Im sure everyone heard about this by now. Steve Irwin has died to a stringray. Ive heard two sides to this. One was he was a great loss who really helped enviromental causes. The other is he manhandled animals and had it coming. Id love to hear your view on this.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Croc Hunter dead to a stingray!
- Thread starter palefrost
- Start date
Werbung:
I am sorry for his families loss, as with any premature death. I found his show to be in the same vein as Jackass but with animals. I only watched to see if something would happen to him. Nothing terrifying, maybe a snake bite or something small. I realize that this sounds extremely morbid, but that is what made his show so different from any other animal show.
Plus I found it hysterical when he said "krieky".
Plus I found it hysterical when he said "krieky".
I believe most people, especially from the US, would recognise him as being the entertainer and the hammy actor for random shows that made him look like a daredevil with wildlife...ESPECIALLY what with the "crikey" (I think he's got to be the only Aussie who's ever used that word on a regular basis these days).
The real facts, and I was not particularly aware of all of them, make this a very ironic incident, and also the loss to Australia and conservation movements a very significant one. There were all kinds of hints as to just how established, competent and dedicated a wildlife specialist he actually was, but even through his appearance in various Australia quarantine ads (man those standards are strict!) to his shows (like Croc Hunter), and his recent interviews which give insight into a much larger, more indepth life, all we really see of him was the man who brought entertainment to wildlife, in the hopes of raising awareness and reducing the fear, ignorance or contempt that we can hold for native animals. However, it seems that his efforts are somewhat equivalent to the gay and lesbian rights movement- it's a double-edged sword and one tends to sacrifice a bit of credibility for the cause of raising awareness in a manner that is sensational and perhaps wedge open a crack of accessibility.
While Steve may have appeared to be a giant risk-taker, what happened with the sting-ray was a truly freak accident. Stings are extremely rare (13 recorded cases in all of history) and he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and happened to get hit right in the heart. While some may claim karmic justice, others that he had it coming, he was far more likely to get bitten by a snake (the way he handled those was rather unorthodox), or even a croc, than in the manner which he got nailed.
What is sad for Steve, then, is if this incident is read in the wrong way and the work that he has undertaken for the past decade plus is undone. He had a real love for and respect for animals.
If you want manhandling, go to you-tube or thatvideosite etc. and look for how crocs are treated in Malaysian/SE Asian zoos. They can be tempramental and willful, so I was not surprised to find a host of clips of zookeepers and daredevils bashing the crocs on the nose only to get their arm chewed off. That, in my opinion, is what a case of "fully had it coming" should be.
The real facts, and I was not particularly aware of all of them, make this a very ironic incident, and also the loss to Australia and conservation movements a very significant one. There were all kinds of hints as to just how established, competent and dedicated a wildlife specialist he actually was, but even through his appearance in various Australia quarantine ads (man those standards are strict!) to his shows (like Croc Hunter), and his recent interviews which give insight into a much larger, more indepth life, all we really see of him was the man who brought entertainment to wildlife, in the hopes of raising awareness and reducing the fear, ignorance or contempt that we can hold for native animals. However, it seems that his efforts are somewhat equivalent to the gay and lesbian rights movement- it's a double-edged sword and one tends to sacrifice a bit of credibility for the cause of raising awareness in a manner that is sensational and perhaps wedge open a crack of accessibility.
While Steve may have appeared to be a giant risk-taker, what happened with the sting-ray was a truly freak accident. Stings are extremely rare (13 recorded cases in all of history) and he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and happened to get hit right in the heart. While some may claim karmic justice, others that he had it coming, he was far more likely to get bitten by a snake (the way he handled those was rather unorthodox), or even a croc, than in the manner which he got nailed.
What is sad for Steve, then, is if this incident is read in the wrong way and the work that he has undertaken for the past decade plus is undone. He had a real love for and respect for animals.
If you want manhandling, go to you-tube or thatvideosite etc. and look for how crocs are treated in Malaysian/SE Asian zoos. They can be tempramental and willful, so I was not surprised to find a host of clips of zookeepers and daredevils bashing the crocs on the nose only to get their arm chewed off. That, in my opinion, is what a case of "fully had it coming" should be.
OneofaKind
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 66
It's interestng there seems to be as much interest in his death as there was in his life!
Maybe more. The Australian public as a general whole didn't know much about just how involved he was in the wildlife conservation scene when he was alive- they were a bit embarrassed by the whole "Crikey" and the "feed the baby to the croc" thing.
On which note, let's have some discussion of Greer's lambast for the UK Guardian!
On which note, let's have some discussion of Greer's lambast for the UK Guardian!
Interfered? I'll see your connotation and flip it, as I lay the charge that your holding an opinion despite a lack of understanding of his role in wildlife conservation entails a lack of respect.
That said, I gotta agree that by playing with wildlife, he really was playing with fire. And if I recall correctly, he knew it too.
That said, I gotta agree that by playing with wildlife, he really was playing with fire. And if I recall correctly, he knew it too.
I did! And I'm harrassing you anyway, because I feel like being difficult. Often "no disrespect intended" is used in the same way as "I can say as I please and hold my own opinions and you have to respect that" i.e. far too permissively, and would like to question every little example especially whenever the phrase usage appears some glib/incongruous...but this is far too common. So I just do it when I think somebody could handle re-examining some information.
In my experience, "no disrespect intended" usually means just that, i.e., it's not the speaker's goal to offend. After all, we already can say what we please and hold our own opinions. Respecting an opinion doesn't mean we can't disagree with it. It's not glib or incongruous - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
In my experience, "no disrespect intended" usually means just that, i.e., it's not the speaker's goal to offend. After all, we already can say what we please and hold our own opinions. Respecting an opinion doesn't mean we can't disagree with it. It's not glib or incongruous - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
LOL, I feel the same way. I think its important that we remember its a FREE country and everybody's voice should be heard no matter how unsettling it may seem for some. Tolerance is key. Sad that humans in general have a big problem not pushing THEIR OWN opinions down other peoples throats. Ive seen one to many people get upset over a point of view.
Martyr
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 75
What the fuck...
Don't worry Martyr, I'm just stirring. Speaking of which, wasn't there some regulation regarding use of expletives? Okay, enough out of me.
But there is a little intricacy I'd like to pick on!
FREE country and everybody's voice should be heard no matter how unsettling it may seem for some. Tolerance is key. Sad that humans in general have a big problem not pushing THEIR OWN opinions down other peoples throats.
So then, how does one go about reconciling the ideal of free will and tolerance on one hand, and the lack of respect for others' opinions, such that one might have an effective moral system/analytical system? We know that having different opinions etc. is a necessary tension that living together entails.
Moral principles are often argued over in the presumption that they are applicable to a group of people. Why? Because they involve consideration of actions that will somehow affect other moral agents. Our opinions with regard to moral discussions are only valid insofar as we affect ourselves. As you say, the problem is how some people like to force their opinions on others without tolerance. This is a tricky thing to navigate, as I'm sure you'll now appreciate.
However, this is not a license to say "well you cannot question me because I have a right to my own opinion." The reason for this is because we tend to presume we are rational and that the beliefs we hold are somehow justified. What I have a problem with are people who either persist in maintaining an illusion of being justified but are in fact not, or not required to, or do not even feel the need to examin their own beliefs (or both). This is extremely common, because most people do not have the adequate knowledge or ability to maintain a high degree of consistency in regards to a principle of sufficient reason. Worse, it is through this that much righteous hatred persists throughout the world. Hence why I keep going on and on about hypocrisy and ignorance, really. Not that I'm exempt from those standards.
So for my part, that's why I would like to encourage that people actually do what they place value in and think critically. Engage in the process of questioning and changing, which is difficult as it involves detaching knowledge and opinion from the notion of identity. I'm not forcing opinions on anybody else- were I to start using laden rhetoric because I were trying to defend some personal sense of integrity then yes, that would be me being a hypocrite.
Of course, I appreciate that "no disrespect intended" can and should generally be taken to face value. I just wanted to get people's hackles up so they'd pay some attention to this post. You see my point now?
But there is a little intricacy I'd like to pick on!
FREE country and everybody's voice should be heard no matter how unsettling it may seem for some. Tolerance is key. Sad that humans in general have a big problem not pushing THEIR OWN opinions down other peoples throats.
So then, how does one go about reconciling the ideal of free will and tolerance on one hand, and the lack of respect for others' opinions, such that one might have an effective moral system/analytical system? We know that having different opinions etc. is a necessary tension that living together entails.
Moral principles are often argued over in the presumption that they are applicable to a group of people. Why? Because they involve consideration of actions that will somehow affect other moral agents. Our opinions with regard to moral discussions are only valid insofar as we affect ourselves. As you say, the problem is how some people like to force their opinions on others without tolerance. This is a tricky thing to navigate, as I'm sure you'll now appreciate.
However, this is not a license to say "well you cannot question me because I have a right to my own opinion." The reason for this is because we tend to presume we are rational and that the beliefs we hold are somehow justified. What I have a problem with are people who either persist in maintaining an illusion of being justified but are in fact not, or not required to, or do not even feel the need to examin their own beliefs (or both). This is extremely common, because most people do not have the adequate knowledge or ability to maintain a high degree of consistency in regards to a principle of sufficient reason. Worse, it is through this that much righteous hatred persists throughout the world. Hence why I keep going on and on about hypocrisy and ignorance, really. Not that I'm exempt from those standards.
So for my part, that's why I would like to encourage that people actually do what they place value in and think critically. Engage in the process of questioning and changing, which is difficult as it involves detaching knowledge and opinion from the notion of identity. I'm not forcing opinions on anybody else- were I to start using laden rhetoric because I were trying to defend some personal sense of integrity then yes, that would be me being a hypocrite.
Of course, I appreciate that "no disrespect intended" can and should generally be taken to face value. I just wanted to get people's hackles up so they'd pay some attention to this post. You see my point now?
Can you try and reply in fewer words next time? Seriously sometimes reading your reply takes way to long to state a simple opinion.
Now, please dont think in some way i have no "respect of your opinion" . Yes, im asking you not to jump to a conclusion and not to argue a simple point of view........See how that works? And society moves on....
Werbung:
lol. But what in fact happened was that three people wondered why you didn't understand the obvious.
Look, I'm all for critical thinking. If that's what you want to talk about, say so, simply and directly. Check out my sig line and remember to eschew obfuscation.
There's no need to, in your own words, harass. If people are interested in discussing your points, they'll respond. And you get a better discussion if people are drawn to it rather than pushed.
