I'm with Wong on this one - it's one thing to risk your own self, quite another to risk someone else. ESPECIALLY someone way too young to comprehend the risks or give consent.Col. Crackpot wrote:so a foolish mistake should forever label a man who dedicated his life to conservation and science education for children a fuckwit?Keevan_Colton wrote:I feel sorry for his family, but frankly he was a fuckwit and I'm not sorry to see him go. The bullshit with his kid and the raw chicken just cinched it for me that he was a fucktard.
Does that one incident negate all the good the man ever did? No - but it DOES make me question his judgement. And that's a serious, serious question in my book.
I play games where the outcome for stupidity - or even brief distraction - can result in charred bodyparts strewn across the landscape. I have friends who play those games even harder than I do. I have helped clean up from accidents. The ethics of taking risks when life and limb are at stake have been thoroughly hashed out - you DON'T involve people who don't know what the hell is going on and are unable to make an informed decision about their choice of risks. A month old baby qualifies for "don't know what the hell is going on" on multiple levels.
I prefer to give people I don't know the benefit of the doubt, but it's fucking hard to do so under the circumstances of that one particular incident. Granted, he never repeated it, but it should never have occured in the first place. Worse yet, in my mind, were his statements after the fact that he was "in total control". Um... no, he wasn't. You can't be when there's an animal involved. Dropping your guard like that, or assuming that sort of arrogance, is a step towards disaster.
Oh, damn - don't mean to speak badly of the dead. He did do some good in his life, but he, like everyone else, was a mix of good and bad traits. It would be dishonest to pretend otherwise, or simply forget about a mistake that could have had horrific consequences.