Bad Parents? Yeah, I think so: "Lion Tries to Eat Baby"

[Calan]

Not a parent, but I agree with Kraxe here. The odds of the lioness breaking through that glass are slim to none, so the baby is in no real danger and certainly doesn't look at all terrified. If the baby were screaming and frightened and the parents were still filming and laughing, then I'd say shame on them. I think it's more unfair to the lion, but that's not that much different than them looking at any other delicious-looking person through that glass on a daily basis.

[khaltek]

Not a parent, but I think it's totally harmless. The glass won't break, pretty much no matter what, and the baby isn't at all concerned.

[Gromgor]

To paraphrase Braveheart, "Every man dies. Not e'ry man truly feeds."

[Nyravar]

A large predator is trying to get at your child. That should provoke a strong desire to intervene and protect them (it certainly did with me). It doesn't matter that there is a glass barrier, we all know this in our rational minds, or whether or not the child is upset. This is about basic instincts.

Yet the people in these videos, who are essentially goading dangerous animals into treating their children as prey for their own amusement, seem to lack these instincts. This makes me wonder if there is something mentally wrong with them. Maybe social conditioning plays a role here, but then why do so many other people get why this is upsetting?

In one of the videos a man argues with his wife, who wants to leave, and says to her, "How is this not funny?" That guy is in serious need of a beatdown/reality check: there is nothing funny about a lion trying to kill and eat your child.

Yeah, these videos, and the parents in them, piss me off.

[Pae]

Filmed and laughed. I only voted once but I asked my wife and she said the same thing.

The glass is tested, reinforced, and tested again and again and again. The threat is quite minimal. More danger in putting your child in the backseat and getting into a car accident than that. So with that in mind the whole 'instinct' of wanting to remove your child from danger is still there... except I do not believe there is danger to begin with.

As for taunting the lion. Zoos are moving more and more to put predator beside prey. Studies are showing that it improves the quality of life for all animals. It keeps their instincts sharp. In this instance I would say the same. It's good for lions to keep that hunting instinct strong.

As for the parent holding their child over the railing... now that's just stupid. What happens when two teenagers are goofing off and not knowing what's going on suddenly bump into you and you drop your kid into a pit filled with hungry lions. Yeah.... that's just stupid.

[Pae]

As an addendum on the 'taunting' side of things. I am willing to admit that teaching your child to taunt wild animals intentionally is a bad thing. What happens next time you go camping? But the incidental taunting... meh.

[Aristotle]

The glass is tested, reinforced, and tested again and again and again. The threat is quite minimal. More danger in putting your child in the backseat and getting into a car accident than that. So with that in mind the whole 'instinct' of wanting to remove your child from danger is still there... except I do not believe there is danger to begin with.

No matter how many times it is tested, there is a point where it will eventually fail. I don't want that point or that day to be when the lion is opening its maw over my kid's head.

Also, a car may be more dangerous, but I basically have to use my car. There's a gain there that I need to obtain. I don't HAVE to leave my kid next to a lion trying to eat it.

Higher risk with a reward is better than lower risk with zero reward.

[khaltek]

No matter how many times it is tested, there is a point where it will eventually fail

Not necessarily without being hit by a car. Certainly it won't fail from a standing-start of good condition, and there is pretty much no way a lion can damage enclosure glass, short of learning how to use a shotgun. Standard shatterable glass is harder than steel, meaning it can't even be scratched by scalpels, never mind keratin. Enclosure glass can take many thousands of Newtons of force quite easily.

The risk is zero, unless the glass is significantly weakened beforehand somehow, which lions pawing at it for a century probably wouldn't manage.

[Aristotle]

The risk is zero, unless the glass is significantly weakened beforehand somehow

Which is something time, fluctuations in temperature, etc. will do eventually. The glass WILL fail eventually. That's an absolute fact. The question is WHEN, not IF.

Therefore the risk is not zero, and you don't risk your child's life for no gain other than "humor." Well, at least I wouldn't.

For me, my childrens' lives are worth more than a couple of chuckles.

[khaltek]

and you don't risk your child's life for no gain other than "humor."

That's a little emotive! Okay so the risk isn't zero, merely close to it, lions will probably be exctinct before one ever shatters enclosure glass. I'd be interested in the figures for animals shattering their enclosure glass versus injuries sustained by children whilst playing on slides, swings, with dolls, etcetera.

Each to their own child's wellbeing, of course, and maybe it'd be different if I was a parent, but from a logical point of view I don't see anything wrong with what the parents did, and certainly nothing dangerous within the realms of reasonable expectation.