Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ehh, I don't believe in labeling parents "good" or "bad". But I do believe in encouraging them to think about why they do what they do. Honestly, I don't believe that first sentence; give me examples. And of course, I mean things that people let kids do when there is a safer, comparable alternative.
Going swimming in the ocean
Roller coaster rides
Multi-day hikes
Hunting
Biking
None of these things are a necessity, all of them could result in serious injury or death.
Going swimming in the ocean
Roller coaster rides
Multi-day hikes
Hunting
Biking
None of these things are a necessity, all of them could result in serious injury or death.
I said, "give me examples. And of course, I mean things that people let kids do when there is a safer, comparable alternative."
I suppose one could argue that swimming in a large pool is compared to swimming in the ocean or a lake, but I wouldn't. Having that much room to move, the feeling of being out in nature, even the smell of the water makes it different, imho.
There's no comparable alternative to riding a roller coaster as far as I know.
Same for hunting. Unless you use BB guns, in which case you may just make hunting more dangerous, because you at least give the option for that animal to turn around and attack you back! But of course (ideally), there are practical reasons/benefits for hunting aside from it being "fun". So it doesn't fit in perfectly here.
I'd say there's nothing comparable to hiking or biking either. For biking, running's about as close as you can get.
But in any of these cases, if someone finds that it's one particular aspect of these things they enjoy, they might consider something else which would both satisfy their need for excitement/enjoyment and be safer. This is going the extra mile to put thought into what you do and whether or not you can improve on it. So while I wouldn't call these parents "bad parents", I'd say it'd make them particularly "good parents" if they had've realized their daughter would've likely gotten the same excitement from swimming with dolphins, and it would've been at least a mite safer (surely, even the most pro-swimming with sharks poster here can agree to that).
And if the daughter wouldn't have enjoyed swimming with dolphins as much as sharks... I think that warrants a question or two as well!
I believe Lucid Kitty's post is more implausible than Zimbo's. The family in question did all of this within a controlled atmosphere with trained professionals. No one is suggesting nor advocating dropping a child unattended with wild animals.
I have issue with the above. How is snorkeling off a beach that had just been used for feeding wild sharks a CONTROLLED environment. Because it is not.
As for "trained professionals". Really? You think the young man throwing mahi mahi on a string had professional training? Why because he was getting paid for it? Sorry but no. These operations are a huge money maker, and even the ones with divemasters normally have ZERO professional training dealing with sharks. Their "bahamian body guard" was a trained shark professional? How do you know that?
Maybe watch the whole video. First they feed the sharks (thus instilling in them the idea the food and people may go together), then they go snorkeling.
Quote:
Zimbo has a very good point in that we all take risks with our children when we deem said risks beneficial for ourselves or our children. While I may make a different decision than you, neither of us are necessarily more correct than the other.
This is true, but you have to make an INFORMED decision. And calling what they participated in a "controlled environment" with "trained professionals" would seem to imply that you are not really informed about it enough to make that decision.
Should I have any reason to believe the guides are not trained professionals?? Because you say so?
Because if you are a parent you had better make sure they are. And lets be clear what we do know. The man who was the "trained professional" in your opinion, also made their dinner, and spent the week acting as a "body guard". Really does that sound like a professional marine scientist or animal behaviorist?
So I take it you are now acknowledging that this was not a "controlled enivronement"?
Same for hunting. Unless you use BB guns, in which case you may just make hunting more dangerous, because you at least give the option for that animal to turn around and attack you back! But of course (ideally), there are practical reasons/benefits for hunting aside from it being "fun".
One of the practical benefits is learning the responsibility for their OWN safety. For me, that hundting is fun IS a good enough reason to do it. But the added benefit is exposing the kids, at age appropriate times and levels, how to handle potentially dangerous situations in a safe way. To understand danger, observe the actual dangers, and manage it without fear. Or with a healthy fear over which they can come. (Tortured sentence, I know. Nothing else is coming.)
There is a balance to be struck, as with anything. One can be over protective of one's kids and deny them many opportunities. We were at a place this weekend in which teenagers jump from high rocks into the water. My kids are not teenagers. Was it safe? Well it was not as safe as a swimming pool with lifeguards at every corner. I discussed the risks and what to watch for. And they were very good about it. They had a blast. They felt very capable to handle it. I hated every second of it and finally had the family move to a spot without any ledges to just play in the water so my heart rate could go down. But I feel that exposing them to cool things is good for them.
I think that for a five year old, swimming in general is enough for them to learn and practice how to keep themselves safe in a potentially dangerous situation. No need to add an animal that can maul them without warning to the mix.
I just don't see the need to go that far. What are we preparing our children for, exactly? The real world or a Decepticon invasion?
I think that for a five year old, swimming in general is enough for them to learn and practice how to keep themselves safe in a potentially dangerous situation. No need to add an animal that can maul them without warning to the mix.
I replied to the hunting topic because I don't have a strong opinion of the shark issue. I might not have let them do that. But developmentally speaking, there is nothing wild about a 5yo being a very capable swimmer.
I have to agree with lkb0714. We live near the ocean, and one often repeated safety rule is that it is better not to go into the water during times when sharks are more likely to be feeding (dawn and dusk). This is not because sharks will necessarily be hunting humans but because they can confuse humans with the prey they really want. They may bite you and then realize you taste bad and move on. The problem is that bite can be devastating to a human, particularly a child. The tourist-trap company featured in this video is creating a feeding time, and then sending people into the water. That just looks dumb to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
