Croc-o-s**t

[AndyC]

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."

[Eirik]

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.

[ulthar]

Eirik wrote:

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

My wife would agree with that!   :)

[JohnL]

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

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

[Susan]

eh?

[dean]

"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'

[wickednick]

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.

[Susan]

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)

[ulthar]

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.

[Eirik]

"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.

[FearlessFreep]

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

[ulthar]

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.

[Ash]

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.

[Susan]

>>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...