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

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

Steve Irwin - Little Beauty! OR Beast?

^^^ the kid is a month old, you're not building his character by putting him at risk!

and yes, i understand that precautions were probably taken, but it's still an utterly pointless risk. travelling in a car is generally considered an *acceptable* risk because it has a purpose - to go somewhere. by putting his kid at risk in front of the crocodile at this age, there is zero acceptable purpose, thus it's not an acceptable risk.

if the kid were a bit older, things would be different - then the risk might be acceptable because yes, he might actually be able to learn something about crocodiles and their behaviour, and to get used to being around them. but that's a different issue...
 
But who are you to judge what is and isn't an acceptable risk? People should be able to make their own choices about how they raise their kids, society is unduly obsessed with interfering in people's lives over minor bullshit when there are so many things in the world that warrant real attention. Steve Irwin is a dick, I have no respect for him, but the grilling he is receiving over this is churlish , to say te least.
 
^^^^So if I have a child someday and decide that it'd be fun to have him sitting on the roof of my car while I go for a drive, should THAT be allowed? After all, he's my kid, right? Who is anyone to judge my "parenting technique"?

Basically, what this comes down to is that Steve Irwin is an adult, and accountable for himself. He should be allowed to take any risk he likes as long as he's not involving anyone other than himself or another consenting adult.

But a one-month old child doesn't get to choose whether he wants to be danced around in front of a crocodile or not. He's NOT able to make that decision for himself, and that is the primary point here. I notice nobody here answered the question I raised earlier: how many of you who have supported Steve Irwin's actions would let him repeat that performance with your own child?

It's all well and good to argue personal freedom and alternative parenting and all the rest of it, but we're talking about one human being putting their human being at risk for no other reason than self-gain. And that is morally reprehensible. This issue isn't about whether he's a bad father or not, it's about whether he behaved responsibly with the safety of another human being when that human being wasn't in a position to make their own decision about the situation.

For what it's worth, I don't believe in wrapping your kids up in cotton wool. They need to make their own mistakes and they need to learn to face adversity and unfamiliar situations. But when a child is totally dependent on you for their every need, you don't place them in danger unless they're going to gain benefit from it.

And as for this:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree completely with anna. Babies aren't property, they're human beings. Having them doesn't give you the privelege to treat them how you will, it gives you the responsibility of caring for them.

On another note....that was a funny pic that killarava posted. ;)
 
I wholeheartedly agree with Raz. I really don’t think I need to state my views when they have been so eloquently put forward by many people in this thread but in a nutshell IMO Steve Irwin is a bloody idiot and that child was way to young to be used in a publicity stunt like it was.
 
I don't agree that it was a publicity stunt either, i don't believe children shoulod be openly part of the media at all but that's a different topic all together ;)

Raz i think the example you used about putting a baby on a car was a little out of context. We are talking about a professional knowing what he is doing and knowing that his baby is in his safe care.
 
If you are all so concerned about the welfare of children then why don't you focus on something a litle less esoteric. I don't see any of those grilling Irwin here starting any threads about our governments sytematic abuse of children through the illegal detention of asylum seekers, for instance. Instead you would prefer to work yourselves into a state of moral indignation because of what happened to a single child in the hands of a trained professional. Quite frankly, you are all being played by the media, who likes to focus on crap like this so they an fill of their 30 second sound byte slots wiuthout having to look at REAL issues, such as the fact that children are being put at real risk simply to make Johnny Howard look tough on refugee's.
 
Show me one person in this thread who said they had no feelings of concern for other abused children? I think you're getting slightly nit-picky about the whole thing. We can be concerned about a child being put at risk in this situation, and we can be concerned about children being abused in detention centres. The two are not mutually exlusive. We've talked about various subjects concering child abuse on this board in the past. And equally, no one is under any obligation to start a thread about everything they've ever felt perturbed about. So pull your head in.
 
Killarava2day:

If you want to discuss refugees then you can do so in those threads that specifically debate the topic. There's been a number of them in the past year or so and look, I even bumped one for you. No need to thank me.

As intelligent human beings we have the ability to discuss a number of different issues of varying relevance and importance both concurrently and at different times. Just because we may sometimes debate those matters that may be of a more trivial nature does not mean we're ignoring the important issues. News and the discussion that surrounds it is topical and changes constantly.

For the moment this thread is about Steve Irwin and what he did to his baby. I'm sure many of the participants in this thread have had their say on asylum seekers, I know I have:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthre...refugees+asylum

But for the time being we're discussing something else.
 
Show me one person in this thread who said they had no feelings of concern for other abused children?
Click to expand...

I never said that, I was trying to point out just how irrelevant this incident is when compared to other issues of child safety. No-one in this forum has any control over, nor responsibility for, the choices Irwin makes about his child. Whereas children in detention is something we, as taxpayers, are responsible for. So rather than waxing lyrical about what a bad man Irwin is why not focus your energies on something we all hold a common responsibility for.

We can be concerned about a child being put at risk in this situation, and we can be concerned about children being abused in detention centres. The two are not mutually exlusive.
Click to expand...

But one needs to ask, why does this receive so much attention when REAL issues do not? Why has this thread got two pages dedicated to an individual act when there is NOT ONE thread regarding the plight of children in detention? (don't believe me? Do a search, there are half a dozen threads that conaint he words asylum seekers, not one of them focuses of the detention of children) Now, i'm not saying anybody is obliged to post about other issues, just that it is indicative of where our values as a society lie. Your taxes go towards incarcerating children, you are responsible for their plight, so where the fuck do you get off casting judgement on old Stevo? That just stinks of hypocrisy. I won't "pull my head in" because I think it is important to expose such hypocrisy, whether or not you like it does not even begin to phase me in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
Macksta- I'm not trying to start a debate about refugees, I am making a statement about where we as a society place our values, I am using refugees as an example to illustrate my point. i'm sure as "an intelligent human being" you can see that.
 
Originally posted by killarava2day
But one needs to ask, why does this receive so much attention when REAL issues do not? Why has this thread got two pages dedicated to an individual act when there is NOT ONE thread regarding the plight of children in detention? (don't believe me? Do a search, there are half a dozen threads that conaint he words asylum seekers, not one of them focuses of the detention of children)

well here's a thought - how about you start one? Don't whinge about there not being any threads if you're not prepared to start such a thread yourself.
 
killarava2day said:

But one needs to ask, why does this receive so much attention when REAL issues do not? Why has this thread got two pages dedicated to an individual act when there is NOT ONE thread regarding the plight of children in detention? (don't believe me? Do a search, there are half a dozen threads that conaint he words asylum seekers, not one of them focuses of the detention of children) Now, i'm not saying anybody is obliged to post about other issues, just that it is indicative of where our values as a society lie. Your taxes go towards incarcerating children, you are responsible for their plight, so where the fuck do you get off casting judgement on old Stevo? That just stinks of hypocrisy. I won't "pull my head in" because I think it is important to expose such hypocrisy, whether or not you like it does not even begin to phase me in the slightest.
Click to expand...

I suppose it comes down to the fact that people like me dont care about people in dentention centres.

The detention centre thing is soooo... old news a current affair has already bored us to death with that... the only reason why Steve Irwin is in trouble is to sell news papers or give Ray a job.
 
Last edited:
Killarava2day: But you see you don't have a point. Refugees and children in detention have nothing to do with this thread and it's really sad you can't see that. As a society I have values with regards to asylum seekers and other humanitarian issues, and I also have values on standards of parenting which is what this thread is about .

This thread isn't about refugees, it's not about child abuse or children in detention.

It's about what does and does not constitute appropriate standards of parenting with specific regard to Steve Irwin and it also touches on the use/misuse of infants for commercial gain.

Children in detention has little if anything to do with issues of parenting or the commercial exploitation of infants.

You seem to be widening the focus of the debate to take in satellite issues that have little bearing on the main point at hand. In that sense you display a particularly unsophisticated ability to separate issues that have the most tenuous of links and in that sense your highly creative attempt to link Government policy on children in detention with what is essentially a topic about parenting is completely misguided.

Your argument that attempts to display Anna as a hypocrite is absolutely pathetic and makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to add 2 and 2 and come up with 9.
 
Last edited:
I honestly don't see what this has to do with this thread, and if you carry on this line of conversation I'm going to edit the off-topic parts out of your posts.

If you're so angry about it, by all means go and start another thread. But don't start trying to question our morals because we choose to talk about endangering this particular child, instead of other particular children. This thread is about Steve Irwin and what he did. Please start another thread to talk about children in detention centres.
 
/shrugs

Yeah, I remember why I never post in this forum anymore. it's the lamest piece of shite BL has to offer.

I'm out.
 
Ahem, in an attempt to get this thread back on topic I'd like to ask the question that Raz and myself have already raised.

Who here among us would let Steve Irwin take their own 1 month old child/sibling into a crocodile pen to perform the same stunt?

It's a good question, and I'd be interested to hear peoples opinions, esp. those who support what Steve Irwin did.
 
Macksta said:
Who here among us would let Steve Irwin take their own 1 month old child/sibling into a crocodile pen to perform the same stunt?
Click to expand...

I would rather eat razor blades.
 
How many aunts or aunties would let us babysit their children - if they knew we had regular experiences with drug use. I'm sure that most of us would think that our drug use has nothing do with our ability to mind children. (obvious exceptions excluded).

i sure most of us here are "responsible" with our drug use, but do other people understand that?

please note that im not comparing the physcial acts AS MUCH as im trying to highlight the difference of perception in peoples minds.

I think that we have the right not to let Steve take our kid into the pen with crocs, but I dont think we have the right to look down at him because he does it with his own child.

killaraver's points and references arent that bad. he is highlighting the fact that the media has made a mountain out of a molehill.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top