• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Steve Irwin - Little Beauty! OR Beast?

Macksta: Everyone in my family was on a horse by 1 month. Also for the very same reasoning Steve has. When you live with these animals, you don't just have to know what you're doing around them, it has to be instinct.

Let me ask you, what age would've been old enough? Because by 6 months the child will be too old because it will realise that this huge animal is strange and scary, it could freak out and cause more problems. Everyone makes the point about the baby not knowing what's going on around it, that it can't see etc. Anna made the point that all Bob would've been thinking is about wanting a feed and a shit. Those are natural instincts of a human. For baby Bob, the instincts of how to behave around crocs is just as vital as eating and breathing.
 
i understand all the maternal instincts coming from the females here, but to be honest, because im not female, i dont think those insicts will ever part of a full understanding from me.

personally, i think Steve Erwin is very passionate about what he does, and wants to involve everyone, his family more than anything else in it. and i think thats great.

i can think of many situations where families (fathers mostly) have involved their kids at young ages and other family memebers or friends have dissaproved. its really a matter of degree - and as long as its done responsibly, i think its great.

i have no desire to live inside a glass box at any point in my life. i've stuffed up before, there is no doubt about it - situations where i should have been more responsible. but i wasnt and i learnt from my lessons. thats life.
 
Last edited:
Six months too old? Not everyone was around horses when they were six months old and yet most people aren't afraid of them.

I think Macksta is right to a certain extent. It probably was a little irresponsible for Mr Irwin to take his child into the enclosure... but I also think this has been blown WAY out of proportion. The child was placed in more danger by being closer to the crocodile and technically something could've gone wrong but the chances were pretty slim.

And all this talk about getting the child used to seeing crocodiles is a crock of shit that was made up to try and justify his actions. It was a publicity stunt that backfired.

Honestly, does it really matter?
 
Let me ask you, what age would've been old enough? Because by 6 months the child will be too old because it will realise that this huge animal is strange and scary, it could freak out and cause more problems. Everyone makes the point about the baby not knowing what's going on around it, that it can't see etc. Anna made the point that all Bob would've been thinking is about wanting a feed and a shit. Those are natural instincts of a human. For baby Bob, the instincts of how to behave around crocs is just as vital as eating and breathing.


Instinct.

An innate capability or aptitude


Innate.

Breathing, feeling hungry and shitting aren't even instincts, they're reflexes. They're not learned.

I fail to see how a month old child can learn instincts. They can't see more than 30cm in front of their faces - he didn't know the crocodile was even there. The "right age" to start teaching a child to respond to these sorts of animals in the way that Irwin is suggesting they should is when they can at least acknowledge the presence of the animal, understand that it's there. Most kids don't even recognise their parents until they're well into their first year, and they spend the vast majority of their time with them. So I don't see how spending an hour with a crocodile, unaware that it's even there, is going to encourage "instincts".

JMHO.
 
Originally posted by Bouncing_B
I read your drugs around children point of view, why is this stupid but taking drugs around kids is ok there are factors with both where things can go wrong?? (ie:get a dodgy pill that flips you out)


okay, a couple of points. firstly, in that thread i did not endorse the use of mdma in front of children - my comments were made as generalisations for the most part, and i think it's obvious that some drugs would be okay (imo) and others less so - i can't believe i even need to say that.

secondly, how about just not taking "dodgy pills"? i dunno how many pills i've had in my lifetime, but it's a reasonable amount, and i've never "flipped out". if i'm gonna take a drug, i make sure i know what it is, and that i know how to handle myself if anything stressful should arise.

if i wasn't mature enough to do that then i would damn well hope that i wouldn't have any kids to fucking begin with. and why do i think responsible drug use in front of children - depending, of course, on the drugs; the people; the environment and so many other variables - is okay, but holding a one month old children a metre from a hungry crocodile isn't? because my entire premise of *RESPONSIBLE DRUG USE* is the fact that it shouldn't act as any kind of common-sense inhibitor. if i felt as if my ability to look after my children in a safe and mature way was at all inhibited by something, i wouldn't do it.

irwin's risk, to me, was just entirely pointless. like anna said, it's a fucking baby for christ's sake, it's not learning shit at this point in it's life. six months later and i might be a little more forgiving, but what he did was just a stupid pointless risk to his child, and he should no better. i don't particularly like the guy (though, like lostpunk, i see that he's done a lot of good for conservation(ists/ism), so my personal dislike of his mannerisms must be seperated from what he actually *does* and *stands for*), but this is *not* the reason this was a bad decision - it just *was*.

now, if you want to continue this (which is fine, as long as we don't get in a slanging match ;)), just copy and paste this to the kids thread, so that we don't see this thread careering off topic too!

oh, and i'm very very tired, and very very hungover, so if any of this just seems random or doesn't make sense, just ask me to clarify...

[edit: and lol, i just realised who you are, don't i feel stupid now ;) oh well, i'm not gonna edit my post, it still stands. we can punch on about it next time i see you or something ;):D]
 
Last edited:
Old mate Steve is the Croc Master King...
His private video showed the baby was quite far away from the crocodile...
It was done under controlled circumstances with trained proffesionals...

STEVE IRWIN! YOU LITTLE BEAUTY!
 
It's not often that I make these kind of judgements, but honestly...I can't believe there are people here who are not only defending Steve Irwin's actions, but saying he's a great guy because he's teaching his child how to interact with animals. Please.

There are a number of reasons the actions he took were fucked up; there's the chance that his baby was at risk from the crocodile. Animals are unpredictable. Granted, I'm fully aware that there are people that live their lives around dangerous animals, and understand their psychology. But it's the height of arrogance to assume that you have a 100% understanding, because in the end you're not that animal, and though the chance is minimal, there is always the chance that it will do something you hadn't accounted for. It amazes me that any sane adult would put any child, let alone their own child, in that position. To me, it's MORE irresponsible than Michael Jackson dangling his child over a balcony (not that I'm defending that either).

Then we've got the exploitation factor. Let's assume that his child was never in the slightest amount of danger at all. The fact remains that there's the *perception* of danger. We're talking about a man using his own child as a prop to shock an audience to benefit himself, and that disgusts me as much as any other part of this incident. Basically, he deliberately placed his son in a position where AT THE VERY LEAST, it would be ASSUMED that he was at risk, just so he could get a bit of publicity. What kind of father does that? If the most skilled marksman in the world shot apples off of his child's head for publicity, he'd be chastised. Why is this any different?

The final issue I've got with this is this: the man's a celebrity. With that comes certain priveleges, and certain responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is not putting across the message to every fuckwit in the country that it's fine to dangle your child in front of a carnivorous animal.

I just wonder how many people who've defended Irwin so far actually have children, and how many would be willing to lend him their own child to repeat the same performance?

--Raz--
 
Holding your kid above the jaws of a crocodile is no more dangerous than commonplace activities such as skiing down an icey mountain with your baby on your back and taking your baby .
I bet Steve Irwin wouldnt ski with his child in his bag, coz he doesnt know what he's doing. Likewise, I wouldn't hold my baby above a croc, 'coz I dont know what I'm doing. Nobody would tell a trained/proffessional skier (steve equivalent) that carrying a baby on his back while skiing is dangerous....and I'd bet lots more kids die from skiing accidents than from croc accidents.
 
*Oversized_Orange* said:
Nobody would tell a trained/proffessional skier (steve equivalent) that carrying a baby on his back while skiing is dangerous....and I'd bet lots more kids die from skiing accidents than from croc accidents.
Click to expand...

I most definitely would tell a professional skier that carrying a baby on his back whilst skiing is dangerous! As I would also tell a Nascar driver that having the baby in the front seat whilst racing is dangerous, and I'd tell an AFL player that strapping the baby to his ankle whilst he plays football is dangerous.

I can't see your logic at all. What's not dangerous about putting a baby on your back and skiing down a mountain?
 
irwin2.gif
 
I LOVE Steve Irwin. He is passinate about what he does for a living and the world that HE lives in. (which i think is quite lacking in society really)

He is always energetic, excited and bubbly (why can't more people in the world be like this?) We have all lost what life and living is about i reckon.

I personally would not take my month old (even my now near nine year old) into a croc pit because i am not experienced or a professional croc handler.

I'm sure HE however knew what he was doing and the fact that people actually think that a good parent would actually take their child into danger on purpose is just moronic.

I agree with Anna though, at one month old the babys head should be supported.

*Oversized_Orange* said:
Holding your kid above the jaws of a crocodile is no more dangerous than commonplace activities such as skiing down an icey mountain with your baby on your back and taking your baby .
I bet Steve Irwin wouldnt ski with his child in his bag, coz he doesnt know what he's doing. Likewise, I wouldn't hold my baby above a croc, 'coz I dont know what I'm doing. Nobody would tell a trained/proffessional skier (steve equivalent) that carrying a baby on his back while skiing is dangerous....and I'd bet lots more kids die from skiing accidents than from croc accidents.
Click to expand...

^^^ and that is what it comes down to i think. Knowing what your doing with YOUR child and making a desision based on experience and what you know. Who is anyone to judge anyones parenting methods? especially if they have not met the parent or the child and knows their lifestyle? Or even has the faintest idea about parenting itself and all they have to say is heresay.
 
^^^ but this isn't a discussion of general parenting methods - it's about a specific situation wherein he exposed his baby to pointless risks.
 
More people die in car accidents than from croc attacks, perhaps we should start prosecuting parents who drive with children in their car because they are so obviously endangering their childs life with this dangerous and risky practice... 8(
 
onetwothreefour said:
^^^ but this isn't a discussion of general parenting methods - it's about a specific situation wherein he exposed his baby to pointless risks.
Click to expand...

and i thought i answered that question :\

am i not allowed to add a bit more? 8(

I stayed on topic after all =D
 
yes, but you asked "who is anyone to judge anyones parenting methods". and my answer was that i'm not judging his "parenting methods," instead, i'm judging the stupidity of his actions in a specific situation.
 
Last edited:
and btw...

Originally posted by killarava2day
More people die in car accidents than from croc attacks, perhaps we should start prosecuting parents who drive with children in their car because they are so obviously endangering their childs life with this dangerous and risky practice... 8(


-->

Originally posted by Macksta
*Bangs head on table*

This argument is the most specious kind of reasoning I have ever heard of.

Firstly, the fact that there are more car accidents than crocodile attacks doesn't mean that cars are more dangerous than crocodiles, it just means we're exposed to situations in which we travel in cars FAR more than situations where we can be attacked by crocodiles.

Of course car accidents that end in fatalities are far more prevalent, even if cars were 100x safer than crocodiles we're still going to end up with more car than crocodile fatalties, simply for the sheer volumes in which we use cars.


go read the rest of macksta's post (on the first page) too, it's the best and most well-reasoned in this thread.
 
Firstly, the fact that there are more car accidents than crocodile attacks doesn't mean that cars are more dangerous than crocodiles, it just means we're exposed to situations in which we travel in cars FAR more than situations where we can be attacked by crocodiles.
Click to expand...

Yes, but this incident occurred in a controlled environment whereas driving involves going into uncontrolled environments and putting your life, and the lives of others at a certain level of risk. So in this respect, this one isolated incident was probably a lot less dangerous than driving on the road. The fact that crocodiles may be statistically more dangerous than cars is largely irrelevant, the fact remains that under these circumstances greater care was probably taken in ensuring the safety of all involved than would ever be available driving on the road. One might well be a AAA driver but one can also never ensure that they aren't going to be enangered by another road user, there are just too many variables involved. And the media gets themselves worked into such a self-righteous lather over this incident yet ignores other much more glaring examples of endangerment. It is pure hyperbolic sensationalism, nothing more. If people really do care about child endangerment then I'm sure they could find other much more pressing issue to get hysterial over. Personally, if I ever have children I would prefer them to be exposed to some risks rather than live a sterile safety obsessed life that doesn't offer much in the way of character building experiences. Life is dangerous, period, and we can either accept that and get over it or we can be like ostriches with our heads stuck in the sand and pretend that it is possible to live a risk free life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top