MMO Fam About MMOFam Suggest MMORPG Networks
Flyff Flyff Flyff
Flyff Flyff Flyff
Flyff Home Flyff Wiki Flyff Guides Flyff Market Place Flyff Gallery Flyff Forums
Flyff Flyff Flyff
Register
Arcade
Gallery
Contact Us
Forum Support
Go Back   Flyff World > World Community > Debates

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
MStevens24
 
Default 03-03-2010, 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
Well there are several issues with this statement.
One: A bear is not likely to travel along a trail for that exact reason: that people will show up.
Animals aren't very likely to simply attack a human out of the blue. Animals actually are, believe it or not, quite afraid of humans.
If something has driven the animal into the human population or in close proximity to a human trail, there is something else that must have occurred. Something that has drove that animal to that place which is out of the ordinary.
Perhaps people are not throwing out their garbage in proper garbage bins? Perhaps its habitat was destroyed previously by humans?

My point is animals don't just go up and attack a human out of the blue. If a human is attacked it is either because the human has done something to threaten the animal (because attacking a human is a sort of last resort) or something has happened to the animal's habitat.

Yes, they do.

Animals are animals, and hence they do things sometimes without cause.

You give animals WAY, WAY too much credit. They have no higher reasoning like your giving them.

But, for the sake of argument. Lets look it up?
Quote:
Robert Wagner, 48, male September 2008 Brown Sundre area, Alberta. Wagner, 48, of Didsbury, didn't return from a hunting trip to the Sundre area. The medical examiner's office says (Mr Wagner) found near Sundre was mauled to death by a bear.[4]

Cecile Lavoie, 70, female May 30, 2008 Black Near La Sarre, Quebec. Lavoie went on a solo fishing trip. After she didn't return to her cabin, her husband went looking for her. He found a bear dragging her body into the woods.[5]

Don Peters, 51, male November 25, 2007 Brown Mountain Aire Lodge west of Sundre, about 90 km northwest of Calgary. Peters, 51, did not return from a hunting trip in Western Alberta. He was killed by a grizzly near his vehicle after going hunting alone. His body was found three days later. His rifle was found nearby. It had been fired but there was nothing to indicate the bear had been hit. Officials were trying to trap the bear but would not say whether it would be killed if captured. Upon capture, the bear may be shot, moved to another area or let go, depending on an evaluation of the bear, said Alberta resources spokesman Dave Ealey. [7]

Samuel Evan Ives, 11, male June 17, 2007 Black Taken from a tent in American Fork Canyon in the Uinta National Forest in Utah County, Utah where he was sleeping with his stepfather, mother and 6-year-old brother. The bear was later killed by state Wildlife officials.[9]

Jean-Francois Pagé, 28, male April 28, 2006 Brown Fatally mauled while staking mineral claims near Ross River, Yukon, Canada. He unknowingly walked right past a bear den containing a sow and 2 cubs.[10]

Arthur Louie, 60, male September 20, 2005 Brown Killed by a female and two cubs while he was walking back to his mining camp after his truck had a flat tire at Bowron River, British Columbia.[12]

These are just a few examples from the year 2000+

In conclusion, no offense, your point that animals dont strike out of the blue at times is proved to be wrong.

Of course there are examples of people being stupid, but just as many are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
Ah this is a rather interesting example.
And, again, Sharks don't just 'attack' people. If they're swimming close to the beach where people are likely to be its usually do to abnormal circumstances OR a person is swimming somewhere rather stupidly.
Did you know a shark's initial bite is usually exploratory?

That is, when a shark sees a strange thrashing pinkish sack floating towards the surface it takes a tentative bite to see what it is?
So since the shark was curious and it was either driven to shallow waters for food (as in fish) because of some over fishing scenario or because some human was stupid enough to swim in an irregular place the shark should be killed?

Once again lets look this up.

Quote:
Richard Snead, 60 September 12, 2009 Unconfirmed Died while swimming at twilight somewhere between Corolla and Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. His body was found washed up on the beach in Kill Devil Hills.[6] Final autopsy results, released on January 5, 2010, concluded that Snead's death appeared to be from drowning. This conclusion conflicted, however, with an initial autopsy conducted at East Carolina University which said that Snead died of shark bites.[7]
Dave Martin, 66 April 25, 2008 Great white shark Killed at approximately 7:20 am while swimming with a group of nine triathletes off a beach in Solana Beach, California. The victim was bitten across both thighs. [8]
Jamie Marie Daigle, 14 June 25, 2005 Bull shark Killed while swimming with a friend on boogie boards about 200 yards (200 m) off a beach in Walton County, Florida eight miles (13 km) east of Destin, Florida. Witnesses estimated the shark was 6-8 feet in length.[9]
Randy Fry, 50 August 15, 2004 Great white shark Killed while diving for abalone with a friend in 15-20 feet of water 150 feet (46 m) from shore off Mendocino, California near Kibesillah Rock. His headless body was recovered the next day; his head washed ashore 2 miles (3.2 km) north on Sept. 3. The bite radius was 18"; this allowed experts to extrapolate that the shark was 16-18 feet long.[10][11]
Willis R. McInnis, 57 April 7, 2004 Tiger shark Attacked while surfing off Pohaku Park, Maui, Hawaii. He died a short time after the attack as a result of blood loss from severe wounds to his right thigh and calf.[12]
Courtney Marcher, 22 April 4, 2004 Unconfirmed, probably a tiger shark Disappeared while surfing at Velzyland, North shore of Oahu, Hawaii. Her surfboard washed ashore; marks on the leash suggested shark involvement.[13]
Deborah Franzman, 50 August 19, 2003 Great white shark Killed while swimming 75 yards (69 m) off Avila Beach, California in about 20 feet (6.1 m) of water. She was clad in a wetsuit and fins; sea lions were present. The shark was estimated to be 15-18 feet long.[14][15]
Eric Reichardt, 42 September 16, 2001 Unconfirmed, probably a bull or tiger shark This death was officially classified as a drowning by the Broward County, Florida medical examiners office; however, it is listed as a fatal shark attack by the International Shark Attack File. Drowned while diving on the wreck of the Ronald B. Johnson in 270 feet (82 m) of water 2 miles (3.2 km) off Pompano Beach, Florida fighting off a shark. His regulator may have fallen out of his mouth causing him to drown.[16]
Sergei Zaloukaev, 28 September 3, 2001 Unconfirmed, experts are divided whether it was a bull or tiger shark Killed while swimming with his girlfriend in the surf off Avon, Hatteras Island, Dare County, North Carolina; his girlfriend, Natalia Slobodskaya, was severely injured in the attack but survived.[17][6]
David Peltier, 10 September 1, 2001 Unconfirmed, probably a bull shark Killed while surfing with his father and brothers at Sandbridge Beach, south of Virginia Beach, Virginia.[17]
Thadeus Kubinski, 69 August 30, 2000 Bull shark Killed while swimming in Pinellas County, Florida. Witnesses said Kubinski had jumped into the water from the dock behind his home for his daily swim and was splashing vigorously. The shark raced toward him with its dorsal fin out of the water. He died from massive blood loss and organ damage before rescuers could get to him. The shark was estimated to be 9 feet (3 m) long and weigh 400 pounds.[18][19]
Once again here, sharks do just attack people, and in times, killed them.

It may just be an "exploratory bite." But when your bite is HUGE.

Most likely means your gonna bleed to death.

And this was just a list of people 2000+

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
Again animals don't -just- go out and attack humans. Humans aren't typically part of their diet. Therefore they have no reason to go outside the norm unless something happens to them.

So no I don't think animals should be put down for the reasons you've stated unless the surrounding circumstances can be adequately determined.

Are there some exceptions? Well yes. There always is.


Ah this is a particularly sad situation which, again, relates back to the human. A human has either neglected/abused that dog or abandoned it causing the dog to have that attitude.
So yes. Unfortunately in this situation there is no other option to put it down. But the dog's attitude is a result of its circumstances, or, neglect of its owner.

Hence human folly.
Ill agree with this point, but once again your putting words in my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
*You mean they will leave you alone unless they have some behavioural issues.


Again, like I said, animals don't strike for no apparent reason. They'd rather run/avoid conflict.
I already prove this wrong based on the many examples.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
I'd like to see the circumstances around these attacks to be honest.
Are the living conditions too small?
Are the trainers not following safety guidelines?
Are safety guidelines in general not being met?
Etc...

There are several different things to explore before the animal should/could be considered 'violent' in my honest opinion.

Keep in mind most articles take the slant that animals are inherently wild/evil for purpose of a more entertaining viewpoint. "Ooooh all animals are evil lets put them all down because threatening" And usually fail to realize any other circumstances surrounding the attacks.



Exactly. So the humans are at fault here to be honest.
Either they didn't train it properly, are treating it poorly etc...



Again what you define as harm may not be the same as what an animal constitutes as being threatened.

If an Orca is hurting random people like it appears to be in the article, it seems to me like its trainers are incompetent. (If anything)

Hence most situations really are as a result of human folly.
I still dont think you fundamentally understand my argument.

Once again, I believe that if you leave animals alone, they leave you alone.

And that is what you seem to believe as well.

But there ARE cases, documented ones that you seem to deny but I have just proved they exist. Where animals come out of the norm and do things violently for no reason.

In these circumstances, the animal should be put down.

Last edited by MStevens24; 03-03-2010 at 08:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Suinia
Game Reviewer
 
Default 03-04-2010, 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MStevens24 View Post
Yes, they do.

Animals are animals, and hence they do things sometimes without cause.

You give animals WAY, WAY too much credit. They have no higher reasoning like your giving them.

But, for the sake of argument. Lets look it up?
It's not so much reason but instinct.
Humans are a strange animal from their perspective.
Seeing as they are in fact a strange animal, animals aren't likely to 'hunt' it specifically for the case of finding food.
They'd be more likely to be curious of it (in the case of a shark) or run away from it from being afraid.
The only times they actually do attack a human is cases like desperation etc...

Quote:
These are just a few examples from the year 2000+

In conclusion, no offense, your point that animals dont strike out of the blue at times is proved to be wrong.

Of course there are examples of people being stupid, but just as many are not.
Actually you've just proven me correct.
I stated previously that the media naturally has a bias in this regard.
This proves it.

We hear nothing about the situation surrounding the attack just that the attack took place.
Hence you kind of disproved yourself there.






Quote:
Once again here, sharks do just attack people, and in times, killed them.

It may just be an "exploratory bite." But when your bite is HUGE.

Most likely means your gonna bleed to death.

And this was just a list of people 2000+
Again it is technically an exploratory bite but it can be fatal.
Doesn't mean a shark would naturally see 'zomg a human lets go kill it for food'. It simply doesn't work that way.

So really they don't 'just attack people' for food. They 'attack' people for exploratory reasons.
It's not through malicious intent

Quote:
Ill agree with this point, but once again your putting words in my post.

I already prove this wrong based on the many examples.
You actually didn't prove anything besides proving that media has a bias in this regard o_0

Quote:
But there ARE cases, documented ones that you seem to deny but I have just proved they exist. Where animals come out of the norm and do things violently for no reason.

In these circumstances, the animal should be put down.
The cases that you're talking about must are actually humans offending/doing something stupid etc... For some reason.
It's just that, being human, we like to make ourselves the victim (etc...)

But yes there are SOME cases where an animal simply has a bad disposition but those cases are very very few. In those cases yes I would say the animal would probably have to be put down.

Although again you haven't really proven anything, like I said, besides the media unwilling to report that there might be any situations about the animal.
It's far more fun to play the 'human victim' card.

Anyways in relations to sharks:
Quote:
Worldwide there is an average of 50-70 shark attacks every year. The number of attacks has been increasing over the decades as a result of increased human populations and the use of the oceans for recreational activity. As long as humans continue to enter the sharks' environment, there will be shark attacks.
Not 'thousands'.
Quote:
Sharks are a fascinating group of fishes that strike fear into the minds of humans. This fear is really a fear of the unknown, for little evidence exists that indicates sharks are really very dangerous. Sharks have much more to fear from humans than humans have to fear from sharks. Each year thousands of tons of sharks are killed by fishermen for food and other products while very few humans are ever bitten, and fewer still die from shark bites.
(Although, just like anything really, there are some species of sharks that are prone to be more aggressive)

And bears:
Quote:
The larger species of bear can be extremely dangerous. The brown bear is one of these and normally it poses no threat to people – but that is when it is in its natural environment in the wild. Here, the brown bear is shy and will avoid contact with people; the bear has a very keen sense of smell and is extremely disgusted by the smell of a human being and keeps well away.

A cornered of injured bear is totally different. Females can also be very aggressive if they feel their cubs are being threatened. Usually, what starts the problem though is human behaviour, not bear behaviour.

Bears can also be dangerous because they do not see very well and can mistake and adult man for a rival bear and attack. Most tragic of all are bears that live near urban environments and eat at refuse dumps – they are no longer repelled by human body odours, instead associating with a food supply.
(As in smell of humans = garbage somewhere)
Quote:
You are literally millions of times more likely to be killed by a car, by lightning, by a dog, or even by another human! Even when in the middle of bear country.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
MStevens24
 
Default 03-04-2010, 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
It's not so much reason but instinct.
Humans are a strange animal from their perspective.
Seeing as they are in fact a strange animal, animals aren't likely to 'hunt' it specifically for the case of finding food.
They'd be more likely to be curious of it (in the case of a shark) or run away from it from being afraid.
The only times they actually do attack a human is cases like desperation etc...
er, Not sure how many times I have to say this here, but your one again stating that if you leave them alone they leave you alone.

Which is what I have been saying now 20x times it seems.
Not sure why you keep coming back to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post

Actually you've just proven me correct.
I stated previously that the media naturally has a bias in this regard.
This proves it.

How does documented cases prove your case?
And how and where did I mention anything about the media?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
We hear nothing about the situation surrounding the attack just that the attack took place.
Hence you kind of disproved yourself there.
Not really, man goes in the forest gets killed hunting.

Most of these people are old, experienced hunters.

They arent stupid, so they wouldnt walk in the path of a bear, or poke a bear with a stick or something, so it proves my case.

Plus in one case, a 10 year old was sleeping in his tent was attacked and dragged away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post


Again it is technically an exploratory bite but it can be fatal.
Doesn't mean a shark would naturally see 'zomg a human lets go kill it for food'. It simply doesn't work that way.
Yes it doenst usually, sharks dont eat people for food yes.

But the ones that do try should still be put down for trying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
So really they don't 'just attack people' for food. They 'attack' people for exploratory reasons.
It's not through malicious intent


You actually didn't prove anything besides proving that media has a bias in this regard o_0
There is the media again, wtf are you talking about the media for i havent mentioned it at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post

that you're talking about must are actually humans offending/doing something stupid etc... For some reason.
It's just that, being human, we like to make ourselves the victim (etc...)
No im not. I am talking about animals that go out and do harm.

Now once again most are not like that, but the ones that are should be put down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post

But yes there are SOME cases where an animal simply has a bad disposition but those cases are very very few. In those cases yes I would say the animal would probably have to be put down.


Although again you haven't really proven anything, like I said, besides the media unwilling to report that there might be any situations about the animal.
It's far more fun to play the 'human victim' card.
Once again these are documented cases being reported on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
Anyways in relations to sharks:

Not 'thousands'.
never said thousands. I think you misinterpreted my 2000+ as meaning the year 2000 and after cases.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
(Although, just like anything really, there are some species of sharks that are prone to be more aggressive)

And bears:

(As in smell of humans = garbage somewhere)


It sounds like your being biased towards animals imo

You give them way to credit, and assign them way to much value

Now Im not one of those people that are like drill everywhere kill the environment w/e.

But at the same time, and animal is just an animal. If an animal kills a human and the human didn't do something stupid like jump in the den of lions at the zoo, the animal should be put down.

You also assign animals to have way more intelligence then they actually have.

They work on instinct not some sort of higher reasoning.

I have shown many documented cases where you as of yet havent shown me anything backing you up.

And Im sorry this media "bias" is just a cop out on your part of you just shoving away facts and conveniently naming them to be "biased"

A source is a source, if your just gonna scream bias media then Im not sure what else i have to say as you dismiss the facts of the case.

Last edited by MStevens24; 03-04-2010 at 09:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Suinia
Game Reviewer
 
Default 03-04-2010, 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MStevens24 View Post
er, Not sure how many times I have to say this here, but your one again stating that if you leave them alone they leave you alone.
Quote:
Which is what I have been saying now 20x times it seems.
Not sure why you keep coming back to this.
I keep coming back to this because you keep coming back to your point.
But I'll elaborate a bit below. 8D



Quote:
How does documented cases prove your case?
And how and where did I mention anything about the media?
There is a bias about everything. What I'm saying, what you're saying etc...
Again, Animals do not attack without a reason. They don't.
Unless there's something wrong with them psychologically but again that's unlikely.

Quote:
Not really, man goes in the forest gets killed hunting.

Most of these people are old, experienced hunters.

They arent stupid, so they wouldnt walk in the path of a bear, or poke a bear with a stick or something, so it proves my case.
So a man is hunting a bear.
A bear recognizes a hunter and is corned.
Bear kills hunter because otherwise it'd be shot.
And the bear should STILL be killed?
Major flaw here.

Quote:
Yes it doenst usually, sharks dont eat people for food yes.

But the ones that do try should still be put down for trying.
But once again you're taking care of the immediate issue but not looking at the overall problem. (That is if you kill the shark)
If you kill the shark then you're superficially solving the problem and not addressing the circumstances of why the shark was there in the first place.

Killing an animal for killing a human does not necessarily solve anything at all. In all likelihood another bear/shark etc... Will stumble along the same conflict because of ANOTHER external conflict.

IE: What is the shark doing there in the first place?
Is there an issue with where they usually feed?
If so killing one shark won't solve anything.
More sharks will likely be starved and be forced to look elsewhere for food.
Hence killing one shark solves nothing and only resolves the situation superficially.


Quote:
No im not. I am talking about animals that go out and do harm.

Now once again most are not like that, but the ones that are should be put down.
Like you've said. "Animals do not have some higher mental power"
It is you who is giving them too much credit.
Animals do not intentionally go after humans with the thought "I'm going to intentionally kill this human."
Animals would more likely 'think' (if it could be called that) "Food. No food. Search elsewhere for food. Found human. Human threatening. Run away. Human still approaching. No other choice. Kill human."
More like that (if words could be brought to instinct...?)

So it makes no logical sense to kill an animal for that considering, as you said, animals don't have the intelligible thought.



Quote:
Once again these are documented cases being reported on.
Yet they fail to report the situation around it.
Why was the animal so close to humans?
Why was the animal interacting with the humans?
Why was the animal so aggressive?
Simply saying "the animal did it because all animals are ferocious and inherently feral" is spurious reasoning.



Quote:
It sounds like your being biased towards animals imo
I probably am. Everyone does have a bias after all.
But that doesn't change the fact that you're being biased against animals.

Quote:
But at the same time, and animal is just an animal. If an animal kills a human and the human didn't do something stupid like jump in the den of lions at the zoo, the animal should be put down.
As you said, it wouldn't be accomplishing anything if animals have no intelligible thought. Then they presumably never consciously make the choice to kill a human.

If this is true killing the animal solves nothing. The only thing is does is serve some bizarre sense of revenge like 'an eye for an eye' which is fairly primitive logic.
Quote:
You also assign animals to have way more intelligence then they actually have.
They act on instinct. Based on instinct it makes no sense to attack a human.
If they do there must be something that drove them to attack the humans.
Too close to the den? Its habitat was destroyed? Etc...
Many reasons.

Quote:
I have shown many documented cases where you as of yet havent shown me anything backing you up.
Documented cases that don't explain the frame work of anything.
It simply mentions that someone was allegedly attacked.


Quote:
And Im sorry this media "bias" is just a cop out on your part of you just shoving away facts and conveniently naming them to be "biased"

A source is a source, if your just gonna scream bias media then Im not sure what else i have to say as you dismiss the facts of the case.
And every source has some sort of bias
And those 'facts' can be heavily biased.
Not to mention that you can pretty much make statistics say anything you want.
-shrugs-


So wait you've said:
-An animal that attacks a human should be put down.
-Animals don't have intelligible thought
-Their actions are based on instinct.

Now instinct as a method of survival. So it stands to reason when an animal acts it acts based on instinct.
Instinct would tell the animal that a human is dangerous. (Bears even hate the smell of humans)
So for an animal to attack a human there must be some basis or factor that has altered the animal's previous living conditions. As a result of that, based on instinct, the animal searches elsewhere in order to satisfy its needs.
So since animals naturally avoid humans when one comes in contact with a human its probably fairly frightened.
For one to actually attack a human it must be significantly aggravated/worried/anxious/etc...
So by killing one you solve a superficial problem. Yes the animal who killed someone is dead, but the problem that drove the animal out of its norm still exists.
This means the issue why the animal was somewhere out of the ordinary STILL exists.
Meaning it stands to reasons more animals would be driven to do the same thing.
This means that, in killing that animal, you've solved nothing. The issue still exists and all that's been accomplished is the strange satisfying of a desire for revenge.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
MStevens24
 
Default 03-04-2010, 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
I keep coming back to this because you keep coming back to your point.
But I'll elaborate a bit below. 8D

There is a bias about everything. What I'm saying, what you're saying etc...
Again, Animals do not attack without a reason. They don't.
Unless there's something wrong with them psychologically but again that's unlikely.
But in the cases shown that I have documented there is something wrong with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
So a man is hunting a bear.
A bear recognizes a hunter and is corned.
Bear kills hunter because otherwise it'd be shot.
And the bear should STILL be killed?
Major flaw here.
A bear is cornered in a wide open forest?

Also hunters, most of them, dont go for bears, so the bear wouldnt be hunted.

No flaw seen here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post

But once again you're taking care of the immediate issue but not looking at the overall problem. (That is if you kill the shark)
If you kill the shark then you're superficially solving the problem and not addressing the circumstances of why the shark was there in the first place.
You mean the circumstances of someone just swimming in the water minding there own business?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
Killing an animal for killing a human does not necessarily solve anything at all. In all likelihood another bear/shark etc... Will stumble along the same conflict because of ANOTHER external conflict.
No, It is my belief that these animals that commit these acts should be removed from the gene pool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
IE: What is the shark doing there in the first place?
Is there an issue with where they usually feed?
If so killing one shark won't solve anything.
More sharks will likely be starved and be forced to look elsewhere for food.
Hence killing one shark solves nothing and only resolves the situation superficially.
Huh? Sharks dont depend on other sharks for food, killing a shark would mean theres more food for the shark not less.

And once again, it removes the genes from the pool.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post


Like you've said. "Animals do not have some higher mental power"
It is you who is giving them too much credit.
Animals do not intentionally go after humans with the thought "I'm going to intentionally kill this human."
Animals would more likely 'think' (if it could be called that) "Food. No food. Search elsewhere for food. Found human. Human threatening. Run away. Human still approaching. No other choice. Kill human."
More like that (if words could be brought to instinct...?)
On a trail where most humans are? If the human is following a bear with a gun then its the humans fault, but in the cases Ive found none of the experienced hunters would be stupid enough to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post

So it makes no logical sense to kill an animal for that considering, as you said, animals don't have the intelligible thought.
Yes it does, to remove there genes from the pool.

And also to give the grieving families some peace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
Yet they fail to report the situation around it.
Why was the animal so close to humans?
Why was the animal interacting with the humans?
Why was the animal so aggressive?
Simply saying "the animal did it because all animals are ferocious and inherently feral" is spurious reasoning.
There may not be exact line to line detailing of the entire case.

But that doesnt mean we cant draw conclusions from them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post

I probably am. Everyone does have a bias after all.
But that doesn't change the fact that you're being biased against animals.
Most times I would agree with you, but not with this. I am not biased in any way against animals.

As animals dont matter to me, I have no bad or good feelings for them.

If anything, as I am a cat/dog owner. As I have never gone hunting( and would refuse to do so) And do not believe in Zoos or places like sea world, I would be biased for the animal, not against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
As you said, it wouldn't be accomplishing anything if animals have no intelligible thought. Then they presumably never consciously make the choice to kill a human.
Already outlined several times why it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
If this is true killing the animal solves nothing. The only thing is does is serve some bizarre sense of revenge like 'an eye for an eye' which is fairly primitive logic.

They act on instinct. Based on instinct it makes no sense to attack a human.
If they do there must be something that drove them to attack the humans.
Too close to the den? Its habitat was destroyed? Etc...
Many reasons.


Documented cases that don't explain the frame work of anything.
It simply mentions that someone was allegedly attacked.
allegedly? There proven on sight actions. Not alleged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
And every source has some sort of bias
And those 'facts' can be heavily biased.
Not to mention that you can pretty much make statistics say anything you want.
-shrugs-
Documented cases are not biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
So wait you've said:
-An animal that attacks a human should be put down.
-Animals don't have intelligible thought
-Their actions are based on instinct.

Now instinct as a method of survival. So it stands to reason when an animal acts it acts based on instinct.
Instinct would tell the animal that a human is dangerous. (Bears even hate the smell of humans)
So for an animal to attack a human there must be some basis or factor that has altered the animal's previous living conditions. As a result of that, based on instinct, the animal searches elsewhere in order to satisfy its needs.
So since animals naturally avoid humans when one comes in contact with a human its probably fairly frightened.
For one to actually attack a human it must be significantly aggravated/worried/anxious/etc...
So by killing one you solve a superficial problem. Yes the animal who killed someone is dead, but the problem that drove the animal out of its norm still exists.
This means the issue why the animal was somewhere out of the ordinary STILL exists.
Meaning it stands to reasons more animals would be driven to do the same thing.
This means that, in killing that animal, you've solved nothing. The issue still exists and all that's been accomplished is the strange satisfying of a desire for revenge.
Ive solved many things.

1. Gave a grieving family some peace.
2. Removed this animal from the gene pool.
3. Saved someone else from potentially having this happen to them.

Seems to me much was accomplished.

Last edited by MStevens24; 03-04-2010 at 05:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Suinia
Game Reviewer
 
Default 03-04-2010, 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MStevens24 View Post
But in the cases shown that I have documented there is something wrong with them.
No... D:
You didn't even supply a source D8
For all I know you could have wikipedia'd those.

Quote:
A bear is cornered in a wide open forest?

Also hunters, most of them, dont go for bears, so the bear wouldnt be hunted.

No flaw seen here.
Again your definition of corner and a bear's are two very different things.


Quote:
You mean the circumstances of someone just swimming in the water minding there own business?
Your definition of 'minding your own business' and a sharks are two different things.


Quote:
No, It is my belief that these animals that commit these acts should be removed from the gene pool.
Unless the animal has a genetic deficiency which causes it to act in such a way, you've done nothing and this reason wouldn't make any sense Dx


Quote:
Huh? Sharks dont depend on other sharks for food, killing a shark would mean theres more food for the shark not less.

And once again, it removes the genes from the pool.
I mean that for a shark to be in a beach area in the first place there must be an issue. Hence killing the shark might somewhat be solving a problem but the issue that drove the shark there in the first place still exists D8
So eventually it stands to reason more sharks would return ;-;



Quote:
On a trail where most humans are? If the human is following a bear with a gun then its the humans fault, but in the cases Ive found none of the experienced hunters would be stupid enough to do so.
I think you may under-estimate the stupidity of humans somewhat.
But your cases merely mentioned an attack occurred not the surrounding circumstances D8
It's not the same thing ;-;



Quote:
And also to give the grieving families some peace.
Ok yes. This is a reason for killing the animals.
Although kind of unfortunate but still.


Quote:
There may not be exact line to line detailing of the entire case.

But that doesnt mean we cant draw conclusions from them.
Let me give you an example:

Documented case: Martin has killed Betsy by stabbing her through the heart.

Sweet Jesus Martin is an asshole!

Actual situation: Betsy came at Martin with the knife and began stabbing wildly in his direction inflicting several flesh wounds on his arms. In retaliation, Martin stabs Betsy aiming for the side of her ribs but she moves and he ends up stabbing her heart.

Two very different scenarios. One simply says 'it occurs' while the other says the situation around the incident BOTH with very different implications. Hence why your scenarios might not be telling the whole story. D:



Quote:
I am not biased in any way against animals.

As animals dont matter to me, I have no bad or good feelings for them.
... You do realize that is, in itself, a bias?

EVERYONE has a bias. This rule is absalute and is ALWAYS applied in everything.
The way you post, your personal experiences, the way I post, my personal experiences, books, newspapers, television shows shown, television networks, magazines, ETC...

EVERYTHING has a bias. EVERYONE. Saying that you don't is usually a huge flag marker suggesting that something is wrong. (In terms of the person not recognizing their own bias...) :C


Quote:
Documented cases are not biased.
Refer to above. :C

Quote:
Ive solved many things.
You can't say you've solved something simply by saying you've solved something D8

Quote:
1. Gave a grieving family some peace.
Again this is a reason. This is probably the primary reason used.
Quote:
2. Removed this animal from the gene pool.
Might not necessarily help. Especially if there are other concerns surrounding the animal and why it did what it did.
Quote:
3. Saved someone else from potentially having this even from happening to them.
Again maybe.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
MStevens24
 
Default 03-04-2010, 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
No... D:
You didn't even supply a source D8
For all I know you could have wikipedia'd those.
Actually I did wiki them, And each one of them also has a source with an article attached.

Go look at yourself. And wiki isnt as bad as it once was.

I wouldn't use it in a complex debate where we were trying to prove religion or to try and see what it says with liberalism vs conservatism or anything of that magnitude

But just for documented cases, no thats not a problem. I could go and post the source for every one of those articles attached, but id rather just say go look it up yourself.

And I find it ironic that you bereave me for sourcing when you havent even attempted one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
Again your definition of corner and a bear's are two very different things.
Please tell me in which corner he is being cornered in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post

Your definition of 'minding your own business' and a sharks are two different things.
Please tell me how swimming isnt minding your own business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
Unless the animal has a genetic deficiency which causes it to act in such a way, you've done nothing and this reason wouldn't make any sense Dx

I mean that for a shark to be in a beach area in the first place there must be an issue. Hence killing the shark might somewhat be solving a problem but the issue that drove the shark there in the first place still exists D8
So eventually it stands to reason more sharks would return ;-;
Thats speculation. I cannot speculate as to why a shark decided to swim to a certain area.

But I can say if a shark does swim to a beach and attacks a human, said shark should be killed.

But no worries for you anyway. They have yet to catch one from what ive heard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post

I think you may under-estimate the stupidity of humans somewhat.
But your cases merely mentioned an attack occurred not the surrounding circumstances D8
It's not the same thing ;-;
Most of em are hunters going in the wild. Older men who had been hunters for a long time who were attacked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post



Ok yes. This is a reason for killing the animals.
Although kind of unfortunate but still.



Let me give you an example:

Documented case: Martin has killed Betsy by stabbing her through the heart.

Sweet Jesus Martin is an asshole!

Actual situation: Betsy came at Martin with the knife and began stabbing wildly in his direction inflicting several flesh wounds on his arms. In retaliation, Martin stabs Betsy aiming for the side of her ribs but she moves and he ends up stabbing her heart.

Two very different scenarios. One simply says 'it occurs' while the other says the situation around the incident BOTH with very different implications. Hence why your scenarios might not be telling the whole story. D:
Sorry but that scenario doesn't play out at all in an animal situation. And also doesnt make much sense.

Lets look at this.

Your stating someone came after a bear attempting to kill it.

First off these are experienced hunters. If they shot the animal, it would most likely be dead or severely injured.

Lets say they are green hunters, the sound of a gunshot would make the animal run not attack.

If they had a clear shot, and they took it


Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post

... You do realize that is, in itself, a bias?

EVERYONE has a bias. This rule is absalute and is ALWAYS applied in everything.
The way you post, your personal experiences, the way I post, my personal experiences, books, newspapers, television shows shown, television networks, magazines, ETC...

EVERYTHING has a bias. EVERYONE. Saying that you don't is usually a huge flag marker suggesting that something is wrong. (In terms of the person not recognizing their own bias...) :C
No lol, it doesnt. Most things I do have a biased stance.

But in this one I dont have any real feeling, as I have no personall situations in order to MAKE me biased for it.

Its like saying are you biased that japan people in japan have to do X.

Well I am not Japanese nor Do I live in japan. SO I could care less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post
Refer to above. :C


You can't say you've solved something simply by saying you've solved something D8

really? No offense I just said the things I solved, I didnt just say I solved it!

And then listed no reasons why.

Comn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post


Again this is a reason. This is probably the primary reason used.

Might not necessarily help. Especially if there are other concerns surrounding the animal and why it did what it did.

Again maybe.
Primary reason for you maybe, for the rest of the world and me, would agree that the animal should be killed.

that is why whenver you hear about a bear attack, a hunting party goes out to kill it.

Everytime.

In the case with the orca, since it can be put in a tank away from humans, it is allowed.

But in my cases of bears and sharks, they would be killed 99.99% of the time if the animal could be found.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Suinia
Game Reviewer
 
Default 03-04-2010, 06:26 PM
Quote:
And I find it ironic that you bereave me for sourcing when you havent even attempted one.
I didn't cite because I saw you didn't. e_e

Quote:
Please tell me in which corner he is being cornered in.

Please tell me how swimming isnt minding your own business.
Again, like I said, what you consider 'cornered' or 'minding your own business' may not be the same for an animal.

An animal could feel threatened if you step far into its territory etc...

Quote:
Thats speculation. I cannot speculate as to why a shark decided to swim to a certain area.
You mean just as it's speculation to say a shark just wanted to attack a human because it just felt like attacking a human?

Quote:
Sorry but that scenario doesn't play out at all in an animal situation. And also doesnt make much sense.
The point of the argument wasn't to impose it literally on the animal.
The point of the example was more to illustrate how a perspective of a certain situation can change based upon external facts not ALWAYS given in a so-called 'documented' case.



Quote:
No lol, it doesnt. Most things I do have a biased stance.

But in this one I dont have any real feeling, as I have no personall situations in order to MAKE me biased for it.

Its like saying are you biased that japan people in japan have to do X.

Well I am not Japanese nor Do I live in japan. SO I could care less.
... Which is a bias.

Plus I'd argue that since you're continuing to argue that you really DO have an opinion on this subject.
If it didn't matter that much to you, reason suggests that you would've already stopped.
Hence yes you probably have a bias.



Quote:
really? No offense I just said the things I solved, I didnt just say I solved it!

And then listed no reasons why.
If someone disagrees with what you've said but you say that you've 'solved it' clearly you haven't 'solved it' because the issue still exists that people disagree.

Quote:
In the case with the orca, since it can be put in a tank away from humans, it is allowed.

But in my cases of bears and sharks, they would be killed 99.99% of the time if the animal could be found.
... You're not listening at all e_____e

If an animal is straying out in the wild there is some situation that makes it do as such. Animals do not just 'go out on a rampage' and attack humans.
That doesn't make sense.

Hence, yes, people hunt it but they do it for a (perhaps) misguided sense of revenge.

But I can see this argument is going nowhere... I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon anyways...
e__e
Reply With Quote
  #39  
MStevens24
 
Default 03-04-2010, 08:26 PM
Quote:
The point of the argument wasn't to impose it literally on the animal.
The point of the example was more to illustrate how a perspective of a certain situation can change based upon external facts not ALWAYS given in a so-called 'documented' case.
But we are talking about animals, so i still dont see how it corresponds with the topic at hand.

And I do understand that points of view can be changed, which is why i just didnt have ONE case, I have about 10 cited, among many more that I could have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suinia View Post

... You're not listening at all e_____e

If an animal is straying out in the wild there is some situation that makes it do as such. Animals do not just 'go out on a rampage' and attack humans.
That doesn't make sense.

Hence, yes, people hunt it but they do it for a (perhaps) misguided sense of revenge.

But I can see this argument is going nowhere... I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon anyways...
e__e
No its not, b/c of this

Quote:
... You're not listening at all e_____e

Which imo your doing the same back.

I never said animals went on a rampage, but you continue to put words in my mouth for i dunno what reason.

And you then state I said that
Quote:
You can't say you've solved something simply by saying you've solved something D8
I responded with I didnt just say I just solved it, I gave reasons why.

I didnt say said reasons nullified your arguemnt or that makes me right, but you then counter with this
Quote:
If someone disagrees with what you've said but you say that you've 'solved it' clearly you haven't 'solved it' because the issue still exists that people disagree.
Which doesnt really relate to what you said before.

Of course you dont think I "Solved it"

That is the nature of debating, 90% of the time people who are debating people ( especially here and on the internet) arent going to agree.

I mean I assume that I am right, And I assume that you think what you are typing is right.

To state the obvious is well, obvious?

So you can see why its confusing for me for you to say that, as I didnt take it as this
Quote:
If someone disagrees with what you've said but you say that you've 'solved it' clearly you haven't 'solved it' because the issue still exists that people disagree.
I took it as you totally skipped over the part where i Made my 3 points about what killing an animal that kills another human being does solve.

And it does solve said things. And I didnt just say

" I solved it" As you stated,

I said " It solves the following problems"

Those aren't debatable.

What is debatable is if those things are worth being solved.

Which in my mind they are.

i think this will be my final post on this as I cant see our dialog going any further.

But dont think I am not "listening" to you.

I just dont think you understand my counters or points thereof.

Last edited by MStevens24; 03-04-2010 at 08:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply
« Flyff World > World Community > Debates »

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.