Page 4 of 5 |
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 00:08 Post subject: |
|
 |
Jenni, lol, why do you put up with this shit? Just lock the damn thread and be done with it...
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 00:26 Post subject: |
|
 |
TBH I don't think that articulates the big difference between the two, It's the fact that when you drive a car the objective has nothing to do with danger whatsoever, however when you enter the crocodile pen your objective is absolutely to interact with an animal that is potentially lethal.
It's still not particularly eloquent but the two actions are polar fucking oposite.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 00:27 Post subject: |
|
 |
Because Leo if I lock it I'll be accused of locking it because I can't hold an argument. Then again if I leave it open I'll be accused of not letting it die. So screw it, I know I'm right so its staying open. Just to see what bizarre arguments they will come up with next.
Lance damn you. Those are the perfect words that just wouldn't come to me earlier. Sigh I wish I had come up with them. Congrats.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 00:41 Post subject: |
|
 |
I agree one should argue his points (god know I do to the point it gets many mad ), but having to stand personal attacks for so long... Fuck 'em, you know?
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 00:45 Post subject: |
|
 |
I can take it Leo. Don't worry, I'm a big girl now. As far as I'm concerned, anyone that needs to resort to attacks on me have no argument and therefore have lost.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 08:15 Post subject: |
|
 |
Vodka-Redbull wrote: | Macknu, you don't even bother to read other replies, eh? Driving kids to a doctor isn't the same as taking them in a croc pen. There's NOT A SINGLE FUCKING REASON on planet Earth to take a kid into a croc pen while there are HUNDREDS to drive them around in a car.
STFU, ignorant bastard. Now ban me. |
If you would have read what i said maybe you would understand? There's necessery driving and there's those unnecessery ones. Most people do alot of unnecessery driving. See the different before making a fool out of your self.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 08:29 Post subject: |
|
 |
Sorry, couldn't help myself. I recall this very same discussion came up when Irwin was killed by accident. One group likes Irwin, the other one hates him - mainly because of the baby-episode. The only difference I see here is Jenni, the moderator, is not setting a very good example for herself or others - like any good moderator should.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 08:37 Post subject: |
|
 |
No matter how unnecessary a car trip is, its still going to be more relevant than getting into a croc pen with a child.
Macknu wrote: |
Just becouse you dont realise all parents put their childs at unnecessery risks daily?  |
Such as? Name an example of a parent putting their kids at risk daily.

Last edited by Jenni on Sat, 8th Sep 2007 08:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 08:39 Post subject: |
|
 |
For you and most people probably, for a croc hunter raised with crocs probably not. Not everyone are raised normally like us.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 08:41 Post subject: |
|
 |
The baby wasn't a part of his body. It's another human being. And no one, including his father, has the right to put him to risk. Regardless of training, skills etc.
"Only one country can destroy NATO in 40 minutes - it's Russia"
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 12:54 Post subject: |
|
 |
Vodka-Redbull wrote: | The baby wasn't a part of his body. It's another human being. And no one, including his father, has the right to put him to risk. Regardless of training, skills etc. |
The rest of the world doesn't follow your view of right and wrong.
Your and jenni's argument (which you keep saying again and again) is that
1. He puts the kid at (unnecessary) risk by bringing the baby into what you define as an unsafe environment.
and
2. That this is morally not right.
which makes you draw the conclusion
3. Putting the kid in (what you define as) a morally not right situation is not morally right (sic).
The weakness of your argument is the subjectivity and lack of ... shall we say, understanding of the circumstances concerning Steve Irvings life and life outside your world.
All of us try to generalise our way of living as the right ones, and by consequence we view other ways as wrong. This especially is true when it comes to reality, some people view for instance, abortion as morally wrong (absolutely). However morality (essentially: Right or Wrong) is a subjective matter.
In the 19:th Century philosophers argued that there is an absolute morality (eg. the will of "God" is right ("Whatever happens is God's mysterious ways)). This limited view of reality (fortunately) developed throughout history, and most people realize that the view of right and wrong actually is relative, and try not to impose their own moral agendas upon others.
In the case of this event I think two things really have to be considered:
a) The every day life of Steve Irving.
b) His experience with dealing with, in this particular case, crocodiles.
To an inexperienced person a car can be a deathtrap, and you may also argue that a car can be unpredictible, and there are certainly elements of unpredictibility in driving on a well-trafficed road.
Most people in what I would define as "our world" (western society) however has grown accustomed to this reality, of cars in every day life, and know how to handle ourselves in such environments (whether we're driving them or not). The fact is that people who grow up in cities where cars is a common component are very much less likely to get run over, or involved in a car accident thanks to knowing how to handle themselves in such circumstances.
Now, in the case of a) - this is very much so for Steve Irving, here is a man who not only on a day to day basis handled crocodiles, he did it as a profession as well. He grew up under such circumstances as well. You could say, this was a man truly obsessed with crocodiles (b).
Now, given our very limited understanding of what risk Steve is taking when he has his child with him while feeding the croc some of us automatically assume that he's putting his kid in clear and present danger, much the same as an inexperienced person would say that eg. a parent did when they led a child across an unsignalled street in a well-trafficed street.
Now one might argue that "well, there are people driving those cars - people stop when someone crosses the street".
The fact is though that people are unpredictible, some of us drink alcohol and drive, some of us speak in the mobile phone and forget to pay attention for awhile, and it needs not to be stated that traffic accidents do occur. But since most people agree that this is an "acceptable (low) risk" we still take our children with us in such environs.
For Steve Irving this is very much the same, he has a lifetime experience with something that an inexperienced person would view as an unsafe place to be, but to him it isn't - and had he not been killed, this is the environment his children would have to grow up in (just like many of us are brought up in cities with traffic etc.).
The essential point here is that what we view as "dangerous" or wrong is a subjective matter which we view from limited perspectives. We assume that everything we have a small experience of, if any experience at all - is dangerous, or something to be feared.
Naturally we argue our own subjective views of how something we don't know anything about with our perspective of the matter, but as with any such case - we ultimately are too limited to judge such situations. In fact, I believe we shouldn't.
I wouldn't take kindly to some morally biased person telling me I couldn't take my kids across the street who had lived their entire life in the countryside riding horses. Making such a person understand why it isn't dangerous is like trying to drive a nail through the wall using sheer willpower.
In conclusion I'd like to say that this is not just a fact concerning the life of Steven Irving, there are many cases where the incompetent are allowed to influence the life of the competent. Laws around how computers are allowed to be used are made by people who can hardly turn these machines on. Or non-parents giving parental advice to parents about how they should raise their children. Or people without driver's licenses telling experienced drivers ... yes, I realize I'm making one example too many.
I think ultimately whether or not Steve Irving knew what he was doing is viewed by the results of how he handled crocodiles, and the fact is that he sometimes were injured by these creatures, much like anyone can get injuries when they go to the bathroom, or slice cantalopes with a fruit knife.
Hopefully our children will be safe when we conduct such activities, but I have good faith in the fact that we as grown up people can judge whether a circumstance is an unnecessary risk or not. And when we do not know, we should probably just stay with commenting on situations we have experience with.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
_SiN_
Megatron
Posts: 12108
Location: Cybertron
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 14:02 Post subject: |
|
 |
dominae wrote: | Vodka-Redbull wrote: | The baby wasn't a part of his body. It's another human being. And no one, including his father, has the right to put him to risk. Regardless of training, skills etc. |
The rest of the world doesn't follow your view of right and wrong.
Your and jenni's argument (which you keep saying again and again) is that
1. He puts the kid at (unnecessary) risk by bringing the baby into what you define as an unsafe environment.
and
2. That this is morally not right.
which makes you draw the conclusion
3. Putting the kid in (what you define as) a morally not right situation is not morally right (sic).
The weakness of your argument is the subjectivity and lack of ... shall we say, understanding of the circumstances concerning Steve Irvings life and life outside your world.
All of us try to generalise our way of living as the right ones, and by consequence we view other ways as wrong. This especially is true when it comes to reality, some people view for instance, abortion as morally wrong (absolutely). However morality (essentially: Right or Wrong) is a subjective matter.
In the 19:th Century philosophers argued that there is an absolute morality (eg. the will of "God" is right ("Whatever happens is God's mysterious ways)). This limited view of reality (fortunately) developed throughout history, and most people realize that the view of right and wrong actually is relative, and try not to impose their own moral agendas upon others.
In the case of this event I think two things really have to be considered:
a) The every day life of Steve Irving.
b) His experience with dealing with, in this particular case, crocodiles.
To an inexperienced person a car can be a deathtrap, and you may also argue that a car can be unpredictible, and there are certainly elements of unpredictibility in driving on a well-trafficed road.
Most people in what I would define as "our world" (western society) however has grown accustomed to this reality, of cars in every day life, and know how to handle ourselves in such environments (whether we're driving them or not). The fact is that people who grow up in cities where cars is a common component are very much less likely to get run over, or involved in a car accident thanks to knowing how to handle themselves in such circumstances.
Now, in the case of a) - this is very much so for Steve Irving, here is a man who not only on a day to day basis handled crocodiles, he did it as a profession as well. He grew up under such circumstances as well. You could say, this was a man truly obsessed with crocodiles (b).
Now, given our very limited understanding of what risk Steve is taking when he has his child with him while feeding the croc some of us automatically assume that he's putting his kid in clear and present danger, much the same as an inexperienced person would say that eg. a parent did when they led a child across an unsignalled street in a well-trafficed street.
Now one might argue that "well, there are people driving those cars - people stop when someone crosses the street".
The fact is though that people are unpredictible, some of us drink alcohol and drive, some of us speak in the mobile phone and forget to pay attention for awhile, and it needs not to be stated that traffic accidents do occur. But since most people agree that this is an "acceptable (low) risk" we still take our children with us in such environs.
For Steve Irving this is very much the same, he has a lifetime experience with something that an inexperienced person would view as an unsafe place to be, but to him it isn't - and had he not been killed, this is the environment his children would have to grow up in (just like many of us are brought up in cities with traffic etc.).
The essential point here is that what we view as "dangerous" or wrong is a subjective matter which we view from limited perspectives. We assume that everything we have a small experience of, if any experience at all - is dangerous, or something to be feared.
Naturally we argue our own subjective views of how something we don't know anything about with our perspective of the matter, but as with any such case - we ultimately are too limited to judge such situations. In fact, I believe we shouldn't.
I wouldn't take kindly to some morally biased person telling me I couldn't take my kids across the street who had lived their entire life in the countryside riding horses. Making such a person understand why it isn't dangerous is like trying to drive a nail through the wall using sheer willpower.
In conclusion I'd like to say that this is not just a fact concerning the life of Steven Irving, there are many cases where the incompetent are allowed to influence the life of the competent. Laws around how computers are allowed to be used are made by people who can hardly turn these machines on. Or non-parents giving parental advice to parents about how they should raise their children. Or people without driver's licenses telling experienced drivers ... yes, I realize I'm making one example too many.
I think ultimately whether or not Steve Irving knew what he was doing is viewed by the results of how he handled crocodiles, and the fact is that he sometimes were injured by these creatures, much like anyone can get injuries when they go to the bathroom, or slice cantalopes with a fruit knife.
Hopefully our children will be safe when we conduct such activities, but I have good faith in the fact that we as grown up people can judge whether a circumstance is an unnecessary risk or not. And when we do not know, we should probably just stay with commenting on situations we have experience with. |
I'd agree to a certain extent that morality is skewed by cultural factors that maybe haven't been taken into consideration; but I think my opinion on this is that it's slightly different than say a south american indian or a native aboriginal child that has been born into an environment that they have to learn to survive in.
I think what's different is that Steve Irwin himself seemed to take unnecessary risks in an effort to sensationalise his television programs.
You're absolutely right that none of us are experts in Crocodile behaviour, but i'd put all the money I own that sticking your head into a dark hole isn't the best way to find out if there is a live potentially lethal predator there?
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 14:53 Post subject: |
|
 |
Parallax_ wrote: | Sorry, couldn't help myself. I recall this very same discussion came up when Irwin was killed by accident. One group likes Irwin, the other one hates him - mainly because of the baby-episode. The only difference I see here is Jenni, the moderator, is not setting a very good example for herself or others - like any good moderator should. |
It's nforce. Who'd care about a 'good example'? They're moderators on a medium sized forum, not politicians or high ranking law enforcement officers.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 15:21 Post subject: |
|
 |
Praetori wrote: | It's nforce. Who'd care about a 'good example'? |
I think several people does, including most of the moderators. It's all about your own standards.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 16:19 Post subject: |
|
 |
LanceBullet wrote: |
[...]
I think what's different is that Steve Irwin himself seemed to take unnecessary risks in an effort to sensationalise his television programs.
|
I think there is some truth in this, but I do believe that it wasn't the first time he had one of his children with him in his every day life. I do believe that he knows exactly what he can and cannot do though... cameras or not.
Quote: |
You're absolutely right that none of us are experts in Crocodile behaviour, but i'd put all the money I own that sticking your head into a dark hole isn't the best way to find out if there is a live potentially lethal predator there? |
There is no relevance of this statement, as Irwing isn't doing anything of the sort. Of course sticking your head... (etc.) is bad, but so is running naked across autobahn.
What I see here, I categorise into:
a) People who are suckers for sensationalist media (love to get excited and yell DRAMA!).
b) People who are not.
The (over)reactions of category a) is based on the same type of journalism that drives many people into xenophobia. It's a horrible misrepresentation of reality, and I pity the people that lead their lives by the fear spread by these tabloids.
Some people just love to overreact.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ankh
Posts: 23341
Location: Trelleborg
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 16:25 Post subject: |
|
 |
Vodka-Redbull wrote: | KaiKo wrote: | it has a bearing on the arguement considering "everyday life" is yet again SUBJECTIVE. my "everyday life" could be the fact that i rape little kiddies for their sweets, its probably not part of your "everyday life" though is it? |
Stick to the subject.
As to comparing: entering the croc pen with the kid is like driving with him/her taped to the front bumper, and not sitting in the special protective seat. |
Good post - professional drivers wear seatbelts..why? Cos even though they are expert drivers they still know things can go wrong.
shitloads of new stuff in my pc. Cant keep track of it all.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 16:49 Post subject: |
|
 |
He actually did stick his head inside nests; I was speaking from experience of having seen the guy on film and he certainly didn't appear to grant the animals the same respect that other documentary makers do.
dominae wrote: |
There is no relevance of this statement, as Irwing isn't doing anything of the sort. Of course sticking your head... (etc.) is bad, but so is running naked across autobahn.
What I see here, I categorise into:
a) People who are suckers for sensationalist media (love to get excited and yell DRAMA!).
b) People who are not.
|
There is absolute relevance in this statement because the crux of the argument against boils down to wether or not the guy is a fit parent; irrespective of culture; and his character and decision making in dangerous situations is very much brought into question.
The fact that he took a baby into a croc pen without any awareness of its surroundings let alone the ability to learn constructively means that his actions served no real constructive purpose even if you take away danger as an element which is the fundamental difference between his actions and somebody driving a child somewhere.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 18:57 Post subject: |
|
 |
crocks have been clocked at soeeds of 50kmper hour lunging speeds so that croc could have eaten him and the kid washed it down with some wine then wiped its arse fell asleep and woke up the mext morning and you cant exactly blame the crocodile.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 18:58 Post subject: |
|
 |
LanceBullet wrote: | He actually did stick his head inside nests; I was speaking from experience of having seen the guy on film and he certainly didn't appear to grant the animals the same respect that other documentary makers do. |
Well, that is a tangent. He did not do any such thing in the case we're discussing.
Quote: |
There is absolute relevance in this statement because the crux of the argument against boils down to wether or not the guy is a fit parent; irrespective of culture; and his character and decision making in dangerous situations is very much brought into question.
|
Basing someones abilities as a parent based on a 20 second clip taken from an angle that makes a scene lack depth is stretching it mighty far. His character is well-liked by some, and disliked by others (including me). This is no argument about whether he's a good guy or no, and we definitely have no basis for his parenthood based on this clip.
The argument here is whether he placed the baby at an unnecessary risk.
Quote: |
The fact that he took a baby into a croc pen without any awareness of its surroundings let alone the ability to learn constructively means that his actions served no real constructive purpose even if you take away danger as an element which is the fundamental difference between his actions and somebody driving a child somewhere. |
Well this is yet another tangent, does all parents actions need to be constructive for them to be "necessary"?
And no, there are no fundamental differences to be had. This was Steve Irwing's every day life. At this particular event he had his kid on the shoulder pointed away from the croc, while he fed it with the other hand. If you actually watch the clip from the other angle you see that even he himself is positioned so he's far enough away (for him to judge it safe for himself), and the kid is even more further away from danger.
I agree he's a tosser, but the rest of your comparison has imo little to bear on the argument here.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 19:00 Post subject: |
|
 |
evil_munky wrote: | crocks have been clocked at soeeds of 50kmper hour lunging speeds so that croc could have eaten him and the kid washed it down with some wine then wiped its arse fell asleep and woke up the mext morning and you cant exactly blame the crocodile. |
False.
Quote: | A: It varies from one species to another. The land speed record for a crocodile is 17 kph (10.6 mph) measured in a galloping Australian freshwater crocodile. |
Quote: | Crocodiles can reach speeds of 10 or 11 kph (around 7 mph) when they "belly run," and often faster if they're slipping down muddy tidal riverbanks |
Source: http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/safari/crocs/expert/expert2.html
This was not an Australian freshwater crocodile.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 19:05 Post subject: |
|
 |
dominae wrote: |
Well this is yet another tangent, does all parents actions need to be constructive for them to be "necessary"?
And no, there are no fundamental differences to be had. This was Steve Irwing's every day life. At this particular event he had his kid on the shoulder pointed away from the croc, while he fed it with the other hand. If you actually watch the clip from the other angle you see that even he himself is positioned so he's far enough away (for him to judge it safe for himself), and the kid is even more further away from danger.
I agree he's a tosser, but the rest of your comparison has imo little to bear on the argument here. |
That isn't a tangent at all; that's actually the nail on the head of the whole debate.
There was no constructive purpose in taking the child into the pen and putting it's life in danger. Whereas there is a constructive purpose in all 'western' parallels people have listed.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 19:20 Post subject: |
|
 |
Am I the only one finding it amusing that people are discussing wether he is a fit parent or not, when he's dead? 
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 8th Sep 2007 19:56 Post subject: |
|
 |
Parallax_ wrote: | Am I the only one finding it amusing that people are discussing wether he is a fit parent or not, when he's dead?  |
lol you forget where your posting this. Don't forget everyone here knows everything better than everyone else. I'm still waiting for my proof that the baby in the picture wasn't a cabbage patch kid.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sun, 9th Sep 2007 15:26 Post subject: |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Page 4 of 5 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |