'Crocodile Hunter' Steve Irwin dies in stingray attack

[a.saccus]

a.saccus, what do you think of a interpretation that would follow the lines of an Irwin dominating reptiles?

I see Irwin more as a representative of Man Dominating Nature than I see him as a human hero defending us against Monsters.

When man gets together with wild animals -- at least up to this point in history --- it has always been bad news for the wild animals.

I live in particularly beautiful part of the country. It's actually classified as a State Park, although a few thousand humans live here as well. Just yesterday, on my way to work and not 200 yards from my apartment, I saw two fawns twenty feet off the road. It's that time of year. They were precious and very, very adorable. They were no taller than a German Shepherd, and were standing on comically wobbly legs. I pulled off the road and watched them for about a minute, until the doe came out from the bushes and gave me one long look. It was the look of a wild creature, and, although the deer are protected around here and will tolerate humans at a distance, the message in the doe's eyes was: keep away.

I think that is every wild creature's free will wish when it comes to humans.

The human tendency is to use animals. Thus we have violated their free will for our own benefit, certainly not for their benefit. And the C's have mentioned that 4D STS uses us in the same way -- and that too is not for our benefit. If I am not comfortable being used in such fashion, I can imagine they feel the same way.

There is no really justified human use for alligators -- we can do quite well, thank you, without alligator shoes or ladies' alligator bags. I did not see the alligators as being really happy about Irvin tromping around.

The goal is to move beyond using others; although I fully admit the contradiction in that I'm not ready to give up milk in my coffee or the occasional steak. The relationship of humans to animals is complex and difficult one, but needs to move in a direction of as little exploitation of animals as possible.

Irwin was using animals, although he did some good for them too. It's, as I say, a very mixed bag.

I have other comments on animals which you may find clarifying and which you can find in my response to SAO.

 

[tschai]

The bit about Steve Irwin always dressing to appear poor is off the mark, IMO. His "bush" apparel was his trademark-the garb everyone was used to seeing him in-and besides, what else does one wear to handle animals-Armani?

I am certain he has a few "monkey suits" (suits and ties) in his closet for formal occasions and big business meetings and the like (and getting buried in)-but everyone knew him as "The Crocodile Hunter" and recognized him immediately-besides bush apparel is VERY comfy-and if you look at some of the trash that our super rich "celebrities" have been snapped in by the paparazi, Steve was well dressed in comparison! His fans EXPECTED to see him in his bush gear-ready to roll in the outback, chasing down that monitor lizard, or rescuing a koala cub orphaned because his mum was run over. I think he would have done any of the things he did regardless of what he was wearing. He seemed to be just a big kid-and didn't really give a lot of attention to his appearance (yeah, it COULD have been a clever ploy-but I don't think so-It was What you see is What you get, IMO) If that turns out not to be so, then so be it.

Agreed that there are bigger issues out there that deserve more air time-but Steve WAS one of those bigger than life types, living life in the instant-in the NOW. As for his association with reptiles (and I have been guilty of the anthropomorphisizing of our second density denizens) they are as you say NOT the same as the Fourth density type-although I do not think we can say with conviction there is no connection-perhaps there is, in some way-justt as we are ALL connected to EVERYTHING. Animals are for the most part without guile-they cannot lie, cheat, deceive the way we do, it just is not part of their make up. We are learning however they are a LOT more intelligent than we ever thought possible-and can even communicate in ways that were never before imagined.

It is easy to make judgements without personal, first hand knowledge. I did not know him personally, but I would like to think he would have been easy to be friends with-and I will miss him as do many others. If people want to dig up dirt on him and say he was in reality a despicable person, treated his family poorly and was selfish and heartless-what would that serve? The dead can do us no harm as my Mom used to say (she never had those nightmares about dead people like I did as a kid- I'd really like to know what THAT was all about) it is the LIVING we have to worry about. I will always remember him as the fearless Crocodile Hunter, the crazy over the top guy that loved something that only someone who IS crazed and over the top could love (Crocs need love too?ermmm, well...) we'll leave it at that.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Animals are for the most part without guile-they cannot lie, cheat, deceive the way we do, it just is not part of their make up.

Well maybe not consciously, but they do lie/deceive instinctively - camouflage, creating false appearances to look innocent/friendly to lure pray, etc. They are also vicious predators and take no mercy on their prey, sometimes toying with their play before eating it - just like the lizzies and psychopaths. Sometimes the prey doesn't even realise that it is prey, and doesn't even try to run as it walks right into someone's jaws. I think there are many similarities between lizzies and their 2d counterparts, nevermind that lizards can eat their young with no second thought about it. But I still see no reason to harm them, I also don't see any reason to harm the 4d lizzies with the intention to harm. I mean yeah we'll harm them if we're free from them as we deprive them of their food, but that's not working against "them" but for our destinies. But I mean, as long as something does not pose any harm to us, no matter how vile/vicious/predatory, there is absolutely no reason to cause any harm to it or treat it unkindly, osit. But also doesn't mean we should entertain any sort of illusions about what it is, as many people are too keen to forget sometimes and do something silly that ends up hurting them.

It is easy to make judgements without personal, first hand knowledge.

I don't want to make judgements, but I wouldn't mind an objective assessment based on objective evidence. You can assess Bush without having met him, you can assess many mainstream media personalities and other public figures without having met them, so I think it may be just as possible to assess Steve. It might not be nearly as important though, but I'm still curious simply because I've been conditioned to see him one way all my life, and I wonder if that's really all there is to it as you say, or if everything is not all roses as others suggest about him.

I did not know him personally, but I would like to think he would have been easy to be friends with-and I will miss him as do many others. If people want to dig up dirt on him and say he was in reality a despicable person, treated his family poorly and was selfish and heartless-what would that serve?

If nothing else, it would serve to pop your illusion that he would have been easy to be friends with! And I am not saying that it IS an illusion, just that IF it is, and if he really was NOTHING like he presented himself for tv, wouldn't you be at least curious to find out?

The dead can do us no harm as my Mom used to say (she never had those nightmares about dead people like I did as a kid- I'd really like to know what THAT was all about) it is the LIVING we have to worry about. I will always remember him as the fearless Crocodile Hunter, the crazy over the top guy that loved something that only someone who IS crazed and over the top could love (Crocs need love too?ermmm, well...) we'll leave it at that.

But what if that memory is a lie? Would you care? Cuz at this point I honestly just don't know, after reading the contrasting opinions people have about him on this forum it would be nice to see where the evidence really points to. I don't want to "dig up dirt" for its own sake, but if there IS dirt and it is significant, then I don't see why not. If there is no dirt, then no amount of digging would dig it up, osit.

And really the only reason I care is because I've developed an emotional attachment to Steve over a long time as one of my favorite TV personalities, and I will miss him. But because this emotional attachment exists, it is also biasing my perspective, and I'd love to know if I was attached to a lie this whole time. It is possible that not enough evidence exists to point either way, and that's fine too.

Same thing with Ronald Raegan, many many people I know mourned his death and said how great of a man he was and how much he did for "our country". But those interested who dug up dirt, and were not afraid to do it, saw the opposite, and for good reason. And I just don't want to be under the same illusion about Steve that others are about Ronald Raegan or any other "celebrity" that is glamorized and made into some hero by the media. I'd like nothing better than if what I think/feel about Steve IS true, but I just don't want to accept it uncritically either. I also know a few people that will mourn Bush when he dies, and say how great he was and how much he really did for our country. One of those people is my boss!

 

[moonwalker]

Without knowing Steve Irwin you really can't make an objective assesment and if there was dirt on him I reckon with him being a celebrity it would have been brought up by the tabloids by now. Personally and this is just my opinion after watching his shows I think he probably was an OP but with a positive orientation I find it unlikely he was a psychopath. His enthusiasm was refreshing and contagious and unless he was a brilliant actor I thought it was genuine to.

If his memory was a lie then yes I would care because it would be one more reminder of how easily we can be fooled, not that I need one.

 

[John Chang]

At least he died doing what he loved.

at least he died doing what he loved to do.

Now that you both have said this I wonder whether you heard it on the news or just thought of it yourselves. The news reports make this same statement repeatedly - nevermind that they are filling broadcast space with stuff of almost no significance (hours of coverage of poor dead Steve) while people suffer all over the world.

Nope, I don't consume any mass media, and haven't for several years now. Maybe someone planted the thought in my head, and I just thought it was me saying it, but as far as I know, it was a genuine original thought :)

When I did have a TV, I did watch a few of his episodes. I thought that he was doing highly risky things. Can't say I exactly approved of what he was doing, but he seemed to enjoy what he was doing immensely. To his credit, he never physically harmed any of the animals he played around with, but you could tell that many of the animals didn't like what he was doing to them. He looked like he was having fun. Not many people are courageous enough to go out and do what they love.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Not many people are courageous enough to go out and do what they love.

Serial killers are :D

Edit: I should qualify that statement - I just mean that, although I respect his "courage" to do what he loves, a lot does depend on what exactly it is that he loves to do and why. And yes, he did die doing what he loved, but I don't see that as a virtue in and of itself, because same can be said for many psychopaths. I can't judge him any more than I can judge a psychopath or mother Theresa, but imho the devil is still in the details. I honestly, from all the times I ever saw him on TV, don't think he was a psychopath, but even now as I say that I ask myself "Really? Honest?" and I guess that's the problem I can't even trust that opinion anymore. I don't know whether it's "honest" as in objective, or if I only think it is honest but it's really entirely manipulated into me.

 

[a.saccus]

But they're not, no animal is "bad" it just does what it does, it's an animal. It could've been a dog, a shark, a crocodile, a snake, a bear, etc. I see what you're saying, and I do see how Irwin's years of toying with reptiles on camera can create the impression in someone's mind that they're really not so scary and are even funny and almost harmless or something along those lines. I think it's a false impression, but so is the impression that they are "bad" or "scary", osit. They are a predator, they will do what a predator will do, [...] So fear based on ignorance is just as bad as naive trust based on ignorance, imho. [...]

I agree entirely with the above, as you can see from my earlier answer to Art. I just not big on petting wild animals.

Now I understand that I, personally, don't have a very strong animal presence in my life -- or desire to have animals in my life -- no cat or dog or pet -- and I can see that some people may have a strong desire to make contact with other wild creatures, and I can respect that. But they need to do it in a non-invasive way, and in a way that benefits the animal -- and most of the time, I don't think the animal really benefits. There's problems enough in relating to humans -- who can complain and resist or express their appreciation and desire and approval to you. When you come to the animal, they often can't tell you they don't like what you're doing except by running away. And if they can't run away....

and that, after all, it wasn't a REPTILE that killed Irwin, but actually a surprise attack by what appeared to be an innocent and harmless looking sting ray...(just like those innocent-looking but really dangerous "terrorists" on the Tube in London....) "REPTILES, in short, are NOT the enemy" is the overall message of Steve Irwin's death.

Well, if the message is that the enemy can be "anybody, anywhere, at any time" - all the more reason not to trust the government eh? How come terrorists cannot infiltrate a government or influence governments? I agree with Bush, anybody could be a potential terrorist. But let's start with him and his friends and move down from there shall we? I mean logically speaking, the more evil/corrupt the more attracted to positions of power and control, right? So it's only logical to look for terrorists in offices of power and influence - start at the top!

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer on this. I certainly DO believe that the major terrorists -- not only today, but certainly at least from the time of the French Revolution and CONTINUOUSLY until today -- have infiltrated and controlled governments. (Clarified most impressively by C of Z)

What I meant to describe was a very, very, very subtle psychological effect. Painters often create their effects with wash upon wash of color, using many layers to achieve their final effect. I'm talking about crocodiles here. Not deer, bunny rabbits, cats, dogs, horses. Not a friendly, benign animal is used. The animal in question IS a predator AND a Lizzie. I'm talking about an effort by the PTB -- one of many, many such efforts that bombard us daily from all directions -- to persuade us just a little, to subliminally move us in the direction of an attitude that is helpful to the PTB. Something that erodes our certainty just a little, wears down our resistance incrementally. A single step in a ten-thousand step journey. I'm saying that, at some barely conscious level, this process is at work. If animal predators are made to look just a little less dangerous, that is also helpful to human predators, pathocrats, and psychopaths.

So long as we consider crocodiles to be monsters or at least wild creatures better left alone, then any predatory type humans will always stand the risk of being compared to them. But if you can present the idea, pound into the matrix-trapped minds that "crocodiles aren't so bad after all," or "if you get to know them, they're really quite interesting," --as of course, is really true, since they are just animals -- you may be able to get some softening by non-psychopaths with their attitudes in regards to their human predators. It's a very subtle effect. I hope that clears it up a bit. What John Q. Public needs right now is more training in how to detect, defend and deal with predators, not encouragement on how to be their "buddies" -- or their subliminal animal symbolic surrogates. For the ultimate fate of a "buddy" of a predator is, as Hamlet says, the same as that of a sponge:

Rosencrantz: Take you me for a sponge, my lord?

Hamlet: Ay, sir, that soaks up the king's countenance, his rewards, his authorities. But such officers do the king best service in the end. He keeps them, like an ape, in the corner of his jaw, first mouthed, to be last swallowed. When he needs what you have gleaned, it is but squeezing you and, sponge, you shall be dry again.

Ok but don't confuse 2d and 4d! Our 2d reptiles bear no responsibility for the actions of their hyperdimentional cousins. If there was a race of 4d dogs that wanted to control us, it doesn't mean we should suddenly be unkind to our pet pooch.

Agreed. I meant no harm to real crocodiles.

These crocodiles, however, are the ones to watch out for:

:D

 

[earthdweller]

I feel sad for his family. I also feel sad that our world needs freak shows that harass animals just to push the point of conservation. To me, there are plenty of better ways to teach than to produce freak shows. I have come across city kids who think that crocodiles and snakes are the only wild animals out there worth saving because they provide for adventure. I hope that this case will remind those in the TV business, that wild animals are not just for taunting and freak shows, and that our environment has a lot more than just a few wild crocs., lions, snakes.

 

[Beau]

Which brings me to one thing in this discussion that strikes me as interesting:

What he chose to do, with bringing his child near an croc and other things, were his decisions and I'm not going to criticize him for them, especially since he passed.

Now, Beau, what is special or holy about being dead that makes it imperative that someone NOT be criticized? Does a person suddenly acquire some characteristics of sanctity when they are dead by virtue of being dead? This sounds like a cultural program to me, and one that has been often used to protect evil. It goes along with the "don't say anything if you can't say something nice" and "least said, soonest mended" types of programs that serve to keep the activities of psychopaths who rule the world hidden in the shadows.

I think in this case I was emotionally reacting to the posts(not a good thing!). I was reacting and I did not like reading people talk negatively about the guy especially since I had just found out about his passing just minutes before. The program is a devlish one, for sure! I even felt, after reading my posts a few days later and thinking about my inner state during posting, that I reacted purely emotionally and did not give any time for those emotions to stew and to try and understand them.

I totally agree that there is nothing special about being dead. One should be able to say whatever they feel, at whatever time they feel like saying it. Those darn programs never end!

People die every day, people better and worse than this crocodile hunter person. Again, if you have emotional energy to spend, spend it where it counts.

Excellent advice. I did not have the proper perspective at all while I made that first post. My emotional center got the best of me there, I can see that now. Thanks for all the help ya'll :)

 

[Ben]

I think in this case I was emotionally reacting to the posts(not a good thing!). I was reacting and I did not like reading people talk negatively about the guy especially since I had just found out about his passing just minutes before. The program is a devlish one, for sure! I even felt, after reading my posts a few days later and thinking about my inner state during posting, that I reacted purely emotionally and did not give any time for those emotions to stew and to try and understand them.

I totally agree that there is nothing special about being dead. One should be able to say whatever they feel, at whatever time they feel like saying it. Those darn programs never end!

Yes, I was doing the exact same thing when I made my first post on this thread. I reacted too quickly to even realise the more important points that this story brings up about our culture and our media, good thing other people here did not react the same way we did!

 

[jaye]

Has anyone seen My Dinner w/ Andre? There is a great line that Andre speaks about people being so numb that they would spend 10,000 dollars to get castrated just so they could say they experienced something. Well I put Steve in this category because this is the only way I can make sense of his antics with animals-that he needed to do extreme things with them...just to experience something-so his fans could experience something. Same goes for Bungee Jumpers, sky divers, mountain climbers, race car drivers all who frequently die 'doing what they love best'-trying desperately to experience something...anything. As a counterbalance, it would be great to see an Australian Aborigine replace Steve on the Animal Planet channel-who would then remind us to respect animals, leave them alone, learn from them without harassing them, even honor them. Maybe even heighten our awareness of animal intelligence without human interference. But that would be highly unlikely-because most people are just too numb to experience subtle things like animal telepathy, cooperation, etc. so I'm sure another Steve is on the way.

 

[Ruth]

Yes, I was doing the exact same thing when I made my first post on this thread. I reacted too quickly to even realise the more important points that this story brings up about our culture and our media, good thing other people here did not react the same way we did!

I was curious as to why his death sparked such a worldwide reaction, especially as I didn't think he was that well known outside Australia. Then, I thought that perhaps there was some sort of 'symbolic' meaning to his death and perhaps that was why people were reacting in such a way.

Symbolically, what does it mean?

 

[Vulcan59]

Well Ruth, his shows were shown on Discovery Channel worldwide and hence his popularity I think. There must be something about watching someone do dangerous and risky stuff. There must be some chemicals that are released that must make most people want to watch this type of shows or activity. Seems much like how one is mesmerized by the charming psychopath, although I am not suggesting that Steve is one.

On a different note, I remembered an epsiode that I watched where Steve was handling some dangerous creature where he got bitten by, if I remembered correctly, a very poisonous snake. The camera then panned across to his wife, who looked completely ashen and I kept wondering after the show, how he could do the things that he did and be not concerned about what his loved ones thought about it. I put myself into his wife's shoe and wondered what I would do in that situation. I think that show told me alot about his wife.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

Well it seems that Steve Irwin was most likely an OP, but I am convinced, on the data, that he was a positively oriented one. His emotional reactions to any dead animal is testament to his having a conscience, which immediately rules out the possibility of him being psychopathic (unless of course it was all a big act, which I find contrary to the data suggesting that he was as genuine a person as you could get).

As for his whole "empire" being about egotism or narcissism, well that would be kind of strange given that his family and those people in charge of his "empire" have refused a state funeral. Not only would a state funeral go against their beliefs, but they also believe that Steve Irwin would not have wanted such a ridiculous fuss. Irwin's own father, who knew him better than anyone, has said that Steve himself would have found the current worldwide media circus about his death "a whole lot of bulls**t".

I will reiterate what I said in my previous post on this thread, and it's something which many here continue to overlook -- Steven Irwin was first and foremost a conservationist. The legacy he has left behind will forever be about conservation, and not much else. In this world, where destruction is ongoing and motivated by greed and selfishness, isn't it an overwhelmingly positive thing that someone wants to help preserve Mother Earth, rather than take from her? David Suzuki (another well-known conservationist) was deeply saddened by Irwin's death based on the fact that the world had lost another person who was largely doing good for the planet. Sure, Irwin could have gone about bringing environmental awareness to the public David Attenborough-style, but that simply wasn't his way. What's more, his way brought more opportunity for conservation than would have occurred if he had done it in a more conventional style.

I thought it was well-known that the best way to "judge" or assess someone is by their fruits. I think many people here are basing their opinions on the very little they know about Irwin, and certainly not on his fruits, but rather their perception of him. If they first read up a bit more about him, get more of the facts -- do the research -- they will find out the fruits of Steve Irwin. I happen to live in Australia, in the State of Queensland (where Irwin died and where Australia Zoo is located). Due to my geographical proximity, and having known many people who have visited his zoo (I myself have not had the opportunity to go there, alas), I can tell you that Irwin was all about protecting wildlife. Not far from where I live there are two huge wildlife sanctuaries which Irwin purchased, and thanks to his selflessness, the flora and fauna in those sanctuaries will never again be under threat from the selfish and ignorant activities of many of the people in those areas. So how, knowing his fruits of conservation, can anyone make an overall negative assessment of Irwin? I didn't agree with the way he would often tease and taunt animals (in this respect he was very childlike), but he never killed them or hurt them. It was just his weird way of educating people about the various maligned species on earth, and I guess he thought his way would attract more viewers (which it certainly did). Overwhelmingly, what he did was positive.

 

[Peam]

I never watched him or any of his shows, except for maybe a couple of clips and the clip with his baby and croc incident, but from reading about his antics with animals, taunting and stuff, I wonder whether he was 'interacting' with the stingray in his usual excentric manner. It seems odd that most divers don't get stung but Irwin did. I mean even a taunted human can have a breaking point so why not a stingray.

Also I don't like the concept of an animals freedom being taken away locked up in a zoo. I remember once taking my kids to a zoo years ago. I'll never forget seeing a large gorilla sat in a cage. He was just sat there motionless looking directly at us with such sadness in his eyes that I could tell straight away that he was bored to death. Another sign of his being sad and bored was the way he was slowly but deliberately eating a piece of his own excrement as though it was a flavorless banana all the while staring directly into our eyes. It seemed to me as though he knew exactly what emotion he was trying to express to everyone watching him.

Maybe a zoo's not too bad an environment for some animals but I don't think that gorilla should have been there.
Wildlife sanctuaries are a better option, but not zoos in my opinion.