2 year old taken by alligator at Disney Land resort Florida hotel

HensVassal · 16-06-2016 01:55PM

scream wrote: »

Shield myself from what? It's not my child. Your post makes no sense whatsoever. People ''shield themselves from accidents'' by not doing bloody stupid things that endanger themselves or their families. As for ''misfortune'' would you ever feck off with that old fashioned nonsense. Jaysus wept.:rolleyes:

You have the audacity to call my posts nonsensical?

You never do anythiing stupid or negligent, or so you imply. I can guarantee that every minute of every day you do something perfectly normal but in a hypothetical parallel universe you've been killed or injured or something bad has happened.

A person like you would then say that you were being negligent in the scenario where something bad happened but wouldn't have a thing to say about the perfectly normal scenario where nothing bad happened.

People like you would sicken the pigs because you have a bullshit excuse for everything.

Do you have kids? I very much doubt it because if you had you wouldn't be banging on about negligence and bad parenting over something as innocuous as a 2 year old paddling in a couple of inches of water.

Oafley Jones · 16-06-2016 01:58PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

If i drove up to the gate of a nuclear power station and beheld a sign that read "do not drive past this point", i wouldn't take that as an invitation to crawl/fly/jump/hop/skip/etc beyond that point.
To anyone not being difficult about it, the meaning is plain and simple: "don't ****ing go past this point". The resort shouldn't have to iterate every possible permutation of getting around it.

How about the sign said "Do not pass this point". Wouldn't that be better?

Seriously, are you not the least bit concerned about how definitive you are. That you've dismissed the idea that people have various interpretations. You don't have to agree with them BTW. You only have to acknowledge that others may have a different take.

HensVassal · 16-06-2016 01:59PM

donegal. wrote: »

but an alligator in a body of water in florida isn't "totally freak circumstances"

How often do attacks occur?
If the odds are 1 in a million then it IS a freak occurence.

Neyite · 16-06-2016 02:03PM

Dolbert wrote: »

I suppose I don't see the point of putting the boot in where the only purpose is sneering superiority and cruelty, but hey, that's what the internet does best.

via 4 Boy's Mother on FB https://www.facebook.com/4BoysMother/timeline

Very well said.

But the thing is that its usually not parents that are lambasting these parents. It's those who have no kids, who have no interest in kids, who have no intention of having kids who are clambering to tell us what a sh!t job we are doing. And these very people would be the first in line to criticise us when we buy sensor mats, socket covers, worry about safety standards in our childcare facilities because we are only fcuking special snowflakes with our special snowflake children and they didn't have any of that growing up and they are fine. We get criticised if we don't let our kids out to play or to other people's houses and criticised when we do. We'd be criticised if we took them places and when we don't.

You and I, we can see how easily danger could happen in that split second where you are counting change the butcher and your toddler pulls away from your hand and makes a run for it.

I want to bring my kid to Dingle Aquarium because he loves sharks and would love to see one. But there is a shark there and clearly I should know the dangers of toddlers and shark bites plus I need to scientifically test that the glass between the two is liable to hold or not. It would also be important to brush up on my knowledge of shark behaviour and be able to recognise when they get aggressive or if my kid is pissing it off. These risk factors apparently are not up to the Aquarium or its staff to manage or control if the internet is to be believed. It's quite a lot to pack in the changing bag.

PandaPoo · 16-06-2016 02:24PM

My parents have a house in florida and I've spent a lot of time there over the last 18 years. The house is on a golf course with a huge lake, I saw an alligator near it one day and almost died. I couldn't believe there were no signs around the lake, considering people walk right beside it all day .

I definitely wouldn't think there would be any in Disneyworld, stupid as that may make me. I would just assume it was fine because they had families sitting near it in the dark, what's to stop a gator going over to the viewing area and snatching a child from there!

Sleepy · 16-06-2016 02:27PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

If i drove up to the gate of a nuclear power station and beheld a sign that read "do not drive past this point", i wouldn't take that as an invitation to crawl/fly/jump/hop/skip/etc beyond that point.
To anyone not being difficult about it, the meaning is plain and simple: "don't ****ing go past this point". The resort shouldn't have to iterate every possible permutation of getting around it.

For someone so worried about semantics, you don't quite get the concept of technical writing, do you?

Safety warnings need to be unambiguous. They need to be utterly incapable of being misunderstood.

What happened here, is that WDW didn't want to frighten guests and break the illusion of safety and security in "The Happiest Place on Earth (TM)" by using clear language on their signage and this poor child paid the price for it.

That you are able to infer from a "No Swimming" sign at a body of water in Florida that it's likely there are alligators in there making it not only unsafe to swim in but also unsafe to paddle in or sit beside relies on your pre-existing knowledge of Florida and alligators. Not everyone has this pre-existing knowledge which is why safety notices need to be both clear (so there's no room for mis-understanding of the notice) and concise (to ensure people actually read them).

Even in the hypothetical example you're giving, it wouldn't be an unfair assumption that it's fine to walk beyond that point. Anyone that's in any way concerned about their message being understood, and that has any competency in writing, would write "DANGER: Do Not Pass This Point" and if there was space to do so would probably append "Active Nuclear Power Plant" beneath in a slightly smaller script.

To take it back to the case in point, had there been signs clearly displayed a few feet from the water's edge that read "DANGER: Do Not Pass This Point. Alligators may live here", perhaps alongside a picture of an alligator (for those who are illiterate or who can't read English) Disney would be able to claim they'd taken reasonable precautions. Such signs would also need to be lit if they wanted to host events in the area after sunset too..

The facts are, they didn't have such signs in place. They had a different sign: "No Swimming".

HensVassal · 16-06-2016 02:27PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

If i drove up to the gate of a nuclear power station and beheld a sign that read "do not drive past this point", i wouldn't take that as an invitation to crawl/fly/jump/hop/skip/etc beyond that point.
To anyone not being difficult about it, the meaning is plain and simple: "don't ****ing go past this point". The resort shouldn't have to iterate every possible permutation of getting around it.

Why not?

I've seen plenty of signs that say the same or similar thing, e.g. "No cars beyond this point", that means it's a pedestrian thruway. You can walk, hop, skip, whatever, past.

"No running on the platform" means you are told not to run. You can walk to your heart's content though.

You want to make it clear that you can't use any mode of conveyance past that point then you slap up a sign with the pretty fucking indisputable: "NO ENTRY"

retro:electro · 16-06-2016 02:30PM

Admittedly if I saw a sign that said "no swimming in the water" I would see no harm in dipping my toes in it, because I wouldn't be swimming in it, and I'd take the "no swimming" to mean because the water is muggy, or there's no lifeguard on duty, but not because it's gator infested water. Jesus Christ the least they could have done was put up a sign that read "beware of the alligators" or something of the sort.

Oafley Jones · 16-06-2016 02:39PM

Sleepy wrote: »

For someone so worried about semantics, you don't quite get the concept of technical writing, do you?

Safety warnings need to be unambiguous. They need to be utterly incapable of being misunderstood.

Also, this is the world's most popular tourist destination. With visitors from every corner of it. So, you've the added complication of language and how different cultures react and interpret a Warning or rule. Shanghai Disney has just opened and Disney are having a mare of a time with the local population. They basically used the same warning/rule template from their other parks. They didn't realise that they'd have to make clear that you can't take a piece of the Castle home as a souvenir or that you can't have a dump in the flower bed outside it.

Lollipops23 · 16-06-2016 02:46PM

I wonder why the alligator took him if not for food? Like they're saying it appears to have drowned the child, but left him alone apart from that...

Sleepy · 16-06-2016 02:49PM

Alligators often drown prey, stash it to decompose a little and then come back to it.

PandaPoo · 16-06-2016 02:51PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I wonder why the alligator took him if not for food? Like they're saying it appears to have drowned the child, but left him alone apart from that...

That's normal, they usually do the death roll until they're drowned and then just leave the body and come back to it later.

I was at the everglades on an air boat tour, and the guide said if you're ever caught by a gator you should play dead and they'll hide you somewhere

Lollipops23 · 16-06-2016 02:52PM

Oh right

Kinda wish I hadn't asked now....

CruelCoin · 16-06-2016 03:03PM

You're all correct.

We should be blaming the guy who didn't put up the correct easy-mode sign, not the parent who allowed their child into the water with a no-swimming sign, in the dark, in ****ing florida.

Holy wall of apologists batman!

16-06-2016 03:06PM

How will that poor poor family get over this?

It's obviously nowhere near the same thing, but my 2 year old burnt herself with a bowl of boiling water in 2014. My wife was there at the time, and is haunted by it still, no matter how many times I tell her what a great mother she is (which she is!).

The 'what-if' of it upsets me as well (in the strangest places, such as when I'm in the shower, or running

). Thankfully the water didn't land on her face/eyes (it was her hip) but what if it had? Kids really hold your heart in their hands, and that family are facing some hard times ahead.

Absolutely shocking event.

Oafley Jones · 16-06-2016 03:10PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

You're all correct.

We should be blaming the guy who didn't put up the correct easy-mode sign, not the parent who allowed their child into the water with a no-swimming sign, in the dark, in ****ing florida.

Holy wall of apologists batman!

i'm out.

Maybe its not about blame, maybe it's a freak occurrence. But that's not what this is about for you - you like to judge those parent don't you.

Flippyfloppy · 16-06-2016 03:10PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

You're all correct.

We should be blaming the guy who didn't put up the correct easy-mode sign, not the parent who allowed their child into the water with a no-swimming sign, in the dark, in ****ing florida.

Holy wall of apologists batman!

i'm out.

Bye! Don't let the unfollow button hit you on the way out !

CruelCoin · 16-06-2016 03:13PM

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Maybe its not about blame, maybe it's a freak occurrence. But that's not what this is about for you - you like to judge those parent don't you.

Not particularly. Its crude to lay the finger of blame at any one person and say "IT WAS YOU!", just as its equally crude to declare someone entirely blameless for no other reason than "those poor people".

Dolbert · 16-06-2016 03:17PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

You're all correct.

We should be blaming the guy who didn't put up the correct easy-mode sign, not the parent who allowed their child into the water with a no-swimming sign, in the dark, in ****ing florida.

Holy wall of apologists batman!

Why the f*ck do we need someone to blame? If it's just a freakish tragedy, a random act of nature, then there's too much of a chance it could happen to us.

Children were splashing about all evening in that pool, the one that was caught by an alligator was terribly unlucky.

https://www.facebook.com/jennifer.venditti.18/posts/10154371872047147

Oafley Jones · 16-06-2016 03:28PM

Sleepy wrote: »

What happened here, is that WDW didn't want to frighten guests and break the illusion of safety and security in "The Happiest Place on Earth (TM)" by using clear language on their signage and this poor child paid the price for it.

[Pedant]"The most Magical place on Earth", Happiest is Disneyland [/Pedant] I'm guessing in this instance that they may not have simply thought that the gators represented much danger. The water quality is the historic bogeyman in the Seven Seas Lagoon and "No Swimming" would have covered them here. Disney do love to stick up warning where injury/death may occur through misadventure but they also hate when reality interferes and detracts from the visitors experience. There's been a number of targeted threats to WDW this year from ISIS and for the first time there's metal detectors at the parks entrance and visible security inside. This move must have wiped out their stockpile of pixie dust.

HensVassal · 16-06-2016 03:39PM

Sleepy wrote: »

For someone so worried about semantics, you don't quite get the concept of technical writing, do you?

Safety warnings need to be unambiguous. They need to be utterly incapable of being misunderstood.

What happened here, is that WDW didn't want to frighten guests and break the illusion of safety and security in "The Happiest Place on Earth (TM)" by using clear language on their signage and this poor child paid the price for it.

That you are able to infer from a "No Swimming" sign at a body of water in Florida that it's likely there are alligators in there making it not only unsafe to swim in but also unsafe to paddle in or sit beside relies on your pre-existing knowledge of Florida and alligators. Not everyone has this pre-existing knowledge which is why safety notices need to be both clear (so there's no room for mis-understanding of the notice) and concise (to ensure people actually read them).

Even in the hypothetical example you're giving, it wouldn't be an unfair assumption that it's fine to walk beyond that point. Anyone that's in any way concerned about their message being understood, and that has any competency in writing, would write "DANGER: Do Not Pass This Point" and if there was space to do so would probably append "Active Nuclear Power Plant" beneath in a slightly smaller script.

To take it back to the case in point, had there been signs clearly displayed a few feet from the water's edge that read "DANGER: Do Not Pass This Point. Alligators may live here", perhaps alongside a picture of an alligator (for those who are illiterate or who can't read English) Disney would be able to claim they'd taken reasonable precautions. Such signs would also need to be lit if they wanted to host events in the area after sunset too..

The facts are, they didn't have such signs in place. They had a different sign: "No Swimming".

Just wanted to add this. When I was studying computer science and programming one lecturer made the point of verbal interpretations and how bugs can manifest themselves in code. He gave an example of a sign that could be misinterpreted. The sign "No Smoking Allowed" can simply mean you are allowed to abstain from smoking, i.e. if you want to stub out your cigarette for a while then that's permissible.

smash · 16-06-2016 03:45PM

HensVassal wrote: »

Just wanted to add this. When I was studying computer science and programming one lecturer made the point of verbal interpretations and how bugs can manifest themselves in code. He gave an example of a sign that could be misinterpreted. The sign "No Smoking Allowed" can simply mean you are allowed to abstain from smoking, i.e. if you want to stub out your cigarette for a while then that's permissible.

You'd need to be as thick as a plank to interpret it in that way.

HensVassal · 16-06-2016 03:48PM

Dolbert wrote: »

Why the f*ck do we need someone to blame? If it's just a freakish tragedy, a random act of nature, then there's too much of a chance it could happen to us.

Children were splashing about all evening in that pool, the one that was caught by an alligator was terribly unlucky.

https://www.facebook.com/jennifer.venditti.18/posts/10154371872047147

+1

The blamers do it to convince themselves that something bad like this would never happen to them because they know what should have been done (in hindsight) to avoid it. Gobshites.

HensVassal · 16-06-2016 03:59PM

smash wrote: »

You'd need to be as thick as a plank to interpret it in that way.

No you wouldn't. In fact you need to be very intelligent to figure out that it means just that.

You're probably not very good at logic puzzles.

"No Smoking Allowed" to the intelligent observer has an inherent bug or loophole.

If you want to remove that misinterpretation you print "Smoking Is Prohibited" or "Smoking Is Not Allowed".

I'll give a simpler example for you. "Don't Walk On The Grass". We know what the message is here, but it doesn't prohibit me from running or cycling on the grass. You want to do that then remove all doubt and make the sign "Keep Off The Grass".

16-06-2016 04:02PM

HensVassal wrote: »

No you wouldn't. In fact you need to be very intelligent to figure out that it means just that.

You're probably not very good at logic puzzles.

"No Smoking Allowed" to the intelligent observer has an inherent bug or loophole.

If you want to remove that misinterpretation you print "Smoking Is Prohibited" or "Smoking Is Not Allowed".

I'll give a simpler example for you. "Don't Walk On The Grass". We know what the message is here, but it doesn't prohibit me from running or cycling on the grass. You want to do that then remove all doubt and make the sign "Keep Off The Grass".

Patronising undergraduate nonsense

smash · 16-06-2016 04:12PM

HensVassal wrote: »

No you wouldn't. In fact you need to be very intelligent to figure out that it means just that.

No, the level of intelligence only comes to light when you show your awareness of how to interpret the words. You should be smart enough to realise that it should not be interpreted that way. As most people are. If you are not smart enough to realise that you should not interpret it like that, then you're an idiot.

HensVassal wrote: »

You're probably not very good at logic puzzles.

"No Smoking Allowed" to the intelligent observer has an inherent bug or loophole.

Take your assumptions and your "to the intelligent observer" bullshít elsewhere please because I couldn't be arsed with your passive aggressive tone and superiority complex.

16-06-2016 04:17PM

I dunno folks, despite all our conflicting views and finger pointing we really cannot say. it's a daily occurrence to hear a gator hissing under your car in Florida. it's a giant marsh land apparently. people have been snapped at running outdoors in what seems like a safe area 364 days a year... it just takes that one day really. by virtue of the fact this has never happened before, the out of state visiting family may have never even given it a thought, being Disney you'd expect it to be the safest place in the world. With darkness approaching, a gator in the area, a child in the water at that exact minute, unsupervised.... maybe circumstance really is to blame. we don't even have snakes over here, in Australia people swim in croc ridden waters and are often left alone believe it or not. sometimes locals expect to be left alone based on experience and encounters, I don't think we can relate really.

It's just tragic end of story.

Galwayguy35 · 16-06-2016 05:08PM

Very sad what happened to the kid but it's also depressing to read comments I've read elsewhere from people demanding gators be wiped out because of this.

sonofenoch · 16-06-2016 05:19PM

Oafley Jones wrote: »

But that's not what this is about for you - you like to judge those parent don't you.

In the same way you like to judge people on here.....I've noticed a pattern where posters are attacked for their opinion because it differs from someone else's......I also noticed some inane drivel postings getting 'thanks' from a number of people, what the hell is that all about? is it a little community on here patting each other on the back for talking ****!

Manic Moran · 16-06-2016 06:08PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

If i drove up to the gate of a nuclear power station and beheld a sign that read "do not drive past this point", i wouldn't take that as an invitation to crawl/fly/jump/hop/skip/etc beyond that point.
To anyone not being difficult about it, the meaning is plain and simple: "don't ****ing go past this point". The resort shouldn't have to iterate every possible permutation of getting around it.

Oafley Jones wrote: »

How about the sign said "Do not pass this point". Wouldn't that be better?

Seriously, are you not the least bit concerned about how definitive you are. That you've dismissed the idea that people have various interpretations. You don't have to agree with them BTW. You only have to acknowledge that others may have a different take.

With respect to nuclear power plant signs, we don't muck around with 'interpretation' here. We set the instruction out very clearly.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9SojbWOOz5Q/RqJuSd8OGTI/AAAAAAAABGA/xhbVLPP0OW8/s320/070720-Pt-Buchon--Deadly-Force-ANA-C-BLOG.jpg

http://cdn.knoxblogs.com/atomiccity/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/12/580361-deadly-force-sign.jpg

Not just 'no entry'. It's 'no entry, or you can get shot.' We kindof figure it's important enough to mention the consequences of ignoring the sign.

2 year old taken by alligator at Disney Land resort Florida hotel

Comments