Crocodile Hunter dead at 44 - Stung by Stingray

[Darth Wong]

Irwin recklessly put others at risk. That's the same thing a drunk driver does.

No, it's not. A drunk driver is not trained in drunk driving.

And Steve Irwin was trained in "one-handed baby-carrying near croc" techniques? Where does one obtain this training?

It was stupid, and I don't think anyone here is contesting that. What people are contesting are remarks like " but frankly he was a fuckwit and I'm not sorry to see him go.", "Frankly, I think his kids are probably safer with him dead."

Well, Keevan can be over-the-top with the rhetoric at times, but at the same time the harsh reality is that plenty of people on this board and in real-life and everywhere else make a habit of laughing at the Darwin Awards, when 100% of the arguments in defense of Steve Irwin could apply to most of the recipients except for one: he's famous. In short, his defenders are guilty of celebrity worship unless they react the same way to Darwin Awards. Do they not think Darwin Award winners might have friends? Family? People who miss them?

"Here's a thought, lunatic pedophiles might consider fucking a child up the ass a neccesary part of a childs development". Mostly things posted by Keevan.

As I said, Keevan can be over-the-top with rhetoric at times but the last line is not an attempt to equate Irwin to a pedophile, no matter how incompetently people choose to interpret it. It was a response to a particular argument from the other side in which their logic was being criticized via ths analogy.

Your position is that he's a bad father for endangering his child. I think everyone agrees with that. However, being a bad father does not mean things are better off with him dead.

It does, however, mean that no one is obligated to feel particularly sorry over him dying. As I've pointed out above, most people actually laugh when a non-famous person dies as a result of his own stupidity or risk-taking, which is why the Darwin Awards are considered comedy and the site is so popular. I guess celebrities just catch a break in this, just as they do in so many other areas of life such as the justice system.

Based on what? Your personal refusal to recognize the infliction of undue risk as a legitimate form of irresponsible behaviour unless it actually kills someone?

Perhaps, based on the fact that it only happened once.

Actions like that are not freak occurrences. Someone who is normally quite conscious of the safety of his child does not suddenly wave the kid around in front of a crocodile.

[atg]

I think at the end of the day a man is dead. Yes he made some stupid choices, but who of us doesn't at some stage? In the case of this person I would prefer to remember the good he did rather than the bad.

[Battlehymn Republic]

So say we all.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Knievel did that? I thought he was some 80s cultural icon or something.

'70s cultural icon, which went away as part of the baseball bat incident, ok that and the way he treated his wife.

[Cao Cao]

Well, Keevan can be over-the-top with the rhetoric at times, but at the same time the harsh reality is that plenty of people on this board and in real-life and everywhere else make a habit of laughing at the Darwin Awards, when 100% of the arguments in defense of Steve Irwin could apply to most of the recipients except for one: he's famous. In short, his defenders are guilty of celebrity worship unless they react the same way to Darwin Awards. Do they not think Darwin Award winners might have friends? Family? People who miss them?

In the end Irwin was trained to do what he did, and it was his job.
Which is more than can be said about the Darwin Award people. He wasn't some tourist who went to pet a lion in a safari park because it looked cute and got mauled. He was a professional and a practitioner of a way of life that involved getting close and personal with wildlife.

But like it's been said, this doesn't excuse some of the dumb shit he's done. He's made mistakes, he's done risky and gratuitous things.
But he's not deserving of a lot of the criticism he gets.

As I said, Keevan can be over-the-top with rhetoric at times but the last line is not an attempt to equate Irwin to a pedophile, no matter how incompetently people choose to interpret it. It was a response to a particular argument from the other side in which their logic was being criticized via ths analogy.

I certainly didn't feel he was being compared to a pedophile, though I do think that the comparison of perspectives was unfair.
To a certain extent I feel we can accept Steve Irwin's view on things, there's no circumstance where I'd accept a pedophile's view.

[Crown]

This thread could not possibly be going on for seven pages over this issue. It's just unbelievable.

Look, I liked Irwin. Great Aussie larikin and was passionate for the conservation of wildlife and Australia's diverse and unique forests. But he took his child into a croc infested pond as a stunt.

Are you guys brain dead? Can you just not see how wrong that was? So what if he was trained? So what if it is his job? If a firefighter took their toddler into a BURNING FUCKING HOUSE wouldn't we all be up at arms over it? Of course we would be, so what's the problem here?

Point of fact; he never did it again after the one time. Surely if there was nothing wrong with him doing it, surely he should have continued doing it. But he didn't. He later apologised, saying that he believed that his child wasn't at any danger at the time, but recognised that him just sneezing at the wrong time could have dire consequences.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Also; the guy's had a labotamy. So my real beef is with his wife, who we assume hasn't, who let him take their child into the pen to begin with.

Anyway, cheerio Steve. Rest well and be at peace man. You made this world a little nicer.

[The Yosemite Bear]

queensland offered him a state funeral.....

I just can't believe this

[Dartzap]

queensland offered him a state funeral.....

I just can't believe this

Which his family have turned down.

[Cao Cao]

Look, I liked Irwin. Great Aussie larikin and was passionate for the conservation of wildlife and Australia's diverse and unique forests. But he took his child into a croc infested pond as a stunt.

Are you guys brain dead? Can you just not see how wrong that was? So what if he was trained? So what if it is his job? If a firefighter took their toddler into a BURNING FUCKING HOUSE wouldn't we all be up at arms over it? Of course we would be, so what's the problem here?

I don't think anybody is defending that stunt.
As far as I've seen, everybody here agrees that incident was a stupid fuckup worthy of an international bonehead award. I just have issues with people roasting his entire career over that.

[mr friendly guy]

I don't think anybody is defending that stunt.
As far as I've seen, everybody here agrees that incident was a stupid fuckup worthy of an international bonehead award. I just have issues with people roasting his entire career over that.

Really?

Honestly? Yeah. We're talking about a guy who's been around those things since he was that age. He knew, often from personal experience, more about a crocodile's reach, reaction speed, and behaviour patterns than just about anybody else.

Hot damn. This is Twilight Zone level irony.

While he was irresponsable from our perspective, the fact remains he was brought up that way and was supremely confident in his abilities.
Technically, now he will never be proven wrong, so to speak.

I'm not saying that what he did wasn't dangerous for any of the parties involved. But the man was taking all the proper precautions for what he was intending to do. Now, that intention in and of itself certainly wasn't wise, but it was done with what safety precautions were possible in mind. It wasn't just done as a lark, but what he considered to be a part of the child's development.

The actual chance of Irwin's infant being hurt by the animal is something we can't determine, since no one else is known to be silly enough to do something like that. However, we do know that Irwin was probably more knowledgeable about the exact level of risk the animal presented than anyone else. He ought to have had a much better idea of what the threat was than any outside observer lacking his expertise. Given his supposed level of awareness, the infant ought to be safer with him than inside a car, which kills more children than any other cause. On the other hand, his excessive machoness may have overridden his judgment.

In any case, having seen the clip several times today, the way he was holding the baby was a lot more alarming than any proximity to the animal. One-armed baby grab fails.

I like how people say on one hand it was stupid, then soon after explain why its ok for Irwin to do this stupid act, namely about how experience he is with animals or to help child development etc.

By that logic its ok for military personel to bring their kids into the front line, after all they need to learn about the dangers of the enemy and if any one can deal with the risk of attack, it would be military personel right? Heck while we are at it, why not have the whole board stop slamming the Federation for bringing kids on a ship which is likely to see combat? After all, Starfleet officers would know more about surviving ship battles than the average Federation citizen right?

For the record, while I never watched his show I admired his conservation efforts. I liked how he bought tourist dollars to Australia. I even have no problems with plans to name a national park after him. I also think he might not pose as much danger to his kids if he actually wasn't going to do that stupid stunt again. I do however object to people who defend his stupid crocodile feeding act while carrying his kid in his arms.

[Cao Cao]

Just to be clear at the time I wrote that I wasn't aware of the stunt he pulled with the baby. I would never defend such a dumbass act.
And what I meant to say by that is that he was killed by a relatively benign creature in an accident, rather than being mauled by a croc or something like that (which to be honest is what I thought would happen one day).

[Crown]

You guys do know that Irwin had a labotamy from a real young age though, right?

[Ghost Rider]

You guys do know that Irwin had a labotamy from a real young age though, right?

That would truly explain a great many things.

As said...I will miss his passing because he entertained me, but his business with crocs and such was borderline nuts, and his bit with his kid was honestly pure negligence.

Though I will say...I would've thought he was going to be devoured by one of the many beasties he tested the patience of.

[Mange]

You guys do know that Irwin had a labotamy from a real young age though, right?

Where did you hear that?

[Darth Wong]

You guys do know that Irwin had a labotamy from a real young age though, right?

Where did you hear that?

I've heard that before but it was usually expressed as a joke, as in "someone obviously removed the part of his brain responsible for the self-preservation instinct". I would be quite interested to hear that he really did have some kind of brain surgery performed on him.

In any case, Steve Irwin was far more famous for exposing himself to dangerous animals than anything else. And that's how show business works; when David Suzuki dies he won't get anywhere near as much international fanfare because he was just a key figure in the science-based environmentalist movement and such people are insignificant compared to celebrities.

[Superman]

You guys do know that Irwin had a labotamy from a real young age though, right?

Where did you hear that?

I've heard that before but it was usually expressed as a joke, as in "someone obviously removed the part of his brain responsible for the self-preservation instinct". I would be quite interested to hear that he really did have some kind of brain surgery performed on him.

Extremely unlikely. Lobotomies result, usually, in personality changes that are not those of a super ADHD adult. At a 'younger age,' he would have had to have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, depression, and/or various other anxiety disorders that would have impaired him to the point of serious consequence. No lobotomy patient would reach Steve's level of functioning.

This procedure was almost phased out entirely in the 1950's. Steve died at 42. You do the math.

Let's quit spreading bullshit, crown.

[wolveraptor]

Frankly, I think Steve Irwin is more deserving of a Chuck Norris-style joke than any of the pansies you hear thrown around on the web, like Mr. T and Vin Diesel, and especially Norris himself, who is nothing more than a terrible TV actor.

[Cao Cao]

and especially Norris himself, who is nothing more than a terrible TV actor.

What the hell are you talking about? That's so inaccurate..

...

He's a terrible movie actor too.

[Styphon]

Why do people keep saying that? I had to watch the damn WTC collapase a thousand times on every news channel for days: what's so special about Steve bloody Irwin?

you HAD to?

who strapped you down and taped your eyes open?

turn OFF the fucking TV!

[Cao Cao]

Why do people keep saying that? I had to watch the damn WTC collapase a thousand times on every news channel for days: what's so special about Steve bloody Irwin?

you HAD to?

who strapped you down and taped your eyes open?

turn OFF the fucking TV!

Sometimes it's not that simple.
For a long time after 9/11, all the news channels and even non-news channels would incessantly replay the towers collapsing during breaks.
I remember here in the UK I couldn't even watch the Simpsons on Sky One without the breaks being peppered with twin towers going down footage.

[Dalton]

Sometimes it's not that simple.
For a long time after 9/11, all the news channels and even non-news channels would incessantly replay the towers collapsing during breaks.
I remember here in the UK I couldn't even watch the Simpsons on Sky One without the breaks being peppered with twin towers going down footage.

What a tragedy.

[Cao Cao]

Oh I'm not complaining about it if that's what you mean.
I was just pointing out that it wasn't something easily avoidable, if you like to watch TV anyway.
Well, that and it came to feel rather gratuitous.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Which brings up another point...

They shouldnt have shown the towers collapsing over and over again, for the same reason they shouldnt show a man be killed on a video, because it is hurtful to those who cared about him just as showing the towers collapsing is hurtful to those who had people they cared about in the buildings.

So BOTH situatiosn are equally wrong, the difference is, one already happened (showing people dying in the towers ad nausium) but the other hasnt so it shouldnt.

The fact the towers collapsing is JUST as bad as showing someone getting mortally wounded on video doesnt mean that either is right. Neither should be replayed on TV, or anywhere else, if it can be helped.

And not to go off on a tangent, forgive me if this is a bit off topic, but i also have the feeling the towers were shown collapsing again and again is because, disgusting as it sounds, some people in the government encouraged it because it whipped up public ire and they could exploit that. Showing this would not even have that (utterly repulsive) purpose it would be just gratuitous.

[Darth Wong]

When I first saw that footage of the World Trade Centre towers being struck and collapsing, I remember a feeling of utter shock, and a grave uncertainty about the future.

By the time the media was done flogging that dead horse, the footage no longer had any effect on me. I know I'm supposed to feel undiminished shock and outrage even now whenever I see those images, but to be honest, after all of that saturation I feel nothing. It's an image I've seen a million times; it has lost its power. Thanks to media oversaturation.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Well yes, but that is the end result. The intent, i believe anyway, was to create a 'new Pearl Harbor' for us all. So we will all chant 'Never Forget' like we chant 'remember the Alamo'. Of course it went differently because of media overexposure. But the original intention, i think, became rather clear with the rest of the governments actions following the 911 attacks and how they ruthlessly milked it at every chance.

Personally i watched it happen live. To see it again and again never bothered me personally because i had seen the real deal that morning on live TV. But if my bro or mom or friends were in that building i would feel different, which i why i consider it a terrible idea to show it likethey did. Also why i think they should avoid showing a video of Irwin dying from an unexpected stingray attack.

The same question could be asked of both cases...what could ther possibly be to gain? What good could come from it? It wont help anyone and will, most likely, hurt more people (like his family) anyway so...why not just not show it? Same with he WTC collapse, why show it over and over again? How does that help? Who does it help? The answer to both is it helps no one and has no purpose being shown.

Anywho...
On the topic, i understand the guy did some stupid shit but i he seemed to be a good guy, he and his family seemed very close and that they all loved each other, and they're probably miss him, that and he did what he could to help enviromentalism which, IMO, is always a plus. So rest in peace.