Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Almost every post I have made explicitly mentions this.
It's like people see "... the parents could..." and immediately snap to comment regardless of what else is said.
|
The parents could have done nothing in this case. That's the objection here. They followed signage available. They were watching the kid close enough that they were able to fight the gator. What more could the parent have done that wouldn't have involved bubble wrapping the kid.
And even if there is something they "could" have done (like staying in Nebraska) the question is "should" they have. We take the greatest risk in our lives everyday when we get into a car. Nothing, even on a per hour of activity basis is more dangerous then that. So when saying they should have done something different one needs to account for the amount of risk that behaviour would have changed, in this case to change the risk of them dying on their trip they would have likely had to cancel it.
If someone gets hit by a drunk driver do we ever say well they didn't have to be driving at the time. We don't, because we feel that driving is an acceptable risk. Putting your feet in the water, at a resort run by a reputable company, in a lagoon that says no swimming, while observing your kid close enough so that you can fight an alligator before it goes away is a reasonable level of risk mitigation.
The parents here could have done nothing.