Text 4969, 76 rader
Skriven 2005-01-13 02:15:22 av Gordon Lewicky (1:153/307)
     Kommentar till en text av Ken Bowley
Ärende: Re: US/Austrailian knowledge (was: Motorcycles (was: Pee-Four))
=======================================================================
 Quoting Ken Bowley to Gordon Lewicky 
 Subj. Re: US/Austrailian knowledge (was: Motorcycles (was: Pee-Four)),
dated11-Jan-2005 22:19 

 GL> Oh gimme a break! he did it during one of his zoo shows. Of course
 GL> it was a publicity stunt! It was pre-planned out. It didn't "just
 GL> happen" He knew full well what he was going to do. That's a stunt!

 KB> He did not plan on it becoming an international incident.  Yes he did
 KB> it on purpose, and I feel that he took precautions to make sure that
 KB> Bob was safe.

Doesn't matter if it became an international incident or not. The
whole point is that he did it and that shows lack of common sense
and stupidity on his part and as I said, done strictly for his own
ego.
 
 KB> As you just said, nothing happend.  Precautions were taken, and any
 KB> risks were minimized.  I wouldn't say that I "condone" what he did,
 KB> because I don't feel that he put his child in danger with what he did.
 
Ah so it's OK to put a defenseless baby, one not walking or
talking yet, into a situation where the possibility of danger
exists just because you took precautions? Nope, sorry, when one
clearly has a choice to not put the child in such a situation,
regardless of how many precautions that are taken, then the only
sane and safe and responsible decision to make is to not put that
child in the situation. Acceptable risk is not an argument, when
the risk need not have been there in the first place!

Acceptable risk is deciding to transport your child in a vehicle
in a proper car seat to another place, because you have to, even
tho knowing anything could happen and an vehicle accident is always
a possibility. You can reduce the ever present risk by driving safer,
having more distance behind the vehicle in front, slowing down at all
intersections, not even trying to beat the yellows. It is not an
acceptable risk to decide to go car riding with your child in a
raging storm where you don't have to go at all.

It's the same argument! Bob in a croc pit or Bob in a car. He
didn't have to be in the croc pit, therefore it is not a wise
decision to put him in it. Likewise, you don't need to transport
Bob in a storm, so you don't, unless you must get him to a hospital
or somewhere else just as important

When one of your choices is not to do it at all, then that is the
only "acceptable risk" decision you should take, NOT DO IT!

Likewise, I am totally sure that when Bob reaches 3 or 4, he'll
probably know more about crocs then more then 90% of the Aussies
plus he would be capable of his own locomotion and his reflex
reaction is probably a lot faster then his fathers. Nothing wrong
with asking Bob then if he wants to go into the croc pit with good
ole dad then, because it will also be his choice. But let's say he
says no, is it OK then to take Bob into the pit? If it's not OK
then then why is it OK to do so when Bob doesn't have the choice
nor can he even understand what his choices are?

Nope, sorry. ole dearly beloved Steve screwed up big time, made a
very bad decision with respect to the safety of his baby. It
wouldn't have mattered how many support staff he had with him in
the pit, the child need not have been there and that is the only
critical factor in the decision. Steve chose to put on a show.

When it comes to safety of others, if one of your choices is to not
do it, then that is the only "responsible" choice to make!


Cheers...
Gordon Lewicky (Pdk)

email glewicky@telus.net   www.milkyway-bbs.ca


--- EzyBlueWave V2.01b005 00F90260
 * Origin: Milky Way, Langley, BC [604] 532-4367 (1:153/307)