English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Dont abuse me for asking

Think about the question, im asking objectively

2006-09-21 23:30:52 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Other - News & Events

18 answers

you should not be hands on with nature thats why it's called nature. the answer is YES

2006-09-21 23:35:48 · answer #1 · answered by Thomas M 2 · 0 4

No, not exactly irresponsible, praps dare-devil would cover his enthusiasm 4 placing himself in some very dangerous situations.
It was part of his over-all attitude.
Not a single animal, big or small could deter him from having a hands on approach.
He did do some foolish stunts, holding his baby, in a croc/alligator enclosure. It did him no favours.
But it's all in the past & people will probably prefer 2 think of the high points rather than his low points.
I heard somewhere that his father had been expecting an accident, but not his death.

Steve Irwin RIP.
An entertainer.

2006-09-22 06:39:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Objectively, I conclude that Steve Irwin was an extremely 'responsible' individual, based solely on the deliverance of his daughter's speech at the memorial ceremony see around the globe.
It's unlikely that any irresponsible person would be able to achieve such world wide notoriety, produce a loving family, leigons of friends & a very wide fan base.
While my personal views toward wildlife & conservation may clash with his, it's obvious that he was a remarkable personality with a most responsible life reflected throughout the planet.
Objectively, wot planet are you from, little i?

2006-09-22 06:57:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

NO WAY.

You can't control mother nature. That's the way it goes. Steve Irwin was just unlucky that's all. How can he be irresponsible after the fact that he got killed by a stingray? Irresponsible does not even fit his scenario.

2006-09-22 06:40:00 · answer #4 · answered by b0b0link 2 · 3 0

I think the man lived life to the follows. He know what he was doing was dangers and could get him kill, but he also know that the world need to see wild life in a whole know light. So he did what no one else was willing to do and want the exrata mile.
He made mistakes like any parent would do, but he did what his parents did and he didn't believe he wasn't doing anything wrong.

I dont think he was irreasponsible, I think like the Corcidie itself he was just simply misunderstud.

Add note:
Did you know That he stop a file shot to help find two divers that were lost? He saved a man life! You don't hear about that much do you?

2006-09-22 06:41:58 · answer #5 · answered by Sekkennight 3 · 1 0

Different points of view. All are understandable. He did have a family and a following that loved him. My Mom (81 years old) loved Steve and Terrie dearly and she is heartbroken. NEVER seen her take on so about a person who is technically a stranger. (Maybe Elvis) But he was doing what he loved to do. I believe he should have stayed with the crocs and other animals he knew well from boyhood and perhaps understood best. Sea creatures are so much different from reptiles, mammals, and birds. But bless his heart he left a lagacy that those that loved and appreciated him best will enjoy and profit from for years to come. And I don't mean that in a bad way.

2006-09-22 06:48:06 · answer #6 · answered by JasonF 1 · 3 0

No, I don't think so. He has worked with the weirdest animals for so many years, of course he knew that there was a risk. But that accident was just extremely bad luck.

I see it as a job accident. Many more peolpe die doing their jobs every year during road work, on board of a ship, in construction, as police officers or otherwise. There are many lines of work with risks, Steve's job was one of those. Still it was just unlucky.

2006-09-22 06:36:45 · answer #7 · answered by meiguanxi :) 4 · 4 0

I don't think he was always irresponsible. He was crazy and overly excited about animals, but hopefully his antics taught people how dangerous wild animals are even if they look docile. Hopefully people have learned to keep a respectful distance from wild animals.

2006-09-22 06:44:52 · answer #8 · answered by lady01love 4 · 1 0

Not really,he made a decision based on prior knowledge. His death serves as a lesson to all that there is always a risk of unknown factors when dealing with wild animals.

2006-09-22 06:40:58 · answer #9 · answered by S.A.M. Gunner 7212 6 · 2 0

Irresponsible for what?
No he wasn't Steve Irwin was a great guy & that incident with his child Bob was sensationalised, Especially by the American media, i had great admiration for Steve as he defended himself to Matt Lauer, &upon looking at different camera angles, many media personalities owed Steve Irwin an apology..

If you are reffering to his death, Since when did shooting scenes for your daughters television show become irresponsible..

You have got some nerve to be asking this,
It's funny how weak pathetic people find it easy to criticize someone else, & i think its pathetic that now he has passed you feel like asking this

2006-09-22 06:37:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 5

no i think steve was just being steve getting up close and personal to the dangerous animals he loved so much, he died doin something he loved. im gutted about what happened, he did so much and was a great man. God bless steve.

2006-09-22 06:57:01 · answer #11 · answered by Sky 2 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers