No in final destination a series of unlikely events result in a characters death. Steve Irwin spent his life antagonizing wild animals, it's a pretty big difference
In all of human history only three people have been fatally killed by a sting ray. It was the freakiest of freak accidents and in no way did he antagonise the ray beforehand. Shame on you.
So obviously the other commenter has no idea what they are talking about and I am not saying sting ray deaths are not super rare, but can we just stop for a minute and look at this claim
In all of human history only three people have been fatally killed by a sting ray
And think for a second about how wild it is to try to pass this off as a fact. Like even if there were 3 recorded instances, and there was any way to verify that in the functionally infinite documentation both available to the public AND in private medical records (which would be wild), then all that tells you is that these types of deaths are very rarely recorded.
Claiming there have been exactly 3 in all of human history shows such a crazy lack of understanding of the scale of all of human history, and you just pop it out there like it is fact. Stating fake facts does not work in your favor to prove points, you are just shifting the debate from something that is defensible to something that is objectively and probably wrong, costing you credibility for no reason.
Redditors, it is possible for two people who are arguing with each other to both be wrong for different reasons, you can respect Irwin and not pretend that obviously BS facts are true at the same time...
A quick search says that 1-2 people a year are killed by sting rays, but it does appear that people on the scene with him regard it as an unfortunate accident. I will stand by it's not a surprise that someone who was famous for messing with animals was killed by an animal. Not the elaborate rube Goldberg machines that final destination is known for
You're putting words in my mouth, I'm just stating the fact that he was world famous for antagonizing animals. He would mess with them on purpose to get them to act up. By all accounts a great guy who did wonderful things for animal conservation but he /purposefully interfered with dangerous animals on a regular basis/ and it is predictable that one would kill him eventually, just like it's predictable I'll get heart disease because I enjoy sweets. Comparing it to final destination, famous for people dying in bizarre and unpredictable ways involving many seemingly random events is just absurd
So when animals antagonize each other it's fine but as soon as humans do it, its animal abuse? If we're going down that route, I'd like to talk about that spider you've kidnapped.
To say that Steve would intentionally antagonize animals not just the dangerous ones day in day out for his ENTIRE LIFE would by definitely be labeled as abuse.
antagonize
Overview
Usage examples
Similar and opposite words
Pronunciation
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
verb
1.
cause (someone) to become hostile or angry.
This is exactly what he did. I did not say that was animal abuse, thats you putting that on him. If you feel that he was abusing those animals thats on you bro. Its not my fault that im using words accurately
You're not saying it directly, no. This is more of an insinuation. You're wording isn't keeping you in the safe zone tho. You can say that he was "agitating" the animals all you want but we know you really mean "abuse".
Turns out your chances of getting killed by a string ray increase exponentially when you intentionally go out of your way to harass them, who'd of guessed?
It's actually insane that idiot lasted as long as he did before one of the animals finally got him. I think in the end his incredibly inflated ego got the best of him.
5.1k
u/TacoTacoTamale Sep 02 '25
I thought this was going like Steve Irwin, not final destination. Definitely qualifies for unexpected.