I'm not really sure I understand your first question(no pun intended). I think I explained it pretty clearly. Although to be fair, I doubt at that age a child will even remember or be able to appreciate something like that.
You said it seems like they're being ingenuous. Why does it matter that it seems that way?
As for your second. I think that's pretty much the problem with all the bad parenting of today. People just don't care. "Hey, let my child go to the toy section alone. I'm not going to be overprotective!" Better safe than having a nightmare story.
I completely disagree. The likelihood of a nightmare story is so incredibly small that this really is being overprotective. We do so many things every day, with our kids, that are significantly more dangerous. It just doesn't bother us because they
seem less dangerous. But they're not. Not even close.
And I'm sorry, but it's just silly that you're trying to compare a car accident to this. We have to drive. If we don't drive our children, then we have to walk them. And we all know that nowadays that's dangerous. And if we don't walk them, they'll stay inside the house 24/7. But hey, what if an airplane or a helicopter crashes into our house? I guess we'll just have to start keeping our children in underground bomb shelters.
1: It's not silly at all.
a) The point is that there are tons of things we do every day that are much more dangerous than this by a significantly wide margin that we don't bat an eyelash at.
b) Do we need to drive? I mean, I suppose it depends on the circumstances of your life, where you live and all, but not everyone
needs to drive. How is walking your children where they need to go "dangerous." Especially "nowadays" as opposed to any other point in history?
2: That's exactly my point. That line of paranoid reasoning is completely ridiculous. I'm not trying to say we shouldn't allow our kids to be in cars. I'm saying that if we allow our kids to be in cars, something that is proven to be many times more dangerous then standing near the glass at a zoo, then there's no reason why we should feel obligated to avoid doing the latter.
The fact of the matter, is that the concept and the idea of it being cute that an animal is trying to shatter the glass in front of them to brutally maim your child is cute to a parent. That's wrong. And that does make you a pretty sick individual if not a bad parent.
Why? It's a funny contrast. It's a pretty big assumption to jump to the idea that they think it's funny that their kid might get eaten and that it wouldn't bother them. That's assuming a hell of a whole lot about another person's motivation.
If an animal is attacking the glass, you don't stand in front of it. It's foolish, and it's a bad horror story just waiting to happen. Period. End of story.
No. Not end of story. Because the glass won't break. It's specifically designed not to break. That's why it's there. So you can get that close to the animals without getting hurt. It's not foolish, it's having a reasonable understanding of what is and isn't dangerous.
Yes, there is a very slim possibility that the glass might break. But it's much slimmer than getting into a car, which we do anyway. And again, I'm not anti-car. I'm just saying that if you're okay with one you should be okay with the other.
[YT]vtsb58tKEhM[/YT]
To all the people telling me I'm overreacting. Maybe 99/100 times I am. But it's possible. And all I'm saying is you don't risk a child's life over a Youtube video or just to get a good laugh(which I still can't find any humor in any of these videos).
No one ever denied that it was possible. But it's still less likely than a lot of dangers we face head on. So why is it somehow more of a risk?
