens to be performing a mundane task, then the kid is in his playpen, crib or stroller, period.
Who are you to tell others that they’re not watching the environment in which a child plays?
nekouken: The guy didn’t just casually stroll through the croc’s cage, whistling a happy tune with one hand holding the baby and the other jingling his keys in his pocket; he was feeding a crocodile. That’s a pretty big attention-grabber. I’d venture to say that the audience and cameras were irrelevant to him; when he was in there, the entire world was him, the crocodile, and the baby. The difference between the two is that a person carrying a baby as they do mundane house tasks is probably at ease, while Steve was anything but.
Luigi Novi: That has nothing to do with the danger of bringing a kid in there.
nekouken: No, people with two arms who have to prepare food but their baby needs attention. You may find the concept alien, but I assure you the phenomenon of baby-holders preparing food while holding a baby is as common as babies.
Luigi Novi: Then I would say that to do so is irresponsible and stupid.
nekouken: 90% of all accidents occur in the home, Weege. Know why? That’s where you’re at ease, and not as careful as you are in traffic, or out walking, or feeding the crocodiles. I’ll thank you not to call my comparison horseshit, especially since it quite decidedly is not.
Luigi Novi: It is absolutely horseshit, because a wild animal in the mix contains variables that are far less predictable and controllable than anything in the kitchen. Moreover, if Steve and his wife live around crocs in the area where they live, and work with them, then isn’t that their home? How much more dangerous is a home filled with crocs than one filled with television sets and fine china?
nekouken: If you don’t think simply holding a baby as you move is dangerous, think again.
Luigi Novi: It’s not as dangerous as doing so when you’re in a cage with a wild animal.
nekouken: When that wet spot you didn’t notice or that bowl of marinara falls out of the fridge and your attention is not suddenly %100 percent on that baby in your arms, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Luigi Novi: And what makes you think that such a variable doesn’t occur in a croc cage, like an insect that bites Steve on the leg or arm right as he’s about to feed the croc? Or a small piece of croc excrement that he missed which causes him to slip? The difference being, that if I slip in the kitchen while holding the kid, I have far less to worry about if there’s not a WILD ANIMAL in there with me, and that being in a kitchen is NECESSARY. I may not be able to avoid that wet spot or margarine, but I can avoid bringing a kid into a croc cage.
nekouken: If you really think the baby in the kitchen is automatically safer simply because there’s not a wild animal there, you don’t really know anything about kitchens, wild animals, or life in general.
Luigi Novi: Nor you about logic and common sense, it seems.
Darren: Though I admit I don’t see the value of having taken the kid into the croc pit, I just don’t see that bringing it there was any more dangerous to the child than anything else a person with an infant could do. Steve says (in retrospect) that he was in “complete control.” I think this is after-the-fact hubris, but I do believe that he was in as much control as he could have been. He held the baby tightly (aside from not supporting the neck, an admittedly huge parental blunder) and knew from experience how to stay safe from a crocodile. As far as I’m concerned, the only risks came from unforseen sources, such as “what if he fell, or his grip on the baby slipped?” That could happen anywhere, and the potential harm to the baby is the same.
Nobody has really convinced me that the thing that horrifies them so isn’t the exacerbated risk (which wasn’t really there), but the means of death — it’s acceptable to apply the same risk to an infant’s life in a car or a city or at home, but not when there’s a crocodile present, because the car or the city or the house won’t actually devour the baby.
Janice: “Yes, the comment that stay-at-home parents have few places they really need to go hit a nerve; it’s no party for me keeping the kids well-behaved during these errands, but it’s in the job-description.”
I didn’t mean it too, Janice; I’m not foolish enough to think a family can really afford a parent who stays at home with the children all day, every day without some kind of extra help. Also, I agree that it’s not healthy for the kids to stay in at all times. I’m merely trying to prove a point; that the risks of daily life are significant, and sometimes we take those risks for granted, even if there are children with us. The baby may not have gained anything from being in the croc pit, but I maintain that he was as safe as a baby held by his mother in line at Home Depot, if not safer. Or he would have been, if not for Steve not supporting his neck, which doesn’t add to the risk of the crocodile pen, but it would add to the risk of being dropped.
All the people criticizing Steve for his actions seem very fond of mentioning how unpredictable WILD ANIMALS are. This is a false assumption. Wild animals have small brains and have a limited number of responses to each stimulus. A person who knows crocodiles like Steve does can read their body language. It was mentioned that the croc was probably well-fed before Steve and Bob went in there. I would know it only if someone told me it was true, but Steve would know it from watching the crocodile. The animal kingdom is all about body language, and Steve probably knows how to read it as well as anybody in the world (you can accuse him of being a career-savvy daredevil, but the man’s been doing it all his life. He may have become more focused on publicity recently, but he got where he is today by understanding how animals communicate). Wild animals aren’t unpredictable, most of us just don’t know anything about them. When Steve gets bitten or otherwise injured, he always knows that what he’s doing is risking it. If you listen to his narration, he’ll tell you, “they hate when you do this, but the only way I can show you what I want you to see is to sneak up on the little bûggër.” Steve wasn’t antagonizing the crocodile, he was feeding it. The crocodile knows his scent, watched his body language, and didn’t attack him because it wasn’t provoked (not just because it didn’t feel like it that day. The only animals that uses violence in any situation other than hunting or self-defense are humans and spiders). Steve knew what to do (and more importantly, what not to do) to avoid provoking the crocodile.
nekouken: We’re discussing this over on the other thread, Weege. No need to add extra inches to this one, too.
Luigi Novi: Check the time of my post. I made the post on this board before the one on the other one. I then made the other one because there were points you brought up there that I wanted to answer.
Second, my name is not “Weege.”
nekouken: Well, how can you be certain of that? Do you really know what’s going through that infant’s head?
Luigi Novi: No, and neither does Terri. I don’t buy the idea that that kid is able to understand what’s going on, or form a lasting memory of the event.
nekouken: Or are you just calling Terri Irwin a liar?
Luigi Novi: No, I’m calling her a mentally retarded, irresponsible parent.
Luigi Novi: Who cares? Superheroes and their sidekicks are fictional.”
nekouken: They don’t have to be.
Luigi Novi: Meaning?
nekouken: All the people criticizing Steve for his actions seem very fond of mentioning how unpredictable WILD ANIMALS are. This is a false assumption. Wild animals have small brains and have a limited number of responses to each stimulus.
Luigi Novi: And chopping your head off is one of them. 🙂
nekouken: A person who knows crocodiles like Steve does can read their body language. Wild animals aren’t unpredictable, most of us just don’t know anything about them. When Steve gets bitten or otherwise injured, he always knows that what he’s doing is risking it.
Luigi Novi: See, right there is a bit of a contradiction. If Steve knows all sorts of animal body language, then why has he ever gotten bitten? If he’s been bitten so many times, are you saying you’re willing for Robert to get bitten as well at only one month old? Would you still feel the way you do if it were one of those poisonous snakes Steve is always stalking instead of a croc?
nekouken: If you listen to his narration, he’ll tell you, “they hate when you do this, but the only way I can show you what I want you to see is to sneak up on the little bûggër.” Steve wasn’t antagonizing the crocodile, he was feeding it. The crocodile knows his scent, watched his body language, and didn’t attack him because it wasn’t provoked (not just because it didn’t feel like it that day.
Luigi Novi: Montecore wasn’t provoked. And it didn’t even mean to harm Roy, because the cat probably loves him. The croc doesn’t love Steve and Robert, and just as Montecore reacted to something in the audience, so too can Steve not be certain that the croc won’t react to some variable in that situation that he cannot predict. At the very least, if it happens, the only one at risk is Steve if he leaves Robert outside the cage.
Ack. I think I mixed up some exchanges from this board with ones from the other board. Sorry! 🙂
Darren: Though I admit I don’t see the value of having taken the kid into the croc pit, I just don’t see that bringing it there was any more dangerous to the child than anything else a person with an infant could do. Steve says (in retrospect) that he was in “complete control.” I think this is after-the-fact hubris, but I do believe that he was in as much control as he could have been. He held the baby tightly (aside from not supporting the neck, an admittedly huge parental blunder) and knew from experience how to stay safe from a crocodile. As far as I’m concerned, the only risks came from unforseen sources, such as “what if he fell, or his grip on the baby slipped?” That could happen anywhere, and the potential harm to the baby is the same.
Um no. If I’m holding an infint in the house and I slip, could the infant be injured, sure, but you know what there’s almost zero chance of, falling in the house while holding an infant and having the infant eaten by a croc that’s standing right in front of me. (And please don’t insult my inteligence by telling my that croc hunter had trained hadlers standing off camera to step in a pull the baby out if something went wrong, if Steve slipped and the croc lunged for the baby, the offscreen handlers would need super-speed to ensure that the baby would be unharmed, (if not croc food). Nothing I’ve read indicated that the Flash was in the audience.)
There is risk in every part of human experience, but there is reasonable risk and unreasonable risk, good responsible parents do not take unreasonable risk with thier children, if anything they go out of thier way to prevent unreasonable risk, (haven’t you ever heard of childproofing your home? child safty car seats?). This is not rocket science, it’s just common sence.
All the people criticizing Steve for his actions seem very fond of mentioning how unpredictable WILD ANIMALS are. This is a false assumption. Wild animals have small brains and have a limited number of responses to each stimulus. A person who knows crocodiles like Steve does can read their body language. It was mentioned that the croc was probably well-fed before Steve and Bob went in there. I would know it only if someone told me it was true, but Steve would know it from watching the crocodile. The animal kingdom is all about body language, and Steve probably knows how to read it as well as anybody in the world
Amazing how all those experts who were part of the Sigfield and Roy show weren’t able to predict what the tiger did there in time to prevent it. Anyone who knows anything about animals will tell you that they sometimes act unpredictably, (just like humans actually), reading body lanquange of the animals can tell you a lot but only an idiot or an amauther would go into such a situation without being prepared for the unexpected.
Montecore wasn’t provoked. And it didn’t even mean to harm Roy, because the cat probably loves him. The croc doesn’t love Steve and Robert, and just as Montecore reacted to something in the audience, so too can Steve not be certain that the croc won’t react to some variable in that situation that he cannot predict. At the very least, if it happens, the only one at risk is Steve if he leaves Robert outside the cage.
Good point. Animals in general are usually far more aware of thier enviorments then human beings are, and very often can react to something before the humans around realize what it is they are reacting to, (Anyone who’s owned Cats or Dogs knows what I’m talking about, you’re sitting there petting the family pet and suddenly, for no reason you can figure out they jump out of your lap to look out the window. And it takes you several seconds (or longer) to realize a squirrel just ran in front of your house.) It’s nice to say, Steve was an expect who could read the croc’s body lanquage, but that language could change at a moments notice, in responce to stimuli that humans in the area may not notice until it’s too late.
“Luigi Novi: And chopping your head off is one of them. :-)”
I have never seen an animal chop off a guy’s head. Most animals don’t even have a bladed appendage with which to do so.
“Luigi Novi: See, right there is a bit of a contradiction. If Steve knows all sorts of animal body language, then why has he ever gotten bitten?”
I told you; when he gets bitten, he knows what he did that risked it. There’s a risk of a zookeeper getting hurt if he tries to restrain some of the animals, but there are situations in which it has to be done. There’s a risk in catching an animal to present it before a camera to encourage the world to understand wildlife more. Feeding a crocodile in captivity has its own risks, and Steve’s done it often enough that I’m more willing to believe him when he says he knows what they are than I am to believe you when you say he doesn’t.
“If he’s been bitten so many times, are you saying you’re willing for Robert to get bitten as well at only one month old?”
The question isn’t “how many times has he been bitten by crocodiles,” it’s “how many times has he been bitten by crocodiles when he feeds them in captivity?” If the answer to that is a lot, then you’re right. If it’s rarely or never, then your point isn’t proven. Further, I think it’s fair to point out that since Robert made it out of the cage unscathed, he clearly won’t automatically be bitten or eaten just because he’s in there with his father. There’s at least a chance that his father can keep him from being eaten, since he did.
“Montecore wasn’t provoked. And it didn’t even mean to harm Roy, because the cat probably loves him.”
Well, that’s my point. Montecore was provoked; he encountered a stimulus and reacted to it. If Steve had had a stroke while in the crocodile cage with Bob, the croc might have seen it as threatening or a sign of weakness over which to assert its dominance. Just as I don’t consider Roy careless to have failed to consider the possibiltity he might suffer a stroke just as he was right in front of Montecore, I don’t consider it out of the bounds of reason for Steve not to consider the possibility of an unforseeable possibility; sure, I could have a stroke at any time, but am I supposed to be prepared for the possibilty at all times?
Likewise, Steve, who knew the croc didn’t love him, wasn’t going to allow something that would provoke the croc to happen. It would have taken something beyond his control to slip him up, such as an earthquake or a stroke.
This has been my point all along; you’re calling Steve a bad parent and insisting his child be taken away because he’s not in complete control of the universe and some wildly improbable event could occur that might make the croc eat the kid. Steve’s fed the crocodile hundreds, possibly thousands of times and knows exactly the right way to go about not getting eaten. You’ve driven your car hundreds or thousands of times, but you could have a blowout or another car could hit you or a bank robbery could be happening along your route and a stray bullet could hit the car… if you had an infant with you on that trip, I wouldn’t call your ability to care for a child in question, even if you were taking the baby to a movie — which is also an experience from which a baby is likely to gain nothing, but people take them all the time.
Darren: “Um no. If I’m holding an infint in the house and I slip, could the infant be injured, sure, but you know what there’s almost zero chance of, falling in the house while holding an infant and having the infant eaten by a croc that’s standing right in front of me.”
Why is one kind of injury worse than another? Both are avoidable; both are a risk the parent takes with the life of the child. In both cases, the child could be left in a firmly secured stroller while the parent goes about his business. You’re telling me that crocodile is worse than sharp corner and hard floor, and I’m telling you it’s really not, especially since you’re not going to be staring that hard floor down the way you will a crocodile.
“haven’t you ever heard of childproofing your home? child safty car seats?”
Yes, but something could still go wrong! An airplane could crash into your house, or the car seat could suddenly turn into antimatter!
People take unnecessary risks with their children’s lives every day of every year, and the majority of them live through the ordeal. You’re looking at this and saying, “there’s absolutely no reason for him to do that,” but there are parents everywhere doing things that there’s absolutely no reason for them to do with their children that they do anyway. For you, this is all down to the presence of the crocodile, and I’m telling you that Steve Irwin is the best person to be holding a kid in that situation. Ðámņ the reason, the risk wasn’t any worse than taking a baby onto an airplane, however important or unimportant it may be that the baby be there.
“It’s nice to say, Steve was an expect who could read the croc’s body lanquage, but that language could change at a moments notice, in responce to stimuli that humans in the area may not notice until it’s too late.”
It’s not a good point. The crocodile was paying direct attention to him in an artificial environment. All the people watching knew what was going on. If some wiseass on the sidelines had pulled out an airhorn and caused the crocodile to attack Steve, would it be Steve’s fault? Hëll, no. It would be the áššhølë with the airhorn. You’re back to blaming Steve for not planning for every possible thing that could ever happen anywhere as long as the baby’s in his arms.
nekouken: I told you; when he gets bitten, he knows what he did that risked it.
Luigi Novi: Why do you assume this? Are you saying that he is incapable of error? He doesn’t know this every single time. If he does, then why would he do it? And besides, what difference does it make if “knows” what he did that risks it after the fact? The point is, he shouldn’t’ do something that will get his son injured at all.
“Well, my son was attacked by that croc, but at least I know now what I did that risked it!”
nekouken: There’s a risk of a zookeeper getting hurt if he tries to restrain some of the animals, but there are situations in which it has to be done. There’s a risk in catching an animal to present it before a camera to encourage the world to understand wildlife more. Feeding a crocodile in captivity has its own risks, and Steve’s done it often enough that I’m more willing to believe him when he says he knows what they are than I am to believe you when you say he doesn’t.
Luigi Novi: Again, you seem to be acting as if expertise such as his means that he will always be in complete, 100% control. It doesn’t. If it does, then again, why has he ever gotten bitten? To argue that he “knows what he did that risked,” (which sounds as if you’re saying that either knew he’d get bitten ahead of time, or even did so deliberately), is ignore the fact that many times, accidents and disasters happen that the performer did NOT foresee. Again, are you saying that Roy Horn knew that Montecore was going to puncture his neck?
Luigi Novi: If he’s been bitten so many times, are you saying you’re willing for Robert to get bitten as well at only one month old?
nekouken: The question isn’t “how many times has he been bitten by crocodiles,” it’s “how many times has he been bitten by crocodiles when he feeds them in captivity?” If the answer to that is a lot, then you’re right. If it’s rarely or never, then your point isn’t proven.
Luigi Novi: The point is that he would not get bitten AT ALL if this expertise with observing animal body language that you speak of was enough to keep him from getting bitten. Moreover, having one of your arms occupied by holding an infant (incorrectly, as Kathleen pointed out, which presents yet another danger), means that he doesn’t the have manual dexterity that he normally has when either observing the animals in the wild or when feeding them in captivity. Bringing a month-old infant into a croc cage with one arm while feeding a croc with another, regardless of whatever “expertise” you have, is STUPID.
nekouken: Further, I think it’s fair to point out that since Robert made it out of the cage unscathed, he clearly won’t automatically be bitten or eaten just because he’s in there with his father.
Luigi Novi: But I didn’t say it was “automatic.” It is an unnecessary, reckless thing to do that could’ve gotten him killed, which Steve should not have done.
nekouken: There’s at least a chance that his father can keep him from being eaten, since he did.
Luigi Novi: There’s a near 100% chance of keeping him from being eaten if he’s not in the cage.
nekouken: Well, that’s my point. Montecore was provoked; he encountered a stimulus and reacted to it. If Steve had had a stroke while in the crocodile cage with Bob, the croc might have seen it as threatening or a sign of weakness over which to assert its dominance. Just as I don’t consider Roy careless to have failed to consider the possibiltity he might suffer a stroke just as he was right in front of Montecore, I don’t consider it out of the bounds of reason for Steve not to consider the possibility of an unforseeable possibility; sure, I could have a stroke at any time, but am I supposed to be prepared for the possibilty at all times?
Luigi Novi: What you should be prepared for are the scenarios and dangers that you CAN forsee. Namely, those present when you bring in infant in there with you. Roy, at least, didn’t do this.
(Also, at the page linked to above by Elf with a Gun, it was indicated the stroke was caused by the loss of blood that occurred when Montecore punctured Roy’s artery. My bad for earlier referring to it has having been what caused Montecore’s reaction, which is something I thought I had heard.)
nekouken: Likewise, Steve, who knew the croc didn’t love him, wasn’t going to allow something that would provoke the croc to happen.
Luigi Novi: Where do you get the silly little notion that such things are things that Steve has the power to “allow” or “disallow” to happen? Montecore reacted to something in the audience, which Roy couldn’t stop. What makes you think the same thing can’t happen with the croc?
nekouken: This has been my point all along; you’re calling Steve a bad parent and insisting his child be taken away…
Luigi Novi: Wrong.
I never said his child should be taken away.
nekouken: …because he’s not in complete control of the universe…
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about “the universe.” Steve is in COMPLETE CONTROL of whether he brings a baby into a croc cage, and it is in that that he erred.
nekouken: …and some wildly improbable event could occur that might make the croc eat the kid.
Luigi Novi: Being attacked by a wild animal while feeding it in a cage is not “wildly improbable.”
nekouken: Steve’s fed the crocodile hundreds, possibly thousands of times and knows exactly the right way to go about not getting eaten.
Luigi Novi: That does not eliminate the risk to a baby that’s in there with him.
nekouken: You’ve driven your car hundreds or thousands of times…
Luigi Novi: I don’t drive.
nekouken: …but you could have a blowout or another car could hit you or a bank robbery could be happening along your route and a stray bullet could hit the car… if you had an infant with you on that trip, I wouldn’t call your ability to care for a child in question, even if you were taking the baby to a movie — which is also an experience from which a baby is likely to gain nothing, but people take them all the time.
Luigi Novi: One more time: Such events are unforeseeable, and unavoidable, and transportation is necessary. The things that could’ve gone wrong in that cage were foreseeable, avoidable, and bringing that kid in there was not necessary.
Darren: “Um no. If I’m holding an infint in the house and I slip, could the infant be injured, sure, but you know what there’s almost zero chance of, falling in the house while holding an infant and having the infant eaten by a croc that’s standing right in front of me.”
nekouken: Why is one kind of injury worse than another? Both are avoidable…
Luigi Novi: They are not both avoidable. Wet spots some times happen. Bringing a kid into a croc cage IS avoidable.
nekouken: …both are a risk the parent takes with the life of the child. In both cases, the child could be left in a firmly secured stroller while the parent goes about his business.
Luigi Novi: You cannot keep a kid in a stroller every waking moment, 24/7. You have to eventually take the kid out to feed him, to hold him, to take him upstairs or downstairs, to change him, to put him to sleep, to take him with you to family gettogethers, or just to hold him and let others hold him and love him.
nekouken: You’re telling me that crocodile is worse than sharp corner and hard floor, and I’m telling you it’s really not, especially since you’re not going to be staring that hard floor down the way you will a crocodile.
Luigi Novi: What does staring something down have to do with anything? Where do you get the idea that staring something down somehow mitigates the risk of harm? A sharp corner, you might hit once while falling or bumping into it, and it probably won’t split open your head. A wild animal, if you fall head first into it, can deliberately rend and tear you apart.
Darren J. Hudak: “haven’t you ever heard of childproofing your home? child safty car seats?”
nekouken: Yes, but something could still go wrong! An airplane could crash into your house…
Luigi Novi: Again, you cannot foresee or prevent an airplane from crashing to your house. You can avoid brining a baby into a croc cage.
nekouken: …or the car seat could suddenly turn into antimatter!
Luigi Novi: Now you’re just being obtuse. There’s no such thing as a car seat “just turning” into antimatter.
nekouken: For you, this is all down to the presence of the crocodile, and I’m telling you that Steve Irwin is the best person to be holding a kid in that situation.
Luigi Novi: There is no such thing as “the best person to be holding a kid” is such a situation, when the smart thing to do would be not bringing him in there. Why does it not occur to you he is human, and might make a mistake that could get that kid killed?
nekouken: Ðámņ the reason, the risk wasn’t any worse than taking a baby onto an airplane, however important or unimportant it may be that the baby be there.
Luigi Novi: You’re wrong.
Darren J. Hudak: It’s nice to say, Steve was an expect who could read the croc’s body lanquage, but that language could change at a moments notice, in responce to stimuli that humans in the area may not notice until it’s too late.”
nekouken: It’s not a good point. The crocodile was paying direct attention to him in an artificial environment. All the people watching knew what was going on.
Luigi Novi: What does the artificiality of the environment, paying attention to Steve, or the other people watching have to do with anything? Darren’s point is dead-on. Again, wasn’t Montecore paying attention to Siegfried and Roy? Didn’t all the people watching know what was going on? Wasn’t that stage in Las Vegas an “artificial environment”? None of these things change the fact that Montecore’s attention can’t and wasn’t on Roy 100% of the time, and could be distracted by something else. The same thing could happen with the crocodile.
nekouken: If some wiseass on the sidelines had pulled out an airhorn and caused the crocodile to attack Steve, would it be Steve’s fault?
Luigi Novi: If the baby were in there with him and got hurt or killed, yes. The guy with the airhorn could also share a certain amount of the responsibility.
nekouken: Hëll, no. It would be the áššhølë with the airhorn. You’re back to blaming Steve for not planning for every possible thing that could ever happen anywhere as long as the baby’s in his arms.
Luigi Novi: Again, he CAN PLAN not having that baby IN his arms. We’re not talking about “every possible thing,” so bringing up this idea is a Straw Man.
(Also, at the page linked to above by Elf with a Gun, it was indicated the stroke was caused by the loss of blood that occurred when Montecore punctured Roy’s artery. My bad for earlier referring to it has having been what caused Montecore’s reaction, which is something I thought I had heard.)
Luigi Novi
Actually you did hear that theory correctly. I guess I should have emphasized a bit more just when that page was made. It was made, at most, a week after the attack. At that time, evidently, it was not suspected (or at least not yet confirmed) that Roy might have started to have a mini-stroke right before the attack. The ‘a mini-stroke happened before the attack’ theory was advanced about a month later by Siegfried, for reasons I haven’t quite figured out yet. (An attempt to make sure that everyone nattering on about what ‘really’ happened that night understands that neither neither the animal nor his trainer should be held liable for what happened, or evidence that Siegfried was starting to get a little loopy right then, I have no clue.) At the very least Roy did suffer one right after the attack., that much is confirmed as definate.
As for what I think happened, I believe Siegfried when he says if the tiger had really wanted to kill Roy he would have been killed in that instant, end of story. Beyond that, I’m not sure what to make of the tiger’s actions, since I have no way of asking the tiger himself about why he did what he did. As for the stroke happening before the attack, it’s possible, but since I have no knowledge of what a mini-stroke does in its initial stages (beyond what I witnessed with my own father) I can’t say just how likely it is to be true. Have to wait for the ineviable in-deph news article/segment to appear before making a more final opinion, I guess.
Chris
“If he does, then why would he do it? And besides, what difference does it make if “knows” what he did that risks it after the fact? The point is, he shouldn’t’ do something that will get his son injured at all.”
He does things that risk the ire of wild animals for their own sake (in the case of zoo business — they’re in the business of keeping species alive, not just caging them up for spectacle) and for the edification of his audience. He did none of those things with his son in his arms. He merely fed a crocodile he had fed many, many times before.
“To argue that he “knows what he did that risked, is ignore the fact that many times, accidents and disasters happen that the performer did NOT foresee.”
Accidents and disasters can happen at any time to anybody. Feeding a crocodile doesn’t make him any more susceptible to accidents and disasters unrelated to the situation at hand than motorists, pedestrians, and even invalids. You’re once again blaming him for not controlling the universe, which doesn’t make him a bad parent.
(which sounds as if you’re saying that either knew he’d get bitten ahead of time, or even did so deliberately)
It wouldn’t if you’d been paying attention. What I said was that he knowingly risks life and limb on activities that the animal would percieve as threatening because they need to be done. Feeding a captive crocodile is not one of those things. Pinning a crocodile to the ground or holding a snake by its tail, which are done by zookeepers to protect the animal from threats of which it is not aware both in the wild and at the zoo, are the types of activities of which I speak. Steve has never attempted any of those with a child in his arms that I am aware of.
“Again, are you saying that Roy Horn knew that Montecore was going to puncture his neck?
No, I’m saying I don’t consider Roy to be careless for not having considered the possibility that he might have a stroke right then and there.
“Luigi Novi: But I didn’t say it was “automatic.” It is an unnecessary, reckless thing to do that could’ve gotten him killed, which Steve should not have done.”
How is it any more unnecessary or reckless than any of the other things I’ve brought up? Because there’s a crocodile in the room? I’ve been over that. You’re making demands on Steve Irwin that you don’t seem to think should be applied to the rest of the world in parallel situations. Driving is more dangerous than feeding a crocodile in a zoo; when you’re on the road, there are thousands of idiots out there in their own cars, and you have no way of knowing when any one of them might suffer a heart attack or forget he’s not playing Grand Theft Auto. At the zoo, all the people surrounding the event were there specifically to observe or to help. I’m more worried about a thousand cars I’m not watching intently than I am about a crocodile that I am.
“The point is that he would not get bitten AT ALL if this expertise with observing animal body language that you speak of was enough to keep him from getting bitten.”
Before I believe that, I’d like confirmation from a zookeeper or carnie that it is possible to wrangle animals on a regular basis and never get bitten or scratched. I just don’t consider you an expert enough to make that statement without verification.
“Luigi Novi: There’s a near 100% chance of keeping him from being eaten if he’s not in the cage.”
But not a 100% chance of keeping the trillion other bad things that could happen from happening. How is a baby being dropped on its head onto the sidewalk significantly worse for the baby than being dropped on its head in the vicinity of a crocodile? This is the thing you have failed about a hundred times over to explain to me.
I got it, Luigi. You think the risk of bringing a baby into a crocodile cage, in spite of the fact that the general risks are lessened by the increased awareness an animal handler has to exhibit to be an animal handler in the first place, is unnecessary. I’m with you. I don’t see a reason for him to have brought the baby in. However, what you’re failing to express is how bringing the baby into the crocodile cage is significantly more dangerous than any of the other things I’ve mentioned. Since “unnecessary risk” has been your catch-phrase, I want you to tell me why the kitchen is so much safer than the crocodile pit. I don’t care about the means of death or injury, simply the likelyhood. Are you really telling me that an infant’s chances of being injured while a grown man carries it as he cooks with his other hand in the kitchen, for example, are significantly less than the chance of injury if the man is feeding a crocodile? If so, how do you figure? What aspect of what I’ve said can you actually disprove?
Is the man holding an infant as he feeds a crocodile (for expediency, Man A)not more aware of his surroundings than a man holding an infant as he putters around in the kitchen (likewise, Man B)?
Is Man A, whose surroundings are an artificial naturescape he helped design with a ring of friends and family there to observe quietly or respond immediately to the slightest hint of trouble, more likely to encounter interference than Man B, who likely did not help design his kitchen and does not have a protective circle of supporters as he makes dinner?
Does Man A, for whom everything is silenced, ensuring his ability to focus on the task at hand, have the same chance of dropping the baby or stumbling over an unforseen obstacle as Man B, who, even if dinner is just macaroni and cheese, is likely listening to music or watching tv because just making pasta with a baby in one arm is rather boring?
Nothing you’ve said does anything to show the likelyhood of injury; you’re just worried about the increased likelyhood of being eaten by a crocodile. If he’d taken Bob to a petting zoo, Bob’s chances of being eaten by a goat increase. Goats aren’t big and scary, though, so you probably have no problem with that.
You keep reminding me (as if you think I don’t get it) that bringing a baby into a crocodile cage is something forseeable and avoidable, but when I tell you that the risks, in Steve’s case at least, aren’t as significant as you’re making them out to be, you tell me that something else could go wrong. But when I tell you something else could go wrong anywhere, you say it’s not something forseeable. Those same things are unforseeable in a crocodile pit. Steve Irwin had covered all forseeable risks in his endeavor, but you insist that’s not enough. If I tell you about an unforseeable risk in some other situation, you tell me that it’s unforseeable and unavoidable, but bringing a baby into the crocodile pit isn’t. You’re using circular logic here, Luigi, so forget about the dámņ crocodile for a moment.
Forget the teeth and claws, Luigi. Forget the snapping jaws of death that for some reason have you convinced that crocodiles do nothing all day but plot their next opportunity to snack on a human infant. Just consider the chances of harm to the baby, of any kind, be it a recoverable injury, disfiguring trauma or mortal wound; are they really worse for Man A than Man B? Or can you just not move past the crocodile?
nekouken: He does things that risk the ire of wild animals for their own sake (in the case of zoo business — they’re in the business of keeping species alive, not just caging them up for spectacle) and for the edification of his audience. He did none of those things with his son in his arms. He merely fed a crocodile he had fed many, many times before.
Luigi Novi: No, he did not “merely” feed a crocodile he had fed many times before. He fed a crocodile while holding a baby in his arm, thereby endangering him.
nekouken: Accidents and disasters can happen at any time to anybody. Feeding a crocodile doesn’t make him any more susceptible to accidents and disasters unrelated to the situation at hand than motorists, pedestrians, and even invalids.
Luigi Novi: Of course it does, and we’ve already discussed why. Transportation is necessary, and if one has an accident even after taking every possible precaution (seatbelts, childseats, looking both ways before crossing, respecting the lights and speed limits), then that is not the person’s fault. Taking a kid into a croc cage ISN’T necessary, and doing so puts that kid in greater danger than if he wasn’t in it.
nekouken: You’re once again blaming him for not controlling the universe, which doesn’t make him a bad parent.
Luigi Novi: No, I’m not. I’m blaming him for doing something incredibly stupid that he should not have, which does make him a bad parent. Again, we’re not talking about “the universe.” Bringing up “the universe” is bringing up something that we’re not talking about, and is just a Straw Man.
nekouken: What I said was that he knowingly risks life and limb on activities that the animal would percieve as threatening because they need to be done. Feeding a captive crocodile is not one of those things. Pinning a crocodile to the ground or holding a snake by its tail, which are done by zookeepers to protect the animal from threats of which it is not aware both in the wild and at the zoo, are the types of activities of which I speak. Steve has never attempted any of those with a child in his arms that I am aware of.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about any of those activities. We are in fact talking about feeding a captive croc with a child in his arms, which is what he did do, and is stupid for having done so.
nekouken: No, I’m saying I don’t consider Roy to be careless for not having considered the possibility that he might have a stroke right then and there.
Luigi Novi: But he would’ve been if he brought a kid on stage with him. By doing what he did do, all he risked was himself. Irwin didn’t do that.
nekouken: How is it any more unnecessary or reckless than any of the other things I’ve brought up? Because there’s a crocodile in the room? I’ve been over that. You’re making demands on Steve Irwin that you don’t seem to think should be applied to the rest of the world in parallel situations. Driving is more dangerous than feeding a crocodile in a zoo; when you’re on the road, there are thousands of idiots out there in their own cars, and you have no way of knowing when any one of them might suffer a heart attack or forget he’s not playing Grand Theft Auto. At the zoo, all the people surrounding the event were there specifically to observe or to help. I’m more worried about a thousand cars I’m not watching intently than I am about a crocodile that I am.
Luigi Novi: I’ve already answered this question numerous times, and the analogy continue to be utterly false. Driving can be dangerous, but responsible drivers do every thing they can to minimize the risks, because driving is NECESSARY. Bringing a kid into a croc cage ISN’T.
Luigi Novi: The point is that he would not get bitten AT ALL if this expertise with observing animal body language that you speak of was enough to keep him from getting bitten.
nekouken: Before I believe that, I’d like confirmation from a zookeeper or carnie that it is possible to wrangle animals on a regular basis and never get bitten or scratched. I just don’t consider you an expert enough to make that statement without verification.
Luigi Novi: It was your point was that his expertise with observing body language is enough to keep him from getting bitten. If this were true, then why has he gotten bitten? The fact that he has gotten bitten means it can happen, including when his son is in there with him. This is a statement of reasonable fact. Not a technical one requiring expertise.
Luigi Novi: There’s a near 100% chance of keeping him from being eaten if he’s not in the cage.”
nekouken: But not a 100% chance of keeping the trillion other bad things that could happen from happening.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking ABOUT those other things. We’re talking about the thing he DID. Not the other irrelevant things not a part of this discussion that he could NOT PREVENT. You keep brining up these other “entire universe” things, and we’re not TALKING about that. You’re just changing the subject, and I’m not buying it.
nekouken: How is a baby being dropped on its head onto the sidewalk significantly worse for the baby than being dropped on its head in the vicinity of a crocodile?
Luigi Novi: Dropping a baby onto the sidewalk is accidental. Bringing a baby into that cage is something Irwin did DELIBERATELY. If you do everything you can to minimize obvious risks in life, and an accident still happens, that’s a part of life that you should not be at fault for.
Steve Irwin didn’t minimize such risks when he took a baby in there. That’s the difference.
nekouken: I got it, Luigi. You think the risk of bringing a baby into a crocodile cage, in spite of the fact that the general risks are lessened by the increased awareness an animal handler has…
Luigi Novi: They’re not lessened by awareness an animal handler has. They’re heightened by bringing the kid in there. The problem with your reasoning is that your comparing the situation with the wrong thing. You’re comparing Steve’s awareness/expertise with not having any. The right-thinking people here are comparing bringing Robert in there with NOT BRINGING HIM IN THERE. You’re trying to compare what he did with some “other” thing that would’ve theoretically have been worse. It doesn’t work that way.
nekouken: However, what you’re failing to express is how bringing the baby into the crocodile cage is significantly more dangerous than any of the other things I’ve mentioned.
Luigi Novi: No, you’re just not reading or responding to them. I’ve pointed out how these other things you’ve mentioned are unreasonable hypotheses (“don’t ever leave the house with the kid or even let him out of his stroller”) to the laughably stupid (“what if the car seat turns into antimatter?”), and I pointed out the stupidity of these comparisons. I pointed out that you can’t go to family get-togethers (or hëll, to the pediatrician) if you never leave the house with the kid, and that you can’t hold him, hug him, change him or put him to sleep if you never take him out of the stroller. To the best of my memory, you never refuted these points.
nekouken: Since “unnecessary risk” has been your catch-phrase, I want you to tell me why the kitchen is so much safer than the crocodile pit. I don’t care about the means of death or injury, simply the likelyhood. Are you really telling me that an infant’s chances of being injured while a grown man carries it as he cooks with his other hand in the kitchen, for example, are significantly less than the chance of injury if the man is feeding a crocodile?
Luigi Novi: I already answered this. Do you have some kind of odd fetish for repetition, or something? As I already stated earlier, I don’t know of anyone who can cook with one hand while holding a kid with the other, and if anyone manages to do so, they’re irresponsible.
nekouken: Is Man A, whose surroundings are an artificial naturescape he helped design…
Luigi Novi: Yet another thing I responded to that you ignored. Again, what does the artificiality of the surrounding, or the fact that he helped design it, have to do with anything? And isn’t a kitchen artificial? Or the Las Vegas stage that Roy Horn stood upon? Did that stage’s artificiality prevent him from being injured?
You seem to be under the impression that the artificiality of the set somehow means that Irwin couldn’t get attacked or suffer some other mishap like Roy Horn did.
It doesn’t.
nekouken: Does Man A, for whom everything is silenced, ensuring his ability to focus on the task at hand, have the same chance of dropping the baby or stumbling over an unforseen obstacle as Man B, who, even if dinner is just macaroni and cheese, is likely listening to music or watching tv because just making pasta with a baby in one arm is rather boring?
Luigi Novi: You do not know that everything isn’t silenced for a guy fixing dinner, or that he isn’t focused on the task at hand. It’s entirely your assumption. The only aspect of that situation I would object to is him holding a baby while doing so, which I don’t find very plausible anyway.
nekouken: Nothing you’ve said does anything to show the likelyhood of injury; you’re just worried about the increased likelyhood of being eaten by a crocodile.
Luigi Novi: Which does increase the likelihood of injury.
nekouken: If he’d taken Bob to a petting zoo, Bob’s chances of being eaten by a goat increase. Goats aren’t big and scary, though, so you probably have no problem with that.
Luigi Novi: Yet another false analogy. Goats DO NOT EAT PEOPLE. The only reason a croc is scary is precisely because it can kill a man.
nekouken: You keep reminding me (as if you think I don’t get it) that bringing a baby into a crocodile cage is something forseeable and avoidable, but when I tell you that the risks, in Steve’s case at least, aren’t as significant as you’re making them out to be, you tell me that something else could go wrong.
Luigi Novi: Because that’s true. Sorry if this idea is unfathomable to you. You seem to want decide something is a bad idea only after a disaster occurs, rather than prevent it before hand by playing it safe.
nekouken: But when I tell you something else could go wrong anywhere, you say it’s not something forseeable. Those same things are unforseeable in a crocodile pit. Steve Irwin had covered all forseeable risks in his endeavor, but you insist that’s not enough.
Luigi Novi: He did not cover all foreseeable risks. This is where you’re just plain wrong. Bringing his son in there was stupid, and a risk he should not have taken.
nekouken: If I tell you about an unforseeable risk in some other situation, you tell me that it’s unforseeable and unavoidable, but bringing a baby into the crocodile pit isn’t. You’re using circular logic here, Luigi, so forget about the dámņ crocodile for a moment.
Luigi Novi: It is not “circular logic,” it’s common sense that anyone can get. One can foresee greater risk to a child if they bring him into a crocodile cage. You cannot necessarily foresee a plane crashing into your house or a drunk driving hitting you on the road. There’s nothing circular about pointing out that Steve’s situation and these other ones are simply not comparable.
nekouken: Forget the teeth and claws, Luigi. Forget the snapping jaws of death that for some reason have you convinced that crocodiles do nothing all day but plot their next opportunity to snack on a human infant.
Luigi Novi: Another Straw Man argument. I didn’t say anything about “plotting.” REAL crocodiles present a sufficient danger to children without hypothesizing your caricaturized Hanna Barbera version.
nekouken: Just consider the chances of harm to the baby, of any kind, be it a recoverable injury, disfiguring trauma or mortal wound; are they really worse for Man A than Man B? Or can you just not move past the crocodile?
Luigi Novi: We’re talking about a crocodile, and I’ve already responded by telling you that your attempts to shift the relevant point of the argument over to other situations that are not analogous isn’t convincing me. We’re talking about a crocodile, so we’re not going to “move past” it. I also told you that I don’t think people should prepare food while holding a month-old baby that needs to have its head supported.
I had a response to all your points, but I think this is pretty much the condensed version of everything I wanted to say.
“nekouken: You keep reminding me (as if you think I don’t get it) that bringing a baby into a crocodile cage is something forseeable and avoidable, but when I tell you that the risks, in Steve’s case at least, aren’t as significant as you’re making them out to be, you tell me that something else could go wrong.
Luigi Novi: Because that’s true. Sorry if this idea is unfathomable to you. You seem to want decide something is a bad idea only after a disaster occurs, rather than prevent it before hand by playing it safe.
No, it’s not true. The likelyhood of the disaster you keep mentioning is quite low. In fact, it’s entirely dependant on the unforseeable interference of an outside force that you’ve convinced yourself is irrelevant. The fact that it’s possible isn’t really important since it’s possible most of the time, and often more likely. The only difference is the involvement of a crocodile, which you seem to equate with high risk, even if all forseeable risk is prevented.
Calling it a Straw Man argument when I ask for you about the comparative risk to more mundane activities doesn’t make it a Straw Man argument. You can’t quantify how it’s more dangerous than any of those things — cooking, driving, etc. — you just keep talking about necessity and unforseeable risk. Not all driving is necessary, but the risks are the same whether you’re driving the infant to day care so you can go to work or driving to a theater so you can watch a movie, and both are places people take infants. But rather than discuss the ramifications of unnecessary driving with an infant in the car, you tossed the word “unnecessary” at me a few more times to hammer home the completely understood idea that the baby in the croc pit was unnecessary, and changed the subject like a Christian apologist.
You criticized me for taking unforseeable risks to absurd levels (carseats turning to antimatter, while theoretically possible, was an exaggeration), then you denied that they had anything to do with your argument, which is strange, considering that they’re integral to your argument. If forseeable risk is accounted for and you’re not talking about improbabilities, what’s so bad about it? How is taking the infant into the croc pit an unnecessary risk if the risk involved is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible? Since you’re insisting that things beyond forseeable risk will happen, you’re talking about improbabilities, which can happen anytime, anywhere, no matter how necessary the activity is. I agree with you that it’s not bad parenting if the parent fails to account for a reckless driver on the way to day care, or the pen-related self-mutilation the baby engaged in while mommy’s head was turned to enter a calculation as she balances the checkbook; but it’s foolhardy to insist that everything parents do is absolutely necessary to the child’s needs. Janine said above that she has to take her children with her places they don’t really need to go because leaving them at home with a caregiver when she has to leave the house or hiring a gofer to handle all her errands is impractical. While you’ll probably say she’s not doing anything wrong because her frugality is indirectly beneficial to the kids, it’s a silly position to take because the baby doesn’t need to go to the dry-cleaners no matter how much it benefits from the trip in the long run, and the baby’s still in the car when it doesn’t need to be. I don’t disapprove, but by your own code of necessity when dealing with infants, you should, and you should disapprove of the moviegoer who takes the baby even more. So, the question for this part is, where do you draw the line of necessity? There are varying levels of necessity, and while I concede that the crocodile pit is the extreme example of lack of necessity, it’s not a black-or-white issue. Unfortunately, it seems if you can’t say “unnecessary,” “avoidable,”and “crocodile” in the explanation, it’s not worth explaining.
Since there’s no getting beyond the crocodile issue (you insist that all non-crocodile related risk is irrelevant, but how else am I supposed to understand exactly why the crocodile pit is so bad if there’s nothing to compare it with?), you’re essentially saying that all your allegedly “right-minded” people look at a zookeeper without a child feeding a crocodile (who is fed regularly) and still see an unparalleled potential for disaster, in spite of the fact that when a zookeeper watches his step, maintains a guarded, non-threatening posture, and keeps the crocodile at arm’s length, that zookeeper is virtually guaranteed to get out of the cage unscathed, and the “virtually” part of that refers to the improbable outside forces beyond the zookeeper’s control. The risk is almost zero, and crocodiles don’t have a special taste for baby meat; adding a baby to the mix doesn’t make the feeding procedure any riskier, it just makes the zookeeper more focused on staying safe. That’s the point you’ve been dodging for the last few days. Was it necessary for Steve to take Bob into the cage? No. Was it excessively dangerous? Also no. The thing that makes it so unforgivable to you is perception alone.
Folks:
Forgive me, please, if this posting duplicates information already given earlier; I read through much of the thread, not all of it.
I want to make a single clarifying point regarding Roy Horn.
It has been said that Roy Horn’s tiger lost control and attacked him.
Folks, I had the recent good fortune to speak with a professional wild animal trainer — who was wrangling a panther at the time we spoke – and who was one of the experts brought in to investigate the Roy Horn incident.
He wanted it known, and widely disseminated, that there is no chance whatsoever that the tiger lost control and attacked.
Instead, he takes the same position that Siegfried took, and which has been widely ridiculed since: that the tiger was trying to help Roy.
He watched the video frame by frame. He said that the tiger grabbed Roy by the wrist three separate times before the neck-grabbing incident. Each time Roy persuaded the tiger to let go. Each time the tiger did not break skin.
Then Roy slumped, the tiger grabbed him by the neck and dragged him off stage.
Point one, not widely disseminated: Roy had a stroke on stage. He has had several additional strokes in the hospital. He is very ill.
Point two: the bite marks on Roy’s neck are about 1/4 inch deep.
This is, in terms of relative depth, the same kind of wound you get from your housecat when you play rough with him.
Point three: a tiger’s jaws are powerful enough to snap bone. His teeth are several inches deep. If the tiger had attacked Roy and meant it, he would have ripped out Roy’s throat and possibly ripped off his head. Instead, dragging Roy off stage, he left wounds 1/4 inch deep. More: rather than hold on to Roy offstage, and continue masticating, he dropped Roy in a point of safety and quietly curled up in a corner, not making any hostile moves toward any of the wranglers who rushed to Roy’s side to see if he was all right.
Roy, who was helpless at the time, was literally easy meat for any tiger interested in hurting him.
The claims to the effect that Roy “made a mistake,” or that the tiger “went crazy,” or that the incident showed Roy’s lack of expertise, are in opposition to ALL the facts.
Rather, the facts show that Roy was in serious physical distress on stage, that he may not have known it, that the tiger DID sense it, and that when the stroke hit the tiger did what a tiger does for a member of its family and dragged Roy to a place of safety.
Far from showing Roy less-than-skilled or his bond with his tigers less-than-secure, the incident demonstrated that the tiger loved him desperately.
Just a side point that needed to be made…
Adam-Troy Castro
Reading back I see that some of this ground was indeed covered at length; I apologize. Consider my post, and the reported expert testimony, corroboration. ATC.
I actually had believed the misinformation you disproved until this discussion; since I learned the tiger’s motivation, I’ve been convinced that it was not a parallel to what Steve Irwin did, because the crocodile doesn’t especially love Steve; it merely recognized him as a source of food. If, as you say, Roy sustained no significant injuries and the “attack” was purely conjured by untrained witnesses, that convinces me even further. I also find it oddly heartwarming.
fbgfdhgfhxg
Yep. Nothing can go wrong, folks. Irwin was in “complete control”.
Shocking what happened, really.
until i hear more details as to what went wrong i’m not going speculate as to what happened with steve Irwin and the stingray
From what has been reported it sounds like a freak accident–very few people die from stingray stings but it only takes a few inces between the ribs to do the job. It would be ironic that a guy who seemed to have more luck than any ten people would die in so unlikely a way. It”s too bad–he was a bit of a kook but he brought us a lot of enjoyment. I feel bad for his family.
Yep, you called it, Luigi. It takes a big man to dedicate his life to educating the public about the natural world, but it takes an even bigger man to use the occasion of his death to crow “I told you so” on a message board. You’re a gøddámņ hero.
I feel bad for the Irwin family, certainly — regardless of what people may think of Steve Irwin’s approach or abilities, he’s got a 3-year-old child who’s just lost a father.
Personally, a lot of his approach tended to drive me up a wall and back down the other side … but he did tend to walk the walk in terms of supporting conservation, and his efforts did succeed in educating the public to a degree, sometimes despite his best efforts. At best, the death is a bizarre form of irony.
TWL
I’m not inclined to pass judgment on Steve Irwin for the manner in which he died. I’ve suffered the loss of four loved ones over the space of the last 18 months (my grandmother, my grandfather, a friend, and a beloved pet). I have an inkling as to what the Irwin family is feeling, and my heart goes out to them.
I would find an “I told you so” over a death bad enough in any situation. This one even more so. Steve Irwin wasn’t, by the reports I’ve heard all day, doing his usual shtick. He wasn’t taking a poke at or trying to agitate one of the world’s deadliest or most aggressive creatures. He was swimming above the stingrays and caught a stinger in the chest & heart.
It is tragic. Say what you want to about his over the top style but Steve Irwin probably did more then anyone in recent history to spark people’s interest in crocs and other creatures and, to some degree, their preservation. Plus, he was a family man who will be missed.
The man knew his stuff. He knew animals, and how to present them. Knowing what little I do about him, I don’t know that this isn’t how he would’ve wanted to go, although I’m sure he would’ve wanted to do it much later for his wife, daughter and son.
Bill, I only knew about the cat. I’m sorry. I’d say you have my sympathies, but don’t know that it would help. I lost my folks a few years ago, so I know what it’s like. You need someone to talk to about it, I got a friendly ear.
Bill Mulligan: From what has been reported it sounds like a freak accident–very few people die from stingray stings but it only takes a few inces between the ribs to do the job. It would be ironic that a guy who seemed to have more luck than any ten people would die in so unlikely a way. It”s too bad–he was a bit of a kook but he brought us a lot of enjoyment. I feel bad for his family.
Luigi Novi: I don’t think it’s ironic. I think that it’s quite illustrative of the fact that no matter how far we humans think we’ve come in terms of conquering our planet, nature is indifferent to us, and can snuff us out just like that, no matter how much we may think we’re “in total control.” It may also possibly (though not necessarily) be related to his grandstanding when it comes to animals. It may turn out that he was just minding his own business, and not even engaging the stingray. Or, it may turn out the reason it happened to him, when it rarely happens to anyone else, is precisely because he tends to take a more cavalier attitude with respect to dangerous animals.
I feel awful for Irwin’s kids, who will never get to know their father, and for his wife, Terri. But if it is revealed that he did not take precautions that he could have, it will only reinforce what many already thought about him. I don’t say this to make light of his death, but to express anger that I feel for someone who acted the way he did, and who may have caused his wife and kids to be robbed of a husband and father.
Puck: Yep, you called it, Luigi. It takes a big man to dedicate his life to educating the public about the natural world, but it takes an even bigger man to use the occasion of his death to crow “I told you so” on a message board. You’re a gøddámņ hero.
Luigi Novi: If you want to call making a point “crowing”, then be my guest. In any case, it takes yet an even bigger man to criticize me for supposedly doing this anonymously. Or is there some reason I’ve never noticed anyone with your username before?
“Luigi Novi: If you want to call making a point “crowing”, then be my guest. In any case, it takes yet an even bigger man to criticize me for supposedly doing this anonymously. Or is there some reason I’ve never noticed anyone with your username before?”
Well, you know my name, Luigi, and I’d be less than honest if I didn’t say that–to this observer–your initial posting came across as not only harsh, but inappropriately self-satisfied. I’m certain it wasn’t your intent, but it really conveyed to me the impression that you placed your sense of I-knew-it vindication over the tragedy itself. It struck me as very uncharacteristic for you, especially when one considers two things:
1) His death wasn’t from a croc, which was the issue at hand when he was reckless with his infant son. It was from a freak accident with a stingray whose stinger pierced his heart.
2) Your posting wasn’t in response to a recent entry. You actually took the time to dig up an entry from over two and a half years ago just so you could do your impression of Claude Rains from “Casablanca” being shocked, SHOCKED over this turn of events.
Let me put it this way: There are certain people hereabouts from whom I would have expected such a post. You were unquestionably not one of them.
PAD
Luigi,
I agree with you more often than not, but not this time. Your initial post on Irwin’s death did seem a bit callous. Funny, since I agreed with EVERYTHING you had to say on this thread’s original topic. I would give the guy a break, or at least the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are known.
Tim Lynch,
I actually agree with you this time. Irwin DID push conservation and he DID educate people and he did so in a FUN way. It is clear he loved what he did. If we all loved the jobs we do and all had as much fun teaching and learning, the world would be a better place.
Sean, thank you for your kind words. I sincerely appreciate the sentiments and the offer of support. I am sorry to hear about the loss of your parents. I think that can be one of the hardest losses to bear.
I fear, however, that I’ve at least risked creating the perception that I want this thread to be about me, which wasn’t my intention at all. I was instead hoping to convey my feeling that the loss of a loved one is a tragedy, regardless of the circumstances.
Even if Steve Irwin’s death was the result of hubris or poor judgment, it’s still tragic. It’s not a cause for anger, nor is it illustrative of anything other than the fragility of life.
Steve Irwin never boasted about being able to “control” nature, by the way. His penchant for personally going mano-a-mano with dangerous creatures was born of a conviction that they could be captured when necessary without hurting or killing them. He used to capture crocs in residential areas, where they were a danger, free-of-charge. He asked for nothing in return save that he be allowed to take the crocs to his zoo where he would care for them. He loved nature and waged media campaigns against poaching. He devoted his life to educating people about nature.
Was his death the result of overconfidence? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t care. I don’t see his death as an occasion to make a point.
I think I’ll speak up and defend Luigi here, since I’m taking crap for similar comments over on the JQ board. It is a bit galling to see this outpouring of reverence over the passing of a guy whose death is the result of routine reckless behavior, when there are so many other people who could have done nothing to prevent their deaths, yet go unmourned.
Sure, you can say stingrays stings usually aren’t fatal, but bottom line, it’s a wild animal with a sharp spike on the end of its tail. It doesn’t take a genius to realize you don’t swim on top of one, but this guy made a career of foolish stunts like that. I don’t think anyone would be bugged if people were just like “Oh, that’s sad” but the outpouring of reverence from every corner of the media and the ‘Net can get to one after a while.