Happy Atheist Forum

General => Current Events => Topic started by: Big Mac on September 04, 2006, 08:01:52 PM

Title: Steve Irwin Dies......from a STINGRAY attack!
Post by: Big Mac on September 04, 2006, 08:01:52 PM
So the Great Croc Hunter dies today.....from being stung by a stingray. No no, not a gator or a cobra or a mamba....a fucking stingray! Ironic isn't it? I have always said that he'll get mauled one of these days, I didn't mean he'd get killed in the wussiest way to go!

It's like ten thousand spoons when all you neeed is a knife.....
Title:
Post by: Tom62 on September 05, 2006, 09:46:44 AM
Apparently the death of Steve Irvin has been videotaped. Can't wait for the first website to show it.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on September 05, 2006, 09:54:14 AM
It probably won't pop up, the queensland cops have taken the said video into custody. The guy is like the Batman of deadly animals, some people would pay king's ransoms for it. After all these years of tempting deadly, violent, strong, venomous animals, a pussy ass stingray kills him. Granted it stabbed him in the heart but what are the odds?
Title:
Post by: Tom62 on September 05, 2006, 10:12:28 AM
Must have been God's Will  :lol:
Title:
Post by: ContraCostan on September 05, 2006, 03:44:15 PM
Quote from: "Big Mac"...a pussy ass stingray kills him. Granted it stabbed him in the heart but what are the odds?

Imagine it Mac. If you had the abilty to do that to a tormentor. Whip out a part of your spine and ram it through his heart.

I doubt anyone would call you "pussy ass"

Well, not to your face anyway  :shock:
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on September 06, 2006, 08:42:38 AM
I think he kind of got his come uppings. After all those years of pissing off vipers, crocs, and other animals that were going about their own damn business, one of them finally fights back. That'd be cool to have a poinsonious spine to jab people with.
Title:
Post by: SpiralExit on September 06, 2006, 09:31:12 PM
I'm too sorry for him, but he died in the way he always wanted, "wild life"..
Title:
Post by: ContraCostan on September 07, 2006, 08:24:08 AM
Well shut my mouth! If anyone thought there was any undue criticism of him in this forum, check out what Ms Greer had to say.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/0 ... topstories (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/06/death.irwin.greer/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)

Comments?
Title:
Post by: Tom62 on September 07, 2006, 10:17:53 AM
It is for me the first time that I agree with a feminist.
Title:
Post by: MommaSquid on September 07, 2006, 05:52:17 PM
I don't think it's the right time for Ms. Greer's criticism.  The man just died....let the family grieve.
Title:
Post by: Squid on September 07, 2006, 07:09:57 PM
This lady has performed a little psychological process right before everyone's eyes.  She has first, singled out a celebrity many adored.  Utilizing a situation usually for reverence of the deceased, she has utilized it as a catalyst for her own needs.  She hangs the crux of her argument on an anthropomorphization of animals and the persecuation complex of a long-time zealot feminist.

She utilizes fallacious argumentation such as:

Quote"He would tell you how dangerous they were and he would proceed to intrude on their space and humiliate (them) really -- treat them with massive insensitivity," she said. "It's no surprise he came to grief."

Humuliation is not a wide "feeling" found in most other species.  It is a human concept developed from our very complex social systems.  Also, I severely doubt that the animals showcased on Steve's shows were concerned with if it's emotional needs were being met and if Steve understood its vulnerability and sensitivity - again, human concepts transposed upon the animals Steve worked with.  This could be akin to the old concept of projection.

Projection is an old psychological concept whereby a person will "project" their fears, prejudices, inadequacies, et al. onto someone else.  While it is a product of psychoanalysis of which I am skeptical, I don't think this defense mechanism is completely without merit.

Another example of how smart people do dumb shit when their ideology gets in the mix.

I consider Greer on par with Ann Coulter.
Title:
Post by: McQ on September 08, 2006, 02:40:22 AM
Quote from: "Squid"This lady has performed a little psychological process right before everyone's eyes.  She has first, singled out a celebrity many adored.  Utilizing a situation usually for reverence of the deceased, she has utilized it as a catalyst for her own needs.  She hangs the crux of her argument on an anthropomorphization of animals and the persecuation complex of a long-time zealot feminist.

She utilizes fallacious argumentation such as:

Quote"He would tell you how dangerous they were and he would proceed to intrude on their space and humiliate (them) really -- treat them with massive insensitivity," she said. "It's no surprise he came to grief."

Humuliation is not a wide "feeling" found in most other species.  It is a human concept developed from our very complex social systems.  Also, I severely doubt that the animals showcased on Steve's shows were concerned with if it's emotional needs were being met and if Steve understood its vulnerability and sensitivity - again, human concepts transposed upon the animals Steve worked with.  This could be akin to the old concept of projection.

Projection is an old psychological concept whereby a person will "project" their fears, prejudices, inadequacies, et al. onto someone else.  While it is a product of psychoanalysis of which I am skeptical, I don't think this defense mechanism is completely without merit.

Another example of how smart people do dumb shit when their ideology gets in the mix.

I consider Greer on par with Ann Coulter.

Well said, Squid! Well said!
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on September 08, 2006, 05:33:52 AM
I personally did not like Steve Irwin. I think he tormented animals, though I agree blows to animals' pride is not widespread though it exists. Hence we have leaders of packs and herds who are dominant. Dogs seem to possess such emotions on a smaller range. I think Irwin finally got his just desserts after all this time showing how he could mess with deadly animals and get away with it in such a cocky manner. However, I still acknowledge he was a human being and deserves to be allowed to rest finally. I merely jest about his death because it's ironic a sting ray killed him and not a gator or a cobra.
Title:
Post by: Tom62 on September 08, 2006, 10:51:48 AM
I didn't like steve Irwin either, nor all this commotion about his death.  What I also don't like is that when someone dies you are supposed to say nothing bad about that person. BTW: has anyone of you seen the episode where he is feeding a crocodile with his one month old baby son in his arm? Now that was pretty irresponsible!
Title:
Post by: joeactor on September 08, 2006, 05:08:23 PM
Quote from: "McQ"
Quote from: "Squid"This lady has performed a little psychological process right before everyone's eyes.  She has first, singled out a celebrity many adored.  Utilizing a situation usually for reverence of the deceased, she has utilized it as a catalyst for her own needs.  She hangs the crux of her argument on an anthropomorphization of animals and the persecuation complex of a long-time zealot feminist.

Another example of how smart people do dumb shit when their ideology gets in the mix.

I consider Greer on par with Ann Coulter.
Well said, Squid! Well said!

(*golf clap*)

If you liked him or hated him, it's not too hard to have a little respect for the family.  It's one thing for us to have opinions on a private forum, and quite another to broadcast your opinions in public.

Measure twice, cut once...
Title:
Post by: McQ on September 08, 2006, 07:53:07 PM
Quote from: "Tom62"I didn't like steve Irwin either, nor all this commotion about his death.  What I also don't like is that when someone dies you are supposed to say nothing bad about that person. BTW: has anyone of you seen the episode where he is feeding a crocodile with his one month old baby son in his arm? Now that was pretty irresponsible!

Interesting that you bring up the topic of not saying anything bad about someone after their death. There have been a lot of people throughout history who deserved having bad things said about them, alive or dead (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Dana Plato, etc...)

But what is the point of the people who say things like, "Irwin deserved it.", or, "It was inevitable."? I've seen those comments in the news and in some internet forums.
Really. What is the point? Is it the need to try and seem precognizant after the fact? Or get a feeling of superiority?

Irwin's job was riskier than sitting behind a desk all day at a computer terminal. It was less risky than an Alaskan Crab Fisherman's job. It's pretty much stating the obvious to chime in and say that one just figures that's the way he'd go, or that one knew eventually it would happen.

If a person is engaged in a profession which has unique, inherent, life-threatening risks, then it follows that such a person is more likely to be injured or killed doing that job than other people who do not engage in that profession.

Among all professionals or people who engage in the same profession, or activities as Steve Irwin, some people are more or less likely to be injured or killed. Much of their risk or lack of risk comes from the amount of preparation and precautions they take, the amount of expertise they have, and the odds of certain unlikely events coming together at the same time to create potential disaster. When you look behind the scenes and talk to the people who knew him best, they say that Irwin took risks, but was always conscious about safety and was an expert in his field.

As for any or all of the talk about how risky his job was, it doesn't even matter. It's a stupid thing to even bring up, because he wasn't killed doing something inherently risky! If it were all that risky to swim with stingrays, then they sure as hell wouldn't have people swimming with them on every damn Caribbean cruise and in every warm water tourist destination.

As I mentioned in another forum, when two members were bitterly arguing over just how risky his job was, it's like, "Pole vaulting over mouse turds." He wasn't killed doing a typically risky thing.

Also, I never saw an episode of the Croc Hunter in which he held his son in his arms while feeding crocs. He did, however, allow Terri into the pen with his son Bob, and she held him while Steve fed the crocs. She was at a discreet distance. There is a difference. They also had other people in the pen that day "just in case" things got out of hand. And Terri isn't some dope when it comes to animal behavior either. If he ever did hold his one month old son while feeding them, I'd very much like to see proof of that. And Irwin did a nice job defending the outrage that people expressed over that in an interview later.

I don't know what else to say. It's a little frustrating, all the armchair quarterbacking. As I said, I think people are pole vaulting over mouse turds on this one. And missing the point that a family is torn apart, a good man and outstanding conservationist is dead, and not because he did anything risky or outrageous. So leave the "I told you so's!" out of it please!
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on September 09, 2006, 12:48:19 PM
Eh, MCQ, your marklars ring somewhat marklar. Marklars like Marklar are bound to have marklars happen to marklars some marklar.
Title:
Post by: McQ on September 09, 2006, 02:34:44 PM
Quote from: "Big Mac"Eh, MCQ, your marklars ring somewhat marklar. Marklars like Marklar are bound to have marklars happen to marklars some marklar.

Well marklar are entitled to marklar marklars.  :wink:
Title:
Post by: MommaSquid on September 09, 2006, 07:30:27 PM
Quote from: "McQ"If he ever did hold his one month old son while feeding them, I'd very much like to see proof of that.

Ask and ye shall receive:  

Image and Article (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2004/01/02-croc-inside.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-02-irwin_x.htm&h=180&w=200&sz=11&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=uUGSwOwXoB9kiM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsteve%2Birwin%2Bholding%2Bbaby%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D)
Title:
Post by: McQ on September 09, 2006, 11:32:15 PM
Quote from: "MommaSquid"
Quote from: "McQ"If he ever did hold his one month old son while feeding them, I'd very much like to see proof of that.

Ask and ye shall receive:  

Image and Article (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2004/01/02-croc-inside.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-02-irwin_x.htm&h=180&w=200&sz=11&hl=en&start=4&tbnid=uUGSwOwXoB9kiM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsteve%2Birwin%2Bholding%2Bbaby%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D)

Well Crikey! There it is! Thanks MommaSquid. The two hour Biography special that just ran on him only ever talked about his wife coming into the pen with Bob. They didn't show this little stunt.

This, I agree, was extremely risky. Not something I'd be doing with my kids.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on September 09, 2006, 11:38:03 PM
See I'm mixed about it. He is highly skilled with these animals and it's not like he actually dangled his son over it (not from the footage I saw), I'm sure this isn' the first time he did that.

Anyway, MCQ

Marklars are just marklars waiting to become marklar's marklars. Is that marklar too marklar?
Title:
Post by: Whitney on September 10, 2006, 12:00:32 AM
Quote from: "McQ"Well Crikey! There it is! Thanks MommaSquid. The two hour Biography special that just ran on him only ever talked about his wife coming into the pen with Bob. They didn't show this little stunt.

This, I agree, was extremely risky. Not something I'd be doing with my kids.

It definitely was risky and I wouldn't want my child to be placed in the same situation (accidents can happen...even with the most experienced people in charge...an accident, after all, is how he died).  But, in his defense, he grew up around crocodiles and his father apparently was letting him dive in to catch them on his own by the time he was 10 (saw a show about how he came to be the Crocodile Hunter on Animal Planet last night...so having a baby near them probably didn't strike him as something abnormal or dangerous (I think the uproar over the incident is an example of cultural differences...anyone else who was raised in a crocodile catching culture...like his family...wouldn't have been so upset about what he did).

So, it was dangerous and he really shouldn't have done it just in case something did go wrong...but you can tell that he loved his kids and wouldn't knowingly place them in a situation where he thought they would be harmed.  I think he just wanted to share his love for crocs and up close experiences with his child as his dad did with him as a child.  Combine that desire with wanting to show off his new baby to the audience and it made him look like a bad parent....I doubt it was a publicity stunt, if he had thought about it in advance he would have figured out that the situation would be bad press.
Title:
Post by: McQ on September 10, 2006, 01:09:22 AM
Quote from: "Big Mac"See I'm mixed about it. He is highly skilled with these animals and it's not like he actually dangled his son over it (not from the footage I saw), I'm sure this isn' the first time he did that.

Anyway, MCQ

Marklars are just marklars waiting to become marklar's marklars. Is that marklar too marklar?

It was Marklary Marklar. Thanks a Marklar!
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on September 10, 2006, 02:48:37 AM
Well laet it's like a family of hunters taking a kid on a hunt. Some urban dweller from the North would be disturbed by the fact a kid is lugging around a rifle and pointing it at Bambi & Co. but down here it's not that big of a deal. Guns are even more dangerous than a croc, seeing as a gun can kill way more effectively than some rascly sheila, eh mate? MARKLAR!