Steve Irwin; What a crock!

[13788]

roedhunt: I feel I should repond one last time to clear something up for my own piece of mind. I am no way trying to start an arguement with anyone or to anger anyone...I think enuff has been done in this topic.

I, for one, am a parent. As such, I personally would not have done that with my child. However, I'm not Steve Irwin, nor was that MY baby. He is the parent and he feels he did the right thing. I'm not saying there wasn't risks, because something could've happened. But it didn't. Whether it was luck, experience on Steve Irwins part, or God was with him.. we'll never know.

All I was trying to convey, was that I have seen several instances where a father (or mother) put their child in danger.. with them being there... The toddler who runs away in a parking lot or crossing the street. The man who has his infant child in a child seat on a bicycle on a busy time of day in heavy traffic. Children in a vehicle not wearing a seatbelt jumping from front to back seat. Swinging a child in a circle. Exposing a child to a loose dog. Riding up an escalator with the infant in a stroller.

You may think these examples are not as extreme, but my point is that all these things are preventable, but they do it anyway. How many times have you seen it happen? But it is up to each parent to make that decision. Whether we agree or not. Personally, I cant stand to see a parent tossing a child in the air and catching them. Or riding on the back of a motorcycle (at a young age). But I'm not the parent.

To each his own..

 

[13788]

roedhunt: ......

 

[13788]

gigantikok: [quote author=MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK link=board=99;num=1073321472;start=40#59 date=01/12/04 at 04:49:00]Seriously you two, why don't you stop this bullshit about how harmless crocs are, and try to look upon this as it was played out; careless, and no excuse for it no matter what!! ![/quote]
I never said Crocs were harmless, I just said that they weren't the flesh hungry, evil super lizards that SOME were stereotyping them to be. And I was saying that Steve Irwin, with his years of experience, had the ability and THEN SOME to handle the situation. If crocs were so WILD AND UNPREDICATABLE, don't you think Mr Irwin would be missing a limb or two by now?! And then you and other go off on these wild tangents about how wild and unpredictable all animals are. Sure, every once in a while an animal snaps, but the odds are astronomical. There are only a few recorded cases a year of pitbulls and rottweilers going nuts out of MILLIONS of dogs. There is only a few cases of trained animals going out of control out of MILLIONS. Mr Irwin took this into account, and knew the croc he was dealing with like the back of his hand. You've been watching too much of Fox's trash TV "WHEN ANIMALS GO INSANE 3".
[quote author=MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK link=board=99;num=1073321472;start=40#59 date=01/12/04 at 04:49:00]Oh, and by the way, GIGS, when you mentioned the michael part, I though you were refering to Mindseye. But even so about Wacko Jacko, NO!!! I will not lay off of him neither! This is the second time in a row to be accused of molesting boys, and the evidence seem to be climbing!!!![/quote]
Just because he's been convicted twice doesn't mean he is guilty. In this country, you are innocent till proven guilty and he hasn't been proven guilty. "The evidence has been piling up". Sure, whatever, lie all you want but if evidence was "piling up" as you so speak, i would be seeing it on the news. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a copy cat, who saw the enormous amounts the boy 10 years ago stole from MJ and wanted to try the same.

 

[13788]

Tender: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1073321472;start=40#44 date=01/10/04 at 19:48:42] crocs tend to attack for reasons of defense of their territory or themselves, or by accident - as human flesh is not their preferred choice.


they do not prefer the taste of human flesh i.e. BABIES.  They bite, they don't swallow.  

[/quote]

you mean crocs shop at the store for meals instead of killing something? what do you mean they dont attack ?

how do they not prefer human flesh if theyve never had it?

and lastly, just HOW does a croc eat if he never swallows?? :

Tender
ps. (((First off I'll say that your tendencies to sarcastically distort the facts in an argument to support your viewpoints is really starting to piss me off, Tender.)))
too bad you see it that way! ;D

 

[13788]

Solis24: (oh dear, caution, somewhat long post!)

Well for what it's worth, I'm 25, unmarried, student, no kids, Canadian, and I did not see the relevant piece of footage.

I HAVE however seen Irwin on TV more than enough and I certainly get the impression that he knows what he's doing, that he knows exactly where the boundary lies and what he can do for a good show and what he can't. I've seen him handle a poison spitting cobra, whose poison is always aimed at your eyes and will take them out permanently if it hits them. Well, he put goggles one because the risk was 100% that the cobra would spit. He knows this.

As for feeding, well, these caged animals (wild or domesticated, this is so subjective) are usually well fed and are not always ready to go on a rampage to get something to eat. They will however gladly accept a tidbit every now and then, just as you would give your dog or your cat a treat (but dogs can eat until they burst so it's a bad example). Theoretically, if the croc has a piece of chicken or whatever in front of his nose and something else that has been determined to be less palatable a little further off, you can bet that he'll go for the chicken and not bother the extra effort to get at something else that's further away, that is, if he noticed to baby at all! Irwin knows of course what he's doing and would most likely not put his son in danger if he knew it was dangerous, and quite frankly, as far as crocodiles go, he's probably one of the most knowledgeable and competent people around to determine if what he did was dangerous or not. Note what the mother thought of this as well.

What I will accuse him of is doing unnecessary stunts just for the show. He's out there to show off and that gets on my nerves sometimes how he can just go on and on and on about how he's about to do something that would be dangerous for the mere mortal but he's going to do it anyway, because he knows how do to it while minimizing the danger.

Had I been asked beforehand, I would have said, "don't do it". I mean, what the hell for? The kid's too young to learn anything from it and it's just totally useless, it's just acting like a show-off again, just for the camera, to give other people thrills. Well that sure worked!

Hey, and why don't you guys lay off the name-calling, it just causes anger to escalate. When this causes you to go jogging though, maybe it IS not such a bad idea

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: Finally, a bit more sense on the issue.

There was another interesting story in the news today regarding 'vicious evil nasty animals' - this time a lion in an Argentinian zoo:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3391859.stm

Apparently some jerk decided it would be a good idea to jump into a lion den (of course, the 'voices from God' told him to do it). The lions ignored him pretty much and it was only when the guy 'persistantly teased' them that they attacked him.

Of course, lions aren't crocodiles and all that crap, but I'd prefer to be put in front of a relatively slow-moving croc that I could outrun rather than a lion that could easily outrun me if it decided to. Besides which, I know the argument is 'there is always a first time', but if the animal in question showed tendencies towards attacking bystanders it would either i) have been put down or ii) would have been stopped being fed by hand long ago. The point of the matter is that the man in question (who did survive, btw) needed to antagonise the animal to elicit a response.

Besides which, he (Irwin) wasn't doing it for a media stunt - he was passed the child unexpectedly.

Solis, I agree wholeheartedly about finding his 'lets do this to make it mad and more entertaining' method very tiring. I did quite like the South Park take-off of him, though....

Lastly, a general comment - if you can't discredit an opposing viewpoint without resorting to insulting the poster, then maybe your arguing position isn't as strong as you think. Let's leave the name-calling in the playground, guys.

 

[13788]

jerkin4-10: well...theres a difference here...and maybe i did a poor job of conveying my true feelings on this matter...i was making an attempt to 'critisize the performance, not the performer'...stever irwin is obviously a talented guy...and i enjoy watching most of the things he does...
the biggest case for he knows what hes doing is...hes still alive...that is obvious...but ive seen crocs and stuff get after him on his show and he eludes them...i think its brave of him to show his actual legs...by wearing shorts...showing us that he doesnt have prosthetic limbs... ...is he a BAD guy...no...was it his intent to put the child in danger...no...was it UNWISE to do what he did...YES...i dont think theres anyone that could argue that...thats my point...demonizing the guy...i dont think its was my intent to do that...but heres the classic 'good guy makes boob move' thing...thats what im saying...

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

You summed it up better than I could've, jerkin.

Personally, I do like Steve Irwin's show as well, I haven't seen the movie, but I suspect it may be good.

Can we please just wrap this up with just the fact that he shouldn't have done that, and all of us just calm down afterwards? Because, I value all your opinions, and I'd hate to think that something this blown completely out of proportion would disrupt.