Jiga
Active Member
Yes her motives are relavent, because twats like yourself actually believe the drivel that she is dishing it, which has a sole purpose of creating anger and raising her profile.... not to present a true and correct depiction of Steve Irwin. A persons motives will influence the way they present an argument, often distorting the truth as Ms Greer to get their perspective across at whatever cost. You just have to look at the last paragraph to get a sense of ther spitefulness:
"The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin, but probably not before a whole generation of kids in shorts seven sizes too small has learned to shout in the ears of animals with hearing 10 times more acute than theirs, determined to become millionaire animal-loving zoo-owners in their turn."
He is the 'ideal Australian' though in my opinion, its not an Australian we should aspire to be neccessarily overall.... but everything good about him are the ideals we should aspire to. How are qualities like being true to yourself, loving your family, being energetic, staying grounded even after great success, being proud to be an Aussie, being extremely passionate... not ideal qualities? Please tell me Mr Politically Correct! Its disgraceful that people even try to defend her... her timing was bad, and what she said was very spiteful and its embaressing that she was born in this great country.
She has done less than Irwin, many feminists dont even agree with her! Anyone can publish some books about totally shit but no-one agrees with her. And at the end of the day, who will mourn her death? Will you get millions of people mourning as for Irwin? This reflects his value. He wasnt just a great naturist and consevationist but a great human being.... Greer is a wicked old bitch.
Exactly, he had his heart in the right place and at the end of the day he did what he had to to get raise the profile of conservation etc.
As for that article, there are so many points that are incorrect in it... just another person trying to get into the spotlight.
* Firstly, death is not an excuse to savage the "elite" Greer, what a crock of shit... if she hadnt generated an article she wouldnt have been attacked. Above all, the timing was very poor... she demonstrates a lack of respect and its clear her motives were to stir the pot and get some headlines but unfortunately just as their are people who dont realise this, there are idiots who actually take her word for what its worth which is sad.
* He says that Irwin has essentailly done nothing for conservation....... now there are so many things I could say...... but I think the $600,000 donates to an Australian fund speaks for itself. Yes there is no conservation ethic
. And that money doesnt go to his family so dont link it like that, people know its going towards conservation so yea no ethic their.... maybe he should pull his head out of his arse?* The most annoying part, he claims Irwns zoo is a bad place... were animals are 'poked and prodded' and essentailly embaressed. Well for starters, animals such as the crocodiles are only their because Irwin saved them... alot were close to humans and if he hadnt rescued them they would currently be dead. But lets forget him risking his life to save them... and ask ourselves for example why did he go in and feed the crocs. For show? No, it was to replicate how they would hunt in the wild. You cant just leave a piece of meat for them and expect them to be happy... by going to the waters edge, you invoke a instinctual response and replicate how they would attack prey in the wild. And then their is also the whole interactive part of the park, animals aernt poked and prodded, nice use of negative connotations, but their are people who supervise and ensure the animals wellbeing. At the end of the day, this more interactive style helps people to appreciate nature... something that a wildlife park where you see a koala 200m away wont do in a million years. It is a very low act to have a go at his park, I believe its one of the best places around... alot of celebrties when they come to Australia make it their first port of call and Ive heard nothing but positive comments about it... from naturists who care for the wellbeing of animals and your avg joe..
*And lastly, he brings politics into it.... the author would obiously do anything for a story, suggesting that somehow Irwins shows were a good way for governments to neglect their environment responsibilties? Well sorry, he wasnt overly popular in Australia (his show that is), so one important ingreident for his thoery is down the drain, and secondly its just a ridiculous proposition. People are not stupid, its not like becaue of watching Irwin you are going to then accept companies dumping toxic chemicals into the water etc.
If you are fooled by this article, then you are truly and idiot... its just another character attack on a man who is mainly mourned because he was just a good bloke... not just because he did so much for conservation. There are many more points that I go highlight that are not factual.... but Ive wasted enough time already.
Last edited by a moderator:
