PLFXpert 0 #26 September 5, 2006 Quote... Why is this any different? I didn't say it was.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jewels 0 #27 September 5, 2006 My father died at home of cancer, and being there to witness the process of his dying was a real privilege. To the extent possible, death should be a private moment, shared with those closest to the person involved. Steve Irwin may have been a public figure, but he was a public figure as an entertainer and a conservationist and that, in my opinion, does not rise to the level of creating an entitlement for the world to witness his death. I don't think it makes any difference that he was filming for a documentary when it happened. There is no need to share the footage outside of his immediate family. To me, watching his death would be a form of voyeurism and disrespectful of the moment. I understand curiosity, but even if there is educational value to the encounter, I think the video would be circulated primarily because of the same mentality that makes it hard to look away from a car crash. His family should have the privilege of determining whether they want the footage released. I hope whatever happens to the video is done as the result of his family's convictions about whether they want it to be shared.TPM Sister #102 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #28 September 5, 2006 I would think his friends and more importantly, his family should make such a decision. I don't think it should, myself. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #29 September 5, 2006 No and um... no... it was bad enough to see the footage in the documentary "Grizzly Man" ScottLivin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveStMarys 0 #30 September 5, 2006 "see the footage in the documentary "Grizzly Man" Yep, saw that. BobbiA miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindercles 0 #31 September 5, 2006 QuoteNo and um... no... it was bad enough to see the footage in the documentary "Grizzly Man" Scott That film what the first thing that came to my mind when I saw this thread as a perfect example of how to respectfully not show footage of some one's death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #32 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuotethat image is just before execution, the video footage of that was not released until much much later. Thank you, Captain Obvious. Although I would say "during" an execution rather than "before". That was not my point. It is clear in the photo what is taking place. Sometimes I think a photo is more shocking than video footage as it is a particular image in freeze frame. This and other photos were quite controversial as to whether or not they should be published publicly. And it, too, is of a man's death. See this is where i will disagree, it's not CLEAR that the trigger was pulled by looking at the image. We know it was because of history. but the image alone does not indicate that it was pulled. The video shows the entire killing, that was not released until much later so your point as you put it is lost on me from that perspective so what is your pointYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveStMarys 0 #33 September 5, 2006 Yeah I think the viewing should only be offered to family, friends, and possibly the Discovery Channel employees (since it seems that many that worked there were like family). BobbiA miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindercles 0 #34 September 5, 2006 Quote"see the footage in the documentary "Grizzly Man" Yep, saw that. Bobbi Saw what? They didn't show any footage of anyone's death in that film. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #35 September 5, 2006 QuoteNo! I can see no good, from watching someone die! Maybe, executions should be held in giant stadiums and sell popcorn and cotton-candy! I wish too, the media would show some different footage of him, other than the footage with he and his son and the crocodile. JMO! Chuck Isn't that exactly how executions are still being done in some parts of the world? Not that I think the video should be shown, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was- either publicly or through some sort of internet "leak". And I also wouldn't be surprised if that's something he would have wanted. But that doesn't mean I think it would be a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveStMarys 0 #36 September 5, 2006 The documentary, Grizzly Man. And your right they didn't show the actual death but they did describe in detail what could have possibly happened. BobbiA miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jewels 0 #37 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuote Not that I think the video should be shown, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was- either publicly or through some sort of internet "leak". And I also wouldn't be surprised if that's something he would have wanted. But that doesn't mean I think it would be a good thing. My fear is that this will become something like the Jolie-Pitt baby photo quest--who will publish first and how much will it be worth?TPM Sister #102 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #38 September 5, 2006 Here's a good reason to show the video: protection of the Stingray species. I've dived and swam with maybe a dozen different species of ray, from great big Mantas in Fiji to tiny little oddballs in Indonesia that were on cleanup duty after the Indonesians destroyed the reef from dynamite fishing. This is an animal that doesn't deserve a rep as a killer. The marketing people for Irwin have stated that he was casually swimming over a ray that freaked out and stabbed him in an unlucky area. I believe it's much more likely that Irwin was abusing the ray in some fashion. In my experience, these creatures don't lash out unless they are in extreme duress (such as being stepped on or handled). I've scared a few large stingrays by swimming too close over them when they're buried in the sand. I've never been stung - they just swim away. I was chatting with my brother (a biologist that spends some time in the oceans) on the phone last night and he mentioned the only time he's seen a stingray lash out was when a fishing boat landed it, then the stuck a plunger on the animal and it started to whip it's tail. I believe that Irwin must have been abusing the ray in some fashion (man-handling it, trying to hold it or pin it down) in order for it to strike. Now that this has happened, more and more people are going to feel that the stingray is a deadly animal that should be feared, hunted as a prize or just killed for "safety". I don't think Irwin would have wanted that. I think if the ray killed him because he was mishandling it (as I suspect), he would want the world to know that it was his fault, and he wouldn't want the animal to be further abused - but I'm sure he would want it to be respected (and specifically not touched). Show the video. Let the world see that he fucked up, and that the ray isn't a random killer that strikes just because it gets scared. I think Irwin was actually a good guy that did a lot of positive things for conservation and awareness. I think he would want that to continue.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #39 September 5, 2006 QuoteHere's a good reason to show the video: protection of the Stingray species. I've dived and swam with maybe a dozen different species of ray, from great big Mantas in Fiji to tiny little oddballs in Indonesia that were on cleanup duty after the Indonesians destroyed the reef from dynamite fishing. This is an animal that doesn't deserve a rep as a killer. The marketing people for Irwin have stated that he was casually swimming over a ray that freaked out and stabbed him in an unlucky area. I believe it's much more likely that Irwin was abusing the ray in some fashion. In my experience, these creatures don't lash out unless they are in extreme duress (such as being stepped on or handled). I've scared a few large stingrays by swimming too close over them when they're buried in the sand. I've never been stung - they just swim away. I was chatting with my brother (a biologist that spends some time in the oceans) on the phone last night and he mentioned the only time he's seen a stingray lash out was when a fishing boat landed it, then the stuck a plunger on the animal and it started to whip it's tail. I believe that Irwin must have been abusing the ray in some fashion (man-handling it, trying to hold it or pin it down) in order for it to strike. Now that this has happened, more and more people are going to feel that the stingray is a deadly animal that should be feared, hunted as a prize or just killed for "safety". I don't think Irwin would have wanted that. I think if the ray killed him because he was mishandling it (as I suspect), he would want the world to know that it was his fault, and he wouldn't want the animal to be further abused - but I'm sure he would want it to be respected (and specifically not touched). Show the video. Let the world see that he fucked up, and that the ray isn't a random killer that strikes just because it gets scared. I think Irwin was actually a good guy that did a lot of positive things for conservation and awareness. I think he would want that to continue. Well, the "authorities" who saw the film state that he was not abusing the ray. So, show THAT part of the film to put that to rest, if it's possible to show only that and not his death, which I'm thinking was not immediately after the stabbing (I'm guessing it wasn't w/i 1-2 seconds, which could be edited out therefore). I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PLFXpert 0 #40 September 5, 2006 QuoteSee this is where i will disagree, it's not CLEAR that the trigger was pulled by looking at the image. We know it was because of history. but the image alone does not indicate that it was pulled. The video shows the entire killing, that was not released until much later Agreed, the fact the trigger was pulled and released a bullet is not entirely clear from the photo alone. The accompanying story cleared that up firmly. Anyone viewing the picture would know what is taking place; or even if they just read the photo's caption "Vietnam Execution". I seriously doubt anyone who opened my attachment or first saw the photo published questioned whether or not a man was shot. My point, again: QuoteThis and other photos were quite controversial as to whether or not they should be published publicly. And it, too, is of a man's death. In addtion, I previously made the statement that while I do not (yet) see merit in publicly airing the death of Irwin, sometimes publicly showing a man's death IS appropriate. I then referenced the execution photo and simply asked what people's thoughts are in that particular case. It sounds to me your issue is that I posted a photo example rather than a video. Well, OK then.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #41 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteSee this is where i will disagree, it's not CLEAR that the trigger was pulled by looking at the image. We know it was because of history. but the image alone does not indicate that it was pulled. The video shows the entire killing, that was not released until much later Agreed, the fact the trigger was pulled and released a bullet is not entirely clear from the photo. The accompanying story cleared that up firmly. Anyone viewing the picture would know what is taking place; or even if they just read the photo's caption "Vietnam Execution". My point, again: QuoteThis and other photos were quite controversial as to whether or not they should be published publicly. And it, too, is of a man's death. In addtion, I previously made the statement that while I do not see merit in publicly airing the death of Irwin, sometimes publicly showing a man's death IS appropriate. I then referenced the execution photo and simply asked what people's thoughts are in that particular case. It sounds to me your issue is that I posted a photo example rather than a video. Well, OK then. you didnt post an example of an execution, that's my point. You posted a picture which IMPLIED an execution the video footage of someone dying is a completely different thing.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiveStMarys 0 #42 September 5, 2006 If you two get this thread moved to SC, I'm gonna kick both your ass's!! BobbiA miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PLFXpert 0 #43 September 5, 2006 Quotethe video footage of someone dying is a completely different thing What IS and what IS NOT appropriate to present to the public was the original question. My photo example is relevant. Good Lord. By your logic, photos must "imply" everything. The photo, was in fact, taken during the execution. It doesn't "imply" anything. It is a freeze frame of a factual moment in time; not an implied one. Some photos can be making an implication. The example I used was not.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiveStMarys 0 #44 September 5, 2006 "Now that this has happened, more and more people are going to feel that the stingray is a deadly animal that should be feared, hunted as a prize or just killed for "safety". " I think you are "reaching" with that comment. I have no little knowledge about sting rays but after hearing about this incident, I don't want to go out and kill every one I see and I see quite a few when I head to the beach on the weekends. There is risk in everything that one does. I think it was what is was described as being a freak accident. The Ray was startled and when it went to swim off it thrusted its tail upward. Steve's shadow could have spooked it. BobbiA miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindercles 0 #45 September 5, 2006 The success of the photo you posted and of the film Grizzly Man is in the way they both respectfully imply the circumstances surrounding death without actually showing the death blow or the moment of death. The fact is that photo does not show a man's death, nor does Grizzly Man and yet neither leave any doubt that it happened or how it happened. Both are excellent examples of how a point can be made without being unnecessarily graphic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #46 September 5, 2006 QuoteHere's a good reason to show the video: protection of the Stingray species. I've dived and swam with maybe a dozen different species of ray, from great big Mantas in Fiji to tiny little oddballs in Indonesia that were on cleanup duty after the Indonesians destroyed the reef from dynamite fishing. This is an animal that doesn't deserve a rep as a killer. The marketing people for Irwin have stated that he was casually swimming over a ray that freaked out and stabbed him in an unlucky area. I believe it's much more likely that Irwin was abusing the ray in some fashion. In my experience, these creatures don't lash out unless they are in extreme duress (such as being stepped on or handled). I've scared a few large stingrays by swimming too close over them when they're buried in the sand. I've never been stung - they just swim away. I was chatting with my brother (a biologist that spends some time in the oceans) on the phone last night and he mentioned the only time he's seen a stingray lash out was when a fishing boat landed it, then the stuck a plunger on the animal and it started to whip it's tail. I believe that Irwin must have been abusing the ray in some fashion (man-handling it, trying to hold it or pin it down) in order for it to strike. Now that this has happened, more and more people are going to feel that the stingray is a deadly animal that should be feared, hunted as a prize or just killed for "safety". I don't think Irwin would have wanted that. I think if the ray killed him because he was mishandling it (as I suspect), he would want the world to know that it was his fault, and he wouldn't want the animal to be further abused - but I'm sure he would want it to be respected (and specifically not touched). Show the video. Let the world see that he fucked up, and that the ray isn't a random killer that strikes just because it gets scared. I think Irwin was actually a good guy that did a lot of positive things for conservation and awareness. I think he would want that to continue. If there's one thing every wildlife expert agrees on, it's that wild animals are unpredictable. Rather than responding with a knee-jerk conservationist reaction and impugning Irwin's actions and integrity before the facts are in, how about simply looking at this incident as further evidence that "shit happens" and waiting for further evidence before drawing a conclusion? Stingrays aren't endangered, and I don't foresee this incident leading to a backlash against the species. And it should be noted that the giant manta rays you swam with in Fiji don't have stingers, so your extensive diving experience may not qualify you as an expert on stingrays.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #47 September 5, 2006 Quote"Now that this has happened, more and more people are going to feel that the stingray is a deadly animal that should be feared, hunted as a prize or just killed for "safety". " I think you are "reaching" with that comment. I have no little knowledge about sting rays but after hearing about this incident, I don't want to go out and kill every one I see and I see quite a few when I head to the beach on the weekends. There is risk in everything that one does. I think it was what is was described as being a freak accident. The Ray was startled and when it went to swim off it thrusted its tail upward. Steve's shadow could have spooked it. Bobbi LOL Think again - a friend of mines family, after hearing the news just this morning, cancelled their beach vacation because there are Rays that are known to frequent the area. It has already started. I told him I thought he was over reacting, but it's his family.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PLFXpert 0 #48 September 5, 2006 QuoteThe success of the photo you posted and of the film Grizzly Man is in the way they both respectfully imply the circumstances surrounding death without actually showing the death blow or the moment of death. Again. Point missed. Grizzly Man video is NOT the same as the photo of (or for Squeak, let's say I attached an actual video of) a Vietnam execution. My previous response once again: QuoteWhat IS and what IS NOT appropriate to present to the public was the original question. My photo example is relevant. Good Lord. By your logic, photos must "imply" everything. The photo, was in fact, taken during the execution. It doesn't "imply" anything. It is a freeze frame of a factual moment in time; not an implied one. Some photos can be making an implication. The example I used was not.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #49 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuotethe video footage of someone dying is a completely different thing What IS and what IS NOT appropriate to present to the public was the original question. My photo example is relevant. Good Lord. By your logic, photos must "imply" everything. The photo, was in fact, taken during the execution. It doesn't "imply" anything. It is a freeze frame of a factual moment in time; not an implied one. Some photos can be making an implication. The example I used was not.I'm not going to aruge with someone who has no clue. the fact the the picture was taken during an execution is irelivant, the picture IS nothing more than a captured instance in time that can be inturpreted in many ways. That is infact the beauty of still images. Once the image is captured the author (i.e. photographer) has lost the meaning to the viewer. That same image could have well been captioned man almost shot in the head. From the image this CAN be implied. THAT IS MY POINT The picture is appropriate BECUASE it implies. thank you for your time I'm now done You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #50 September 5, 2006 It seems that someone might be missing the forest for the trees. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
riddler 0 #38 September 5, 2006 Here's a good reason to show the video: protection of the Stingray species. I've dived and swam with maybe a dozen different species of ray, from great big Mantas in Fiji to tiny little oddballs in Indonesia that were on cleanup duty after the Indonesians destroyed the reef from dynamite fishing. This is an animal that doesn't deserve a rep as a killer. The marketing people for Irwin have stated that he was casually swimming over a ray that freaked out and stabbed him in an unlucky area. I believe it's much more likely that Irwin was abusing the ray in some fashion. In my experience, these creatures don't lash out unless they are in extreme duress (such as being stepped on or handled). I've scared a few large stingrays by swimming too close over them when they're buried in the sand. I've never been stung - they just swim away. I was chatting with my brother (a biologist that spends some time in the oceans) on the phone last night and he mentioned the only time he's seen a stingray lash out was when a fishing boat landed it, then the stuck a plunger on the animal and it started to whip it's tail. I believe that Irwin must have been abusing the ray in some fashion (man-handling it, trying to hold it or pin it down) in order for it to strike. Now that this has happened, more and more people are going to feel that the stingray is a deadly animal that should be feared, hunted as a prize or just killed for "safety". I don't think Irwin would have wanted that. I think if the ray killed him because he was mishandling it (as I suspect), he would want the world to know that it was his fault, and he wouldn't want the animal to be further abused - but I'm sure he would want it to be respected (and specifically not touched). Show the video. Let the world see that he fucked up, and that the ray isn't a random killer that strikes just because it gets scared. I think Irwin was actually a good guy that did a lot of positive things for conservation and awareness. I think he would want that to continue.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #39 September 5, 2006 QuoteHere's a good reason to show the video: protection of the Stingray species. I've dived and swam with maybe a dozen different species of ray, from great big Mantas in Fiji to tiny little oddballs in Indonesia that were on cleanup duty after the Indonesians destroyed the reef from dynamite fishing. This is an animal that doesn't deserve a rep as a killer. The marketing people for Irwin have stated that he was casually swimming over a ray that freaked out and stabbed him in an unlucky area. I believe it's much more likely that Irwin was abusing the ray in some fashion. In my experience, these creatures don't lash out unless they are in extreme duress (such as being stepped on or handled). I've scared a few large stingrays by swimming too close over them when they're buried in the sand. I've never been stung - they just swim away. I was chatting with my brother (a biologist that spends some time in the oceans) on the phone last night and he mentioned the only time he's seen a stingray lash out was when a fishing boat landed it, then the stuck a plunger on the animal and it started to whip it's tail. I believe that Irwin must have been abusing the ray in some fashion (man-handling it, trying to hold it or pin it down) in order for it to strike. Now that this has happened, more and more people are going to feel that the stingray is a deadly animal that should be feared, hunted as a prize or just killed for "safety". I don't think Irwin would have wanted that. I think if the ray killed him because he was mishandling it (as I suspect), he would want the world to know that it was his fault, and he wouldn't want the animal to be further abused - but I'm sure he would want it to be respected (and specifically not touched). Show the video. Let the world see that he fucked up, and that the ray isn't a random killer that strikes just because it gets scared. I think Irwin was actually a good guy that did a lot of positive things for conservation and awareness. I think he would want that to continue. Well, the "authorities" who saw the film state that he was not abusing the ray. So, show THAT part of the film to put that to rest, if it's possible to show only that and not his death, which I'm thinking was not immediately after the stabbing (I'm guessing it wasn't w/i 1-2 seconds, which could be edited out therefore). I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #40 September 5, 2006 QuoteSee this is where i will disagree, it's not CLEAR that the trigger was pulled by looking at the image. We know it was because of history. but the image alone does not indicate that it was pulled. The video shows the entire killing, that was not released until much later Agreed, the fact the trigger was pulled and released a bullet is not entirely clear from the photo alone. The accompanying story cleared that up firmly. Anyone viewing the picture would know what is taking place; or even if they just read the photo's caption "Vietnam Execution". I seriously doubt anyone who opened my attachment or first saw the photo published questioned whether or not a man was shot. My point, again: QuoteThis and other photos were quite controversial as to whether or not they should be published publicly. And it, too, is of a man's death. In addtion, I previously made the statement that while I do not (yet) see merit in publicly airing the death of Irwin, sometimes publicly showing a man's death IS appropriate. I then referenced the execution photo and simply asked what people's thoughts are in that particular case. It sounds to me your issue is that I posted a photo example rather than a video. Well, OK then.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #41 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteSee this is where i will disagree, it's not CLEAR that the trigger was pulled by looking at the image. We know it was because of history. but the image alone does not indicate that it was pulled. The video shows the entire killing, that was not released until much later Agreed, the fact the trigger was pulled and released a bullet is not entirely clear from the photo. The accompanying story cleared that up firmly. Anyone viewing the picture would know what is taking place; or even if they just read the photo's caption "Vietnam Execution". My point, again: QuoteThis and other photos were quite controversial as to whether or not they should be published publicly. And it, too, is of a man's death. In addtion, I previously made the statement that while I do not see merit in publicly airing the death of Irwin, sometimes publicly showing a man's death IS appropriate. I then referenced the execution photo and simply asked what people's thoughts are in that particular case. It sounds to me your issue is that I posted a photo example rather than a video. Well, OK then. you didnt post an example of an execution, that's my point. You posted a picture which IMPLIED an execution the video footage of someone dying is a completely different thing.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveStMarys 0 #42 September 5, 2006 If you two get this thread moved to SC, I'm gonna kick both your ass's!! BobbiA miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #43 September 5, 2006 Quotethe video footage of someone dying is a completely different thing What IS and what IS NOT appropriate to present to the public was the original question. My photo example is relevant. Good Lord. By your logic, photos must "imply" everything. The photo, was in fact, taken during the execution. It doesn't "imply" anything. It is a freeze frame of a factual moment in time; not an implied one. Some photos can be making an implication. The example I used was not.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveStMarys 0 #44 September 5, 2006 "Now that this has happened, more and more people are going to feel that the stingray is a deadly animal that should be feared, hunted as a prize or just killed for "safety". " I think you are "reaching" with that comment. I have no little knowledge about sting rays but after hearing about this incident, I don't want to go out and kill every one I see and I see quite a few when I head to the beach on the weekends. There is risk in everything that one does. I think it was what is was described as being a freak accident. The Ray was startled and when it went to swim off it thrusted its tail upward. Steve's shadow could have spooked it. BobbiA miracle is not defined by an event. A miracle is defined by gratitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindercles 0 #45 September 5, 2006 The success of the photo you posted and of the film Grizzly Man is in the way they both respectfully imply the circumstances surrounding death without actually showing the death blow or the moment of death. The fact is that photo does not show a man's death, nor does Grizzly Man and yet neither leave any doubt that it happened or how it happened. Both are excellent examples of how a point can be made without being unnecessarily graphic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #46 September 5, 2006 QuoteHere's a good reason to show the video: protection of the Stingray species. I've dived and swam with maybe a dozen different species of ray, from great big Mantas in Fiji to tiny little oddballs in Indonesia that were on cleanup duty after the Indonesians destroyed the reef from dynamite fishing. This is an animal that doesn't deserve a rep as a killer. The marketing people for Irwin have stated that he was casually swimming over a ray that freaked out and stabbed him in an unlucky area. I believe it's much more likely that Irwin was abusing the ray in some fashion. In my experience, these creatures don't lash out unless they are in extreme duress (such as being stepped on or handled). I've scared a few large stingrays by swimming too close over them when they're buried in the sand. I've never been stung - they just swim away. I was chatting with my brother (a biologist that spends some time in the oceans) on the phone last night and he mentioned the only time he's seen a stingray lash out was when a fishing boat landed it, then the stuck a plunger on the animal and it started to whip it's tail. I believe that Irwin must have been abusing the ray in some fashion (man-handling it, trying to hold it or pin it down) in order for it to strike. Now that this has happened, more and more people are going to feel that the stingray is a deadly animal that should be feared, hunted as a prize or just killed for "safety". I don't think Irwin would have wanted that. I think if the ray killed him because he was mishandling it (as I suspect), he would want the world to know that it was his fault, and he wouldn't want the animal to be further abused - but I'm sure he would want it to be respected (and specifically not touched). Show the video. Let the world see that he fucked up, and that the ray isn't a random killer that strikes just because it gets scared. I think Irwin was actually a good guy that did a lot of positive things for conservation and awareness. I think he would want that to continue. If there's one thing every wildlife expert agrees on, it's that wild animals are unpredictable. Rather than responding with a knee-jerk conservationist reaction and impugning Irwin's actions and integrity before the facts are in, how about simply looking at this incident as further evidence that "shit happens" and waiting for further evidence before drawing a conclusion? Stingrays aren't endangered, and I don't foresee this incident leading to a backlash against the species. And it should be noted that the giant manta rays you swam with in Fiji don't have stingers, so your extensive diving experience may not qualify you as an expert on stingrays.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #47 September 5, 2006 Quote"Now that this has happened, more and more people are going to feel that the stingray is a deadly animal that should be feared, hunted as a prize or just killed for "safety". " I think you are "reaching" with that comment. I have no little knowledge about sting rays but after hearing about this incident, I don't want to go out and kill every one I see and I see quite a few when I head to the beach on the weekends. There is risk in everything that one does. I think it was what is was described as being a freak accident. The Ray was startled and when it went to swim off it thrusted its tail upward. Steve's shadow could have spooked it. Bobbi LOL Think again - a friend of mines family, after hearing the news just this morning, cancelled their beach vacation because there are Rays that are known to frequent the area. It has already started. I told him I thought he was over reacting, but it's his family.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #48 September 5, 2006 QuoteThe success of the photo you posted and of the film Grizzly Man is in the way they both respectfully imply the circumstances surrounding death without actually showing the death blow or the moment of death. Again. Point missed. Grizzly Man video is NOT the same as the photo of (or for Squeak, let's say I attached an actual video of) a Vietnam execution. My previous response once again: QuoteWhat IS and what IS NOT appropriate to present to the public was the original question. My photo example is relevant. Good Lord. By your logic, photos must "imply" everything. The photo, was in fact, taken during the execution. It doesn't "imply" anything. It is a freeze frame of a factual moment in time; not an implied one. Some photos can be making an implication. The example I used was not.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #49 September 5, 2006 QuoteQuotethe video footage of someone dying is a completely different thing What IS and what IS NOT appropriate to present to the public was the original question. My photo example is relevant. Good Lord. By your logic, photos must "imply" everything. The photo, was in fact, taken during the execution. It doesn't "imply" anything. It is a freeze frame of a factual moment in time; not an implied one. Some photos can be making an implication. The example I used was not.I'm not going to aruge with someone who has no clue. the fact the the picture was taken during an execution is irelivant, the picture IS nothing more than a captured instance in time that can be inturpreted in many ways. That is infact the beauty of still images. Once the image is captured the author (i.e. photographer) has lost the meaning to the viewer. That same image could have well been captioned man almost shot in the head. From the image this CAN be implied. THAT IS MY POINT The picture is appropriate BECUASE it implies. thank you for your time I'm now done You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #50 September 5, 2006 It seems that someone might be missing the forest for the trees. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
