Badmovies.org Forum

For those of you who dislike Steve Irwin, aka the Crocodie Hunter, dig this:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040102071909990001

Personally I agree withn Steve in that he probably had complete control of the situation and little Bobcroc was in no danger.  However, being a celebrity puts you in the public eye continually, and one little slipup will damn you as a fool; whereas the same act, committed by the public, would go unnoticed.  It's interesting that the article failed to note that Steve juggled his babe with hands contaminated by raw chicken, to boot.  Maybe I should pen a follow-up . . . . . .

It kind of reminded me of Michael Jackson dangling his baby over that ledge.

can't read the article - not an aol member

If I did something of questionable judgement with my kids, the only person who's opinion really would matter would be my wife's.  If they've worked it out or she's ok with it or whatever...who am I to say anything?

FearlessFreep wrote:

> If I did something of questionable judgement with my kids, the
> only person who's opinion really would matter would be my
> wife's.  If they've worked it out or she's ok with it or
> whatever...who am I to say anything?
>

Wasn't his wife standing right there (smiling, I think) the whole time, implicitly giving her consent?

I suspect we don't know the whole story on this.  Some possibilities: the croc could have been majorly drugged; the croc could have just eaten a goat or something (they really don't eat that often, as we warm blooded creatures do) and therefore was not hungry.  In either of these cases (and others you may offer), the croc would not have really posed a threat of any kind.  That's the thing about limbic creatures, they are fairly predictable.

I want to believe something like a simple explanation, as I cannot imagine someone putting their own child in that position.

I've been to Australia Zoo (where Steve Irwin lives), and I know that he knows what he's doing.

As someone else said, it's really no-one else's business besides Steve and Terri Irwin's.

Channel 10 were running stories last night about "worldwide condemnation" of the act etc, and the first thing I thought was "Oh for God's sake, who cares???"

Try this link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/australia_crocodile_hunter)

---

I for one totally think that it's Erwin's business and no one else's.

The guy does know what he's doing.

I agree with Colt....who cares!?

At least Erwin isn't a total wacko like Jacko!

Hehe!

I don't mind Steve Irwin too much myself .. heres a net cartoon which picked on Steve ....

http://dynamic5.gamespy.com/~extralife/archive.php?date=2003-08-27



Post Edited (01-05-04 10:04)

Sorry dude, the guy is a complete dumb ass and I hope they throw the book at him.

Velvet Brotha wrote:

> Sorry dude, the guy is a complete dumb ass and I hope they
> throw the book at him.

This begs the question, though, do parents really have the right to raise their child as they see fit?  Now that I am a parent, I find it increasing difficult to criticize other's rearing habits as I know some of what I do would make some other people cringe (though I have not, yet anyway, tried to feed a croc with my daughter in my arms...come to think of it, I am not into feeding crocodiles anyway).

This is a very minor example, but it illustrates the point.  My wife and I want our daughter to have some independence and to learn to not always have to rely on others.  She is a toddler and has been walking for a couple of months.  Sometimes she falls down; sometimes she even bonks herself a little (she once gave herself a bruise on the nose that made her look like Rudolf).  Many of the parents with whom we come into contact run to their children and snatch them up and cuddle and comfort when they fall down.  We tend not to (it is a judgement call whether she is really hurt or just upset about falling).

I know I have seen the looks from mothers like "you brute, why are you not comforting your child?  How can you be so heartless."  But we have found that our daughter shakes off relatively small bumps and bruises with a chuckle and goes right back to playing.  She's a tough little cookie.  When she needs comforting, we give it to her, but she does not seek it for every little thing.  We trust our instincts to tell the difference.

It's a personal decision.  But, hey, I could see some overzealous DSS worker (in my state, they can be aggressive if they are trying to make a name for themselves) seeing us do that and think "neglect."  Parental neglect is a very, very serious charge, one that I think is thrown about far too easily.

And yes, my attitudes of parenting have change enormously since having a child.

Anyway, did Irwin cross some line?  I don't know.  I still contend that we are only getting the "gasp-look what he did" part of the story, when there may be more to it.

I saw pictures in the paper, and it didn't look like the kid was in any danger, relatively speaking.

Besides, I can't imagine Irwin did it without giving it some thought ahead of time. As a father, he is probably more concerned for that kid's welfare than any of his critics, and he's certainly not going to involve the kid in a show on a whim. People need to give him a little credit. He knows his way around crocodiles. I don't doubt for a minute that safety is foremost on his mind, regardless of how reckless he might appear.

Of course, I also thought the fuss over Michael Jackson on the balcony was overblown. The idea of Jackson as a father presents many scarier possibilities.

Ulthar,

I agrre with you on your methods used in raising your child. I myself have a daughter that was born on December 15th and I intend to teach her to be independent as well. I feel that sometimes parents can over react by rushing to a child when it falls. Good judgement would determine whether or not the baby is hurt and needs comforting. However, The Crocodile Hunter outta have his nuts chewed off by the croc!

Velvet Brotha wrote:

> Ulthar,
>
> I agrre with you on your methods used in raising your child. I
> myself have a daughter that was born on December 15th and I
> intend to teach her to be independent as well.

Well, CONGRATS TO YOU, man!!  :)

Thank you sir!

My brother occasionally chats with some Aussies and they find Steve to be an embarrasment to their country.

>>My brother occasionally chats with some Aussies and they find Steve to be an embarrasment to their country.<<

I bet when those aussies come to america they line up to see our national embarassment..sigfreid and roy

Steve is an embarrasment to our country.  I only know one person who talks like him, the rest of us are slightly normal whilst he is nuts.    Did anyone see that interview with him and he got his daughter on and she said she just wants to be like her daddy when she grows up?  It was so staged and so full of s**t.

He even 'walked' the baby in front of the croc.  Now the baby probably wasn't in danger and all that crap, but who walks their baby in front of a croc all for the sake of a show?  He's just using his baby as a stage prop and that's what I thought was wrong with that.

"I bet when those aussies come to america they line up to see our national embarassment..sigfreid and roy"

hehe, whilst that would be funny, no that's not what we do.  I've known a few people who have gone to the US and all these people asked them if they had a pet kangaroo, and most have managed to convince many of you folk that we have kangaroos everywhere, and that it is possible to ride them when you are young or small enough.  I'd though

It's kinda funny hearing how many fall for that one though it is a little hard to believe, but sorry to say, that isn't the case here.

Oh yeah, and Irwin was in the running for Australian of the Year.  Thankfully this stunt has made his nomination invalid [I think].  It would be a sad day for all if he won.  A sad sad day...

>>hehe, whilst that would be funny, no that's not what we do. I've known a few people who have gone to the US and all these people asked them if they had a pet kangaroo<<

Not much different, american's are stereotyped as well. In the past many years i've had friendships with those in other countries (which i myself have lived in) and it never fails..when i tell them i live in texas everyone thinks that we all have horses, wear cowboy hats and they always bring up the tv show. i live in dallas, and ..uh..it's a city. The only time i see that crap is if i go to the rodeo in fort worth (which i never do). In all my years living here i have never...ever just been driving down the road and seen a cowboy on a horse lasso'ing. And only the scant few..usually the redneck born and bred from the trailer park have the deep accent...yowl.  I guess if the only exposure you get to a place is through tv you easily get the wrong idea.

I guess that's why aussies hate steve, he sorta feeds a stereotype that maybe you guys wanna steer away from..not to mention the few aussies that become an international phenomenon you dont want to be a big khaki wearing dork ;-)
Trust me when we make fun of steve, we don't make fun of australia...just steve, all alone in his idiot world. Plus I just love saying stuff imitating him and how excited he gets..."By crike this is a big ant! She's a beaut! Careful now...easy girl....she just might sting your big toe!"

Hehe, we all hate Steve as well.  Just you wait, if you're ever down here watch out, they not only have Steve Irwin action figures that speak [kill me please!] but at the airport they have Steve Irwin Snakes [jelly snakes sorta thing]  

Why can't we have better aussies icon other than a nutcase and a chick with a really good butt [not that I'm complaining]

I saw a kids flashlight the other day that had an image of Erwin's face that you could put on the end of the thing and it would project his face onto the wall or whatever else you shined it on!

Good point Susan. For Canadians, the MacKenzie stereotype endures 20 years after Thomas and Moranis stopped playing the characters. Still, I don't think anyone is more tickled by this than Canadians. As a nation, I suppose we like to laugh at ourselves.

Or maybe it's because it feeds our favourite stereotype - the ignorant American. Sorry guys :)

dean wrote:

> Why can't we have better aussies icon other than a nutcase and
> a chick with a really good butt [not that I'm complaining]

Did you like it better when our collective American image of an Aussie was Crocodile Dundee?  Come to think of it, it hasn't changed all that much.

>>Why can't we have better aussies icon other than a nutcase and a chick with a really good butt [not that I'm complaining]
<<

Who's the chick with the good butt..nicole kidman?! There's russell crowe..and don't forget crocodile dundee..hehe

>>Or maybe it's because it feeds our favourite stereotype - the ignorant American. Sorry guys<<

now i'm drawing a blank on these funny songs i downloaded from the net once..some canadian band singing jokes songs about "eh" and beer and americans..weird titles..funny tho

The crocodile hunters foolish antics are nothing compared to what is going on in high places.

>Good point Susan. For Canadians, the MacKenzie stereotype endures 20 years
>after Thomas and Moranis stopped playing the characters.

Several years ago, I was trading software with a guy in Canada, ay?. The first time I talked to him on the phone, I would have sworn I was talking to either Bob or Doug, ay? He sounded just like them, ay? :)

As for Steve Irwin, anyone here ever see Mad TV's claymation Aussie Hunter sketches?

AH: While my wife distracts the gorilla by hitting him in the groin with a board, I'm going to sneak up and take his temperature rectally. There's absolutely no good reason to do this. This is REALLY stupid!

The sketches usually ended up with him and his wife being dismembered.

As a parent I have a few observations:

1.  Steve Irwin is either ignorant or full of it when he offers the defense that he was giving the kid a great "sensory experience."  A 4-5 week old child cannot see anything more than 18 inches from his face.  He could have dangled the kid in front of a small shrub for an equivelent "sensory experience."  He did it to show off and use his kid in his act to entertain people.  That should be obvious.

2.  Irwin claims to have been in total control of the animal.  Nope.  I've seen him get bit and snapped at too many times to think that he has any control over the wild animals he works with.  And here's one further: Steve Irwin didn't even have control of the kid!  At 4-5 weeks, a kid can throw its weight around well enough that a parent holding him one-handed could drop him if the parent wasn't paying attention.  It was a dangerous stunt and he's lucky nothing bad happened.

3.  "It's nobody's business but Steve Irwin's and his wife's" is a crock of s**t excuse, folks.  As a society, we have an obligation to let parents raise their children as they see fit UNLESS those parents harm the child or put the child in an unreasonable danger of harm.  In other words, If I stuck a balloon in my 2-year old kid's mouth, made her stand in front of a fence, and threw knives at the balloon, it ceases to be "nobody's business but mine and my wife's."

I respect Australia's right to enforce their laws as they see fit.  But if that had happened in my jurisdiction and the prosecutor didn't press charges, I'd be writing letters.

Actually a good parallell to the Steve Irwin story is that nut out in the midwest who made a big fuss over getting arrested for breast feeding her child while she was driving.  She offered the argument that she knew what she was doing and it was nobody's business but her own.  Any accident, be it her fault or some other driver's, and that kid would have been paste - as would she since she took her seat belt off to breast feed.

Eirik wrote:

> 3.  "It's nobody's business but Steve Irwin's and his wife's"
> is a crock of s**t excuse, folks.  As a society, we have an
> obligation to let parents raise their children as they see fit
> UNLESS those parents harm the child or put the child in an
> unreasonable danger of harm.  
>

Eirik, I don't disagree with you, but as a point of discussion I think the issue ultimately becomes one of where you define 'harm.'  In this particular case, I think there is no debating that the child (and parent) were in SOME danger.  Irwin saw that danger as less than most of us, who are not as familiar with crocodile behavior.

But the problem I have is that there are many people who define "harm" way to liberally ... things that really, truly are personal preferences.  For example, we take our daughter to church and we do read her the Bible; we also read her non-Biblical stories.  We watch Veggie Tales, but we also watch non-religious based movies with her.

We think church is important; I won't hide that.  But, some people could claim that we are 'harming' our child by exposing her to 'overly rigid rules of how to live,' or whatever arrow one wishes to shoot at organized religion.  Likewise, an overly zealous religious person could opine that we are "harming" our daughter by reading stories that DON'T contain moral messages or have religious foundations.

My point is that there are cases where we all would certainly agree a parent is putting a child in danger - the chick breastfeeding while driving is a great example.  But there are a LOT of greyer areas, too, and as often as not, it seems to me at least, the line is constantly being moved closer and closer to the ridiculous goal of 'no danger at any time.'

Also, we get a whole bunch of people who say things like psychological "harm"
is just as damaging; but that is much harder to define.  Some would say that by allowing my daughter to throw her temper tantrum tonight (basically ignoring her), we were 'neglecting her needs.'  Others would possibly say 'you should have given her something to cry about.'

Again, I don't disagree with your statement, but I am wary of who gets to define "harm" and by what standard that is judged.  I have personal knowledge of cases where DSS has REMOVED children from very loving parents, who in the end, after much painful wrangling in court were finally able to prove their side was the more "reasonable" and the DSS staff was borderline lunatic to have taken action.  In my view, an overzealous do-gooder can also do "harm."

$0.02 more than you asked for    :)

As an Australian, I think Steve Irwin over-does the whole "Rugged Outback Guy" thing.

I'm as guilty as the next Australian of spreading the myth of Drop Bears, rideable Kangaroos, and vicious, man eating Wombats, but what worries me is how many Americans take it seriously.

If an American tried to tell me that the Bald Eagle could carry off a person, or that Prairie Dogs could be trained to dance to Show Tunes, I'd laugh heartily and suggest that person lay off the Budweiser.

But I digress. I still beleive that Steve Irwin knew what he was doing, and that at the end of the day this is really a non-event hyped by a bored media on a slow news day.

The Queensland Government has already said they're not going to do anything about it, Irwin points out that there were something like 5 guys in the pool with ropes and tranquilisers to take out the croc if it tried anything, and he's still in the running for Australian Of The Year, which he's likely to win since no-one can name a single one of the other nominees.

If we ignore this, it will go away...

JohnL wrote:
> Several years ago, I was trading software with a guy in Canada,
> ay?. The first time I talked to him on the phone, I would have
> sworn I was talking to either Bob or Doug, ay? He sounded just
> like them, ay? :)

There are indeed Canadians just like the MacKenzies. That's why Canadians love them more than anybody. To an American, they're just a pair of goofballs who talk funny, but we actually know people like that. They are to Canada, what the southern redneck is to the US - not really representative of the country as a whole, but a significant part of it.

Still, to be honest, I think Bob and Doug, Red Green or even the Trailer Park Boys present a more favourable image of Canada than, say, Celine Dion.

By the way, we spell the word "eh" not "ay."

Ulthar - I saw your earlier post and I have to say we're on the same page as far as child rearing goes, and I have caught the dirty looks too.  My response is to usually shoot the same look back when the offender is over-coddling.

That said, I don't think this is so hard to define.  "Reasonable risk" is something like letting him try bike riding or football.  Unreasonable risk is dangling your kid in front of a wild carnivore to entertain people.  I'm trying to think of something that is close to that line wherever it is, but I can't.  Kid in a car with no car seat - unreasonable risk...  unless not taking him is a greater risk (like if he needs to get to a hospital).  While I admit I can't give you solid rules, this is simpler than you're making it.

As for the intolerant bigots who think religion is bad for children - and I must say I have yet to encounter anyone with the gall to make that viewpoint public - I dismiss them for what they are.

Eirik wrote:

> ...this is simpler than you're making it.
>

My wife would agree with that!   :)

>By the way, we spell the word "eh" not "ay."

Ok, I just wrote it the way it's pronounced. :)

eh?

"By the way, we spell the word "eh" not "ay."

damn, and here I was hoping that Canada was a good place to find some pirates!

"Who's the chick with the good butt..nicole kidman?! There's russell crowe..and don't forget crocodile dundee..hehe"

Russel Crowe is a Kiwi, but we claim him as our own for some reason [it's actually funny watching the Australian media say he's an aussie when he wins an oscar, but he's New Zealand born when he buggers up!]

The chick with the good butt is Kylie Minogue, who, by the way, went to my high school [rubs chest in a manly and proud way, before getting clocked over the head with a phone book] I guess she hasn't really broken into the US market so much yet, but is very big in other countries.  Some british paper published a life sized photo of her butt in the paper once.  That's pretty funny.

I never thought Crocodile Dundee was that annoying, until they made sequels [third is especially horrible] Whilst it is a bad movie, at least it made Aussies seem kinda bad ass, instead of 'Crikey look at this little beauty'

If I had a baby and was stupid enough to want it to see a croc up close, Steve Irwin would be my first choice as a person to handle my child and let it see a croc up close.
It probably was not the smartest thing for Steve to do with his newborn, but he knows more about crocs than anyone and would know the safest way to show a croc to a baby.

My thoughts on this since it's constantly brought up at my work. I think he is responsible with his children when it comes to animals. They don't live in a cush house..they live in that zoo and no doubt those kids will have to understand and get used to animals because they'll be working with them and may even make that their career. It's not because they live in australia they need to know about crocs, it's because they literally live in a zoo...lol.

Now parents do dumb s**t all the time with their children and half the time they don't even perceive it as wrong (at least at the time) all for the sake of amusing others.  I've seen parents balance their standing baby in the palm of their hand...or maybe leave them alone with their family dog.  I used to get on my friend all the time because she let her kids from the moment they could walk access the refridgerator and that is very dangerous. Not only could they eat or drink something bad but drop a huge jar of juice or pull down a shelf..they also were allowed to get right up to the stove and get into the silverware drawer.

Now him with the baby out there, I feel it was in no danger..he knows what he's doing and even if you are an idiot most parents will not endanger their kids..conciously. However, with it just being an infant who will gain nothing from the experience..having your kid as part of "the show" is exploitation. You could also say those who put their babies and children in commercials and acting is also exploitation.  We have folks here in america ladies and gentlemen..who let young children to close to and even pet very dangerous animals, because it's an educational experience and the animal expert, as we put faith in them, knows what they are doing. I think my only beef with steve was having an infant as part of the show. They don't know what's going on and its all for laughs from the audience...which is what I'm sure is what he was going for.

But there are bigger issues going on in the world folks ;-)



Post Edited (01-10-04 11:07)

Susan wrote:

>
> Now parents do dumb s**t all the time with their children and
> half the time they don't even perceive it as wrong (at least at
> the time) all for the sake of amusing others.  

Yep.  Have you seen "America's Funniest Videos" lately?  Some of the stuff on there (I can only stomach about 5 minutes of that show per month, if that) I find appalling that parents put on.  And some of it is just plain mean.

Hey, I have as good a sense of humor as the next guy, but putting videos of your kid repeatedly passing gas, or falling on his face, or getting pelted by another kid just for laughs from the AFV audience is, I think, pretty cheesy.  And besides, some things are funny at home but are really none of anybody else's business.

--One Guy's Thoughts.

"It probably was not the smartest thing for Steve to do with his newborn, but he knows more about crocs than anyone and would know the safest way to show a croc to a baby."

The safest way to show a croc to a baby: through shatter-proof glass.  Wow, I am an authority on large reptiles and I didn't even know it.

Obviously the guy knows his stuff and he loves his job and wants people to be
excited about the things he finds exciting, too.

I'm not sure why anyone  would be embarrasesed by that; there are certainly a lot of worse ways to be represented to the world

wyckednick wrote:

> If I had a baby and was stupid enough to want it to see a croc
> up close, Steve Irwin would be my first choice as a person to
> handle my child and let it see a croc up close.
> It probably was not the smartest thing for Steve to do with his
> newborn, but he knows more about crocs than anyone and would
> know the safest way to show a croc to a baby.
>

I'm not the first to say this, but I think it merits repeating.  A one month old cannot really see much of ANYTHING (except light and vague shapes) and certainly does not understand what it is seeing.  A one month old cannot even recognize Mommy and Daddy by sight.  Many babies up to 6 months or so do not even know what feeling tired or hungry means, or that napping or eating will correct it.  Human babies at birth still have a LOT of neurogical development to do yet.

That said, there is no point for him to show his or any other baby a croc at that age for the edification of the baby.

A one year old MIGHT get SOMETHING out of it, but I doubt even that.

My daughter is almost two and she would probably be only interested in it because it's different.  She would perceive no danger, nor would she probably even remember it in two weeks.  If she were around it everyday like she is our family cat, well, maybe it would mean something to her.

I think it's Erwin's way of "passing the torch" just a little early to his son.

They claimed that Erwin's motivation for bringing the child close to the croc was to get the child used to being around crocs.

I feel that the motivation was more of a psychological thing for Erwin....and not his son.

>>Yep. Have you seen "America's Funniest Videos" lately? Some of the stuff on there (I can only stomach about 5 minutes of that show per month, if that) I find appalling that parents put on. And some of it is just plain mean.<<

And vs having THAT on the news as parents endangering children, we reward them with $50,000...which probably encourages more parents to do dumb things with their kids. One could question videotaping your crawling infant being knocked down by your family rotweiller as funny...